Assignment #5

Please share three things (concepts, observations, themes) you learned after reading parts 5 & 6 of Ad Nauseam, and one question you have after finishing each section of the reading. (Be sure your questions begin with these three words on your blog post - "My question is..." )

1. I would first like to re-write John Lennon’s quote, because I idolize him, and the quote says it all. “Money doesn’t matter, it never did. Money is just another trap…it makes you sexy and intelligent and talented in a flash, poof! And it’s a lie.” ~John Lennon. It astounds me that capitalism, a human constructed socio-political system, has changed the way people THINK. People seriously value shopping as much, if not more, than most other activities in their daily lives. I know people who will admit that shopping is their favorite thing to do, or that it literally makes them feel better about things. Advertisements appeal to all of the things we want most out of life, and John Lennon pinpoints them best: sexiness, intelligent, and talented at something.

2. I like the section “Subliminal Seduction”. I have been wondering when this issue would be discussed in class, because it is one of the only ones I had been previously educated about. Obviously, sex is something that everyone is interested in at some level, and it seems that most subliminal messages have a sexual theme, no matter if the product is sexual or not. This is probably because anyone old enough to really have disposable income would be teenage and older, and receptive to those messages.

3. In the section “The Idiot Consumer”, there is suggestion that consumers used to be very naïve about advertising, and treated like sheep, but that now we are more observant and likely to pinpoint what is bullshit. I find it hard to believe that people have become that much smarter about advertisements. Our entire culture is built around consumption. People buy things every day because they are convinced that it is a necessity.

My question is… Has it been suggested, or taken seriously, that viewers should be made aware when subliminal messaging is used? It seems unethical to expose people to things without their consent.

Please read Steven Johnson's TIME magazine article, "How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live" (Summer 2009), and answer the questions below.




a. IYOW, identify the thesis of Johnson's article, in one sentence.
Twitter seems useless and excessive at first, but does have an appeal in that it lets one know what others are doing, without having to ask.
b. Describe TWO observations Johnson makes about Twitter with which you agree, and TWO observations Johnson makes about Twitter with which you disagree. Be clear and specific.

Agree:

“One of the most telling facts about the Twitter platform is that the vast majority of its users interact with the service via software created by third parties. There are dozens of iPhone and BlackBerry applications — all created by enterprising amateur coders or small start-ups — that let you manage Twitter feeds.” I can’t disagree with that. I know a lot of people who have cell phones that can access the internet, and it annoys me so much! Between texting, games, facebook, twitter, and taking pictures, it is as if they aren’t even aware of the world around them. I am wondering how interconnected these corporations have become. I am sure that Facebook, Twitter, and the i(stuff) industries have been in bed together for quite some time (for lack of a better term).

The author mentions activism as a venue in which Twitter can be very helpful I completely understand where he is coming from. It is a great way to organize something like a flash mob, in which a bunch of civilians create a scene spontaneously, and the same instant. Twitter would be very helpful, because thousands of people can be reached without having to know cell phone numbers, or give advanced warning.


Disagree:

“We still have national events, but now when we have them, we're actually having a genuine, public conversation with a group that extends far beyond our nuclear family and our next-door neighbors.” I am wondering if there is much value in this type of so-called ‘genuine’ conversation. Not much can be said in 140 characters, and there is no way to tell if someone’s comments are valid. In addition, those who aren’t involved with Twitter, such as myself, are automatically excluded. Wouldn’t it be more valuable if people had genuine conversations with their nuclear families and neighbors, anyway?

The other places a lot of value on the fact that information can be conveyed instantly. I can’t imagine anything is that important, that you can’t wait a day or so to find out over the phone.

c. PERSONAL QUESTION: Are you using Twitter for personal or professional use? Why or why not? Please describe your relationship to Twitter right now.

I have never even been on the Twitter website, nor have I seen a “Tweet”. I am completely disinterested, because it would be too time consuming to take part in. I am already uncomfortable with the degree to which I use my cell phone and Facebook. My on-going goal is to become less engaged with technology.

Assignment #6

FACEBOOK
a. IYOW, identify the thesis of Hodgkinson's article, in one sentence.
Facebook is disguised as a social networking site, but its true purpose is rooted in capitalism and advertisement.
b. Describe TWO observations the author makes about Facebook with which you agree, and TWO observations he makes about Facebook with which you disagree. Be clear and specific.

