Third Response
Our readings this week regard advertising, marketing, and in the case of the Frank piece, changing notions of resistance and conformity. Below, please post a response (minimum of 250 words) to these pieces. Your response should take up the arguments of the pieces and also reflect your views on advertising and marketing as well as conformity and resistance, whether or not this view was affected by the pieces, and whether you agreed or disagreed with Frank's argument. Keep in mind what you learned from chapters 3 of Good Reasons about "finding arguments" as you write your response. Posts are due by 9 AM before class on Thursday.
The strategy that a company uses to advertise or market a product reflects both the company and their expected buyer. By putting consumers into a trance in order to discover what their intial thoughts are, as a child, about a product is a sneaky yet productive way of rising sells. The advertising manager,Sixtus Oeschle, was at his "wits' end". The surveys, memory triggers, manifestation exercises,or anything else didn't work, so why not use the memory they weren't able to trigger. If a person is willing and ready for you to tap into their head,I say why not. When Marketing and advertising a product your suppose to know your consumers. There's no better way to know someone other than by getting into their heads,literally. A person can tell you anything but they can't recall a memory that isn't true. Advertising and marketing play a big part in whether or not a company becomes successful. Once you reach the top it takes even more work to stay there.
Thinking outside the box always gets you further than thinking inside the box. When you limit yourself as to how far you can go, you never get beyond that point.
LadyAshley
__________________________________________________________
The in depth analysis of Ruth Shalit's part one, Return of the Hidden Persuaders, I would have to disagree with his theory of relating enjoyable childhood experiences to the favoring of certain gas stations. In this case, it only relates to pathos, but doesn't touch bases with ethos and logos. There isn't logic to come into a gas station where someone had a great experience in, especially in childhood days. In all realness, no one would faithfully go to a certain gas station if it were 8 cents higher, or 5, 4, 3 (at least I wouldn't try to) cents higher as opposed to another gas station across the street that was cheaper. Then, that is when ethos kicks in. It is only human nature that people go for the cheaper price if the quality in the good is the same of almost near the same. In Thomas Frank's, Why Johnny Can't Dissent, everything is booming, moving in a faster pace, time is money, therefore, time cannnot be wasted. In correlation, in part two of Ruth Shalit, he examines why "fast" is tagged onto fastfood. Well, because as mentioned above, the world's countercultural movement is increasing in size, as a result, the speed of the economy and ways to get money are positive in correlation.
ChueChue
Ruth Shalit’s Return of the Hidden Persuaders part 1 was enthusiastic but lacked some logic on the extremely competitive nature of the oil industry. The management of corporate advertising at Shell Oil had the ethos to support what could have been a well thought out advertising plan. But, according to oil advertisements today that specialize in gasoline, there are never very many television ads that promote the gas itself. It usually has some kind of other gimmick such as food advertisements or auto repair that may capture the attention of consumers. If Shell Oil promotes healthier gasoline such as hybrid gasoline when it becomes even more common they can expect better sales, but just trying to get young consumers to buy their product just isn’t enough for young consumers because when teenagers are on the road looking for gas they are not paying much attention to the name brand itself but the price rather. The logos of the piece didn’t have a very strong connection with the audience because of the lack of consideration for the consumers also making the pathos less strong as well.
DymondSparkle
The American media to me has taken a dark and twisted spiral ever since the turn of the 19th century. Companies, organizations, and commercials have engraved certain believes into Americans daily lives. All the way from trojan having the best condoms to the new Axe commercials where it leads you to believe you will be mobbed by dozens of gorgeous women upon spraying it. I cannot pin point the exact time in history when it turned into a multi-billion dollar a year industry just in commercials advertising, but if I were to guess I would estimate around the time of the early Super Bowl years.
