4 ms·

I think you've totally missed the point why people hate marketing. It's not because of a lack of understanding on it's mechanics. > From this point of view, th

by darkr 11y ago

I think you've totally missed the point why people hate marketing. It's not because of a lack of understanding on it's mechanics. > From this point of view, there is no "travesty" to thank marketing for. The reality was that probably personal computers were more appealing to men, so it made more sense to spend marketing resources towards them. Why it was more appealing to them is a good question to ask, and it could be because of many reasons, including culture and society. But marketing probably didn't create that desire, it just used it. Marketing is absolutely about the manufacture of desire. Though above you make the connection between Coca-cola and the harmless association of this beverage to "happiness", this is over-simplifying things somewhat. The psychology of the brand, upon which modern consumer society is dependent, and which marketing ruthlessly exploits, is based around the construction of a self solely through conspicuous acts of consumption rather than through human experiences, relationships with friends and family, or other pursuits traditionally considered to be more laudable. Though arguably it is required in keeping the wheels of capitalism spinning (and by proxy food in our bellies); in reality, marketing is the process of co-opting, subverting, and ultimately extinguishing joy and the human experience.

caskance 11y ago
Marketing only manufactures desire if you interpret desire in the most narrow possible sense as desire for a specific product. What marketing actually does is make desires concrete and suggest to the audience how that desire can be fulfilled. If you look at one of the most famous examples of successful marketing, diamond marketing created demand for a specific product, but it was only able to do so because the emotional needs the marketers tied their products to were already there and not being adequately met.
- darkr 11y ago
  The term desire works in a broader sense, as long as you differentiate between a need and a desire. A need (I guess I'm referring here mostly to needs in the context of those defined by Maslow's Hierarchy) is defined as something that is an absolute; an end state. There is a requirement of truth for something to be a need. A desire is defined as "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen". A desire is open to suggestion, to invention and misrepresentation. Taking your example of the diamond industry: The "needs" being targeted here are pretty much the solid base of the pyramid (sex & shelter, family/stability, love & intimacy). Does a tiny, expensive shiny rock from Sierra Leone provide those needs? No; obviously it is the symbolism of giving to/receiving from someone in the hope that they will provide those needs to you. Did humans manage to satisfy those needs before De Beers came along? I'm pretty sure they did. The desire for diamonds among the general populace was completely manufactured, whereas the aforementioned needs always existed, and (I strongly suspect) were always being filled before the normalisation of diamond rings as intentions of marriage. I suppose diamonds (at least in the context of use as jewellery), and the whole story of De Beers are a shining example of commodity fetishism.

by darkr 11y ago

caskance 11y ago

Marketing only manufactures desire if you interpret desire in the most narrow possible sense as desire for a specific product. What marketing actually does is make desires concrete and suggest to the audience how that desire can be fulfilled. If you look at one of the most famous examples of successful marketing, diamond marketing created demand for a specific product, but it was only able to do so because the emotional needs the marketers tied their products to were already there and not being adequately met.

darkr 11y ago
The term desire works in a broader sense, as long as you differentiate between a need and a desire. A need (I guess I'm referring here mostly to needs in the context of those defined by Maslow's Hierarchy) is defined as something that is an absolute; an end state. There is a requirement of truth for something to be a need. A desire is defined as "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen". A desire is open to suggestion, to invention and misrepresentation. Taking your example of the diamond industry: The "needs" being targeted here are pretty much the solid base of the pyramid (sex & shelter, family/stability, love & intimacy). Does a tiny, expensive shiny rock from Sierra Leone provide those needs? No; obviously it is the symbolism of giving to/receiving from someone in the hope that they will provide those needs to you. Did humans manage to satisfy those needs before De Beers came along? I'm pretty sure they did. The desire for diamonds among the general populace was completely manufactured, whereas the aforementioned needs always existed, and (I strongly suspect) were always being filled before the normalisation of diamond rings as intentions of marriage. I suppose diamonds (at least in the context of use as jewellery), and the whole story of De Beers are a shining example of commodity fetishism.