Final, kind of

Propaganda often comes with an air of negative connotations, but is it really so bad? Edwards Bernays claims that propaganda is a good thing, and it is “a necessary intervention in the communicative chaos of modern life.”
We as consumers are influenced on many different cultural, personal, and material levels. Religious claims may entice some people, while what is in fashion may draw the attention of others. Under almost all circumstances, propaganda and the manipulation of public opinion is used to win an audience and a group of consumers.
If companies are creating advertisements that glorify their products, or certain brands of clothing are accepted as the better kind because fashionably influential celebrities or notable figures are sought out for support of the product, does that make it immoral? Not really. We as consumers are the ones who buy into it; at least the majority of us does. Human beings are still free to choose; a power that people might use poorly, but its none-the-less still a choice or a preference that we make (or maybe it is the advertisers?). Either way, there’s no gun held to our heads to purchase products; just lots of pretty colors, celebrities, slogans, guaranties…you get where I’m going.
Can we blame companies for competing the way they do? It’s completely necessary in today’s market because it’s hard to draw attention to a new product. It’s the survival of the fittest, and marketers can tweak their genetics to gain an interest. The motives behind it are simple; they’re “basic instincts of self preservation” as states by Bernays. It’s someone’s job to influence you enough to purchase their product.














If someone needs the approval by society to purchase something, then maybe they deserve to be sucked into the game. American woman would not purchase American silk because they preferred the more “luxurious” French style. In order to market their silk, the American ambassador had to exhibit American silk at the louver, in order for it to gain recognition (Bernays, 56). What do you know, it worked! America woman began to eat that stuff up!
Speaking of eating though, I thought of an analogy, provoked by an observation that Walter Lippmann made. He brought up voting in his essay “The Disenchanted Man” and made an observation that democracy doesn’t exactly always work. The majority isn’t always right, and doesn’t even always know its own best interests (38-39). I brought up eating because I though of an analogy that represents this. If a kindergarten teacher offered two choices for snack; Oreo cookies, or an apple, the majority would like be overwhelmingly in favor of eating Oreos. Maybe it won’t hurt the kids to eat cookies every day, but in the long-run it’s better for the children to eat apples. What if a vote was taken in Georgia to abolish slavery in the state prior to the civil war? Again, it is likely that most people would have voted against this given that the slaves were not permitted to vote themselves.
We live in a much different time now when everyone voices can be heard, at least to some extents. We can all choose what we buy, and we can choose to be influenced by the media surrounding us, or we can choose to be rational and ask ourselves, “Do I really need this?”

What’s in a word? Plenty, if it’s Marriage.

The name of my first section is indeed the title of chapter three in George Lakoff’s book Don’t Think of an Elephant! (pages 46-51). Therefore one would assume that throughout this six page chapter what they will be enduring are different types of marital situations. Not only does this chapter discuss heterosexual marriage, but homosexual partnerships as well. In the definition of marriage given in this section, no where does it state that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman, nor does it say that it can not take place between a man and a man or a woman a woman. Therefore, why do so many people find homosexual relationships to be so wrong?

The book explains that many people relate marriage to sex, in turn; people do not favor gay sex. Many people find it repelling and disturbing. I on the other hand find fourteen year old girls having babies to be repulsive, but you do not hear of people trying to ban children from reproducing. What people do behind closed doors is their business. I mean in reality, a gay couple is in many ways doing the same thing that a fourteen year old girl is doing with her teenage boyfriend, but without the consequences. I just do not understand how it is ok for a child to bring a baby into the world that she can not support but two people who love each other are restricted from being together.

Even though contemporary conservatives state that to have a strict father family you must have a heterosexual marriage, I would have to say I disagree. I personally feel that many times within a homosexual couple one partner is more masculine, while the other is more feminine. Therefore I believe that one of the partners would be perfectly capable of taking on the strict father role.

My Next Point

This nonetheless brings me to my next set of thoughts: Nicholas LeMann’s article “The Word Lab.” Out of the three assigned articles, I found this one by far the most interesting. I know that having good etiquette and being able to speak in a positive manner in public plays a big part in a person’s campaign, but I never really thought that by just using words, which mean the same thing, could have such an impact. I did not realize that certain words such as “listening” and “children” would attract certain types of voters.

