4 ms·
I was thinking about this with Edward Bernays recently. He is considered the 'father of Public Relations', and comes up in a lot of pseudo-sciency conversations
by gdubs 8y ago
I was thinking about this with Edward Bernays recently. He is considered the 'father of Public Relations', and comes up in a lot of pseudo-sciency conversations, like Adam Curtis's documentary, "The Century of the Self." *
Bernays comes up a lot in counter-cultural circles, but it's always bugged me that I've never seen any validating evidence that his techniques were actually effective, beyond "he came up with the idea of 'freedom torches' and smoking went up among women."
His techniques sound interesting, and they feel like they'd be effective, but I had trouble finding any solid research that validated the idea that his techniques were effective at anything other than making himself famous.
(* Don't get me wrong – I love Curtis's films, as art. But it bugs me how they usually present a flood of information presented as fact, with little to know citation or corroboration. If they were just art, it wouldn't bug me, but a lot of people seem to swallow the films' conclusions wholesale.)
- george_morgan 8y agoAbsolutely. It’s not limited to marketing either, management theory is full of this too. Almost all of Frederick Winslow Taylor’s work and reputation was built on unverified case studies and anecdotes. (A great book on this is ‘The management myth’.)
- freshhawk 8y agoThe conversation is rarely about his actual techniques, but his popularization of that particular approach to communication with the public. So really over-simplify: "If you want people to do X, don't just tell them to do X or order them or try to convince them, use psychology to understand which Y's and Z's you can tell them about that will statistically lead many people to do X". He was just the guy who said "Hey, this emerging scientific field can be really useful in manipulating people even though it is early days!"