A LOVE SUPREME

I am now blogging at a new blog: erdman31.com

If you post comments here at Theos Project, please know that I will respond and engage your thoughts in a timely manner.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

The Future of Advertising - The Game of Life

This video is a short, ten minute lecture on the future of advertising if gaming merges with marketing. I tend not to pay attention to gaming all that much, but there is reason to pay attention to this industry and the way in which it could influence human behavior.

This excited lecturer reflects on how our entire lives could become a gaming module, where we score points based on our behavior, particularly in relation to what we purchase. He concludes by saying, "I do know that this stuff is coming. Man, it's gotta' come. What's gonna stop it?!"



This discussion reminded me of Spielberg's 2002 film, Minority Report. Here is a short, 45 second video. "John Anderton, you could use a Guinness about now!"

7 comments:

Jonathan Erdman said...

Special thanks to my brother Matt for sending me this link.

aeyn edwards said...

"What's gonna stop it?"

a good question indeed.

some more. he says it's gotta come. why? and is it bad if it does?

my thoughts: it's gotta come because the socio-economic system in which we live. sadly, but it is the outcome of the system combined with the advancements in technology.

and i think that it is bad. sad and bad. and i'll get back to this tomorrow.
-smile-
aeyn

Jonathan Erdman said...

Aeyn,

I thought it was funny when he said, "Man, it's gotta' come." I should have added an exclamation point at the end of the sentence ("Man, it's gotta' come!"), because he said it with such an unrestrained enthusiasm. Not enthusiasm about the coming of such a marketing-gaming merger, but enthusiasm because he was just so caught up in his presentation.

I agree with him. I think that advances in technology with result in advertising that more fully envelopes the lives of people. If it isn't quite the same concept as explained here, then it will be something similar to Minority Report. Google has pioneered targeted advertising.

Most people see this as a good thing. We need to buy stuff anyway, why not have ads targeted to our needs (or should we say "needs") and tastes. And I think for most of us the conversation ends there. It seems fairly harmless.

My concern is that we just become more and more entrenched as consumers with consumeristic impulses not unlike an addictive or compulsive disorder. It's hard to imagine that we could look back to 2010 and say "Consumerism wasn't anything then compared to now," but it may be the case. I'm hopeful that things could change, but hopeful mainly because I feel like optimism is more effective than pessimism!

One of the questions I have is: how can we reverse this holistic consumeristic takeover? I am sure it will require a strategy with many different approaches. Essentially, I think it involves people finding identity in something other than their role as consumers. Something more human? Something more noble? The latter reminds me of a passage I read recently by Paul (the Apostle): "Finally, brethren [and sistren?], whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." The idea being, I think, that one should recalibrate their minds to noble and virtuous categories of being.

What do you think, Aeyn?

aeyn edwards said...

Okay my good man. Here I go. First, I'll try and do a better job of answering my own questions, and then will address some of what you talk about (there will of course be some overlap).

So yeah. It's happening due to the socio-economic system combined with technological advancements. This system is, as we've discussed, a semi-free market (varying on regulation based on the type and nature of each industry) that is grounded on gross, unchecked and unquestioned (relatively speaking) consumption. The bottom line measurement for our country's productivity (i.e. a "healthy" economy) is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), this criteria that measures how much we are producing and consuming. What's effed up about it is that it's just about production and consumption of goods to create jobs and consume more. So, if more people are sick, in hospital with whatever, then GDP is UP, and that's considered a good thing.

So, it's bad (and sad) in a number of ways (the "it" here is the increasingly intertwinedness of advertising tweaked to each person, grounded on a socio-economic structure of ever-increasing consumption, which is really what this video is all about). It is grounded on the assumption that science and technology can and should be used to get us to consume more. And that we, as living, breathing creatures, should be treated purely as means to increase consumption. This "future of advertising" continues to decrease the amount of autonomy and personhood that companies attribute to us. "What is important is consumption, and so let's cater that to each individual to get him/her to consume more."

It's manipulative of human beings, and grounded on the notion that more is better. Our minds, nay our very Beings, were not created/designed/structured to be constantly inundated with stimuli tweaked specifically to things we've done, bought, been, etc., to constantly stimulate our desires to get us to take/consume more. Questions of human meaning decrease while urges (often subconscious) to pushes to consume more and more increase.

