COLUMN: Advertising is a sugar-coated poison pill
January 27, 2004
Can you guess who I am? I wake up to the sounds of a Sony clock radio and roll into the shower to roll on Irish Scented Mountain Ice Zest antibacterial deodorant soap. My hair has been thoroughly Flowbee-ed and washed quickly with a dab of Garnier Fructis, and my skin glows after a rinse with Noxzema. I pull on a Tommy Hilfiger sweatshirt and Levi’s and lace up a pair of the new LeBron James-endorsed Nikes. My breakfast combines heart-healthy eggs and a Nutri-Grain bar, washed down with vitamin water. Glancing at my Timex, I discover it’s time to hop into the Tahoe and head off to class, while listening to the NOW #386 compilation. I look forward to coming home that evening to relax on my leather sofa, where I can watch “Friends” and drink a bottle of Bud Light with a bag of Doritos. I paid more for the products I use than alternatives, without a proportionate increase in product quality of usefulness.
If you guessed that I’m the average person whose life has been “improved” by advertising, then you’re half-right.
Before anyone marches down to the office and traces me to my underground lair to ask why I picked on their favorite brands, please take a moment to relax. I’m not trying to pick on anyone or any brand or any drum-playing bunny that endorses any brand.
Rather than making our daily choices based on facts, or even secondhand lies from friends of friends, we often choose to make our decisions based on available advertisements. We automatically assume that one brand always creates better products than another, even when the two brands were created in the factory. We’re even willing to pay more for the preferred brand of identical products. I can think of no person with whom I have been acquainted with who has not occasionally held on to brand loyalty or just flawed logic when shopping.
Generally, though, we ignore the role of advertising in our lives. We’ve perfected the three-minute blank stare and defend ourselves with bathroom breaks and channel changers. Television programmers have retaliated with the insertion of clips of our favorite celebrities saying, “After these messages, we’ll be right back,” as if any human alive could pray so much that “Will and Grace” would end at 8:17. But, the truth is, the programmers and the advertisers still have the upper hand. They control the amount of advertising, we respond, and they control us.
Many people are perfectly content to suffer through commercial breaks as long as they continue to receive their favorite programs at no cost.
Once a television is purchased and plugged into the power grid, that television can be viewed by anyone at any time for years to come. What we often forget is that advertisers are making an investment, rather than a donation, to drive up sales of their products or the use of their services. Advertisers pay for our entertainment because we’ll pay more for their products. The same principle holds true for score boards at local high schools and the celebration of our faiths in church bulletins.
There is nothing elitist about pointing out the fact that nearly all of us are heavily manipulated by advertising in all of its forms. We know that advertising creates desires within us that we would not otherwise hold.
And on top of this, many of these advertisers sell us their products by making us unhappy with our current lives, so that those who pay the most for programming are the least happy.
Marketing is motivated by profit rather than a desire to inform consumers so that they may make enlightened decisions. In fact, a public with adequate information would buy longer-lasting products, and fewer of them, reducing corporate profits.
Many attempt to do so, but competition in the marketplace is rarely adequate to allow consumers the opportunity to make sensible purchases.
Maybe one day the direct costs we pay for our entertainment and education will reflect their true costs.
Maybe we’ll find alternative means of educating ourselves about products to make informed decisions. For now, though, we must recognize advertising for what it is: a sugar-coated poison pill.