Dear Abercrombie and Fitch,
How is the company? We are relatively unacquainted as far as corporations and citizens go, so I will tell A&F that I am a college student at a University, and I would just like to point out some interesting things I have noticed. Abercrombie and Fitch may find them interesting as well.
To start, Abercrombie and Fitch is a clothing store, correct? So, why is it that when one walks into an Abercrombie store or views an advertisement for Abercrombie clothing, more often than not one sees what appears to be naked, in the process of becoming naked, or partially clothed people? Is there a reason the models don’t want to wear the clothing? Is it itchy or uncomfortable? Does it smell funny? It makes me think I shouldn’t want to wear the clothing either if the models can’t even stand it long enough to have a photo taken. I’ve never really understood the concept of advertising clothing with people who are clearly not wearing the clothing in the advertisement. Maybe Abercrombie and Fitch could clear up a little of this confusion for me.
To continue, I was also wondering why on the application to be an A&F model, there is a place to fill out your weight. I’m not sure if A&F is aware, but people carry their weight differently, and weight is not a correct measure of an adipose to muscle tissue ratio. If you received an application from someone who was a number of pounds over the companies weight range for models, but he/she appeared to be a healthy individual, would you turn them down? Last I checked, A&F had more than one size of clothing in the store available for purchase. It would be nice to see more than one size advertised, you know, when clothing is actually used in the advertisements to start with. I recently read a book called Culture Jam, and learned that “Nine out of ten North American women feel bad about some aspect of their bodies, and men are not far behind.” I feel as though this could be due to the advertisements such as the ones put out by A&F and other companies that only show one type of person (and unfortunately all the companies seem to have latched onto this same body type) as the beautiful and desirable body. Maybe its time to show people that there is more than one type of beautiful in the world, and A&F embraces all beauty. Vary it up, you know? Open your minds, see the beauty in every body, and show that in your advertisements, and stop asking for people’s weight in your application. It just sounds shallow.
While I’m on the topic of clothing models, I would also just like to point out the long standing complaint many people have with A&F regarding the lack of diversity present in every aspect of the store. Not only is there a lack of diversity among the models, but also among the clothing and the employees. I have noticed that pretty much all of the tee-shirts sold by A&F have a giant A&F logo on them, usually followed by some random sport or obscure year, or the words athletic department. What is so significant about the years on the shirts? And does A&F actually have an athletic department? It might be a good idea. A&F could start an athletic department, and have sports teams that actually back up the ones on the shirts. It would promote a healthier America as well as getting up and getting outside. Just a suggestion.
I have also heard incidences of A&F stores firing or not hiring various employees or applicants because they do not fit the A&F “look.” This is much less than satisfactory. I would have expected more from a store than advertises all around cool casual-ness. Just so all parties involved in this letter are aware; the word casual is defined as free and easy, natural, unplanned, and marked by blithe unconcern. Trying to stuff all employees into a mold that fits the “look” of A&F doesn’t seem, to me, to be following along with the casual outlook of the company. Seems to be a lot more stuck-up and pompous in a silver-spoon-up-the-ass kind of way. A better way to accomplish this would be to just accept everybody for who they are and not hire only those who fit the mold, or can be made to fit. I’m not quite sure I understand this obsession A&F has with fitting everything into a specific and previously defined band of human.
Also, I was just wondering why there was a need for clothing that promotes the objectification of women and drinking. I would not call myself a feminist, but I am definitely all for equality. I mean, if A&F is going to make shirts that objectify women, why not objectify men too? There is a shirt for guys in on the A&F website that has a picture of a women’s lower body wearing underwear that says “I love College.” I have some ideas on what this shirt is trying to say, but I was just wondering what A&F was thinking the message of this shirt was. Why can’t A&F have a female equivalent to the shirt with a picture of a guy’s lower half in boxer briefs with “I Love College” written on his butt. Last I checked, both guys and girls “Love College.” Correct me if I‘m wrong, but I believe A&F’s target consumer is between the ages of 18 and 22. So, why is it that you have shirts for both genders promoting drinking, when the majority of the target audience is below the legal drinking age? Just doesn’t seem quite right. Why not promote activities the target age group can actually legally engage in? Just seems more practical.
Lastly, I would like to congratulate Abercrombie and Fitch on its induction into the 2010 Sweatshop Hall of Fame by the International Labor Rights Forum. I would just like to make it publically known that I strongly disagree with A&F’s activities at the Alta Mode Factory in the Philippines. Is there a legitimate reason for putting 100 of the union members on forced leave, other than the fact that they were exercising their right to unionize? Also, it would prove to be much better, especially for the workers and their families if A&F did not switch its production around from factory to factory so much. Stop being so afraid of commitment ad form some relationships with your workers. Without them, A&F is really nothing more than a false sense of casual and a severely misplaced moose logo. I was also wondering what the production quota was for this factory is. Supposedly it is set beyond human capacity, but I really wanted to hear both sides of the story, so I figured I’d give A&F a chance to weigh in on the matter. Also mentioned in Culture Jam was this idea of corporations as legal people. Personally, I do not recognize corporations as people, but if A&F wants to be seen as a legal person, maybe it should find its moral compass, and realize the wrong its doing and has been doing in places like the Alta Mode Factory, and stop.
That’s all. I look forward to hearing back from Abercrombie and Fitch. And please be rest assured, if I do not receive a reply, A&F will be receiving this email for the next 70 some odd years until a legitimate response is received. Thanks so much for your time.
Sarah Schipelliti
The Corporation:
One thing that surprised me from the film was the ability to patent all non-human forms of life. This is insane. A one-man company now has the ability to own a form of life. Way to make corporations able to play God. Soon, everything from batteries to the idea of a human will be patented, and the only thing left to patent will be the actual human itself. What happens when a company patents a disease, and then you unfortunately get that disease? Are you going to have to pay the company that owns your disease? Because if by some horrible chance I get a disease that’s patented by a company, I am sure as hell not paying them a single penny. If anything, they should be responsible for it and have to pay my hospital bills. People cannot own life. The only life you own should be, well your own. In all honesty, I don’t even think house pets are really owned. Yeah, you are paying for their food and providing them with shelter, but if my dog ran away, that’s his choice. I’d be sad, and miss him. But I don’t own his life. Nobody should be able to own any other life than their own. That’s my take on the whole situation.
One thing that really agitated me from the film was Monsanto’s control over the story on Milk that was trying to be aired by Fox journalists. Monsanto got involved only to cover up the true detriment that milk, especially milk with RBGH in it (so Monsanto’s milk), can cause. If there was nothing wrong with RBGH, then they wouldn’t have stepped in. I can’t believe that only a 90 day study on 30 rats, with most likely misreported findings (thank you Monsanto) is being used to justify the use of RBGH in milk for humans of all ages for all lengths of time. And I can’t believe the Fox producer guy just folded right under pressure from Monsanto and agreed to do anything for Monsanto. What really got me was when he said that “…the news is what we say it it…” Wow, way to make me loose faith in all news. No, wrong, its not what you say it is. I don’t care what law says that falsifying news is not against the law. Its against every moral law. Get a back bone, stick up for what’s right. Just because it’s a law doesn’t mean you should do it. As a news station, they have a responsibility to report honest and upfront news to the population. And as a company that presides over essentially all the food for America, Monsanto has a responsibility not to kill its consumers with its chemicals and “food” and hormones. It really bothers me that Sodexho is run by Monsanto. I want nothing to do with this corrupt company.