Disagree:

“Like PayPal before it, it is a social experiment, an expression of a particular kind of neoconservative libertarianism. On Facebook, you can be free to be who you want to be, as long as you don't mind being bombarded by adverts for the world's biggest brands.” I mildly disagree with this statement, because I don’t feel that advertisements are that overwhelming on Facebook. There are some ads on the side bar, but mine are never for major brand name stuff.

“Clearly, Facebook is another uber-capitalist experiment: can you make money out of friendship? Can you create communities free of national boundaries - and then sell Coca-Cola to them? Facebook is profoundly uncreative. It makes nothing at all. It simply mediates in relationships that were happening anyway.” I also disagree with this statement. I feel that there is some truth in his argument because people can spend money on Facebook, but by no means does a friendship create revenue. In addition, it can create relationships that weren’t already there. I wouldn’t suggest Facebook friend-ing someone that you don’t know, but it happens. I feel that Facebook can be useful for things outside of the realm of capitalism. For example, I use my page to convey important announcements to do with activism projects that I am working on. For example, I used Facebook to communicate with a lot of people about the issue of closing down VT Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. I was able to share links to websites, dates of upcoming events, pictures, and updates on the vote. I have never spent any money on the site.

Agree:

“The US defense department and the CIA love technology because it makes spying easier.” I absolutely agree. I can see how Facebook would be a great way to spy on people, because most people list a lot of personal information, such as hometown, birth date, school, political views, religion, and relationship status. I have even heard that colleges and jobs will use Facebook as a tool to research applicants.

“Now, by comparison with Facebook, newspapers, for example, begin to look hopelessly outdated as a business model. A newspaper sells advertising space to businesses looking to sell stuff to their readers. But the system is far less sophisticated than Facebook…” Facebook is a much more efficient way to get information around, including ads, because viewing is infinite and nonstop. There are millions of people looking at their Facebook news feeds 24/7. Unlike a newspaper which is printed once a day, users can change their statuses and write messages to other people many times a day. The News Feed is much like a newspaper, but with information that is more personalized to each viewer. I only see the updates of people that I am friends with, or pages of which I am a fan.

"The Making of a Media Literate Mind" and blog your reflections.

What stood out for you?

It stood out that in our culture we spend at least ten hours each day consuming media. I was not surprised to read that fact, but it is overwhelming. Essentially, the only times we aren’t consuming media are if we’re asleep, or in the middle of the woods. Since about 90% of the media is owned by a handful of giant corporations, there is little room for diverse, independent, or revolutionary themes.

Is there anything you learned from the article that you didn't know before?

I learned that CBS and MTV are both owned by Viacom. In addition, it was brought to my attention in the article that many of the alcohol ads on television, especially during sports programs, are targeted to adolescent boys whom obviously can’t purchase those beverages. It has become obvious to me that those adolescent boys are being “branded”. They are subconsciously being brainwashed to believe that to be popular, one must be a jock, and jocks drink Budweiser. It is horrifying how interconnected all of the larger corporations have become.

The Merchants of Cool

1) Portrays teens as easily brainwashed.

2) Observes the role of sex in the media and the lives of teens. The film exaggerates reality. Not all teens behave in the ways that are portrayed by MTV and “Spring Break” videos. I don’t necessarily think the media has the most influence over teen sexuality. It has a lot to do with the friends that teens hang around with, and the ways they were raised.

3) The kids who were paid to talk about “what’s cool” were very hesitant to say very much. It made me a little mad, because if I had an easy way to make fifty bucks like that, I would tell them what I thought was “cool”. Not that I would sign up for anything like that, because I don’t support the cause. I just think the focus group was relatively selfish to take the opportunity and not give a good effort to do the job.

4) The TV show 7^th Heaven is pretty ridiculous. I used to watch it on afternoons after school when I wasn’t doing anything else. I remember consciously knowing how unrealistic it was, in that the family was so perfect. At the same time, I was addicted to it, and it made me hostile that my own family was relatively dysfunctional. I find it hard to believe that there are families in real life with parents that get along so well, live in a beautiful home, have all well-behaved, attractive kids, and a dog named Happy that always saves the day.

5) I found the section of the video about Midriff archetypes to be pretty true. The media portrays that females must be a certain way: perfect body, highly sexual, confident and weak at the same time, and consumed by appearances and popularity. From personal experience, I can say that very few girls want to act this way, but most of them do because they are starved for male acceptance.

How did the film make you feel?

