"a fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun" |
Ad About You Though the program for the panel on "Commercialism: The Quest for Truth in a Material World" mentioned seduction, the chair's opening remarks must have seemed just a tad too racy for many of the material(ist) boys and girls there. For a moment, it seemed less a stuffy conference filled with a wannabe media elite, and more a scene filled with the charged promise of encounter straight out of a Bugle Boy ad. Those who misheard panel chair Makani Themba's appraisal of commercialism - "advertising is the missionary position" - are to be forgiven, however, because even if the reference was to advertising's position as the "missionary of culture," there's no question that the entire set of speakers thinks we're fucked. According to the assembled speakers, advertising has invaded us as surely as a third date, and we are definitely unprotected. Village Voice columnist Leslie Savan spoke of the way that the language of advertising has infiltrated our lives, its catchphrases becoming "thought replacements." Baffler editor Tom Frank warned that "uncharted regions of private life are being colonized by corporations." UNPLUG's Marianne Manilov raised the specter of pedophilia when she warned against Channel One's assault on unsuspecting and captive schoolchildren. Then again, are we really on the receiving end of capitalism's frontal assault, or are we just getting fingered by the Invisible Hand? The most compelling arguments presented about advertising, and its future, had less to do with commercialism's obviousness than with its inevitable transparency. Public Relations watchdog John Stauber claimed that "PR is stealth," and Savan provoked a self-righteous chuckle from the crowd when she quoted a Seinfeld staffer on the show's blatant product placement: name-brand products are used "for verisimilitude." In light of these comments, the idea of hearing self-proclaimed leftists compliment Frank's H.L.
Mencken self-promotion (as they seemed to do whenever he swept through a room) becomes less glaringly disingenuous. His hucksterism is cheerfully retrograde and amusingly conspicuous. What's more disturbing, and, according to the panel, more dangerous, is the future of advertising, a future which will probably look a lot like - you guessed it - Friends.
As Savan noted, "the whole show is an ad." An ad for a lifestyle and not a brand, sure - but the vertical expansion of multinationals means it's more and more likely that one corporation could furnish all of the wardrobe, nutrition, and information needs of an entire clique. Amway works for us. Still, as the Web has proved, you can also attempt to sell the entire lifestyle without necessarily equipping all of it. Sites like toyota.com and leggs.com, advice columns, movie reviews and all, were created, reports Advertising Age, "because there aren't enough good media sites to advertise on." These online infomercials are sometimes seen as the Web's baby steps towards fruition as a "real" medium, and pundits compare them to the Procter & Gamble sponsored (and scripted) soap operas of yesteryear. But to us such sponsored content seems more like the future than the past. Even more likely, as the J. Walter Thompson site makes clear, is the future of ads as content. Their private screening
service personal Web page of your favorite ads, is provided so "you can enjoy our show without the usual programming interruptions we've become accustomed to on TV." This is a level of "smart marketing" that the New Media careerists can only dream of, and its presentation of come-on as entertainment makes Manilov's talk of "ad-free zones" prescient, not radical.
After all, if the whole show is an ad, then why sell the spaces in between? Of course, the pace of popular culture's content-ad-content has become so ingrained that a switch to all ad would probably jar all but the most dedicated MTV viewer. Providers worried about disrupting an entrenched viewing rhythm should look to Time-Warner, whose hour-long infomercial for "Rolling
Stone interrupted by a 20-second "rant" by Paramount Television's Duckman character. A word from the sponsored, if you will. Interestingly, the final minutes of the Commercialism panel itself broke for a commercial announcement - or maybe it was content in search of an ad - as both the invited guests and the audience pondered the ability of the left to market itself. Frank may have argued that "hip is not radical," that it is indeed "no more threatening to corporate ideology as casual days are to worker efficiency," but the question everyone seemed to be asking was "Can radical be hip?" The Baffler's own position (as some hideous but diverting cross between Forced Exposure and
The
Nation the affirmative. Indeed, Frank held up the Baffler as the potential prophylactic to corporate America's lecherous desires: "there are a million stories of hypocrisy to be told," he cried, "do it yourself... we have." But in truth, Frank's dazzling and delirious rant - itself as much a collection of buzzwords and slogans as any spot for Levi's - did more to sell his own magazine than to encourage others to write their own.
Which is, of course, just fine with us. Fact is, few anti-consumerist consumer publications harangue on as entertainingly as the Baffler. Panelist Mark Crispin Miller put it well when he noted that the left has long forgotten the important aspect of pleasure in propaganda. Not without merit does middle America view anti-consumerists as "the ones who want to break into people's houses and steal the roast out of their pots." Then again, radical propaganda that would have us roast our pigs, such as the Black Panther
Coloring Book Some sells are easier than others: it's no fault of advertising that it's at least willing to follow through on its sweet nothings, and ream us until we're dead. And, unlike civilization's discontents, the ad men'll do it with a smile. courtesy of Ann O'Tate
| |
![]() |