Illusions Are Forever, Book Review Example

In the essay ‘Illusions Are Forever” Jay Ciat reveals one of the most important aspects of the advertising. He claims that advertising do not lie in the way we think – i.e., primarily, information about goods is relatively reliable. What is wrong is representation of life, values, situations and beliefs. They are so deeply perverted but at the same time so subtly presented that they change people’s attitudes and habits. So truth in advertisements is relative, and can be presented in different – and also misleading – ways. What we have to do is to develop our own truth irrespective of external impact.

It is an important issue because nowadays advertisement is a part and parcel of our lives and comes in all shapes and sizes. We are surrounded by TV ad movies, magazine articles and full-page pictures, obtrusive pop-ups on websites, colorful banners, vivid leaflets… The most dangerous are advertisements that appeal to our senses or imagination; vast majority of them are TV advertisements. In order to protect our minds, habits and life perception we should tackle the problem of advertisement brainwash as seriously as possible.

There can be three points of view. All of them exist in literature and are applicable to real life. First opinion is that advertisement influences people inevitably, whether consciously or subconsciously, and we cannot escape its influence if we watch it. Second opinion is characteristic to many consumers – ad watchers. It is opposite to the first one and claims that even if we watch TV advertisement we can ignore it and have our own opinion in any case. Third opinion is more loyal than first two and claims that though ads influence us we can resist them and choose our purchases responsibly.

Advertising has rather long history, and insights in it can be frustrating for casual consumer, to say the least. Consumer’s behavior is so thoroughly researched and analyzed that one can feel even uncomfortable while reading books devoted to advertisement techniques. And all of such books and theories claim that consumers have nothing to do with advertisement. They analyze consumer’s reactions to intensity, complexity, impressiveness of advertisements and their txt messages.

Christine Defever, Mario Pandelaere, and Keith Roe researched this issue in their work “The Impact of Associative Advertising on Personal Values and Behavior” (5). They conducted two researches in order to explore the effect of associative advertising on human behavior in certain situations. One study explored human behaviors after watching two different blocks of advertisement – one of them featuring benevolence and one featuring achievements. The results clearly indicated that those who watched benevolence oriented ads tended to be more interested in blood donation than those who watched ads featuring achievement. Vice versa, those exposed to achievement ads were more interested in word puzzle than in blood donation (Defever, Pandelaere, Roe, 11-13).

Their second study took into consideration people’s attitude towards advertisement. There were two categories of participants – those who understood the economic necessity of advertisement and those who strongly disliked advertisement. Participant’s attitude modified the perception, but did not reduce it to nothing. “Participants assimilated the advertised values if they thought of advertising as informational and beneficial for the economy and contrasted away from the advertised values if they considered advertising as a manipulative institution” (Defever, Pandelaere, Roe, 23). Those who were “in favor of” advertising reacted in the same way as people from first study; those who were against advertising were interested in word puzzle less than those who liked ads after exposure to achievement ads but at the same time they were more interested in it even after exposure to benevolence ads. Whatever inclination seems strange, it exists and the tendency of advertisement influencing human perception cannot be denied (Defever, Pandelaere, Roe, 22-26).

Though the aim of the aforementioned research was to explore short-term influence, one can suppose that long-term changes may occur with frequent repetition of exposure to the advertisement. Advertising is like a distorted mirror (Defever, Pandelaere, Roe, 23) because advertisers do not include in their movies real life situations. They include few values, and even that few are carefully chosen so as to modify the behavior of people. And then many people are influenced and can modify their values replacing them with the new ones, “inspired” by manipulative advertisement. When such things happen a temporary shift in values occurs, leading to behavioral changes (Defever, Pandelaere, Roe, 25).

One of The Rebel Consumer’s authors, Rick Doble, depicted one of the dangerous changes in lifestyles that may be caused by advertising. He also claims that we have no choice when we are exposed to advertisement. He raised the question of human identity and its correlation with advertisement.

We can identify ourselves in different ways. When we derive our identity from your close friends, family, hobby, art, or creativity, then we never care about what we see in ad blocks. But if latest brands are really important for someone, he has really gone the wrong way. Ads now pretend to be our environment, leaving us no way to escape. But, theoretically, if we don’t let advertisers define who we are, “we are free” (Doble, par.5).

Advertisers and critics perceive consumers as thoughtless and helpless people who are striving for exclusiveness through new purchases like brand new trainers, expensive car, etc. If truth be told, one “can only have pity on a person who would care about [these] of products and think that they are important to his or her identity and who would work and go into debt and worry over such things” (Doble, par.8).

To summarize the first part of the paper it is necessary to note that, of course, all advertisers cannot mistake in their beliefs. Certainly, there are psychological features that are common to all of us, and they allow those in the know to manipulate us. Unfortunately, advertisers are the very people who use us to influence us.

