Name speaks for itself: These are topics I hear people talk about all the time or have actually consumed people's lives or, sadly, are television channels and I do not understand why anyone talks about these topics at all. Please comment. :-)
Part II - Advertising: The Power it Exerts and the Concern I Cannot Understand
No matter who you are you have to admit: advertisements are really, really good. It should be disturbing how good we are becoming at convincing ourselves to buy things we do not need. We are getting so good we do not even need the words anymore; previous statement a realistic assessment in admitting that no one can actually explain the benefits of anything in twenty seven point four seconds. The images, people and aura about the commercial can tell us everything we need to know, even if we do not see the name of the product or see the product only at the very end. What bothers, irks and just banishes intelligibility on my behalf is the fact that we, as a society, spend $250 billion on advertising, a third of all education spending, when, quite frankly, if you have the money to advertise in the current American economy...oops, sorry I meant "culture", you probably do not need to advertise anymore, especially in a society that actively supports everything that you are attempting to accomplish in advertising anyway.
Now I do not want to get into a semantics discussion about the changing and progressing state of needs and proportions of goods in American or Western Society (because believe it or not you do not need alcohol, high-definition television or prophylactics by any definition of 'need') so I will just assume all things aside from the most basic provisions of carbohydrates and protein and potable clear liquid known as water to be beyond absolute necessity. Considering all things aside from what I just classified as necessary have had at least ten minutes on SuperBowl commercials, I believe I have constructed a fairly acceptable distinction.
The battle for semantics sidelined, I would like to address the issue I actually want to discuss, that being my wonder as to why we invest so much into advertising. Now believe it or not this thought process did not occur because of the SuperBowl, in spite of the temporal proximity. I had started this thought a few weeks ago and I just happened to get back to it now. The thoughts really started when I got my hair cut recently. Nick was cutting my hair and we were chatting and having a good time, me especially as he was removing that ChiaPet that had been growing on my scalp. Then, I had to look at the television...
Near the end of the haircut a commercial came on that I caught maybe four to five seconds into the commercial. Now this was in the morning, about the time that Wayne Brady hosts Let's Make a Deal, so the commercial might have been a little longer then the average twenty seven point four seconds and the audience is notably less varied on random Friday morning for Let's Make a Deal than say SuperBowl Sunday. However, that can still only tell anyone so much and I do not think I am that overly analytical that I could narrow down the most likely commercials based on time and audience, not to mention that pompous that I think you can make a list of hobbies and interest based solely on demographics. My point is that someone who openly rejects the notion that Western Civilization and American economy, I mean "culture", has much to offer, should not be prone to making correct quick assessment of what any pictorial series in said society represents, even after twenty one years of what I can pridefully say was limited exposure, but exposure nonetheless. This is not the most tragic thing in the universe, but it makes one point blindingly clear: American commercialism has found its strength in advertisements to be so essential not because the commercials and advertisements are good, but because the society itself has become one giant commercial where scripts and brand recognition are played out over our daily lives, Friday night at a bar between the people waiting for a Coors, standing in line at the game waiting for a Coke Zero, even apparently within a close group of friends, but not over the television.
Honestly, if the power of advertisement really was limited to the twenty seven point four seconds on the television and the glances of a magazine cover I can honestly say that I do not think it could ever be even comparable to the strength we know it has. I am not critiquing it one way or another, I am simply stating that we, in our society, have "been taught" or perhaps innately "know" that a Time Magazine cover of a soldier in Iraq and his memories as the head story can and apparently "should" evoke a far more "essential" and "personal" response than the reading of the Iliad. This thought process is not so simple in logic as our relativistic plagued culture has assumed it to be, and more than any misconception is the feeling that these two sources are the same kind of media. The two are, rather, completely different levels of media, even though both claim to be the same. Print media, if it really is print media, does not seem to dazzle, entrance and engage.