It really makes me wonder if all Republican’s carry around Frank Luntz’s “Right Words” pamphlet in their back pocket, while having a copy of “A conversation with America 2000” sitting on their desks. If they do, it makes me question how many thoughts are actually their own, or are they just saying what it is the people want to hear?

With this, I reflect upon my first point, did someone suggest to George W. Bush that in his State of the Union address that he should not address gay marriage? He does not flat out say he is against it, he just kind of beats around the idea explaining what his idea of marriage should be. Did he take someone else’s thoughts on how to address the public and use them as his own?

The Persuaders

After reading all of the different articles, I had some thoughts on the movie The Persuaders and I realized that whether it is people fighting against gay marriage, or politics using words that an audience would favor, it is all persuasion. The movie goes into great detail about the company Acxiom. I found this to be the most intriguing part of the movie. Does this mean that people are sitting back and making ads directed towards gay men to try and change their feelings?

Advertising is all around. You can not walk down a street without seeing a bulletin for the latest hot product. Take the I-Pod for example, if someone makes mention of wanting a new MP3 Player my immediate reaction would be to tell them to get an I-Pod. Why? Because that is all I really know, I see the ads on television, or on billboards, or wherever else they are located. I never see advertisements for things like the Zune or any other type of music player.

Public Opinion

Edward Bernays’s article titled "Manipulating Public Opinion: the Why and the How" informs the reader "public opinion is subject to a variety of influences that develop and alter its views on nearly every phase of life today." He mentions that public opinion is expressed through a specific group of people, "at any given time toward a given object." Whether it is politics, fashion, or music, everyone has their own ideas and values.

Public opinion nevertheless is manipulated in everyday life, whether it be in commercials or on TV. In advertisements alone, companies can come up with ways that make people want a certain object, and or have people react a certain way. Like in the PBS documentary Persuaders, a Tide commercial expressed the idea of the laundry detergent becoming a part of someone’s family. Of course that can never really happen, but companies want people to believe in a product enough to change their ways of living and their views on life. Companies voice their opinion about something, hoping people will do the same thing.

Walter Lippmann also brings up a good point in his article titled "The Disenchanted Man". He thinks that public opinion is "always and forever, by their very nature, an attempt to control the actions of others from the outside." Politicians all the time make us think about something in their perspective, and they want to change our opinions and control how one feels about things, right or wrong.

Bits and Pieces

By Hailee Danielsen

The Persuaders has been the most influential for me this semester, because they focused on the consumer which is regular people like you and me. When I go into the store and by something I think it’s because I made my own decision. In actuality it is the advertisement that sold the product as the Persuaders touch on. The manufactures are trying to break through all of the clutter of their competition to reach out to us. An example would be the advertising skills that Macintosh uses for their I pod.

They try to get into the consumer’s head by creating an almost cult like atmosphere at their meetings in order to find a new way to break through the clutter that is created by all the manufacturers. As crazy as a cult like meeting may seem, Macintosh must be doing something right. With their sleek little gadget they have created a multi billion dollar product that everyone wants and now needs. In other words Macintosh has created this object as a need. As a college student it looks really neat against my jacket walking to class. To be anyone you need a sleek black I pod to create that image of fitting in in this type of college atmosphere.

Another thing that struck me that I did not know before was some of the tactics that advertisers use are being taken up by presidential candidates and campaigns. They try coursing a person into choosing their side by showing them small video clips in person by going door to door. This shows the voters that they are an actual person and not just a number. Also, they use video clips that pertain to certain views, cultures, and other important values that we have to get our votes. What is scary is they know all of this because of the files that they have of what we have purchased in the past, to what our favorite color is. This idea also pertains to the piece we had to read in class called the Word Lab by Nicholas Lemann.



They use certain words to not only protect themselves but also make things like tax cuts and wars sound a certain way so it does not seem that bad. For example, President Bush uses the words “climate change” instead of “global warming” because it sounds positive. With the word change people tend to think change is a good thing, and therefore climate change is good even though things like the icecaps in Alaska are melting among other things.

