Urging People Not To Consume Is A Tough Sell

Posted on Tuesday, April 18 at 11:03 by 4Canada
But the networks have almost always turned him away.

"When the network sales people were feeling generous, they would impatiently explain that they don't run any advocacy ads (not true) or that our spots are inimical to their business model (unbridled consumption)," writes Lasn in the next issue of his ad-free magazine Adbusters. "More often than not, they would decline to give us any reason whatsoever (the big business equivalent of "because I said so"). And the rejections kept rolling in."

Toronto Star [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on April 19, 2006]

Note: Toronto Star

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:47 pm
    Well, I'm willing to do my part in cutting down consumption. I'll never buy a copy of either the Toronto Star or Adbusters. There, I've done my part. Now's it time to take my car around the block to get a burger.

    All joking aside, there's a difference between people using ad space to suggest that, if you happen to be in the market for a car, to consider a particular brand and some heavy-handed advocacy ad hectoring people to not consume.

    Conventional television is based on a successful, long-standing business model in which selling advertising subsidizes the cost of programming. The consumer pays only for the transmission medium, not content. Does it make sense for a TV network to air ads that discourage viewers from watching television? Asking them to air anti-consumption ads amounts to the same thing.

    Antonia has a hate-on for anything that smacks of private enterprise. She's just another socialist dinosaur who has found a perfect vehicle for her Luddite views - the Red Star.

  2. by julius
    Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:45 am
    Great article, I hope that Adbusters is successful in gaining air time for their commercials. These are issues which the public should have had more exposure to decades ago. Perhaps if this occurs it will help in the education of the public, ive seen several of these commercials on the Adbusters site and I think theyre great.

  3. by Deacon
    Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:24 am
    Long standing business model or not, the fact of the matter is that consumerism wastes more resources than it produces.

    Is there really a need for cell phones that do everything except wipe your arse after a sh*t?

    Is there really a genuine need for HDTV, or is it just a manufactured one to sell more sets?

    Do we REALLY need the latest and greatest gadget designed in Japan and manufactured in mainland China?

    One day the ride is going to stop very suddenly, and all the toys in the world won't be able to save us them.

    ---
    "and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

    "The Weapon" - Rush

  4. Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:40 pm
    Individualist says:
    "Conventional television is based on a successful, long-standing business model in which selling advertising subsidizes the cost of programming. The consumer pays only for the transmission medium, not content."
    Tell me; to whom is the cost of advertising passed?.
    As far as I'm concerned 95% of TV ads are an insult to the intelligence of any normal person. Luckily there's a button on the remote that allows me to switch channels easily and since TV Ontario has no ads. that is the channel to go to when the "junk" appears. The play-offs are coming up and you can bet every spare second will be exploited to the full, e.g. between the time icing is called and the resulting face-off takes place, somebody will be selling us a slice of pizza. Breaks up the flow of the game perfectly.
    Frank

  5. Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:56 pm
    Just who the hell are you to decide what other people need or should want? That's the whole problem with the anti-consumption brigade - the arrogant presumption that they should be the ones deciding what people should or should not be able to buy or use.

    That's what makes free markets so great - individual choice. The state doesn't decide everything for you.

  6. Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:33 am
    Great news Individualist!. I want to watch hockey games without ads. Since the "free market" allows me to choose, what channel do I turn to?. Or does hockey not belong in the "free market" ?.

    Frank

  7. Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:53 am
    Frank,

    Don't confuse the individualist. That's a hard question for him to answer when he couldn't have read the article. These are ads that would be "paid" for and shown in the "free marketplace" individualist or are you just for "let me consume whatever I want and I want censorship too?

    ---
    "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:21 pm
    "Is there really a genuine need for HDTV, or is it just a manufactured one to sell more sets?"<br />
    <br />
    Hehehe. Yea, same crappy shows, but much better looking!<br />
    <br />
    How about new TV's that prevent you from flipping channels during ads? <br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12407199/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12407199/</a><br />
    <br />
    The logical step after that is TV's that pause the ads if you leave the room.<p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

  9. Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:15 pm
    Whoa there Dr Caleb! don't give these guys any more encouragement. As you know George Orwell wrote about this some time ago. Poor old Winston couln't even turn the darned TV off!. In the fiction it was "Big Brother" in control, in real life it will be "Big Business".
    Seriously, I'd be prepared to pay my share towards a channel or two that showed nothing but ads. for those who choose to watch them. In return, I would expect to watch what I want (including sports) without having to put up with them. Is the "free market" up to such an outrageous suggestion?.

    Frank

  10. Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:30 pm
    I've made a new rule in my house some months ago outlawing mindless consumerism. No more plastic, T.V., commercial food products or big box retailers.
    It is surprising how much money we saved. Oh sure, my seven small children went into fits of withdrawl but my wife and I stood firm. We eat far healthier, sit and talk as a family far more than we ever did and the children ask for next to nothing. Now the kids don't miss T.V. at all, are involved in the community more and are even reading actual books. Some might say that consumerism is a good thing but first take a look at what its mutating the human being into.

  11. Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:49 pm
    'Books' you say? What is this thing of which you speak? ;)

    I do watch an hour or two a night. Usually including the news. But most of the good stuff, I download or buy on DVD, so it's already commercial free. (for now . . )

    ---
    "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

  12. Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:52 pm
    Hehe. I seriously doubt that people would buy a TV that did that, just like they will realize that if they buy a 'Blue-Ray' HD-DVD, they'll have to replace that new $10k plasma TV as well for it to work properly. And that won't make them happy little consumers.


    ---
    "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

  13. Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:09 pm
    With the emphasis on "for now".

    Frank



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news