BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Undercover Advertising

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Ronald Thomas Clontle
20:46 / 15.07.01
from today's New York Times Magazine:

quote: July 15, 2001

PHENOMENON
The Secret Agents of Capitalism Are All Around Us
By JIM RUTENBERG


The young people grouped at the end of the bar resemble Gap models. They are facially attractive, in that asymmetrical sort of way, and they wear the new uniform of the Internet cast-aside who still has money to carouse with: tight dark blue jeans, T-shirts a bit too small and hair slightly greased. It's a Wednesday night at a small bar on Manhattan's Lower East Side.

''I feel so great, so real,'' says a slight young woman with spindly arms and wide eyes. A blue bandanna is tied tightly around her head. ''It's this drink!''

''This drink'' consists of vodka mixed with bottled water. Not just any bottled water, mind you, but the new, lightly flavored variety. Apparently, it is doing wonders for the group as they flamboyantly pour it into half-full glasses of vodka and ice.

''Would you feel the same way with soda?'' a more uptownish brunette excitedly asks her bandanna'd friend. ''No!'' She raises her glass. ''I feel alive!'' And with that, the two heartily clink glasses.

A few people at the bar turn to check them out, briefly, before looking away again. They probably have no idea they've just laid eyes on the secret agents of capitalism, paid shills for a bottled-water company, hired by a small but rapidly growing marketing firm called Big Fat Inc., that claims to have perfected undercover marketing.

As it has become ever harder to reach people between the ages of 12 and 34, advertisers have pushed viral marketing entirely underground, pitching them on the sly and hoping that the message takes and spreads, viruslike, with none of the intended marks knowing the better. This might mean leaving cigarette packs in bars, as tobacco companies have done, or loaning automobiles to ''key influencers,'' as Ford did in 1999, when it placed the Ford Focus with 120 people in five major markets. Or it might mean hiring some of Big Fat's 50 operatives in 30 cities to drink vodka and water at trendy bars.

Big Fat allowed me to spy on the vodka-and-water team on two conditions: that I not divulge the brand of water and that I not identify myself to its operatives at work. But afterward, over the phone, I spoke to the group leader, a young former music promoter named Lawrence (he insisted that I not use his full name). Lawrence, in his late 20's, says the goal for each night is simple: to talk to as many people as possible and, when appropriate, subtly impart the sponsor's message and give his comminglers a taste for its product.

''We invent various scenarios, like, we'll make up what kind of company we work for and we say we just sold it so we're celebrating and we're going to buy you a drink,'' he says. ''Then we'll try to implant things about the product into their head that don't come off as if we're planting things in their head. It's somewhat challenging.'' For that challenge Lawrence earns up to hundreds of dollars a night. ''No one is going to be able to go out and buy a Lexus tomorrow from this,'' he says. ''You're getting paid to go drink for free and act weird.''

Big Fat distributes surveys to potential hires to find out what they wear, where they go out, whether they enjoy talking to strangers. By and large, says Big Fat's chief strategy officer, John Palumbo, he picks people who are accessible and easy to speak with. ''These are not supermodels. They're aspirational, but approachable.''

It's fair to wonder just how many people Big Fat's aspirational marketers can reach (maybe 25 at the bar that night, although if each mark tells 2 others, and they tell 2 more . . . ), but business is booming. Jonathan Ressler, the company's chief executive and president, says billings have increased fivefold since last year, its first year in business. The company has grown so much that it had to move to larger offices last month. And the tactics it employs are becoming ever more widely accepted.

But as undercover marketing grows in prominence among the more mainstream ad firms and sponsors, consumer advocates are agitating for an investigation.

''These are commercial kamikazes,'' says Jeff Chester, a boardmember at the Center for Media Education, a group that focuses on media and marketing issues. ''They're not disclosing that they have received financial remuneration to promote and target products, and that is inherently deceptive.''

The Federal Trade Commission may have problems, too, with companies plugging products without letting their targets know they are doing so. ''If testimonial is affiliated with you in some way, you have to disclose that,'' says Mary Engle, assistant director of advertising practices at the F.T.C. Engle will not comment on whether the new under-the-radar marketing practices are being investigated.

Big Fat's Palumbo, in any case, has no qualms that underground marketing is ''the right way'' to reach young people. ''In order for a product to really succeed right now, the product has to have credibility,'' he says. ''People have to see it, they have to understand it in a real way. The only way for them to understand it in a real way is for it to be in their world. And that's what we do. We put it in their life.''