I am not one of the people who thinks that print media ever did these things, mind you. The greatest accomplishment of the print world was the dissemination of the Western Biblical Tradition that began the Wars of Religion and the European Expansion. Whether we are sound enough with our skin tone and/or theological perspectives to admit it or not these moments alter, define and speak to what we are as humanity almost every minute. That was four hundred years ago, and since then the mystical properties have become worn and garnished. Perhaps it has something to do with the horrors we remember from those moments, a general lack of interest to begin with, or a societal guilt complex that has come along with the "failure of modernity", but frankly put, we as a society are no longer a print media and we have traded in every accomplishment of that society for flashing lights and interesting backgrounds.
Conversely, the greatest accomplishment of the pictorial world was seeing Marylin Monroe's boobs. Again, I can only guess as to why this is held as important, but I am not above saying it is as superficial as easing masturbation efforts, and not so debased I cannot also see a possible plot on behalf of our collective subconscious mind. In the end, sensationalism won out for a very simple and very plain reason that is not morally culpable nor psychologically poignant - simply put, people are gullible and apathetic.
Print life is more difficult and skeptical. The difficulty and lifestyle demanded provides logical reasoning to assess why pictures won, far more reasonable and obvious than it is to determine why words lost. Simply put, it is not easy nor particularly profitable to have a print media, so people shied away. I enjoy being skeptical and assuming that if I do not check every source someone will try and sell me something. Most people do not. Most people in Western Civilization live a life between temptation and assuaged luxury where, honestly, saying 'No.' really is as easy as saying 'No.' and saying 'Yes.' is as simple as having a credit card. There is no substance or meaning, no greater effort or drive, no development or enrichment. It is simple and easy and quick, fitting nicely into a controlled and simplistic environment and comprehensible construction of life. I am not saying it is good or bad, right or wrong, six, half-dozen or the other; I am just saying that it is.
Yet even that only could ever have so much power. Christianity and educational philosophy are also core to that which is Western Civilization and pandemic in proportions with thousands of pictorial redoubts, and frankly, saying you are Christian or philosophical is pretty easy because of how prevalent both ideas are; anyone can mire their way through an explication that sounds impressive but does not mean anything at all. So long as keywords are used that could be heard on any TV station about ten times an hour, you are a "Christian". Yet neither of these societal distinctions possess even associative amounts of influence that a Pepsi commercial has. The difference is that while we have been told over and over what a good Christian "should" be, we do not like the image. When we are told what a good Pepsi drinker is, we love that image. Why is that? Frankly, it most likely can be granted to the guarantee that whatever it means to enjoy what you are doing already, that is what it means to drink Pepsi.
I am trying to make the effects of advertising and societal influence clear in an effort to stress my real issues. In actuality, the deference to symbol and the sheer dissemination of advertisements that is the American "culture" is not what I am concerned about. I do not like either, but I have found ways to avoid them.
I am most concerned and confused by the issue that I had no idea what product was being advertised when I saw this commercial in Nick's barbershop. I saw the entire commercial after that four to five second delay, heard not one word that was said, and I still only needed about ten seconds to know the commercial was about birth control, only about seven seconds to have an emotional response. When I finally did see the name, I had never heard of it, no one of notable import or celebrity that I could recognize was in the commercial that I could associate the brand with, and because the buzz cut was going on there was just a "small" amount of background interference that made it impossible for me to hear. All I could see of this commercial was the people and things they were doing; I never heard a word or saw the product or even the product name. Even with all these disruptions to the message, the medium gave me the metaphor simple and clear: this is a commercial about a birth control pill, and it is a great product because, as you can see, everyone in this commercial is happy. I am not even really sure how I knew it was about birth control - I just did.
Again, just to clarify this point too, I am not making any comments about birth control or the usage thereof. As far as I am concerned, if you want to have kids, have kids, and if you do not want to have kids, do not have kids. If I can put some opinion in this, here it is: if you are one of those people who think American consumerism is a good thing, do me a huge favor and start using birth control more often. Aside from that, I could not care less who does and does not use what. This is not a rant on birth control. This is a discussion of a generally disturbing and confusing issue. This is me asking 'How did advertising get so good that I, a twenty one year old male graduate level chemist, someone obsessed with his work, someone who is more concerned with the welfare failure than getting laid, who has zero interest in relationship issues, someone clearly not in the "range of consumers" for these advertisements, how did I know exactly what they wanted me to know and probably recognized everything they wanted me to recognize?'.
