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

Underground > Switchboard >

Undercover Advertising

Page: 1(2)

22:32 / 19.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Calamity Janey:
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.
Not at all. The historicity of the thing is my point: it's nothing new. It's not this great demon of the 20th C. that it's often made out to be. It's always been with us, but recently we've started to pack more into it.
quote:
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.

But that doesn't make any sense. Of course you know about your semiotic selection - you're making it, aren't you? And what does "alien, empty products" mean? Sorry, but to me it's just rhetoric. I'm wearing a branded T-shirt at the moment. Is it alien, or empty?

quote: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.

Only to you, and that's only part of the process. An object empty of brand leaves people who don't know of its origins without a frame of reference, and so it means much less to them.

quote: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?

I'd say it would be pretty impossible for anybody living in the Western world not to have a different concept of each of these products. Ask the people who have the Nike "swoosh" tattooed onto themselves.

Purely functional object: something which is formed for a single purpose (or, possibly, unified purpose). For example: a cup being a cylinder with a base that will hold liquid. The purpose: to hold liquid. No decoration, coloration, glaze, finish, maker's mark, asthetic content, etc. Material chosen purely for function. Historical example: Victorian clay pipes. Found all over the UK, in the ground. No maker's mark, or any pleasing asthetic content. Purely for smoking with, and then discarding.

ynh

02:55 / 20.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Clontle:

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.[qb]

Unfortunately, this reminds me of the Starbucks ad in You've Got Mail where Hanks gives us a postmodern civics lesson on the "purpose' of places like Starbucks - to make 100 decisions about a cup of coffee in order to minimize the impact of other decisions. Presumably, choosing a uniform in the local department store bears some of the same characteristics: I take on the connotations of Hilfigger (sp?) by choosing this shirt, and the connotations of the particular color style via the ads it's in.
Which, in a sense, simplifies the choice, especially after you establish a pattern of buying: all Hilfigger of Nike or whatever.

quote:[qb]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.

Yes and No? To say 'you're excused," sort of derails the need/push for any sort of reform doesn't it? Like saying that all that extra info would just be a pain in the ass. On the other hand condiseidering we pay for advertising two or three times, simply eliminating it (or a lot of its glamour) would save us all a great deal.

And regarding the earlier portion of yr post: there have been several major pushes for reform of the US media - grassroots and representative. At each turn, the industry has offered to self-regulate (Hayes Code, Comic Code, MPAA, the new incomprehensible TV ratings) and the legislators have backed away... I do share your pessimism though.

Ronald Thomas Clontle

15:02 / 20.07.01

quote:Originally posted by [Your Name Here]:

Yes and No? To say 'you're excused," sort of derails the need/push for any sort of reform doesn't it? Like saying that all that extra info would just be a pain in the ass. On the other hand condiseidering we pay for advertising two or three times, simply eliminating it (or a lot of its glamour) would save us all a great deal.

.

Well, though I can think of reasons for why advertising reform is essential and necessary, I do think that since the overwhelming majority of the population has no interest or desire to see it changed counts for a lot...I still believe in democracy, and if the majority wants unchecked capitalism and unrestricted advertisement and PR as it seems, then it seems somewhat unethical to stand against the will of the people, doesn't it? Sure, there's a lot of logic to 'give the people what they need, if not what they want', but when does that change over from being a benevolent desire to help others to being an elitist quasi-fascist stance? I think that re-education about how capitalism and avertising *really* works is in order, I agree with you, because that seems to be the only way for progressive change. It's an uphill battle though...lots of people, especially kids, love adverts and modern life, and don't know anything else.

Am I running around in circles in this thread? Probably..

00:51 / 21.07.01

Templar, branding does not pack more "information" into objects. There's nothing more than symbol recognition = [word x], which happens to be the name of a company about whom all we know is "they make [porduct]" which is more often than not only a tiny bit of the story anyway.

