Blog Post: Week 3 or 4?

THe Persuaders:
1. We've been talking in class about how the advertising industry is continually updating their methods of reaching us, the consumer. This video continues to reinforce that standard, as Andy Spade's campaign with Song showed, with absolutely no focus on the airline itself.
2. The fact that the advertising industry is dominated by six major players is rather scary. It reminds me of the music industry, where standards are set by the major labels, and independent labels have to work within those rules if they want any chance of success.
3. The Cheerios commercial and the Tide commercial, along with the interview of Kevin Roberts of Saatchi & Saatchi, are another reinforcement of the continually evolving ad industry, in a different way. While Spade's Song campaign was focused on a stylistic approach and emphasis on a certain idealized lifestyle associated with the product, Roberts' Lovemarks idea focuses on associating emotional loyalty with a product based on, as he says "mystery, sensuality, and intimacy".
4. The collaborations between Hollywood and the ad industry, such as product placement within movies and TV shows, has really become prolific in recent years. The scariest part, for me, is that I know that somewhere out there, somebody IS going, 'Well, I saw them drinking Sierra Mist on Survivor, so I'll have a Sierra Mist." ALso, Bob Dylan? Seriously!?
5. Market research in general, and specifically CLotaire Rapaille, is CREEPY. The method of finding out demographic information and vulnerabilities of the consumer by
systematically confusing and questioning people seems beyond weird to me. Even the
information that he gathers seems arbitrary and unnecessary.

Get Smarter

1. The main thesis of this article is that our current societal inundation with technology is making us smarter as a whole, due to the extended overstimulation that our brains are receiving.

2. One thing I agree with is the simple statement that Cascio makes regarding human assessment of threats: "As good as our brains have become at planning ahead, we're still biased toward looking for near-term, simple threats. Subtle, long-term risks, particularly those involving complex global processes remain devilishly hard for us to manage". Time and again, especially regarding environmental crises, we turn to the most immediate solution for the most immediate problem, hoping that it might be the final solution.

Another point that I agree with Cascio on is when the author mentions that most people associate knowledge with "the capacity to memorize and recite facts". One of the other classes I'm taking this semester is "Rethinking Educational Paradigms", and redefining knowledge is one of the basics that we covered in order to delve further into the course. Through our discussions, I've come to realize that education and knowledge certainly do not correlate with the simple recitation of facts. I'm not sure if I agree with the second half of this point, however, where Cascio postulates that oversaturation by the Internet and other media is increasing what he calls our "fluid intelligence".

Something that Cascio says that really makes me worried is his mention of a hypothetical Twitter that is able to weed out the messages the user does not want to see. This is very reminiscent of both FEED and the progression of the advertising industry over the years.

Another point that I disagree with Cascio on is his whole Modafinil argument. While I won't say that I don't condone recreational drug usage, I feel like the author is advocating something that I cannot support. His comparison of it to steroid use within organized sports is well-drawn, in my opinion. It also makes the author appear to be dependant on this drug in order to feel as though they are keeping up with our current flood of technology within society. This, in turn, appears to negate the thesis of the piece, showing that we as humans are not only not getting smarter, but we're resorting to additional supplements just to keep up with everyone and everything else.

Ad Nauseam

I found myself particularly worried by the article, "How Do Kids Read Commercials?". In particular, the segment illustrates the very real need for media literacy to be taught at a young age. THe interviews with the children included reinforces the fact that the ad industry is focusing on a market that does not yet have the cognitive ability to recognize their own victimization. When a student is completely unaware of the intentions of a Pepsi commercial, it sends a signal (to me, at least) that we need to step up our defenses against a more and more ruthless industry. As for the influence that commercials have on worlds our youth are living in, I am only reminded of the Budweiser commercials from a few years ago, with the whole "WHASSSSSSUUUUPPPP" shit going on. Not only was that crap annoying, but it solidified a brand in a demographic that was TOO YOUNG TO LEGALLY CONSUME THE PRODUCT ANYWAYS. Kids these days, I tell ya.

In "Coca-Cola and the Case of the Disappearing Water Glass", I was extremely perturbed by the massive influence COca-cola has on entirely separate sectors of our economy. We've talked about the ad industry's act of being bedfellows with a number of other parts of or economic society, such as hollywood (through "product placement") and the government (through lobbying for less control over advertising restrictions, as shown in "Consuming Kids"). It just shows that there really is no aspect of our lives that consumerism won't try to reach.

Yeah.