I think it will contribute to the increase of ADHD, anxiety disorders, depression, and the like, as people will be constantly told that they need to buy and consume things they can't afford, and they will be constantly reminded that they are not like everyone else who is consuming more and more, and thus they are inadequate, and so on.

aeyn edwards said...

Now, you ask what can be done. I think, sadly, very little. Other than the group of us who see this as a scary thing, and structure our lives in such a way where we're not as much a part of it. Living our lives as examples of lives that consume less, and live honorable lives grounded on substance and authenticity with our actions. Treating the world (people, nature, life) as ends unto themselves, and not just means for more (stimulation, experience, stuff, etc.).

A side note: I don't see things moving toward the Minority Report type experience (at least in the next 20-30 years) so much as moving toward a structure that the guy presented in the video. This is because we have a large group of Americans who would never allow for chips to be placed in them, and never allow for cameras that scan them and then tweak ads to them, because they feel it would infringe on their civil liberties and it would ultimately be part of an ever-increasing gov't conspiracy to control all aspects of their lives. And they would have a very good point.

So then, yes to noble and virtuous aspects of Being. And YES to trying to take stands against this increasingly integrated/merging of personalized marketing to increase consumption. Now, to be a punk: What do you mean by "noble and virtuous"?

And, You ask how we can reverse it? I don't think we can. Really. But we can make pockets in the larger structure, pockets of people living simpler lives (like the Amish or something, but maybe less naive and cloistered from the rest of the world). And these pockets can be an example to others. And we can live our lives to demonstrate that people don't need to live that way, and that better lives can come from not partaking of this technologically advanced, consumptive lifestyle. Through that, maybe the structure can be changed, or at least, counter-balanced. (Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. I know, I know, a vast over-simplification of what Hegel meant, and all that jazz. ha!)

As I tell myself often when I consider consuming more, like buying a car or driving, flying, buying more clothes, more books (libraries RULE!), more music, and so on: "I don't need this stuff. If I don't stop taking so much, then who will? If I don't stop now, then when?" And what's cool is that I've discovered these ways that people found/created meaning in the world that DON'T involve so much pollution and consumption. Ways like writing letters, canning and preserving food, walking and biking (which open the world up to an individual in ways that driving and flying don't), browsing at libraries, sharing more, and so on.

Jenkins (very interesting fellow, that one) argues that we need to try and overthrow/change the system. He's has a point. But that's only one part of what is needed. We can't begin to do that if we have no idea how to live outside of the mass-consumptive structure that dominates our society. We have to live the life we see as being honorable, virtuous, authentic, and so on. And with that, try and change the system.

Thoughts?

Jonathan Erdman said...

Aeyn,

Thank you for the thoughtful comments, my good friend. I am finally at a point where I can respond! =)

A: I think it will contribute to the increase of ADHD, anxiety disorders, depression, and the like, as people will be constantly told that they need to buy and consume things they can't afford, and they will be constantly reminded that they are not like everyone else who is consuming more and more, and thus they are inadequate, and so on.

This is intriguing b/c if the system controls the research, then it would be difficult to fund honest scientific investigations of the health of consumerism. Even if such research were conducted, how would one distribute it to the mainstream such that it might make a significant difference to people?

A: we have a large group of Americans who would never allow for chips to be placed in them, and never allow for cameras that scan them and then tweak ads to them, because they feel it would infringe on their civil liberties

But these same folks (for the most part) do not see advertising or manipulative marketing as an infringement of their liberties. This speaks to the success of advertising, because they are not only able to convince people to be consumers (to sacrifice their volition), but they have also successfully convinced folks that they are the ones in control.

Oh, by the way, we just need to convince two-thirds of the country.

;)

Jonathan Erdman said...

Aeyn said: Jenkins (very interesting fellow, that one) argues that we need to try and overthrow/change the system. He's has a point. But that's only one part of what is needed. We can't begin to do that if we have no idea how to live outside of the mass-consumptive structure that dominates our society. We have to live the life we see as being honorable, virtuous, authentic, and so on. And with that, try and change the system.

Great comment. It is so important. Culturally, I think it reminds me of the protest movements of the sixties, like the hippies. They were protesting the system, but many of the hippie farms and other such alternative communities failed. Ultimately, most of the countercultural movement had to merge with the mainstream and be content with a compromise. Many good things came of this, but I think that a complete revolution means replacing the destructive system with a lifegiving alternative.

So, I say, "amen, Aeyn. Amen."