Ugh...this is as repugnant as it is obvious and brilliant. Of course, the more people who know about this the better, since people's suspicions will be higher.

And of course, it is clear that people have less and less a problem with being shilled to...
 
 
Ronald Thomas Clontle
20:51 / 15.07.01
Um, board moderators...this thread needs to be moved over to Switchboard, I messed up and put it in the wrong forum. My apologies...
 
 
01
22:00 / 15.07.01
This is really starting to get out of hand. Are there legions of zombified people acting as psychic amplifiers to broadcast messages to us in our sleep?
 
 
Traz
22:43 / 15.07.01
Hey, you know what? I just posted to Flunitrazepam's thead in the Comics Forum and I feel alive!
 
 
Ronald Thomas Clontle
00:52 / 16.07.01
quote:Originally posted by zerone:
This is really starting to get out of hand. Are there legions of zombified people acting as psychic amplifiers to broadcast messages to us in our sleep?


Yeah, it is getting far out of hand, and it seems that sleep is the next logical step.

When I first read that article, I was thinking "oh man, who the hell would agree to do a job like that?" forgetting that I'm the freak, and there are loads and loads of people who would love to land a gig like that.

Which leads me to the question I've been asking myself lately....if the world does not care very much that advertising is beginning to dominate culture and life, and people who are growing up right now with no real frame of reference of a life before the world was this way don't care, then maybe the world has just adapted and the people who don't like it are just out of step....

I honestly want to believe that these things are ethically wrong, and are contributing negative trends in world culture, but maybe I'm actually just unable to cope with change in the world...
 
 
Cat Chant
06:40 / 16.07.01
But this is great! Invisible advertising!

Obviously it is being used for the wrong purposes, but how can we use it for good? Let's seize the master's tools and start invisibly undermining the foundations of the master's house!

I want all the Barbelites out in bars this weekend advertising the revolution. Plant it in the heads of everyone you see without them knowing. Find an outfit that will suggest credibility to your target audience, and ... go!

Or am I talking nonsense?

Clontle - I know what you mean about this crazy post-advertising age. This example is fascinating, though, because it's started to totally break down any distinction between "real people" and the "lifestyle zombies" you see in adverts. And that breakdown can surely be used to the good, in that it's not just one group (advertisers/models) selling to another group (consumers/real people) any more... which means that we can broadcast back to the psychic zombies.

Hmmm. Except that the actors know what's going on, and we don't. Except we do now.

But if any conversation can be an advertising strategy, there are so many more possibilities for intervention? I don't know. It seems to me to be a mutation in capitalism which could be used to create interesting mutations in anti-capitalism. Also it sounds like a Peter Milligan comic, and I've *always* wanted to live in a Peter Milligan comic.
 
 
deletia
06:46 / 16.07.01
Amen to that.

Although they *really* need to work on their dialogue.

"I'm alive! I feel alive! It's this flavoured mineral water!"

Oh dear...
 
 
Opalfruit
06:46 / 16.07.01
I do find the idea offensive.

So when are they going to be employing hypnotists to sit at the end of the bar murmering commands....

Hmmm, could be a far-side comic strip

Sat at the end of in his opera cloak and top hat, big whirling red eyes capturing customers attention and cackling "Buy more bread.. but more bread"

Customer: "Pint of Bitter and a Wholemeal loaf"

Barman: Sliced?

Customer: Please....


When will it end....
 
 
Mazarine
11:45 / 16.07.01
Is there anywhere that people are essentially safe from being advertised to? Outside of sleep, I mean? There's a brand name on everything, even the toilet paper dispenser in the public restroom. "We made this. We make lots of this. Perhaps you'd like to buy our stock?" Is there anywhere in particular that you think we should be safe from advertising that we're not?
 
 
Ronald Thomas Clontle
11:49 / 16.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Deva:
But this is great! Invisible advertising!

Obviously it is being used for the wrong purposes, but how can we use it for good? Let's seize the master's tools and start invisibly undermining the foundations of the master's house!

I want all the Barbelites out in bars this weekend advertising the revolution. Plant it in the heads of everyone you see without them knowing. Find an outfit that will suggest credibility to your target audience, and ... go!

Or am I talking nonsense?

.


You know, you may be on to something...if organized properly and executed well, that could be really great. I can imagine it happening...a few sexy people in a bar nonchalantly dropping revolutionary rhetoric into casual somewhat flirtatious conversation. Not only would it put ideas in people's heads, but it would make them go "ooh, the revolution is sexy". and of course, it is...
 
