4 ms·

“Funding a civilization through advertising is like trying to get nutrition by connecting a tube from one’s anus to one’s mouth.” ― Jaron Lanier

adrian_mrd 8y ago
Ha! Reminds me of the late, great, Bill Hick’s seminal piece on marketers and advertisers: https://youtu.be/tHEOGrkhDp0 https://youtu.be/tHEOGrkhDp0 I oft wonder how much disdain Bill Hicks would have for the tech bros and the Orwellian apparatus many large tech companies have created.
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  The quote is semi ironical because Jaron Lanier is featured in this article and actually supports these machinations.
- bena 8y ago
  But he's wrong though, isn't he? I mean, marketers and advertisers simply recognize what already exists. Yes, there is an "anger market". Yes, there are certain things that work to attract people prone to "being angry". Overall, I find Hicks to be a bit overvalued. At least the bits that get circulated the most. The bit about advertisers and the bit where he "destroys" a heckler, which is just him hurling basic abuse at someone. There's nothing really funny or particularly witty in it, just "Go kill yourself" over and over again. I think he plays to a certain demographic that wants to feel as if they've figured out the secret and that the secret is it's all going to shit. I'd imagine he'd have a diatribe about "tech bros" that would pretty much consist of saying they should kill themselves in various ways.
  - adrian_mrd 8y ago
    Not sure if he is wrong, per se, as his arguments do have some merit. Re: "marketers and advertisers simply recognize what already exists." Yes, but they encourage consumption, purchasing and/or commercial activities. They are not doing it for the sake of a 'good cause' or because they believe in it (although they may), their incentive is to make money. That's what I believe Bill Hicks was attacking in this segment. Their unrelenting ability to turn anything into a commercial endeavour - even when it is not present.
    - bena 8y ago
      What in here (https://genius.com/Bill-hicks-on-advertisers-and-marketing-annotated https://genius.com/Bill-hicks-on-advertisers-and-marketing-a...) is an actual critique on what marketers do? What's the argument? It's all "kill yourself" some reductive thoughts about how they identify markets followed by a snide remark about marketing arsenic as a childhood sleep aid. Only that last jibe could be said to be anything approaching an actual critique. The rest is just plain abuse. You think Hicks was doing it for the sake of a 'good cause' or because there was money in it? But that's part of the rub, isn't it? You can't really buy in without selling out. It's the same sort of dilemma that exists with a band like Rage Against the Machine. They advocate all of this stuff, all of this anti-commercialism, etc, but fully take part in it. "Oh noes, they're encouraging me to buy things. The horror" Fuck man, at least they're honest about what they're trying to do. Not everyone is.
      - adrian_mrd 8y ago
        Likely have to agree to disagree on this one. It's a comedy piece for one, and it's an opinion at that, but what is the critique Bill Hicks is making in the Youtube link I shared? I think it's best summed up with "you are filling the world with bile and garbage". And honest about what they do? That seems wildly inaccurate. Like any profession, there are honest advertisers & marketers and there are dishonest ones, but the incentive of advertising is to influence purchasing decisions, and marketing to promote awareness, encourage consumption, and/or generate new revenue. What would you have (had) Rage Against the Machine do? Stop making music that people enjoy and relate to? Or, should they do what the KLF did and (allegedly) burn a million dollars in cash one night and renounce all future songwriting and performance royalties? What would that achieve apart from an artistic statement? Lastly, by your definition, aren't Rage Against the Machines just good at marketing? Or is licencing one's music to a large music label perhaps the most effective method of advertising their beliefs and opinions? Playing to larger audiences or making coin from their trade, doesn't necessarily mean they are hypocrites. --- edit: minor typo fixes, refined some sentences
        bena 8y ago
austincheney 8y ago
This is sometimes nutritionally necessary for cattle in the wild... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia Likewise, people who donate their personal data away without explicit compensation are cattle.

adrian_mrd 8y ago

Ha! Reminds me of the late, great, Bill Hick’s seminal piece on marketers and advertisers: https://youtu.be/tHEOGrkhDp0 https://youtu.be/tHEOGrkhDp0 I oft wonder how much disdain Bill Hicks would have for the tech bros and the Orwellian apparatus many large tech companies have created.

petermcneeley 8y ago
The quote is semi ironical because Jaron Lanier is featured in this article and actually supports these machinations.
bena 8y ago
But he's wrong though, isn't he? I mean, marketers and advertisers simply recognize what already exists. Yes, there is an "anger market". Yes, there are certain things that work to attract people prone to "being angry". Overall, I find Hicks to be a bit overvalued. At least the bits that get circulated the most. The bit about advertisers and the bit where he "destroys" a heckler, which is just him hurling basic abuse at someone. There's nothing really funny or particularly witty in it, just "Go kill yourself" over and over again. I think he plays to a certain demographic that wants to feel as if they've figured out the secret and that the secret is it's all going to shit. I'd imagine he'd have a diatribe about "tech bros" that would pretty much consist of saying they should kill themselves in various ways.
- adrian_mrd 8y ago
  Not sure if he is wrong, per se, as his arguments do have some merit. Re: "marketers and advertisers simply recognize what already exists." Yes, but they encourage consumption, purchasing and/or commercial activities. They are not doing it for the sake of a 'good cause' or because they believe in it (although they may), their incentive is to make money. That's what I believe Bill Hicks was attacking in this segment. Their unrelenting ability to turn anything into a commercial endeavour - even when it is not present.
  - bena 8y ago
    What in here (https://genius.com/Bill-hicks-on-advertisers-and-marketing-annotated https://genius.com/Bill-hicks-on-advertisers-and-marketing-a...) is an actual critique on what marketers do? What's the argument? It's all "kill yourself" some reductive thoughts about how they identify markets followed by a snide remark about marketing arsenic as a childhood sleep aid. Only that last jibe could be said to be anything approaching an actual critique. The rest is just plain abuse. You think Hicks was doing it for the sake of a 'good cause' or because there was money in it? But that's part of the rub, isn't it? You can't really buy in without selling out. It's the same sort of dilemma that exists with a band like Rage Against the Machine. They advocate all of this stuff, all of this anti-commercialism, etc, but fully take part in it. "Oh noes, they're encouraging me to buy things. The horror" Fuck man, at least they're honest about what they're trying to do. Not everyone is.
    - adrian_mrd 8y ago
      Likely have to agree to disagree on this one. It's a comedy piece for one, and it's an opinion at that, but what is the critique Bill Hicks is making in the Youtube link I shared? I think it's best summed up with "you are filling the world with bile and garbage". And honest about what they do? That seems wildly inaccurate. Like any profession, there are honest advertisers & marketers and there are dishonest ones, but the incentive of advertising is to influence purchasing decisions, and marketing to promote awareness, encourage consumption, and/or generate new revenue. What would you have (had) Rage Against the Machine do? Stop making music that people enjoy and relate to? Or, should they do what the KLF did and (allegedly) burn a million dollars in cash one night and renounce all future songwriting and performance royalties? What would that achieve apart from an artistic statement? Lastly, by your definition, aren't Rage Against the Machines just good at marketing? Or is licencing one's music to a large music label perhaps the most effective method of advertising their beliefs and opinions? Playing to larger audiences or making coin from their trade, doesn't necessarily mean they are hypocrites. --- edit: minor typo fixes, refined some sentences
      - bena 8y ago

austincheney 8y ago

This is sometimes nutritionally necessary for cattle in the wild... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia Likewise, people who donate their personal data away without explicit compensation are cattle.