The film made me feel like I am not an individual. It made huge generalizations about teenagers, and separated us by gender. Ironic, huh, that a video trying to end stereotypes has completely played into them?

What persuasive techniques does Kilbourne use in presenting her research?

It’s persuasive that actual footage of teens is shown. There are interviews and videos of the teens buying into archetypes.

Twitter: I am choosing not to participate in the world of Twitter, because I feel like I am already too connected to the cyber world with a Facebook account, and now a blog! I know the essence of what it is, and feel that I would be very distracted by it.

Assignment #3 (part 2)

Meg said...

Thesis:
Constant access to flashy ads, pop-ups, texts, daily blogs and short news clips have changed our thought process so that many people can no longer focus on longer texts, but depend upon gaining information in the forms that the internet provides.

Agree:
-“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” I can see this transformation even in myself. I am 19 years old, and I have undergone great changes in my attention span and ability to comprehend long pieces of text. I was better at reading long books when I was a child, because I hadn’t been exposed to the internet!
-The author mentions that the adult brain is malleable, and can be influenced to function differently at any time. I would have to agree. My brain is changing all the time, and I can notice the changes. I have certainly become less able to focus, especially on reading since I have started using the internet daily. My desire to memorize things has left me, because I know that I can look anything up that I need to know.

Disagree:
-“Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice.” For some reason, I highly doubt that people are reading more today than in the 1970s and 1980s. It seems that back then people would have read a lot more books and newspapers, and even the Bible. The reading that people do today on the internet is basically just to answer emails or skim research articles. I don’t know anyone that will read a book on the computer, or really even a work of fiction. Over the weekend, I went to a book store with some friends. At first, they all went to look at the CDs, then travel guides, and finally we left. Out of five students, only two made a purchase at the book store. My friend bought a CD, and I bought a children’s book that I loved as a kid. None of us intended to go back to the dorms and sit down to a good book. It is a shame. We may be reading more, but it is not more meaningful.
-“In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can ‘access’ and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.”
I must disagree with this statement. The author seems to be summarizing the mission of Google, and may not necessarily agree with what he’s written at all. And so, I disagree with the statement, but not necessarily the author. While I agree that information is an important resource and access to it needs improvement, I’m not sure Google is handing this problem appropriately. In order for access to information to be better, underprivileged people need to be given access. Making computers and websites faster for people in developed countries doesn’t really help anything. It makes privileged people even lazier.

February 8, 2010 7:31 PM

Assignment #3 (part 1)

Meg said...

In the Forward when Rob Walker describes Stay Free, the alternative media publication written mostly by the two editors of this book, I was immediately reminded of FEED. He writes: “Everything in Ad Nauseam is about questioning what most people take for granted…” In essence, that is what FEED did, as well. Like FEED, Ad Nauseam goes against the grain of mainstream society, using examples from that society to bring about critical thinking about issues like consumer culture.
The Preface reminded me of the film Consuming Kids. In the very beginning the author discusses teaching a high school class where the students recognized brand names much more consistently than tree species in the town. That really struck a chord with me. I was astounded in the film when it said that babies as young as six months can recognize brands. Imagine if parents taught their babies about nature instead?
In part one, in the section titled “Brand Magic”, the differences in advertising across gender lines was discussed. It says that when Marlboro cigarettes were first introduced in the 1920s, they were targeted to women because they were thought to be mild and elegant (first cigarette with a filter). Later on, they decided to target WWII veterans who were back working in the US in offices. The “manly men” felt emasculated. New Marlboro ads used images of tough guys with tattoos, riding horses, and the like. All of these sexist stereotypes used to target male and female consumers reminded me of that topic in the film The Ad and the Ego. It really disgusts me not only that corporations play into people’s insecurities and sexual desires, but the fact that it works!
In part two, in the “Your Ad Here” section, I was reminded of FEED. Advertisements are everywhere, including people’s bodies. Brand names and logos are on clothes. Billboards are on the highways (in every state except Vermont). Commercials play in elevators so that we cannot escape. Some retail stores play music or infuse the air with fragrance to attract people to come into the store. Now, we have ads even playing in our own minds, with catchy jingles and rhymes hard to shake. Our culture has literally become an advertisement.

February 8, 2010 9:11 PM

Assignment #2 (part 2)

Meg said...

1. Thompson writes that, while the constant connection of social networking sites can be convenient and habit-forming, it may also be inhibiting people’s privacy and effecting real-life, personal relationships in both positive and negative ways.

