Adbusters: A Toohey's Dream

[punk]

Since it appears that you think of Objectivists as "conservatives," may I ask you if you think of yourself as a liberal?

I agree that many of today's businesses deserve to be criticized. There is an excellent criticism of irrationality in businesses written by an Objectivist, though--it is called The Fountainhead.

I think in America today we have:

conservative: pro-corporate welfare, pro-regulation of personal conduct

liberal: pro-popular welfare, pro-regulation of business

So I'd say I was neither.

I recall the critique of bad business practices in "Atlas Shrugged" struck me a little more than did such a criticism in "The Fountainhead" (I have in mind here the scene where the railroads collude to eliminate competition, effectively driving whats-his-name out of business, sorry it's been years).

[punk]

Jlew, I agree!

And the level of concern/anger you have about "branding" is wholly inappropriate to the actual scope of the problem. By taking such complaints seriously, you are helping to downplay the REAL problems out there: like the fact that the government takes huge percentages of your income by force in order to support welfare schemes.

I think the current style of adds promotes the popularity of welfare schemes. Ads promote a feeling of entitlement to the product ("you deserve this", much more often that than "you've earned this"), or even worse to portray the product as a "necessity". I think this has seeped into the general unconscious so that people think they deserve all sorts of things, and if they dont have them its an evil society keeping them from these necessities.

[Hal]

I think the current style of adds promotes the popularity of welfare schemes.  Ads promote a feeling of entitlement to the product ("you deserve this", much more often that than "you've earned this"), or even worse to portray the product as a "necessity".  I think this has seeped into the general unconscious so that people think they deserve all sorts of things, and if they dont have them its an evil society keeping them from these necessities.

While advertisements are certainly responsible for the production of desires, do you believe that such desires would decline if advertising were to end? People have generally followed the values and desires of their community since the beginning of recorded human history, whereas aggressive advertisement is a fairly recent phenonenon. Yes, the desire for designer clothing probably would not exist without the false prestige created around them by television, but wouldnt this desires simply be replaced by something else? It's not as if ending advertisements is going to make most people content with what they have, or to direct their desires towards more 'rational' ends.

Rather than focusing on eliminating advertising, wouldn't a better antidote to rampant consumerism be the promotion of rational values? If people are consuming material goods solely to fill a void in their lives, would it not be more sensible to focus on diagnosing and eliminating this void, rather than attacking material goods? Consumerism seems to be a symptom of certain aspects of modern society rather than a problem in itself, and initiatives such as adbusters seem to be more concerned with treating these symptoms rather than curing the disease. Although perhaps I'm being unfair. From a quick look around their site I wouldnt be surprised if they advocated communism as a cure for the "capitalist disease".

[punk]

While advertisements are certainly responsible for the production of desires, do you believe that such desires would decline if advertising were to end? People have generally followed the values and desires of their community since the beginning of recorded human history, whereas aggressive advertisement is a fairly recent phenonenon. Yes, the desire for designer clothing probably would not exist without the false prestige created around them by television, but wouldnt this desires simply be replaced by something else? It's not as if ending advertisements is going to make most people content with what they have, or to direct their desires towards more 'rational' ends.

Rather than focusing on eliminating advertising, wouldn't a better antidote to rampant consumerism be the promotion of rational values? If people are consuming material goods solely to fill a void in their lives, would it not be more sensible to focus on diagnosing and eliminating this void, rather than attacking material goods? Consumerism seems to be a symptom of certain aspects of modern society rather than a problem in itself, and initiatives such as adbusters seem to be more concerned with treating these symptoms rather than curing the disease. Although perhaps I'm being unfair. From a quick look around their site I wouldnt be surprised if they advocated communism as a cure for the "capitalist disease".

Advertising exists to create desires where there were none before. As an example, people lived millenia without deodorant. When deodorant was introduced, people did not snap it up as quickly as possible. Advertising had to create the demand for deodorant until know it is considered a necessity for any civilized American to have it. But not every nation in the world sees deodorant as the necessity American's do.

I have not promoted the elimination of advertising. In a free society people are free to advertise as they want (no matter how hideous and cluttering they choose to make it be). I was promoting the critique of advertising to make people conscious of how it works and how it manipulates them.

I know some people here think they are too smart to be manipulated by advertising, but they should look around their home and see what name-brand things they own and really ask themselves if the name-brand is really that different from the alternatives. I think everyone will find they are guilty of buying due to brand identification in some areas. Do you like Coke more than Pepsi? Are they really all that different?