On significant item of new learning I had from this film was learning about the appalling involvement of American companies in Nazi Gemrany during the war. One such involvement was the creation of Fanta Orange. Fanta Orange was created by Coke so it could still make profits in Nazi Germany during the war…while people died. An IBM system was used by the Nazis in every concentration camp and railroad system used to get prisoners to the camps. It was punch card system where the cards needed to be printed out. And to print the punch cards out,the Nazis used machines that were leased out to them by IBM. Then the machines needed on site maintance done once a month. So IBM can’t say they didn’t know…They did. They even collected profits from it after the war. Its just atrocious and appalling and if I had no respect for Coke before, I don’t know what you would call my lack of respect for them now. It’s a shame they have exclusive pouring rights at UVM. Boycotting beverages sold at UVM? I think so…
One question I had during the second half of the film was is there any way to get Monsanto and Coke off of the UVM campus or is that impossible in the eyes of the administration?
I found the second half of the second half of the film to be more hopeful than the first 3/4ths. Even though I found the majority of the film to be, not depressing, but frustrating (not the film itself but the content), I really liked it. It made me want to go out and fix things and “jam” the corporate world so to speak. Actually, after last class, before this assignment was posted, I sent a letter to American Eagle about their new advertisement that says “What hot people wear” and “Hot people wear shorts” and how dumb it was and how I disagreed, except with much more polite and eloquent language. I’m waiting to hear back. If not, they too will be receiving emails from me for an indefinite amount of time. But then this assignment was posted and I have to admit I was quite excited about the excuse to write to another company and give them a piece of my mind. But the video opened my eyes to quite a few things that I had never known or heard of before, and I’m glad it did. As a side note, I thought that was amazing when Michael Moore brought the smokers to sing Christmas carols to the cigarette company.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Interesting...
article on facebook and privacy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/technology/17privacy.html?src=me&ref=technology
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/technology/17privacy.html?src=me&ref=technology
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Where is society's breaking point for stupidity and corruption spewed out by our 'beloved' corporations?!?!
Culture Jam, 73-136:
1. “This nice ripe, red tomato, a Flavr Savr,” is genetically speaking part flounder.” Really? This is crazy. We need to just grow tomatoes and other vegetables as vegetables. They are delicious the way they are and don’t need to be fiddled with. And of course, this technology is owned by Monsanto, who else? I also found the study done by UCLA on supermarket brussel sprouts to be quite interesting as well. The study found these brussels sprouts had almost no traces of vitamins. No wonder Americans suffer from obesity and malnutrition at the same time. We take perfectly good vegetables and genetically engineer them so they have no nutritional value whatsoever, and then we wonder why we are so sick. The drug companies then swoop in and feed us full of medications to compensate for our sicknesses that probably derived from the “food” we are being fed.
2. A quote from Robert Solow in The Global Economic Pyramid Scheme section absolutely blew my mind. He stated that “If it is easy to substitute other factors for natural resources, then …the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources, so exhaustion is just an event, not a catastrophe.” And this man is a Nobel laureate. It is this kind of thinking that is going to dig planet earth into an ever deepening hole. Even if we could physically get along without natural resources, which I don’t believe we could, the psychological effects on the human psyche, without any nature or natural resources would be a catastrophe in itself. Imagine a world without trees, or any other natural resource. Humans, although we seem to forget it, still need some sort of connection with nature to keep us sane. Take that away, and I don’t want to see what the world would be like then.
3. I also found another concept in this same section to be quite interesting. “Our current economic system cannot tolerate any reduction in consumption. We simply cannot deal with that idea. That is our rigidity. And that is the kind of rigidity that brings civilizations down. For a species to survive in nature they must be flexible and adaptable to the environment and the changing world around them. If they can’t change the environment will prevail, not the species. If humans can’t change the way we think and make the necessary changes to adapt to the rest of the world, then we are silly to think we will come out triumphant.
4. I also found the idea of how cars have “ …eroded our sense of village and the vitality of our neighborhoods” to be really interesting. The introduction of cars has decreased societies need for more face -to -face interaction. As the author put it, “ The arteries may be alive, but the beating heart of community is hard to find.”
5. I also agree that “…chronic TV watching is America’s number one mental health problem, and that a society in which citizens spend a quarter of their waking lives (more than four hours a day) in front of their sets is in serious need of shock therapy.” It’s so true. There is so much out in the world to actually experience. But since pretty much every aspect of life has been televised, people don’t feel the need to actually go out and see for themselves. They don’t know what they are missing. Furthermore, chronic television watching is probably one of the causes of so many of the other mental health problems in our society today.
My question is what is it going to take for people to wake up and smell the corruption and deception flowing right beneath their feet? Where is society’s breaking point for excessive nonsense?
The Corporation:
It’s crazy to follow the progression of the perception of the concept of a person, capital, and property. First slaves were considered capital and property . Then, finally with the fourteenth amendment they were considered to be people in the eyes of the government. Then over the next thirty years, everyone returned to a sort of capital and property with the recognitions of corporations as people. Its quite the nonsensical cycle. Frankly it needs to be stopped. I also found the part of the movie that delved into what kind of person a corporation to be ingenious. In my opinion, their diagnosis of a psychopath fits perfectly. Another issue brought up on the film that really bothers me is the putting of antibiotics into food. We then ingest those antibiotics through the food, however small the amount. This builds up over time, and thus, you have the birth of many bizarre antibiotic resistant strains. People get sicker and then need more medicine. People spend more money on medicine and treatments because they are sick and our economy looks like it has good progress. That should not work. Our GDP should not increase at the expense of peoples’ health. I also found this concept of the person behind the corporation not being as horrible a person as the corporation. It was interesting to hear a CEO of a company talk about how his values and beliefs are different from those he makes for the company because he has to. This seems as though we have created this sort of monster that is now beyond our control. Not good, not good. We cannot let this happen. If our economy and businesses are beyond dour control, we are at their mercy, and should not be. The creator should not become the victim. I also really appreciated the question, “Why does something gain wealth when a company puts a fence around it?” It’s interesting to think about. It goes along with why are designer bags and clothes so much more expensive? You are buying a name, nothing more. Also, there was one point in the film where a marketing woman said she was asked if what she was doing was ethical, and she replied that she didn’t know. Well, lets think about this. If you don’t know if it’s ethical or not, it probably means you really just don’t want to tell the truth. Which means that in all actuality what you are doing is not ethical, which means you should stop doing what your doing. The fact that this woman thought that by not admitting it was unethical made her actions less unethical, is just stupid and wrong. Also another person in the film made a comment along the lines of you should have faith in the corporate world because its always going to be there. This is the absolute wrong thinking a person could possible have. Why don’t you just roll over and die right now. You can’t change anything if you don’t think you can. The exact opposite of their thinking works just as well, it’s just a matter of which school of thought to choose. And I know that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but in my opinion, in this case, there is a right and a wrong school of thought; the latter being the correct one.
I think that most of the United States is not familiar with this film’s content because of a number of reasons. For one thing, corporations do a damn good job of covering their asses. They distract people with colors and material goods, and sales and fatty food, and slowly dumb them down over time to be more apt to buy into their advertisements for more stuff. Also, if people are content in how they are living, they aren’t going to seek out problems with their source of pleasure. Corporations are providing people with stuff to satisfy their blind consumer needs. You can’t bite the hand that feeds you, never mind stop to breathe, when the hand that feeds you is forcefully shoving food down your throat. I think if more people knew about the content of this film and acted on it together, a lot more could be accomplished than a few people knowing about this information, and an even fewer amount having the guts to independently act on this information. There is strength in numbers, and without numbers, all you got is a few smart, determined, outside –of-the –box-thinking people without the support to get the ball rolling.
