Proof That The Advertising Industry Is A Form Of Mind Control Part 2

Originally posted by MemoryShock
But media manipulations and the proprietary information contained in the designing of such is the fault of the layman? Is that what you are suggesting?

No. I'm stating - not suggesting - that there is no fault involved. No wrong is being done. No crime is being committed, unless using one's powers of persuasion to the utmost is to be thought a crime.

The fact that there is even a term for "Layman" suggests social heirarchy...and who is making money off of that heirarchy?

I am entirely comfortable with hierarchies and elites. Both are natural to our species, and vital to the continued existence of both civilization and the great mass of humankind. I am equally at ease with capitalism.

Advertisers call the people whom you're typecasting as their victims 'customers'. Advertisers make money out of customers ('the hierarchy' as you call them) by selling them things they want at prices they can afford. On the whole, these so-called victims get a very good deal (especially in America), though they're so pampered by generations of consumerism they don't actually notice. Anyway, I fail to see what is wrong with this and why it should be regarded as a conspiracy.

Right...reading the rest of your post.

I look forward to your reply.

reply to post by Astyanax


This is a classic argument that can be found in any public relations classroom.

I am a Psychologist (or extremely close to being one anyway), and my information comes strictly from the research angle of Psychology.

Advertisers like to appeal to our most irrational selves (safety, love, self-worth, family) in order to "persuade" us to purchase things that we really do not need.
That is what is at the heart of the concept of consumerism invented by Edward Bernays...

Public relations.

A perfect example is the advertising within the pharmaceutical industry.

Here is a great link on the hidden techniques used by the Pharmaceutical Industry in their advertising.

Big Pharma was not even allowed to advertise directly to the consumer until 1997.
And just as the government had a very specific reason for the institution of the Glass-Steagall Act, which kept the derivative time bomb from exploding until it was repealed by the Clinton administration, the gub'ment had a similar reason for not allowing big Pharma to advertise directly to consumers.

If a doctor has merely a modicum of morality, then they will judge the efficacy of a medication by reading the ENTIRE collection of reports of dossiers from peer reviewed and refereed journal articles regarding said medication.

But now Big Pharma has control of what we see, who presents it, and how it is presented.
You want to talk about disingenuous.

Here is a post from the Huffingtonpost questioning the efficacy of anti-depressants.

Here is another link to an author that states... beyond the shadow of a doubt that the drug companies cherry picked the information that both we and doctors see regarding their efficacy.

And he shows that anti-depressants have been proven NOT to be effective.
Because we were NOT privy to all of the information.
It was hidden by Big Pharma and we are only finding out the actual truth regarding these monstrous medications TODAY.
This was only possible due to the freedom of information act.

Now, I would suggest that I am not being in any way disingenuous.

Anti-depressants hit the market some 30 years ago.

That would mean that my comment on understanding advertising techniques some 30 to 40 years after the fact has a good bit of validity.

And I am basing these assertions on valid statements, statements that allow me to form a conclusion based upon inductive reasoning.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Not because they are being hidden from the public, as MemoryShock seems to think and as you are implying (although I suspect you know better and are simply being disingenuous).

I think you may have misinterpreted my position. While I certainly do think that there are things kept from the population, my bigget contention is the fact that we tend to hold people responsible for their choices, as a society, when they for the most part do not understand why they make decisons and as well there are tools available for the intentional manipulation of those choices.

It's at best socially irresponsible to manipulate someone into thinking about the next American Idol and then harp on them for not voting or researching the issues. There is a lot of sociological interplay from people whom use tools of manipulation on other people and then look down with disdain when it works but the consequences were not fully peferred or plannned for.

And that chasm of difference between knowledges is only getting wider. And I certainly doubt it is the innocent result of circumstantial, competitive social interactions. There is a level of intent somewhere...

reply to post by MemoryShock


Very well spoken MemoryShock.

The problem is not the system of delivery.

When I have conversations with PR majors at the University that I attend, they contend to me that they are merely using the system of communication that we have established to create an end.