Both articles provided great information on advertising and the media in todays culture. They talked of expiriments being done by Shell gas all the way to sibliminal messages being put into commericals and ads in magazines. In fact, I feel the media is doing such a great job now a days with advertising, it has possibly brainwashed a significant percent of 'mainstream' America. I say this after hearing a fellow classmate in a class of mine, give the description to the best he could of what poor meant. What he said shocked me, "Poor means you don't have any money, it means you drive a Honda Civic instead of a Lexus." It's unbelievable that the media portrays if you don't have a nice car you must be poor.
I found it very interesting that alot of ads now a days mention incentives like free food or 'half-off'. I feel that memories of younger years and expiriences do not affect the influence of the same person years down the road. For example, my mom uses colgate toothpaste and always has since I was little. I personally have never liked colgate, nore use it, and plan to never purchase any in the future. I feel that Shalit's point was not well justified and can only be really proven in the most extreme cases only.
OldSailor1
In the “Return of the Hidden Persuaders,” the marketing branch of Shell gas is competing and searching for a new way to connect to drivers in order for them to get more people to purchase Shell gasoline. After experimenting on different ways on how to make this connection they finally reached one. Shell was going to target the youth and make a connection with people and Shell gas at such a young age that they’d purchase it more frequently when they got older because they felt a certain bond between them. I don’t find this the best way of marketing and advertising. What Shell needs to do is pinpoint the people who are on the road and buying today’s gas not 5-10 year olds because they think they can influence them at a young age that their gas is better. They need an immediate profit and upbringing and by targeting the youth won’t get them anywhere for at least another 5-10 years. This could dig the company into financial problems because they could lose customers of today who are the people buying the gas now and for the next 30 years so why wouldn’t you try and target them?
In both part 1 and part 2, the companies are trying to look very deeply into very simple everyday events such as getting gas or a bite to eat. Both companies feel that if they can crack the code to why we do what we do then they will be able to sell more of their products. There’s really no media like there is in America. Marketers and advertisers are always trying to find ways of connecting their products with all types of consumers. Some work better than others and the technique can really benefit a company if a deep connection is made.
Zack9
As a psychology major, I couldn’t help but shake my head in disgust after reading the two articles by Ruth Shalt. Being an advocate of Jung, and a being a semi-advocate of Freud’s dream theories (most of his theories are garbage since, as Jung himself said, “Freud considers the brain an extension of the genitals!”) I can’t help but feel dirty over the fact that they’re being used by big business. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of these practices being put into use, though I have imagined it to be the case many times, so I’m a bit torn on the subject. While it’s obvious the benefits of the archetype research, the idea that they’re probing people’s subconscious for a quick buck bothers the hell out of me.
The main two problems that are bothering me with this is: why should they be using the data gained from the unconscious for advertising a product regardless of how the product is? And, is their idea that it’s like therapy actually… work like therapy?
The only answer I can come up with the first one is that it’s only used to make money. It seems like the main goal here is to create a product whose packaging and values shines so brightly in the unconscious that it is no longer relevant how good the product is! Like the idea of the champion of the rhetoric being more convincing than an expert in the field. For example, lets say we have two possible choices for a beverage, Coca-cola and Ebola-cola (thank you Transmetropolitan). Now, just by saying the names you should go “Whoa wait wait, Ebola-cola? What in God’s name are they trying to sell me here?” Yet, now let’s go into this fantasy world and look at the can. It’s beautiful, the mere sight of the can turns on serotonin receptors that release all sorts of good feelings throughout your body, all because something on the can triggers something in the subconscious that you relate, in some fashion, to the concepts of love, joy, good, quality taste, ect. Then, you look over to your normal coca-cola can and you see, a nice can. Now, unless your will power is like that of the strength of a god or Buddha, you’re probably going to pick the Ebola-cola. Assuming the coke isn’t on sale and your sort on cash.
But, that’s an extreme example and I’m not really factoring in the idea of coke already being deeply rooted into the unconscious.
