Is there something morally bankrupt about advertising?

December 11, 2007 11:38 AM

Is working in advertising ethically wrong?

I just moved to a new town. I've done a lot of photography at the semi-pro level. I'm looking for a job at the moment and mostly what's available is somewhat high level but totally gut wrenchingly boring administrative work. And I'm not even sure about that (keep going on interviews but I think a lot of people are looking right now and there aren't many jobs).

I have talked to some photography studios about working there and have had a lot of interest. There is a good possibility of me getting hired on shortly.

I have a moral dilemna in that I got interested in photography from the documentary angle, then got interested in portraiture, which is where I learned the lighting skills that make me somewhat saleable to these places. But I've always thought that advertising was sort of a morally borderline thing to do. I'm generally against the idea of consumerism, and advertising seems to me a way to manipulate people into consuming more.

That said, I think I would really enjoy the work, and working in beautiful spaces with creative people all day, rather than in crappy offices with people I hate (also working in industries that are probably not all that moral in the first place).

I'd be interested if someone could poke gigantic holes into my ideas about advertising...or perhaps strengthen those ideas.

posted by sully75 to work & money (89 comments total)

Killing people is morally bankrupt. Advertising is not only a necessity to educate the consumer (see: theory of capitalism), but an inevitability. You might as well cash in on it, especially if you enjoy the work.

Also, advertising seems to be the last remaining bastion of frivolous expense accounts... which can have its benefits. :)
posted by fusinski at 11:44 AM on December 11, 2007

Did you see this thread?
posted by veggieboy at 11:44 AM on December 11, 2007

We all have to make compromises in life. It is good to have principles, but principles don't put food on the table. Considering we live in a capitalist society, it is hard to keep your hands totally clean. I say plug your nose and go for it.
posted by Doohickie at 11:49 AM on December 11, 2007

I work in advertising, and frequently feel that I am not telling people the truth. It's a slippery business, but no less morally justifyable than any business that operates on money. I'm sure you wouldn't prefer barkers in the street over billboards and full-page ads.

I'd suggest you get into it right away. It doesn't have to be the last gig you ever get into, but it will be plenty of fun. Just remember to keep your sense of humor.
posted by Pecinpah at 11:54 AM on December 11, 2007

While it perhaps encourages poor behaviour, advertising is, in itself, not harmful. And, for a lot of people, it may be the only art they see on a regular basis. There are plenty of people who remember ads in magazines better than the articles. And without ads many worthy endevours wound't be possible - even PBS runs "this show brought to you by" at the end of educational programming. National Geographic runs ads, the Economist runs ads... hardly "unethical" publications. Advertising is, like everything in life, what you make of it.
posted by GuyZero at 11:56 AM on December 11, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Whether or not advertising itself is unethical, for almost every enterprise some form of advertising or marketing is absolutely essential for getting the money flowing. Since it's one of the activities responsible for keeping your paycheck coming, scorning advertising in most cases is simply letting someone else do the dirty work.

And indirectly advertising is similarly responsible for much of the prosperity of the modern economy even if you were to take a job in government or healthcare or some other less-advertised field.

So I'd say, unless you're prepared to live as a hermit for moral reasons, don't go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to talk yourself out of a job you'd enjoy.
posted by XMLicious at 11:57 AM on December 11, 2007

Advertising isn't of itself morally bankrupt, though how it's used can be. If it truly bothers you, could you see if there are opportunities with a firm that does work for non-profit agencies? People that do stuff like the ads featured in this thread.
posted by schroedinger at 11:58 AM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

sully75, your work will not, in and of itself, be unethical, I assume. You're just photographing dolls or burgers or whatever. Don't be an activist at your own expense, especially since withholding this opportunity for contentment and professional stimulation from yourself will change NOTHING about the way people engage with capitalism or have their lives negatively impacted by it. Find another way to make your difference.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:07 PM on December 11, 2007

Advertising exists, of course, to make the consumer buy my company's product instead of the other company's product. Or to get the consumer to buy my company's product when they ordinarily would never consider consuming it. So it's a little morally icky in that way.

However, I, the consumer, am not an idiot. I know I'm being marketed to, and I know how to see through the marketing bullshit. Of course, that's not true for everyone. There are people who swallow it, and that's unfortunate, and in some cases it might even be arguably harmful (cigarettes/alcohol?) and that's where the moral quandary of working for the ad biz comes in.

However, my personal take is that in the hierarchy of evilness among those in the in ad industry, photographers are way, way down at the bottom.

The execs who decide which ploy to use to trick -- er, um, convince -- the consumer to buy the product? Slimy and morally bankrupt, focused only on the bottom line. Yuck.

The copywriters who actually carry out that task? Morally compromised and conflicted, maybe. But those folks? They're most likely former English majors who finally found a well-paying job with benefits and finally said, at 27 or 29 or 32, "Fuck it, I've worked for nonprofits for long enough, I'd like to retire with some money in my bank account." So to me, it's excusable.

Photographers? In the clear, man, in the clear. Someone says, "Hey, take a pretty picture of this can of soda, will you?" And so the photographer uses the skills she/he has perfected over the years and takes a nice picture of a stationary object. Sure, it might be used later to sell sugar-laden sodas to pre-diabetic kids. But damn, it's only a picture. It's almost art. There is really no complicity.

So I say go for it, if you get a good job offer. You wouldn't really become part of the problem. You'd just be making the problem prettier.

(And let's face it -- any shot you take is going to be Photoshopped later, so it wouldn't really even be your work anyway.)
posted by mudpuppie at 12:10 PM on December 11, 2007

I work in advertising, and have colleagues who have commented on how horrible some of the things are that we sell (super high interest rate credit cards, etc).

I get it. But all of the things we sell aren't like that.

And I am a strong proponent of consumer/individual responsibility. Nobody is being forced into buying everything advertised. Especially now, with the wealth of information available a few clicks away on the internet.

If I'm going to worry about something or spend my time trying to change something, it's not going to be advertising, it's going to be education. If we don't buy the bad stuff, the bad stuff will lose.

I should note that by and large, it's the account exec types (and other non-creative types) who tend to be more down on advertising than the creative types. Some of the advertising creatives I know are SO INTO solving every creative problem, it's amazing. These people are passionate about their work. You might enjoy that environment. Check it out sooner rather than later, and if you find it objectionable, get out. :)
posted by iguanapolitico at 12:13 PM on December 11, 2007

Yes.
posted by Cosine at 12:13 PM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Advertising is hardly objectively unethical. It has a lot more to do with what the ads are for and how they're being used. Some people may find using ads to sell tobacco to children problematic, but it's pretty hard to say that Toyota encouraging people to get a hybrid instead of an H2 is really evil.

