Madison Avenue’s Vision of Love
Oct 11, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
The only good thing about watching your baseball team get eliminated in the post-season is that, after launching a frustrated shoe at the television, one is excused from having to endure repeated viewings of the detestable little playlets written by Madison Avenue cynics who—perhaps due to the bad economy—have decided to eschew psychotherapy in favor of working out their relationship issues and general neurosis on the rest of us.
According to Madison Avenue, heterosexual relationships in America contain one browbeaten, idiotic or insincere member (usually male) and one completely overbearing member (usually female). During regular season, baseball fans endured a summer full of extreme close-ups of a big-eyed girl demanding constant cute-isms of a weary boyfriend; she looks panicked when nauseating terms of endearment are not tripping off his tongue. In a voiceover, the anxious male—trying to avoid what we must understand will be an inevitable “scene” if he does not cough up a coo—nimbly saves himself by pronouncing his drink (Sweet Tea) and his dessert (Pie). Sweetie Pie is briefly assuaged, but her staggering insecurity demands more and so the ante is upped as she mews, “aw, Chipmunk . . .”
Cue jingle: da-da-da-dah-dah, I’m lovin’ it.
Except viewers aren’t loving it. Viewers are thinking, who wrote that commercial? Was a it a guy involved with a needy girl? A woman reliving a relationship or confessing a pattern of involvement with guys who quickly run out of ways to keep up with her needs? And why must they inflict that theme of endless discomfort on us? We viewers do not feel good about this couple; we hope they will soon break up and find more relaxed and natural relationships. Observing their strained mutual fakery does not inspire us to head to that fast-food chain. Indeed, quite the opposite; who wants to stop in for a quick burger and soda and have to listen to that?
If your favorite baseball team did not make it into post-season, be comforted in knowing you have been spared multiple viewings of the woman who should have married John Clark. Perhaps you are John Clark, and you see this commercial and whisper hosannas to the God who saved you from marriage to this wretched viper. She is in her greenhouse (her private greenhouse, mind you) tending to her plants, and her husband (a well-meaning but hapless-looking fellow you just know has stepped on a rake at least once in his life) opens the door and excitedly tells her he has just signed the family up for unlimited cell phone minutes. The wife puts down her spade and picks up her water mister (I am surprised that the director did not have her pick up her gardening shears) and begins to verbally emasculate him, sneering: “Where’s that money coming from, Steve? Did it even cross your mind to ask your wife before signing us up for something so expensive?” Lowering her tone she mutters (not for the first time, we’re sure) “my mother was right; I should have married John Clark.”
The husband, his proud smile bitten back in frustration, assumes a trained tone of apology; “they were free . . .” he explains. In closing shot we note the wife: aware that she has been caught in a blazing offense of discourtesy, she remains unbowed. If her husband is the puppy who has been trained to cower at the sight of a rolled newspaper, she apparently is the cat who has never learned to retract her claws. “Even Alice Kramden,” noted my husband, “understood that when she’d amused herself with a withering putdown of Ralph, she’d earned a rhetorical ‘bang, zoom!’ in return.” The would-be-Mrs-Clark, we sense, let’s nothing roll off her hunched shoulders.
This generation of ad-writers has surely endured the same fallout from the sexual revolution as the rest of us, the family break-ups, the touch-and-go dysfunctional relationships. Is that why they seem unable to present loving relationships or intact families (sans bumbling men or neurotic women) unless they’re pushing Viagra and vitamins for the 50-plus demographic?
The deliberate, non-stop teasing of our synapses, by which means Madison Avenue seeks to elicit feelings of desire and need, is examined by theologian Tim Muldoon of Boston College, writes in “Sex and Consumption”:
It is difficult to imagine a monk falling prey to the need for a Prada handbag, or jeans from Abercrombie and Fitch, or body spray or anything else their clients are hawking. Their freedom to understand the cravings of the soul allows them to name what is truly necessary. . .namely, love.
If the recent barrage of ham-handed television commercials peopled with foolish men, churlish women and hectoring, know-it-all children are any indication, Madison Avenue has no idea what love has to do with relationships or families, or natural desire. Even worse, it believes the rest of us don’t, either, and that things—lots and lots of things—can suffice, can provide reasonable facsimiles of love. We will love our new shoes or our new iSomething, we are told; we will love, love, love this new air freshener. These things will make us happy. As long as we are not looking to be loved back.
An astonishing percentage of our economy is dependent upon our willingness to substitute things for love, and to just keep buying. Is it any wonder, then, that our culture is consumed with loneliness and broken dreams, or that all of our empty bubbles—technology, housing, tuition for “good” colleges that will keep the love coming—are bursting one after another?
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Mr. Snuggles
Greenhouse Viper
Tim Muldoon
Fall Web Campaign: Please donate to support the online mission of First Things.
Comments:
10.11.2011 | 7:20am
arty says:
Am I being dense, or is anyone else in the dark as to what Resh Galuta's comment is supposed to mean?
10.11.2011 | 7:45am
EdSchoen says:
Elizabeth -- Spot on, as usual. I know of only one television protrayal of a genuine, loving, happy marriage. On the TV show "White Collar" the FBI agent Peter Burke, and his wife Elizabeth, have a wonderful marriage. To add to the suspense, the last season ended with Elizabeth being taken hostage! That story line is all the more compelling because of their relationship. Modern Family this is not. Thankfully.
