4 ms·

> Nobody needs advertising to be "willing to buy stuff." Untrue. First of all, even if advertising "only shifted demand around," it would still be worthwhile b

> Nobody needs advertising to be "willing to buy stuff." Untrue. First of all, even if advertising "only shifted demand around," it would still be worthwhile because our country participates in a global economy and we export many products abroad (as well as import others, but that's a different question). Second, the statement that advertising "only shifts demand around" is just plain wrong. Advertising creates demand, and this creation is overall a positive thing (admittedly there are plenty of specific negative examples). For one positive example: Americans didn't buy into cars simply because of utility. They bought into cars because of the entire "lifestyle" image created around owning a car -- and this image was created in large part thanks to advertising campaigns. There would be many fewer cars around today, and our economy would be much slower were it not for advertising. To naysayers below: as Henry Ford's famous expression went, "if I asked my customers what they wanted, they'd tell me they want a faster horse." In other words: people did not immediately buy into the idea that a car is something desirable. At the time, cars were clumsy, noisy, not very comfortable or easy to drive. The whole idea of a car as something to aspire to had to be "pushed" onto the audience, and Ford was not shy about doing it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T#Advertising.2C_marketing.2C_and_packaging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T#Advertising.2C_mar...).

dhume 15y ago
There would be many fewer cars around today, and our economy would be much slower were it not for advertising. Or we wouldn't have built sprawling suburbs that make cars necessary.
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  Thus failing to put to good use of one of the biggest assets the U.S. had in comparison to the rest of the world -- space and cheap land.
  - ericd 15y ago
    Is this an example of something that helps the economy (since your premise above was that advertising is very important for the economy)? It certainly doesn't help productivity for every family to have a large house to take care of, and most of the spending to outfit and run that house is ultimately a waste. A much better use would be, say, farming.
marshray 15y ago
Americans didn't buy into cars simply because of utility. They bought into cars because of the entire "lifestyle" image created around owning a car -- and this image was created in large part thanks to advertising campaigns. Nah. Show me a country with a similar low density as America where people don't buy cars almost as soon as they can afford them. The advertising was certainly prominent, but it didn't drive the fundamentals.
- akgerber 15y ago
  Most Americans don't live in particularly low-density areas. The Los Angeles metro area is about as dense as that of New York; the fact that LA is car-based whereas New York is based on rail is due to infrastructure choices made based on people's desire to drive more instead of walking or taking mass transit. That desire was in large part created by marketing portraying automobiles as signs of wealth, power, modernity, and of course sexual potency.
  - marshray 15y ago
    Most Americans don't live in particularly low-density areas. I assure you that the great majority of Americans live in areas which are not so dense in population that it becomes overly burdensome to own a car. Add em up. The densest cities in the US are a few tens of millions maybe? And they have a lot of cars even there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by... The Los Angeles metro area is about as dense as that of New York; the fact that LA is car-based whereas New York is based on rail is due to infrastructure choices Yes, in the case of New York the infrastructure choices were literally set in stone well over a hundred years ago. made based on people's desire to drive more instead of walking or taking mass transit. We all have choices to make in life. You can: A) Live in a place like Manhattan in a small, expensive apartment, high population density, crime issues, impractical to own anything that doesn't fit in an elevator (including a car), but you can walk around and it has a usable public transportation system. Or.. B) Live in a place where for less money you can have a single-family house, room for multiple cars, a lawn and garden, low crime, and a reasonable commute to work. But no subway system. Most Americans voted with their feet in the 20th century and chose B. They didn't need convincing. That desire was in large part created by marketing portraying automobiles as signs of wealth, power, modernity, and of course sexual potency. That's ridiculous. There's nothing more potent to a young couple than a house with a few empty bedrooms.
stretchwithme 15y ago
Money not spent on cars would spent on something else. or saved and lent to someone else who would spend it on something. And if car purchases having no utility declined, its likely that the other things purchased might have utility, which means more wealth created in the long run. Not a slower economy.
lutorm 15y ago
... even if advertising "only shifted demand around," ... Given the state of US consumer debt, you can make a convincing case that if this wasn't true 100 or even 20 years ago, it certainly is true now. (Unless you mean the top 5% whose wealth is skyrocketing, of course; they could probably be convinced to spend more of it since they won't have to pay it in taxes any time soon.)

dhume 15y ago

There would be many fewer cars around today, and our economy would be much slower were it not for advertising. Or we wouldn't have built sprawling suburbs that make cars necessary.

bluekeybox 15y ago
Thus failing to put to good use of one of the biggest assets the U.S. had in comparison to the rest of the world -- space and cheap land.
- ericd 15y ago
  Is this an example of something that helps the economy (since your premise above was that advertising is very important for the economy)? It certainly doesn't help productivity for every family to have a large house to take care of, and most of the spending to outfit and run that house is ultimately a waste. A much better use would be, say, farming.

marshray 15y ago

Americans didn't buy into cars simply because of utility. They bought into cars because of the entire "lifestyle" image created around owning a car -- and this image was created in large part thanks to advertising campaigns. Nah. Show me a country with a similar low density as America where people don't buy cars almost as soon as they can afford them. The advertising was certainly prominent, but it didn't drive the fundamentals.

akgerber 15y ago
Most Americans don't live in particularly low-density areas. The Los Angeles metro area is about as dense as that of New York; the fact that LA is car-based whereas New York is based on rail is due to infrastructure choices made based on people's desire to drive more instead of walking or taking mass transit. That desire was in large part created by marketing portraying automobiles as signs of wealth, power, modernity, and of course sexual potency.
- marshray 15y ago
  Most Americans don't live in particularly low-density areas. I assure you that the great majority of Americans live in areas which are not so dense in population that it becomes overly burdensome to own a car. Add em up. The densest cities in the US are a few tens of millions maybe? And they have a lot of cars even there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by... The Los Angeles metro area is about as dense as that of New York; the fact that LA is car-based whereas New York is based on rail is due to infrastructure choices Yes, in the case of New York the infrastructure choices were literally set in stone well over a hundred years ago. made based on people's desire to drive more instead of walking or taking mass transit. We all have choices to make in life. You can: A) Live in a place like Manhattan in a small, expensive apartment, high population density, crime issues, impractical to own anything that doesn't fit in an elevator (including a car), but you can walk around and it has a usable public transportation system. Or.. B) Live in a place where for less money you can have a single-family house, room for multiple cars, a lawn and garden, low crime, and a reasonable commute to work. But no subway system. Most Americans voted with their feet in the 20th century and chose B. They didn't need convincing. That desire was in large part created by marketing portraying automobiles as signs of wealth, power, modernity, and of course sexual potency. That's ridiculous. There's nothing more potent to a young couple than a house with a few empty bedrooms.

stretchwithme 15y ago

Money not spent on cars would spent on something else. or saved and lent to someone else who would spend it on something. And if car purchases having no utility declined, its likely that the other things purchased might have utility, which means more wealth created in the long run. Not a slower economy.

lutorm 15y ago

... even if advertising "only shifted demand around," ... Given the state of US consumer debt, you can make a convincing case that if this wasn't true 100 or even 20 years ago, it certainly is true now. (Unless you mean the top 5% whose wealth is skyrocketing, of course; they could probably be convinced to spend more of it since they won't have to pay it in taxes any time soon.)