Another big issue that we had discussed in class and in George Lakoff's "War on Terror" is the War on Terror. The combination of these words means that president Bush can attack anyone that he feels is a threat to us. Even though it was Osama Bin Laden that destroyed the symbols of America and our pride people still grouped Al-Qaeda with Saddam Hussein. As Lakoff says, hat they are stupid. Those have a frame and they only accepted facts that fit that frame.” He says As Lakoff says, “They believe this—in spite of the report by the 9/11 Commission. It is not that they are stupid. Those have a frame and they only accepted facts that fit that frame.” He continues by saying, “They still believe that by fighting the way in Iraq we are protecting the country from Terrorism.” To be honest when I was younger I felt the same way. I believed that fighting this war in Iraq had something to do with the connection of the attacks on us, but I fell for the expertly-worded trap that Bushed used.

I have come to the conclusion that we are treated as though we are puppets that can be manipulated by higher authority. As much as we feel that we are free in this country, the scary thing is we aren’t. There are millions of files on us in an unknown place that only certain people can look at. Also, tt is scary to think that just a few changes to the use of a phrase will make people act in a different way. This book and the few things that we have read have really changed my mind about how I view politics. I plan on paying more attention to not only the consumer world but also my choices on the upcoming election.

Final Go.

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 advisers 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 and 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.

And Who Are You? (Final Copy)

In what seems like an ode to Mr. John D. Ramage, a great deal of what we've been discussing has to do with identity and its connection to rhetoric.

The idea of identity is omnipresent in politics. Lakoff writes, “In Moral Politics, I suggested that voters vote their identity—they vote on the basis of who they are, what values they have, and who and what they admire” (Lakoff, 39). So basically what he’s saying is that a person could be pro-choice, against NCLB, and have many progressive traits, but he will almost always vote with the Republican candidate without considering his own self-interest. This can be for many reasons, but the Republican Party is like his family, his cult, a group of his equals. This familial feeling alone could persuade or pressure a person into voting for the candidate, to go against the Republican candidate would, after all, be traitorous to the identity type he is pursuing. Also, if the persona of the candidate is someone the voter can see himself aspiring to be, that creates an allegiance based purely on identity.

The idea of identity was covered from a different perspective in The Persuaders. A good example of this was the cult study in the film. Consumers used certain products based on the essence and the personality the items give off. Certain brands stand for certain personality traits, and by buying these products, the consumer makes a commitment to his chosen identity. That iPod he is holding asserts this is who I am, and here is the proof.

Identity is probably the reason that the Apple brand is so successful. Microsoft offers a similar product to the iPod that goes by the name Zune, though it pales in comparison to the sales. Why? Look at one of the ads.

While this is an interesting advertisement to say the least, it offers nothing for the consumer to align himself with. It offers no clear identity. I mean head-banging birds? What kind of message is that trying to convey? If someone buys a Zune, will his pet parrot rock out like that? Hardly. By sending mixed identity messages, Microsoft fails to accomplish everything that Apple has with it's upbeat, clear iPod commericals.

Sorry Zune, in the battle of advertising,
the iPod comes out on top.

The Apple brand is dominating ads in other areas of their business as well. In the past few years they’ve produced commercials that depict a Mac and a PC as two individuals. The Mac is a young, laid back, cool individual who is up to date with everything, while the PC is unreliable, uptight, behind the social trends, outdated, and unappealing.

These ads demonstrate with ease how a simple thirty second commercial can give a product a complete persona and character that "carries over" to its owner, and isn't that what the consumer ultimately wants?

