MovieChat Forums > Branded (2012) Discussion > With him most of the way, ridiculous con...

With him most of the way, ridiculous conclusion

posted 11 years ago by Promontorium
3 replies | jump to latest

OK first of all Lenin didn't invent marketing. Cool story, but Coca-Cola, among thousands of other products, was in full blown marketing mode before the clock struck 12:00 am in 1900.

I'm entirely with the idea that a shift occurred in our history where instead of the people driving the brands, the brands drive (many not all) people.

But advertising itself as an abstract concept is not the problem. Further, as with all nannyism and infantilism of humanity (the backbone of modern liberalism), it presumes humans are too stupid to function without some authoritative power crushing their base desires.

But let's look at the result of ads being illegal:

A man and a wife at breakfast eating State Flakes and State Milk.

"So honey, I tried a new restaurant that opened near my work. It was particularly delicious. I would like to take you there."

"I am sorry husband, but now I must report you to the ministry of anti-advertising."

"Please wife, they will kill me!"

"You should have thought about that before thinking that any one thing can ever be better than any other thing."

End scene.

Think I'm exaggerating? Hell that was Russia in real life 30 years ago, just replace advertising with talks of breathing free air.

But let's say word of mouth was still cool. What about barkers? Can a little boy make a sixpence by standing in front of pop's shop yelling out "Cookies! Cookies here!"? No, the state will break his f-cking legs for it. Because it would be a slippery slope. A gateway speech. That would lead to a recording yelling out ads. Then you'd just have as much noise pollution as you had visual ad pollution. So it would be illegal.

What about putting up a sign? People would have to at least be able to see what the hell is in a building so they know they can go in right? But then people would buy buildings to advertise from. Or they'd name every building the name of their corporation to mass advertise. It would have to be banned. And any registry would become a defacto ad list. It would be the ultimate ad list. So they would have to classify registries, or force everyone to name their business after their license number to ensure no ad advantage. Restaurant #4048489, Restaurant #94858944, etc.

It's idiotic on its face. Ads aren't the problem. They are an effective means for humans to communicate products.

If corporatocracy was eliminated to prevent force mandated monopolies, and if people focused on their individual well-being rather then the socialist utopian ideal of everyone trying to live and act like everyone else, then there wouldn't be any problem of people becoming slaves to corporations or their products, because people would seek what benefits them, and if it's provided, then the label won't matter.

Also the narration was amateur and the talking constellation at the end was icing on the ridiculous cake.

[–] DoctorStrangelove 10 years ago

👏

Your post = 👍

This movie = 💩

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] Heretic_Of_Jeff_Bezos 9 years ago

Your post is either the most elaborate trolling I've ever seen on this site or some sort of borderline delusion. I give you props for originality, grammar, and over-all originality but can't help but feel there's something off about your post.

OK first of all Lenin didn't invent marketing. Cool story, but Coca-Cola, among thousands of other products, was in full blown marketing mode before the clock struck 12:00 am in 1900.

Because no guy has ever lied or exagerated to an atrractive girl he was trying to impress.

Also, I believe he was more talking about the scale of Lenin's advertising and the fact it lead to a technique which was every marketer's goal: to make the competition illegal. Ok, so techniquely Lenin didn't "invent" advertising...but it makes sense that for a story about a Russian guy who makes propaganda for a living that he feels some sort of connection with Lenin.

But let's look at the result of ads being illegal:

A man and a wife at breakfast eating State Flakes and State Milk.

"So honey, I tried a new restaurant that opened near my work. It was particularly delicious. I would like to take you there."

"I am sorry husband, but now I must report you to the ministry of anti-advertising."

"Please wife, they will kill me!"

"You should have thought about that before thinking that any one thing can ever be better than any other thing."

Think I'm exaggerating? Hell that was Russia in real life 30 years ago, just replace advertising with talks of breathing free air.

This is where your post runs into Looney Land and never quite comes back. No ads doesn't mean there's only one product. Plus, this scenario is absurd. Milk only exists in the amount it is in the USA due to state implemented subsidies keeping the price down and the production up.

But, the bigger problem is that you don't even mention advertising. I mean, word of mouth is not advertising. He never mentioned seeing an ad but only that the restaurant is close to his work.

And you really don't understand communism if you think the philosophy is that one thing can't be better than another. If that's true, how could they believe that Communism is better than another form of government?

Can a little boy make a sixpence by standing in front of pop's shop yelling out "Cookies! Cookies here!"? No, the state will break his f-cking legs for it. Because it would be a slippery slope. A gateway speech. That would lead to a recording yelling out ads. Then you'd just have as much noise pollution as you had visual ad pollution. So it would be illegal

A sixpence? How old are you? Also, most major cities (if not all) have laws regarding barkers...and most certainly laws about the volume levels of recorded ads.

What about putting up a sign? People would have to at least be able to see what the hell is in a building so they know they can go in right? But then people would buy buildings to advertise from. Or they'd name every building the name of their corporation to mass advertise. It would have to be banned. And any registry would become a defacto ad list. It would be the ultimate ad list. So they would have to classify registries, or force everyone to name their business after their license number to ensure no ad advantage. Restaurant #4048489, Restaurant #94858944, etc.

It's idiotic on its face. Ads aren't the problem. They are an effective means for humans to communicate products.

You know why it sounds idiotic? Because you made this whole scenario up and took it to a ridiculous and implausible level.

Also, you don't understand advertising's purpose. It's not about "effectively communicating" anything to a buyer except in very rare circumstances. It's about manipulating the onsumerc into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. For instance, how much can you learn about insurance policies from Geico commercials? Not much.

and if people focused on their individual well-being rather then the socialist utopian ideal of everyone trying to live and act like everyone else, then there wouldn't be any problem of people becoming slaves to corporations or their products,

This is actually the point of the movie. Whether it be the State or multinational corporations, advertising/propaganda ruins livelihood.

State enforced normality or the pressure of ads to have one "keep up with the Joneses" are similar. This film wasn't actually calling for the death of advertising. It was making a cheeky point that advertising is so powerful that the only way to end it is by advertising.

Ask yourself this: if advertising wasn't all that powerfu;l, than why are trillions of dollars spent on it?

I am the prophet of the IMDb Mod Gods. They act when I call.

[–] stazza 8 years ago

" if advertising wasn't all that powerfu;l, than why are trillions of dollars spent on it? "

^^^ THIS!