As for the second question I posed, I’m going to have to say that it isn’t like therapy. I mean, it could be, if you’re that materialistic, but that in a sense is a problem in and of itself. To say that buying something will make me happy is like saying that money will make me happy. The lyrics to “Can’t Buy Me Love” start screaming in my mind. It’s a bad enough problem in our society when people are obsessed over their material things such as their computers, cars, clothes, but this approach on marketing seemingly wants to take it further. Let’s take a person who’s depressed, now lets give him this miracle product, could be anything, a car, a box of cereal, ect. Let’s say that the owning of this item makes the person so happy that he is no longer depressed because of the triggering of concepts in the subconscious. Now, you could say that the individual is cured of his depression, but what happens when the item runs out? Is destroyed? Goes out of business? Becomes obsolete? Is stolen? There’s a good chance that I’m willing to put money on (and I’m not a betting man) that the person is going to revert back into depression. Think about it, the person never really changed themselves, only things that they possessed.
I don’t know, the whole thing seems dirty to me. I like Bill Hick’s response to people in marketing, “Do are Satan’s spawn, filling the world with vile garbage…kill yourself.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
As for Thomas Frank’s article “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent,” much of what he says seems irrelevant. While I find it praiseworthy for many of America’s businessmen to embrace chaos and ignore order, I realize much of the reason is superficial. The point of big business is to make money. They will do whatever they have to, dress up however they have to, to make a profit. Not to mention that it’s an obvious fact that not all businesses are headed by such freethinkers, so there’s still some land yet to be won.
Also, the thing about poetry readings, when was the last time you saw a poetry reading at Starbucks? You didn’t. Maybe you saw one or two at the Coffee Beanery, but even those are no where near as good as poetry readings at “mom ‘n pop” joints. If big business were really into such freethinking ideas, there would be poetry readings every Friday night at Starbucks. But there isn’t, you know why? Because it doesn’t generate money. Who goes to these things? A good portion of these people are broke starving artists and college students who barely have a dime to their name. You think they’d afford to be able to buy Starbuck’s over-priced coffee if poetry readings were held? Probably not. If there isn’t a profit involved, big business won’t go for it. End of story.
Johnny can’t dissent my ass. If Johnny can’t find things to dissent from (you know, like the ever-becoming fascist government, the very power that big business has over our lives, or the corruption in either) he’s an idiot and doesn’t deserve to be part of the counter-culture.
StTykonFendersonJackson
In part 1 of “Return of the Hidden Persuaders” the tactics of the shell company to market to a younger audience were an example of how far companies have to go to make their product for the consumers best interest. Through the “trance” test that was placed on consumers they were able to see that what made people want to buy gas was comfort seen in the views of gas stations from young ages. Often companies market to the wrong demographic groups. It seems as if simple is often better for consumers. Consumers preferred gas stations they were comfortable with and cars that were from “simple” times as seen with the success of the PT cruiser. The argument of the article covers that getting into the mind of consumers is a complex and vital part of a company’s success. In part 2 it’s interesting to see that the company Microsoft connects to the idea that they must get into their consumers heads to keep their business successful. Their way of getting into their consumers heads may not be a trance like the shell gas company but they know they must keep consumer interests in mind because competitors are always around to try and market and advertise more effectively. I was surprised to learn of companies using trance tactics for their advantage but if consumer’s needs and wants are being met this a good thing for both producers and consumers.
In Frank’s article it was very interesting to see that his opinion that things are changing in the advertising world relate to several popular slogans that mention change and breaking the rules frequently. Consumers are attracted to new things and rebellion. The more someone says not to do something the more someone might be pushed to want it. Advertising rebellion seems to have proven appealing.
DancingQueen
Was it just me, or was Return of the Hidden Persuaders Part 1 a little freaky? I think the whole hypnosis, ‘’recreating brain activity’’ and ‘’harnessing consumers brainwaves for commercial ends’’ was what really turned me away. Thanks for freaking me out Shell by using crazy techniques. This, by the way, concluded that Shell should target the youth more. I could have told you that. But, there is something in common with Shell and the youth (who drive at least). Both are very cautious of their money. Shell wants to be successful and teens want to be successful in saving their money while buying the gas. The brand doesn't matter. The money does.