10.11.2011 | 8:10am
Richard says:
Elizabeth, I couldn't agree more. My wife and I have ditched our tv as a source of toxic waste.
I am reminded of a wonderful Dilbert cartoon strip in which Dilbert and the Devil are having a conversation in Dilbert's house. When it's time to go, the Devil asks to be directed to the portal to Hell. Dilbert, in bewilderment, say that his house doesn't have one. The Devil says jauntily "Of course you do. All American homes have them." Then he looks around the living room until he spots the television set. "See, there it is" he says and pops through the screen down to Hell.
Best,
Richard
I am reminded of a wonderful Dilbert cartoon strip in which Dilbert and the Devil are having a conversation in Dilbert's house. When it's time to go, the Devil asks to be directed to the portal to Hell. Dilbert, in bewilderment, say that his house doesn't have one. The Devil says jauntily "Of course you do. All American homes have them." Then he looks around the living room until he spots the television set. "See, there it is" he says and pops through the screen down to Hell.
Best,
Richard
10.11.2011 | 8:15am
patricksarsfield says:
Madison Avenue (or more accurately, the omnipresent marketplace) needs people who need. If marriage enables people to live happily ever after with one another, then those pdeople won't need. If one spouse cleans and cooks, then Merry Maids and all the quick fix meals for one products will sell less. Divorce lawyers, marriage counselors, counselors for the kids of broken homes, handymen and financial counselors for newly divorvced spouses (just to name a few of the submarkets looking to undo marriages once they have been established), all hate the idea of happily ever after because they won't make a living.
So, the universal marketplace (what we call our culture) does not like the idea of marriages for life in which a man and a woman become" one flesh" as it was from the beginning (Matt. 19:5-6). One flesh, among other things, means the one spouse regards the other spouse's needs to be entitled to no less priority than his/her own. Not very good in the eyes of a marketplace that wants people to need everything it has to offer.
Now I know that there is a vogue now for "wedding shows" and even a whole "wedding channel" (accompanied by all the ads suitable for someone in the market for a wedding) and on those shows, the brass ring is still
"wedded bliss." Such bliss though is wrapped up in such deep questions as whether to put covers over the chairs at the "reception venue," whether to go with a "destination wedding" or whether to bust out of the budget set for the all important weding dress. (In case you are wondering: I can't help hearing what my spouse watches since she controls the main TV).
Lesson? The market loves weddings for the same reason it hates marriages: weddings result in addressable needs while marriages take people out of the market for some of the things that can be sold in the marketplace. And once all sexual taboos have been broken, even that will be available for sale in the above-ground marketplace. Madison Avenue loves needs.
One more caveat: this is not a left-right thing. The Democratic Party has a keen appreciation for "needs." It structures the governmental services it offers to bing in identified populations have--as identified victims-to address their particular needs. In facty, if one looks at tax policy, it could be said that no one hates marriage more than the Democratic Party. How much weaker it would be if divorce were discouraged and unmarried mothers' needs weren't addressed as a separate class. That is why the filing status of "head of household" is at least as favorable to unmarried parents as the "married filing jointly" category is to intact families. Moreover, once one throws in Earned Income Credits (which are not available to a similarly situated married couple if the lesser contributing spouse earns more than $5000) and the graduated income tax levels that create a marriage penalty in many situations, it is clear that even the Tax Code is part of the effort to sell unmarried women on the Democratic Party's governmental services as the real way to live happily ever after.
So, the universal marketplace (what we call our culture) does not like the idea of marriages for life in which a man and a woman become" one flesh" as it was from the beginning (Matt. 19:5-6). One flesh, among other things, means the one spouse regards the other spouse's needs to be entitled to no less priority than his/her own. Not very good in the eyes of a marketplace that wants people to need everything it has to offer.
Now I know that there is a vogue now for "wedding shows" and even a whole "wedding channel" (accompanied by all the ads suitable for someone in the market for a wedding) and on those shows, the brass ring is still
"wedded bliss." Such bliss though is wrapped up in such deep questions as whether to put covers over the chairs at the "reception venue," whether to go with a "destination wedding" or whether to bust out of the budget set for the all important weding dress. (In case you are wondering: I can't help hearing what my spouse watches since she controls the main TV).
Lesson? The market loves weddings for the same reason it hates marriages: weddings result in addressable needs while marriages take people out of the market for some of the things that can be sold in the marketplace. And once all sexual taboos have been broken, even that will be available for sale in the above-ground marketplace. Madison Avenue loves needs.
One more caveat: this is not a left-right thing. The Democratic Party has a keen appreciation for "needs." It structures the governmental services it offers to bing in identified populations have--as identified victims-to address their particular needs. In facty, if one looks at tax policy, it could be said that no one hates marriage more than the Democratic Party. How much weaker it would be if divorce were discouraged and unmarried mothers' needs weren't addressed as a separate class. That is why the filing status of "head of household" is at least as favorable to unmarried parents as the "married filing jointly" category is to intact families. Moreover, once one throws in Earned Income Credits (which are not available to a similarly situated married couple if the lesser contributing spouse earns more than $5000) and the graduated income tax levels that create a marriage penalty in many situations, it is clear that even the Tax Code is part of the effort to sell unmarried women on the Democratic Party's governmental services as the real way to live happily ever after.