As GuyZero said, ads are the primary source of funding for the vast majority of media in the world, and that inclues the good stuff. Advertising is everywhere and activities that are generally not profitable (most of the arts) rely extensively on it. Even if you're willing to pay $200 for a local theatre troupe's performance, most people are not. Like almost everything, advertising is pretty solidly grey. While a lot of it isn't good (I personally don't believe any of it is unethical, but a lot of it sure is mind-rendingly stupid), it can have good effects. As many above folks have said, you'll be able to make a much larger difference is a happy, profitable advertising job than in a miserable, misery non-advertising job.
posted by Nelsormensch at 12:13 PM on December 11, 2007

This is the dilemma that creative people have faced for centuries. Renaissance painters made frescoes for the Catholic church, or portraits of their patrons' wives and mistresses, in order to finance their other works. Shakespeare courted favor with nobles and royalty in to get his plays produced. Would the world be a better place if they hadn't made compromises and "sold" their talents when necessary? Probably not.

I work in marketing -- mostly graphic and web design. And while I find the idea of marketing distasteful, the work itself is creative and enjoyable. You may find the idea of advertising bad in theory, but as you said -- you'll probably enjoy it a lot. And trust me, you'll know if your morals are genuinely being compromised. A few years ago, a company I worked for took on a division of The Washington Times as a client. They're a media engine for the Unification Church, aka the Moonies. None of my other co-workers minded, but I think the Unification Church is a cult, and that the Washington Times is little more than a propaganda rag, and that helping them in any way would be absolutely, morally wrong. So I didn't do any work for them; I asked my bosses not to use me on that account, and luckily, they agreed.

My point is that while I may not have liked designing brochures for my least favorite local bank, I felt a clear difference between that work and work which violated my own ethical code. If you're doing something that feels *wrong* you'll know it -- and you can always quit. Until then, there's no reason not to cash in on your talents.
posted by junkbox at 12:14 PM on December 11, 2007

If you believe that consumers are only mindless sheep, helpless in the face of a Ritz cracker ad, and you feel bad about that--then no, advertising is not for you.

If you believe that everybody choose their own way through life and that the photo of the Ritz cracker is just another choice they can ignore, then you'll be fine in advertising.
posted by gsh at 12:20 PM on December 11, 2007

EVERYTHING IS COMPROMISED.
posted by mkultra at 12:24 PM on December 11, 2007

sully75, your question made my cynical sides quiver like a bowl of jelly as i correctly anticipated the firestorm of rationalization. all i can tell you while choking on my coffee is that too much ethics can be a handicap, just like too much protein or carbohydrates. here's your grateful dead lyric for today:

you know my uncle, he's as honest as me
and i'm as honest as a government man can be.
posted by bruce at 12:26 PM on December 11, 2007

Nope, no more than plumbing.

All kinds of organizations advertise; from the good (NGOs, charities, etc) to the arguably bad (tobacco firms, fast food, etc). All kinds of organizations benefits from advertising sales. Doing business with a controversial organization does not make you responsible for their work (are construction companies to blame for the rising obesity rate because they build fast food restaurants?)

Another way of thinking about it: someone will work for them in advertising. Better it be someone moral like yourself than someone less ethical who might come along.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 12:36 PM on December 11, 2007

I've worked in advertising and branding for over 10 years. I've only been morally conflicted about the clients three times after working with hundreds of clients. And two of those times I was able to not take the job. The other one, well, I did a half-assed job on purpose (there's just-out-of-school mentality for you).

You are convincing people who are searching for something -- meaning, companionship, love, happiness -- that they'll be able to buy their way closer to it. But amazingly enough, sometimes the placebo effect works. And some of your clients will actually be doing something worthwhile and worth money. Advertising, fortunately or unfortunately, is only a small part of the effort and rarely has that immediate and powerful an effect. Mostly it's "hey, look at me! If you like me, buy this! Please?"

With advertising photography, it's a game of implication. You're going to need to help them imply things they can't legally say. Which means you will hear some smarmy stuff. But generally I've found that, while most ad folks aren't the brightest bunch in the world, they're friendly, creative, excited and for the most part, believe their own hype (which they will call eat their own dog food. Eww.) I've only heard one Enron-like conversation about target markets. Everyone else is like, "Oh my gosh. Isn't XYZ cool?" And then after the ad is done, we hear that it doesn't work, is bad for your health or that pop tarts are actually food, not a game system

What is morally difficult over time, however, is compromising your creative process along the way. It sounds like it's no big deal, but after a while, it does get to you. Or at least, it gets to me. It's harder to write creatively when I "use up" everything at work. And watching something you put a lot of love and effort and thought into compromised in about 1000 ways, that's tough. I now adhere to the Sex and Cash theory and it's made my world miles easier and happier.
posted by Gucky at 12:36 PM on December 11, 2007

As most commenters have pointed out, there are many ways to look at it. While advertising can certainly be used unethically, I don't think it's inherently depraved.

You might take some comfort that you are in control of the money that you make from advertising, and therefore you can spend that money according to your personal ethics and sense of responsibility.
posted by bassjump at 12:38 PM on December 11, 2007

Oh, one more thing: having worked in email marketing, the most unethical thing about mass-market advertising is that no one ever tries to measure its effectiveness. You spend $2M on a SuperBowl ad and no one even checks to see if sales went up.

That is the travesty, IMO. Don't spend $2M on something you can't even measure.
posted by GuyZero at 12:39 PM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

According to me, no.

According to Bill Hicks, yes.

(And, as with much of Bill Hicks' commentary, I really, really want to agree with him but just can't)
posted by The World Famous at 12:45 PM on December 11, 2007

I'd be interested if someone could poke gigantic holes into my ideas about advertising

well, you've already made your decision. No need to lie to yourself as well :). You could acknowledge what you're doing as an experiment, a journey into unfamiliar territory, territory you currently think is ugly, but are curious about... None of us is pure, whatever that would mean - you live in a consumer society, so why pretend turning the job down makes you a better person? You should do what you want to do - you will anyway - but don't rationalize it. When you do "the right thing" it should be because you want to, not because you've been told what to do - if you really understand something to be wrong, your desire to do it will fade (versus having a superficial belief or opinion that something is wrong - that's the ancient greek idea of morality, anyway).

I worked in advertising for a few years after college, as a designer. When I started, I thought it was so much better than the other office jobs I'd had, much more artsy and laid back, and I really thought it was great. But I came to hate it. It felt meaningless and sad and I eventually quit to return to grad school and pursue an esoteric career in academia. Now I would just not want to work in advertising. But I wouldn't recommend turning it down if you actually want it, to follow a moral code you've set yourself. What's important is keeping your eyes open to what you truly feel, and seeing if it honestly makes you happy. If you feel fulfilled by the work when you do it, then it is good. If you find yourself ultimately dissatisfied, you will stop, and no longer want to do it. Your moral decision should be based on how you comprehend your actions, and on what kind of life you personally choose to live.
posted by mdn at 12:54 PM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Is working in advertising ethically wrong?

Probably.

But the real problem, as you're already smelling, is that right or wrong, you won't like yourself later.