On a side note, this does raise slightly disturbing questions. Why do individuals need branded materials to “prove” that they are a certain identity? Why does wearing a certain brand make you a certain type of person? How did our culture become so materialistic in terms of identity? Whatever happened to personality? Surely these products don’t give us the personality of our chosen identities, but just being able to align ourselves with a certain identity give us comfort, purpose. We aren't happy unless we can be somebody, unless we have a distinct role in society that we are able to play. We feel the need to be stereotyped. Ironically, we are always working to "rid" the world around us of stereotypes because we think we can defeat biases and such. But how can you rid the world of something, if you feel you need it to help create your chosen identity? Though the word "chosen" is used in a sarcastic tone. Our identities are not quite as free and open to change as we would like to imagine; they control us. We permit these stereotypes, these products shape us and our identities, and we can only define ourselves by the objects we purchase. By creating products that appeal to the need of consumers to fit in, companies are able to manipulate us into buying them if it means we have the chance to conform seamlessly with the rest of the world.

Different, yet alike

We are all so different that agreeing on any one thing is impossible. Isn’t that why any kind of propaganda exists? In itself, it is not evil. In itself, it is harmless. But the way it is used is why it can be so devastating. It’s all to convince us of something. Can we even judge if it’s something we can believe in? Any person who wants to be a fair judge has to be on constant guard.
It’s ok to agree on some things, but if you agree with everything...that’s dangerous. It means a person is not thinking about what they are reading. We should ask questions, have our own beliefs and ideas, and be able to argue against it if necessary. Information is good, opinions are good, as long as we can hold our own.
The fact that humans act on their emotions is both a strength, and a weakness. If we let our emotions control us, we can be led to an idea or decision like sheep to pasture. But if we do not use our emotions at all, our decisions will be made coldly, without compassion or passion, uncaring about how people are really affected.

Final Draft

Every day when walking down the street, driving your car, listening to the radio and even watching TV, we are assaulted with advertisments that distract us from using any sense of logic. We see an ad that calls to us, for reasons that have nothing to do with the product. People will buy and ipod because they feel familiar with it, because of the ads we see every day. The famous brightly colored background with the black silhouette dancing in the foreground appeals to consumers for some reason. It could be the energy in the ad, or the fact that after seeing the ad, a person feels enlightened on all that is ipod. When the truth is, they know nothing, other than the contraption plays music. That is what advertisers want. They want to make the consumer believe they are smart, but keep them as uninformed about the product as possible. Advertisers spend much time, money and effort on what it is that appeals to people. It seems ridiculous on one level to believe advertisers want people to have cult mentality, to be so engrossed with the product that the consumer feels they could not live without it. However, on another level, it is completely true. We see an ad on TV, billboard, radio, whatever, and think, “I need that product.” Not want, but actually need. However, so many advertisers are using the same tactic that consumers are numb to their ways. We pass by thousands of ads every day, and only the really good ones stick out. Certain ads stick out. For example, everyone knows about the Geico cavemen. What do cavemen have to do with car insurance? Nothing, but somehow it works. People like Rapaille make consumers think they are smart enough to pick out what they like, but in truth, Rapaille puts that idea in their head, a false sense of knowledge, and really picks for them. Making advertisements is one big mind game. Knowledge is the key, and consumers are usually locked out, without knowing they are locked out. It shows “loyalty beyond reason.” We feel that we betray our culture if we do not buy the product.

Even movies today have become far different than movies in the past. “Scary” movies, for example have changed greatly over the years. Remember when “scary” was a little girl spitting out pea soup on a priest in the Exorcist was scary? Today, “scary” seems to mean a bunch of gore and violence. Take for example the Saw movies. Would the plot still be as good if people weren’t cutting their legs off and blood wasn’t flying everywhere? Or the movie Hostel. Why do people find entertainment in watching others being tortured? What happened in our culture to make people go from pea soup to ripping out intestines and sawing off limbs? Why all the violence? It’s the same as the advertisements. People become numb to different ways and need something new and outlandish to grab our attention. This detachment is not good.

Final paper John Horvath

Democracy and You

We are the BYSTANDERS ,and Obama, Clinton, and Grandpa McCain are the agents trying to appeal to us. So far there have been differing views from these politicians on how to handle America’s interest home and abroad. However, can every president, past and present, truly have a tight grasp on every issue? Some can't even open doors...