10.11.2011 | 9:10am
David Nickol says:
Get a DVR if you don't have one already. When the program you want to watch comes on, tune to it but don't watch it. Use the next 15 minutes or so to do something productive. Then watch the show from the beginning and fast forward through the commercials.
Of course, you will miss things like the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ces98B8W8r4
Of course, you will miss things like the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ces98B8W8r4
10.11.2011 | 9:23am
David Nickol says:
arty asks: "Am I being dense, or is anyone else in the dark as to what Resh Galuta's comment is supposed to mean?"
I think he means the person who wrote the commercial was probably gay and probably didn't like straight people. I think it is safe to say that Resh Galuta is probably straight and probably doesn't like gay people. Or, rather, he really LOVES gay people—as all good Christians do—but wants them to repent . . . and get out of the advertising business.
I think he means the person who wrote the commercial was probably gay and probably didn't like straight people. I think it is safe to say that Resh Galuta is probably straight and probably doesn't like gay people. Or, rather, he really LOVES gay people—as all good Christians do—but wants them to repent . . . and get out of the advertising business.
10.11.2011 | 11:06am
pentamom says:
"and get out of the advertising business. "
Or maybe just stop trying to sell things based on a toxic view of human relationships?
I'm not sure I buy patrickarsfield's premise. In an affluent society (which, relatively speaking, we still are) people will always find things to want and to buy. If one spouse takes care of domestic chores, they won't be buying microwave meals for one -- but they're going to be buying more and nicer cookware, will be entertaining more, will be doing costly families activities together more (because there will be more time), etc. Ditto with examples down the line. If people stay married and like each other, the financial counselors will be helping people invest for some happy golden years. The handymen will be helping people upgrade their stable family homes, instead of doing repairs for lonely divorcees. I don't think a "social broken window theory" is any more valid than a literal one.
I don't disagree with the premise that Madison Avenue needs us to want ever more stuff in order to thrive -- I just don't see where they're particularly more benefited by social misery and conflict. Happy, productive people in happy families can be taught to desire things, just as much, in a materialistic society. Whether Resh's proposition is right or not (and I'm not even sure that he's being serious rather than sarcastic) I do think there's some personal toxicity in the advertising industry's mentality that drives this, rather than some market necessity for people to be asocial.
Or maybe just stop trying to sell things based on a toxic view of human relationships?
I'm not sure I buy patrickarsfield's premise. In an affluent society (which, relatively speaking, we still are) people will always find things to want and to buy. If one spouse takes care of domestic chores, they won't be buying microwave meals for one -- but they're going to be buying more and nicer cookware, will be entertaining more, will be doing costly families activities together more (because there will be more time), etc. Ditto with examples down the line. If people stay married and like each other, the financial counselors will be helping people invest for some happy golden years. The handymen will be helping people upgrade their stable family homes, instead of doing repairs for lonely divorcees. I don't think a "social broken window theory" is any more valid than a literal one.
I don't disagree with the premise that Madison Avenue needs us to want ever more stuff in order to thrive -- I just don't see where they're particularly more benefited by social misery and conflict. Happy, productive people in happy families can be taught to desire things, just as much, in a materialistic society. Whether Resh's proposition is right or not (and I'm not even sure that he's being serious rather than sarcastic) I do think there's some personal toxicity in the advertising industry's mentality that drives this, rather than some market necessity for people to be asocial.
10.11.2011 | 11:48am
CKG says:
Is it really so mysterious anymore that advertising is all about creating desire/anxiety (of one sort or another), in order to induce people to buy things?
But yes; every time I see the 'John Clark' woman, my skin crawls. . . (And just because I've always wondered - what's with the His & Hers bathtubs in the backyard, in the Cialis ads?)
But yes; every time I see the 'John Clark' woman, my skin crawls. . . (And just because I've always wondered - what's with the His & Hers bathtubs in the backyard, in the Cialis ads?)
10.11.2011 | 2:12pm
Joseph says:
David Nikol,
"I think it is safe to say that Resh Galuta is probably straight and probably doesn't like gay people. Or, rather, he really LOVES gay people—as all good Christians do—but wants them to repent . . . and get out of the advertising business."
I almost agreed with you... until I arrived at the last sentence after the elipsis. Resh Galuta actually proposed that people who agree with him should ignore the ad and not purchase the product advertised in it. That's quite different from proposing that the hypothetical gay writer get out of the advertising business.
So, since we're trying to guess what his point is, why don't we also try to guess what the point of your comment is. Is your point that anyone who says anything at all that may offend the sensibilities of a homosexual is a fascist bigot? Because that's what your misrepresentation sounds like... something deep inside you.
I repeat, except for your misrepresentation, I would have agreed entirely with you. But now you sound like a bitter homosexual male who thinks that any heterosexual male that doesn't like anything to do with homosexuality automatically wants them purged from society. In other words, in your response, you ended up painting yourself with the brush you were using on your man.
"I think it is safe to say that Resh Galuta is probably straight and probably doesn't like gay people. Or, rather, he really LOVES gay people—as all good Christians do—but wants them to repent . . . and get out of the advertising business."
I almost agreed with you... until I arrived at the last sentence after the elipsis. Resh Galuta actually proposed that people who agree with him should ignore the ad and not purchase the product advertised in it. That's quite different from proposing that the hypothetical gay writer get out of the advertising business.