1. “This nice ripe, red tomato, a Flavr Savr,” is genetically speaking part flounder.” Really? This is crazy. We need to just grow tomatoes and other vegetables as vegetables. They are delicious the way they are and don’t need to be fiddled with. And of course, this technology is owned by Monsanto, who else? I also found the study done by UCLA on supermarket brussel sprouts to be quite interesting as well. The study found these brussels sprouts had almost no traces of vitamins. No wonder Americans suffer from obesity and malnutrition at the same time. We take perfectly good vegetables and genetically engineer them so they have no nutritional value whatsoever, and then we wonder why we are so sick. The drug companies then swoop in and feed us full of medications to compensate for our sicknesses that probably derived from the “food” we are being fed.
2. A quote from Robert Solow in The Global Economic Pyramid Scheme section absolutely blew my mind. He stated that “If it is easy to substitute other factors for natural resources, then …the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources, so exhaustion is just an event, not a catastrophe.” And this man is a Nobel laureate. It is this kind of thinking that is going to dig planet earth into an ever deepening hole. Even if we could physically get along without natural resources, which I don’t believe we could, the psychological effects on the human psyche, without any nature or natural resources would be a catastrophe in itself. Imagine a world without trees, or any other natural resource. Humans, although we seem to forget it, still need some sort of connection with nature to keep us sane. Take that away, and I don’t want to see what the world would be like then.
3. I also found another concept in this same section to be quite interesting. “Our current economic system cannot tolerate any reduction in consumption. We simply cannot deal with that idea. That is our rigidity. And that is the kind of rigidity that brings civilizations down. For a species to survive in nature they must be flexible and adaptable to the environment and the changing world around them. If they can’t change the environment will prevail, not the species. If humans can’t change the way we think and make the necessary changes to adapt to the rest of the world, then we are silly to think we will come out triumphant.
4. I also found the idea of how cars have “ …eroded our sense of village and the vitality of our neighborhoods” to be really interesting. The introduction of cars has decreased societies need for more face -to -face interaction. As the author put it, “ The arteries may be alive, but the beating heart of community is hard to find.”
5. I also agree that “…chronic TV watching is America’s number one mental health problem, and that a society in which citizens spend a quarter of their waking lives (more than four hours a day) in front of their sets is in serious need of shock therapy.” It’s so true. There is so much out in the world to actually experience. But since pretty much every aspect of life has been televised, people don’t feel the need to actually go out and see for themselves. They don’t know what they are missing. Furthermore, chronic television watching is probably one of the causes of so many of the other mental health problems in our society today.
My question is what is it going to take for people to wake up and smell the corruption and deception flowing right beneath their feet? Where is society’s breaking point for excessive nonsense?
The Corporation:
It’s crazy to follow the progression of the perception of the concept of a person, capital, and property. First slaves were considered capital and property . Then, finally with the fourteenth amendment they were considered to be people in the eyes of the government. Then over the next thirty years, everyone returned to a sort of capital and property with the recognitions of corporations as people. Its quite the nonsensical cycle. Frankly it needs to be stopped. I also found the part of the movie that delved into what kind of person a corporation to be ingenious. In my opinion, their diagnosis of a psychopath fits perfectly. Another issue brought up on the film that really bothers me is the putting of antibiotics into food. We then ingest those antibiotics through the food, however small the amount. This builds up over time, and thus, you have the birth of many bizarre antibiotic resistant strains. People get sicker and then need more medicine. People spend more money on medicine and treatments because they are sick and our economy looks like it has good progress. That should not work. Our GDP should not increase at the expense of peoples’ health. I also found this concept of the person behind the corporation not being as horrible a person as the corporation. It was interesting to hear a CEO of a company talk about how his values and beliefs are different from those he makes for the company because he has to. This seems as though we have created this sort of monster that is now beyond our control. Not good, not good. We cannot let this happen. If our economy and businesses are beyond dour control, we are at their mercy, and should not be. The creator should not become the victim. I also really appreciated the question, “Why does something gain wealth when a company puts a fence around it?” It’s interesting to think about. It goes along with why are designer bags and clothes so much more expensive? You are buying a name, nothing more. Also, there was one point in the film where a marketing woman said she was asked if what she was doing was ethical, and she replied that she didn’t know. Well, lets think about this. If you don’t know if it’s ethical or not, it probably means you really just don’t want to tell the truth. Which means that in all actuality what you are doing is not ethical, which means you should stop doing what your doing. The fact that this woman thought that by not admitting it was unethical made her actions less unethical, is just stupid and wrong. Also another person in the film made a comment along the lines of you should have faith in the corporate world because its always going to be there. This is the absolute wrong thinking a person could possible have. Why don’t you just roll over and die right now. You can’t change anything if you don’t think you can. The exact opposite of their thinking works just as well, it’s just a matter of which school of thought to choose. And I know that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but in my opinion, in this case, there is a right and a wrong school of thought; the latter being the correct one.
I think that most of the United States is not familiar with this film’s content because of a number of reasons. For one thing, corporations do a damn good job of covering their asses. They distract people with colors and material goods, and sales and fatty food, and slowly dumb them down over time to be more apt to buy into their advertisements for more stuff. Also, if people are content in how they are living, they aren’t going to seek out problems with their source of pleasure. Corporations are providing people with stuff to satisfy their blind consumer needs. You can’t bite the hand that feeds you, never mind stop to breathe, when the hand that feeds you is forcefully shoving food down your throat. I think if more people knew about the content of this film and acted on it together, a lot more could be accomplished than a few people knowing about this information, and an even fewer amount having the guts to independently act on this information. There is strength in numbers, and without numbers, all you got is a few smart, determined, outside –of-the –box-thinking people without the support to get the ball rolling.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Culture Jam 3-71
I found this reading quite interesting. In reference to the camping trip scenario mentioned in the beginning, its scary but true. Sadly enough, I can see the beginning stages of this in my sister. She would rather sit on the beach and text people not at the beach than engage in any other beach type activity. It's annoying as anything... especially since she is younger than me, and should not appear so lethargic and technology obsessed when it comes to exploring the outdoors. Its sad, really. I thought the idea of the kids in the camping scenario going through a loss of "those selves that, when disconnected from the urban data stream, cease to function." As much as I would like to say this isn't true, a part of me thinks that if this hasn't already arrived, it is surely on its way.
I also really liked that part about the earth being a part of our bodies. "If the earth felt less like something out there and more like an extension of our bodies, we'd care for it like kin...If the self is expanded to include the natural world, behavior leading to destruction of this world will be experienced as self-destruction." This statement takes on a very holistic, nature oriented outlook on the world, which I personally think would only benefit our society. "When you cut off the flow of nature into people's lives, the spirit dies." So true, so true. All in all, I really enjoyed the Mood Disorders section.
I also found the Ecology of the mind section to be really interesting as well. It's so true though, if you look at the numbers, it seems as though America is full of people who are just mentally falling apart. "Americans are turning into annoyingly self-absorbed hypochondriacs." This is not to say all mental disorders are self created. I do think that there are some people who do have certain mental disorders, but the shear volume of people in this country alone and the range and span or disorders is just unfathomable, and not to mention unnecessary. I do believe that many of the people who are diagnosed with certain mental disorders could just as easily be helped with a lifestyle change as with psychological help or psychological medications. People are so quick to assume a drug will fix a problem they seem to have based on the symptoms just listed off to them from the television screen. When in reality getting up off the couch and getting some endorphins flowing may better relieve the depression or restless leg syndrome that may seem to be creeping up on them.
