What I am taliking about is what you see everywhere, whenever you go into a convinient store/supermarket/mall.
Its all of the psychological tricks they try to use so that you can spend more of your money. Consumer psychology, all of this which funny enough my girl-friend studies at the university, I find this morally wrong. To play on peoples sub-conscious, feed on their weaknesses just so that company can increase their capitol, while at the same time over pricing goods and paying minimum wages for the emplyees.
Yet most people, even though they themselves are victims of this, seem not to care about it. Why?I dont understand it?
People who work in these places, students whos major are related to this and just people in general, they just dont care!
Is it not possible to have a society based on honesty and education,
rather then ignorance and explotation and still be in business?
Why must we exlpoit and deceive each other? Why should we contribute to this mess? to hell with them!
2007-05-15
04:40:12
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Steamtrain Maury
1
in
Arts & Humanities
➔ Philosophy
And dont tell me that all their doing is surviving. dont tell me that coca cola, microsoft, mcdonalds etc. are simply surviving,
trying to make it through the competion. yes theres competition, and why? do we need 3000 different shops selling the same thing?
it is true that we for the most part must blame ourselves, if a change must happen then it must start by you.
so why dont we do that? when we have tried we fall in the same pattern as always.
is materialism our goal as a society, or is it having some kind of undertanding about whatever all of this is, I mean life?
english is not my mother tounge, so sorry for my bad english.
2007-05-15
04:40:22 ·
update #1
Yep. The nature of our capitalist economy is built on exploiting those with the least economic power (money) for the profit of those with the most. In essence, the degree to which one makes profit in business reflects the degree to which they take advantage of their employees (paying them less than what the consumer deems their work/product value is). I work in such a business, and when I started this job, committed to be the absolute WORST businessman I could be...and I proudly do that each day I go to work. It's the only thing that makes working bearable. I'd rather go home at the end of the day knowing that I was honest in my dealings with our customers (people), that go home proud of how good a businessman I was, at the expense of my neighbors. Unfortunately, many people who are aware or unaware of the nature of business (hourly wage employees), are forced to perpetuate this cycle, at the cost of losing their jobs to those who so proudly created this system for their own benefit.
2007-05-15 05:08:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by just an inkling 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I tend to agree with you. I personally find most of such schemes rather repulsive, from billboards to viral marketing and store layout schemes. But here is the problem: Where do you draw the line? Some of the things that are done seem to me to be perfectly okay. There are some advertisements, for example, that seem to make a genuine effort to persuade the audience with reason instead of psychological tricks. Or to just inform them of their product's existance and uses. I don't see anything intrinsically bad with such approaches (as Plato argues in 'The Republic', it's the difference between truth and lies, reason and rhetoric). Likewise, I think it is probably a good idea if a store manager lays out his store in such a way that it's convenient to his customers. Such a layout will probably result in better sales as a result of this convenience, but this seems like the appropriate reward for such an effort. The difficulty is that these kinds of completely honest attempts at serving the public can blend right in with some of the more subtle attempts at persuasion and thought control. Somtimes so completely that a person might not even honestly realize that they have strayed from their ideal purpose into greed that serves them and harms the customer. After all, if you really do think your product is substantially better than the others, it is the truth if you say so, even if it has virtually no reasonable argumentative influence. So while I think it would be nice if more people were prosecuted for overtly lying for their own gain, there will still be a huge middle ground. As far as I can tell, the only reasonable thing to do about that part is just to train in psychological self-defense. Learn to see influence schemes and to resist them. Personally, I like to cross out every word in an advertisement that is not a fact. Most advertisements are left with literally nothing but the name of their product! Peace.
2016-05-18 21:32:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by pansy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, I don't find marketing morally wrong, as long as one as it doesn't involve deception, and purchasers have free will.
And while one could argue whether McDonalds needs more revenues, one can't argue that employees for McDonalds can use the revenues. So their success does contribute to the livelyhood of individual humans. And if I worked for McDonalds, I'd appreciate, even expect, them to use all honest methods of attracting business and increasing sales.
Where would you suggest the line be drawn? Should you tell stores not to let employees smile at you while serving you, since like other marketing techniques, that is done only to appeal to your emotions. Perhaps they shouldn't bother to keep daytime hours, since those are chosen to appeal to your convenience. These are extremes, but these are equally powerful examples of marketing that are used. So where would you draw the line as to which marketing practices are ethical or not (again, assuming basic honesty is in place)?
But the answer is simple -
If a company is overpricing food, don't shop there. If a company is underpaying its employees, don't shop there. Personally, my free will has solved the problem of companies that overcharge, I don't patronize them. But if I were to choose to, that is my freedom. And I live in a country where if an employee is underpaid, they may leave that job for another, so I do not consider another free person's wages to be an issue I need to deal with. I consider it their individual right to work wherever they choose, for whatever wages they agree to.
2007-05-15 05:48:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by freebird 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't worry about getting your message across, you did a fine job there.