I like the 'simple' idea. People do refer to the past because they are unsure or afraid of the present or future. Because, that's all they know of. So, why not try and give them the past then.
While I read this the main thing on my mind was is Shell that greedy, money and power hungry to use something like hypnosis as a last resort? I guess times really are a’changin.
All I can say personally is thank God I am not majoring in Business or Advertising.
In reading Frank’s article I found the slogans interesting as well. Commercials' now try everything and anything to persuade us to run out and get their product. Advertising is very sneaky.
RocknRoll
Advertising is amazing when it comes to reaching out to their audience. There is some kind of advertising for almost every age group. Advertising works well on convincing people to use a product or buy a product. Commercials put ads on television to reach out to children such as cereals, candy and other popular foods. These ads make the children beg their parents to get out and buy the item that they saw on T.V. Kids also develop a liking to name brand items from advertising on T.V. and billboards. It is crazy that when making a movie or a television show that they have to pay a lot more if there is a name brand item that appears in the scene such as coke. There is advertising everywhere on cups, T.V., paper and many others. Most of the time many ads get stuck in your head such “im lovin it”. Many ads also alter the way people eat or do. In “Return of the Hidden Persuaders” it basically talks about the affect advertising have on young children and how advertising can stay with you for a long period of time. I have to agree with other people when it comes to the gas station that is chosen. It really does not matter what the name of the gas station is, it matters which one is cheaper. It especially doesn’t matter when it comes to how much gas is today. When it comes to Shell not thinking about directing advertising to the kids right away is understandable. Not too many people would think that it would make any different for children to hear about these different gas stations when it doesn’t apply to them yet. Advertising has many influences on almost everything such as clothes, the way people where their hair, what they eat. Almost everything is influenced by some kind of advertising. In part one and two they are pretty much the same and show that marketers will do anything and everything they have to do to get their product out there and well known. Advertising is growing extremely quickly.
SororityGirl
After reading “The Return of the Hidden Persuaders” by Ruth Shalit, I find myself disgusted. I am disgusted by the fact that corporations are trying to mess with people’s subconscious’s so they can sell more products. How long will it be until our dreams become commercials? While trying to find what people would like in the depths of their minds and making an object fit those specifications isn’t too bad, the whole molding the mind to want to purchase Shell gasoline is more than a little sick. I also think it’s funny that the companies who put so much effort into psychoanalysis are paranoid that they won’t be able to sell anything without some sort of mental influence (to or from the brain, it doesn’t seem to matter). It’s more than a little disturbing that these companies don’t seem to care about what happens to these people or any sort of damage their studies might do (conditioning children for example). And the PT Cruiser? That’s one hella ugly car.
In “Why is Madison Avenue gripped by insanity?”, Shalit points out that because corporations have been trying so hard to make a unique, public-friendly and possible hypnotic product, they have in a way alienated the general public. By saying their product can lead to good emotions, they are “so full of personality that they've sagged under their own weight” and that just exasperates people. There is nothing more annoying than a waffle trying to be sexy or a bottle of soda trying to be cool. It’s just too much and corporations don’t seem to realize that they are doing this to themselves. Personally, I like to think I am not affected by brand pushers (I know I am just kidding myself). Maybe it’s because I am a “poor college student” but if I see a cheaper brand of gas I will go for it instead of driving around to find a Shell station.
“Why Johnny Can't Dissent” by Thomas Frank basically carries on about how people in the business world are trying desperately to become rebellious and cool. People try so hard to be different and like to think they are “sticking it to the man” but no matter how different a person is they can never be totally different as then they wouldn’t be human. Whereas in the 80’s it was all about conformity to be cool now it is being unconventional, but if everyone is unconventional then everyone is the same.
