COLUMN: Advertising's evolution useless

Published: Monday, October 21, 2002


When psychologist Abraham Maslow developed the Hierarchy of Needs in the early 20th century, times were simpler.

Businesses were still after accumulated monetary riches and the effects of the industrial revolution were being seen globally, but products were sold for their utility rather than for their appearances. Maslow's needs, physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-actualization, had reasonable support and grounds. But nowhere amongst his definition of needs does the word product appear.

While Maslow's hierarchy addresses both primal and contemporary necessities, it speaks of the word "need" in an unadulterated context. The semantic meaning of the word "need" has been warped by capitalism. Under capitalism, much to the delight of the business executives, production managers and marketing practitioners, need and want have become virtually synonymous and are used interchangeably without discretion.

The following statements are not uncommon: "I need a new pair of shoes for the party," "I need to go to California to relax," or "I need to be intoxicated to have fun." Words reflect belief, and it's apparent colloquially that people unquestionably believe that new shoes, vacations, and altered states are necessities, when in reality they are pure wants, desires, and preferences, respectively. Statements such as these cannot support Maslow's hierarchy because they are claims made in bad faith. The negation of such statements will not present an immediate threat to one's physical or mental well-being.

Karl Marx says that the first historical act is the production of the means to satisfy the basic human needs, or, a need in Maslow's hierarchy. This occurs regardless of the ideals of the population or the predisposition of the governing political body. The first major historical moment of capitalism is the successful sale of a product that does not fit into Maslow's hierarchy; thus, capitalism is deeply entrenched in conspiring to produce items that do not satisfy basic human needs. More precisely, these products are an artifice to the satisfying of human needs.

Because the existence of products alone cannot create this illusion, advertising is necessarily affected.

Advertising and entrepreneurial practices do nothing more than ignore the use-value of a certain product and convey fictitious correlations to desirable benefits. Rather than advertising the utility and efficacy of a product, major corporations advertise the fraudulent psychological exchange-value — the illusory benefits that a product latently offers but cannot provide. Fraudulent exchange-value differs from pecuniary exchange value — the product-to-product ratio or the product-to-money ratio (corn value to steel value or corn value to dollar value). Regardless of the type, all exchange values are meaningless abstractions.

However, in advertising, preying on the psychological weaknesses of the population by inferring idle benefits is essential. The use-value of a cigarette is nil, but the psychological exchange-value is believed to be more than the actual cost. Advertising propaganda has cemented the belief that the social benefits and esteem benefits of smoking cigarettes outweigh the cost of buying a pack of cigarettes. Thus, advertising's job is to instill the belief that psychological exchange-value is its use-value. This conspiracy would have consumers believe that every product has use-value.

This is not to say that all products are unnecessary. Rather, products are necessary only when they have use-value and, even then, only when a lifestyle demands such a product. For example, the minimalist may claim that he need not purchase a refrigerator. Instead, the he buys his food fresh everyday. Thus, for the minimalist, the refrigerator has no use-value; it's superfluous. For the efficiency expert, on the other hand, the refrigerator does have use-value because her primary goal is to manage time so that time squandered is minimized. Buying a refrigerator will cut down on time spent shopping, as she can preserve food with a climate controlling device and shop once every two weeks.

At this point an advertiser might claim that marketing techniques are beneficial because advertisers and companies "provide people with the things they need to live the life they want." This, however, is a fallacy. Without advertising, the efficiency expert would still own a refrigerator because it is a necessity for her lifestyle. She didn't buy it because of advertising.

Instead of allowing population members to choose their own products, advertisers manipulate the consumer through cognitive science by creating and successfully selling products that contrast with the ideal lifestyle of each individual. Thus, advertising is oppressive. Advertisers do violence to the minimalist and the efficiency expert, and all others, when products are bought that are counterproductive to their lifestyle.

With the emergence of new products and subversive advertising campaigns, people have been played as pawns; the consumer is no longer permitted to make independent decisions. Before individuals recognize their uniqueness and personal wants, they are already consumers and are taught that "want" and "need" are equivalent terms.