2.Ambient Awareness describes the constant contact with others, via the internet and cell phones that allows us to pick up on the emotions of other people as if we were physically near them. A sort of ironic counter example from my own “cyber life” comes from one of my close friends. As her Facebook ‘status’, she wrote: “Don’t put your life in your status.” I thought this was a bold, and quite reasonable statement, because so many people update their Facebook constantly with what is going on in their lives. Honestly, not many people really care that you’re “going to a PaRtYYYyyy :P.” or “so excited for your broomball game.” etc.

3.Agree:
“Facebook and Twitter may have pushed things into overdrive, but the idea of using communication tools as a form of ‘co-presence’ has been around for a while.” (Thompson)
He says this in the context of a timeline when texting had already been invented and popularized. He also mentions as a specific example that couples will “ping-pong” text one another, which means that they will write back and forth rather than have a phone conversation, because it is easier to text from work, or when other people are around. I can definitely recognize this as a true observation.

“Merely looking at a stranger’s Twitter or Facebook feed isn’t interesting, because it seems like blather. Follow it for a day, though, and it begins to feel like a short story; follow it for a month, and it’s a novel.” (Thompson) I would have to agree, that Facebook status updates become more interesting over time, when following certain people, because the updates begin to relate to each other, or follow a pattern.
Disagree:
“And when they do socialize face to face, it feels oddly as if they’ve never actually been apart.” (Thompson)
I do not use Facebook as a means of socializing necessarily, but as a way to plan ahead, stay in touch, or network. I value the time spent in person with my friends much more than sitting alone at my computer popping them a message to invite them out or something. I have two best friends whom I only see in person a few times a year. It certainly feels amazing to see them face to face, and I can definitely tell that we’ve been apart.

“It is also possible, though, that this profusion of weak ties can become a problem. If you’re reading daily updates from hundreds of people about whom they’re dating and whether they’re happy, it might, some critics worry, spread your emotional energy too thin, leaving less for true intimate relationships” (Thompson)
I have to say that I both agree, and disagree. It must depend on the person, how much emotional energy they have, and how much self control they have to drag themselves back to reality if they’ve spent too much time in front of a screen. I have never personally felt like my emotions for loved ones have spread too thin, especially because of technology. Then again, I am most likely on the lower end of the spectrum for Facebook use, and I don’t use Twitter.

February 1, 2010 8:14 PM

Assignment #2 (part 1)

Meg said...

1.Link- rich, sarcastic, short-tempered, competitive, and unattractive.

2. Null- boring, lame, or mundane.
Bonesproket- tool, loser, dweeb, or generally someone who is not considered to be ‘cool’.
Youch- hot, exciting, fun, attractive, or otherwise appealing, particularly in a sexual manner.

3. -Young people are sarcastic, always bored with their current situation, and tend to seek out drug usage to have a good time or be social.
-There is a lot of pollution and broken things. On the flight to the moon, Titus mentions that “there is nothing to see except broken things in space…”
- People are constantly being updated on new trends. In FEED, the feeds planted in the brains of the people represent, among other things, the constant media interactions in our society that we may not realize have so much influence over us. In the book, the girls would go to the bathroom several times as the hair styles changed throughout the night. It is a bit of an exaggeration compared to our present world, yet parallels can be drawn.

4. -Lesions are normal in the FEED world, and people try to incorporate them into fashion. In our world, such lesions would be considered an immediate medical concern, and quite unattractive.
-In our world, people do not go to the moon on weekends to party…yet. I have heard that, if you are very rich, you can go to the moon.
-We do not have “pot stickers” (page 14), as far as I know. I’m not sure exactly what they are in the book, but I am assuming they represent both marijuana and LSD.

5. -The media, technology, and cyber-communication have become a part of the mind itself, because the feed in physically in one’s skull. This may represent a futuristic interpretation of how interwoven our own minds have become with mainstream media and instant cyber communication. “Chatting” in Feed, is comparable to texting and Tweeting in our society.
-Another huge theme is corporate control over society in general. We can see even today that huge corporations, like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and Exxon, have huge influence over what people eat, drink, use as fuel, or even see on the news! Our society is capitalistic, and thus daily life revolves around consumption. In Feed, it is taken to an extreme where pop-up ads and spam literally cannot be escaped, because it is in your brain. “The (corporate) Man” literally owns people.
-The most horrifying part for me is the complete immobilization of natural processes ecosystems. In Feed, clouds have become artificial, ocean creatures are covered in plastic to protect them from acidic conditions, and humans do not reproduce sexually. I can see how MT Anderson got the ideas for these horrors just from our own world. The oceans are becoming more acidic because of the burning of fossil fuels, which has led to destruction of coral reefs. Last year the Chinese shot particles into the sky to make it rain so that there would be fewer clouds of smog during the Olympics. In my own lifetime, I have seen a dramatic rise in the number of couples who cannot have children naturally, and thus seek in-vitro fertilization or adoption.