This idea of suffering caused by plentitude is also quite interesting. I wouldn't call this type of suffering as intense as the physical suffering caused by for example, malnutrition. But I do think that on some level this plentitude suffering may have some truth to it. People living shallow and meaningless lives and never knowing true satisfaction or happiness. The more things we have the less substance our lives seem to have, so to compensate for the less in out lives, we buy more, which in turn results in less. Its a vicious cycle, although no where near the level of suffering endured by those with the opposite of plentitude.
I also thought the noise section was quite interesting. One part of this section that really stuck out to me was the idea that "quiet may be to a healthy mind what clean air and water and a chemical-free diet are to a healthy body." I also really liked the the poet Marianne Moore's idea that the "deepest feeling always shows itself in silence." It's true, you can really understand how your feeling and decipher what you are thinking so much better when it's quiet and it's just you and your mind.
The jolts section was also quite interesting, it left me with the feeling that our instincts are being visually used and abused.
I thought the loss of infodiversity was also really interesting. The concept that "lack of diversity leads to inefficiency and failure...and the loss of one language, tradition, or heritage-or the forgetting of one good idea is as a big a loss to future generations as a biological species going extinct" really holds a lot of weight, and I don't think it should be taken lightly.
I also liked the Manchurian consumer section as well. The last part of this section really made me kind of step back and "take stock of my life". Would an anthropologist be able to assemble a portrait of my personality and would that portrait be " an original or a type?" It really made me wonder, and I'm still not quite sure, although I would hope the portrait would be an original one, but I'm not quite sure.
One part of the The Cult You're In section that stood out for me was that "We have been recruited into roles and behavior patterns we did not consciously choose."
In The End of The American Dream, the urban legend wedding sewage disaster example, however gross, I can see the parallels. Also, the idea of the American dream being so seductive that people just keep on dreaming is so true. People would rather just go on blindly living and ignore everything around them.
I also really liked that part about the earth being a part of our bodies. "If the earth felt less like something out there and more like an extension of our bodies, we'd care for it like kin...If the self is expanded to include the natural world, behavior leading to destruction of this world will be experienced as self-destruction." This statement takes on a very holistic, nature oriented outlook on the world, which I personally think would only benefit our society. "When you cut off the flow of nature into people's lives, the spirit dies." So true, so true. All in all, I really enjoyed the Mood Disorders section.
I also found the Ecology of the mind section to be really interesting as well. It's so true though, if you look at the numbers, it seems as though America is full of people who are just mentally falling apart. "Americans are turning into annoyingly self-absorbed hypochondriacs." This is not to say all mental disorders are self created. I do think that there are some people who do have certain mental disorders, but the shear volume of people in this country alone and the range and span or disorders is just unfathomable, and not to mention unnecessary. I do believe that many of the people who are diagnosed with certain mental disorders could just as easily be helped with a lifestyle change as with psychological help or psychological medications. People are so quick to assume a drug will fix a problem they seem to have based on the symptoms just listed off to them from the television screen. When in reality getting up off the couch and getting some endorphins flowing may better relieve the depression or restless leg syndrome that may seem to be creeping up on them.
This idea of suffering caused by plentitude is also quite interesting. I wouldn't call this type of suffering as intense as the physical suffering caused by for example, malnutrition. But I do think that on some level this plentitude suffering may have some truth to it. People living shallow and meaningless lives and never knowing true satisfaction or happiness. The more things we have the less substance our lives seem to have, so to compensate for the less in out lives, we buy more, which in turn results in less. Its a vicious cycle, although no where near the level of suffering endured by those with the opposite of plentitude.
I also thought the noise section was quite interesting. One part of this section that really stuck out to me was the idea that "quiet may be to a healthy mind what clean air and water and a chemical-free diet are to a healthy body." I also really liked the the poet Marianne Moore's idea that the "deepest feeling always shows itself in silence." It's true, you can really understand how your feeling and decipher what you are thinking so much better when it's quiet and it's just you and your mind.
The jolts section was also quite interesting, it left me with the feeling that our instincts are being visually used and abused.
I thought the loss of infodiversity was also really interesting. The concept that "lack of diversity leads to inefficiency and failure...and the loss of one language, tradition, or heritage-or the forgetting of one good idea is as a big a loss to future generations as a biological species going extinct" really holds a lot of weight, and I don't think it should be taken lightly.
I also liked the Manchurian consumer section as well. The last part of this section really made me kind of step back and "take stock of my life". Would an anthropologist be able to assemble a portrait of my personality and would that portrait be " an original or a type?" It really made me wonder, and I'm still not quite sure, although I would hope the portrait would be an original one, but I'm not quite sure.
One part of the The Cult You're In section that stood out for me was that "We have been recruited into roles and behavior patterns we did not consciously choose."
In The End of The American Dream, the urban legend wedding sewage disaster example, however gross, I can see the parallels. Also, the idea of the American dream being so seductive that people just keep on dreaming is so true. People would rather just go on blindly living and ignore everything around them.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Values Not For Sale
Facebook:
Thesis: Facebook is a business, under the clever disguise of a social networking site, that is slowly taking a toll on the human relationship.
Agree:
I agree, that Facebook is “…profoundly uncreative.” The article states that it just “…mediates in relationships that were happening anyway.” All the while providing advertising agencies yet another way to reach the consumer. It’s true, if you think about it. Although I use Facebook and admit that it can come in quite handy when trying to make contact with someone you would otherwise not be able to, Facebook makes absolutely nothing. It’s just a space out in the wide-open internet for you to manage your relationships visually. Nothing more.
I also agree that Facebook is/has become quite the business (even though I don’t believe that Facebook is “…some kind of extension of the American imperialist programme…”) I had no idea the shear volume of money that Facebook was producing in investments and the like. A few people making butt loads of money off of the usage of what is essentially a product, however uncreative, by the masses…yup, sounds like a business to me.
I also agree that “…’share’ is Facebook speak for ‘advertise’.” That is quite the genius statement.
Disagree:
I disagree that Facebook is an ideologically motivated totalitarian regime. That seems a little harsh and slightly over the top. I also wouldn’t give it that much credit. I could be wrong, but I believe the people managing the site don’t do much but make occasional changes to the program hear and there. I believe it’s sort of a Twitter-esque situation where it is made into what it is today by its users. It’s only as much of a totalitarian regime as you let it be. If you let it completely consume your life, than yes maybe. But I think depending on how one uses it determines its level of totalitarianism regime-ness. Although I do not agree with a lot of what happens with Facebook, and the whole privacy issue.
I also disagree with Thiel’s philosophy of life. He ascribes to Thomas Hobbes view of life as being “nasty, brutish, and short.” He further feels that we should work towards a new virtual world where we have conquered nature…I’m going to have to dis agree 100% with this guy. Life is not nasty, brutish, and short. Its actually beautiful and the shortness of it makes one appreciate it ever so more (and last I checked, 80 or so years is quite a decent amount of time). And we should never want to conquer nature. It is not ours for the conquering. Furthermore, investing in immortality, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering are probably the worst, most dangerous, quality-of life-threatening things one could possible invest in, besides perhaps terrorism and death.
