Evolve,
Although I have worked with advertising for some time I also don't share much sympathy for it. But I'm curious. I would say that you like the old polemical Benetton ads that showed shocking images - am I right?
Fernando - the Brazilian.
>From: "david wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: MD Advertising as a social control device >Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:01:54 +1200 > >I would like to raise awreness to the fact that advertising in its >current >form (I beleive) is a method of social control. Advertising per say >is not >that harmful when the advertising is about the product directly, >however >there is not much of this about. If you refer to my original post >(HELP - >consumerism, homogonisation etc.) then you may understand what I am >on >about. With the values placed on materialistic aquisition as it is >at >present, advertisng becomes an important tool. This tool is what >creates >demand for things like calvin klein underpants nad nike t-shirts. >The >blatant lies that help to reinforce advertising are anything but >productive. > But first you must address the issues that give rise to such >practices, >and this can lay blame firmly on the shoulders of consumerism. >First >remember that advertising takes many different forms, not just the >blatant >advertising we see in magazines, billboards and televison, but also >advertising that comes when a product is associated with a >particular social >value, such as famous people endorsing products and the apparent >benefits >that arise from the use of a particular product. Take oat bran for >example >(the book tainted truth will open your eyes - sorry I cant recall >the >author) oat bran was found to reduce cholesterol levels by up to 10% >if you >believe quaker oats' advertising. quaker oats made a huge increse >in sales >because of this. The scientific study that supported this claim was >funded >by quaker oats. The study showed that oats had an ability to reduce >cholesterol by an average of 6% when combined with a low cholesterol >diet >(10% was the best result). The study was also fundamentally flawed. > Double >blind testing was not used and oats were consumed with various >different >ingredients. The amount of oats consumed was also very high >compared to >what an average person would consume, and this massive consumption >was shown >to have detrimental effects on other bodily functions, such as bowel >movement. A while later other scientists were studying something >completely >different (excuse my ignorance I cannot recall the nuances) and >failed thier >hypothosis, however they proved that oats had a negligable effect on >cholesterol levels, this time the results could be quantified far >better >than the original study - quaker oats lost a lot of sales and even >took the >second studies scientists to court - the scientists won. This >illustrates >the terrible situation that is occuring today in scientific study. >As >governments and universities no longer have enough funds to pay for >these >studies, the scientists must seek corporate help. The amounts of >money that >these companies provide are reasonably large, and contracts usually >include >clauses that must show thir product in a favourable light, or the >funding >will be withheld. This was also the case in the disposable vs >cotton nappy >debates. What happens is that scientists will find any little thing >that >shows a product is "good" and this is what gets released to the >media, >regardless of a bunch of other facts that show negative aspects of >the same >product. Its all about creating money. A study in the US on what >high >school students prefered to wear showed that 8\10 students prefered >to wear >Levis 501's. The questionaire that was used had only Levi 501's, >not jeans. > This makes the study a bit rediculous as these students may not >have liked >501's as much as say Lee jeans or any other brand of jeans for that >matter, >however as 501's were their only option as to their preference in >wearing >denim pants then they chose the 501's. > >The internet IPO phenomenon is linked to the same thing, generation >of hype >through marketing. I made my old man a fair bit of money from this >and >pulled the plug about 8 weeks before the meltdown. It doesnt >require that >much knowledge, just the understanding that advertising effects the >masses >in such a way that truth/facts are ignored whilst something is >considered >trendy, creating artificial demand. To be able to see this through >the >illusion of advertising is the hard thing for most people. This >adverising >creates artificial demand based on our desire to fit in, why else >would you >pay $40 for a tshirt that is identical with the exception of a >swoosh to a >shirt you could buy for $10. Advertising of this sort stifles >consumer >choice as smaller firms simply cannot compete. when we are exposed >to >something enough we become comfortable with it, comfort is >considered good >and as such people seek it. I would argue that if I invented a >brand, which >simply took nike products and rebranded them as something different, >sold >them for identical prices and offered the same quality control >measures, but >didnt advertise it, then people would still choose the nike product. > we >quite simply dont like to be that different, and when we see all >sorts of >images portraying a particular product, then we wont feel so >different. > >If people were not so blinded by this mass of advertising we would >choose >products that best served our need. These products dont need much >advertising at all - or shouldnt - as they are full of quality, >which is >what we desire, as illustrated by Mr Pirsig. However advertising >has >created a pseudo quality that the masses have trouble >differentiating from >the real thing, and this has come about to keep the big guys on top >and the >rest of us subordinate. Imagine if suddenly people started choosing >the >product that gave them the most utility. I dont think Mr Knight >would be >too pleased. >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org >Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ >MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
