(Now that there are a lot of you I would like to conduct a survey. Read one of the chapters from the novel I am writing (look for Hear, O Israel) and let me know: 1)great stuff, keep writing or 2)don’t quit your day job. Thanks)
Ads have now begun appearing on these posts, which I suppose is a sign of having arrived. I could prevent the ads from appearing by buying that service from Word Press for $30 a year and allowing them to pocket the income or I could establish a private domain for $18 a year and request a share of the income. This did not seem a hard choice, especially since outside the rainforests and high Himalayas everyone on the planet is well accustomed to being bombarded by advertisements. I am, consequently, now www.qqduckus.com.
Advertising, or more generally, marketing, is almost a made-in-America product. Sellers have been touting their wares and services for millennia, but until recently that marketing was confined essentially to hawking and very limited and primitive signage at the place of business. It was the United States, with its booming free market economy and emphasis on freedom of speech, that developed modern marketing in the nineteenth century and exported it to the world, especially with the globalization of business after the Second World War. With the emergence of electronic media and sophisticated information technology advertising now extends into virtually every nook and cranny of our lives, and marketing has become, I believe, perhaps America’s greatest problem, more pernicious than the incredibly exaggerated threat of terrorism.
Marketing inherently involves the distortion or outright elimination of truth, particularly when the product, such as toothpaste or gasoline, is essentially the same as that produced by competitors. Unfortunately, advertising serves as a sort of educational medium for an increasingly uneducated and ignorant populace, especially television advertising. For many television cloaks everything it presents in at least a minimal air of reality, particularly when an attractive personality, like a sports or movie star, is involved, and the viewer’s understanding of the world, in most cases already filled with gaps and distortions, is further detached from reality.
There is clear and simple evidence that many people believe what they see and hear via advertising: it works. Companies would hardly spend millions on marketing if it did not sell products; Procter & Gamble would not have run all those ads for so many years if Mr. Whipple did not move the rolls of Charmin off the shelves. Of course, many – I hope most – will buy the product not because they believe it is truly softer than other brands, but because when confronted with a choice among similar products they remember the amusing Mr. Whipple and grab his brand. Assuming all travel websites to be essentially the same, I chose Priceline because I like Captain Kirk, not because I thought they were any better than the others. Perhaps this is the reality for most consumers, but then what is “brand loyalty” based on? I suggest that many begin to believe their choice is better when using the same brand year after year. (Am I being too cynical here? Listen to popular talk shows or read letters to the editor to see just how stupid many of our fellow citizens are.)
Permitting pharmaceutical companies to advertise was easily the biggest mistake the FCC has ever made, and every doctor I have asked agrees. Seeing a drug touted on television leads many a patient to ask or demand that drug from his physician, making the latter’s job harder. The drug companies no longer have to bribe doctors with free stuff; they now in effect persuade the patient to sell the drug to the physician. Big pharmo constantly justifies outrageous pricing on the grounds that research and testing is so time and money consuming (and the government contributes to this), yet for the past several years the major companies have spent more on PR than R&D.Without question the second most pernicious advertising is that produced by major international corporations, most especially those, like the oil companies, that engage in activity certainly, probably or possibly damaging to the environment or other public interests. British Petroleum is not attempting to sell you a tankful of gas with its endless ads about the Gulf but rather to convince you – against all evidence – that despite the spills and obvious lies they are just as environmentally and socially conscious as any other global corporation (which of course is not at all). The point of the millions spent on such marketing is not to sell a product but to create a more attractive (and generally false) image, one that will move public opinion away from any thought of regulation and limits on their business. It is propaganda, inevitably deceptive propaganda, and apparently people believe a lot of it or why would they bother? Remembering the state PR of the old Soviet Union, I am minded to call this corporate advertising “capitalist realism.”
The most pernicious advertising? That found in our elections. With their splendid understanding of humanity and society the Founding Fathers created in the Constitution a document flexible enough to accommodate inevitable change yet difficult enough to alter that stability and basic principles were not threatened. At the end of the eighteenth century, in the early morning of the Industrial Revolution, it was clear to all but the seriously dense that the world was steadily and fairly rapidly changing, yet marketing was still pretty much what it was in antiquity, despite the development of cheap paper and the printing press. As a result, the Fathers could not possibly have comprehended the incredible danger it posed to the system.
An election campaign is essentially the marketing of a product – the candidate. In the late eighteenth century this would involve some advertising – broadsheets, leaflets and support in newspapers – but for the most part the candidate had to sell himself by making the rounds, giving speeches and engaging in debates. He was bound to stretch the truth sometimes, but deception is much more difficult when you are in such close contact with the voters and most of the issues can be fairly easily understood. In a nation of over three hundred million people and mass electronic media this is no longer the case, and the candidate has become a carefully groomed and presented product, generally unavailable to the average voter except as an unapproachable speaker at the end of the hall. He is marketed exactly like laundry detergent or fast food: simple phrases, compelling imagery and a complete lack of any meaningful content.
The perfect political marketing storm came in the wake of World War II when television joined radio and spread rapidly and when international corporations began seriously evading the regulation of any single nation The candidate could now theoretically reach every voter in the country and sell himself over and over and over without ever being challenged. As the modern dictatorships have demonstrated, repetition and saturation is the key: it works in commercial advertising and it works in political advertising. Thus, one result is that the candidate is elected more on the basis of ignorance than knowledge – look at the number of astonishingly, embarrassingly stupid people in Congress, especially the on the extreme right.
The second and more fatal result of the marketing storm is the enhanced power of money in our political system. Economic power is political power, and it consequently must always find access to the political apparatus, regardless of whether it is a kingship or a democracy. As a result, through most of history the wealthy class has been the political class, but in an age of democracies and corporations this is no longer the case. Granted, most of the people in Congress are rich, but the real economic power in society is now in the hands of international corporations and a few unbelievably wealthy individuals. And marketing has provided them with an easy and legal mechanism for dramatically influencing, almost to the point of controlling, the political apparatus.
It is simply impossible to launch a credible campaign for national office (or even most state offices) without a huge amount of money, inasmuch as you cannot get elected without television advertising and that is fabulously expensive. (It is also virtually impossible to do it without representing one of the two established parties, thus helping to preserve their shared monopoly.) It now costs a billion dollars to run for President, a billion dollars. But there are equally fabulous sources of money out there: wealthy individuals, organizations with a cause, lobbying groups and most of all, corporations. All these entities will have some interest in influencing the government, and there is a perfectly legal way for them to do that – campaign contributions. Political action committees can expedite these transfers of money, and of course the recent laughable Supreme Court decision that corporations are “persons” allows the really big boys to pour in as much as they want.
Regarding these “contributions,” the notion is frequently expressed, generally by the recipient, that this money comes with no strings attached. Is there actually anyone who believes this? Successful businesses do not give away millions unless something is coming in return. It is clear and oh so obvious bribery, and we get the best government money can buy, which is of course one not at all beholden to the people. Our present government may seem a collection of incompetent fools, but you may rest assured that the big donors will still get their exemptions, contracts, favors and whatever. This is the way it has worked since the beginning of civilization, and the only difference now is that the economic elites are completely vulgar.