Lippmann doesn’t believe so. The point here is that successful politicians use a strategy to win over people’s interest and ultimately their vote. Instead of focusing and having a vast knowledge and influence (power) on one subject, they focus on key points of a subject hoping they hit key areas that a majority of people believe in and can relate to. For instance, both Clinton and Obama have a plan that ultimately revolves around withdrawing a

vast majority of troops and bringing a close to this “WAR.” McCain however, stated that it would be in America’s interest to stay in Iraq for various reasons. However, instead of saying he will "carry on the war" or better yet "carry on Bush's administrations potential blunder,"

he explained America would keep our presence in Iraq and take extra measures to reduce casualties and injuries. (video below) Interestingly, to back his point

, he noted that America has been in Japan and South Korea for many years. But is this really in America's best interest? If Iraq was on top of solid rock, would we really care about Iraq and its people? Is it truly a quest for democracy or is America in it for the oil? Isn't this rhetorical? My homeboy Ramage would be proud.

In response to the paragraph above, Lippmann would argue that people do not really care about politics because it does not directly affect us or spark our interest. In most scenarios, most would rather be watching American Idol.
Basically what Lippmann is saying is we the people are gullible, and rather than break down politicians views and plans, we carelessly vote for someone we feel we can associate with.

Even better, some Americans get their information about politicians from comedy shows that poke fun at politics. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but shouldn't we be listening to the candidates themselves if we really want to know what they stand for?

In a side note.......

It's funny, not even the Bush administration took close attention to who Colbert was. They thought he was a conservative. They could not have been more wrong. They were trashed at the 2006 White House Correspondents Speech.

So, in a sense, we are forfeiting our identity and voice. Lippmann’s argument may be stronger in this year’s election more than ever. This year, there is a African-American man and a woman running for the democratic nominee. Although not every black person in America, just like not every woman will vote for Obama or Clinton because of their exterior features, some may feel they can associate more with one candidate than the other.

This also relates to John Grandpa McCain. Although there is nothing new about an old white man running for president, he too has a large following. His following however seems to be his nursing home buddies. Rarely does one see a large following of college aged students at his rallies. It seems that at every speech or appearance, the majority of his supporters are people over 65. Why? Maybe because he represents the old America. The America that glorified its armed forced when it was the noble thing for every man and women to do when there county needed them. Not there is anything wrong with having your following be older people, but this again shows that people will associate themselves and sometimes vote for a candidate that they feel best associates with them. One guest on CNN (a female for McCain) believed some women will vote for McCain based on his war experience. She believed females feel more comfortable with a retired soldier to bring home victory.

Associating with a group or people is evident in the documentary The Persuaders. In one clip, it shows young people going to various households (particularly an elder lady in the segment) and showing them a video segment. The purpose of the segment is to spark the viewer’s interest of a specific topic and hopefully, lead the viewer to vote for a specific candidate. Luntz argues this is a direct attempt to find what interests people (us) and attack it to your (in this case the candidate's: the agent) advantage. The way to win in politics is not to debate their beliefs, but to decode what they believe in, and find a way to twist it to your advantage.

In this paper I tried to find reoccurring themes. The words and phrases highlighted in yellow represent us, the people, the bystanders according to Lippmann. Red symbolizes the politicians. The words in Blue symbolize the agents, the politicians can also fit into this category. Green represent what I thought were main ideas and themes in my paper.

Final Draft of Old Paper, New Spin

Please join me for the magical journey that all started with a documentary called The Persuaders.

It all started with the film, The Persuaders. This film opened my eyes to different marketing methods and introduced me to a world that I knew existed but never came in direct contact with. I remember leaving class after the first day of watching the film and feeling like I was being watched as I walked to lunch on the other side of campus. I thought, Will someone be watching what I eat from a far and then trying to see it to me the next time I go to the mall? This film was both disturbing and disgusting to me because I wanted nothing to do with material goods or the scheme that seemed to be run on every person in America, but at the same time I could not avoid the traps that had been set.

