NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/alt/supermod/1778

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-13 | 5.2 KB

Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1778 soc.women:19490 alt.feminism:4330 soc.men:19220
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!berlin!slarsen
From: [e-mail] (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:38:15 GMT
Lines: 83

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>[e-mail] (susan larsen) writes:
>
>>I read that the problem of body odor was an invention of 20th century
>>advertising.  Until this century, most folks did not give much thought
>>to pit odors.  Personal hygiene companies, in an attempt to build a
>>market for their deodorant products, used the fear of folks that they
>>might smell and be offensive to the masses in their advertising.
>
>This would appear to qualify for an urban-myth-in-the-making. In fact,
>from earliest recorded history onward there are numerous references to
>unpleasant smells, and the various attempts to cover them up. In the
>absence of modern plumbing, most people, including the rich, were not
>able to bathe often. Only the rich were able to resort to perfume to
>partially remedy this situation, which is why fragrances were an
>important and expensive item of commerce from earliest times.

Imagine the smells of oily perfumes applied daily on bodies that
crawled unwillingly into bathtubs maybe three or four times in a life
span.  These ancients were not in the business of eliminating odors,
they were using perfumes to create a body odor that was distinct
from that of the masses.  Our modern mania involves eradicating odors.

>A more general comment: advertising cannot exploit a "need" or "fear"
>unless that "need" or "fear" is at least in some part innate. It can
>magnify them, produce novel associations, suggest expensive
>solutions, but it cannot create them ab inito. Some of the posters
>on this subject in their righteous desire to smite Mad Avenue seem
>to forget this.

Since needs and fears are innate to all human beings, then all human
beings are susceptible to advertising pitches.  Maybe one person may
not respond to insulting comparisons of his socks and super-mom's
socks, but that same person could become convinced that a particular
car model is superior because he internalizes the pitch that he
is a sporty, racy kind of guy.  And even if some individual through
a supreme exercise of self-control and introspection manages to
avoid all cultural influences, that same person (unless a hermit)
is still going to be subjected to the majority of folks who are
internalizing mass media messages.

Advertisers spend big bucks in market research, much of it conducted
by psychologist-types.  They have studies that show how many folks
expressed a given emotion to a particular color (blue is soothing, red a
call to action).  They study group reactions to particular actors (the
Q-list).  They deliberately connect a face to a given product
(Cindy Crawford to Pepsi and James Bond to Marlboro cigarettes). And
they will out and out insult you (Scope bottles appearing on folks'
desks).  I would agree that these techniques are harmless if there were
convincing evidence that the emotional impacts were limited to the
single product being hawked.  But the message that beautifully shaped
models with miles and miles of bouffy hair choose Pepsi can readily
become confused when any individual mind processes the message:
drinking Pepsi will help me become a model; I hate Cindy Crawford
therefore I hate Pepsi; lust, lust, pant, pant, get me a Pepsi.

Moving products and getting people to make favorable buying decisions
is a large, large part of our national economy.  Two-thirds of our GNP
is consumer purchasing.  Companies can be made or broken by marginal
fluctuations in their market shares.  Advertising is important and
Madison Avenue would not be doing its job if products didn't move.
They don't give a damn about any psychological consequences of their
activities, except what shows in the quarterly reports.  Hey, that's
their job.  As a consumer I feel it is my job to be aware that they
do have an impact on me.  I have to accept that Revlon is really,
really trying very hard to convince me that the road to beauty is
paved with their products.  I have to understand that Slim-Fast is
trying to capitalize on my ever-present fear of weight gain.  To
deny this is to live in a fool's paradise.  Denying this, IMO, will
just leave one open to the more subtle techniques and tricks of
the advertisers.

Hey, after all, we all know that you are an individual.  No one
thinks for you.  You face the hard decisions and you make the
hard decisions.  No institution, no man, no woman would dare
suggest that you follow the crowd.  We made the Ratracer
PDQ 10000 with you in mind.  Look at your schedule, pencil in
a test drive today............

(BTW, nice hearing from you again, Heiner!)

Sue Larsen
[e-mail]