"The Persuaders" begins by questioning the increase in the amount of advertising we typically encounter in our daily lives. How would you assess the amount of advertising you see? Too much? Too little? Just right? In your view, what difference does it make to know that people today see much more advertising in their daily lives than people 20 or 30 years ago?
1. Usually I see too much advertising all around me, but it doesn't really affect the way I live, since the more the clutter of advertisements increase, the more I tend to ignore them. Also, I don't watch television very much, so that limits the advertisements I see in my everyday life, but I still see ads on common items or tools, which forces me to look at them no matter how little I care to read them. The internet is covered with all sorts of ads, and the more they pop up, the more I don't read them and close them as fast as I can. In my view, it doesn't really make a difference to know that people today see much more advertising in their daily lives than people 20 or 30 years ago, because like I mentioned earlier, the more advertisements there are, the more people ignore them and are unaffected by them. People become immune to ads, so companies must keep finding new ways to persuade the public.
Marketing Culture:
Douglas Rushkoff asks, "What happens when advertisers assume the roles of our writers, journalists, and entertainers?" How would you answer him?
2. When advertisers assume the roles of our writers, journalists, and entertainers, then everyone will be forced to read ads, and there would be no escaping them. The advertisers would have an advantage because they are attracting more attention to themselves and their products. People will be persuaded more easily through writing and the way advertisers weave in their ads into our everyday lives. Some movies were made to advertise a certain product, and without knowing it, some people may become persuaded by that movie. People may think of the product or place differently now that it was shown in a movie, and they might think of it highly. Advertisers would change people's perspective of things this way. Writers, journalists, and entertainers are familiar with our train of thoughts and know how to be persuasive, and if they start advertising using the same techniques as they did for when they were entertaining or writing, the ads will become all the more affective.
Marketing Politics
Political consultant Frank Luntz tells his clients that, "80 percent of our life is emotion and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." Contrast this with Thomas Jefferson's notion that democracy requires an "informed citizenry." What is the potential impact of Luntz's political strategy recommendations on the health of a democracy?
1. Luntz's political strategy is to get to the public's emotions instead of telling them everything that is going on. He says 80% of our life is emotion and only 20% is intellect, so he wants to target his strategy on the emotion part of people's lives. Instead of having an "informed citizenry", advertisers would basically have control over the public and their thoughts, and people wouldn't have a say of their own. They would just listen to whatever the advertisers say, as they arouse different feelings in them. This would be the complete opposite of a democracy with "informed citizenry", and almost wouldn't be considered a democracy at all. People won't be able to think for themselves, and although the strategy would be very affective in persuading the public, it would be as if the people are under rule, with the advertisers being "more interested in how [people] feel than how you think."
Marketing Culture:
Douglas Rushkoff asks, "What happens when advertisers assume the roles of our writers, journalists, and entertainers?" How would you answer him?
2. When advertisers assume the roles of our writers, journalists, and entertainers, then everyone will be forced to read ads, and there would be no escaping them. The advertisers would have an advantage because they are attracting more attention to themselves and their products. People will be persuaded more easily through writing and the way advertisers weave in their ads into our everyday lives. Some movies were made to advertise a certain product, and without knowing it, some people may become persuaded by that movie. People may think of the product or place differently now that it was shown in a movie, and they might think of it highly. Advertisers would change people's perspective of things this way. Writers, journalists, and entertainers are familiar with our train of thoughts and know how to be persuasive, and if they start advertising using the same techniques as they did for when they were entertaining or writing, the ads will become all the more affective.
Marketing Politics
Political consultant Frank Luntz tells his clients that, "80 percent of our life is emotion and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." Contrast this with Thomas Jefferson's notion that democracy requires an "informed citizenry." What is the potential impact of Luntz's political strategy recommendations on the health of a democracy?
1. Luntz's political strategy is to get to the public's emotions instead of telling them everything that is going on. He says 80% of our life is emotion and only 20% is intellect, so he wants to target his strategy on the emotion part of people's lives. Instead of having an "informed citizenry", advertisers would basically have control over the public and their thoughts, and people wouldn't have a say of their own. They would just listen to whatever the advertisers say, as they arouse different feelings in them. This would be the complete opposite of a democracy with "informed citizenry", and almost wouldn't be considered a democracy at all. People won't be able to think for themselves, and although the strategy would be very affective in persuading the public, it would be as if the people are under rule, with the advertisers being "more interested in how [people] feel than how you think."