Most ads are designed to make you feel bad about yourself. They first sell you the problem, and then the solution, but because they want more profit they ensure that that void is never full, so they can keep selling you things. This can feel stupid, but we are more manipulable that we think. You can try to be happier by enjoying the beauty in ads, but the discourse hidden behind will make you feel more empty at the end.
If you really think this, can you show an example of an ad that “sells the problem and then the solution”? I’m sure this happens sometimes but I’m very skeptical it’s “most” or even “many”. Most ads seem to pretty straightforwardly showcase some product to people who already have the problem it solves. And of course most products solve pretty straightforward problems, for example the problem of choosing what to eat for ads related to food. I don’t think there’s any nefarious manipulation behind an ad that shows a restaurant or a food product; it’s manipulation only in a loose, benign sense. And I claim that most ads are like this, though of course feel free to share counterexamples.
There are probably more benign ads, because most of them are from small businesses that don't have the resources to do this type of manipulation, and have the morals to not do it. But when there are the resources (and that is most of the ads we are exposed to) of course there are nefarious manipulation, because they just want to sell the thing.
Some examples of ads that sell problems could be: cosmetics ads that use models with unrealistic beauty standards. The same with things related to fitness. Tech in general, especially when pointing at features that nobody ever asked (why would I want an AI dishwasher? Or a refrigerator with a screen on it?) they have to constantly add irrelevant updates. If not, people would still use their old and perfectly functional devices and not spend money (Mobile phones are the epitome of this, selling the exact same product with a slightly better camera and a unnecessarily more powerful hardware every three years average).
These are some obvious examples, but in reality any ad does this. We are social animals that constantly and subconsciously compare ourselves to others. Just watching the happy people in the ad doing or having something makes us want the same, and feel bad for not having it (very subtle and at a subconscious level, obviously).
Good for you if you have never bought something and then never really used it. But if it happened, is because an ingenious ad (or influencer, or movie, or just the product box) have convinced you that you would be better with that thing.
What to buy is a decision that should be made with reason, but most ads try to convince us with feelings, not with arguments. That is also unfair with businesses because people ends up buying not the best product, but the one with the most visible and subtle and psychological ads. The expensive ones. That just benefits the big corporations more and more.
Love the reframe. Some of the best artists go into advertising just like a lot of the best scientists go into industry. Nothing wrong with getting value from your creations or discoveries at all!
I'd like to offer a defense for the unexamined revulsion that your friends felt when seeing the Coca-Cola logo after the musical performance.
I agree with you that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with advertising, and that it has provided immense value to society by allowing things to exist that otherwise people would likely not be willing to pay for directly.
However, I think we are experiencing a strong "tragedy of the commons" effect when it comes to advertising. Even if no individual ad is particularly objectionable, and some even go as far as being beautiful or at least amusing (which is probably easier to aim for), the absolute delight of ads with to which the average person is subjected renders it nearly impossible to appreciate the good ones.
There are just SO MANY ads, and they have become so ubiquitous, that it feels like you can't escape them. They're like your overly-enthusiastic twelve-year-old cousin - sure, there's nothing wrong with his unsolicited comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of various WW2 fighter planes, and it's even a topic you might be interested in at the right time, you just can't handle it when it's the ONLY topic for EVERY conversation l.
So the super abundance of ads has spoiled the whole medium, for me at least, and even the good ads are now forever tainted by association.
I assume you mean a "deluge of ads" rather than a "delight of ads", otherwise your comment becomes very confusing! But yes, the abundance is certainly a big part of the issue. Anything in high quantities can become at least stale if not actively repellent, even great art or architecture, and things that are designed to catch your attention might be especially tiring. Then the main damning quality of ads would be that they are associated with an incentive to produce a lot of them.
But even then, it's really not that big of a mental trick to notice *that*, focus on the ad that is presented to you in the present, and temporarily stop being affected by the overabundance.
Thank you once again for this article that makes me think and reflect.
I guess that commerce is perceive beautiful when is it an artisan or an entrepreneur that wants to deliver the best product or service that he can. He will sell you what you need and will not sell it to you if you don’t need it.
The problem is when a person sell a bad product and knows it. This person will use false advertising to manipulate people. This make people lose trust and they become cynical.
When your product is a soft drink, talk about your drink.