If it's a position in which you can pick and choose your clients and projects, your soul can survive. If it's not, it'll be hard.
posted by rokusan at 12:57 PM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I have talked to some photography studios about working there and have had a lot of interest.

So, in other words, you have been advertising your services. Did it feel unethical?
I think you have your answer.
posted by rocket88 at 1:18 PM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Yes, advertising is ethically wrong. All the bad things you can think of that are connected to to capitalism, most namely environmental destruction, couldn't exist if most of us hadn't been sold a lie about the companies that cause these problems. Advertisers allow companies to do the evil they do.
posted by serazin at 1:21 PM on December 11, 2007

Oh please. Put all your inner conflict in a sack and move on. Advertising is not in itself unethical.
posted by Futurehouse at 1:22 PM on December 11, 2007

I would say that advertising per se is not unethical, just like public relations, but misuse to the detriment of others and to the world at large is perhaps a bit more common there.

So don't ask if advertising is wrong; ask if you are ethical, and if you work in advertising, can you remain ethical and still keep the job.
posted by davejay at 1:29 PM on December 11, 2007

Is working in advertising ethically wrong?

Who's ethical framework are you attempting to apply? If it's not your own, then it may be interesting to take a step back and ask yourself why you're attempting to judge yourself by someone else's criteria. What do you yourself think of advertising?

But I've always thought that advertising was sort of a morally borderline thing to do

So there you go ;)

Personally, I've worked in the interactive groups (on the technical side) of a couple of agencies, and that work generally involves building websites and collecting customer information. I was fine with that, because people would have to get to the site, and / or choose to relieve themselves of their personal information. It's hard enough being responsible for myself; I can't do it for everyone! Their choices, their consequences.
posted by lowlife at 1:33 PM on December 11, 2007

Let me tell you something, little Miss... Advertising pays our bills, alright... advertising pays your salary... advertising is what made this country great... What was the Constitution of the United States?... No! It is an advertisement... an advertisement for liberty... when in the course of human events... I'm telling you... that's up there with 'Put a Tiger in your tank' and 'Where's the beef'... Don't you understand? I'm sorry... I've got to get some air... Hell if it wasn't for advertising... you know what you two'd be doing, huh? You two'd be giving out Sesame Street tote bags during PBS pledge breaks... 'cept they wouldn't say Sesame Street on them.. Nooo... they wouldn't say that... that would be....? ADVERTISING!!! That's Right!! Hell, if you two had your way there probably wouldn't even be any Sesame Street would there?... Would there?!! There'd be no Ernie would there... Nooooo.... there'd be no Bert... bye bye, bye bye to Grover... bye bye to Cookie Monster... NO! There'd be no Snuffleupagus, would there, and get that trash can... cause there'd be no Oscar the Grouch... NOT TO MENTION... KERMIT, THE DAMN FROG!!!!
posted by ozomatli at 1:43 PM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I think Bill Hicks said it best.
posted by history is a weapon at 1:48 PM on December 11, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

Advertisers, for the most part, lie for a living. Oh, some look for true customer insights and work closely with clients to improve products and services rather than just reposition them, but that’s not the norm.

I went to work for the interactive arm of a medium size agency for 4 years. They were some of the nicest people in the business and they took decent care of loyal employees. They were good enough people that they earned my loyalty for a while, until they sold out to a multinational with no warning.

Meanwhile I was involved in a lot of the most useless projects of my career and I would not show a single piece from that time in my portfolio because the general advertising people did not understand anything about building trust online and just saw the net as one way communication.

I am a much happier person now that I don’t work for advertisers and instead focus my efforts on making things that people actually want.
posted by KS at 2:19 PM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I don't have a problem with advertising, advertising revenues put food on my table, but there's a difference between it being morally bankrupt and it being wrong, ethically, for me. As a news reporter who believes there is, at least a little bit, a higher purpose in what I do, for me to become an advertising writer would be to abandon something that is ethically important to me, and would therefore become a violation of what I believe I stand for. That would be wrong.

Do you have the same feelings about your photography? If so, reconsider. If not, it's just a job.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 2:21 PM on December 11, 2007

I have to agree with davejay - you have to consider if what you are doing is ethical, not if whatever field you’re connected to is ethical. That’s really too huge for you to be responsible for.
And gauge your commitment. If you’d rather be in the streets with a bowl, so be it.
But do you want to be Christ or Buddha? Then yes, advertising is designed to enflame desire and it is (as Hicks said) a blight upon the world and evil.
Does that mean you are evil if you participate in it? No. You can act ethically yourself and refuse to take part in any action you feel is objectionable.
You are not responsible for what someone else does merely because you work in the same field they do.
Don’t, however, make the mistake of rationalizing what you do because you gotta eat or whatever. Pride can really mess you up on that path.
I would stick up a bank if my kids were hungry, but I probably wouldn’t have to resort to that since there are other methods to feed my kids that don’t turn me into a poor role model and erode my character. Like accepting public aid and getting food stamps.

But given the equality of your moral choices, might as well be happy with what you’re doing. Not everyone is ready to don sackcloth and take an oath of poverty and service. And really, it’s action that matters. And only yours.
Hicks was a great comedian, but it wasn’t as though he was walking what he talked.
It’s not like your photos are PR to offset the effects of oilspills or something. If they are, you don’t have to participate.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:35 PM on December 11, 2007

No.
posted by sien at 2:37 PM on December 11, 2007

I've thought on the Bill Hicks Theory for many years and only recently came up with a slightly alternative explanation.

OK, let's put it this way:

Come the revolution, when they are looking for people to put up against the wall, those who work in advertising and marketing are going to have a hard job convincing everyone that it shouldn't be them.
posted by i_cola at 2:55 PM on December 11, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

If you feel so bad about it, give a significant proportion of yuor salary (10%?) to charity. This will more than make up for any harm done, and karma will leave your ass alone.
posted by greytape at 3:23 PM on December 11, 2007

I do really get what you're saying and I cringe at a lot of things in advertising, but it's a disservice to yourself if you paint with a broad brush.

One of the things that made me feel better when I worked in advertising was that, in a sense, everything is advertising.

Here's an example:

When you convince your friends to go to a movie instead of a restaurant you've engaged in advertising and sales. You've advertised an alternative action. You've used langugage and, perhaps, a bit of imagery to convince your cohorts of your choice. They decided to do that instead of the other thing.

Do you feel unethical when you do this?

What if one of the friends just really didn't want to go to the movies and you've "convinced" him, but he continues to complain about it even after he's decided to go and paid for a ticket. But you know he really didn't want to do it.

Is your initially convincing him inherently more unethical in that light?

My guess is that, to use a cliche, it's best to pick and choose your battles. You don't have to go willy-nilly into anything that falls under your nose, but you also don't have to paint it all as BAD and EVIL and, as such, makes you a worse human being.

Cheers,

m
posted by tcv at 4:03 PM on December 11, 2007

Come the revolution, when they are looking for people to put up against the wall, those who work in advertising and marketing are going to have a hard job convincing everyone that it shouldn't be them.

