NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/supermod/2035

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 7.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:2035 soc.women:19985 alt.feminism:4752 soc.men:19624
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!infmx!labyrinth!robert
From: [e-mail] (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Message-ID: <robert.722215826@labyrinth>
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:30:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Lines: 118

[e-mail] (susan larsen) writes:

>Part of the function of advertising is to create a desire on the part
>of the buying public for a particular product.  One of the most effective
>mechanisms for creating desire is to plant an idea in the consumer that the
>consumer is somehow inadequate and by purchasing the advertised product
>the consumer will be whole and complete.  This is an effective mechanism
>for the simple reason that most people have problems with their self-image
>or have a strong concern with their self-image.

>The point is, by offering idealized images of women, and men, too, advertisers
>are *deliberately* trying to reach the deepest, most sacred confines of our
>psyches in order to manipulate our purchasing impulses.  By recognizing this
>reality of modern existence, the individual is a step closer to rejecting
>the unrealistic human condition portrayed by the mass media and is also a
>step closer to taking control of their individual existence.  Be very aware
>and very cautious and never delude yourself that your psyche is untouchable
>by these magicians of manipulation.  And if you are still convinced
>that your decision-making processes and concepts of self-image are not
>impacted by cultural pressures, try not wearing deodorant for a few weeks
>and observe how your friends and co-workers react.

    I remember reading once about an advertising firm that specialized in
deliberately obnoxious commercials.  They were quite successful, but they would
have been completely unsuccessful by this analysis, because these ads would be
tying in negative psyche images with the product.
    The commercials worked because advertisements have a very different
fundamental goal; their main purpose is to *get your attention*.  And much
like a kid who isn't getting attention will sometimes turn to bad behavior in
order to get some attention, advertisers realize that *any attention is
better than none*.  If you leave their sound byte knowing the name of their
product when you didn't know it before, their job is done.
    People who don't bother doing comparisons will buy a name they
recognize before they'll buy something they've never heard of; people who do
comparisons will only be comparing products they've heard of.  People who
examine a product to see whether they like it for a multitude of other reasons
will be looking for a product they've heard of.  The important thing is to
*get your attention*.

    I don't own any Bugle Boy jeans.  I know that bugle boy colored jeans
exist, though; they showed a sexy commercial on MTV.  A lot.  They reached
out with a lot of very fundamental psyche-tweaking images (for the average
heterosexual man) and I payed attention.  Why didn't this commercial succeed
in "making" me buy those jeans?

    A lot of reasons, really.  I'm comfortable with blue jeans.  I don't
see a lot of other people wearing the colored jeans, so I have no desire to
conform to *real* pressure (peer pressure).  I already have a fair investment
in jeans, and I hate shopping.  I have a brand I like already.  Etc.  Etc.

    I frankly enjoy this commercial more than most I've seen on television
in some time, both because they're being frank and honest about what they're
doing and what they're saying, and because I like sexy images.  If
psyche-twisting was effective, I'd have to say I oughta have a closetful of
Bugle Boy Jeans by now.

    Coke spends a great deal of money trying to convince me that diet coke
tastes good.  The medical industry, as well, spends a lot of time trying to
convince me that being even moderately "overweight" can kill me.  Coke's
current ad campaign ("You've got the right one, Bay-ay-bee!") pushes almost
all the buttons: sexy, underdressed women, power, fame, glamour and glitz,
excitement, rock and roll; the other big button, death, is punched by our
medical profession.  None of this has been able to convince me that anything
"diet", par*tic*ularly anything with nutrasweet, tastes good.

    The commercial can't make me desire the product.  All it can do is let
me know that the product exists, so that I can try it, and evaluate it for
the things that really matter.

    I've read the popular analyses of advertising; "appeal to authority",
"positive association", etc.  The very basis of these analyses is that people
are incredibly stupid.  Sure, if Bill Cosby says Jello is fun, well, it *must*
be.  If there's a bikini'd babe draped over that convertible, well, she must
come with the car.  Or at least be an option.

    People just aren't that stupid.  When's the last time you heard an
argument along the lines of "Well, of *course* jello is fun!  Bill Cosby said
so!"  The much simpler explanation is that people watch the jello commercial
because they like Bill Cosby, and eat jello because they like jello.  People
buy more of the car that the woman is draped over because they go try out
the car, and like it.  Advertising is full of examples of well advertised
duds, because people don't buy a product because of ads.  All that ads do is
raise interest; people may *try* the product, but if they continue to use it,
it's because the *like* it.
    (I would believe, however, that "pseudo-facts", such as "This product
contains Retsin, a miracle drug!" can fool people.  This isn't manipulation
of psyche, though; it's appeals to the intellect).

    Oh, re: deodorant.  The example you've given has nothing to do with
advertising; it has to do with peer pressure.  Peer pressure is a proven
manipulator.  As it happens, I don't sweat most of the time (for instance,
at work) so I don't use a deodorant unless I know I'll be sweating.  If
anyone *ever* told me I smelled bad, I would use that deodorant in an instant,
but the reality of my life is very different from that projected by the
commercials.  The cognitive dissonance is obvious, and makes the commercial
ineffective as a manipulator.  Still, when I buy a deodorant, I'll probably
buy one of the ones I've heard of;  as far as I'm concerned, they're
essentially interchangeable.  Ban spring to mind; OK, I'll buy Ban.  I'll buy
it before one I've never heard of, even if the one I've never heard of is
cheaper, out of nothing more relevant than superstition.
    But none of the commercials have convinced me that I've got to wear
it all the time.  I notice that you've gotten a similar reply from some other
folks.  That leaves an interesting question: why do *you* believe it's so
necessary, when others do not?  Since we're all subjected to the same
commercials, it probably has more to do with other factors, like how we were
raised, than the commercials...

    Meanwhile, I don't really know how we decide on what physical images
define our human ideal.  I don't think anyone else knows, either.  I do know
that we've had physical ideals, and they've changed cyclically through the
years, from well before we developed the concept of advertising; I'd look for
some other source.

Robert C.
--
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
        elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.