Why is your drink good?
The ingredients?
The look you get by drinking it?
The facts that celebrities are drinking it in a movie?
The fact that athlete drink it?
The fact that it is part of your national identity to drink it?
I guess it makes us uncomfortable is to realize that we can be manipulated and that our identity is base on social norm.
Do you really love to listen to our national artist music? Where you really moved by the music? Do you said you love the hommage because it is want is socially acceptable?
To dislike a soft drink compagny is also an identity statement.
Would you give money to your local artist directly to do that hommage?
Are we mad at ourself because a compagne do it and not us?
We let big compagny or royalty or gouvernement chose what is good or not for us. I think we are made that we do not have any agency and we let other decide for us.
I think it’s correct that the manipulative aspect of marketing is part of the distaste, but manipulative tactics are also being used by lots of non-commercial things (governments, nonprofit organizations, activists, religions, random interpersonal relationships) so I feel it can’t be the whole story… but yeah maybe it’s just a stronger trend in commerce
When the merchant class becomes the elite ruling class, do societies tend to flourish or flounder? Or is there any pattern?
Perhaps I'm elitist at heart, or perhaps the current landscape of corruption has been too influential on my worldview, but I'm skeptical of the merchant classes ability and character. I do love liberalism and markets, and I want my leaders to be pro-markets. But in my naive understanding of the past, the ruling class was educated in how to rule, whereas the merchant class was uneducated but thought themselves wise because they had money.
In essence, there's wisdom the market doesn't ever teach the merchant, and that lack of wisdom can sometimes be seen in the garishness of ads.
Typically, the people comprising the elite at any given time period tend to com from the elite class as it exists when they’re born, so they develop elite characteristics independently of where their wealth and power ultimately comes from. When someone reaches the elite class without having been born into it is when you can tell the difference between people rising through productive economic activity or nonproductive military or political games. It is true that the modern world makes it much easier to attain elite status through wealth than in the past, so what you notice is that a lot of the new elite are grappling with what it means to be an elite without decades or centuries of tradition to guide them.
Most ads are designed to make you feel bad about yourself. They first sell you the problem, and then the solution, but because they want more profit they ensure that that void is never full, so they can keep selling you things. This can feel stupid, but we are more manipulable that we think. You can try to be happier by enjoying the beauty in ads, but the discourse hidden behind will make you feel more empty at the end.
If you really think this, can you show an example of an ad that “sells the problem and then the solution”? I’m sure this happens sometimes but I’m very skeptical it’s “most” or even “many”. Most ads seem to pretty straightforwardly showcase some product to people who already have the problem it solves. And of course most products solve pretty straightforward problems, for example the problem of choosing what to eat for ads related to food. I don’t think there’s any nefarious manipulation behind an ad that shows a restaurant or a food product; it’s manipulation only in a loose, benign sense. And I claim that most ads are like this, though of course feel free to share counterexamples.
There are probably more benign ads, because most of them are from small businesses that don't have the resources to do this type of manipulation, and have the morals to not do it. But when there are the resources (and that is most of the ads we are exposed to) of course there are nefarious manipulation, because they just want to sell the thing.
Some examples of ads that sell problems could be: cosmetics ads that use models with unrealistic beauty standards. The same with things related to fitness. Tech in general, especially when pointing at features that nobody ever asked (why would I want an AI dishwasher? Or a refrigerator with a screen on it?) they have to constantly add irrelevant updates. If not, people would still use their old and perfectly functional devices and not spend money (Mobile phones are the epitome of this, selling the exact same product with a slightly better camera and a unnecessarily more powerful hardware every three years average).
These are some obvious examples, but in reality any ad does this. We are social animals that constantly and subconsciously compare ourselves to others. Just watching the happy people in the ad doing or having something makes us want the same, and feel bad for not having it (very subtle and at a subconscious level, obviously).
Good for you if you have never bought something and then never really used it. But if it happened, is because an ingenious ad (or influencer, or movie, or just the product box) have convinced you that you would be better with that thing.
What to buy is a decision that should be made with reason, but most ads try to convince us with feelings, not with arguments. That is also unfair with businesses because people ends up buying not the best product, but the one with the most visible and subtle and psychological ads. The expensive ones. That just benefits the big corporations more and more.
I was flipping through a 1950 ish national geographic and the ads were the most interesting part.