 
Ierne
13:54 / 16.07.01
''This drink'' consists of vodka mixed with bottled water. Not just any bottled water, mind you, but the new, lightly flavored variety. Apparently, it is doing wonders for the group as they flamboyantly pour it into half-full glasses of vodka and ice.

Well now, that's a dead giveaway, innit? Why would the bartender let anyone pour their own drinks?
 
 
ynh
19:57 / 16.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Clontle:
Yeah, it is getting far out of hand, and it seems that sleep is the next logical step.


Did anyone see that episode of Futurama?

Clontle, you're my hero. This is amazing: gut wrenching, drooling amazing!

It's not about most of the world not caring; it's more about them not knowing, or not realizing there's any effect. Ask your friends if advertising affects them? Then ask if it affects other people. First no, then yes; I can almost promise. And so far, everyone still thinks its necessary.

Mazarine: I think Everywhere should be free of advertising, but I'm definitely out of step. In a great example, somebody painted an ad on the pavement next to the student union which remained there all day. I painted a protest next to it and it was gone by 6am. On the other hand, I don't think anywhere is safe, even sleep. Soon enough, we'll be attending classes in Coca-Cola Auditorium. And our imaginative life is informed by what we experience...

When I read the article, I got this flash of a bar populated solely by advertisers, convincing eachother.

With Haus and Deva - the dialogue thing really needs work. Try dropping revolutionary ideas and you're likely to be handed a beer to shush. Maybe it works, though? Maybe we could mock up some "knock knock" jokes.
 
 
Ronald Thomas Clontle
09:41 / 17.07.01
quote:Originally posted by [Your Name Here]:



Clontle, you're my hero. This is amazing: gut wrenching, drooling amazing!

It's not about most of the world not caring; it's more about them not knowing, or not realizing there's any effect. Ask your friends if advertising affects them? Then ask if it affects other people. First no, then yes; I can almost promise. And so far, everyone still thinks its necessary.

.


You're very right about most people being in denial about the effects that adverts (not to mention PR) have on them...I don't think there's anyone who is unaffected, even those with limited exposure or those who are well educated about the subject and oppose it out of principle. Nevertheless, I don't think people are unaware of it...I think that the majority of people are fine with that part of culture, and turn a blind eye to its negative side effects. I don't think that people in general are so dumb as to buy into consumer culture without having any idea of what is going on.

That's why people are so succeptable to the kind of marketing detailed in that NYTime Magazine article: people know that the products that they consume can improve their standing in society...it used to be that a company would spend an obscene ammount of money to convince the "influencers" to buy into their product so that others may jump on the bandwagon - but now by inventing their own "influencers", they can just cut straight to the cultural exchange that goes on between a people on a person-to-person level.

The product placement service they sell to companies is so novel and aimed at such a "cool" demographic that it is not impossible to imagine that a lot of the people who read that article on Sunday thought to themselves "wouldn't it be sorta cool if these Big Fat agents targeted *me* at the bar/hang out I frequent?" or "oh, I want to know which bars these people are going to so I can see this happen". The gimmick revealed could be just as powerful as the trickery unexposed...


I don't think that people who are so brand-oriented and trend-savvy are unaware of the mechanics behind how those brand images are created....in fact, I think those people are in love with that manufacture of an image. After all, what is consumer culture other than the ability to manufacture your own image in the choices one makes with their money? I think that for a lot of people, when they see artifice revealed to them, they just see a reflection of themselves.

Now, I don't think advertising is necessary, but I don't think it is intrinsically evil either. I think that people who run businesses and services have every reasonable right to make themselves known to the public. I think that the problem with advertising now is this cutthroat take-no-prisoners attitude that just doesn't know any boundaries... this need for corporations to market their products as if they were a totalitarian regime trying to reeducate its citizenry. Branding has become a very evil thing that is slowly stripping away people from their identities and brainwashing them into believing the flimsiest premises as a basis for mindless consumerism. It is entirely dishonorable, and preys upon the worst parts of human nature.

(ah, how appropriate is it that I compose this message while listening to Gang of Four's "Entertainment!"? heh.)

[ 17-07-2001: Message edited by: Clontle ]
 
 
grant
16:23 / 17.07.01
It seems like an extension of the old idea behind the testimonial or celebrity spokesperson. Someone admirable hawking a good.
I'm sure if the idea takes off, it'll soon become very, very obvious when it's happening - like Nascar drivers covered in patches.

Man, it'll be like a race of zombies walking among us!