February 1, 2010 8:51 PM

Assignment #1

Media Memoir
As a child growing up in the USA, I had access to more media that most children around the world. I had a television, books, and internet access in my home, and my parents got the newspaper on most days. For the most part, though, my family didn’t encourage me to expand my worldview with the media. Television and the internet were just an easy way to keep my brother and I entertained when the weather was bad, or we were sick. Whenever I complained about being bored, my Mom would rave about how lucky we were to have a computer and TV, because “when she was a kid, they played outside”.
I find it a bit depressing that our culture has become so obsessed with our gadgets. It bothers me to see children glued to the TV, as if the rest of the world doesn’t exist when Blue’s Clue’s is playing. Even TV has become primitive with the advancement of the internet. YouTube.com and other websites allow people to watch television and movies on the computer, thereby further entrancing the masses. As an ecologically mindful individual, I have to question whether technology is a help or a hindrance to the environmental movement.
In many ways, however, the media has changed my life. When I was thirteen years old, I was researching animal rights on the internet for an opinion paper. At that point, I was exposed to a wealth of information on factory farming that I wouldn’t have known about had it not been for organizations like PETA, who posted information and videos online. Too often the evils of society are hidden by mass media like the news and popular magazines. My parents certainly weren’t about to educate me about where meat comes from, because they didn’t really know themselves.
After my enlightenment into the world of factory farms and slaughterhouses, I stopped consuming meat. I have been a vegetarian and advocate for the cause for over six years. Researching vegetarianism led me to educate myself on many other animal rights, as well as environmental issues. To do this, I used the internet, films, books, and journal articles. One of the best parts about modern technology is that a person can use it to spread awareness by sending links to others via text, email, or WebPages like Facebook.
To conclude, my family did not use the media as a way to educate ourselves. However, it was available to me for research. Now that I am older, I have become much more proficient. Often I find myself assisting my parents to understand new technologies, especially their cell phones. At school, if I have something I want to share with them, like a picture, essay I’ve written, or helpful website, I can simply email it to them.

January 25, 2010 11:23 PM

Meg said...

Children of Cyberspace:
What stood out most about this article was the example of a three year old that had a pet robot hamster, and considered it a real pet. This gadget is not an advancement, but rather a step back in time to when it was acceptable to think of animals as machines, or vice versa in this case. I find it very dangerous to teach a child that a robot is a pet, because it needs no love or caring like a real pet would need in order to thrive. When I was a child, I had real hamsters whom I loved very much, and whom taught me to be gentle and responsible with another being’s life.
As far as the discussion of technology speeding up generation gaps, I can see evidence of such in my own life. For example, my younger cousins are far better at operating any and every piece of technology I can think of. One of my cousins, just ten years old, tried teaching me how to play Sudoku on my own cell phone, but I couldn’t figure it out!
My vision of society is quite skeptical of technological advancements because it seems that the values, skills, interests, and capabilities of each generation are changing faster than is functional. When people talk about Twitter, blackberries, and iThis and iThat, I have basically no idea how to respond. Just to get by, we have to continuously educate ourselves about new technologies. For example, I had never posted a blog until tonight for this assignment, and it took me several minutes to figure it out. I am concerned that generation gaps associated with technology will inhibit collaboration toward common goals.

January 26, 2010 12:23 AM

Meg said...

The Machine is Us/ing Us Video
What stood out most was when “Teaching the Machine” came up on the screen. I was struck that the word “Machine” was capitalized, as if personified. Turns out, that was the intent because it went on to say that we, the people, are the machine because we create it.
In my own life, I have an exponentially expanding relationship with this machine because I am a member of several websites, whether or not I really would like to be. For example, I have a UVM email and Blackboard account, a Google account for this class’s website, an electronic bank account, and various social networks like Facebook and AIM.
My education in particular depends upon me having access to the internet constantly to check assignments, do research, and communicate via email. I am uncomfortable in the fact that I don’t have a choice. To be very honest, the video was very confusing, a bit scary, and made me a little dizzy.