UnionJill
From the readings I know from being a communications major that things will be made to turn another’s opinion. Commercials, movies, ads in newspapers, and any other form of media will always be rhetorical. The media portrays a sense of things are this way when they are really another. For instance, if one turns on the television you’ll find a company selling a product that they believe you should buy. Although, the consumers are extremely cautious, this is because the media believes that we as people are filled with stupidity. For example, take the 1996 Telecommunications Act and act that allowed companies to own multiple things radio stations in this case. It’s just like that with Shell gas station and other things also. Looking at things realistically effective communication is being able to be you and still surround yourself with many different types of people. This is why the media puts the things that they put on television. The minds of certain people young people in general have a mind that is easy to persuade. Each and every one of us as human beings has something that is similar to the next person. This is how people make their money and the people that suffer from the negative aspects of the media are the consumers. The 1996 Telecommunications Act reflects big business operation in American society today. It all goes back to being controlled in action and in words, isn’t that what most people are about power? Many advertisements like Shell gas station and others feel that things have to be taken to the extreme for products to be sold. Basically, from reading these articles it gives people an abundantly clear picture that we will get you to think like us. The media portrays the role of being cool and influenced with this big flashy type of life style, and people feel that’s they way to be inside.
VeeMan
When reading both articles, “The Return of the Hidden Persuaders” by Shalit and “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent” by Frank I think of two things: pressure and paranoia. “The Return of Hidden Persuaders” is basically an attempt by companies to get an edge on their competition via psychological techniques that lock into the subconscious mind and discovers how to manipulate consumers into buying their brands through preference. Though I can’t fault the big business companies for an attempt to better themselves (after all how did they get to be a big business without this greediness), but stooping to a level that tricks us without even being fully aware of it? If corporations such as this want to gain a little consumer loyalty, how about placing more funding into customer service in other words the little things that people appreciate.
The other article, “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent” by Frank discusses how people will naturally stray from normality and eventually become social deviants. I always find it amusing when businesses try to set them apart from other businesses that sell similar products because you can’t really tell which kind of crowd they are trying to appeal to or when the company tries too hard to reach out to the younger generation (just the other day I saw a Pepto Bismol commercial which had a bunch of people just break dancing). Although I can agree that some companies need to be different to succeed, the main thing to look at is how great the product is, and how this will help people.
SolAce
Looking at the readings I realize what my view of commercial advertisement was in the past. Dead wrong. I used to think the usual- they just want your money, they don’t care about the individual, etc. This kind of thinking was merely an imposition of the thinking of others and I find now that although I held this view that wasn’t mine, i put it out of my mind and regardlessly played the role of consumer and was attracted by their ploys. What I have gleaned from these articles is that it doesn’t really matter either way. Advertising tries to entice you into buying the product, whether it be toilet paper or a movie, but I see that without this race to entice me, I would miss out on many amazing experiences. Today’s corporations have changed or are changing their ways to accomodate you, the consumer. What I don’t get is why people still see this as mere mind control when it obviously isn’t. YOU are in control of your brain and YOU are in charge of buying what YOU want and need, not because a company is telling you to do so.
As for Frank’s statement of corporate change, there is something very depressing about it.
Corporations are no longer so easily attacked on a consumer-advertiser level. By making themselves attuned to what society is now, they make themselves seemingly immune to furious anti-corporate sentiments (except Wal-Mart, it isn’t part of the crowd, but is evil in other ways). These companies are trying to put themselves onto the hip young cconsumer’s level. The disappointment here is that all of these companies although each is professing that they are individual and their products are the same is fundamentally wrong when all of the companies are all doing the same exact thing. The main flaw in advocating individualism and demonizing conformism is that one produces the other, unwillingly even. It feels hopeless to look at the situation this way, but the only thing to do, both for the individual and the companies is not try to be individual. Simply follow one’s own uniqueness and find that state of being on one’s own. However, keep in mind that individualism produces a self-centered philosophy, so just know that to make change, we must come together as a group for the betterment of the whole.