- g
 
 
Imaginary Mongoose Solutions
16:57 / 17.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Ierne:

Well now, that's a dead giveaway, innit? Why would the bartender let anyone pour their own drinks?


I've seen bars that don't carry Red Bull let patrons bring their own to mix with Vodka or Jagermeister.
 
 
Mr Tricks
22:38 / 17.07.01
yeah . . very Bizarre!!!

the Gap Zombie have stepped off of the Billboards!!! Fiction & Reality continue to converge!!!


Some friends & I have discussed host a dinner party at IKEA using water died Dark red and plastic food...

I'll let you know if/when that happens!!!
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:10 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by grant:
I'm sure if the idea takes off, it'll soon become very, very obvious when it's happening - like Nascar drivers covered in patches.


Hey grant, apologies in advance if I'm msireading you here, but are you implying that because it'll become obvious who's doing it, the effect won't be insidious, or successful for the advertisers?
 
 
Saveloy
07:10 / 18.07.01
Yeah, although some of the comparisons drawn between this and older forms are close (grant's celeb testemonial etc), the fundamental and extremely dodgy difference remains that this one relies on subterfuge. If you know you're being advertised to then you can deal with the info in an appropriate manner.

Give it 20 years and you'll have people striking up conversations, copping off, starting long term relationships and having kids all as part of an advertising campaign. With only one partner in on it. I can see it now: Mr Jones' coffin trundling into the incinerator - it stops - the congregation gasps as the lid rises - up pops Mr Jones - "This life was brought to you by Kelloggs Pop Tarts, urrrghhhhhh....." *slumps back, coffin continues*

[ 18-07-2001: Message edited by: Saveloy ]
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:10 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Saveloy:
If you know you're being advertised to then you can deal with the info in an appropriate manner.


I really disagree. We "know" we're being advertised to when we watch commercial breaks on TV, and does that make us any less susceptible to the messages we receive? Again, ask most people if adverts influence them and they'll tell you no, ask them if adverts influence other people and they'll tell you yes: nobody wants to accept the fact that they're being influenced in all kinds of subtle ways, no matter how post-modern or aware or enlightened they think they are. Knowing something about how it's happening isn't enough to stop it happening.

Also, just how does one "deal with the info in an appropriate manner" ? By not buying the product? Even if you think you can succeed in doing that just by being aware of the adverts and the products they're selling, which is a dubious proposition at best, that isn't necessarily the immediate aim of the advertisers. As has been said before, spreading brand awareness is often the main purpose, and having people consciously trying to do this in conversationsv strikes me as a potentially wildy successful and thus terrifying way to do this. It's not about making you think "yes, I really want a Coca Cola because that person was saying it's a great drink", it's about making you accept that Coca Cola is what you find in the shop's fridge or behind the bar in the same way that water is what comes out of the taps at home...
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
10:00 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by The Flyboy:
Coca Cola is what you find in the shop's fridge or behind the bar in the same way that water is what comes out of the taps at home...

Tangentially, I recall a plan that was aired last year (possibly early this year) to install dispensers in the home. A Coke tap right next to the water. Mmm, classy. That sort of product placement has got to be priceless.

And grant: a race of mutant zombies? Suck. Mutant RACING zombies? Much, much better.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:05 / 18.07.01
Rothkoid: my point is, why would they need to? Urban myths like that just distract us from the fact that it's already happened: nobody dilutes their whisky with water anymore, for example.

[ 18-07-2001: Message edited by: The Flyboy ]
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
10:31 / 18.07.01
Except it's not an urban myth: Ananova/Sunday Times. I'm not debating that it's already happened, that Coke has become a substitute beverage, I'm just suggesting - again tangentially to this debate - that it'd be priceless product placement. Kids would associate the product as being analogous with water by dint of it being on-tap in their homes. That's all.

And I drink my whisky straight. Heh.
 
 
grant
12:53 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by The Flyboy:


Hey grant, apologies in advance if I'm msireading you here, but are you implying that because it'll become obvious who's doing it, the effect won't be insidious, or successful for the advertisers?



It won't be quite as insidious.
At least to those around one of the "performers."

I mean, imagine sitting in a bar and realizing the person two seats down is dropping copyrighted company names every other sentence. It'd seem a little... weird, eh? Twilight Zoney. Like eavesdropping on a malfunctioning robot. Or waking up in Pleasantville (if you remember the movie...).

I have no idea if that'd successfully shill products or not. People do imitate one another... even if they are *creepy*.
 
