The Persuaders and Love Marks

The Persuaders, a documentary exploring common marketing techniques utilized by US companies, emphasized the importance in "breaking through the clutter." Essentially, advertisements have permeated so deeply into American culture that consumers have developed immunities to certain forms of persuasion. This creates a necessity for companies to find ways to transcend these common tropes and set themselves apart from the crowd. Of course, eventually, these become part of the clutter also and marketing companies have to develop some new way to distinguish themselves from the rest. In the face of this dilemma, American companies have found new ways of approaching their advertisements that hope to grab the attention of consumers already inundated with them. For example, some corporations attempt to create a lifestyle around their products and focus their marketing around that culture associated with their brand instead of the actual product.

Other companies have invested in creating a strong emotional connection between their products and their customers. Called love marks, these products appeal to much more fundamental, affective consumer tendency. This marketing technique makes consumers feel loyalty beyond reason and intimacy with certain products. They come to occupy a special place in customers' heart which makes them more willing to pay for them or buy new products by that brand. After learning of this tactic, the first example that came to my mind was Pokemon. Although I never played or watched very much Pokemon, both the video game and show were very important parts of my brother' childhoods. They had Pokemon-themed birthday parties, Pikachu backpacks, and became immersed in the extensive information and backstory surrounding the little creatures. Pokemon ultimately became inextricably tied to and a part of their childhood. It became more than just an entertainment conglomerate, but a special and integral part of their upbringing. Because the brand established such an intimate and emotional connection with their consumer, they were able to sell more product. Of course their appeal to children became more effective because kids were more likely to buy other goods that were Pokemon-themed. However, the less obvious advantage of love marks is their lifetime. This emotional connection that Pokemon mastered lasted beyond childhood and continued to persuade consumers into adulthood. By becoming an iconic part of many people's childhood, Pokemon is able to appeal to nostalgia and fond memories of adolescence to sell products to adults. Love marks are extremely effective marketing techniques because they shift the appeal away from what is actually being sold. Regardless of the quality, necessity, value, etc of the product, people will buy it because they feel a strong emotional connection to that particular brand.

Decoupling and Contextualizing

This weekend I stumbled upon a concept that reminded me strongly of some of the skills that we are taught in critical thinking. Described best in John Nerst's blog post, this concept describes two different approaches to argumentation and discussion. "Decouplers" are those who separate ideas from each other and their surrounding context. They isolate arguments and claims from their social and political backdrop and attempt to view things as abstractly and separately as possible. Conversely, "non-decouplers" view events holistically and believe information about the source, historical associations, other relevant issues, etc are imperative to genuinely evaluate a claim. Although defined in my greater detail by Nerst's piece, the difference between decouplers and contextualizers lies in differing beliefs about what information is relevant to a discussion or argument (decouplers having a much narrower scope, and non-decouplers a much broader one). 

Although seemingly unimportant, this "coupling" characteristic is actually strongly correlated with various careers. For example, decouplers tend to be STEM people because of their ability to isolate variables, tease out causality, and formulate claims into carefully delineated hypotheses. Non-decouplers, on the other hand, tend to be novelists, poets, artists, journalists. They are more reliant on thick, rich, and ambiguous meanings, associations, implications, and allusions to evoke feelings in their audience. Of course, this distinction is not as binarisitc as it may seem. Most people exhibit both tendencies depending on the situation and are not strictly one way or another. Still, the ability or preference to isolate ideas is a helpful and effective way to explain the differences between "math/science people" and "humanities people."

After I was introduced to this vocabulary I was immediately reminded of the habits/characteristics of critical thinkers that we studied at the beginning of this semester. I believe in addition to the ones we have established, decoupling could be considered a habit or characteristic of a critical thinker. In order to thoroughly analyze something, one must be able to separate it from surrounding or unnecessary aspects. For example, when evaluating media, a critical thinker must be able to identify and separate the product from the author's intention, account for tools of persuasion that may be used to distract/manipulate, advertising methods, etc. Many of the tools that we have studied regarding media literacy can be described as examples of decoupling. 

Language in the Media - The Mueller Report

April 22, 2019

The recent release of the long-awaited Mueller report brought mixed reviews. Many conservatives viewed the report as the finalization in the "collusion" debate and the ultimate proof of Trump's exoneration. Democrats, on the other hand, delved into the 500 page investigation and determined that Muller's verdict was a result of something much less flattering. Because most Americans do not have the time or energy to pick through the very in-depth and heavily-redacted report, the positive or negative spin presented by the media heavily influenced the reader's perception of it.

A Fox News article titled "Tulsi Gabbard: Mueller report found 'no collusion took place,' Dems shouldn't push to impeach Trump," praises the Mueller report as a herald of truth in a world of fake news. It several times uses Trump's own rhetoric of "no collusion" to reinforce their support of them. The article later continues, "Now is the time for us to come together as a country to put the issues and the interests and the concerns that the American people have at the forefront, to take action to bring about real solutions for them." This transition to the future emphasizes how the right views the Mueller report as the book end to dark and complicated era. To them the report signifies the beginning of a bright new future, one without the messy liberal lies about the Russia investigation.

