Thus Far

As I straighten and fill various fruits and vegetables at my workplace, Weis Markets that is, my ears are assaulted with cliché 1970s, 80s and 90s chart hits over the PA. These tunes are abruptly interrupted with advertisements for the weeks sale items, how you can save money, eat healthy, and most importantly it always ends with the Weis slogan “Weis, Where Freshness Matters!” Being the seasoned veteran of Weis that I am, I knew that they had changed their slogan from “We do what works for you!” about a year ago. What is the reason for this and how does a silly slogan affect what people put in their carts and take to the registers?

This answer can be explored through the video documentary we viewed in class, The Persuaders. Sales advisors and marketing specialists are paid great deals of money to make these changes for a company in attempt to gain access inside the consumers head and appeal to them with catchy or attractive sayings and visuals. Switching their slogan from a customer service oriented one to a product quality one, could mean that their research has proved that people who shop at Weis are more interested in having fresh product, than having individualized customer service. As mentioned in the film people make decisions primarily off of their emotion (80%). So it can be noted that Weis’ intention was most likely to place emphasis on the product itself rather than how it is being offered by their employees. It was also stated in the movie that we have an unconscious association with all products. Generally people want their produce, meats, and groceries as fresh as possible, so by abiding their main advertised goal to this consensus they are attempted to appeal to all people in general. Looking outside my example of Weis Markets, in general the film explains how whether we like it or not, advertisements are everywhere, and companies and corporations are always trying to have the one up on our brain by advertising in new, specialized ways that us or our conscious and unconscious mind wouldn’t expect.

Stepping away from the film and into other material covered in class new elements arise and some remain in the foundations. The Walter Lippman piece The Disenchanted Man is highly intriguing and rich in content. Some of the main points that jumped out at me initially were his concept of agents and bystanders. They are both viewed in relation to pubic opinion and pubic affairs. It is up to these agents to act out and try and persuade the bystanders to react. This concept is much like the early discussed view of act and motion when talking about rhetoric. But when discussing politics it is important for politicians (agents) to voice their stances and try to move us (bystanders). If we vote for them then they are successful. Along with this concept of decision making and results we can relate to the other important aspect of Lippman’s work. His concept of a1, a2, a3….ax results in A is widely viewed in politics today (40). The subcategories of lower case ‘a’ would be different reasons as to why to vote or side with ‘A,’ but in the end it doesn’t matter as long at the outcome is in fact ‘A.’ This ideal of the final result being ‘A’ as the genius removes emotion from ideas and strips the issue of significance from the final product. A diverse group of people might have several varying reasons why they are voting for a certain politician, but what matters is who they voted for, not necessarily for what reason.

Another piece discussed in class was the Edward Bernays work Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and the How (1928). One part of his writing was his discussion about selling hats and creating publicity just through models and big names like Vogue (54). His concept is relevant today in that we use models to portray ‘perfect’ characters displaying a product and create events to draw attention to these products. Although this piece was more difficult for me to dive into, there is a quote that still remains embedded in my mind which more or less explains itself. “Today the privilege of attempting to sway public opinion is everyone’s.” This can be put into correlation with politics and propaganda. Meaning the decision of public opinion comes from the public and because we are part of the public we are the core starting and deciding factor for many decisions in society.

The last thing that we’ve discussed in class was Lakoff’s guide, Don’t Think of an Elephant! The essential guide for progressives. The general purpose of this book was to explain why the conservatives have had the upper hand in politics the past few decades. Coming from someone who tends to side more conservatively, the book is most definitely one sided, but then again it is claiming itself as a guide for progressives. Even though his general view is all left sided he doesn’t take any low blows to the conservative side. He calls them educated and knowledgeable and gives reason as to why they’ve had the edge. The first idea the caught my attention was early on in the book with his relation of political party with different types of families. The Progressives as a nurturing parent family and the conservatives as a strict father run family, each standing for their own ways of governing the country. He takes these ideals and then discusses the idea of framing (17). “People think in frames. The strict father and the nurturing parent frames each force a certain logic. To be accepted, the truth must fit people’s frames. If the facts do not fit a frame, the frame stays and the facts bounce off.” He presents a good idea for arguing and opposition in general. If you trying to get someone to understand your idea or argument, you need to present you ideals within their “frame,” because if you attempt to come straight at them you will most likely be unsuccessful, but quite successful in irritating them.

This is the part where I attempt to connect and draw all the above mentioned together and make general sense out of it. In reality these matters are too complex and I have just barely skimmed the surface with each piece. I do know that that whether we like it or not everyday our eyes witness an onslaught of advertising and as it gets worse we tend to notice it less and less. I also know that they way in which things are presented and the way we see them presented plays a large role in decision making for everyone. As mention in the Lakoff piece not everyone votes for their general interest whether they know it or not they generally vote towards appearance and emotion. This is fascinating. Politicians and advertisers can actually be viewed as one in the same. They are both attempting to persuade us to vote for them or buy from them and the way they go about doing it is similar. Where the importance lies is that we have the option to agree, disagree, or totally ignore what they have to say. Could this be why only half the population votes? Maybe it’s the fact they feel like they are trying to be persuaded to buy something. Maybe they actually are. Where the beauty lies is in our decision. Our decision whether or not to vote or buy or both. I’m still trying to wrap my head around all of this. Maybe fresh produce and presidential elections aren’t that different after all.