I feel that there is glimpse of rebellion in your message, and I don't expect to change your mind but I will definitely try to show you a different side of your arguement. You spoke of higher prices and workers' exploitation, which is a very evident part of our society today. Through your message it is pretty clear that you have the knowledge of the basic tenets of economics and so I would like to add to that. Higher prices are a result of greater demand, and higher demand is what gives rise to greater businesses with higher employment. Greater employment erases the poverty from our society, which turns out to be one of its greatest evils.The flip side of the same will be sagging demand, hardly any job oppurtunities and poverty will grow at a staggering rate. Isn't greater choice better than growing poverty? The entire population needs to work and live in order to feed themselves, satisfaction of only our 'basic needs' is going to shed aggregate demand, and businesses will fail all over. The 'educated', skilled employees will be laid off in no time.
True, that we don't actually 'need' all that we keep buying, but there is no harm having it. My 'material' wants is what feeds another person whose continued existence has been possible because I have decided on fulfiling my 'desire', that got generated by this ad campaign headed by this newly graduated marketing employee of a giant consumer goods company.
I would recommend you to refer to some of the work done by Ayn Rand, she has written extensively on capitalism and objectivism. Her work liberates a lot of inhibitions we may have towards materialism, and it also directs our way towards leading a 'productive' life, and a chain of processes whereby businesses contriubute to the society and are beneficial to us (even Mcdy's - believe it or not).
I still understand where you are coming from, it does all seem very unfair, but try to rationalize and see what is the lesser of the two evils.
2007-05-15 05:04:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by ttfn 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is the first time I heard about someone being against the consumerism thing.
We kinda do need these things though, but that's only one point I can make against your argument. You're probably viewing things differently, too.
But I think I know what you mean. We have lame and corny commercials (not all of them, like Skittles ☺) that are supposed to promote the prevalent sales of items, but I don't think we need a lot of phone companies or a lot of different kinds of gum. And the whole smoke-pot-to-be-cool thing ticks me off, because this actually affects people, whether they realize it or not. They're going to have that "idea" in their minds that pot can be considered cool, when the coolness is just manipulating them into buying the pot.
Not only do the people who work don't care about what happens to the business, but the business itself doesn't care. All they want is money. They don't care if someone's going to get addicted to pot or not, they are just in it for the cash. I don't mind about the other stuff that's everywhere, but the pot business or cigarettes or whatever screws me off. You just know they don't care, and you can tell they'd do whatever it takes to get money, because they'd sell whatever they have, even if it risks people lung cancer or death.
2007-05-15 08:37:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Banana Hero [sic] 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your English is much better than most native speakers!
As far as consumer deception is concerned, this has always been there and will always be there, but you're right we CAN do something about it, we can educate our children to see it and cope with it. It would be ideal to clean up the world and make it honest for us and our children, but it's much more realistic and beneficial if we educate ourselves and our children to sort through the good and bad and decide based on information rahter than blind consumption.
Your idealism is beautiful, but as someone older than you I promise you when you clean up one bad thing in society, there always something else, so we must arm ourselves with the knowledge and the guts to stand up when we're being taken. The schools and TV programs should teach these coping skills to kids, because God knows a lot of them aren't getting these skills at home.
2007-05-15 05:43:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by TJTB 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The root of this debate goes back as far as human existence. Which tribe had the most land, which men were the most powerful warriors, who had the control - it's all about control.
Human beings need to feel in control of their surroundings because inherently, they are not. Primitive humans had no control over the weather, the universe, the spinning of the earth, etc... mother nature had control. So the only way humans can feel a sense of control is when they control each other.
I think the need for control and power in innate in our psyche. We inherently want to survive, yet, we don't want to suffer as we survive, and the only way to prevent suffering is to have control over your survival.
I hope this sheds some light on your subject.
Be well.
2007-05-15 04:52:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dina 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
We're too far gone to turn back now and return to primitive times. Convenience to the consumer is what keeps these businesses going. They are not forcing the customer to buy these things, that's what you call living the American dream. If you want it, you can buy it. If you want to start a business, you can. If businesses don't have good marketing tactics, then they stand to lose to someone else. They see your dollar, they want your dollar, if they don't get your dollar, then somone else will, unless you are wise enough to save your dollar.
2007-05-15 04:57:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am 61 years of age. It took me about 51 of those years to just to start to grow up. Now, I am doing fairly well with my emotion, mental maturity. If it took me this long to grow up some, how long is it going to take the whole human society (billions and billions of people) to grow up. By my estimation, the whole society is in its "terrible twos" . All of this is just God evolving into pure physical Love and pure non-physical Love in the same sphere. All of this is where we learn to bring Love where Love seems not to be, and so on…. You just posting your question is you trying to bring Love where Love seems not to be… good job! English is my mother language and I am not great at either… you got your message across; that what counts.
2007-05-15 06:41:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Richard15 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not wrong at all.
Put simply, to criticize them for this to be hypocritical. Every single human being alters their own actions in a way induced by society. We all try to appeal to whatever group of people we see as attractive don't we??? It's the exact same concept.
Put simply, it's called humanity. Get used to it.
2007-05-15 05:32:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