On the other hand, the Washington Post article titled "Mueller’s findings: Too stupid to conspire. Too incompetent to obstruct," took a different interpretation. This article characterizes Mueller's conclusion to mean "With all the documentation of Russian collusion piling up, President Trump’s best excuse may be that his people were too incompetent to organize a conspiracy. Luckily for him, an innocent-­by-reason-of-stupidity defense has the virtue of being plausible." Instead of praising the president for not overtly breaking the law (like the Fox News article does), the Washington Post uses it as an opportunity to further criticize the competency of Trump and his team. 

The differing representations surrounding the release of the Mueller report illustrates how partisanship interacts with media. Most news sources have political biases that influence the way they interpret and present current events to their readers. In the face of this, as a reader, it is important to recognize these biases and be skeptical of what we read.

Mueller’s findings: Too stupid to conspire. Too incompetent to obstruct

Tulsi Gabbard: Mueller report found 'no collusion took place,' Dems shouldn't push to impeach Trump

The NRA's Financial Mess

April 22, 2019

Recently I listened to an episode of the New Yorker Radio Hour titled "The NRA's Financial Mess". Reflecting upon it presented me with an interesting and unexpected conundrum. The podcast was largely an interview with Aaron Davis, a former employee at the National Rifle Association. Davis, who worked for nearly a decade in the fund-raising department, offered valuable insight into the internal operations of the historic and highly controversial corporation. The story begins with the NRA's long time contractor, Ackerman McQueen. The Oklahoma-based marketing company had become inextricably intertwined with the non-profit organization over the past three decades. Ackerman executives had offices in NRA buildings and were de facto bosses of Davis's entire department. They oversaw and directed all advertisement campaigns and marketing projects. It wasn't until 2017 that the problems with this relationship became apparent. Ackerman McQueen had infiltrated so far into the daily working of the NRA that their influence was almost absolute. It was then discovered that the for-profit marketing company had diverted the non-profit funds raised by the organization towards its personal enrichment. The NRA is now in a lawsuit with the company for their nefarious mismanagement. This misappropriation of money made a tremendous dent in the association. The NRA had to cut many programs and in March, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's top executive, sent a desperate letter to the organization's members begging for money.

In almost any other context, I would feel empathy for the non-profit association being screwed over by the embezzlement of the big corporate marketing conglomerate. But then the end of the podcast reminded me who the protagonist in this saga is. Aaron Davis eventually quit his job due to ethical disagreements with the NRA. Specifically, he cited the association's unapologetic and disrespectful response to the Sandy Hook mass shooting as an example of the cruel and inhumane ideology the NRA displays. This reminder put the story in a new light. I was confused as to how I should respond. Who should I root for? The producer of killing machines? The greedy capitalist enterprise? I was at a loss. I don't know why I felt the compulsive need to take sides, but my inability to do so struck me. Ultimately, I decided that if they were both evil, it kind of all balanced out in the end.

The New Yorker Radio Hour - The NRA's Financial Mess

Introduction - My Relationship With Media

April 11, 2019

My relationship with media is one I am heavily reliant on. I, along with most members of our society, am constantly inundated with information. We are relentlessly bombarded with advertisements, news, opinions, and distractions. Even as I write this now I am simultaneously listening to music, checking my phone, looking at social media, and compulsively refreshing the other tabs open on my computer. Because media has permeated every aspect of my life, I am extremely dependent on it. I have become accustomed to such a high level of consumption that I am very aware of the absence of media in my life. This I believe to be due in part by the digitalization of media (which I'm sure we all remember from "Digital Nation" :) Although seemingly quite depressing, this relationship is not always negative. In fact, I think there are many educational and beneficial operationalizations of media. I can easily identity both a positive and negative example of media in my life.

First, the banal one: social media. The most crushing realization of my teenage years so far has been coming to grips with the fact that all the old people harping about kids and social media are actually correct. Despite how annoying it is, they are right, to an extent, about the effects of social media on this generation. I use Instagram and Snapchat very frequently. Of course, social media is very useful for communicating with others. For example, the convenience of Snapchat has allowed me to remain in contact with friends I have met through debate who live all over the country. But it is obvious that the addictive nature of it outweighs this small benefit. Social media is literally re-wiring our brains and operates on the same neurological pathways as addictive drugs. It dominates our interpersonal relationships and often replaces genuine connections between people. Social media's recent confluence with the news has posed an even more complex problem. For example, it is widely believed that the 2016 presidential election was greatly influenced by the spreading of "fake news" through platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Additionally, social media allows people to tailor and distort what other people see of them. This creates idealized and unrealistic expectations that have a severe impact on peoples' perceptions of themselves.

One of my positive relationships with media is a result of my participation in debate. The nature of the activity requires the reading, processing, and analyzing of thousands of "cards" (excerpts of evidence such as news articles and academic journals.) This practice I have found to be exceptionally educational. My interaction with media in this way ensures that I remain informed about current events and am well-versed in politics and philosophy. It also necessitates that I utilize credible sources and think critically and deliberately about the content. As opposed to my relationship with social media wherein I mindlessly consume information haphazardly, debate requires a more in-depth and formal interaction with media.

My life is structured and cohered by media. Some instances of it are detrimental while others I find valuable. Because media's existence is ultimately inevitable, it is my task to increase the positive examples of it and decrease the negative ones.