 
Ierne
12:57 / 18.07.01
Perhaps I'm horribly naive...but I often drink "Jack & Coke" at bars, always thinking that it's some generic cola in the dispenser. I mean, I'm more concerned with making sure the whiskey's right.
 
 
Saveloy
13:17 / 18.07.01
The Flyboy:

"We "know" we're being advertised to when we watch
commercial breaks on TV, and does that make us any less susceptible to the messages we receive? [snip] Also, just how does one "deal with the info in an appropriate manner""


Ah, the success or otherwise of the advertiser is not the real issue here, it's more fundamental than that. Ideally, ads should not simply be marked but one should be warned of their approach. Because the choice one then has - and this is just one appropriate response - is to ignore it. When an ad break starts, you can turn over. As you are turning the pages of a newspaper or magazine, an undisguised ad may go unread. By disguising ads as 'real life' - this is, in effect, subliminal advertising, isn't it? - you remove that choice. The effectiveness of exercising that choice is neither here nor there, it's all we've bloody got! Look at it this way - if ordinary ads are so effective, and we are so powerless against them, why should the advertisers choose to use this form of subliminal advertising? If knowledge makes no difference, as you say, then the advertisers should have no complaints about putting their logo on the backs of the actors and making them stamp "I AM AN ADVERT" in big bold type on their foreheads.
 
 
Warewullf
13:27 / 18.07.01
This is really sick.
If someone started this shit near me, I have an irresistable urge to kick 'em in the nuts.

Plus it's kinda like that episode of
The Simpsons:
Lady: "Would like a Bacardi and Lime?"
Moe: "Uh, Sure!"
Lady: "Or maybe a Bacardi and Soda! Because Bacardi makes the night come ALIVE!"
Moe: "Uh, do you work for Bacardi?"
Lady: [sarcastically] "No. I'm in love with you."
 
 
Ronald Thomas Clontle
15:17 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by grant:
It seems like an extension of the old idea behind the testimonial or celebrity spokesperson. Someone admirable hawking a good.
I'm sure if the idea takes off, it'll soon become very, very obvious when it's happening - like Nascar drivers covered in patches.

Man, it'll be like a race of zombies walking among us!

- g


I see where yr coming from, but I think you're neglecting a key part of this operation: this is meant to be subtle, this is meant to be a secret. It is meant to be an entirely subliminal thing.

Now, while I do agree that some of the quotes from these people sound very hokey, I should remind you: people in America, particularly young people, are beginning to talk really fucking weird. Listen to people talk: more and more the words that come out of people's mouths sound stilted and unreal...like Oprah pop psychology, MTV Real World selfabsorption, quoting ad lines verbatim when describing products.... surreal ad copy comes out of people's mouths all the time now. It's not that weird.
 
 
grant
18:28 / 18.07.01
I'm going to have to listen for this next time I'm out.
 
 
ynh
20:36 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Saveloy:
Ideally, ads should not simply be marked but one should be warned of their approach. Because the choice one then has - and this is just one appropriate response - is to ignore it.


Exactly. In every medium. I think these folks should also have to stick to the informational aspects of the product: "It's water with artificial fruit flavoring [insert chemical name], and I, as one individual, believe vodka tastes better with [product] added."

quote:The effectiveness of exercising that choice is neither here nor there, it's all we've bloody got!

Here, here.

(and now a word from our sponsor)

quote:OP by Clontle:
Now, I don't think advertising is necessary, but I don't think it is intrinsically evil either. I think that people who run businesses and services have every reasonable right to make themselves known to the public. I think that the problem with advertising now is this cutthroat take-no-prisoners attitude that just doesn't know any boundaries... this need for corporations to market their products as if they were a totalitarian regime trying to reeducate its citizenry.


Advertising as it stands is pretty evil. Essentially unregulated, government subsidized and paid for by the viewing/purchasing public. It can lie to us; we cannot escape it; and, as you note, it's the PR arm of (global) capital. Advertisers and Corporations are well-aware that (re)education is precisely their business.

I think I'm uncharacteristically willing to take issue with the notion that Branding is stripping people of their identities, though. I'm not exactly sure why, but I think it contradicts how we form said: namely that we look for meaning in our culture's stories, and that our contemporary story is that told by advertising. After all, the conumerism isn't "mindless" per se, it's just natural; it's the way things are. Your own recent comment and Warewulf's quotation serve to illustrate that.

Now, if that's a bad thing, we have to see our own task as (re)educating the public, don't we?
 
 
Templar
00:25 / 19.07.01
Off topic, but kind of interesting:

Have you noticed how advertising companies do research after the release of adverts, and often (in the case of TV adverts) then redub them in order (I presume) to make them less irritating?

