3 ms·

> “Where advertising is heading is quite simply into a world where the ad will become a substitute for the product and all the satisfactions will be derived inf

by msla 4y ago

> “Where advertising is heading is quite simply into a world where the ad will become a substitute for the product and all the satisfactions will be derived informationally from the ad and the product will be merely a number in some file somewhere,” McLuhan continued. The computer mouse I bought recently gives me great satisfaction, and I've never once derived satisfaction from any ads for it. Also, the piece goes on, doing something I dislike but which I've never seen dissected quite so obviously: > There are a lot of different ways to interpret McLuhan here, especially when it comes to the “product” being “merely a number in a file somewhere.” Is this a way to talk about digital goods? Or, as another way to look at it, is the ad the product to begin with? Or was he saying what he meant, in the manner of a normal adult speaking the language with which they're most comfortable, and "interpreting" him like is stuffing words in his mouth. Never mind that the words he spoke were fatuous and transparently wrong, I am foursquare opposed to "interpreting" people into saying things they blatantly never said. It's Minitrue without the memory hole: We don't have to erase the words if we're free to "interpret" them to mean absolutely anything we want. Yes, every act of communication is interpreted. I'm opposed to dishonest "interpretation" which disregards the plain meaning.

drdeca 4y ago
I agree, with the caveat that an appropriately explicitly flagged as a deliberate reinterpretation which clearly differs from the intended meaning, is something that I think can be artfully done, to good effect. But when doing this, one should be clear that this alternate meaning is to be attributed to either the person doing the reinterpretation, or to a fictional character of their creation, merely inspired by original quote.
the-printer 4y ago
> The computer mouse I bought recently gives me great satisfaction, and I've never once derived satisfaction from any ads for it. Respectfully, you are keying in on rather mundane purchase to argue against his claim. All he’s saying that interest in a brand will supersede the interest in the actual product. The funny part is that it’s blatantly obvious today, but maybe not so much during his time. As a speaker, I do agree with you though, he had a knack for pointing out the obvious for people who would encounter his material fifty years later.
atoav 4y ago
What McLuhan meant there was brand appeal. The guy with the Rolex is not wearing it, because a Rolex is such a great watch, although he might claim it is. He is wearing it, because of the symbolic value this watch has for him. There are many products today where this symbolic value outweighs the practical value. E.g. I recall the whole Beats by Dr. Dre Headphone hype. As a musician and audio engineer I know what good headphones sound like and as I planned to get a good pair in that price bracket anyways, I decided to check on them. They sounded literally a magnitude cheaper than they were, yet many people swore this was the best thing since sliced bread. They paid for the brand appeal and for them the brand appeal was part of the use value.
- msla 4y ago
  > What McLuhan meant there was brand appeal. The guy with the Rolex is not wearing it, because a Rolex is such a great watch, although he might claim it is. He is wearing it, because of the symbolic value this watch has for him. My point is that relatively few items work like this. Literally nobody sees my mouse: I work from home and nobody I live with cares about the brand of mouse I have. Your analysis only works for certain kinds of prestige products, where the brand is part of the price, and fails for anything that has to be useful.
  - atoav 4y ago
    The idea of marketing is that it influences your buying decision. The Rolex guy thinks he is buying a great watch. We see what is really going on. The thing is: we are not immune to that and when it happens to us, we will just think we are on top of it as well. Products deliver more than just the utility value, otherwise men would buy the "female" variant of a product if it was cheaper, but they are not doing it.

by msla 4y ago

drdeca 4y ago

I agree, with the caveat that an appropriately explicitly flagged as a deliberate reinterpretation which clearly differs from the intended meaning, is something that I think can be artfully done, to good effect. But when doing this, one should be clear that this alternate meaning is to be attributed to either the person doing the reinterpretation, or to a fictional character of their creation, merely inspired by original quote.

the-printer 4y ago

> The computer mouse I bought recently gives me great satisfaction, and I've never once derived satisfaction from any ads for it. Respectfully, you are keying in on rather mundane purchase to argue against his claim. All he’s saying that interest in a brand will supersede the interest in the actual product. The funny part is that it’s blatantly obvious today, but maybe not so much during his time. As a speaker, I do agree with you though, he had a knack for pointing out the obvious for people who would encounter his material fifty years later.

atoav 4y ago

What McLuhan meant there was brand appeal. The guy with the Rolex is not wearing it, because a Rolex is such a great watch, although he might claim it is. He is wearing it, because of the symbolic value this watch has for him. There are many products today where this symbolic value outweighs the practical value. E.g. I recall the whole Beats by Dr. Dre Headphone hype. As a musician and audio engineer I know what good headphones sound like and as I planned to get a good pair in that price bracket anyways, I decided to check on them. They sounded literally a magnitude cheaper than they were, yet many people swore this was the best thing since sliced bread. They paid for the brand appeal and for them the brand appeal was part of the use value.

msla 4y ago
> What McLuhan meant there was brand appeal. The guy with the Rolex is not wearing it, because a Rolex is such a great watch, although he might claim it is. He is wearing it, because of the symbolic value this watch has for him. My point is that relatively few items work like this. Literally nobody sees my mouse: I work from home and nobody I live with cares about the brand of mouse I have. Your analysis only works for certain kinds of prestige products, where the brand is part of the price, and fails for anything that has to be useful.
- atoav 4y ago
  The idea of marketing is that it influences your buying decision. The Rolex guy thinks he is buying a great watch. We see what is really going on. The thing is: we are not immune to that and when it happens to us, we will just think we are on top of it as well. Products deliver more than just the utility value, otherwise men would buy the "female" variant of a product if it was cheaper, but they are not doing it.