Yes, you branded T-shirt is alien and empty, full of unkown meaning regarding its production, and filled by a series of relatively random unconnected imagery. You seem to understand this:

quote:An object empty of brand leaves people who don't know of its origins without a frame of reference, and so it means much less to them.

And so the brand is added to the alienated object to, in the first instance, take the place of the distressing void left by the invisibility of its production; and in the second to actively displace that story in the most economical way possible: the bare minimum of competing information,

Since the luxury of asking someone with the swoosh etched into their epidermis isn't open to me, perhaps you could explain the difference between Nike and Addidas.

Is your suggestion that the clay pipes were used onece and discarded, or that the lack of branding makes them fundamentally meaningless: an anonymous poem, a favorite sweater, a pair of spectacles? All you've done so far is repeat that branding is inherently more semiotically dense than any other previous form of meaning inscription without actually saying why.

01:33 / 21.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Calamity Janey:
Templar, branding does not pack more "information" into objects.

Of course it does. The associations that you get from a T-shirt with a branded image (pictures, sayings, songs, memories) on are far more than the associations of a plain T-shirt (it's a T-shirt). Ipso facto more information.

quote:Since the luxury of asking someone with the swoosh etched into their epidermis isn't open to me, perhaps you could explain the difference between Nike and Addidas.

Off the top of my head, Nike has a more aggressivly current marketing strategy (famous athletes, instantly recognisable logo, cunningly appluadable tag line) whereas Addidas trades more off its assosociations of being old school ("My Addidas" by Run DMC, gym shoes, etc.) Was it the Addidas ads where the guy's feet had morphed with trainers? Very cool. Anyway, on a personal note I am aware of Nike as being famously demonised as suppressors of mankind in general, whereas Addidas has somehow managed to avoid such a bad press. I'd also think of my customised slippers (Nike cloth trainers with the backs crushed). And probably No Logo.

That's just my associations of the top of my head. Point being it's different for everybody, according to what they've absorbed. You say Nike, I remember Michael Moore trying to get Philip Nike to open a factory in Seattle. Mention a trainer that your mate makes?

Blank Faced Avatar

08:21 / 28.07.01

Fortunately for me, the choice isn't between a 'Swoosh' t-shirt or a 'Blank' one. There are T-shirts made by people who aren't involved in enslaving the population of Indonesia. Or I can write something on the t-shirt myself, wear it, it's fine. Better. No contest, in fact.
They've got you eating adverts if you look in your brain and it tells you, "Ad-related branding, or blank - that's your choice". You should demand so much more.

And to shame the alleged "Richness" of the branded products - I have a T-shirt I made, it says BARBELITH, and it's got more associations than the entire sad NikeAdidasGap advertising shithole in one. What 'Information' do you get from Nike? That Nike is cool. Wow. Also you could recall some crappy 30 second soundbite music video clip they planted in your head, every time you look at it. That's not a plus point. Every time I look at my "ZAPATISTA" T-shirt I am moved to THINK.

That's why I can honestly say Brandwear sucks big fat enema tubes; because it's easy to do a million times better than these sad, corporate Zombies, yourself if you just THINK. What's the matter - don't tell me you want some Ad Exec to do it for you?
" You like these clothes now. Everyone else does. You might look out of place if you get something that isnt ADVERTISED. This is what everyone thinks is good...this is what you want".

My homemade efforts, naturally, look 10X better than this shit. On their own level I can beat them flat, because I actually have something REAL to put in that space, while they're just struggling to fill it. With 'information' - about how Nike is spelled perhaps; and 'associations' - about how what you want is to buy more crap.

Why hire actors to play young fashion victims when there are real ones that'll pay you for the privilege?

All rise to sing the rousing corporate anthem ... ( *ahem* ) ...
" We Pledge Eternal Loyalty to .."(*cut to commercial break*)..."..They Express What I Am Feeling.."

[ 28-07-2001: Message edited by: the Humble Crab ]

Page: 1(2)