What was extremely interesting to me was the idea of emotional attachment to material goods. At one point in the film, Kevin Roberts, CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising says, “What consumers want now is an emotional connection—they want to be able to connect with what's behind the brand, what's behind the promise" (Persuaders). The concept seemed strange when said in so many words but when Douglas Atkin, a partner at an advertising agency, conducts surveys with “loyalists” of certain brands like Saturn and Apple, the once strange idea becomes inherently true. Douglas Atkin made it apparent that these particular car owners feel like they are a part of the “Saturn family”. I prefer the "VOLKSVAGON!", but nonetheless, I identify with a family. I find this concept interesting because this is the way society really functions. One of our class discussions focused on how we may feel like a part of the ad for the item that we are buying. Take an ipod for example (as we did); those dancing shadows in the colorful ads become us…or do we become them the minute we buy the electronic item?Consumers, which are basically everyone, are all targets of consumer marketing strategies and everything on the market today had succeeded in empting our pockets before they are even full.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yfE3Ci55ifQ

The Bernays Experience
Edward Bernays’ Manipulating Public Opinion : The Why and the How (1928), explained how certain people view society and basically a clay that can be shaped and molded into whatever is desired, when armed with proper technique. Some would say that Bernays is unethical because he believes that, “propaganda is a good thing – a necessary intervention in the communicative chaos of modern life, a service to the public that helps them interpret and act in a confusing world” (51). When contemplating this particular article the reader must bear in mind that Edward L. Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud. This comes as no surprise when you read the part about the many hats being worn.

Bernays supported the idea that psychology should be used to sway the emotions of public opinion (52). He uses many statistics to construct his “propaganda”. He marketed hats by figuring out that there were six types. He in turn used these hats in a fashion show and placed them on the heads of beautiful girls. Needless to say, the sales in hats went up by manipulating the setting that the hats were placed in. I feel that Bernays is somewhat of a genius although I absolutely resent this fact because I do not appreciate being toyed with. I find myself wondering if I would even know when I am being toyed with because I too fall in to the trap of buying rags worn by models (often called dresses).

My experience through the land of rhetoric and manipulation of the masses by persuaders, has been eye opening to me. I now realize that I have been desensitized to the world that I live in. So I face the decision of doing what is best for me and moral, or doing what I like. Which will you choose?

Here's the final attempt

So how do we know what's real?
If people are rewording everyday phrases to boast nicer-sounding connotations, and propagandists are creating scenarios to convince us of their latest ideas and concepts, then shouldn't we be skeptical of every message we read or see on television or hear on the radio? The Persuaders suggests that these marketing messages sometimes begin to control us. In the film, Rushkoff calls the constant surrounding of advertisements "clutter." The film goes on to address that after a long time of being exposed to certain types of advertisements, sometimes people begin to experience what is referred to as "loyalty beyond reason." This is visible in the iPod craze--people love iPods. But who loves mp3 players? An iPod is, in fact, an mp3 player, but Apple has done so well in marketing the iPod as, well, an iPod that no one in America refers to it as anything but its brand name. An mp3 player almost holds a negative connotation; no one wants a knockoff.

This loyalty beyond reason is also apparent in the current situation with student loan provider Sallie Mae. For a long time, Sallie Mae was the only loan company that college students used. The website is quick and easy to use. Who knew of any other rational options? When I entered Kutztown University, I signed up for my loans through Sallie Mae. I knew that there were other companies that offered loans, and I visited their websites briefly, but none of them seemed credible. There's no good reason as to why not, of course, other than Sallie Mae was the only loan company that advertised. Not to mention everyone I knew used Sallie Mae--my brothers, their friends, my friends that were already in college, and so on. Talk about loyalty beyond reason. Sallie Mae wasn't attractive or sleek, like an iPod. They didn't advertise dancing, joyous students. Sallie Mae advertised.

In the past couple of years, though, Sallie Mae has been hit with various lawsuits for fluctuating interest rates that aren't supposed to fluctuate, making it impossible to consolidate loans that were supposed to be easy to consolidate, forcing colleges to hand over personal information about students in order to track them down easily, and the list goes on. As soon as Sallie Mae's bad publicity was out, a group of seemingly new loan companies emerged out of thin air, advertising everywhere. These companies include ThinkFinancial, Astrive, and NextStudent. But has Sallie Mae's student loan monopoly ended?