So, since we're trying to guess what his point is, why don't we also try to guess what the point of your comment is. Is your point that anyone who says anything at all that may offend the sensibilities of a homosexual is a fascist bigot? Because that's what your misrepresentation sounds like... something deep inside you.
I repeat, except for your misrepresentation, I would have agreed entirely with you. But now you sound like a bitter homosexual male who thinks that any heterosexual male that doesn't like anything to do with homosexuality automatically wants them purged from society. In other words, in your response, you ended up painting yourself with the brush you were using on your man.
10.11.2011 | 2:22pm
Kevin Lowry says:
Elizabeth, great post. I particularly like Tim's insight about a monk being impervious to superfluous stuff. Advertising is yet another area we need clear-thinking, faithful people. One ray of hope: my son (who is studying marketing at Franciscan University), was recently required to read the following: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_22021997_ethics-in-ad_en.html
10.11.2011 | 2:56pm
Eric Scheidler says:
For those of us who don't have televisions, here are links to the ads that Elizabeth Scalia alludes to in her article:
McDonald's "Sweet Tea Pie" ad:
http://youtu.be/90Q3aJb-wTw
AT&T Greenhouse ad:
http://youtu.be/lwtz2Au6BGQ
I had to look these up to appreciate Scalia's commentary, and thought others would appreciate the links.
McDonald's "Sweet Tea Pie" ad:
http://youtu.be/90Q3aJb-wTw
AT&T Greenhouse ad:
http://youtu.be/lwtz2Au6BGQ
I had to look these up to appreciate Scalia's commentary, and thought others would appreciate the links.
10.11.2011 | 3:29pm
David Nickol says:
Joseph,
You say: "Is your point that anyone who says anything at all that may offend the sensibilities of a homosexual is a fascist bigot? Because that's what your misrepresentation sounds like... something deep inside you."
I have written quite a lot here on First Things, and you can find what I have had to say by searching the site with Google. I have never once called anyone a fascist bigot, or a bigot, or a homophobe, nor have I equated sincere moral opposition to homosexual acts with bigotry. You might check out my message of July 6th, 2011 | 5:06 pm in the following thread where I begin by saying, "I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not saying opposition to same-sex marriage or a belief that homosexuality is immoral are, in and of themselves, homophobia," and go on to explain what I really would consider homophobia.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/07/05/new-york-2011poland-1961/#comment-44563
Resh Galuta's comments concerning homosexuality can also be found by searching First Things with Google. It's with a fair amount of restraint that I don't quote Mr. Galuta's most offensive comments here.
You say: "But now you sound like a bitter homosexual male who thinks that any heterosexual male that doesn't like anything to do with homosexuality automatically wants them purged from society. In other words, in your response, you ended up painting yourself with the brush you were using on your man."
I would point out that if I have wronged Resh Galuta—and I admit it would have been wiser and more charitable of me to omit my last sentence—you have certainly wronged me in exactly the same way by jumping to an unwarranted conclusion about what's "deep inside" me based on a few sentences I wrote. Gratuitous anti-gay remarks do annoy me, but I really don't go around calling people fascist bigots—or even thinking of them that way—and I probably would have ignored Mr. Galuta's remark if arty had not raised a question about it.
You say: "Is your point that anyone who says anything at all that may offend the sensibilities of a homosexual is a fascist bigot? Because that's what your misrepresentation sounds like... something deep inside you."
I have written quite a lot here on First Things, and you can find what I have had to say by searching the site with Google. I have never once called anyone a fascist bigot, or a bigot, or a homophobe, nor have I equated sincere moral opposition to homosexual acts with bigotry. You might check out my message of July 6th, 2011 | 5:06 pm in the following thread where I begin by saying, "I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not saying opposition to same-sex marriage or a belief that homosexuality is immoral are, in and of themselves, homophobia," and go on to explain what I really would consider homophobia.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/07/05/new-york-2011poland-1961/#comment-44563
Resh Galuta's comments concerning homosexuality can also be found by searching First Things with Google. It's with a fair amount of restraint that I don't quote Mr. Galuta's most offensive comments here.
You say: "But now you sound like a bitter homosexual male who thinks that any heterosexual male that doesn't like anything to do with homosexuality automatically wants them purged from society. In other words, in your response, you ended up painting yourself with the brush you were using on your man."
I would point out that if I have wronged Resh Galuta—and I admit it would have been wiser and more charitable of me to omit my last sentence—you have certainly wronged me in exactly the same way by jumping to an unwarranted conclusion about what's "deep inside" me based on a few sentences I wrote. Gratuitous anti-gay remarks do annoy me, but I really don't go around calling people fascist bigots—or even thinking of them that way—and I probably would have ignored Mr. Galuta's remark if arty had not raised a question about it.
10.11.2011 | 3:32pm
liz says:
I completely agree - there are almost no intelligent men portrayed in TV commercials nowadays. They're all overgrown children who apparently only make it through the day with the help of their smarty-pants wife or girlfriend. No doubt Madison Ave is attempting to flatter women as the ones who make a lot of the household decisions.
One that currently bugs me is for Subaru, and it involves a 30'ish aged couple retracing their steps from a day of road-tripping to find the man's sunglasses. He eventually finds them when he pulls up the hood of his hoodie (yes, an adult man in a yellow hoodie) as he's fleeing from bats as he exits a cave. The woman gives him a weary smile - as if this kind of idiotic mishap happens all the time.