The problem that I have with that train of thinking is that the motive behind manipulating the system of communication to achieve the goal of getting out a message must always be of primary importance.

But for some reason, the motive in any free market society eventually becomes profit.
Profit is blind and the resulting hierarchy that is created ultimately most values Sociopaths with no remorse because they can get the job done no matter what or whom.

Because making a profit becomes robotic.
It is just a math problem at that point.

[edit on 5/4/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by MemoryShock

While I certainly do think that there are things kept from the population, my biggest contention is the fact that we tend to hold people responsible for their choices, as a society, when they for the most part do not understand why they make decisions and as well there are tools available for the intentional manipulation of those choices.

Here we come to the crux of the matter.

Permit me to assume that you live in a democratic country, one that is governed by representatives of various constituencies elected by popular vote. If so, then your society is founded on the belief that individuals are the best judges of their own interest, and that they can be trusted to act in it when electing those who will rule them. To put it crudely, you live in a society that believes people can take care of themselves better than anyone else can - such as, for example, a king, a religious leader, or a committee of prominent citizens. Freedom of choice and the sovereignty of the individual are cherished; a person may choose to live any way he or she chooses, but must bear responsibility for the consequences.

Your quote above expresses ideas that are in complete opposition to these democratic principles. You are claiming that people should not be held responsible for the choices they make, either because they make them without being fully informed or because it is possible that their decisions are manipulated by others. There are a number of problems with this viewpoint.

First, it is paternalistic and undemocratic. It assumes that you, MemoryShock, or some other expert or experts of whom you (and not I) approve, know what is good for me better than I know it myself. If this assumption is to have any practical value, it also means that either you or your chosen experts should make my decisions for me, or that I should no more be held responsible for my decisions than if I were a child. The former consequence is tyranny, the latter a prescription for anarchy.

Second, it implies that the individual's lack of knowledge is somebody else's fault and not his own. To some extent, this holds water; if governments take it upon themselves to educate their citizens, then public ignorance and general paucity of educational outcome may be blamed on them. But an individual's ignorance of specific facts that have nothing to do with basic education and are widely available in the public domain can never be the fault of a government, nor indeed of anyone else but the individual who has failed to apprise himself of them.

Third, it absolves of all responsibility those who are specifically charged with the power to decide policy and take executive or judicial decisions on behalf of the rest of us. If the man in the street is not to be held responsible for choices he makes without full information or under pressure, then neither can the president, the legislature, the judiciary, the military or indeed any institution of government or social authority. The people who run these institutions are forever making decisions under pressure without knowing all the relevant facts. There is no escape from this, because real life forces such decisions on us. In a democracy, what's sauce for the citizen goose must be sauce for the governing gander, or else the principle of equality under the law is traduced. Would you like to see a President, Congress and Supreme Court that were accountable to nobody?

Think about it. If you can come up with a solution, your name will go down in history.

It's at best socially irresponsible to manipulate someone into thinking about the next American Idol and then harp on them for not voting or researching the issues.

This would be true if everybody watched American Idol and didn't vote or research the issues. But it's not true, is it? Some people - possibly now in a minority, though I wouldn't be so sure - couldn't care less about American Idol or Hollywood gossip or the latest artery-choking specials available from KFC. Some people do keep themselves informed; some people do make rational decisions. They are exposed to the same sort of media and social influences, so obviously those influences are not insuperable. One need not fall victim to them. Doubtless some are more susceptible than others; that is unfortunate, but we cannot turn the world into a nursery for the feckless and the feeble-minded. Even if we wanted to, reality would prevent us from achieving such an outcome.

*

reply to post by Josephus23

Advertisers like to appeal to our most irrational selves (safety, love, self-worth, family) in order to "persuade" us to purchase things that we really do not need.

Are you a rational being with a will of your own? Or just a collection of automatic instincts and tropisms, which anyone can trigger at will using just the right stimulus to get you to do what they want?