I have to conclude the power of advertising is in society as a whole. If it really was just a presentation of twenty seven point four seconds, there is no way I would have known what the commercial was about or had any emotional connect at all, especially without seeing any product or hearing a word. In our society, I truly believe that the power of commercialization has convinced me, innately, to assume that a group of interracial "friends" of the female sex enjoying the company of each other and seemingly "happy" are using birth control. And of course, in American "culture" if there are attractive people smiling they must either be in love or making money, because that just makes sense. Frankly, that was all you could tell from the commercial, which is exactly what the problem is.
The screenplay and action in the commercial was so bland, flat and generally unimaginative that it was almost comical. Characteristic attractive white girl with impeccable facial structure, sensational smile and curly locks is walking around town with her "friends" who apparently have no interest in walking next to her but rather want to be "close enough", and so I assume that they must be friends. They walk into a stationary/furniture style store because they are female and five girls would never go out to get pizza or beer in Commercialica. The commercial goes on to show the ladies doing very little other than smiling and buying inessentials, but all the while seem as if they have just been proposed to rather then spent two hundred dollars on something truly useless, not to mention they are oblivious to the rest of the world and the general tone of the scene as all I see are smiling faces, uncut laughter that seems so out of place and forced it is comical. I have a feeling after George Lucas wrote the picnic scene between Anakin and Padmae, he went and wrote the screenplay for this commercial. Too bad there was not a sand metaphor because I guess making little to no sense is sensible; with that sand comment I have to suppose this commercial would sell like hot cakes (if you do not get the reference please find a copy of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones and go about forty minutes in and wait for the dumbest thing you have ever heard - disclaimer: this author does not accept responsibility for the natural attempt to stab out one's ears after watching Star Wars Episode II).
More than any reason to worry, I always thought that when you trusted a group of people it was because you liked them, and had a real feeling that you can relate to them and they understand you enough to be honest. In my screening of other commercials on the same topic I saw the same thing over and over again, one commercial even being as forthcoming, ridiculous and offensive, at least to me, as possible, having the women walking around what I suppose is a shopping mall floor and literally picking up "the things you might one day really want", such as a home, a 'significant other' and a graduate school degree. Aside from utterly urinating over the difficulty level of a graduate education, turning relationships into a shopping excursion and giving credence to every inane comment made by the Family Foundation about how to live a "good life" and conceivably reinforce every stereotype possible, especially with the 'Trip to Paris' option, all I can conclude about any of these women is that they are materialistic, rude, unrepentant, superficial and plain as a piece of toast. I do not like any of these people, but I could not remove from myself the belief that they are happy and the world is their oyster.
These thoughts and associations had nothing to do with the commercial. It had everything to do with some innate belief that the advertisers knew something I did not, that women on birth control or who have 'choice' in their sexual life are happier than women who do not have 'choice', and that this "scene" actually occurs in real life, at least symbolically. All three of those associations cannot be made over twenty seven point four seconds, over forty eight seconds, over one minute fourteen seconds, or the timing I noticed for any of the commercials I saw in my Google Search. Those associations occur over two decades of exposure to images and associations that are depressing, degrading, dehumanizing, divisive and droll. So why is this not an issue, especially considering that I am more than certain I am not the first person to notice it?
I guess my real issue is that advertising still spends more money than almost any other industry in the United States, but frankly their investments over the past forty years have been more successful than they could ever have imagined. In a world where the "culture" and society do all your advertising for you, what more do you need? I realize this came about because of all the efforts of advertising over the past forty years, but if that is how tight your grip over a collective conscious is, what more do you need? This is the equivalent of the military continuing to ask for money when it invested nearly four hundred trillion in our nuclear missile program, and now have the strength to kill all the world with, literally, the push of one button. What more do you need after the technology to press one button and kill every known living cognizant thing in the Solar System? There is this thing called overkill, and you are quickly approaching it.
In a world where most people cannot manage to garner three dollars for twelve hours of labor, American "culture" spends 342,465,753.42% more per year on advertising, than the average company pays the average laborer per year. Spending money on something that no longer needs to be developed...once again I have to say quite plainly...
I just do not get it...