A story:

Once upon a time Coca Cola decided to change its recipe. It had done extensive tests and determined people liked the new formula a lot more than the old formula. Coca Cola had changed its formula many times in the past without peole really noticing. This time though Coca Cola decided to advertise that the new formula was much much better than the old one, and that they were replacing the old formula with it. Coca Cola consumers were outraged. They felt betrayed. Coca Cola sales went down noticably. Eventually Coca Cola rereleased the old formula as "Classic Coke" and the new formula as "New Coke". People were happy. The brand was saved.

[Hal]

Advertising exists to create desires where there were none before.  As an example, people lived millenia without deodorant.  When deodorant was introduced, people did not snap it up as quickly as possible.  Advertising had to create the demand for deodorant until know it is considered a necessity for any civilized American to have it.  But not every nation in the world sees deodorant as the necessity American's do.

Yes, I agree that the specific desire for deoderant didnt exist before mass advertising. But didn't other desires exist? People had unfufilled desires before the days of mass production and aggressive advertising, and they would still have them if advertising were to end - they would just be for different things.

I have not promoted the elimination of advertising.

I realise that, I was referring more to adbusters in general.

I know some people here think they are too smart to be manipulated by advertising, but they should look around their home and see what name-brand things they own and really ask themselves if the name-brand is really that different from the alternatives. 

I would also agree with this. I've never encountered a person who admits to being influenced by advertising, so it would appear that either advertising influences are more subversive than most people believe, or a lot of companies are wasting vast sums of money on something that doesnt work. I know what one I think is more likely.

[Inspector]

or even worse to portray the product as a "necessity".  I think this has seeped into the general unconscious so that people think they deserve all sorts of things, and if they dont have them its an evil society keeping them from these necessities.

Emphasis mine.

There are plenty of necessities in life, but everyone is not entitled to all of them. Even if advertisements somehow made people think they needed things that they didn't, that is still several concepts away from forcing others to provide for one's needs.

So again, it's not a big deal and you should not side with people whose clear motivation is nihilism.

[Inspector]

Also Punk:

I note that you are sitting here railing against "consumerism" and you have a quote from Fight Club in your sig. Coincidence? I think not.

I think you'll find that most Objectivists enjoy their material goods and derive rational pleasure from them. An organization such as Adbusters or a movie such as Fight Club, both of which ultimately have the message "renounce material goods" are not going to fly over well here.

As well they shouldn't! Material goods are a necessity for a happy and rational life. It is deeply a part of man's nature to create technologies and use them to better his life. Man has no claws, no fangs, no strictly animal means of survival. It is our means of survival to adapt our environment to suit our needs, not the other way around. (and of course, reason is our only method of practicing all of the above) The idea that it is possible, much less rational, much less desirable, for man to renounce material goods is absolutely retarded.

[meganfiala]

"The idea that it is possible, much less rational, much less desirable, for man to renounce material goods is absolutely retarded. "

I second that. RETARDED.

[meganfiala]

"Advertising had to create the demand for deodorant until know it is considered a necessity for any civilized American to have it. But not every nation in the world sees deodorant as the necessity American's do."

PIEW!!!

Anyhow, advertising was simply the means of communicating this great new product to Americans. Last time I checked, word of mouth doesn't work so well if you want people to buy your product across an entire country, especially one as big as the United States of America. In your opinion, what would good advertising consist of? Just the product and it's name? No emotions, no slogans (that would be preasure), no colors (certain colors are connected to certain emotions), no people in the ad to connect to (that would be peer pressure) and so forth. I think advertising, the best advertising, is a way for a firm to say, "Hey! Pay attention! We've got this great product that you've never heard of before and this is what it's all about!"

[Inspector]

And more...

Obviously, there are goods that serve our lives and there are ones that don't. But Adbusters and Fight Club and all their ilk have the clear message: "renounce ALL material wealth."

You may have the evaluation that a designer coat is stupid. What if I don't agree with you? I happen to like my designer leather jacket; it's a Kenneth Cole. I bought it because I thought it was the best design that I could find, as well as having all the functionality I needed. I looked at Kenneth Cole jackets because he made the watch I wear, and I liked the design of the watch. So I figured, "if the man makes good watches, maybe he makes good jackets too." Guess what? I decided to check out a product based on BRAND. Unlike most people, I did rationally evaluate my purchase... I rejected several Kenneth Cole jackets, most notably one with pink lining.

Could I have bought a far less expensive leather jacket? Yes. But the QUALITY of the Kenneth Cole was superior. The fit was better, the style was better, and the leather itself was MUCH better. To assume that everyone who buys a designer label is a fool is a false assumption.

Sometimes you DO get what you pay for.

I also own a Pontiac Firebird Formula; a car not at all known for its prestige. If anything, it is a social stigma in some circles. (actually a plus, considering that I don't like many of those circles) I bought it in spite of its brand.