And just what is so irrational about a desire for safety, affection, self-respect or a family? You mean instinctive, not irrational, and that is something completely different. Instincts are rational.

Prove to me that an advertisement can make someone do something they really don't want to. You know you can't. The most an ad can do is encourage someone to do something they know isn't really good for them, but which they want to do anyway. Encouraging people to go against their 'better selves' may be reprehensible, but it is very far from coercion, and unless the person is of unsound mind and unable to make rational judgements for themselves there is no democratic alternative to allowing it.

Anti-depressants hit the market some 30 years ago. That would mean that my comment on understanding advertising techniques some 30 to 40 years after the fact has a good bit of validity.

No, the two data are not related. I fear you are being disingenous yet again. I thought you were keen on ethical behaviour in the media? Or is this yet another case of 'do as I say, not as I do?'

[edit on 5/5/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by MemoryShock


I will say that advertising is definitely entirely out of control, but I would definitely not say that it is "mind control." It is simply suggestion and persuasion.

It's more widespread than ever, but it has existed for a while. Imagine car salesmen. Their job is to sell you a car. Some would say that it is "to make the customer happy and sell a car in the process," and that's fine...

Some people are more easily persuaded than others. Kids are easy to nab; that's the meaning behind toys in cereal, kids' meals and the reason for playgrounds in doctors' offices and eating establishments (I don't have to mention names). Women are the target of advertisements, I suspect, because it is more effective on them. (I will not go into the reasons why as I'm not wanting to start trouble.)

The message is clear, though, that people don't even buy the best product anymore or use logic to buy things. Instead, their emotions can be pulled upon, and they make decisions based on those. This isn't to say that the deodorant they are buying is inferior, but it's certainly not as great as it sounds in the commercials.

It's really disgusting to me. I abhor advertising. It reminds me of political elections. People will say anything to get your money or your vote. They will subtly tell you that you are fat and frustrated about it then offer you a stupid machine that "does the job for you!!!" And, people buy it!

Anyway, great post. I just would not consider it "mind control" because that removes the element of choice the target does actually still have.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Here we come to the crux of the matter.

Indeed we have reached a crux of sorts...and while I agree wit some of wha you are saying, I still percieve fundamental flaws.

Permit me to assume that you live in a democratic country, one that is governed by representatives of various constituencies elected by popular vote.

Indeed. Southern California to be specific. But the disingenuity may be in the term "popular vote".

The issue is not whether or not I think people shouldn't be held responsible for the decisions that they make, it's that I think that the various factons inherent of our society and the different lifestyles and regional differences effect how this responsibility is doled out.

In the early days of Coca-Cola, they gained a very fast and prominent brand by mixing their product with Cocaine. While even the corporate interest of the poduct may have been ignorant, they still knew the physiological reaction would almost require consumr dedication. Hell, meth was lgal and prescribed in the American fifties (though as far as I know, unassociated with any major brand...though the pharmaceuticals of today must have used it as a base point (Sudafed).

So while you are stating my position as the following,

Your quote above expresses ideas that are in complete opposition to these democratic principles.

...I am indeed espousing said principle and declaring that the difference in societal expression, the propagation ofcertain ideals and the willful unavailability of information is in fact disrupting the idea of a democracy...where people make decisions for themselves.

The difference is incredibly subtle...though I contend tat my position may be an over reaction. History may bear me out though...

First, it is paternalistic and undemocratic. It assumes that you, MemoryShock, or some other expert or experts of whom you (and not I) approve, know what is good for me better than I know it myself.

I merely want discussion and further propagation of "alternative topics". I can accept anything beyond that. The disingenuity lies in the lack of communication and the subsequent use of information to inflect the decisions of those uninformed.

An interesting example is MTV's use of the "Rock the Vote" campaign. While laudable as a means to encourage the younger generation,all they were doing was getting people to react to pesented politica rhetoric. Nothing of mntion was made regarding the woeful aspect of our political system that allows corporate influence of legislation - where "add-on's" to legislaton are made to guarentee the vote. Political Corporate Favours. As well, one may do well to realize that the eighties resulted in a President(s) wom were well aware of PR...George H.W. Bush proclaimed "No New axes"...something we all remember. But do we remembr tat Congress pushe it anyway?