The Making of a Media Literate World:
I found this article to be quite interesting. Especially the idea of who or what owns the media that we are consuming. I liked George Gerbner’s point about how “…whoever is telling the stories within a culture has enormous power to shape how people act, think and buy”. And now since the “people” telling the stories are not actually people, but rather large corporations, our society is being run not by the people, but by the corporations. We are being sold our ideals and values through the media. I also like how Gerbner said that the people who do have stories to tell aren’t telling them because they are being drowned out by the distant conglomerates “…that have little to tell and everything to sell.”
I also thought it was great how towards the end of the article it talked about a hope for the future where the people will make the media instead of just blindly absorbing the media that is fed to us. It’s sort of a take-charge kind of message. I like it. We should be promoting our own values and ideals and beliefs, not accepting those values a company wants us to accept so they can later increase their profit….my values are not for sale, thank you very much.
Killing Us Softly:
-Advertising sells more than products. It sells values, images, concepts of love and sexuality, and of normalcy. It tells us who we are and who we should be. In this way, if they sell us what is normal, than they can always advertise products to sell along with this idea of normalcy. For them it’s a win-win situation. Sell us the concept, and then sell the product to “help” the consumer get closer to achieving this concept.
-Its bad enough that models are retouched so much so that as the film said, they have no pores, but now they have computer generated models. As if the ideal of beauty being sold was unreachable before, now even the basis of the picture isn’t even a real woman.
-I find the concept of turning people into things to be quite interesting. The film talked about how, in this case, females are turned onto/portrayed as things. The film then goes onto say that turning a human being into a thing is usually the first step towards justifying violence against that person. It was also crazy with what happens with women of color who are portrayed as animals and so called less-than-human. It’s just not right.
-I also found it kind of interesting how one aspect of the female anatomy can be used to sell such a wide variety of products. Who would have thought breasts would be a good advertising strategy for fishing line?
-I also found it interesting the concept of silencing women, where women were often portrayed with their mouths covered, or messages that implies that women should be quiet and passive and let their body do the talking and keep their mouths shut. And when women are portrayed with power, it is often with masculine power or the power is silly and trivial, such as using the men’s bathroom, ooohhh, how powerful.
-Sex is being used to sell everything from rice to jeans. And when one looks at the world of advertising, it appears to be the most important aspect of life, when really, its not the only thing out there. What continues to confuse me are the clothing advertisements where the people are, oh I don’t know, not clothed?!? And bondage being used to sell neck-ties…really? Come on people.
Thesis: Facebook is a business, under the clever disguise of a social networking site, that is slowly taking a toll on the human relationship.
Agree:
I agree, that Facebook is “…profoundly uncreative.” The article states that it just “…mediates in relationships that were happening anyway.” All the while providing advertising agencies yet another way to reach the consumer. It’s true, if you think about it. Although I use Facebook and admit that it can come in quite handy when trying to make contact with someone you would otherwise not be able to, Facebook makes absolutely nothing. It’s just a space out in the wide-open internet for you to manage your relationships visually. Nothing more.
I also agree that Facebook is/has become quite the business (even though I don’t believe that Facebook is “…some kind of extension of the American imperialist programme…”) I had no idea the shear volume of money that Facebook was producing in investments and the like. A few people making butt loads of money off of the usage of what is essentially a product, however uncreative, by the masses…yup, sounds like a business to me.
I also agree that “…’share’ is Facebook speak for ‘advertise’.” That is quite the genius statement.
Disagree:
I disagree that Facebook is an ideologically motivated totalitarian regime. That seems a little harsh and slightly over the top. I also wouldn’t give it that much credit. I could be wrong, but I believe the people managing the site don’t do much but make occasional changes to the program hear and there. I believe it’s sort of a Twitter-esque situation where it is made into what it is today by its users. It’s only as much of a totalitarian regime as you let it be. If you let it completely consume your life, than yes maybe. But I think depending on how one uses it determines its level of totalitarianism regime-ness. Although I do not agree with a lot of what happens with Facebook, and the whole privacy issue.
I also disagree with Thiel’s philosophy of life. He ascribes to Thomas Hobbes view of life as being “nasty, brutish, and short.” He further feels that we should work towards a new virtual world where we have conquered nature…I’m going to have to dis agree 100% with this guy. Life is not nasty, brutish, and short. Its actually beautiful and the shortness of it makes one appreciate it ever so more (and last I checked, 80 or so years is quite a decent amount of time). And we should never want to conquer nature. It is not ours for the conquering. Furthermore, investing in immortality, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering are probably the worst, most dangerous, quality-of life-threatening things one could possible invest in, besides perhaps terrorism and death.
The Making of a Media Literate World:
I found this article to be quite interesting. Especially the idea of who or what owns the media that we are consuming. I liked George Gerbner’s point about how “…whoever is telling the stories within a culture has enormous power to shape how people act, think and buy”. And now since the “people” telling the stories are not actually people, but rather large corporations, our society is being run not by the people, but by the corporations. We are being sold our ideals and values through the media. I also like how Gerbner said that the people who do have stories to tell aren’t telling them because they are being drowned out by the distant conglomerates “…that have little to tell and everything to sell.”
I also thought it was great how towards the end of the article it talked about a hope for the future where the people will make the media instead of just blindly absorbing the media that is fed to us. It’s sort of a take-charge kind of message. I like it. We should be promoting our own values and ideals and beliefs, not accepting those values a company wants us to accept so they can later increase their profit….my values are not for sale, thank you very much.
Killing Us Softly:
-Advertising sells more than products. It sells values, images, concepts of love and sexuality, and of normalcy. It tells us who we are and who we should be. In this way, if they sell us what is normal, than they can always advertise products to sell along with this idea of normalcy. For them it’s a win-win situation. Sell us the concept, and then sell the product to “help” the consumer get closer to achieving this concept.
-Its bad enough that models are retouched so much so that as the film said, they have no pores, but now they have computer generated models. As if the ideal of beauty being sold was unreachable before, now even the basis of the picture isn’t even a real woman.
-I find the concept of turning people into things to be quite interesting. The film talked about how, in this case, females are turned onto/portrayed as things. The film then goes onto say that turning a human being into a thing is usually the first step towards justifying violence against that person. It was also crazy with what happens with women of color who are portrayed as animals and so called less-than-human. It’s just not right.
-I also found it kind of interesting how one aspect of the female anatomy can be used to sell such a wide variety of products. Who would have thought breasts would be a good advertising strategy for fishing line?
-I also found it interesting the concept of silencing women, where women were often portrayed with their mouths covered, or messages that implies that women should be quiet and passive and let their body do the talking and keep their mouths shut. And when women are portrayed with power, it is often with masculine power or the power is silly and trivial, such as using the men’s bathroom, ooohhh, how powerful.
-Sex is being used to sell everything from rice to jeans. And when one looks at the world of advertising, it appears to be the most important aspect of life, when really, its not the only thing out there. What continues to confuse me are the clothing advertisements where the people are, oh I don’t know, not clothed?!? And bondage being used to sell neck-ties…really? Come on people.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Ad Nauseam Part 5 and 6, Twitter, and Merchants of Cool
Ad Nauseam: Part 5
One of the things I found really interesting in part five was the advertisements that made use of famous quotations from deceased icons. The book gave quite a few examples, one of which was a quote by Einstein that was used in ads for Apple Computers, Nikon cameras, and the like. The quote read, “The trite objects of human efforts-possessions, outward success, luxury- have always seemed to me contemptible.” Maybe they just don’t know what the word contemptible means or they hope the consumer doesn’t know what it means, but it sounds to me like they insulted themselves. In my opinion, if they were trying to associate themselves with the great Einstein, they certainly picked the wrong quote.
