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.
|
