From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 29 2005 - 18:54:01 BST
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:00:29 +0000, "Platt Holden" wrote:
[Platt]
Advertising proclaims freedom, the highest value of all. Plain and simple.
[Arlo]
Welcome to Platt-land, eh? I'm sure you believe this, but for the record it
defies any and all other views, from Wikipedia to university courses to Wall
Street. Even advertisers in their research admit the simple proclamation that
advertising is value manipulation. To quote Wikipedia, it is akin in its
tactics to propaganda.
[Platt]
No amount of advertising can make a product succeed that doesn't meet the
values of consumers. Remember the Edsel?
[Arlo]
I be a youngin', Platt. Stop with the ancient references. :-)
Sure, I didn't say advertising was value determination. It is value
manipulation, and works as Wikipedia says "like propaganda".
For a long time I've found a simple forumlae works, the more a product is
advertised, the lower its innate Quality.
As DM stated, a product with "high Quality" doesn't need advertising, it creates
its own demand and sells itself. A product with "low Quality" needs hype and
the "value add" of advertising to "syrup" it over with an association of
"Quality".
[Platt to my call for truth in adverstising, and courses illuminating the
manipulative effects of advertising]
Yes, you would love to see courses attacking capitalism and the free
enterprise system, not to mention free speech. For a better educational
lesson, let's send the kids to Cuba for a semester to give them an idea of
a country that's full of Quality because it prohibits advertising. :-)
[Arlo]
I take it in Platt-land the courses would be how unquestionably great American
corporations are, and how everyone should blindly and uncritically continue to
be good little consumers.
So, you reject the idea that McDonald's should have to display real pictures of
its products in its ads. Why?
And what would be wrong with teaching kids the Wikipedia entry for
"advertising"?
[Platt]
P.S. Speaking of Marxists, a book on Mao just published called "Mao-The
Untold Story" begins with this sentence: "Mao Tse-tung, who for decades
held absolute power over the lives of one quarter of the world's
population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime,
more than any other twentieth-century leader." Wasn't Mao a hero to many
60's hippies? As I recall, Mao's "Little Red Book" was an icon of that
age.
[Arlo]
Where are all the Native Americans, Platt? Oh, wait, that's right, they just
killed themselves off to make room on the continent for us. Not only dictators
can preside over extermination. And as for the associative plug, let me know
where in Marx you read support for the actions of Mao (or Stalin)? Marx did
call for a revolution, yes. But not to empower a Mao. But if your reading of
Marx indicates otherwise, just tell me where.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 29 2005 - 19:01:38 BST