I found the concept of subliminal messages in advertising to be quite… interesting, as well. I do think that advertising companies engage in what could be considered sneaky activities, but the word sex embedded into the dough molds at the Ritz Cracker factories? Sex orgy and bestiality in a clam plate placemat? Really? I’m going to have to disagree with Wilson Brian Key on this one. What, no one else has the ability to pick up on these things but him? Has he been bestowed with some great subliminal message debunking power that none of us happened to get? Furthermore, I understand that advertisements play on our emotions and basic human desires and what have you, but I can honestly say without a doubt in my mind that a donkey licking a long mustached man does not make me want to by a clam plate… Not even a little bit. I don’t think the whole concept of subliminal messages is to be disregarded, but the way Key interprets the concept just don’t seem quite feasible to me.
Upon reading the Idiot Consumer section, I felt somewhat offended by the advertising companies. “Stupid people…hogs…illogical mess…” Really? I feel like they should be describing themselves rather than the masses of people that make up the consumer body. I guess advertising is important for our economy and keeps it up on its feet, but if you think about it, those ad companies are the stupid ones. Using Kurt Cobain in an advertisement. What did they think was going to happen? They (as a generalization) just sound like an office of blundering idiots running around trying to be the first to use subliminal messages and then not because they are supposedly ineffective. And then be the first to advertise to the supposed fourteen-year-old consumer mind of the thirty year old adult, etc…
My question is what’s next? Advertising has evolved quite a bit over the years to bring it to the point we are at today. So we’ve gone through the subliminal message scare, and now there are apparently special codes that will make us buy more things. What else can they throw at us? (As a side note, the PANEXA ad was absolutely hysterical!!)
Ad Nauseam: Part 6
In part six, one of the quotes that really stuck out for me was when they said, “Public outrage has a shelf life: people can protest an issue for only so long before surrendering and getting on with their lives.” Sadly, it’s true. The majority of people are only fired up about something so long as it’s being covered in the news. Other than that, all you’ve got is the minority vote. For the vast majority of the people, their beliefs and passions fluctuate with what the media tells them they should be outraged about. It’s sad, really.
It’s crazy that none of the people who had foreign objects appear in their shopping carts did anything about it. Are people just blindly walking through life, not really giving any care to what they spend their hard earned money on? One would have thought that at least one person would have questioned the object. I would hope that I wouldn’t purchase an obscure item such as a meat thermometer just because it happened to be in my cart.
The credit card prank, although quite funny, was also appalling on the part of the credit card companies. No wonder so many people’s identities get stolen. The fact that he actually got away with an actual balance by completely BS-ing his mother’s maiden name and mumbling is amazing in a scary kind of way. Then the operator told him his mother’s maiden name! As if pretending to understand a mumble wasn’t bad enough, let’s just inform the kind gentleman of what he failed to be able to come up with the first time, shall we?
My question is how do we get more people to socialize in ways that don’t “…center around consuming stuff…”? I think the pranks, and “grocery store research,” if you will, are great. However silly it might be, at least people are thinking outside the box and using the brains they have been given by whatever higher force(s) they may answer to. Versus, being fed how to live and how you should live by the media and advertisements etc… So advertising has successfully created blind consumers, how do we deconstruct this and resurrect the independent thinkers?
Twitter:
Thesis:
Twitter, although it seemed to have some negative connotations is actually a social platform for people to not only feel connected to others but also take advantage of various discussions and educational conversations but also to organize and implement social, political, and intellectual change.
Agree:
I definitely agree that “…a whole new empire of distraction has opened up.” People can now continuously text other people they aren’t with while supposedly hanging out with the people they are with as they compulsively check Facebook, and Twitter one their phones. At the same time they can surf the web ,while watching TV, just to throw in some more media before the day ends, only to wake up the next day and the first thing they do: locate phone…www.twitter.com…just woke up, going to shower and then have breakfast! P-lease, we have enough media connections. Twitter is just one more thing for people to be ridiculously obsessed with.
I also agree that Successful businesses will have millions of Twitter followers, and will most definitely pay good money attract them. I’m not sure I see this as a good thing though. It’s just one more way for people to be reached by the advertising agencies. As if people aren’t connected enough to them. It’s just one more way that advertising is becoming part of our atmosphere, as was mentioned in The Persuaders.
Disagree:
I disagree with the amount of praise and accomplishment that is given to the concept of end-user innovation with regard to Twitter. Yeah, great, so we now have another way to talk to each other and snoop into each other’s lives. Wow, somebody had the genius idea of creating the ‘hashtag’ to better organize Twitter conversations and now lots of Twitter users do it, it’s called a trend. But have they cured a disease etc..? No, I don’t think so. Obviously communication is not a problem that needs to be solved. We’ve solved it already, at least six times. We can communicate in pretty much every form except maybe telepathy, depending on who you talk to. So leave communication methods alone for a while. Focus on something more important to society. Focus this end-user innovation into something more productive. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems like a waste of this so-called wealth of innovation that America supposedly has as demonstrated by Twitter.
I also disagree with this whole concept of ‘following’ people. First of all, it’s kind of creepy. Everybody ‘follows’ everybody else. It creates a society of followers; where are the leaders? Last I heard, there was no lead button on Twitter. Yes, it is just a word, but as far as I can see, it can’t help the human psyche any.
Relationship with Twitter:
I do not have a Twitter account. I do however, have a Facebook, and in all honesty, it can be kind of annoying. To be honest, the only reason I have a Facebook is because senior year of high school my best friend convinced me that it was a good idea and set it up for me. I can definitely say that if Facebook somehow exploded, I wouldn’t miss it, not even a little bit. But one social networking site, or whatever you’d like to call it, is enough for me. Between using the phone, texting, emailing, facebooking etc… I feel overly connected. If I were to get a Twitter account, something else would have to go, and at the moment I don’t see it necessary to put the time into actually get the account and get rid of something else. My life is much better spent elsewhere.
Merchants Of Cool:
1. Seventy five percent of teens have a television in their room, (is this really necessary?!?!) and one third have a personal computer.
2. Paradox of cool hunting: It kills what it finds. As soon as marketers discover cool, it stops being cool. There is no solution. By discovering cool you force it to move on to the next thing, only to be discovered again.
3. It’s called Market research, not human or people research. This begs the question, is more about understanding who people are as a customer, versus understanding who someone is as a person. Advertising companies listen to the people not so they can give them what they want, but so they can give them what they want them to have.
4. “The most advanced form of marketing today comes in the form of a three hundred pound body slam…professional wrestling.”
5. TV shows kept getting edgier and edgier, channels keep trying to one up the other on the sex scale to keep up with the demand of the audience. “Teenagers are consumed with sex.” “Sex is part of teens lives, so it should be portrayed in the media too.” The media sells kids an image of what they should be like, the kids then mirror that, and the media is there to see it. Feedback loop.
One of the things I found really interesting in part five was the advertisements that made use of famous quotations from deceased icons. The book gave quite a few examples, one of which was a quote by Einstein that was used in ads for Apple Computers, Nikon cameras, and the like. The quote read, “The trite objects of human efforts-possessions, outward success, luxury- have always seemed to me contemptible.” Maybe they just don’t know what the word contemptible means or they hope the consumer doesn’t know what it means, but it sounds to me like they insulted themselves. In my opinion, if they were trying to associate themselves with the great Einstein, they certainly picked the wrong quote.
