Friday, 23 January 2009

Fear and Consumption :Updated with Letter to City Council

I have been wanting to write on this topic for a while now, but things haven't gelled in my head enough to do so. I've had a post on the back burner for almost a year that I rework now and then, but I'm never happy with. Today I'm going to write about the topic anyway, from scratch, because I heard something on the CBC's Edmonton AM this morning that really, really ticked me off.

The radio host was interviewing the owner of a company that proposes to put huge, double sided video screens on several major thoroughfares around Edmonton. These dozens of screens would post emergency information or other urgent information in the public interest, such as amber alerts (when a child may have been abducted), extreme weather warnings, etc. The idea is that putting this information out near the driving public would be the best way to get the information disseminated quickly. Apart from the fact that this info is already broadcast on radio and tv stations already, it sounds pretty good so far, right?

Well, when there isn't an emergent or urgent situation happening, the screens would be filled with commercial advertising. When the radio host asked the company owner what the expected proportion of advertising to emergency information was, the owner dodged the question, saying that the screens would be dedicated to emergency information only for up to 7 days when an emergency occurred. The host pressed for the information again, saying that surely the expected proportion would have to be known so the owner could guarantee advertisers a certain amount of 'screen time' for their money. This is where it gets good: the owner then said, with quite a lot of defensiveness in his voice, that surely 'saving the lives of one or two little girls' outweighs every other consideration and makes the proportion of advertising time irrelevant. The radio host then made the comment that he expected the owner would be making that point in particular when he goes to City Council to pitch his idea.

Deep breath. Ok.

How dare he. How dare that man play on fear to sell the idea of his advertising business!!! And how dare he mix fear and consumption in the first place!!! Can you imagine this: driving down the road and seeing, say, a tornado warning on the big screen, and then shortly afterward being shown an advertisement for emergency equipment? Or being shown that the road is slippery ahead and then being shown an advertisement for snow tires? Or how about being shown an amber alert, with the emotional sight of a missing child's face, and then after the amber alert is lifted, having the ads be heavily weighted for house and car security systems, or the government's latest pre-election "get tough on crime" spot?

Fear and advertising should never, NEVER, be mixed. They are mixed, all the time though. Maybe its not as blatant as these screens would have it mixed, but all the time we are bombarded with messages in the media that danger/discomfort/hardship exists everywhere and wouldn't this nice (insert your choice of consumer produce or service here) make everything better/nicer/easier for you. Don't worry your pretty little head about the tough stuff, just keep consuming yourself into a soporific state and we the multinational corporation/paternalistic government will take care of everything. Just get comfortably numb and let the 'invisible hand' of the market work its magic.

One of the worst parts of the whole radio interview was that the business owner seemed to think that there was no problem with this approach. And, the radio host's comments seemed to imply that the owner's argument could be expected to have good leverage with City Council. Nothing like 'business as usual,' eh?

You can bet that the owner of this business will be receiving a letter from me. I doubt it will have any effect, but I'm not afraid, and I'm certainly not comfortably numb.

(Repeated bailout schemes, varying terror alerts, new psychiatric 'disorders', 'catastrophic health emergency insurance,' they're all good for business aren't they? Has anyone else seen any blatant or subtle examples of the mixing of fear and the corporate push to consume?)

Image courtesy this website.

Update, January 26, 2009

The following is the letter I submitted via email to Edmonton City Council today. I received email confirmation that it has been distributed to the councilors for their review:
Hello Council Members:

A recent story on CBC Radio talked about a businessman who would be pitching his idea of having large video screen billboards on various high-traffic routes around the city. These would carry emergency information about 1% of the time and advertising the other 99%. I am writing to convey my dismay and disgust with such an idea.

First, such changeable advertisements would be extremely distracting to drivers, making city streets even more hazardous than they already are. Second, and this is where my disgust comes from, these screens would provide a venue for advertisers, and this businessman, to profit from fear. Imagine that an amber alert has just been lifted, and the screen goes back to advertising, say for home security systems, or self-defense classes, etc. The fact that an amber alert had just been in effect could well be used to scare or intimidate people into buying such products. This would be an insidious and sickening use of advertising.

I strongly urge city council to reject this businessman's proposal when he pitches it to you. Surely our city will not stand for such coercive and manipulative tactics.

Sincerely,

Theresa XXXXXXXXXXXXX

12 comments:

Peak Oil Hausfrau said...

Send your letter to city council! I imagine those screens might be a distraction to the driving public, what with the flashing lights and changing images and all.... we have them here in Oklahoma City, as billboards, and they do take your eyes off the road.

SoapBoxTech said...

On a side but related note, I am of the loud opinion that there already exists FAR too much advertising signage on busy road sides. We'd save a lot more little girls, I think, by having less distracted drivers.

SoapBoxTech said...

And yes, we see the use of fear (and guilt) to both sell and control us, all over. One of the most important things I've ever seen is:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151&ei=eEp6ScuIEKe6qAOftq25Cg&q=century+of+the+self&hl=en

The Century of the Self is the name of the 4 hour presentation...nicely broken down into 4 one-hour parts. The reality of the situation is that certain very intelligent groups and individuals have learned to manipulate the masses AND to make us pay for it.

I applaud your article and agree that you should definitely write your representatives.

Ryan said...

www.newresilient.com

Theresa said...

POH - that's a good idea. I don't live in the city myself, but it couldn't hurt to write them nonetheless.

SBT - I do find the changing signs/screens we have already to be way too distracting, definitely. I don't know why it's necessary to bombard drivers with all these things. I will have to check out the Century of the Self - it sounds very interesting.

Ryan - neat new blog!

SoapBoxTech said...

Do let me know what you think, lady T.

litetechca@gmail.com

Red Fern said...

Brava! Your disgust is well-placed. Those fancy billboards are advertising, plain and simple. The amber alert/value to the community part is just pablum to help the advertising go down easier.

In most cities we already tolerate a dangerously high level of noise pollution (not speaking of music from cars but noise from machines and motors and electrical pings/hums/beeps etc.). If we let visual pollution reach an equivalent level, we'll likely be raving lunatics in no time.

In LA the city council initially ordered a moratorium on construction of these types of billboards. I worry how long they'll hold out though. Apparently the city gets a percentage of the ad revenues generated by the billboard and given the financial problems at this time, any revenue will be very tempting.

Good luck with your local council.

Amber said...

The worst example I saw was at Ottawa's Eco Stewardship fair last spring. An insurance company had a booth set up with a big, slick poster of house being flooded. They were preying on people's fears around climate change to get business.
I was just a few months into my nothing new year and only just learning about concepts such as green washing and the like. I was disappointed to see that booth there.

Theresa said...

SBT - I will :)

Red Fern - thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment :) It's encouraging to hear that a city as big as LA has clamped down on this kind of thing, at least for now. There's just information overload everywhere - It really does numb us eventually and I'm sure the governments and corporations like it that way.

Amber - wow, that is pretty blatant all right. I really don't know how the marketing types that come up with this stuff can look themselves in the mirror day after day. It really grinds my crackers, as Crunchy would say!

Theresa said...

Ok, I have sent a short email letter to City Council...we'll see what happens next...

Anonymous said...

I commend you for addressing your City Council Theresa!! The CBC Interview is yet another example of society's disconnection from Nature.

Theresa said...

Thanks Anon - We'll see what happens! It was good to at least express my opinion :)