I'm sure the 12 categories described in this story represents a useful way to think about advertising.

But there's a simpler way to boil it down.

An ad succeeds to the extent that it instills in the viewer discontent with his status quo (life without the advertised product). Ads seek to convince the viewer that without the product, he's a loser, but that acquiring the product will make him a winner: socially, economically, physically. This instills the motivation to buy the product.

There are serious negative effects of a world dominated by advertising. People lose self-confidence. (Buying the product can never produce the ideal portrayed in ads.) Some become physically ill. It's widely accepted that unrealistic standards of feminine beauty presented by advertisements are a huge factor in the surge in anorexia and bulemia in Western nations.

I think this idea about advertising holds water. Even in simple "demonstration" videos of slicers and dicers, the point is that *you* can't make food look appetizing without these products. You're a loser until you buy them.

It works because all of us - every one - are worried about how we present ourselves to others. It's a competitive world, and we fear that looking bad, or driving an unhip car, or failing to wear the right make-up, or presenting ugly food to guests, will make others think less of us and hurt our prospects in life. We imagine that consumers who buy the product will be ahead of us in some tangible way, leaving us in a less competitive position, unless we buy it, too.

Understanding how advertising really works is like being inoculated against it. I'll be surprised if an ad exec ever goes public about it.

"An ad succeeds to the extent that it instills in the viewer discontent with his status quo (life without the advertised product). Ads seek to convince the viewer that without the product, he's a loser, but that acquiring the product will make him a winner: socially, economically, physically. This instills the motivation to buy the product."

This tired analysis is trotted out over and over by the intellectual class anxious to alert the masses to the "dangers" of advertising. Urgelt probably took a class on this as it sounds like he's quoting a textbook.

I've been in advertising for 20 years, and nobody, repeat nobody, has ever sat me down and said "Son, we gotta make people unhappy with what they got so they'll buy what they don't need."

Our consumer society was not created by advertising, though it certainly does nothing to slow consumption down. But the idea that advertising has brainwashed consumers into buying happiness is patently absurd.

If someone believes they are a "loser" and that buying something will make them a "winner," they have far greater problems than contending with the onslaught of ads in their lives. There are, unfortunately, entire businesses (beauty, fashion, etc.) devoted to preying on these poor people. And Urgelt sagely lumps all advertising into these categories. He conveniently ignores all that the ads let the an audience know about a product they could use when they are in the market for it (appliances, home improvement, etc.).

I've driven unhip cars and failed to do many of the things that Urgelt thinks we "all" worry about. Sorry to disappoint, but my ego and my bank account are just fine.

Yes advertising has worked in the 20th century because of the notion of competitive nature of societal existence. In the 21st century and beyond we are likely to out grow this model and find out we are not competing with anyone else in any societal framework but are insulated and isolated from everyone else and we are on our own for our existence is of our own making. We are not likely to ever watch a commercial as we will use robotic, intelligent agents and software "to do our own thing". Our needs will be met by our behavior irrespective of what others might or might not do, as product and service individualization will become quite affordable even as the mass production/consumption becomes the norm. I believe, in that model, advertising dollars will be spent instead in researching and adopting a product/service to remain viable. There will be no commercial since no one will watch commercials and there will be no mass media as we know it. We may write and produce for mass markets but they will never be seen or used as a mass produced product/service by individuals.

Certainly advertising affects some people in that way. And certainly many ads connect their products with our need for social approval. But that does not apply to all ads. Nor does it apply to all people.

While there is some truth to your viewpoint, much of what you wrote is a reflection of your personal emotions. ie. how you personally perceive the advertising.

Advertising may have made you feel that way at times, but you can't assume everyone else responds in the same way.

If that is how advertising affects you, then you have a self esteem problem. The only way to sell me something is to convince me I need it to save time, energy or money. Needless to say I don’t buy much that is advertised. If Madison Avenue had to depend upon me for revenue, they would soon go out of business. If an ad is aimed at image, they are wasting money on me.

Unfortunately there is much truth here. It is nore and more a vehicle fo advertising.

Take the current Visa Check card ads. It shows scenes where everything is flowing along smoothly until a individual takes out cash or heaven forbid a check to pay for an item.

Everything comes to a screetching halt and the offending individual is given all sorts of dirty looks. Now advertisers are trying to stigmatise people who do not use a Visa Debit / Check card. It is disgusting really.

And how about those ads that make violent behaivior some how cool. There was this cell phone ad where two guys are in a locker room. One guy says he has a new cell phone with theft protection. Then he encourgaes another guy in the room to pick it up to test the feature. Before he gets to pick up the phone, the owner snatches it up and throws the phone at the others head. When the other individual says he is going to report the incident, the first guy throws the phone at him again striking him in the face again.

The message of this ad is very clear. Ad agencies spend millions on behavioral studies and surveys that substantiate this. I've given only two examples there are hundreds of others.

I agree with what you said, but to boil it down to make even more simpler, advertisments are made for you to remember them. When you go shopping for things and you see a product you saw a commercial for you remember the commercial or least that you saw a commercial for that product. It is now in the fore front of your memory and you are more likely to purchase it.

"They know the fantasies, that you romance to" - Neil Peart

The real threat with advertising is loss of privacy. There is a computer database somewhere that is compiling your personal information. And, this info is for sale to all advertisers who want to reach you in the clearest and shortest way. From the database, advertisers know the time you awake, the time that you sleep, and what you are doing in the hours in between. Already, they know what products you are buying at your favorite grocery store, and they are able to spit out the corresponding coupons to give to you with your receipt. Expect more personal targeting in the future.

adbusters dot org

I must not be normal because I don't pay attention to what an advertisements is trying to sell me. I look at commericals as a short tv show; not the product. Most times I don't even remember the product! Or, I do little errands during commercials.

Great comments.

The purpose of an ad is to make the product memorable. Whether we are influenced (duped) by the commercial itself, or just enjoy the story line as entertainment does not matter to the product maker. The brand is fixed in our minds. All of our collective minds--even if we've been inoculated.