One that currently bugs me is for Subaru, and it involves a 30'ish aged couple retracing their steps from a day of road-tripping to find the man's sunglasses. He eventually finds them when he pulls up the hood of his hoodie (yes, an adult man in a yellow hoodie) as he's fleeing from bats as he exits a cave. The woman gives him a weary smile - as if this kind of idiotic mishap happens all the time.
10.11.2011 | 5:22pm
David Nickol says:
Eric Scheidler
Thank you for the links. I had never seen those two commercials before. I would have to say that the commercials that really get to me are the ones for prescription drugs where the person who was depressed, or the person who quit smoking, or the person whose asthma improved because of the drug goes about his or her business happily in the background while the announcer runs through a long list of ghastly side effects up to, and often including, death. The anti-smoking drug Chantix is a perfect example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clrkl1mixJw
Thank you for the links. I had never seen those two commercials before. I would have to say that the commercials that really get to me are the ones for prescription drugs where the person who was depressed, or the person who quit smoking, or the person whose asthma improved because of the drug goes about his or her business happily in the background while the announcer runs through a long list of ghastly side effects up to, and often including, death. The anti-smoking drug Chantix is a perfect example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clrkl1mixJw
10.11.2011 | 7:35pm
pentamom says:
Just today, I ran across a print ad -- for lunchmeat! -- that was apparently part of an ad campaign based on the premise that wives/mothers make the choices they do for their families in order to manipulate them into doing what the moms want. (They actually trademarked the phrase, "So good. They'll think it's for them." The tag line on this particular ad was, "Give him ***** because the leaves won't rake themselves.")
That turned on a light bulb for me with regard to this post -- maybe the problem is that advertising types live day in, day out, by manipulating people. That is actually their *job.* Could it all just be a giant case of projection -- they've come to believe that most human behavior is actuated by manipulation? And/or that there's no point in aspiring to more?
That turned on a light bulb for me with regard to this post -- maybe the problem is that advertising types live day in, day out, by manipulating people. That is actually their *job.* Could it all just be a giant case of projection -- they've come to believe that most human behavior is actuated by manipulation? And/or that there's no point in aspiring to more?
10.11.2011 | 7:59pm
QuinGrad says:
There's a radio version of the greenhouse ad- the husband and wife have met at a restaurant, and after he tells her he loves her and pours her champagne she gives him her good news, that she's purchased the desirable product. He goes into panic overload, trying stuff the cork back in and calling the waiter to take the bottle back, until she informs him it was free with unlimited messaging (which, presumably, is not free). He is sheepish, exposed for a hasty idiot.
The buffoonish man stereotype extends to the Disney channel shows, which my daughter has begun to get interested. The families are usually stable ones, with mom, dad, and kids, but the mother always wields the real power, and the fathers know it; time and again the kids flout the father's discipline, or show that his help is actually ill-consdered and useless, until mom steps in and fixes the problem or halts the incorrect action.
Personally, I have a bone to pick with the depiction of men as incapable of taking care of the children or the house. I do every bit and more than my wife to rear our children and take care of the house, but the next similarly experienced man you see on tv, in a show or on a commercial, will be the first.
The buffoonish man stereotype extends to the Disney channel shows, which my daughter has begun to get interested. The families are usually stable ones, with mom, dad, and kids, but the mother always wields the real power, and the fathers know it; time and again the kids flout the father's discipline, or show that his help is actually ill-consdered and useless, until mom steps in and fixes the problem or halts the incorrect action.
Personally, I have a bone to pick with the depiction of men as incapable of taking care of the children or the house. I do every bit and more than my wife to rear our children and take care of the house, but the next similarly experienced man you see on tv, in a show or on a commercial, will be the first.
10.11.2011 | 8:39pm
Manny says:
"It is difficult to imagine a monk falling prey to the need for a Prada handbag, or jeans from Abercrombie and Fitch, or body spray or anything else their clients are hawking."
Frankly that's a really silly argument. The monk is not in the market for a handbag or an A&F pair of jeans. But I bet he might like a printing press or a computer hooked up to a high speed color printer.
Does anyone run out to buy a new car if they don’t need one and chose the Toyota because it had the best looking chick in the comercial? What advertisement does is keep their name on your mind so if you are in the market to buy a car you will not forget to evaluate their product. It’s to remind you they exist when you are considering what to buy. I’ve seen tons of Chevy comercials in my life time and I have never bought a chevy yet.
Advertising bashing is about as common as corporate bashing, and yet everyone participates in the economy. You have advertising on this very page, and I've stopped here before, seen the ads, and have never been tempted to purchase anything. Advertising is a reflection of the culture. I can agree the culture has degenerated; I can agree advertising debases sexuality, but that's because the culture is sex obssessed. I cannot agree that I've been manipulated.
Frankly that's a really silly argument. The monk is not in the market for a handbag or an A&F pair of jeans. But I bet he might like a printing press or a computer hooked up to a high speed color printer.
Does anyone run out to buy a new car if they don’t need one and chose the Toyota because it had the best looking chick in the comercial? What advertisement does is keep their name on your mind so if you are in the market to buy a car you will not forget to evaluate their product. It’s to remind you they exist when you are considering what to buy. I’ve seen tons of Chevy comercials in my life time and I have never bought a chevy yet.