I occasionally visit www.autoextremist.com, a web site devoted to pointing out the foibles of the automotive industry. The editors of that site point out frequently that a BAD product will quickly bring down a GOOD brand. For example Jaguar's attempts to sell the "entry-level" Jag (X-type) are a clear use of "branding;" they are trying to sell an inferior product for an inflated price based on the prestige of their brand. AND THE FREE MARKET IS KICKING THEM RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS AS A RESULT.

There are many reasons a person might buy something: some rational and some irrational. This is all a part of the wonder of capitalism: people MUST make decisions on how to spend their money. If they are unwise, it's on them and nobody but themselves suffer the consequences. The very same applies to the manufacturers who are discovering, even today, that they will RUIN their reputations by trying to sell inferior products.

So I reiterate: What is the big deal with "branding?" How is it a threat to capitalism? How does the free market NOT deal with it? And WHY is it more important than the initiation of force?

[punk]

You should make that your epitaph:

"He owned a Kenneth Cole coat and watch and a Pontiac Firebird Formula. He bought all the things he needed to be happy. He died fulfilled."

[Inspector]

You should make that your epitaph:

"He owned a Kenneth Cole coat and watch and a Pontiac Firebird Formula.  He bought all the things he needed to be happy.  He died fulfilled."

You see that's exactly what I'm talking about. If you were to be consistant with the values you hold, you would LAY DOWN IN THE DIRT AND DIE. There is no essential difference between my Kenneth Cole jacket and any other life-aiding material good. Even bread and water are material goods. So either renounce bread and water like a good little iconoclast or kindly cease being such a hypocrite!

Is that a little insulting? Yes it is. My evaluation of your reply is that you did not earnestly read the post I made (and which I put a lot of thought into). All I get for my trouble is a flip answer that ignores/evades the bulk of my argument and attacks a straw man. So a rude answer is your just desserts, punk.

[redfarmer]

You should make that your epitaph:

"He owned a Kenneth Cole coat and watch and a Pontiac Firebird Formula.  He bought all the things he needed to be happy.  He died fulfilled."

punk, do you really believe it is inherantly wrong to own designer clothes and nice cars? If Inspector was buying these things out of a desire to aquire a false sense of self-esteem, yes it would be wrong. However, I do not believe this is the case. Inspector has earned these things through hard work and he has a right to purchase whatever he sees fit with the money he earned.

My dream is to one day live in a high rise condiminium in Chicago overlooking Lake Michigan. This is one of the most expensive parts of Chicago to live in. Is that inherently wrong of me if I earn this place to live?

If you really believe you are being consistant with Objectivism, I seriously suggest you go back and reread the bulk of Ayn Rand's material and check your premises.

[Inspector]

punk, do you really believe it is inherantly wrong to own designer clothes and nice cars?

Punk didn't even read my post. The car has NEGATIVE "branding," if anything. It is looked down upon by the cultured. It has one function: to go very fast. It does that very well for the price. It was supposed to be a counterexample to my jacket.

Listen, I had a chuckle watching Fight Club when they toasted the VW Beetles and apple Imacs. I dislike products that are all style and no substance. But to buy into the whole postmodernist anti-commercialism (which, despite Punk's insistance to the contratray, amounts to anti-capitalism) is just plain looney. A serious re-reading of Rand's writings on the subject of the status of material wealth is very much in order for Punk.

[Capitalism Forever]

I am not inclined to converse with a person who doesn't use deodorant, but let me just state for the benefit of those unfamiliar with colas that there is a very noticeable difference in taste between Pepsi and Coke. Personally, I think Coke tastes much, much better.

[Inspector]

let me just state for the benefit of those unfamiliar with colas that there is a very noticeable difference in taste between Pepsi and Coke.

I can back that statement up. They do taste quite different. I personally stock both in my house to account for differing moods. Actually, I have Coke, Pepsi, Sierra Mist, Sprite, A&W root beer, Mountain Dew, Mountain Dew Live Wire, Squirt, Cherry Coke, Orange crush, and a few others that I can't remember right now. (Oh, and my wife has several forms of diet soda)

Gosh, I must be a victim of branding! (Or maybe I just get sick of something if I drink it too often)

[jlew]

You should make that your epitaph:

"He owned a Kenneth Cole coat and watch and a Pontiac Firebird Formula.  He bought all the things he needed to be happy.  He died fulfilled."

Dude...WTF?

Again this goes back to my original observation about Adbusters and their ilk: they do not want you to buy differently...they don't want you to buy at all.

punk...why does it irk you so that Inspector buys what he buys? He seems to have a handle on the reasons for his purchases.

