I remember my amazement as a kid when I was told about the presumed mechanic of advertising. The idea behind, as explained to a children, was that creating an association between this or that admired person, and a certain product, would make us go to acquire such product in a rush.
I also remember that my immediate, pure impression as a child, was that such a reasoning was, to say the least, defective; after all, it was plain to see that our adored hero was being paid a huge sum for saying that those cereals, which he never tasted, or that shaver, that he would never use, were superb. Furthermore: neither the celebrity nor the brand who held the agreement made the least effort to hide their economic transaction. On the contrary, they boasted about how substantial their deal was, as if it was a very prestigious distinction.
The years passed by, the kid grew older and, while still considering that stupidity plays a major role in today’s world, he added a bit of perspective to his views. It is true that, explained as above, advertisement sounds plain and purely childish. But it is also true that human is the imitative being par excellence: its best source of ideas consists in copying what is around, maybe customizing it a bit. Such capability for imitation guarantees the species an extreme capability for adaptation.
On the other hand, imitative behavior is very prior to the birth of advertisement as a discipline. In fact, advertisement can only have an influence on the process of choice: who we choose to follow. But the need to follow is previous, innate, and cannot be modified. It is a need with its roots in magic thinking, that pre-logical stage of humanity which, like the inner rings in a tree’s log, is not erased but just hidden. Here is a neat example: when, at the beginning of the XXth century, Louis Armstrong hit the stages of New Orleans with his ground-breaking jazz, he caused such an impact that everybody got obsessed with imitating him. Rex Stewart, cornetist at Duke Ellington’s orchestra, commented that jazz musicians in town, including himself, tried to walk like Armstrong, eat like Armstrong, dress like Armstrong, and even copy his everyday routine, with the intent to get some of his talent.
I used to think that I myself was immune to such enchantment, but I guess it is like saying that one’s immune to the DNA. The thing you resist to is the thing that you get, so now it is time for me to share one personal example here, and I encourage you to think about yours.
There is one writer that I admire above all things. For me, there are poor, average and extraordinary writers, and then there is him, apart from the rest, too supernatural to be measured. Maybe you’re lucky enough to admire someone so much. I strongly recommend it, although it has its drawbacks, too.
Well. One of his books is a travel journal. With pictures. One of those pictures shows his belongings and, among them, tiny but recognizable, a bottle of whisky of a certain brand. I have read that book 3 or 4 times now, but it was only very recently that I realized that I changed my whisky brand after reading that book. It seemed like the thing to do, guided by the underlying, “absurd-but-who-knows” notion that imitating my hero could bring me some of his talent. When I saw the bottle on a shop, it reminded me of him, turning what was a neutral moment into a nice one. I purchased the bottle, I tasted it, and I decided that I liked it better. One can decide that kind of things. And so it remains up to now. Cheers!
…all of which coincides, step by step, with the “absurd” process described at the beginning of the post. With the only, circumstantial difference, that my writer hadn’t the least intention to promote that whisky: he just drank it, like writers do. It was me who wanted something from him, something to help me be more like him.
An additional explanation might be required here: it is no secret that I want to get paid for my work in this blog, and part of my income will necessarily be linked to advertisement. But I think that the previous paragraphs make clear that there is not contradiction in explaining the mechanics of something, and at the same time getting profit from it. The knowledge that I provide in this post is only freedom of choice. Advertising, after all, means nothing but spreading the news, making yourself eligible. As any other human activity, it also admits cheap tricks, malpractice or manipulation… but that’s a different story.
How do you get on with our current “advertisement culture”? Who do you admire? Do you have similar stories to share?
Related posts:
Admiration is healthy (and powerful, too…)
The magic of journaling
How to become optimistic with very little effort
Playing death
Taking care of oneself