Advertising bashing is about as common as corporate bashing, and yet everyone participates in the economy. You have advertising on this very page, and I've stopped here before, seen the ads, and have never been tempted to purchase anything. Advertising is a reflection of the culture. I can agree the culture has degenerated; I can agree advertising debases sexuality, but that's because the culture is sex obssessed. I cannot agree that I've been manipulated.
10.11.2011 | 10:55pm
Ron Wilczek says:
No doubt Madison Ave is attempting to flatter women of all generations!
10.11.2011 | 11:33pm
Henry@ ea hours says:
Yes I do agree with @RonWilczek that there there is no any doubt madison ave is attempting to flatter women
10.12.2011 | 6:41am
Todd says:
A priest friend occasionally returns to his assessment of some of the engaged couples he counsels, that when they say, "I love you," they really mean, "I love what you can do for me."
Corporations want a piece of this. They want people to love them for what they produce and sell. Heaven forbid you love them enough to want to show up at shareholders' meetings and mouth off.
My family has been turning off and/or muting commercial blocks since we adopted our daughter. She, now a teen, routinely presses the mute button and strikes up a conversation or heads to the kitchen for a snack, or opens her latest book during the breaks.
As for the John Clark commercial, it's easy. The advertisers want you to make a negative association with the woman. She is the essence of anti-consumption: consult with your loved one, and don't buy on impulse. The husband is the clear underdog, and besides: a confident, self-aware individual may not need a phone upgrade. Sure, a hen-pecked sap probably doesn't either, but at least you've got the Corporate Masters on your side, willing to cater to your need for self-validation by leaping into acquiring their product.
Corporations want a piece of this. They want people to love them for what they produce and sell. Heaven forbid you love them enough to want to show up at shareholders' meetings and mouth off.
My family has been turning off and/or muting commercial blocks since we adopted our daughter. She, now a teen, routinely presses the mute button and strikes up a conversation or heads to the kitchen for a snack, or opens her latest book during the breaks.
As for the John Clark commercial, it's easy. The advertisers want you to make a negative association with the woman. She is the essence of anti-consumption: consult with your loved one, and don't buy on impulse. The husband is the clear underdog, and besides: a confident, self-aware individual may not need a phone upgrade. Sure, a hen-pecked sap probably doesn't either, but at least you've got the Corporate Masters on your side, willing to cater to your need for self-validation by leaping into acquiring their product.
10.12.2011 | 6:44am
newscaper says:
Interestingly/infuriatingly, it is specifically husbands/fathers (mostly white, too) who are mocked endlessly -- not the abusers, cheaters or deadbeat dads.
AT&T's ad campaign is particularly obnoxious, sometimes somewhat subtly, with a weird 'diversity' formula that is decidedly not colorblind:
ad 1 -- dorky white guy blows flash mob performance in train station --- with woman and black guy give the 'you idiot' reaction shot.
ad2 -- black guy in office puts his foot in his mouth over free tacos he thougth he was getting left out of -- but note although group is mixed, only black man & woman are allowed to give the 'you idiot' reaction
ad 3 -- the greenhouse, 'nuff said (white wormy guy)
ad 4 -- friends post on facebook embarrassing photos of guy sleeping in airport terminal -- sleeper is white, watchers are black girl, asian guy
ad 5 -- a *good* dad who is taking care of his baby's diaper gets busted by wife for trying to get caught up on the game he missed when a friend calls (white couple) -- he's mocked as pitiful because he has the nerve to still try to be a dad and a 'guy' (I gues only women are supposed to be able to 'have it all')
AT&T's ad campaign is particularly obnoxious, sometimes somewhat subtly, with a weird 'diversity' formula that is decidedly not colorblind:
ad 1 -- dorky white guy blows flash mob performance in train station --- with woman and black guy give the 'you idiot' reaction shot.
ad2 -- black guy in office puts his foot in his mouth over free tacos he thougth he was getting left out of -- but note although group is mixed, only black man & woman are allowed to give the 'you idiot' reaction
ad 3 -- the greenhouse, 'nuff said (white wormy guy)
ad 4 -- friends post on facebook embarrassing photos of guy sleeping in airport terminal -- sleeper is white, watchers are black girl, asian guy
ad 5 -- a *good* dad who is taking care of his baby's diaper gets busted by wife for trying to get caught up on the game he missed when a friend calls (white couple) -- he's mocked as pitiful because he has the nerve to still try to be a dad and a 'guy' (I gues only women are supposed to be able to 'have it all')
10.12.2011 | 6:52am
patricksarsfield says:
Pentamom (who may not be familiar with the old folk wisdom that two can live as cheaply as one) disagrees with my point that the marketplace supports marriage break-up so the marketplace can expand into the "economy of the home" and supply for money that which one spouse provided to the marriage on an unpaid basis (e.g., cleaning, cooking, child care, handyman services, lawn mowing, accounting, etc.). She argues:
"I'm not sure I buy patrickarsfield's premise. In an affluent society (which, relatively speaking, we still are) people will always find things to want and to buy. If one spouse takes care of domestic chores, they won't be buying microwave meals for one -- but they're going to be buying more and nicer cookware, will be entertaining more, will be doing costly families activities together more (because there will be more time), etc. Ditto with examples down the line. If people stay married and like each other, the financial counselors will be helping people invest for some happy golden years. The handymen will be helping people upgrade their stable family homes, instead of doing repairs for lonely divorcees...."