Eg: Bacardi Breezer ad: when the psychologist asks what the woman's thinking of, and she replies "chocolate," the original dub really grated, but then they changed it to a less iritating version.

BT mobile abroad advert: dialogue also changed, to make the character appear less whinging.

It's good to pay attention to what's being pushed into our heads. Maybe just because of my job, watching 8 hours of TV a day...
 
 
Ronald Thomas Clontle
01:34 / 19.07.01
[QUOTE]Originally posted by [Your Name Here]:


Advertising as it stands is pretty evil. Essentially unregulated, government subsidized and paid for by the viewing/purchasing public. It can lie to us; we cannot escape it; and, as you note, it's the PR arm of (global) capital. Advertisers and Corporations are well-aware that (re)education is precisely their business.


Well, do you think it is possible that limitations may ever be imposed to regulate what can be said and done in adverts beyond what is already existing? On one hand, let's assume the US government worked the way it supposed to: it would be difficult to get a lot of people to feel strongly about it enough that their government representitives would deem it a high priority issue. On the other, let's take the cynical and ultimately more realistic view: the government won't get in the way of adverts because it's a big part of keeping the commerce wheels spinning, and we'd be loathe to stand in the way of capitalism no matter how evil it is, right? Right.

Anyway, I think you misunderstood me: I'm agreeing with you, everything yr saying about the way advertising IS. I'm saying that on its simplest level, advertising need not be evil---it just is that way because there are almost no consequences for letting it BE evil.

I
think I'm uncharacteristically willing to take issue with the notion that Branding is stripping people of their identities, though.


I'll admit that I now regret writing that the way that I did, I was looking at that earlier today, and thought "Christ, Matthew...that's a pretty bold thing to say, since it doesn't STRIP anyone of identity...it just nudges them into one with suggestion, or limits their options thanks to crowding out options."

I don't think everyone is stupid...normally, people are thrown into circumstances and deal with it however they can, and branding is something that exists to simplify people's lives by artificially limiting their options and creating preferences for any given reason.

Time to play devil's advocate:

Simplification is something a lot of people really want, I think. Remember, nearly all employed people are working more hours than ever, almost regardless of income. People have less time to deal with choices, and to have lots of the ultimately unimportant things that make up the world of consumerism sorted out for them without having to think about it too much certainly helps on occasion.
Though this doesn't excuse a lot of the excesses of consumerism, the business practices and advertising tactics of loads of companies, etc, but it does absolve the majority of the populace for nodding and going along with a lot of it. This is the way the world is. Most of us barely know anything different. Is there a better world? Was there a better world? Judging by human history, the bad things and the good things about life are always changing but seem to stay in a consistent equilibrium.


(Sorry this rambled so much, I've had a few drinks...)

[ 19-07-2001: Message edited by: Clontle ]
 
 
Templar
01:47 / 19.07.01
At the risk of being highly contentious, I have to say that branding probably has no limiting effect on individual identity at all. There is the perception that it does, but this is based on the way that people make immediate value judgements on other people based on their appearance. If anything, branding offers people more choice and control over they way that they project their image. You can select semiotic connotations of various pieces of clothing in full awareness of how people will read them. The richness of human life at this period in time is down to our facility with shortcuts: language, computers, branding, whatever.
 
 
Polly Trotsky
02:02 / 19.07.01
Ignoring, of course, the entire scope of human history and social interaction, within which objects and accoutrements have always been "semiotic shortcuts" and were more easily and honestly readable than they are today, of course.
 
 
Templar
02:09 / 19.07.01
Well, if you want to return to the good old days of human interaction, you wouldn't be here.
And, from a personal view of history, artefacts have always been semiotic shortcuts. Purely function items are the sooner forgotten.
 
 
Polly Trotsky
20:47 / 19.07.01
You're talking about the semiology of advertising and branding as if it's fundamentally different process from what came before; holding branding up as a new field of meaning that embodies a more densely packed multiplicity of concrete, easily parsed meanings.

As you said: highly contentious. What isn't said? What we don't know about our semiotic selections outweighs what we do know, especially with regards to branding - alien, empty products.

Advertising fills up the semiotic void left by mass production. By contrast, the semiotic richness of an object made by someone you know/knew is more immediate, more obvious.

The discussion is probably quite valuable, but to assume the connotative semiotic difference between, say, Nike and Addidas is immediately available may be a mistake. Could you describe a purely functional object, please?
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply