/32/ - Psychopolitics

>Can we qualify these tactics as "fair game"?

Hard yes. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say "we should start pitching heroine during Dora The Explorer," I do believe that advertising as it stands is perfectly fine. Ideally, and I try to do what I can, people will grow to know and understand advertising "tricks." Then either the advertiser comes up with new tricks or fades away. It's healthy for people and business.

>But what about the people taken by the ads?

No one criticizes a lion as immoral for tackling the slowest gazelle. I'm from the Land of the Commercial and Home of the Big Mac, so I have lived both sides of the coin. I'm not bitter that everyone who used the cologne I did was so much better-looking than me, after all, it was my choice to buy it anyway. I could have not given them money if I wanted to.

>Should manufacturers be restricted to showcasing the characteristics of the products and services in the most impartial way possible?

That is a very interesting question. It would boost consumer confidence, but at the same time, consumer numbers would decline.

Let's use a chicken shack, KFC or something, for example. Let's say They are forced to display their "food" as-is in all their advertising campaigns. They don't have to disclose their "secret spices" or reveal their employee working and living conditions. Just whenever they take a picture of their mashed potatoes, it's gotta be a spoonful of runny, watery slop that's still cold and powdery in the middle.

Their installed userbase, the people that go there regularly anyway, won't stop going. But they won't get new customers, they'd stagnate, and die.

On the other hand, Would PETA be forced to stop showing pictures of nasty chicken farms in honduras or whatever and start showing pictures of pictures of chicken farms where the chickens are reasonably healthy and happy - a little bored and fat, but otherwise in fair-to-good health, the state of the average american chicken farm owned by the 4 major chicken suppliers?

I feel more transparency would be good, but forcing any group to use something other than their "show horse," the best possible representation of whatever end they are trying to achieve, is more likely to be detrimental to everyone.

>What about advertising that targets children specifically, is that a greater offense or a savvier tactic?

Morally grey. I generally don't mind so long as it isn't detrimental to the child. I'm perfectly fine with a new toy line marketed to kids, but I draw a line at Joe The Camel. Psychological tricks are acceptable as long as it doesn't fuck the kid over for decades after the fact so I guess we should stop advertising WoW

A better question would be: what's the alternative?

One extreme would be to force the companies to display (or make available) the complete composition and process of the manufacture of their products or the execution of their services. That would be extremely unpractical; the consumers would not bother analyzing the information available to them, and assuming all companies had very similar processes (which they do) the choice would be guided by practical matters, such as price and availability, or subjective ones, like packaging and scent.

A second approach would not prevent lies by omission, such as in the first case, but would prevent fabrications and lies. This would be a proposition similar to that of >>1708 and the mashed potatoes. Simply prohibiting the distribution of misleading or false information (visually or textually). I disagree when the anon said that this would discourage new costumers, since every company would be forced to act in this way, anyone who wanted to eat fried chicken (or consume any product or service) would choose between equally mediocre displays. Unless everyone stopped going out for food, the businesses would survive.

Ideally these restrictions would also include prohibition of the use of poorly defined and sometimes subjective terms like "natural", "healthy", "fresh", "made with love" and so on.

The comparison between companies and individuals made by >>1711 is valid, but also not completely accurate.

Humans have a natural tendency to seek approval by their peers, and fear ostracism as much as death. Taking action to prevent making a bad impression is not just expected, it's natural. Companies, on the other hand, obviously do not have natural tendencies, and while their marketing efforts may be a matter of survival for them it differs int he sense that when you put on your best act on a job interview you continue to work trying to maintain that initial impression after you are hired. Traditional advertising tends to set expectations that cannot be met.

I'm not sure these tactics are fair, but they seem to be necessary. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to them will inevitably lose costumers to the less ethically oriented competitors.

Idk, having worked on a product in the past I can say that life would have been much simpler for me if there were no ads

But people is stupid they don't do any research not even before they buy a car (a fucking car ffs!) so even if your product is awesome without ads nobody is gook ng to know it exists