There is a maor misrepresentation regarding our political process and i can be boiled down to the competition for attention...which is what advertising is. And most of it is useless information...

the latter a prescription for anarchy.

True anarchy is the intelligent socal interaction based on specificaly relevant social paradigms...not a manipulation from percieved authority figures...a very basic andimplicit manipulation trhrough the idolization of Hollywood.

Second, it implies that the individual's lack of knowledge is somebody else's fault and not his own.

Peraps it's arrogant of me...but which came first, manipulaton or comprehension of such. Besides, in my opinion, the statement above
is too simplistic (no offense) to be attributed to all social interactons.

Third, it absolves of all responsibility those who are specifically charged with the power to decide policy and take executive or judicial decisions on behalf of the rest of us.

Interesting you mention that. I have been considering some "upper echelon" manipulations for some time now...all social groupings tend to have their inflections and aq look at the intelligence communities influence with political and financial powers culd be relevant.

So it is a sea of "proprietary information"...interesting to say the least.

reply to post by MemoryShock

The issue is not whether or not I think people shouldn't be held responsible for the decisions that they make, it's that I think that the various factons inherent of our society and the different lifestyles and regional differences effect how this responsibility is doled out.

Meaning black boys get put in gaol for packing weed while dem rich white folks buy their way out of trouble, that kind of thing? Or, as we used to sing on my side of the Atlantic,

It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor wot gets the blame,
It's the rich as gets the pleasure,
Ain't it all a bleedin' shame.

It was ever thus. Things are actually a lot better today; it's hard for the great and good to get away with as much these days as they used to. The intrusive, confrontational methods of modern journalism, the elimination of subject taboos in the media and the highly effective online inquisition of the bloggers make it nearly impossible for anyone to have any secrets. But a side-effect of this endless festival of revelation and scandal is the perception that things are somehow worse than they used to be. I suspect this has greatly influenced your thinking.

I'm speaking in general here, of course, not specifically about advertising.

In the early days of Coca-Cola, they gained a very fast and prominent brand by mixing their product with Cocaine. While even the corporate interest of the product may have been ignorant, they still knew the physiological reaction would almost require consumer dedication.

Meaning, the manufacturers of Coca-Cola must have known coc aine was addictive? Well, they probably suspected it was. But until that was proved, or at least generally accepted by the medical opinion of the time, they could happily go on telling themselves and their customers it was harmless. Look at the rearguard action the tobacco industry has fought since the Sixties about the link between smoking and cancer. The thinking at Coca-Cola about the coke in Coke must have been very much the same, back in the early 1900s. By the way, it was coca leaf that went into Coke, not refined coc aine.

It may surprise you to learn that people in the world of manufacturing and marketing aren't hardboiled cynics; mostly, they believe their own ad copy. One of the hardest tasks I had to undertake in my role as an account planner was explain to clients that consumers didn't uncritically adore their precious products the same way they did. Marketing people have a faith in their products that is nearly religious - and which, like religion, is actively promoted within the ambient culture.

Here's an example of what I mean. In my country, the tobacco industry is a monopoly; the only company in existence is the local subsidiary of BAT, one of the world's biggest tobacco firms. Right until the early Nineties, when the ad agency I then worked at ended its relationship with the firm, BAT executives all smoked like chimneys. They had to; their hopes of moving up to an office on the Management floor would have been zero if they didn't. So they told themselves and others that the dangers of smoking had not been proven, and they believed it. No hardboiled, cynical manipulators, they.

Also (returning to Coca-Cola for a minute), it's worth remembering that historical data are hard to make sense of unless you put them in the context of their time. Perhaps the following, from Wikipedia, will help:

In 1885... Parke-Davis sold coc aine in various forms, including cigarettes, powder and even a coc aine mixture that could be injected directly into the user’s veins with the included needle.