What are you talking about? Wouldn't they be the best at convincing everyone that it shouldn't be them?
posted by schroedinger at 4:15 PM on December 11, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

I do my best to avoid advertising, mostly because it's annoying. But I'm often fascinated with new ways to advertise. And I certainly don't hold it against the advertisers themselves. It's kind of a game. Feel free to play on either side, or both.
posted by krisjohn at 4:50 PM on December 11, 2007

2c: Advertising became unethical the second that it changed - around late in the 19th century - from a more informative role to a persuasive one.

A personal anecdote, for what it's worth: my professor of Theories of Mass Media had previously been the head of marketing for the Australian arm of a huge multinational domestic products company (think: detergents etc). When asked why he quit such a lucrative role, he said simply "I just grew tired of making women feel inadequate when compared with their mothers". I noticed after that that almost every single ad for dishwashing detergent, floor disinfectant, bathroom cleaners & so on involved a young housewife using product X to quickly clean before mum / a bunch of friends visit; with some sort of proud one-upmanship when the other woman or women complimented her on her amazing cleaning skills ("See? I am not a failure after all; I'm capable & in control" is the shitty subtext).

He had various other stories, such as the fact that when consumers started demanding "green" products, they put out biodegradable products that were literally biodegradable, but far worse for the environment than the non-biodegradable stuff, because they formed a horrible sludge on the ocean floor, making life there impossible, and degraded very very slowly. Then, there were the stories about how all detergents are practically identical, but with coloured flecks of the exact same stuff being added to the pack to trick people into thinking that they're the miracle wonder enzyme power additive. More stories along those lines, with the main theme being that tons of emotional manipulation are employed in order to trick people into buying brand X's product, when in fact it's identical to every other brand on the market, and that everybody in the industry knows this.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:21 PM on December 11, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Come the revolution, when they are looking for people to put up against the wall, those who work in advertising and marketing are going to have a hard job convincing everyone that it shouldn't be them.

I figure they'll just point to the lawyers and make a break for it.
posted by The World Famous at 5:27 PM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

You are already in the advertising business.

You are advertising yourself to get a job. Whether through your resume, or interviews, or phone calls, you are selling yourself. You may not be lying to get a good a job, but you are not going into the interview talking about your failures.

You would just be doing the same thing for a different product.
posted by The Deej at 6:25 PM on December 11, 2007

it's not about how unethical your chosen profession is; it's about how much you can rationalize it
posted by matteo at 6:40 PM on December 11, 2007

I work in advertising, and I like it.

Come the revolution, when they are looking for people to put up against the wall, those who work in advertising and marketing are going to have a hard job convincing everyone that it shouldn't be them.

The revolution ain't never coming, brother.

But here's something that's true: someday you'll die. And between now and then, I'll have more of your money in my pocket than I do now. Believe it.
posted by bingo at 6:48 PM on December 11, 2007

when they are looking for people to put up against the wall, those who work in advertising and marketing are going to have a hard job convincing everyone that it shouldn't be them.

If they're good at what they do, they'll have no problem convincing everyone it shouldn't be them. The new regime will need propagandists, same as the old.

For the OP and his/her dilemma. Don't work for three, four months, then ask yourself that ethics question.

On preview: I see schroedinger beat me too the punch. Come the revolution, schroedinger will be the first against the wall.
posted by notyou at 7:08 PM on December 11, 2007

I work in a form of advertising, as a copywriter. I kinda flopped into it after my whole adult life was spent doing ethically neutral-to-good, creative stuff, that I was never forceful enough to make real money out of. I thought this business was immoral when I got into it, but I also thought that I'd done plenty immoral things before in my life and still remained kind of pure. I thought I could take it, for the experience. I'm making decent money.

It's been six months and I've just about had it. I'm sticking it out to the new year, then I'm getting out. The place I work for sometimes deals with government departments, and I'm OK with that. It also deals with banks, oil companies, arms manufacturers, mobile phone companies: some of the people I have to meet are so shitty I can't believe it. I'm involved in the most outrageous propaganda, and responsible for some of the most patronising, offensive prose I've ever seen. Worse, most of my colleagues have been up to this for years and don't seem to give a shit. I feel totally out of place here. I can't relate to anyone. I feel like a total whore.

I should say, I envy the designers, artworkers and photographers: I reckon it's easier to concentrate on making things look cool, in an abstract sense, than to get stuck into those words that really stain my soul.

A lot of people wouldn't feel the way I do. I see the evidence of that all around me. A lot of the answers above come from people who don't seem to mind this stuff. But I'm guessing if you're even asking the question you might end up feeling like I do.

The thing is, though, providing I do get out, I'll be glad to have had these six months. I've been at the front line of unbelievable corruption and I'll never forget what I've seen. It's a kind of privilege, for someone like me. No joke, I'd probably recommend it. You can't really lose - either you'll make good money and love it, or you'll get a good shot of revulsion that'll see you through the rest of your life.
posted by cincinnatus c at 7:27 PM on December 11, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

er, to the punch.
posted by notyou at 7:31 PM on December 11, 2007

I used to work in advertising. To me, it's not the loose use of truth that is worst about the advertising industry, it's that it is a pure parasite industry, and everyone in it is a welfare class. Let me explain:

Take two after-hours/emergency plumbing businesses. Both charge $X to fix, for example, a burst pipe in your ceiling that is raining down on your possessions at 2am, and both have about equal market share.
Then one of them starts to advertise. Suddenly, he's getting all the call-outs, because he's the only after-hours plumber whose name is familiar to people.
So the other guy has to start advertising too, just to stay in business.

Suddenly the cost of doing business for BOTH plumbers has increased significantly, as they must spend thousands on advertising merely to stay in business. They pass that cost directly to their clients.

So nothing has changed - there is the same amount of business, the same two plumbers, but now you have to pay a lot more merely to get the same services from them. This is because you are now supporting a parasite that has added no value to the service you receive, added no value to the plumber's business, and (obviously) has no connection to how many call-outs there are (how big the market is).

So all those people working on the advertising have contributed nothing to society, but are living off its back nonetheless.

I used to be one of them. Now, instead of being the welfare parasite that contributes nothing, I am helping manufacture machines that improve and perhaps even save people's lives.

That said, the parasite class is here to stay. If you need to put food on the table, or need to fill out a portfolio to get to your documentary work, you should take a walk down the dark path.

But only until you can move to something worthwhile :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 9:44 PM on December 11, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Yes. And you've hit the nail on the head as to why.

