Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Adbusters - The Movie!!!
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
anthonyqkiernan
anthonyqkiernan
7087 posts

Adbusters - The Movie!!!
Feb 20, 2003, 14:58
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS :: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 ::

A class-action lawsuit was filed today in Chicago against Loews Cineplex Entertainment Group and the approximately 2,445 screens and 263 theatres they own and operate. The lawsuit alleges that Loews Cinemas purposely deceive moviegoers as to the actual starting times for feature films, with the goal of generating a captive audience for advertisements. By publishing misleading starting times in newspapers, on marquees and on their tickets, the movie theaters breach their contracts with moviegoers and engage in a deceptive trade practice. The effect is to waste purchasers' time by forcing them to sit through unwanted commercial messages. Purchasers are effectively forced to watch commercials on their own dime and time.
_____________________________________________

For the full story:
http://www.nomovieads.com/pr.htm
Estelle
89 posts

Re: Adbusters - The Movie!!!
Feb 21, 2003, 22:48
Four mins of ads in America and they complain.
It's ten mins minimum in Preston, usually more, at the advertised performance time. Plus trailers, including for the film you are about to watch. Before that, a sequence of very dull still image advertisments and taped announcements.
Citizensmurf
Citizensmurf
1703 posts

Re: Adbusters - The Movie!!!
Feb 22, 2003, 02:27
Hmmm

Good idea, but who really gives a rat. In my opinion, why would you spend time and money fighting an "injustice" of this kind. Yes the ads are annoying and too many previews, but hell you know they're there and why the hell aren't you attending the smaller theatres. It's like watching T.V. and then complaining about all the crap they broadcast. TURN THE FUCKING THING OFF. I don't really subscribe to the Adbusters-type mentality of "culture jamming" and the like. It seems to me that the companies vs. the people is just another endless fight that compliments each other. Instead I choose to stay out. The adverts would drive me insane if I chose to look at them and think about them all the time, but hell move to the country and turn off the tele. That's about all I have for this rant.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: Adbusters - The Movie!!!
Feb 22, 2003, 03:21
>
> The adverts would drive me insane if I chose
> to look at them and think about them all the
> time...
>
Sadly most people don't have that choice. I cannot walk for more than 3 minutes in any direction from my front door without passing an advertisement of some kind.

There's no practical way of filtering them out of my field of vision; and i am of the opinion that _ignoring_ them is not an option. I have certain beliefs about the way marketing works, and they include the importance of passing a conscious judgement on each advertisement. I honestly feel it's unhealthy to passively consume any media; particularly commercials, as they are deliberately crafted to provoke subconscious emotional responses conducive to psychological imprinting.

[this is not a conspiracy theory, incidentally, it is mainstream marketing theory]

Therefore urban environments become hard work, and induce neurosis and anxiety - filled, as they are, with images designed to provoke a barrage of conflicting emotional responses.

>
> but hell move to the country and turn off
> the tele.
>
Turning off the TV is certainly a way of dramatically reducing the number of commercials you consume, but your advice to "move to the country" is a little trite, if you don't mind me saying so.

Firstly, most city-dwellers cannot afford to move to the country.

Secondly, why do you think urban environments are so saturated with advertising? Cos that's where the people are! If people leave the cities, then so will the marketers.

And aside from all that, i have to say that your dismissal of ad-busting and other forms of guerilla ontology is somewhat libertarian. Most people involved in such activities see themselves (perhaps melodramatically) as attempting to resist a powerful and deeply destructive cultural influence. They are simply not interested in ignoring the ills of society and living hermit-style far from the madding crowd. They feel a personal responsibility to oppose those they see as committing unacknowledged crimes.

As it happens, i'm tending more towards the "moving to the country and switching off the TV" option you suggested. But i don't think you should so easily dismiss the efforts who don't turn away from challenging the evils of the system.

Or something.
anthonyqkiernan
anthonyqkiernan
7087 posts

Re: Adbusters - The Movie!!!
Feb 22, 2003, 10:26
I was gonna pull Papa Abes up on "just another endless fight". How defeatist. We know the marches last week will not stop the war. Does that make it pointless to have marched?

Other than that, as ever, Grufty has answered his points far more articulately than I could've.

ps. I like trailers.
Citizensmurf
Citizensmurf
1703 posts

Re: Adbusters - The Movie!!!
Feb 23, 2003, 23:26
Well I'm not one to let a good argument die, so.

Point taken, I might sound a bit "trite" but I still disagree that it pretty much is a pointless, and endless fight to challenge the "evils of the system" like that. I know all about marketing strategies, and I believe the one valid point the culture-jammers are trying to make is to make the public think about the medium of advertising and what it does to your head. They should teach this in school. But nevertheless, reacting to it by vandalizing or manipulating the ads, however righteous and empowering it may make you feel, does little but endorse the fact that the ads are working. That is the main point of ads is for someone to take notice.