As a final remark, I go back to Shalit’s article, but more specifically to a particular quote: "Linguistics doesn't get you anywhere," (Bostwick) says. "It provides you with what I call a 'map of ignorance.'" . I say bunk! Total bunk! Linguistics does plenty! It analyzes the medium, method, and meaning of speech. By studying communication we can find plenty of useful insights into how the brain works and why people associate meaning with particular phrases or words. Linguistics allows one to grasp the mechanics of thought in another’s mind, a wonderful tool for advertisement, so take that Bostwick. And another thing, I implore you, what makes it ignorant?!?!
Down with Wal-Mart!!!!!!
RaspyPeculiarRavages
Two additional comments:
1. Thank you Tony, for the amazing "Johnny can't dissent my ass"
2. I'm thinking perhaps this "Why Johnny can't dissent" title comes from "Johnny got his gun" by Dalton Trumbo. Anyone thinking the same?
RaspyPeculiarRavages
I find it interesting that corporations would reach into the depths our minds in order to produce a product that satisfies our subconscious. Although this seems to me a great way of selling a product, it has flaws. I would think that not everyone is so blind that they would pick the product that makes them feel good about themselves, but they would take into consideration such things as the price, quality, and value of that particular product. There are many people out there that buy certain products because of it’s value and not it’s “personality”. Although when it comes to two identical products, or companies in value, quality, and price the consumer would go for the one that seems best to them, and that can be swayed by unconscious feelings or memories. This way, when two products, or businesses, have very few differences, one company can always have more business by making the consumer have a good feeling about them.
Frank brings up a good point about how advertising has to have personality, and an “in your face” kind of look. He says that this is to make the product look distinctive. If all our products show individuality, then it may be possible to pretend we are individuals by buying certain products and flaunting them, rather then actually being ourselves. Frank also talks about how businesses are trying to look rebellious and that if you go there you are “breaking the rules”. If it were true that everyone is trying to be rebellious, then it is impossible to do anything rebellious because everyone else is also trying to be rebellious.
Because everything today is so full of advertising, many people ignore advertisements as they go about their daily routines. If many companies are always looking for ways to make you feel good about them, maybe those feelings will soon be ignored as well.
SaRs
My God I thought the first article was never going to end! The entire article throws in examples of interviewing people while unconscious in attempt to help companies make better products based on deeper thoughts. A lot of people opposed this idea by saying that your house isn’t the only thing people can break in to, they can do it to your brain and completely disagreed with the idea. I’d have to agree with Dr. Cohen when he says that we find little therapists in our products. He made his point by saying that “brands assist people in their day-to-day functioning. That's not something I invented. Brands are already used by the consumer in that way.” I think the people who don’t want to buy products based on someone’s cognitive experience is afraid that they’ll get to pick their own brain and see how they feel about a product. Sometimes it’s scary to go back to things you repressed for so many years.
In Why is Madison Avenue gripped by insanity, it further investigates the benefits of having a meaning behind a product. This allows for different brands to bring out different emotions and feelings in hopes of selling. It’s an association of a product to a memory, just as the first article tried to explain, except in a long, repetitive fashion. The product can mean something good or bad depending on an individual’s experience with it now or when they were children. It’s a very interesting concept and I believe that if people buy what makes them feel good, why not continue to market in this way?
The last article today and last class was probably ignored for a reason. Frank keeps repeating his idea that we’re all deviants, regardless of what we do or where we end up. He says that we are all forced to think in different ways, all which is bad. He wants everyone together and to grow as a whole. I disagree with this because what makes the world so unique is the fact that we’re different and like different things. Just because he hates a lot of what has or hasn’t changed, doesn’t mean that they’re bad.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.