I wouldn't work in advertising for the same reason. I don't find the arguments in this thread at all convincing. The old if you don't do it, someone else will argument falls down all on its own, for obvious reasons. The argument that people are clever enough to make their own decisions and aren't unduly influenced by advertising doesn't fare very well in the face of the continued existence of the advertising industry (if it didn't work at all, why would anyone pay for it?). Making a lot of money is not a good ethical argument.
posted by ssg at 10:17 PM on December 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

harlequin is describing a model in which the good/service purchased actually has utility, and is wanted or needed by the customer. Unfortunately, that only covers a subset of advertising. The vast majority of it is actually about creating a desire for things for which there never was any particular demand. On the bright side, this keeps the economy ticking over. On the dark side, it ruins the planet & pollutes the mental environment, especially by pervasively presenting unrealistic, unsustainable & unattainable standards of lifestyle, beauty & dress which - slowly but surely - people internalise & accept as being somehow natural, normal or desirable.

Trying to chase these illusory lifestyles (which are typically presented as associations with the product advertised; they are not the product itself - eg "buy this can of shitty caffeinated & carbonated sugarwater & you'll implicitly be buying in to a healthy lifestyle of attractive youngsters partying on a beach somewhere") leads pretty much directly, imho, to a lot of the shallow selfishness & competitiveness that we see in society today, which in turn relates to an erosion of community & of values that can't be co-opted into supporting product sales, at the same time as facilitating the wanton destruction of our environment.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:24 PM on December 11, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

The old if you don't do it, someone else will argument falls down all on its own, for obvious reasons.

But in this case that argument takes the form "someone has to do it, so if you don't someone's doing it for you."

Unless you're really going to the lengths to ensure that you don't benefit from the activity and industry of advertising you're being hypocritical to disdain an advertising job because it's a morally inferior occupation. It's like disdaining grave diggers or trash haulers.
posted by XMLicious at 10:29 PM on December 11, 2007

Is working in advertising ethically wrong?

It depends on the nature of the advertising. Photography and copy writing for catalogues aren't too bad. Single page adds in magazines, as well as radio and television commercials, are bad.

And for the record, I don't think emergency plumbers actually exist. Certainly there are plumbers who claim to be on call for emergencies, but in practice, they just keep telling you they are on the way. They don't get to the door any faster than a normal plumber would. At least that was my experience.. A perfect example of ethically wrong advertising :P
posted by Chuckles at 6:02 AM on December 12, 2007

The revolution ain't never coming, brother.


Says the dude using the internet...
posted by i_cola at 12:30 PM on December 12, 2007

XMLicious: You don't actually want to argue that we need advertisers in the same way as we need trash haulers, do you?
posted by ssg at 4:09 PM on December 12, 2007

ssg: Yes, I do! Moreso than we need the trash haulers, even.

There have been trash haulers throughout the entirety of human history. But a significant part of the reason that so many of us today don't live in the same poverty and misery as most people did in the past, and don't live in the same poverty and misery as most of the people in the Soviet Union did, is because of the economic engine driven in large part by the activity of advertisers and marketers and sales people and people in other socially unacceptable occupations.

I'm not saying that they're the authors or originators of modern prosperity but they're a very big, essential cog in the machine.

Even at the organizational level: certainly you can take almost any business and get rid of its sales and marketing people and it won't be too much longer before the other employees start finding themselves out on the street. And the various governmental entities that depend on business taxes will start seeing less revenue.

I'm not saying that what they do isn't shady, I'm saying that our paychecks depend on someone doing that shady kind of stuff.
posted by XMLicious at 5:29 PM on December 12, 2007

XMLicious: A lot of people (including, I'd be willing to hazard a guess, the OP) don't actually think that the American economy is all that great environmentally or socially, especially for people who don't live in the US. Any economy that requires "shady stuff" to induce people to consume more than they would otherwise doesn't seem like a good system to me. Why should we consume so much stuff? In order to keep the economy going, so we can all be paid enough to consume so much stuff. That's only a good system if you think that American-style consumption actually improves people's lives, and you think it is worth the social and environmental costs. But I guess that's probably beyond the reasonable scope of this question.
posted by ssg at 5:48 PM on December 12, 2007

I didn't specify anything about the U.S. Advertising plays an essential role in every modern economy, except perhaps Gulf oil states.

It might not be a "good" system for advertising to be essential to an economy but a) I'd challenge you to point out a better one and b) even if it's a bad system it's still one that everyone depends upon for their livelihood and prosperity, so it's still hypocritical to look down your nose at people who are essential to make it work.

If you really do find it so insufferably unethical it is possible to isolate yourself from it. Just be sure to get a job at an organization that doesn't advertise or promote itself in any way and be certain not to enjoy or benefit from any products that you wouldn't find somewhere like the Soviet Union or Edwardian England, nor benefit from low prices of staple goods that result from advertised competition.

It really is like disdaining trash haulers and grave diggers, is what I'm saying.
posted by XMLicious at 6:13 PM on December 12, 2007

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to change the system or advocate values that go against this grain. I'm just saying it's unjust to look down on advertising as an occupation unless you'd really be willing to cut yourself off from its benefits.
posted by XMLicious at 6:19 PM on December 12, 2007

even if it's a bad system it's still one that everyone depends upon for their livelihood and prosperity, so it's still hypocritical to look down your nose at people who are essential to make it work.

That point would be more acceptable if 90% of the world economy wasn't devoted to producing & flogging total crap.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:49 PM on December 12, 2007

XMLicious: Right, so in order to criticize a particular part of an economic system, I have to completely disconnect myself from the system as a whole. And once I've ceased to benefit from advertising in any way, all the costs (social and environmental, which I'm obviously arguing by far outweigh the benefits) will no longer affect me at all right?
posted by ssg at 7:31 PM on December 12, 2007

That point would be more acceptable if 90% of the world economy wasn't devoted to producing & flogging total crap.

If it keeps food on your table and in supermarkets, your children clothed, and keeps loans available to buy your house and your car, not to mention the manifold luxuries we have that you can deem worthy and indulge in, I think you're being a bit arrogant and snooty to condemn it in entirety. Ask the Chinese - they're the ones who make all the crap and you won't see them dumping it all and going back to noble and virtuous state enterprise.

I ask again - what's the alternative that you guys see, that everyone's being so vapid and foolish to not pursue? I think the only kinds of economies that would produce all non-advertised high-craftsmanship goods are ones where there's a tiny, rich aristocracy and they're the only ones who are able to buy anything. Dream of that all you want but chances are you would not be the ones enjoying the good life in it.

What we learned vis-a-vis the meticulously-planned, well-intended Soviet system is that all of the inefficiencies and wheeling-dealing in capitalism are instrumental in creating the wealth. There are problems to be fixed but it's long since the time when as a system it could be dismissed with an arched brow and sniff of ideological superiority.
posted by XMLicious at 7:50 PM on December 12, 2007

ssg: I'm not talking about the costs. I'm saying that if you're going to say that Joe Advertiser is a sack of shit for being in marketing you better not be benefiting from the sweat of his brow and his exercise of his marketing skills. Otherwise you're also culpable and just as much a sack of shit as he is.