And again let me reiterate: yes, it is a shame that some people are more concerned with keeping up with the Joneses (or the Inspectors) of our world...and...it is equally unfortunate that business and advertising recognize that envy and play upon it. But how is that any business of yours or mine?

If you want to make a difference in people's purchasing power than you need to address the fact that some people buy things as soon as the want/need/desire strikes them. They do not examine that want/need/desire and attempt to explain it - or even check to see if it is feasible or not. [e.g., is it within their budget, does it even exist? (I work at Barnes & Noble...believe me...the people who come into the store demanding we order a book that they think should exist are pretty numerous!)]

I can only assume, Inspector, that you didn't drop every cent you have in the world on a Kenny Cole jacket and a car. You made the purchases that were available to you, using the funds available to you.

punk...try to raise people's ability to raise the bar of their standards...teach people to be more self-critical of what they think they should own...reach out to their reason...

...and if they still go out and blow their paycheck on a Playstation 2 when they should really be paying rent...let 'em do it...there's no reasoning with some people.

But I still maintain that by championing Adbusters, you are doing no service to yourself or your argument. I agree with you, punk. People should be more aware of what they buy and why they buy it. But striving to create a world where nobody buys anything because nobody produces anything ain't gonna solve the problem!

And just for the record, I'm a Coke man. Pepsi is just too sugery tasting!

[punk]

I intended that last remark as my last post here, but I'll let myself be sucked into this quagmire one last time...

1. I do not care what anyone buys.

2. I do not care what anyone buys.

3. I DO NOT CARE WHAT ANYONE BUYS.

None of my posts contradict this. Another topic...

1. People should be free to do what they want within the laws of a capitalist society.

2. People should be free to do what they want within the laws of a capitalist society.

3. PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITHIN THE LAWS OF A CAPITALIST SOCIETY.

None of my posts contradict this either. The only issue ever being addressed was one of advertising manipulating people to make decisions based on subjective impressions received from the advertising which have nothing whatsoever to do with the product itself.

Apparently most people here are a bunch of ultra-rational greek godlike rocket scientists how would never in a million years ever be taken in by such retarded irrationality and ever once make a purchasing decision primarily influenced by brand content and always make decisions by the facts at hand. I'm sure these divinities dont own anything they bought because of hype but never really use. Madison Avenue must cry whenever they think about you and wonder why anyone would ever spend such large sums of money to influence you, but are thankful that people dont know better and still shovel heaps of money at them.

Personally I have learned quite a bit from Klein's "No Logo" and AdBusters, and have noticed how easy it is to be taken in by brand advertising. I'm sorry I must be one of the weak-minded retards you despise.

[Inspector]

The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about fight club.

The second rule of Fight Club is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB.

I am not a victim of branding. I've just taken a quick look around my house and I don't see anything that could be construed as being bought for branding reasons. Yes, I do think a person would have to be quite dumb or sloppy in order to fall victim to such silliness. Yes, I think a person who is that careless is getting EXACTLY what they deserve. No, I don't think it's worth my time to educate such fools and no I do not feel any pity for them.

It's too bad that you have, in the past at least, been "one of those weak-minded fools" that I am talking about. I'm glad you got the help you needed, but sorry it had to come from a bunch of dirty po-mo hippies. I know you're glad that they saved you from the big bad corporations and their brainwashing, but you REALLY... NEED... to see that Adbusters has an evil agenda of their own and they are happily using the VERY SAME TECHNIQUES to brainwash THEIR followers. They are cultivating a fashionable non-conformism (I mean, seriourly, look at that shoe!), and I would remind you of what Rand had to say about fashionable non-conformity. (Brilliant woman, Rand!)

No, I do not belive that advertising is capable of making people buy things that they don't really want, unless the advertising is lying (in which case it is illegal) or unless the person is being foolish and therefore they deserve what they get.

You say that it is inconcievable to you that a lot of advertisers are wasting millions, so therefore branding must be working. I say that it is much more likely that the people in modern companies who are calling the shots these days are mostly pitful second-handers (weak-minded fools) who ARE being taken in by branding. I would say they are, in that way, in touch with their target audience.

So is branding real? Yes. Is it fooling people? Yes. Is it fooling perfectly rational, moral, and careful people? No; absolutely not!

So I don't care what the fools do. I don't think that the points that Klein make apply to rational people and I CERTAINLY disagree with the conclusions of the Adbusters: that products and commercialism (and therefore capitalism) as such are evil. (and by extension should be abolished)

That's just a load of the standard po-mo BS. And that's the crux of the matter: when I look at what this folly accomplishes, I see the same old saw of "down with capitalism."

And I've heard THAT old saw enough to make me want to vomit.