I found the concept of subliminal messages in advertising to be quite… interesting, as well. I do think that advertising companies engage in what could be considered sneaky activities, but the word sex embedded into the dough molds at the Ritz Cracker factories? Sex orgy and bestiality in a clam plate placemat? Really? I’m going to have to disagree with Wilson Brian Key on this one. What, no one else has the ability to pick up on these things but him? Has he been bestowed with some great subliminal message debunking power that none of us happened to get? Furthermore, I understand that advertisements play on our emotions and basic human desires and what have you, but I can honestly say without a doubt in my mind that a donkey licking a long mustached man does not make me want to by a clam plate… Not even a little bit. I don’t think the whole concept of subliminal messages is to be disregarded, but the way Key interprets the concept just don’t seem quite feasible to me.
Upon reading the Idiot Consumer section, I felt somewhat offended by the advertising companies. “Stupid people…hogs…illogical mess…” Really? I feel like they should be describing themselves rather than the masses of people that make up the consumer body. I guess advertising is important for our economy and keeps it up on its feet, but if you think about it, those ad companies are the stupid ones. Using Kurt Cobain in an advertisement. What did they think was going to happen? They (as a generalization) just sound like an office of blundering idiots running around trying to be the first to use subliminal messages and then not because they are supposedly ineffective. And then be the first to advertise to the supposed fourteen-year-old consumer mind of the thirty year old adult, etc…
My question is what’s next? Advertising has evolved quite a bit over the years to bring it to the point we are at today. So we’ve gone through the subliminal message scare, and now there are apparently special codes that will make us buy more things. What else can they throw at us? (As a side note, the PANEXA ad was absolutely hysterical!!)
Ad Nauseam: Part 6
In part six, one of the quotes that really stuck out for me was when they said, “Public outrage has a shelf life: people can protest an issue for only so long before surrendering and getting on with their lives.” Sadly, it’s true. The majority of people are only fired up about something so long as it’s being covered in the news. Other than that, all you’ve got is the minority vote. For the vast majority of the people, their beliefs and passions fluctuate with what the media tells them they should be outraged about. It’s sad, really.
It’s crazy that none of the people who had foreign objects appear in their shopping carts did anything about it. Are people just blindly walking through life, not really giving any care to what they spend their hard earned money on? One would have thought that at least one person would have questioned the object. I would hope that I wouldn’t purchase an obscure item such as a meat thermometer just because it happened to be in my cart.
The credit card prank, although quite funny, was also appalling on the part of the credit card companies. No wonder so many people’s identities get stolen. The fact that he actually got away with an actual balance by completely BS-ing his mother’s maiden name and mumbling is amazing in a scary kind of way. Then the operator told him his mother’s maiden name! As if pretending to understand a mumble wasn’t bad enough, let’s just inform the kind gentleman of what he failed to be able to come up with the first time, shall we?
My question is how do we get more people to socialize in ways that don’t “…center around consuming stuff…”? I think the pranks, and “grocery store research,” if you will, are great. However silly it might be, at least people are thinking outside the box and using the brains they have been given by whatever higher force(s) they may answer to. Versus, being fed how to live and how you should live by the media and advertisements etc… So advertising has successfully created blind consumers, how do we deconstruct this and resurrect the independent thinkers?
Twitter:
Thesis:
Twitter, although it seemed to have some negative connotations is actually a social platform for people to not only feel connected to others but also take advantage of various discussions and educational conversations but also to organize and implement social, political, and intellectual change.
Agree:
I definitely agree that “…a whole new empire of distraction has opened up.” People can now continuously text other people they aren’t with while supposedly hanging out with the people they are with as they compulsively check Facebook, and Twitter one their phones. At the same time they can surf the web ,while watching TV, just to throw in some more media before the day ends, only to wake up the next day and the first thing they do: locate phone…www.twitter.com…just woke up, going to shower and then have breakfast! P-lease, we have enough media connections. Twitter is just one more thing for people to be ridiculously obsessed with.
I also agree that Successful businesses will have millions of Twitter followers, and will most definitely pay good money attract them. I’m not sure I see this as a good thing though. It’s just one more way for people to be reached by the advertising agencies. As if people aren’t connected enough to them. It’s just one more way that advertising is becoming part of our atmosphere, as was mentioned in The Persuaders.
Disagree:
I disagree with the amount of praise and accomplishment that is given to the concept of end-user innovation with regard to Twitter. Yeah, great, so we now have another way to talk to each other and snoop into each other’s lives. Wow, somebody had the genius idea of creating the ‘hashtag’ to better organize Twitter conversations and now lots of Twitter users do it, it’s called a trend. But have they cured a disease etc..? No, I don’t think so. Obviously communication is not a problem that needs to be solved. We’ve solved it already, at least six times. We can communicate in pretty much every form except maybe telepathy, depending on who you talk to. So leave communication methods alone for a while. Focus on something more important to society. Focus this end-user innovation into something more productive. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems like a waste of this so-called wealth of innovation that America supposedly has as demonstrated by Twitter.
I also disagree with this whole concept of ‘following’ people. First of all, it’s kind of creepy. Everybody ‘follows’ everybody else. It creates a society of followers; where are the leaders? Last I heard, there was no lead button on Twitter. Yes, it is just a word, but as far as I can see, it can’t help the human psyche any.
Relationship with Twitter:
I do not have a Twitter account. I do however, have a Facebook, and in all honesty, it can be kind of annoying. To be honest, the only reason I have a Facebook is because senior year of high school my best friend convinced me that it was a good idea and set it up for me. I can definitely say that if Facebook somehow exploded, I wouldn’t miss it, not even a little bit. But one social networking site, or whatever you’d like to call it, is enough for me. Between using the phone, texting, emailing, facebooking etc… I feel overly connected. If I were to get a Twitter account, something else would have to go, and at the moment I don’t see it necessary to put the time into actually get the account and get rid of something else. My life is much better spent elsewhere.
Merchants Of Cool:
1. Seventy five percent of teens have a television in their room, (is this really necessary?!?!) and one third have a personal computer.
2. Paradox of cool hunting: It kills what it finds. As soon as marketers discover cool, it stops being cool. There is no solution. By discovering cool you force it to move on to the next thing, only to be discovered again.
3. It’s called Market research, not human or people research. This begs the question, is more about understanding who people are as a customer, versus understanding who someone is as a person. Advertising companies listen to the people not so they can give them what they want, but so they can give them what they want them to have.
4. “The most advanced form of marketing today comes in the form of a three hundred pound body slam…professional wrestling.”
5. TV shows kept getting edgier and edgier, channels keep trying to one up the other on the sex scale to keep up with the demand of the audience. “Teenagers are consumed with sex.” “Sex is part of teens lives, so it should be portrayed in the media too.” The media sells kids an image of what they should be like, the kids then mirror that, and the media is there to see it. Feedback loop.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Ad Nauseam Parts 3 and 4, Is Google Making us Smarter?, and The Persuaders...
Ad Nauseam:Parts 3 and 4
What struck me as quite interesting was a the chapter in section 3 titled Shopping for Cancer. Part of this chapter talked about the flu season and what the book referred to as the flu economy. It blows my mind that the CEO of Walgreens told some of the people attending a meeting that if they were sick, they should go to highly populated areas to spread their germs. What is this world coming to where companies go out and infect the masses to make a profit? I understand the economics behind it all and if no one is sick chances are, people aren't buying cold medicines, but honestly where is the moral compass? Its bad enough that other forms of advertising work to create conflict in people so they will go out and buy products, but actually trying to spread sickness to force people to purchase products, thats a new all-time low.
