Skip to main content

what's your point?

i was reading this article earlier this evening. perhaps it's a little bit of hypersensitivity since i've worked day jobs in marketing for a number of years, but the whole thing left me with the following thought:

you're right. so what?

i'm all in favour of calling people to task for false or misleading advertising,but the criticism leveled at dove or at nike doesn't deal with that. the criticism in this article deals specifically with the fact that these companies are trying to create a "lack", a void that can be filled by their products. and somehow, to the people writing the article (and countless articles like it), this is objectionable, underhanded, dishonest. well excuse me, but what the hell were you expecting?

there's a great passage in umberto eco's "foucault's pendulum" ("the davinci code" for the thinking set) where one of the central characters confronts his father in the hopes of convincing him to order a series of magazines. in response to the son's eloquent (and verbatim quote from the magazine's advertisement) explanation of the magazine's purpose, the father looks his child straight in the eye and says that the magazine's purpose is the same as that of all other magazines- to sell as many copies as it can. and that, really, is our economic system in a nutshell.

is dove using its "redefine beautiful" campaign as an advertising tool in order to call attention to women's bodies and make them feel as if they need a product to complete their journey to self-esteem? of course they are. and what the hell else would you expect from an advertisement? dove aren't a philanthropic organisation. they are part of a corporation that seeks to make money, increasing amounts of money every year. and, yes, they do that by creating a sense of lacking, by creating a perceived need for a new product in order to achieve a sense of well-being.

advertisements don't work by saying what their product does, or how great people think it is, or how much work has been put into developing it. they work by making you, the consumer, feel as if your life would be better if you were in possession of their product. the sooner we accept that as the basic premise of all advertising, the better off we'll be. we may like to pretend that advertisers are doing something nefarious, something sleazy, by trying to create and sell us our own unspoken desires, but, looked at from a realistic perspective, that's exactly what they're there to do.

rather than pointing fingers, exposing something that should be seen as a basic truism, we should admit that this is what advertising is and that rather than expecting advertisers to strip away the layers that disguise their central purpose, we should make ourselves responsible for understanding what that purpose is. after all, as long as we choose to operate under a capitalist system, that is how our society and our economy grows. chastising the advertisers for presenting their message in a subtle way is like punishing a kid who gets good at a sport by developing a comprehensive understanding of the rules. yes, these guys are masking their ultimate purpose. but it's we, the consumers, who need to be aware of what that ultimate purpose is. we should not be depending on advertisers to spell it out for us.

more than the fact that my job involves spinning the sort of fairy tale that this article derides, i think what i object to here is the implication that we should expect leadership from corporations. i'd argue that instead, we should expect it from ourselves. understand what advertisers do, yes. but also understand that it's their purpose and that the system in which we operate mandates this sort of behaviour. instead of whining that their messages are not obvious, we should be scolding ourselves for not being more critical to begin with.

Comments

Martin Rouge said…
I'd say that the argument that any corporate enterprise is hiding it's intent is naive to a sad degree. Advertising is just applied Pavlovian psychology, associating an identity (a brand by modern parlance) with an emotional state; you're hungry, you need chicken. How about getting chicken from the guy who speaks like one? In the case of Dove, their beauty image is different, not because they want to sell you beauty, but they want to sell you happiness. Its not that the women are fat/old/whatever that makes them desirable, its that they project happiness and confidence, not self-awareness. And that's what sells. Most people are very uncomfortable with themselves and their appearance; any product that doesn't use skinny, young models will stand out of the lot, and isn't that the object of the game anyways, to get your brand noticed?

as long as you're here, why not read more?

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

making faces :: i could maybe not buy this one thing

i've been into makeup on some level for a long time- much longer than i've been writing about it, for certain. even as a young woman, i loved the feeling of i got from applying a deep-hued lipstick and some mascara. it took years for me to figure out eyeshadow, and even longer for me to appreciate blush. but at this point, i think we can agree that i'm pretty much into the whole gamut. [except liquid and super-matte lipsticks, and most very sparkly eyeshadows. but that's because they're painful for me to wear.]

the thing about spending a long time collecting and holding onto just about everything is that you accumulate quite a stash. lately, i'm trying to force myself to think about what i already have before laying down money for something new. most recently, i found myself drawn to the modern renaissance palette from anastasia. me and a lot of people. by the time i started thinking about it, it was already sold out in my local sephora and online. i signed up…

...and my cup size is none of your damn business

this story, about a man who got a female coworker to trade email accounts with him for two weeks to see if he could see a difference in customer reactions, has been making the rounds on social media and beyond in the last week or so. earlier today, i posted it on my personal facebook page about it, and realised that i had a lot more that i wanted to share than made sense for a facebook post. so i've come here to rant.

a couple of things to start:

1. i've had some really good job experiences in my life. i'm both lucky and unlucky that the best of them came early on, but even in more recent years, i worked at a couple of places that treated workers, all workers, with respect. that respect can be expressed in different ways, but believe me, you know it when it's there. so i want to make it clear that #notallworkplaces fit the pattern i'm about to describe.

2. i am really, really, really grateful to martin r. schneider, who thought up and did this experiment, not just …