The next point of course is to sell the product and we the consumers play the largest role in what we actually see in advertising (content and quantity). The urban-lifestyle you seem to be stuck with, is stuck in it's own loop of endless consumption. You have to live there to make money, but the money you make gets spent on, and I mean this, utter crap. I live in one of the worst places that I've seen for it, Calgary, Alberta. I do get upset by the amount of money wasted and time spent on this endless consumption.

But getting back on track, the most effective thing to do as a consumer it order to combat the "evils of the system" is be informed, and make good shopping decisions. Go to http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/10steps.asp (if you haven't already) and see 10 ways, you Joe consumer can make a difference in a constructive manner. Now David Suzuki designed these 10 steps as simple ways to make the world a cleaner, healthier place in reaction to the recently ratified Kyoto accord in Canada. But they are a good example of taking small steps to lower the amount of money being wasted on crap.

Now the ads will only keep coming if the people keep spending, because somehow the genius's in marketing think the ads really do make people buy the products. If sales go down, the ad budget will decrease along with the other cost-cutting measures, and eventually, may disappear altogether. (Although that would take a long fucking time and the rate this city is spending).

And yes the marches didn't do a fucking thing to stop the war, but they are far from pointless. It is quite vital to come together and protest what you see as intolerable. In a matter so great it won't stop the U.S. from taking action, but to get the people united for their own sake is a great cause. I am not a fucking defeatist, I am a realist. And there is nothing trite about living in the country. I don't know where you live but my country (the land and its people, not the ridiculous institution called "Canada") is a great place, where anyone can afford to live if they would only dispose their lives of all crap consumption.

So I will continue to turn off the tele, and I hope to move back to the country side in a few years (I'm not totally sick of this city yet) and the ads that are everywhere, you don't have to read them and you don't have to think about them, and who cares if you subconscious notices them, it also notices the angle between two walls. But to analyse it can also lead to aggrevation and "losing it". That's about it again.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Long Response (sorry) - Part 1
Feb 24, 2003, 02:21
Fraid i don't really get what you're saying. And i think you may have missed my point a little.

Firstly, let me say that i never suggested living in the country was "trite". I've no idea where you got that from. I believe "switch off the TV and move to the country" is a trite reaction to the problems of commodification and consumerism... i.e. it lacks power to effect real change because it's impractical and hackneyed - and therefore does not present itself as a solution to the problem.

>
> But nevertheless, reacting to it by vandalizing
> or manipulating the ads, however righteous and
> empowering it may make you feel, does little
> but endorse the fact that the ads are working.
> That is the main point of ads is for someone to
> take notice.
>
I completely disagree with pretty much everything said there. But i suspect it's an "agree to disagree" thing. One thing i will say is that i think the empowerment felt by someone defacing adverts is a worthy achievement in, and of, itself. It is a moment of liberation from an increasingly commodified culture which teaches us that we have no power. It is a personal statement of opposition to a system portrayed as being "a good thing" as well as being a public statement. As such, it is *at least* as valid an individual reaction as your advice of non-participation. And of course, on an immediate social level it is far more valid a reaction if your aim is to criticise the system, in the sense that it can make others feel empowered too (as i do when i walk past a defaced billboard).

Also, it is my belief that you are completely wrong when you say "the main point of ads is for someone to take notice". And that the "next point of course is to sell the product". I honestly don't know how you can claim to "know all about marketing strategies" and make those statements. The single aim (and main point) of *all* adverts is to sell the product or service being advertised. Getting "someone to take notice" (i.e. consciously register and examine the advert) is simply one strategy used to achieve that single aim. And with an increasingly media-savvy consumer-base, it is a decreasingly popular strategy.

It is a paradoxical fact, for example, that brand-awareness is heightened by less-obtrusive advertising. If a brand is seen simply as part of the everyday environment (i.e. is not "noticed" consciously) then it is likely to feel more familiar to the consumer. In other words - whilst in the supermarket aisle - it is subconsciously a product that the consumer believes "ought to be" in their kitchen / bathroom / whatever. The same appears to be true of financial institutions. People will trust a bank that they feel has been there forever... it's simply part of the environment.

So please don't tell me that the main point of adverts is to be noticed, when clearly the strategy being employed by perhaps the majority of advertising is precisely the opposite.

There are of course plenty of adverts that scream out for attention. These are usually (though not always) for high-price items (cars and holidays being the biggies there) which want to appear exotic and new... unfamiliar. In those cases, i believe it is equally important - if not more so - to examine the advert. "Who cares", you write, "if your subconscious notices them, it also notices the angle between two walls". True. But presumably the builder wasn't paid a fortune to ensure that the angle will provoke a deep subconscious emotional response, leaving you open to psychological imprinting. Cos *that's* what marketing execs are doing. And i believe they can be very successful at it. I understand if you don't. But if you *do* believe that adverts can have a significant effect through pseudo-subliminal imprinting, then ignoring them and passively consuming them is not a course of action you can be comfortable with. So in answer to "who cares?". I do.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Long Response (sorry) - Part 2
Feb 24, 2003, 02:21
Y'see it's not the "subconscious noticing" that's at issue; it's the effect it has on you. Maybe you're a very different person to me; but a 12-foot billboard with an image of a semi-naked supermodel has a very different effect on me than any angle between any two walls you care to mention (however clever the builder).