It's like a supplier for the U.S. military saying "I'm really opposed to the invasion of Iraq and all, it's completely morally reprehensible so I want nothing to do with it, but sign me up for all the new contracts!"
posted by XMLicious at 7:58 PM on December 12, 2007

Basically, I'm saying that if the activity of marketing and advertising is immoral we all have to take the blame for it as beneficiaries instead of just washing our hands and laying it on the heads of anyone who happens to work in marketing.
posted by XMLicious at 8:04 PM on December 12, 2007

XMLicious, I'm coming from a position in which I honestly believe that 90% or more of the stuff that we buy or own in the west is completely and utterly superfluous, and our lives would hardly be diminished in the slightest without it. Have you ever had occasion to clean out your house or office, and found tons upon tons of stuff just sitting around unused forever?

Hey, I just got more of it! There's a big sale downstairs, and a couple of my workmates (bless 'em) have given me bargain basement presents: some kinda commemorative 2005 xmas coin, and a decorative teaspoon. Pure garage sale fodder. I couldn't care less if somebody has a job making this stuff. It's a waste of time & money & resources. A total waste. We're destroying the planet for the sake of a culture of accumulating pointless doodads & throwing mountains of it away, because it was never wanted or needed in the first place, was poorly designed & made, has gone out of fashion, or whatever.

Anything that reinforces this culture of accumulation, especially by convincing people to buy crap that they don't need, is bad in my books, regardless of whether or not it employs people. We've long had the technological capacity to feed, clothe & shelter everybody on the planet, probably without any of us having to work more than a few token hours per week, and I'd rather see somebody - anybody - working towards achieving that kind of vision, supported by quality products (not brand images), well-designed & intended to last, rather than using our technological & scientific advances only for the purposes of churning out ever-increasing piles of redundant, throwaway shit.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:29 PM on December 12, 2007

You might find Orwell's Keep the Aspidistra Flying interesting--its protagonist deals with similar issues. In some ways, things haven't really changed since the 1930s.
posted by komilnefopa at 8:54 PM on December 12, 2007

...I'd rather see somebody - anybody - working towards achieving that kind of vision,

Does the "anybody" include you? What are you doing about it, besides being disdainful of the status quo and emphatically assuring us that everyone could live like the aristocrats of bygone days without any compromise?

There are communes where you could have the world you want, if you really value those things more than the various benefits of this wasteful capitalist world. Otherwise you're crying "let them eat cake!"
posted by XMLicious at 8:54 PM on December 12, 2007

Look, I don't think that voracious unchecked consumerism is wonderful. But we're going to have to do better in dealing with the problems of modern civilization than fantasizing about utopian societies where everyone works four hours per week and all of the organs of state and industry revolve in utter harmony to produce exactly what everyone needs. Using a model like that to critique the way things really are here and now doesn't do any good nor does it produce insights or solutions.
posted by XMLicious at 9:13 PM on December 12, 2007

Does the "anybody" include you? What are you doing about it?

Hey, I'm typing propaganda onto a website, for a start. I'm a semi-active member of the Australian Greens, for what that's worth, I try to some extent to follow a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity, and have always followed my refugee grandparents' wisdom of "we're too poor to buy cheap products" (go for good design, quality & long-lasting things). Because it's Christmas time, it might be worth mentioning that I have a general rule against ever giving presents that are not sharable & consumable (eg a nice bottle of wine or some fancy pastries are ideal). That's a start, I guess. Beyond that, I couldn't say I've ever felt any compulsion to "keep up with the Joneses", especially not in terms of buying anything that's any kind of status symbol.

On the other hand, I have my own kinds of wastefulness. I own a ton of CDs, for example, and it pains me that literally hundreds of them get sorted eventually downwards into shelves or piles of "haven't listened to this in five years & unlikely ever to do so again". This is particularly ridiculous when there's so much great music available on the radio, streamed across the net, etc.

But I don't see why this should be particularly about me. You talk about the benefits of capitalism, and seem to think that the only alternatives are either some kind of head-in-the-sand commune lifestyle, or a return to a soviet system. No doubt capitalism has its benefits, especially through free & competitive innovation, but I'm not convinced that advertising is truly necessary to that process. If anything, advertising skews the free market, by forcing a lot of the competition to take place on a level of irrelevant brand meme warfare, rather than on the merits of the goods themselves.

For example, if I wanted to buy a bottle of vodka, my best source of information would realistically be either my own tastes & trial-and-error, or else perhaps the opinions of professional tasters & critics. A barrage of advertisements featuring a distinctively shaped bottle in a variety of clever guises does absolutely fuck all in terms of helping me to make an informed decision. On the contrary, they are specifically designed to interfere with rational thought processes, as they aim to create a kind of Pavlovian reaction, whereby an undecided shopper picks up that one particular shape of bottle, instead of any number of roughly equal products, or perhaps switches from the gin or whatever to the vodka.

Getting back to the point, wouldn't you agree that capitalism might just work better if people could take a step back & only select products based on their real utility & quality, without their thought processes being distorted by all of this deliberate noise, much of which aims to steer people towards inferior products, or towards levels of consumption that they realistically simply don't need?
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:22 PM on December 12, 2007

I don't think I'm a beneficiary of advertising, because overall advertising has a negative effect on me, our society, and our environment. Why should I assign myself blame for an industry that causes harm, when part of the harm is directed at me and I'm not causing the harm? Like UbuRoivas, I'd be happier if we didn't produce and consume so much crap. I think our lives would be better if smart, creative people did something positive for the world instead of trying to convince people to consume more crap.

We tend to view our economies totally backwards. We celebrate our economic systems (yay, capitalism! boo, communism!) and celebrate our ever increasing GDPs, instead of celebrating the results we achieve. We need to ask ourselves: Which resources and what knowledge do we have? What do we want to achieve as a society? Only then can we ask ourselves: What kind of economic system will best help us achieve our goals given our resources and knowledge? Now, pretty much everyone accepts that a Soviet-style centrally planned economy isn't a great way of going about things, but that doesn't mean that the American system is the only alternative. Clearly, we need to take into account the environmental and social costs of our economic activities. I'm not claiming that this sort of thing is easy, but I think we can do a lot better than we do now.

On a smaller scale, we have to ask ourselves if the things we do are in accord with our goals as a society and in accord with our goals as individuals. Does advertising in general increase our social and environmental wellbeing or decrease it? The economics don't really matter, because the economy is only a means to ends, not something good in and of itself. We've convinced ourselves that the wellbeing of our economies is a good measure of our general wellbeing, but that simply isn't true.

I'd argue that advertising in general doesn't increase our wellbeing, so we should curtail it. If an advertiser help sell a bunch of plastic that people don't actually need or want, then she has increased our GDP and, by conventional wisdom, we should all support this. However, what if the advertiser had actually had a negative effect on our wellbeing in general (pollution, greenhouse gases, landfills, people working when they would rather do something else, increasing disparity between classes, etc.)? Would we say she had done something wrong? I certainly would.