Love the reframe. Some of the best artists go into advertising just like a lot of the best scientists go into industry. Nothing wrong with getting value from your creations or discoveries at all!
I'd like to offer a defense for the unexamined revulsion that your friends felt when seeing the Coca-Cola logo after the musical performance.
I agree with you that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with advertising, and that it has provided immense value to society by allowing things to exist that otherwise people would likely not be willing to pay for directly.
However, I think we are experiencing a strong "tragedy of the commons" effect when it comes to advertising. Even if no individual ad is particularly objectionable, and some even go as far as being beautiful or at least amusing (which is probably easier to aim for), the absolute delight of ads with to which the average person is subjected renders it nearly impossible to appreciate the good ones.
There are just SO MANY ads, and they have become so ubiquitous, that it feels like you can't escape them. They're like your overly-enthusiastic twelve-year-old cousin - sure, there's nothing wrong with his unsolicited comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of various WW2 fighter planes, and it's even a topic you might be interested in at the right time, you just can't handle it when it's the ONLY topic for EVERY conversation l.
So the super abundance of ads has spoiled the whole medium, for me at least, and even the good ads are now forever tainted by association.
I assume you mean a "deluge of ads" rather than a "delight of ads", otherwise your comment becomes very confusing! But yes, the abundance is certainly a big part of the issue. Anything in high quantities can become at least stale if not actively repellent, even great art or architecture, and things that are designed to catch your attention might be especially tiring. Then the main damning quality of ads would be that they are associated with an incentive to produce a lot of them.
But even then, it's really not that big of a mental trick to notice *that*, focus on the ad that is presented to you in the present, and temporarily stop being affected by the overabundance.
Thank you once again for this article that makes me think and reflect.
I guess that commerce is perceive beautiful when is it an artisan or an entrepreneur that wants to deliver the best product or service that he can. He will sell you what you need and will not sell it to you if you don’t need it.
The problem is when a person sell a bad product and knows it. This person will use false advertising to manipulate people. This make people lose trust and they become cynical.
When your product is a soft drink, talk about your drink.
Why is your drink good?
The ingredients?
The look you get by drinking it?
The facts that celebrities are drinking it in a movie?
The fact that athlete drink it?
The fact that it is part of your national identity to drink it?
I guess it makes us uncomfortable is to realize that we can be manipulated and that our identity is base on social norm.
Do you really love to listen to our national artist music? Where you really moved by the music? Do you said you love the hommage because it is want is socially acceptable?
To dislike a soft drink compagny is also an identity statement.
Would you give money to your local artist directly to do that hommage?
Are we mad at ourself because a compagne do it and not us?
We let big compagny or royalty or gouvernement chose what is good or not for us. I think we are made that we do not have any agency and we let other decide for us.
I think it’s correct that the manipulative aspect of marketing is part of the distaste, but manipulative tactics are also being used by lots of non-commercial things (governments, nonprofit organizations, activists, religions, random interpersonal relationships) so I feel it can’t be the whole story… but yeah maybe it’s just a stronger trend in commerce
When the merchant class becomes the elite ruling class, do societies tend to flourish or flounder? Or is there any pattern?
Perhaps I'm elitist at heart, or perhaps the current landscape of corruption has been too influential on my worldview, but I'm skeptical of the merchant classes ability and character. I do love liberalism and markets, and I want my leaders to be pro-markets. But in my naive understanding of the past, the ruling class was educated in how to rule, whereas the merchant class was uneducated but thought themselves wise because they had money.
In essence, there's wisdom the market doesn't ever teach the merchant, and that lack of wisdom can sometimes be seen in the garishness of ads.
But like I said, maybe I'm just elitist.
Typically, the people comprising the elite at any given time period tend to com from the elite class as it exists when they’re born, so they develop elite characteristics independently of where their wealth and power ultimately comes from. When someone reaches the elite class without having been born into it is when you can tell the difference between people rising through productive economic activity or nonproductive military or political games. It is true that the modern world makes it much easier to attain elite status through wealth than in the past, so what you notice is that a lot of the new elite are grappling with what it means to be an elite without decades or centuries of tradition to guide them.
Neat! 🤓 Also, I wish more people could distinguish between commerce and capitalism.
Yeah, and also “the economy”