Ad Nauseam 5 & 6

Ad Nauseam discusses how one of the newest trends is marketing has sparked companies to convince themselves, and a dangerous percentage of consumers, that they are dedicated to a noble cause. A companies virtuous image is shaped by the ideals of the consumer and then imagined into the companies identity and advertising ploys in a corporate meeting. It is difficult, as a critical thinker, to determine when companies are truly affecting the world in way they claim or just extremely creative and skilled in exploiting human desires.

A section of the book discusses how our dismissal of history is dangerous if we are to imagine a culture of responsible consumers. We are forgetting that life is possible without cell phones, without pre-bottled water and even without junk foods or soft drinks. The section entitled “Down the Memory Hole” offers examples of how companies employ quotations from humanities most admired “doers”, such as Albert Einstein, Che Guevara and Martin Luther King Jr., to promote their products and the sheer act of consuming. It seems unlikely that our species will collectively ignore the incidents, figureheads and teaching of our past, but it seems risky to assume this with to much zeal.

What is up with the sub-audible subliminal advertising!? Whispers on radio stations that are absorbed directly into the brain without any conscious filter suggest the absurd levels companies stoop to. It forces the question of how many other stealthy tactics do these masterminds have that we have yet to debunk? It makes me afraid for my brain. No human should have that fear.

My question for section 5 is: McLaren and Torchinsky write with an air of assumption that the consumer has the power to expose the inner workings of media as long as we do our research and think critically. How can we be sure that there is not a movement of advertisers who are feasting on the desires and behaviors of the “conscious” consumer?

My question for section 6 is: How effective would a campus organization dedicated to awareness promoting pranks be? Would the University be supportive of student engagement and passion or feel pressure to keep neutral? (Surely legality would be a factor but I am assuming a group dedicated to purely legal acts.)