Home | About | Donate

The Changing Face of Advertising: What It Might Mean and How It Might Matter


The Changing Face of Advertising: What It Might Mean and How It Might Matter

Zoe Weil

The 24 hours following Super Bowl LI were full of commentary about the political angle of ads aired during the game.


84 Lumber tried to distance itself from it's own ad as soon as it was perceived as "anti-wall," with some lame excuse about how they support a door in the wall. Whatever.

Corporations are about one thing only--profits. I'm sure all these ads were tested with focus groups, so the advertisers simply followed the money trail. I agree that it certainly led them to a better place, one more reflective of American values.


With all due respect to writerś longing for the positive, I regard such pablum as profoundly sinister. I would remind that the subjects are images of 'outcomes', śymptoms' and longing arising from the dissociative practices of the marketing, extractive and corporatized dominance. In a word what they are selling, I would submit, is 'schizophrenia'. This is a lip-smacking, drooling stage of hanging their "consumers" upside down by, just like the 'political' craft, constantly sowing chaos in order to claim that the corporation has [whatever] is needed to keep the "exceptional" distopian bulldozer from encountering the utterly un-bulldozable object of human dignity.


What a deeply sad state of affairs to be talking about "positives" in advertising.


Hahaha Zoe, this was the most shuffle-footed back and forth I know I am endorsing something really toxic but hey there's a good message there somewhere article I have read in awhile. If you were in one of my classes I would have written in large bold red: Take a stand, girl! This hopping back and forth over the finish line has reduced your comment to irrelevancy.


Since advertisements are used as propaganda, this shift is indeed a great message to send to such a huge audience. Maybe things aren't as bad as they seem.


Yes, even the article's 'reformed' advertising is evil.

Imagine a world with no advertising.
That's what we will have when we eventually attain socialism.

There is no need for advertising under socialism since the government supplier does not need to turn a profit.


For some the Kool Aide acts quickly, and for others there is an agony of rationalization before ethics expire.


Thats a cogent paraphrase. They are always not as bad as they seem, because the people still have a genetic ethical compass. But things are much worse than they seem, so the propaganda has to be ever ahead of curve.
The advetising industry hires the smartest people and sells ideas not products that rule the world.


True; all true.


I don't ever buy Anheuser-Bush products - only much better quality beer made by small local brewers, but nonetheless, the US left really needs to get off its uniquely USAn neo-prohibitionist self righteousness. The beer isn't killing poeple, the unique, car-dependence of the US is.


Socialism does not mean "Government suppliers". It means workers organized in free associations where the value of their labor in producing things is fully remunerated rather that being shunted to distant capitalists as profit. There would also be an assembly of workers councils who decide on the social necessity and environmental impacts of any new products a workers council proposes to produce. The assembly would then allocate the necessary starting capitals to new worker's enterprise as banks or venture capitalists do now. Otherwise, there would still be competition for quality and innovation between makers of products, and some councils would succeed and others would fail and have to take up another enterprise. Everybody would be guaranteed food, adequate shelter, education, healthcare and free access to enrichment and culture.

Ultimately governments, states and borders would wither away...