In today's world, marketing and advertisement aren't too different from the advertising methods in Feed -obviously, considering the story is based off of modern day society. A common form in marketing/advertisement that you seem to find everywhere is appeal -and when I say "appeal", I mean "sex appeal". As in, there are half naked women selling stuff like perfume, and clothes, and even wristwatches. Same with those guys who never seem to be wearing shirts (you know, the ones with the oily chests and muscles). Apparently they're selling "jeans". Or, at least, that's what they're supposed to be selling to the general public. But are they really? -Not so much. It's all about catching the buyer's eye, and, apparently, half-dressed girls with about ten layers of make-up on, and guys with spray tans and no shirt are a "turn-on" for the general public, and that makes them stop and stare. (-Though, one can only hope that, majority of the time, the real reason they're stopping is to cock their head at the ridiculous photo of the ridiculous models who are supposed to be selling socks, and wonder how the hell a half-naked chick fits into that equation. (Because we all know that most chicks walk around their house with just socks on, and nothing else.) But let's be practical; most of us either aren't that smart, are easily "turned-on", or don't really care.)
(-Calvin Klein; what is it they sell again? I was too distracted by the half-naked chick on the billboard.)My point for that little summary of modern-day advertisement (besides the fact that it's true), is that the feed works in similar ways. It looks for what kinds of advertisements will get you to stop -but even more importantly, gets you to shop, and then markets them to you in those ways. Duh. Because all good corps want to make money, and what better way than to explore the inner workings of the human mind (by implanting a frickin chip in their skulls) just to see what makes them buy the stuff they do.
The counter-argument, of course, is the basic question when it comes to advertisement/consumerism: are the people the ones who decide what they want to buy, or do the corporate owners who are looking for a gold-mine profit? Judging by the quote above, Violet seems to believe that the corporations are the ones that decide; that everything anyone buys is because the corporation "conforms" them and makes them like it, almost.
I agree and disagree with her statement. I believe the corporations do influence what we buy and what we percieve as "in" or "cool", but all they can really do is set the stage for the buying to take place. What we like, and what we buy is completely on us. Yeah, it's a very obvious set-up (i.e. Abercrombie & Fitch: note the dim lights, the loud music, the reeking perfumes, and perfectly fake-bodied models in the clothes (?) -assuming they're wearing any), and in some conditions, they purposely make it hard for you to even think. Which would obviously explain the $200 (hideous) sweater you just walked out of the store with, that you had an epiphany about, once your brain stopped rattling from the vibrations of the loud music, that, gee, guess what? You're never going to wear it.
(-"Oooh, he's HOT. I like his body." My (Abercrombie) little sister quite literally just said that. = Nuff said.)
-Would you like store credit, or store credit, for the return of that sweater?? -That narrows it down. Either keep it, or risk coming back to the same (awful) place only to fall into their marketing set-up all over again.
And to answer the other questions: what is my "type"? I don't even know if I have one. If I had a feed it would probably send me a bunch of ads on the books I'm interested in (and hopefully where I can possibly locate them), as well as movies and CDs. That's about it. Occassionally an ad or two about random stuff, like, half-price off of batteries (for my camera), or something. -It'd be hard to sell to me, because A) I'm not materialistic, nor a big consumer, and B) I'm indecisive, so I'd never make up my mind what I'd want anyways (-the ads would only confuse me more).
As for the whole "M-Chat" thing, I'd probably talk to people as much as I do now (on my phone or instant messaging). It'd get annoying with people talking to me in my head though, because I like to be alone most of the time, and I'd go insane if people's words and voices were popping up into my head when I'm trying to think. (I'm surprised people with the feed haven't commited suicide just for that reason -excluding a list of other reasons that would drive a 'normal' person mad.) And, plus, chatting already affects us enough as it is. -More than we think. And I admit to being an example of how instant messaging/texting affects us. I rely on distant forms of communication to say things that I don't feel I can say in person, because I've come to semi-rely on more distant ways. -It also allows you time to construct what it is you want to say, instead of having to say it right away. But, as all things, distant communication with others has it's obvious flaws: such as, it limits what we can say, because nobody can for sure read emotion and sarcasm and facial expressions, unless it is bluntly stated (and even then it can be over-looked). And, well, it's distant -obviously. You can text the same person a million times a day, if you want, but you'll never get to actually talk with them and get to know them until you talk to them face-to-face. And that's not always easy, considering that people who rely on technology (at any degree) seem to create an online/messaging persona, and by relying on such forms of communication, we really do miss out on getting to know who each other really are.
No comments:
Post a Comment