Comments on A Hard (& Musical) Look at Advertising

Go to On the Edge - Add a comment - Go to A Hard (& Musical) Look at Advertising

Full Disclosure

Well, I can't really see any reason why we shouldn't get the entire story.  However, I suspect the result would be nil since we'd all sign the thirty page environment assessment disclosure document (quickly to become known as the environmental ADD) next time we bought a car without reading it anyway -- all we'd have done is killed trees and release toxins in the process of printing the ignored material.  Sigh.  How much fine print gets by us already?  Wait a minute, maybe that was what all that fine print was about the last time I bought a car...

I know I'm being silly about a serious issue.  I also certainly agree that getting the entire cost in front of consumers would be a good thing.  It is interesting to listen to all the side-effects of various medications during their advertisements these days.  It would be fought tooth and nail, but can you imagine an ad for clothing ending with a statement such as "32% of XYZ clothing is manufactured by offshore child laborers". 

The clothes, $35.  The full disclosure statement, priceless!

posted by vroom on February 4, 2003 at 9:21 PM | link to this | reply

It's About Being Fully Informed, Not Dictated To...

I would never suggest for one moment that I, or any government, know how you should think, or try to make you think in a particular way. The advertisers do such a good job on that front, why should I even bother?  

Do we as consumers have any responsibility in all of this? Absolutely! The only reason the whole misleading cycle works at all is because we're dumb enough, at the sharp end of consumer society, to consume all the goods that are offered to us.

Having said that, consumer society in its present form relies very heavily on the fact that the 'average' consumer doesn't see beyond the gloss and froth. The whole edifice is built around a Wizard-of-Oz-like illusion. As soon as people see through that, they naturally consume less because they know, at every buying decision point, that there is a price for that item above and beyond the monetary one. A price that takes away a little more of the Earth's natural resources, many of which are irreplaceable in our lifetime. A price that injects a little more waste, much of it toxic and long-lasting, into the Earth. A price that may speed up global warming a touch, or add to the deforestation of the planet, or make it OK for western corporates to support sweat-shop work practices in developing countries, using under-age workers on slave wages. The advertisers never mention all the baggage that comes with the latest consumer gadget, the latest must-have. If they did, sales would drop off, but then we buy far more stuff than we need anyway. And at least it would usher in a more enlightened era of honest, authentic consumerism, where everyone knew upfront the real cost of everything they bought.

It's not about dictating to people how to think and act. It's about giving people all the information - ALL of it - to enable them to make informed and responsible decisions. If, after knowing the real cost of a 10mpg SUV, for example, you still went ahead and bought it, that's fine; at least you'd be fully informed as to the ripples that particular pebble (or boulder) causes on a planetary scale, and prepared to accept full responsibility for those ripples.

Ignorance is a convenient excuse to keep consuming, and the advertisers are keen to keep us in ignorance for as long as possible. I just try to be a force in the opposite direction.

posted by DamonLeigh on February 4, 2003 at 3:37 AM | link to this | reply

Very Interesting

Hmm, an interesting notion.  So, do we as consumers or perhaps just as members of society have any responsibility in this?  I mean, is it the advertisers fault that we as investors force them to make a profit and at the same time as citizens that we neglect our intellectual development?  Who is going to force us to think for ourselves?  What if we don't want to think for ourselves?  How come people are buying into the whole commercialism or consumerism need to buy fancy impressive things anyway?  Why should we even care what other people think about the clothes we wear, the cars we wear, the houses we wear and the families we wear?  I like to think that I think, but I'd hate for you or the government to think that you know what and how I should think.  Ya think?

posted by vroom on February 3, 2003 at 3:59 PM | link to this | reply

Ha ha!

That was funny! Thank you for that -- a great way to start the day!

posted by Humayun on January 23, 2003 at 8:35 AM | link to this | reply