In Part 4, I found the Shopping Spies chapter to be kind of creepy. It reminded me of the film Consuming Kids where children were studied in every aspect of their lives to the point where it was just inappropriate, so that advertising agencies could better target the children. You don't grow out of this stage apparently because researchers are now targeting adults in grocery stores. This is just plain creepy. Companies are now essentially stalking their target audiences. It also reminded me of in the Persuaders film where the man was being asked about how he felt when he was eating the bread. Granted, he was fully aware he was being studied, but the questions the researcher was asking just made no sense. "Do you feel lonely while eating white bread?" And this whole stalking method of research just makes no sense either. Let people do their grocery shopping in peace. Nobody wants a researcher trying to get inside their head without their permission as they casually stroll through the grocery store. It's just weird and unnecessary.
Is Google Making Us Smarter:
1. Thesis: Increasing technology will only serve to continue to augment our intelligence and make us smarter as humans, just as it has done throughout history.
2. Agree:
I agree that humans, evolutionarily speaking, have coped by becoming smarter. Our brains have "...changed to meet the challenge..." If there was an obstacle, our brains changed to overcome it, and as a result we have such things as written and spoken language, foresight, long-term planning, the telephone, and the automoblile. All of which have helped our species come to be what we know it is today.
I also agree that the "...age of the cyborg and the suoer-genius has already arrived." Everyone has all types of gadgets that they just take for granted. Were someone from 150 years ago to see the technology that we have now, they would be blown away. We have instant access to all kinds of information with just the touch of a button.
Disagree:
I disagree with the fact idea that we have been augmenting our intelligence for years and it hasn't proved to be a hazard so now shouldn't be any different. I believe that everything has a breaking point, and just because something hasn't caused problems in the past, doesn't mean it wont in the future. I think this rapid advance in external intelligences is not good for the human brain. I think it is making us dumber and not smarter. Everything in moderation;but we are not handling media and technology in moderation in the least sense of the word, and I do believe this will have adverse affects.
I also disagree that these reliances on certain drugs helps to increase our intelligence as well. I don't believe it does. I personally think that intelligence is something that comes from within the mind and cannot be falsely mimicked by way of a particular drug. This sort of drug-induced intelligence is not the kind of thing our brains need to cope with and change according to new challenges that arise. We cannot rely on a substance or technology to to our evolutionary adjusting for us.
The Persuaders:
1. "What advertising has always wanted to do is not simply to suffuse the atmosphere but to become the atmosphere and wants us not to be able to find a way outside the world that it creates for us." Essentially, advertisement agencies are trying to pin us, the consumers, into a world where we cannot escape their ads.
2. Brands started to try to forge an emotional bond with the consumer america, a concept known as emotional branding. With emotional branding, "...brands become more than just a mark of quality , they become an invitation to a longed for lifestyle, a ready made identity." It plays on something beyond human logic and reason.
3. There are agencies who go through every script and look for places where they can insert different products into programs.
4. People are watching fewer adds by either ignoring them or Tivo-ing them out, so advertisers are trying to place advertisements in places where people can't ignore them, such as in the shows themselves. And here we have what is known as product placement, although advertising agencies prefer to call it the "...seam-less integration of merchandise and narrative." But really its all the same.
5. There are certain codes that correspond with products and ideas that help to advertise it to the masses. Focus groups are done to find out how people react to certain words or codes.(Reptilian actions)
What struck me as quite interesting was a the chapter in section 3 titled Shopping for Cancer. Part of this chapter talked about the flu season and what the book referred to as the flu economy. It blows my mind that the CEO of Walgreens told some of the people attending a meeting that if they were sick, they should go to highly populated areas to spread their germs. What is this world coming to where companies go out and infect the masses to make a profit? I understand the economics behind it all and if no one is sick chances are, people aren't buying cold medicines, but honestly where is the moral compass? Its bad enough that other forms of advertising work to create conflict in people so they will go out and buy products, but actually trying to spread sickness to force people to purchase products, thats a new all-time low.
In Part 4, I found the Shopping Spies chapter to be kind of creepy. It reminded me of the film Consuming Kids where children were studied in every aspect of their lives to the point where it was just inappropriate, so that advertising agencies could better target the children. You don't grow out of this stage apparently because researchers are now targeting adults in grocery stores. This is just plain creepy. Companies are now essentially stalking their target audiences. It also reminded me of in the Persuaders film where the man was being asked about how he felt when he was eating the bread. Granted, he was fully aware he was being studied, but the questions the researcher was asking just made no sense. "Do you feel lonely while eating white bread?" And this whole stalking method of research just makes no sense either. Let people do their grocery shopping in peace. Nobody wants a researcher trying to get inside their head without their permission as they casually stroll through the grocery store. It's just weird and unnecessary.
Is Google Making Us Smarter:
1. Thesis: Increasing technology will only serve to continue to augment our intelligence and make us smarter as humans, just as it has done throughout history.
2. Agree:
I agree that humans, evolutionarily speaking, have coped by becoming smarter. Our brains have "...changed to meet the challenge..." If there was an obstacle, our brains changed to overcome it, and as a result we have such things as written and spoken language, foresight, long-term planning, the telephone, and the automoblile. All of which have helped our species come to be what we know it is today.
I also agree that the "...age of the cyborg and the suoer-genius has already arrived." Everyone has all types of gadgets that they just take for granted. Were someone from 150 years ago to see the technology that we have now, they would be blown away. We have instant access to all kinds of information with just the touch of a button.
Disagree:
I disagree with the fact idea that we have been augmenting our intelligence for years and it hasn't proved to be a hazard so now shouldn't be any different. I believe that everything has a breaking point, and just because something hasn't caused problems in the past, doesn't mean it wont in the future. I think this rapid advance in external intelligences is not good for the human brain. I think it is making us dumber and not smarter. Everything in moderation;but we are not handling media and technology in moderation in the least sense of the word, and I do believe this will have adverse affects.
I also disagree that these reliances on certain drugs helps to increase our intelligence as well. I don't believe it does. I personally think that intelligence is something that comes from within the mind and cannot be falsely mimicked by way of a particular drug. This sort of drug-induced intelligence is not the kind of thing our brains need to cope with and change according to new challenges that arise. We cannot rely on a substance or technology to to our evolutionary adjusting for us.
The Persuaders:
1. "What advertising has always wanted to do is not simply to suffuse the atmosphere but to become the atmosphere and wants us not to be able to find a way outside the world that it creates for us." Essentially, advertisement agencies are trying to pin us, the consumers, into a world where we cannot escape their ads.
2. Brands started to try to forge an emotional bond with the consumer america, a concept known as emotional branding. With emotional branding, "...brands become more than just a mark of quality , they become an invitation to a longed for lifestyle, a ready made identity." It plays on something beyond human logic and reason.
3. There are agencies who go through every script and look for places where they can insert different products into programs.
4. People are watching fewer adds by either ignoring them or Tivo-ing them out, so advertisers are trying to place advertisements in places where people can't ignore them, such as in the shows themselves. And here we have what is known as product placement, although advertising agencies prefer to call it the "...seam-less integration of merchandise and narrative." But really its all the same.
5. There are certain codes that correspond with products and ideas that help to advertise it to the masses. Focus groups are done to find out how people react to certain words or codes.(Reptilian actions)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