There is no question that people selling things are creative in stimulating and addressing new needs--that was the whole thing about "keeping up with the Joneses," after all--BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IN A MARRIAGE SPOUSES SUPPLY SERVICES TO ONE ANOTHER ON AN UNPAID BASIS. My premise is that Madison Avenue resents seeing services exchanged "for love instead of money" because its addressable marketplace is thereby restricted. The baseline services that one spouse supplies the other cease being provided on an unpaid basis when the spouses break up and may never get supplied on an unpaid basis if two unmarried parents and a child support decree is the upshot of an unmarried sexual relationship. Mad Avenue wins and all the members of the family lose.
"I'm not sure I buy patrickarsfield's premise. In an affluent society (which, relatively speaking, we still are) people will always find things to want and to buy. If one spouse takes care of domestic chores, they won't be buying microwave meals for one -- but they're going to be buying more and nicer cookware, will be entertaining more, will be doing costly families activities together more (because there will be more time), etc. Ditto with examples down the line. If people stay married and like each other, the financial counselors will be helping people invest for some happy golden years. The handymen will be helping people upgrade their stable family homes, instead of doing repairs for lonely divorcees...."
There is no question that people selling things are creative in stimulating and addressing new needs--that was the whole thing about "keeping up with the Joneses," after all--BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IN A MARRIAGE SPOUSES SUPPLY SERVICES TO ONE ANOTHER ON AN UNPAID BASIS. My premise is that Madison Avenue resents seeing services exchanged "for love instead of money" because its addressable marketplace is thereby restricted. The baseline services that one spouse supplies the other cease being provided on an unpaid basis when the spouses break up and may never get supplied on an unpaid basis if two unmarried parents and a child support decree is the upshot of an unmarried sexual relationship. Mad Avenue wins and all the members of the family lose.
10.12.2011 | 7:12am
texgeoprof says:
I am so glad I am not the only person in the world who despises that phone commercial with the wannabe Mrs. Clark. That woman just irritates the fool out of me. I have to leave the room when that commercial comes on. My one teenager left at home keeps telling me to stop talking back to the TV.
I began to notice several years ago the inanity and baseness of the commercials. You should read Primetime Propaganda by Ben Shapiro. All will be made clear. Excellent book on the TV industry...
I began to notice several years ago the inanity and baseness of the commercials. You should read Primetime Propaganda by Ben Shapiro. All will be made clear. Excellent book on the TV industry...
10.12.2011 | 8:26am
pentamom says:
patrickarsfield, as a stay at home, homeschooling mom, be assured, I'm quiet aware that I generate unpaid, economic value, and that money is not being spent on services that I provide.
However, guess what? That means more money is left over for things *other than* takeout meals and tasks I'd have to pay someone else to do. The money that is being saved by my doing tasks myself and cooking more economically and all that lovely stuff, is not disappearing into the ether. It is entering the economy some other way, and I really can't think of anything it goes for that is not being "marketed" in some way or another. So I cannot see how Madison Avenue is the loser by our spending money on things other than convenience food and laundry service.
You may be right that they think that way, because people do tend to think about economics in unclear, biased, and often resentment-driven ways, but I would need more than the plausible possibility that they have this economic blindspot ("we don't see them buying convenience meals, therefore we're losing the benefit of their household income"); I'd need some reason to believe they actually do think that way.
However, guess what? That means more money is left over for things *other than* takeout meals and tasks I'd have to pay someone else to do. The money that is being saved by my doing tasks myself and cooking more economically and all that lovely stuff, is not disappearing into the ether. It is entering the economy some other way, and I really can't think of anything it goes for that is not being "marketed" in some way or another. So I cannot see how Madison Avenue is the loser by our spending money on things other than convenience food and laundry service.
You may be right that they think that way, because people do tend to think about economics in unclear, biased, and often resentment-driven ways, but I would need more than the plausible possibility that they have this economic blindspot ("we don't see them buying convenience meals, therefore we're losing the benefit of their household income"); I'd need some reason to believe they actually do think that way.
10.12.2011 | 2:32pm
patricksarsfield says:
Pentamom writes:
"However, guess what? That means more money is left over for things *other than* takeout meals and tasks I'd have to pay someone else to do. The money that is being saved by my doing tasks myself and cooking more economically and all that lovely stuff, is not disappearing into the ether. It is entering the economy some other way, and I really can't think of anything it goes for that is not being "marketed" in some way or another. So I cannot see how Madison Avenue is the loser by our spending money on things other than convenience food and laundry service. "
This should be pretty basic stuff, but Pentamom forces me to write the obvious: not all money saved by spousal labor enters back into the consumer economy as "spending." Some people actually save what they don't have to spend. One of the arguments by the Democrats against tax cuts for the purportedly rich is that they will save what is not extracted from them in taxes at the higher rate the Dems would impose. One of the things Dems like about spending is that it creates more income to the seller-recipient of the income and that in turn creates another round of taxes for the insatiable leviathan. Services provided for love instead of money likewise escape the tax man (and all the other "suckers" associated with commercial transactions: advertising, accounting, management consulting services, etc.).