In early 20th-century Memphis, Tennessee, coc aine was sold in neighborhood drugstores on Beale Street, costing five or ten cents for a small boxful. Stevedores along the Mississippi River used the drug as a stimulant, and white employers encouraged its use by black laborers.

In 1909, Ernest Shackleton took “Forced March” brand coc aine tablets to Antarctica, as did Captain Scott a year later on his ill-fated journey to the South Pole.

Cocaine ceased to be an ingredient of Coca-Cola in 1906.

Hell, meth was legal and prescribed in the American fifties (though as far as I know, unassociated with any major brand...

I don't remember names, but amphetamine was the active ingredient in many, many commercially available brands of slimming pill and 'pep' pill. In some countries you didn't even need a prescription. But that doesn't mean Big Pharma was out to hook the public on drugs. Those pills were thought to be harmless. Clinical testing wasn't what it is now, and in the innocent days before the drug hysteria that arose out of Sixties youth culture, addiction was thought of as something that only happened to opium-eaters and underworld dope fiends. Remember a song by the Rolling Stones called Mother's Little Helper? It came out in 1966, and its shock value came from its revelation of drug abuse and addiction among middle-class housewives, not at all the kind of people thought to be prone to such vices.

I am indeed espousing (democratic principles) and declaring that the difference in societal expression, the propagation of certain ideals and the willful unavailability of information is in fact disrupting the idea of a democracy...where people make decisions for themselves.

What wilful unavailability of information? I think you'll have to substantiate that claim. As I have noted several times already, there is no secret lore of advertising and public relations. There are university and diploma courses in these subjects. The textbooks are available in any good bookshop or library. Look under Management; larger shops may have a separate Advertising & PR section.

And if you're talking about product information that could affect a purchase decision being withheld from consumers, that's not mind control, that's just lying by omission.

Besides, you can't have it both ways. You espouse democratic principles; well, one of those principles is that people can be relied upon to make sensible decisions in their own interest. If you say they cannot, then democracy itself is neither justified nor viable.

There is a major misrepresentation regarding our political process and it can be boiled down to the competition for attention...which is what advertising is. And most of it is useless information...

In electoral politics, as in marketing, you cannot succeed unless you get yourself noticed. Ideally, the public would notice products and politicians for the right reasons: in the case of a politician, that would be because he or she has acquired a reputation for philanthropy, probity, ability and general fitness for the task of government. But ours is not an ideal world; the public is easily swayed by bribery (tax cuts! benefits!), demagoguery (ban the bomb! keep immigrants out!) and other appeals to their baser selves. In such a world, even good men and women must play the game of promises and lies to get elected. You can't blame politicians for this; the blame lies squarely with the foolishness and cupidity of ordinary citizens, who turn away from the good and embrace the bad with gusto. The politicians are merely doing what they must.

The same is true in advertising and marketing. It's nonsense to speak of selling people 'products they don't need'. The only 'products' a human needs are water, some fruit, a bit of raw meat and maybe a fire; though even the last is, technically, a luxury. But no-one wants to live like an animal. We want safety, comfort, convenience and pleasure: this desire for what is not strictly necessary to our survival is the basis of all culture.

All the riches of civilization - at least, the ones we can afford - are spread out before us. Yet most will spurn the best (clean natural food, an inexpensive compact car, Shakespeare) and embrace the trash of civilization (Big Mac, gas-guzzling SUV, hip-hop) instead. For advertisers, that's where the real money is - that's why the world's biggest companies are the makers and sellers of cheap mass-market products. They got big by selling the public the trash it wanted.

There is no elite conspiracy. There are no feudal lords, no bloody tyrants, no secret police forcing them the people do as they are told. There is no whip of necessity, except for the very poorest - the people advertisers aren't interested in. The people, my friend, have only themselves to blame for their own sorry condition.

[edit on 6/5/10 by Astyanax]

Occupy Madison Ave....(yes, this is a blatant bump and perhaps I need to rephrase my titles to get more clicks...)