The second idea states that consumers must deny all advertisement and resist it in all its forms. There are people who support this point of view and in fact there is something in it. Denying advertisement impact may be helpful, and Stella Kaye supports this point of view.

In an article “Advertiser’s Dream” responding to the problem “The Impact of Deceptive Advertising” she vividly depicted the ideal consumer – Mrs. Gullible. She expressed the point of view of customers that were lied to, that trusted beautiful ads and regretted it. She claims that “the main reason for advertising is to get things sold and sold fast and the more improbable claims made for a product’s effectiveness the better the sales figures” (Kaye 1). Obviously, her point of view runs counter to Jay Ciat’s claims about lies in advertising. He insisted that someone will blow the whistle should advertiser resort to lie. Kaye’s article is the opinion of the customer, who found that all that promises to have brilliant teeth, easy wash, perfect protection from sweat, etc.

Despite the fact that different advertisers produce different advertisements, many consumers nowadays have prejudices concerning advertised products. Kaye asked all consumers to unite, think twice before buying new products, and ignore advertising ideas. “Manufacturers and advertisers must be told that their ‘New improved, best ever’ product is now complete rubbish. They have only succeeded in making the consumer mistrust them by their deceptive advertising and sales tactics” (Kaye 2). She offers to assume that all advertising is misleading; but at the same time she offers to enjoy shopping, thinking responsibly how to spend your money and ignore the idea that advertisers impose on you.

Middle position between the first two ideas is somehow more tolerant. Understanding that there are ways to manipulate human psyche is vital, because this knowledge can protect against some manipulative techniques and warn against others. Rebecca Sato published an article “How Advertising Manipulates Our “Caveman” Brains (and How to Resist)” where she concentrated on the problem of stimulating people to buy more.

She expressed the thought that our inclination to want more is hidden in the depths of our mind and stems from primitive primate brains; they used to want more, but in fact they did not want to enjoy more (Sato par.2). Also she described an interesting phenomenon of people wanting not even more, but more than others possess. In fact, it is characteristic to primate’s behaviors, too (Sato par.3). It is a strange competitive spirit; it is often laughed at, but nevertheless it does exist. Is it good or bad feature? It remains to be seen, just because of controversy that surrounds the desire to possess. It can lead to overconsumption only in its extreme case.

We can watch TV ads with celebrities promoting goods they have never used and then we have a choice. We can either obey them smiling at us, or smile back and forget about this advertisement. We must just think and understand what enough for us is. May be this will deprive us of some dubious excitement, but it will also eliminate the post purchase syndrome and disappointment.

I think that we should be aware of techniques that influence us subconsciously. That can help us to protect our beliefs, cultural norms, and behaviors. We can do nothing with advertising because it is an indivisible part of economics, Internet, TV, etc. But knowledge is power. And being aware of hazards that seemingly innocuous ads may hide can help to preserve your personal beliefs and attitudes. It is not necessary to go away and drink tea when ad block interrupts TV show. It is essential to perceive it as a necessity and even watch, but in shopping logic include only your own considerations.

Advertising is a thing that is familiar to everybody who can see and listen. We live in the world of capitalism and competition, and for selling goods we need knowledge about these goods. Being surrounded by mess of choices makes everybody think about it. And I am concerned about advertising, too. Is it deceptive, or is it good-intended? Does it change me so as to buy some product? Once we think about it, we all come to different conclusions. Some of us choose indifference. Some of us choose aggressive denial of advertising impact. But the wisest thing, as for me, is to accept that advertisers try to motivate or manipulate us. It is a matter of fact. What we must do is to scan where our own thoughts are, and where advertiser’s are.

In my point of view it is useless to deny something that surely exists, so second idea is not for me. Accepting everything and buying what you are told to makes no sense, too. The third idea of this paper is the most suitable, I think. It strikes a balance between two extreme positions and derives the best features of each one.

What politics to follow is an individual choice, but it is an essential choice. Do not let anyone to decide what you want.

Works Cited

Defever, Christine, Pandelaere, Mario, Roe, Keith.  “The Impact of Associative Advertising on Personal Values and Behavior” Faculteit Economie En Bedrijfskunde. December, 2008. July 28, 2009.

Doble, Rick. “Does Your Identity Come From Advertising?” The Rebel Consumer. February 08, July 28, 2009. Web.

Kaye, Stella. “Advertiser’s Dream” The impact of deceptive advertising. July 28, 2009. Web.

Sato, Rebecca. “How Advertising Manipulates Our “Caveman” Brains (& How to Resist)” January 15, 2008. July 28, 2009.Web.