Here's a classic example of that manipulation which was successful on me recently. Sainsbury's supermarkets in the UK are currently advertising their "financial services"; in particular low-interest loans. Quite what a grocery chain is doing in the banking industry is a mystery to me. Anyways, in the ad, our hero is made to feel embarressed by his lack of a refrigerator. "Nip down to Sainsbury's", says our celebrity-chef endorser, "take out a loan and get yerself a fridge". Sure enough, our hero is at the shops, but before he can take out the loan he sees a classic-car for sale - a snip at 9 thousand quid! Guess what? He impulse-buys 9 grands-worth of credit and gets the flash car. Ridiculous right? Who'd fall for that bollocks? I mean; just *who* is that ad aimed at? *Who* are these people who impulse-buy 9 grand of debt at the supermarket? And are there enough of them to warrant a whole marketing campaign?

So i'm sitting there thinking about that mp3 player i want to buy, and i'm thinking i'll need to use my credit card. But y'know? it's *only* 350 quid! What the hell! At least i'm not like the guy who borrows 9 thousand.......

Y'see, the advert is aimed at me. That's who.

And that's actually a pretty unsubtle one. Like it or not, advertising has a psychological effect on those who consume it. I believe without question that this effect can be lessened simply by being aware of it. I believe without question that those who passively consume commercial media are vastly more damaged by it than those who strive to consciously analyse the effect it has on them. If you disagree then that's cool. But from *my* point of view; you can see that guerilla-ontology in the form of advert-subversion is a valid and potentially powerful strategy, right? It forces at least some of the people seeing the advert to consider it more deeply. Perhaps even to consider commercial media more deeply. It provokes debates like this.

And yes; attempting to examine the adverts that fill your daily environment "can lead to aggravation". It can make a person cynical and neurotic from time to time. Personally that's a price i'm willing to pay in order to assert some kind of control over the way i'm being manipulated by smug marketing execs in offices i'll never know the address of.

And of course you're right when you say "If sales go down, the ad budget will decrease along with the other cost-cutting measures, and eventually, may disappear altogether". Advertising alone does not create consumerism. I never said it did. In fact, it's pretty self-evident that it doesn't. However, advertising clearly does fuel it, and may well be one important factor in our metamorphosis from industrial capitalism to brand consumerism. Importantly, advertising can influence the decisions made by consumers when faced with two competing products. So while people don't decide to buy soap because of advertising, they can be convinced to buy *more* soap by advertising, and they can be convinced to buy a particular brand of soap. So from the point of view of an individual soap company, a good advert *does* make people buy soap.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Long Response (sorry) - Part 3
Feb 24, 2003, 02:22
The world you describe; in which we fight advertising by not buying products doesn't make a whole deal of sense unless you have a coherent plan for a post-capitalist society. Because that's what you're proposing. Great if you do; but frankly i've yet to see one that makes any sense when held up to the harsh light of reality. You can stop Pepsi advertising by bankrupting Pepsi through a massive global boycott of all the company's products. You'll be putting a major employer out of business - hundreds of thousands of people; millions globally - won't have jobs; and the knock-on effects into the plastics and aluminium industry; not to mention freight-haulage and sugarbeet and corn farmers, and the CO2-gas industry, and the effects on retailers and currently sponsored-sports events (many of which have become totally dependent upon corporate advertising), etc, etc, etc.

I'm not arguing in favour of our current system on principle. I just don't believe it's practical to put all of those people out of work until you've developed some kind of alternative system to support them. And as i say; i've yet to hear of one that's worth diddly. But i'm always on the look-out.

All just my opinion. Usual disclaimers apply.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

but perhaps more importantly
Feb 24, 2003, 03:02
My somewhat verbose response was a counterpoint to the points you made that i disagreed with. I agree with plenty of the stuff you say... "make the public think about the medium of advertising and what it does to your head. They should teach this in school", and the whole ethical consumer bit.

I also believe the only sane option that an individual can take is to move out of the city and try to live as self-sufficiently as possible, far from the consumer-babylon we've spawned (impractical though it may be).

I'm right with you on most of what you're saying, but i guess despite my pessimism, i still have a stubborn belief that individuals can "do good". Evading an overwhelming enemy might actually be the rational thing to do; but sometimes perhaps a show of outrage and defiance is important for it's own sake. Maybe spitting in the eye of consumerism is what we need to do just now? I dunno...

So yeah; don't take my argument as a criticism of where you're coming from in general. I just have a different stance on subvertising is all.
Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index