Ads Don’t Work That Way

I'm reading this live so forgive me if this is covered later in, but:

This meme or theory about how ads work — by emotional inception — has become so ingrained, at least in my own model of the world, that it was something I always just took on faith, without ever really thinking about it. But now that I have stopped to think about it, I’m shocked at how irrational it makes us out to be. It suggests that human preferences can be changed with nothing more than a few arbitrary images. Even Pavlov’s dogs weren’t so easily manipulated: they actually received food after the arbitrary stimulus. If ads worked the same way — if a Coke employee approached you on the street offering you a free taste, then gave you a massage or handed you $5 — well then of course you’d learn to associate Coke with happiness.

But most ads are toothless and impotent, mere ink on paper or pixels on a screen. They can’t feed you, hurt you, or keep you warm at night. So if a theory (like emotional inception) says that something as flat and passive as an ad can have such a strong effect on our behavior, we should hold that theory to a pretty high burden of proof.

I don't think this is fair. "Mere ink on paper or pixels on a screen" have been aggressive influences, both societally and individually, in the past - Tucker Carlson Tonight, the Communist Manifesto, FDR's Fireside Chats, Atlas Shrugged, etc. Underselling the effect that ideas in a reproducible, spreadable, and permanent form like print media or film have on individuals is dangerous for any conclusion that is derived off of that assumption.

If we (consumers) are swayed by emotional inception, then it seems we’re violating this model of economic rationality. Specifically, H. economicus has fixed preferences or fixed goals — in technical jargon, a fixed “utility function.” These are exogenous, unalterable by anyone — not the actor him- or herself and especially not third parties.

"if ads work that way then the economic model of a rational human -- of which no actual instances exist, as i've already established -- is wrong"

like yeah, the economic model is wrong, we know that.

But the point still stands: external agents can, without our permission, alter the contents of our minds and send us scampering off in service of goals that are not ours.

cultural hegemony and class-based systems of oppression are a real mindfuck, for sure

okay so the author's main point seems to be that ads don't generally work by manipulating the emotions of a single viewer in isolation from the rest of society, but that in fact there's often a big social component to propagating and enforcing the brand associations people make. i'd suggest that still functions on an emotional level for most people so it feels a little like splitting hairs to me, but yeah, the author is right. cultural hegemony is a real mindfuck.

But now that I have stopped to think about it, I’m shocked at how irrational it makes us out to be. It suggests that human preferences can be changed with nothing more than a few arbitrary images. Even Pavlov’s dogs weren’t so easily manipulated: they actually received food after the arbitrary stimulus.

The consumer product is the reward. You see a Coke ad. You buy a Coke. It is tasty. You are happy. You see another ad and it reignites the craving.

This tends to work because the thing sold is desirable on its face. It would be less effective if the product was a dental exam (why do I have all these cavities anyway?) or a trip to the DMV.

a lot of ads work simply by raising awareness. These ads are essentially telling customers, “FYI, product X exists. Here’s how it works. It’s available if you need it.”

Yes, but the ad reinforces brand awareness, not just availability. Why buy Advil when generic ibuprofen is the same product? Because you recognize and positively associate the brand of Advil with pain relief.

Occasionally an ad will attempt overt persuasion

But these also tend to be emotional appeals intended to build positive association with the brand. 4/5 doctors trust Advil over the Leading Rival. So you should too. Classic appeal to authority.

But once that message is instilled, you can run a picture of a man in a white lab coat holding a bottle of Advil and it speaks for itself.

Perhaps the most important mechanism used by ads (across the ages) is making promises.

Sure. And that is good for roping in newcomers. But the repeat business is built on reliability.

The difference between a business and a scam is, ultimately, the presence of repeat customers.

And for that, you need an implicit positive association with a product. Advertising instills that association

I barely skimmed this, but ads are essentially a classification of memes designed to insert an association between brand/product and some aspect of self. This can take many forms. It's very similar to propaganda, just with a different goal.

You aren't sexy enough without X, you want to be more sexy? Get X. Sexy people choose X.

Look how happy and fulfilled people are when X is in their lives.

Some vague artsy moody montage ends with the brand name. Brand name is implied to imbue everything around it with vague artsy moodiness. You are an artsy person that likes moods and vibes, so you should get some from brand name to communicate that to others.

Just like memes, they are a prescriptive thought that gets executed by the viewers brain. If you don't have the knowledge or experience to refute the thought, it can worm itself deeper into your psyche. If the thought is delivered in a subtle form, you might not even quite realize what the thought is consciously, but it will worm its way deeper.

Media literacy is critical to understanding the deeper meaning of an ad so you can have a chance to dilute its affect on you.

Unconscious media consumption is one of the most effective ways to inject propaganda or ads into people's minds. This is why product placement is huge aspect of advertising. You aren't supposed to consciously recognize it, increasing the affect.