Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
Tecnopolitical opened this door- after Sven busted the lock off, in his "Quality of life" diary. "Buying Happiness" has several links to more rigorous pieces that deal with the subject, but they are sub-only, by and large. Layard cuts the crap away and makes the subject a lot more readable. Not definitive.
I think most of us here would agree that market capitalism-dominated globalization, along with the profit model that hinges on growth by externalizing hidden costs, are based on resource pillage, and appeared to work in a world that is forever gone. Layard and Technopolitical's references point out that it never really did work- if by working you mean enabling (not generating) happiness. Advertising was (and remains)the prime vehicle that seemed to prove that it was (and remains) the only zero-sum game in town. Advertising's ability to promote this nonsense notion depends on an ahistorical educational base.
For many centuries, it was the "Commons" that kept us alive. Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
Got good ideas?
If you read the lectures, crime relates strongly to mobility, mobility to loss of trust. Ideas, norms can be too mobile also- too conveniently discarded--when inconvenient. I suggest that the loss of faith in human integrity is powerfully related to advertising. Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
However, TV advertising in large markets is carefully researched and tested and is thus customised for the particular audience. The existence of that audience is not the fault of a particular ad. It is the cumulative effect over a number of years in which envelope-pushing is tried, outdone and finally becomes 'normal' through prolonged exposure. But it is never ads alone that change a culture, they reflect other changes in society.
Take the development of the female 'bathing costume' over 100 years, from all-over cover to bikini (after the atoll), to topless to thong and beyond. Is this fashionistas pushing the envelope, or have there been deep changes in attitudes to sexuality within the whole network culture?
Whilst I gave up making TV ads around 20 years ago, (mostly because I found I was wasting life time on such futilities as spending a whole afternoon arguing about the colour of an unimportant dress), I think that there is no simple cause and effect with advertising. It is both a symptom and a precursor. You can't be me, I'm taken
I have no good ideas here: how do you outlaw ads that subtly suggest you're a bad parent for not buying a "safer" car?