We all have to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions. Our society and our economies are human creations and while they are much bigger than any of us, we can't claim that all negative consequences are just results of the workings of the system. We create the system, we can change the system, and we need to take responsibility for the negative consequences that the system creates. How do we do that? On a personal level, by taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions, and, on a political level, by working to change our system to achieve our collective goals and minimize the negative consequences.

And yes, that's a really hard thing to do. I'm sure that you, XMLicious, think me naive and think I'm busy trying to sink my teeth into the invisible hand that feeds me, but I'd prefer to think I'm optimistic and that we can do better. In general, I don't think we try to do better and that saddens me.

sully75, sorry for the thread hijack.
posted by ssg at 9:28 PM on December 12, 2007

Look, I don't think that voracious unchecked consumerism is wonderful. But we're going to have to do better in dealing with the problems of modern civilization than fantasizing about utopian societies where everyone works four hours per week and all of the organs of state and industry revolve in utter harmony to produce exactly what everyone needs. Using a model like that to critique the way things really are here and now doesn't do any good nor does it produce insights or solutions.

It's more a point about how we should be using technology to produce better stuff, not just more stuff. Parallel to that is a critique of the idea that more stuff is a good in itself. The utopian society would be the ideal end point. Anything that slows down the dizzying treadmill of working to afford stuff to try to cram into the gaping void in our souls created by the constant bombardment of messages which suggest that our lives are incomplete because we're not goodlooking yuppie couples in designer clothes having a great time in our loft apartment crammed with minimalistic postmodern furniture & brushed stainless steel appliances is a step in the right direction.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:33 PM on December 12, 2007

Regarding the environmental consequences of our consumer-driven culture - the Soviet Union and China during the "real" Communism era did horrendous damage to the environment as well, in some measures worse than capitalist economies have done (like dumping nuclear reactors into the Arctic Ocean.) And they did it with completely controlled non-advertising non-consumerist economies. And at the same time they had a fraction of the prosperity the West had, considerably less food and clothing and shelter - in fact there were devastating famines in both countries. Devastating as in millions of people dying.

This is one of the things that makes it seem to me as though you guys are just ranting and laying blame rather than advocating a real alternative.

Getting back to the point, wouldn't you agree that capitalism might just work better if people could take a step back & only select products based on their real utility & quality...

Yes, I would agree with that. Now would you agree that a society where everyone works a handful of hours per week and is amply and sustainably fed, sheltered, and clothed is something that wasn't remotely represented by communes or the Soviet system, nor has anyone even hypothesized how such a society could work?
posted by XMLicious at 9:35 PM on December 12, 2007

Anything that slows down the dizzying treadmill of working to afford stuff...

See, you keep saying "anyone" and "anything" but I really don't think you're willing to make any compromise whatsoever. It sounds to me like you imagine being able to have all the stuff you really like, all the "good" stuff and all the wealth in the world today, and everything will just magically work itself out. You're still just pointing out negatives and saying "We could just not do that! We could! I'm telling you!" without actually having any real alternative.
posted by XMLicious at 9:42 PM on December 12, 2007

XMLicious, you brought up communism. No one else suggested that Soviet-style (or Chinese) communism is the way to go. You don't have to attack communism, because no one here is suggesting it. Rampant consumerism and pervasive, unnecessary advertising are not requirements for capitalism, so please don't argue that opposing those is equivalent to opposing capitalism (or supporting communism).
posted by ssg at 9:45 PM on December 12, 2007

Why do you keep talking about the Soviets & China?

And I'm starting to get confused about what you mean by not making compromises & not having real alternatives. In spite of my utopian dream, I'm really not talking about some kind of massive macroeconomic remodelling of society. I'm talking about personal behaviours to try to reduce the damage caused by the mental pollution known as advertising.

Here's one, if you like. You must have seen a car ad or two? Glorious, shiny machines sweeping around wide mountain arcs. Macho, sexy status symbols. Let's pick a mid-high range model. A beemer or a merc or something. If I wanted I could wander out & buy one of those contraptions, no problems. Instead, I find that a relatively cheap bicycle serves my purposes better. When necessary, maybe a couple of times a month, I'll take my 1960s beetle for a drive. I've recognised that there is no point whatsoever in me shelling out whatever it costs for one of those fancy schmancy cars, and no amount of advertising will convince me otherwise. Maybe that just makes me a slightly rational consumer, but I personally think it's more than that. A lot of it, for me, is about giving the big finger to the wankers who try to manipulate me into thinking that somehow my worth or enjoyment of life increases if only I hand over a wad of cash to their clients so that some of it will end up in the wankers' pockets.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:59 PM on December 12, 2007

ssg - I'd argue that advertising in general doesn't increase our wellbeing, so we should curtail it.

Yeah, but would you really willing throw out the marketing department of the company or institution you work for? And if you work somewhere there isn't one, would you have thrown out the marketing departments of the companies your mother or father worked for while growing up? And would you throw out the marketing departments of the companies that provide all of the business tax revenue in your municipality or state (or province)?

This is what I mean by having to take collective responsibility rather than just dumping the blame on advertising people and calling marketing a morally bankrupt profession.

However, what if the advertiser had actually had a negative effect on our wellbeing in general (pollution, greenhouse gases, landfills,

It's completely nuts to blame pollution, greenhouse gases or landfills on advertisers. It's ridiculous in any way to make advertisers the fall guys for those things.

On a personal level, by taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions, and, on a political level, by working to change our system to achieve our collective goals and minimize the negative consequences.

Hey - don't try to pull a switcheroo now. I'm the one saying we all have to take responsibility for our actions. You're trying to blame pollution on advertisers.

---

I don't think you're naive. I'm optimistic that we can do better too.

And, we didn't hijack the thread. The OP asked us to try to change his ideas about advertising and we're making quite an effort.
posted by XMLicious at 10:01 PM on December 12, 2007

Yeah, but would you really willing throw out the marketing department of the company or institution you work for?

Hey, just because it might be commercial suicide to try to compete without marketing does not entail that marketing is ethical or honourable. A sadly necessary evil, if you like.

Anyway, I'm off to buy a bottle of vodka. It's been fun.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:06 PM on December 12, 2007

UbuRoivas - Why do you keep talking about the Soviets & China?

Because they were non-consumerist economies that didn't have any of the evil advertising people that this thread is about.

I'm really not talking about some kind of massive macroeconomic remodelling of society.

Except that you want to get rid of advertising!?!

It's nice that you have an employment situation where you don't need a car. But certainly if you did vitally need to own a car, the consumerist culture that makes them affordable and makes car loans readily available would rather come in handy.

---

And about your car - maybe it's an old junk beater you just happened to pick up. But otherwise it would make it sound as if you're a classic car enthusiast who is complaining about people owning cars as status symbols or fetishes for their personal identity.
posted by XMLicious at 10:11 PM on December 12, 2007

...does not entail that marketing is ethical or honourable.