January 26, 2010 12:40 AM

Media Art-picture

Media Art.
I was inspired by the fact that many children's toys today are sold as a complete set, or something that is ready to be played with (no need for creative assembly, like legos or lincoln logs used to encourage). It seems as though many toys may inhibit imaginative behavior, because there is no need for kids to "play make-believe" when the toy already is entertaining enough. When I was a child, I played with things I found on the ground, like rocks and feathers. My brother and I also has plastic animals and army men that we would use to create imagined scenarios. The rest of my art project is for your personal interpretation.

Assignment #4

Ad Nauseam:

In section 3, there is a chapter which discussed non-physical communities. The word community is widely used to describe groups of people with similar affiliations that may live on opposite sides of the planet, and have never met one another! These sort of virtual communities are similar to the groups or cults associated with brands that were discussed in the film, The Persuaders. People will feel as though they belong to something, like a community or group, just because they have a certain value, take a particular stance on an issue, or buy certain brands.

On page 197, in section 4, there is a list of made up holidays. One that was particularly interesting: February is National Boost your Self-Esteem Month. WHAT?? Yes, having a healthy dose of self-confidence is great, but it has become a holiday that we can consume! This sort of reminds me of the part in the film, The Persuaders, when it said that advertisers appeal to consumer’s emotions, even those that are subconscious. Whether or not this monthly holiday is a marketing scheme, I don’t know. It certainly does pull at people’s heart strings, and make them feel, ironically enough, like their self-esteem needs improvement.

Get Smarter:

Thesis- Humanity can solve global issues by utilizing technologies to boost our intelligence.
Disagree:

“Intelligence augmentation decreases the need for specialization and increases participatory complexity.” Technology increases our access to information, but it doesn’t make us any smarter or better at our jobs. If anything, more access to information and growth of technology will lead to jobs that are more specialized and exclusive. There are far more people than there ever have been, far more industries, and much more information to be had. This makes for a competitive job market, where it may be difficult for individuals to find a niche, especially if they are underprivileged in terms of access to internet.

“Strengthening our fluid intelligence is the only viable approach to navigating the age of constant connectivity.” This is a weak way of viewing advancements in technology, and society in general. I assume that by ‘strengthening our fluid intelligence’, we become better at surfing the web and absorbing only what we think to be important. I can’t imagine that to be a helpful skill at all. There is no need for a person to be constantly connected, or even to be good at internet navigation. This argument assumes that everyone wants to “keep up with society”, for lack of a better term.

Agree:

“These tools enable our brains to do things that would once have been almost unimaginable: …real-time data from satellites, global environmental databases, and high-resolution models allow geophysicists to recognize the subtle signs of long-term changes to the planet.” I would have to agree that, in terms of the environmental movement, technology can be helpful in gathering lots of information and analyzing it on a large, comparative scale.

“Yet in one sense, the age of the cyborg and the super-genius has already arrived. It just involves external information and communication devices instead of implants and genetic modification.” Unfortunately, this is true. Although people don’t seem to be getting that much smarter, many of us have gadgets in our pockets all day that can tell us basically anything we need to know. For example, I don’t need to know the bus schedule, because I can just text “Blirpit UVM” to service number that will text me back within seconds with the wait times for on and off-campus busses. Some of my friends have cell phones that can access the internet, and so they can look up anything, at any time. They can even go to UVM’s webpage and see what is for dinner, anywhere on campus!

The Persuaders Film:

1) In the early 1990s, a new approach to advertising ensued. In order to “Brand” consumers, advertisers would appeal to the emotional desires of the viewer. It has gotten so far the people’s spiritual and aesthetic values are associated with certain products.

2) Advertisers have studied cults in order to better understand the physiology behind human desire to belong to a certain brand. Turns out, the two are quite related. In fact, people join cults for the same reasons they are loyal to certain brands: they want to feel like they belong to something, and have meaning in their lives.

3) With programs like Tivo, people can skip commercials, and thus aren’t taking in as many ads. As a result, advertisers have incorporated their messages directly into television shows.

4) Consumers buy things for unconscious reasons. They go into a store, potentially not having any specific needs, and end up buying things that they think they ‘need’. They make up reasons to justify purchases that seem to make sense.

5) Every word has an imprinted message that is different for each individual. When we see ads, we think of other things that are associated with the words, images, smells, or textures.