"However, guess what? That means more money is left over for things *other than* takeout meals and tasks I'd have to pay someone else to do. The money that is being saved by my doing tasks myself and cooking more economically and all that lovely stuff, is not disappearing into the ether. It is entering the economy some other way, and I really can't think of anything it goes for that is not being "marketed" in some way or another. So I cannot see how Madison Avenue is the loser by our spending money on things other than convenience food and laundry service. "
This should be pretty basic stuff, but Pentamom forces me to write the obvious: not all money saved by spousal labor enters back into the consumer economy as "spending." Some people actually save what they don't have to spend. One of the arguments by the Democrats against tax cuts for the purportedly rich is that they will save what is not extracted from them in taxes at the higher rate the Dems would impose. One of the things Dems like about spending is that it creates more income to the seller-recipient of the income and that in turn creates another round of taxes for the insatiable leviathan. Services provided for love instead of money likewise escape the tax man (and all the other "suckers" associated with commercial transactions: advertising, accounting, management consulting services, etc.).
10.12.2011 | 7:05pm
pentamom says:
Again, you're not telling me anything I don't know. Any chance we could lose the condescending tone?
But if I save my money, guess what?
I still need a bank or an investment vehicle to put it in. PNC and Wachovia are still paying the bright boys and girls of Madison Avenue to battle it out for them, on my behalf. The number of people stuffing their unspent money under mattresses has insufficient social effect to direct the behavior of marketing executives.
And eventually, unless all I'm doing is building up an inheritance for my kids, I'm going to spend it on SOMETHING. And the people who did that 40 years ago, are now spending it on SOMETHING. Even if it's Jif vs. Skippy for their not-so-golden years sandwiches, they're still spending it on advertised goods.
Maybe marketing executives do think they're better off if people throw their money down the drain holes created by alienation and social misery instead of spending and investing it in other ways. I can't read their minds. But if they do, they're short-sighted in their understanding of economic reality, and need to read their Bastiat. Money that gets spent on things that people really would rather not spend on those things is not new money, it is money that would have been spent on something else, or else invested, and possibly even used to generate more money, to spend on other things.
But if I save my money, guess what?
I still need a bank or an investment vehicle to put it in. PNC and Wachovia are still paying the bright boys and girls of Madison Avenue to battle it out for them, on my behalf. The number of people stuffing their unspent money under mattresses has insufficient social effect to direct the behavior of marketing executives.
And eventually, unless all I'm doing is building up an inheritance for my kids, I'm going to spend it on SOMETHING. And the people who did that 40 years ago, are now spending it on SOMETHING. Even if it's Jif vs. Skippy for their not-so-golden years sandwiches, they're still spending it on advertised goods.
Maybe marketing executives do think they're better off if people throw their money down the drain holes created by alienation and social misery instead of spending and investing it in other ways. I can't read their minds. But if they do, they're short-sighted in their understanding of economic reality, and need to read their Bastiat. Money that gets spent on things that people really would rather not spend on those things is not new money, it is money that would have been spent on something else, or else invested, and possibly even used to generate more money, to spend on other things.
10.12.2011 | 7:08pm
pentamom says:
"Some people actually save what they don't have to spend. "
Oh, and on this point -- if they don't have it to spend now, then they don't have it if the advertising industry breaks up their marriage, either. If they don't have it now, it's not magically going to appear when they want to spend it on convenience means, financial counselors, and handymen. They'll just go without those things THEN, too.
As I said, it's not impossible that advertising people believe that the money spent on the fallout of social misery comes from nowhere and wouldn't exist if they didn't ruin people's happiness. But I'm not sure I have any reason to believe they think that way.
Oh, and on this point -- if they don't have it to spend now, then they don't have it if the advertising industry breaks up their marriage, either. If they don't have it now, it's not magically going to appear when they want to spend it on convenience means, financial counselors, and handymen. They'll just go without those things THEN, too.
As I said, it's not impossible that advertising people believe that the money spent on the fallout of social misery comes from nowhere and wouldn't exist if they didn't ruin people's happiness. But I'm not sure I have any reason to believe they think that way.
10.15.2011 | 12:14pm
Mei says:
David: I took Resh Galuta's comment to mean that the media world has more homosexuals working for it (or at least heterosexuals who are being used by the homosexual agenda)... which I agree with. Indeed, every other tv program today, especially those on at 9pm (Grey's Anatomy for one) are all very pro-gay in their agenda. They don't fail to put an active homosexual in their shows and continually make anyone who disagrees with gay marriage, a horrible person. This has been going on for years and the media writers have succeeded in brainwashing a huge portion of the college-something population, as well as many X-gens. Modern Family, which is one of the popular shows today, is big on homosexual points (they have a main character gay couple that is married) and any traditional family shown are dysfunctional.
10.18.2011 | 11:38am
Robyn says:
THANK YOU! My husband and I have been complaining about this for quite some time. Glad to see we're not alone. The one that gets me is an NFL tickets commercial. You'd think the NFL of all places...but sadly, no... In the "Snatch and Grab It" commercial a wife is pregnant and her husband is at his computer obviously torn about the decision he's making, until he gets "the look" from her. He realizes he has no choice but to sell his tickets and clicks the "sell" button. Makes me angry every time I see it. I would be sending my husband online to BUY tickets - not rejoice that he finally "has" to sell them.
Probably wasn't a heterosexual. Probably doesn't like heterosexuals much. Just ignore him. And don't buy his product.