UbuRoivas, you have managed to completely and utterly miss the point of everything I have said.
posted by XMLicious at 10:12 PM on December 12, 2007

I'm about to sign off too so I'll leave you with my favorite web comic about consumerism.
posted by XMLicious at 11:13 PM on December 12, 2007

Yeah, but would you really willing throw out the marketing department of the company or institution you work for?

I'm not saying all marketing is wrong. Obviously, if no one was allowed to ever communicate anything about their product, we have a problem. I do have a problem with the way advertising is generally practiced.

It's completely nuts to blame pollution, greenhouse gases or landfills on advertisers.

If Joe Advertiser manages to convince 100 people to buy a product that they wouldn't otherwise have bought*, then I think we can reasonably say that his actions were, in part, the cause of the pollution, etc. involved with the production, use, and disposal of that product. Sure, the consumers' and producer's actions are causes as well, but I don't think we can just let the advertiser off the hook. I've argued that we have to be responsible for the consequences of our actions and advertisers' actions can have environmental and social consequences. I don't think that is nuts at all.
posted by ssg at 11:18 PM on December 12, 2007

(couldn't resist returning)

And about your car - maybe it's an old junk beater you just happened to pick up. But otherwise it would make it sound as if you're a classic car enthusiast who is complaining about people owning cars as status symbols or fetishes for their personal identity.

Heh. It is actually a beautifully restored & slightly customised classic. My first beetle was a junk beater, though. Didn't stop it from running nearly forever. Great design, you see? It might indeed be a fetish for my personal identity, because whenever I see people ogling my car wistfully from within some brand new hyundai piece of shit, I think to myself "morons! my car cost less than half what yours did, will last twice as long, is half as cheap to run, and is ten times as freaking funky!". Part of the justification for buying a nice restored model, though, was that if it was newly de-rusted, i could count on at least 10-15 years of life out of it without any significant work, so yeh, I am infinitely practical in my identity fetishism.

I remain unconvinced that "the consumerist culture that makes them affordable and makes car loans readily available would rather come in handy". The point about the utopian society where we work three hours a week & robots do the rest was meant to emphasise that misguided consumerism works against us, not in our favour. If somehow our productive efforts were not spent on the 90% of things that are frivolous or wasteful, but spent 100% on good stuff (however we decide that, without the distortions of advertising), then cars would surely be better & more affordable, no? I just have this mental image of a great black hole where people throw good energy after bad, when they could otherwise be producing stuff that actually doesn't suck.

Aside from that, one of the other things "i am doing about it" is to constantly assert to all and sundry that taking out personal debt for anything other than real estate is the surest sign of being a complete fucking idiot. Buying stuff you can't afford is another part of the general problem.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:33 PM on December 12, 2007

(tiny afterthought: none of the money for my car went to VW. That happened 41 years ago, with somebody's initial purchase. The money went to a backyard artisan / enthusiast, who did the restoration. Wherever possible, I like to follow this model of supporting grassroots industry. Indirectly, some would have gone to West Coast Metric, an American company that turns out quality parts for those who prefer not to buy the Brazilian or Mexican spares. It also doesn't particularly need to advertise, other than taking out spots in VW mags that more-or-less say "here's what we have; get in touch for a full catalogue" - a kind of return to informative advertising that I can endorse)
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:31 AM on December 13, 2007

If Joe Advertiser manages to convince 100 people to buy a product that they wouldn't otherwise have bought*, then I think we can reasonably say that his actions were, in part, the cause of the pollution, etc. involved with the production, use, and disposal of that product. Sure, the consumers' and producer's actions are causes as well, but I don't think we can just let the advertiser off the hook.

That's one of the most outrageous leaps of logic I've read in a while. If that's the bar you're setting, you can pretty much hang anyone for anything.
posted by mkultra at 5:55 AM on December 13, 2007

ssg: I'm not saying all marketing is wrong.

Well, I think that this is the locus of the confusion. I thought you were agreeing with the premise of the OP that advertising is so inherently immoral that it should be scorned as a profession no matter how much he would enjoy the job. I think that unethical practices are common in the exercise of marketing, I'm just saying it's hypocritical to characterize the guys in the marketing department as untouchables on one hand and beckon for your paycheck with the other.

UbuRoivas, you are not anti-consumerism. You're perfectly fine with being consumerist about the stuff you like. You're making yourself feel superior by vilifying other consumers with different tastes or priorities than yours. You have made up this fairy tale about a world where everyone works three hours a week, store shelves are stocked with the plenty of hand-crafted heavy-duty goods, and the economy proceeds with utter efficiency and smoothness to ensure everyone's needs are taken care of, as a tool to bludgeon others with for your self-aggrandizement. And now you're even telling yourself that calling other people idiots actually constitutes a step to make the world a better place!

Just step back a minute here: calling people morons is doing good in the world, whereas driving the machine that makes everyone wealthier, healthier, and more prosperous than in all of human history is evil?

You are engaging in just as much deception, trickery, and misanthropy in selling your goods as any advertising department does.
posted by XMLicious at 1:43 PM on December 13, 2007

And another point about the hypocrisy going on here - if the car industry only built super-durable, long-lasting cars than ran for fifty years with minimal repairs and weren't pushed out by the consumers who want this year's model, there wouldn't be any junk beater VW Beetles to be bought affordably and lavishly restored. And there wouldn't be the Brazilian and Mexican spare parts industries you consider yourself virtuous to patronize. You love the consumer culture when it works out for you.
posted by XMLicious at 1:58 PM on December 13, 2007

oooh, gotcha!

did i ever say i was totally anti-consumerist? (maybe i did, i forget, rhetoric gets the better of me sometimes...)

unless we all go live on communes & grow our own food, the market economy & consumerism are unavoidable.

what i am against is frivolous & pointless consumerism, where peoples' choices are distorted & their desires embiggened by advertising.

and a mea culpa, if you like: it's actually totally frivolous for me to own a car that i use so infrequently. hiring a taxi whenever i need motorised transport is more efficient. so, i'm a bit of a hypocrite.

shall i retract the statement that people who use personal debt to finance their idealised lifestyles are morons? i can restate it to say that they are financially irresponsible. why the dire need to have something now, when it's just going to cost so much more in the long run? at 16% compound interest, no? they're like kids who just gotta gotta gotta have that cookie *NOW*
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:08 PM on December 13, 2007

if the car industry only built super-durable, long-lasting cars than ran for fifty years with minimal repairs and weren't pushed out by the consumers who want this year's model, there wouldn't be any junk beater VW Beetles to be bought affordably and lavishly restored.

what rubbish. in the workers' paradise, every car would be a beetle, or perhaps a kombi. whether they are in nice condition or are junk beaters is up to the owners.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:12 PM on December 13, 2007

I certainly have to agree. In the worker's paradise, and in the capitalist paradise besides, every car would be a Beetle. Maybe your tastes aren't such a bad ruler to judge all of civilization by. ;o)
posted by XMLicious at 2:34 PM on December 13, 2007

(don't forget the Hummers for the party cadres)
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:35 PM on December 13, 2007