3 ms·

You've either misinterpreted the quote (stripped from its context as it was) or I'm misunderstanding your point. Here is that context: In fact quite generally,

You've either misinterpreted the quote (stripped from its context as it was) or I'm misunderstanding your point. Here is that context: In fact quite generally, commercial advertising is fundamentally an effort to undermine markets. We should recognize that. If you've taken an economics course, you know that markets are supposed to be based on informed consumers making rational choices. You take a look at the first ad you see on television and ask yourself... is that its purpose? No it's not. It's to create uninformed consumers making irrational choices. The full interview can be found here, though I think the above passage is sufficient: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-an... (The quote appears at the top of the fourth page. Presumably, the interview is paged to create more room for advertisements. That's irony for you.) Which of the two is it?

anigbrowl 13y ago
I guess I'm not communicating my point well. Thanks for providing the pexapnded verison of the quote. What I disagree with is this: It's to create uninformed consumers making irrational choices. That's true when advertisers lie to consumers, which is often the case. But there's lots of advertising that just consists of 'Our product has features XYZ, and does (whatever it is) really well. We think you'll love it, so please go to the store and buy it right now.' Chomsky's not saying 'oh, you better take adverts with a big pinch of salt because advertisers often exaggerate or try to appeal to emotions like fear, lust and greed.' If he said that I'd agree with him, that's absolutely true and it's something I find offensive about a lot of adverts. But he's making a wild claim that all advertising functions that way, disregarding perfectly valid uses of advertising that are informative to the consumer. I dunno, maybe Noam Chomsky thinks manufacturers (or whoever) should just submit their products to some institutional equivalent of Consumer Reports without comment, and then everyone could decide what to buy based on the findings of independent assessors. But as I tried to show above with my example of musicians, consumers' tastes are subjective to a large degree, and this is especially true for products that are not fungible. So where it's true, I'm happy to agree with him. Take bottled water, for example - 99% of advertising claims made there are total bullshit, and you'd be better off buying a good shatterproof bottle and filling it from your tap or a filter jug than buying a bottle of water in a store. Some water, like Dasani, isn't even sold as spring water, it's just the water supplied to the same bottling plant where they make Coca-cola. They're selling it on the basis of having a nice-looking bottle and whatever pleasant bit of music they put into commercials showing attractive people having fun, in hopes that consumers will identify with that and pick Dasani next time they're thirsty for some water. But that's not the entirety of advertising by a long shot. I work in the film industry, so I look at a lot of ads for things like cameras, pro audio gear and so on. Those communications have a lot of value for me, and while I may discount that value based on the style of the communication (are you showing me a camera, or trying to make me feel like this camera will turn me into a successful photographer?), it's not making me less informed. Nor is the monthly advertisement I get from the local supermarket chain telling me what new products they have on the shelves and why I might wish to buy them - they're on sale, or in season, or now available frozen or whatever. Chomsky treats all advertising as mendacious, ignoring the entirely legitimate purpose of merchants announcing the goods they have to sell. BTW I don't work in adverts or marketing or anything related to that. I just have strong opinions about this topic because I was thinking through these issues for myself long before I ever heard of Noam Chomsky, and when I did come to read him I was disappointed at how frequently he set off my bullshit detectors.

anigbrowl 13y ago

I guess I'm not communicating my point well. Thanks for providing the pexapnded verison of the quote. What I disagree with is this: It's to create uninformed consumers making irrational choices. That's true when advertisers lie to consumers, which is often the case. But there's lots of advertising that just consists of 'Our product has features XYZ, and does (whatever it is) really well. We think you'll love it, so please go to the store and buy it right now.' Chomsky's not saying 'oh, you better take adverts with a big pinch of salt because advertisers often exaggerate or try to appeal to emotions like fear, lust and greed.' If he said that I'd agree with him, that's absolutely true and it's something I find offensive about a lot of adverts. But he's making a wild claim that all advertising functions that way, disregarding perfectly valid uses of advertising that are informative to the consumer. I dunno, maybe Noam Chomsky thinks manufacturers (or whoever) should just submit their products to some institutional equivalent of Consumer Reports without comment, and then everyone could decide what to buy based on the findings of independent assessors. But as I tried to show above with my example of musicians, consumers' tastes are subjective to a large degree, and this is especially true for products that are not fungible. So where it's true, I'm happy to agree with him. Take bottled water, for example - 99% of advertising claims made there are total bullshit, and you'd be better off buying a good shatterproof bottle and filling it from your tap or a filter jug than buying a bottle of water in a store. Some water, like Dasani, isn't even sold as spring water, it's just the water supplied to the same bottling plant where they make Coca-cola. They're selling it on the basis of having a nice-looking bottle and whatever pleasant bit of music they put into commercials showing attractive people having fun, in hopes that consumers will identify with that and pick Dasani next time they're thirsty for some water. But that's not the entirety of advertising by a long shot. I work in the film industry, so I look at a lot of ads for things like cameras, pro audio gear and so on. Those communications have a lot of value for me, and while I may discount that value based on the style of the communication (are you showing me a camera, or trying to make me feel like this camera will turn me into a successful photographer?), it's not making me less informed. Nor is the monthly advertisement I get from the local supermarket chain telling me what new products they have on the shelves and why I might wish to buy them - they're on sale, or in season, or now available frozen or whatever. Chomsky treats all advertising as mendacious, ignoring the entirely legitimate purpose of merchants announcing the goods they have to sell. BTW I don't work in adverts or marketing or anything related to that. I just have strong opinions about this topic because I was thinking through these issues for myself long before I ever heard of Noam Chomsky, and when I did come to read him I was disappointed at how frequently he set off my bullshit detectors.