Here’s what they’re working in the overclass, as the world faces multiple immanent threats to the material basis for continuing the project of human civilization:
With endless ways to consume content, consumers are developing preferences for live, streamed, online and ad-supported content. Understand watching behaviors and consumers’ tolerance for different ad characteristics.
The associated video shows that, to corporate capital’s main task force, the big question is how to keep tricking people into wasting their lives spectating the trivial and stupid “content” that exists to deliver advertising into passive brains.
The basis for the whole thing, as enunciated at the 28-minute mark by the woman in the video is “what consumers are willing to tolerate.” Not exactly the free-choice utopia of econ textbooks and political speeches, is it?
And need we comment — yeah, alas, we do — on the use of the words “consumer” and “consume” here? The bias is so massive and massively obvious, yet what passes for the progressive left continues to talk exactly like this.
Apple has touched off a pretty major row in the halls of marketing. Apparently, the next version of its Safari browser will restrict the creation and retention of “cookies,” which are little computer codes that allow big businesses to collect increasingly rich data, without acknowledgement or permission, on internet users. Why Apple is expressing this glint of conscience is an interesting question. Far more interesting and important, though, is what the now-brewing fight confirms about the nature of big business marketing.
If you doubt that, take a look at the big advertising trade groups’ “Open Letter” to Apple. Here’s the operative paragraph:
Apple’s unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love. Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful. Put simply, machine-driven cookie choices do not represent user choice; they represent browser-manufacturer choice. As organizations devoted to innovation and growth in the consumer economy, we will actively oppose any actions like this by companies that harm consumers by distorting the digital advertising ecosystem and undermining its operations.
Let’s translate this passage from marketing-speak into truth, shall we?:
Apple’s unilateral and heavy-handedindependent approach is bad forreflective of consumer* choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers lovetolerate. Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and usefulit harder for corporations to harvest the data they need to keep manipulating people’s “free time” experiences. Put simply, Apple’s proposed machine-driven cookie choices do not represent user choicemarketers’ existing dictates; they represent browser-manufacturer choiceinternet users’ clear, strongly-held preferences and best interests. As organizations devoted to innovation and growth in the consumer economymicro-managing off-the-job behavior on behalf of the corporate overclass, we will actively oppose any actions like this by companies that harm consumerscorporate investors by distorting the digital advertising ecosystem and undermining its operations.
Not only is this an ad for the machine that is, barring sharp and unlikely new forms of popular education and intervention, virtually certain to finish completing “the second option,” but it is for an “SUV” version of said machine.
According to Advertising Age, it now costs $240,000 a minute to air your ad on “Fox NFL Sunday.” That’s $14,400,000.00 per hour, and this is only the fee for the air-time. The cost of hiring the creators and actors goes above and beyond this sum.
All funded through the private marketing taxes built into the prices of big businesses’ products.
Teads.tv, aptly near in several senses to Turds.tv, has the chutzpah to vocalize corporate capitalist dogma without a shred of shame. According to these hawkers, not only is the present content of the mass media in the United States “great,” but only through the current system of advertising-based production and distribution could we get any content at all. Take a look:
Beneath this amazing video, Teads tries to complain about public ignorance and ingratitude:
According to Teads research, 68% of consumers underestimate the amount of revenue that advertising contributes to media sites. The tendency to devalue the significance of ads might relate to the fact that many display and video units are designed without regard for the user-experience. Such units are interruptive to online activities, and too many of them can severely compromise a website’s look and appeal. To avoid these types of ads, many users have installed ad blockers—a move that removes frustrating online ads, but also cuts off the revenue that online content producers need to keep publishing great content.
Of course, the other way to read that 68% number is as evidence of overclass success at keeping the nature of its totalitarianism out of the public eye. Are folks ungrateful for capitalism’s great media gifts, or do capitalists want nothing to do with public consideration and supervision of basic media policies and practices? When people learn the facts about “the significance of ads,” do they get happy, or pissed off?
TCT suggests that the Teadsters may have swallowed their own bullshit a bit too deeply. As more seasoned and mature overclass forces know all too well, when it comes to the core institutional facts about big business marketing, an informed public would be an irate public.
As for the supposedly advertiser-desired open and honest debate of how our media works and the universe of alternatives, TCT says bring it on.
And while we’re at it, anybody want to make the video for “Imagine the Future if Advertisers Continue to Rule”? It ain’t a pretty picture.