It is no secret that infidelity and the moral problem it poses exists as one of the most common paradoxes in today's Western society. We are told strive for monogamous relationships, yet we are told to expect our partner to stray and to always be aware of the possibility. In other ways, popular songs express the pain associated with being cheated on, while others sing the praises and social status associated with running out on their supposed partner. There also exists a slew of studies exploring the truth behind our expected monogamous ways as a species. Despite the debate on whether being infidel is ethically upstanding or not, (Note: I personally expect fidelity from a partner, yet do not exclude the possibility of open relationships and their being ethically viable so long as everyone involved agrees) there can be no denying that a lack of marital commitment exists in North America. Canada has a 48% divorce rate, while the United States hold a 53% divorce rate. I am personally a little disappointed — though not shocked with these numbers. As mentioned above, we exist in a society that tells us we should strive for commitment yet keeping your eye out for the next best thing (whether it be technology, diets, or PARTNERS) is essential. The times are fast changing and we have to stay on track. It is no wonder we are seeing such high rates of divorce: no one can commit!
I understand the advertising world does not start trends, but simply follows them. I do not reject the idea of a brand urging consumers to switch teams and commit to a new, better brand as the consumerist society is a tough, ruthless, competitive world. Brands need to stay ahead of the game and keep the consumers excited with the newest products, and if this means the consumers have to ditch the old, chunky phone for the new, sleek iPhone, then so-be-it. Consider it a form of survival of the fittest, if you will. Competition and persuasion will never not exist in a capitalist society. When it comes to persuading consumers to switch brands, the advertising world is simply tapping into its in-depth understanding of the human emotion and psyche to succeed. We are emotional beings, and the use of persuasion and comparison is simply a smart advertising tactic. If a brand chooses to tap into the emotion of feeling trapped, then let them succeed in this sense. It is not the advertising world's responsibility to ensure consumers have enough intelligence to understand that the call to "ditch the old bag" is not an ACTUAL CALL TO DITCH YOUR WIFE. It is simply a play on human emotion to get a point across and maybe even use some humour.
The problem is created when society becomes melded with technology, thus blurring the lines between real-life-experiences and consumer experiences. Getting the newest computer is not ethically wrong. Getting the newest babe on the block in bed, leaving your wife in the dust is, however, ethically wrong. It is, once again, the responsibility of the individual to differentiate between moral justice and wrong-doing. There has been a disintegration of personal moral and ethical values, leaving people apparently confused and unable to differentiate between cheating on a brand and cheating on a partner. Our consumerist society needs to take a step back and redefine personal ethical values and regain the common-sensical understanding of brand fidelity versus relationship fidelity.
I understand the advertising world does not start trends, but simply follows them. I do not reject the idea of a brand urging consumers to switch teams and commit to a new, better brand as the consumerist society is a tough, ruthless, competitive world. Brands need to stay ahead of the game and keep the consumers excited with the newest products, and if this means the consumers have to ditch the old, chunky phone for the new, sleek iPhone, then so-be-it. Consider it a form of survival of the fittest, if you will. Competition and persuasion will never not exist in a capitalist society. When it comes to persuading consumers to switch brands, the advertising world is simply tapping into its in-depth understanding of the human emotion and psyche to succeed. We are emotional beings, and the use of persuasion and comparison is simply a smart advertising tactic. If a brand chooses to tap into the emotion of feeling trapped, then let them succeed in this sense. It is not the advertising world's responsibility to ensure consumers have enough intelligence to understand that the call to "ditch the old bag" is not an ACTUAL CALL TO DITCH YOUR WIFE. It is simply a play on human emotion to get a point across and maybe even use some humour.
The problem is created when society becomes melded with technology, thus blurring the lines between real-life-experiences and consumer experiences. Getting the newest computer is not ethically wrong. Getting the newest babe on the block in bed, leaving your wife in the dust is, however, ethically wrong. It is, once again, the responsibility of the individual to differentiate between moral justice and wrong-doing. There has been a disintegration of personal moral and ethical values, leaving people apparently confused and unable to differentiate between cheating on a brand and cheating on a partner. Our consumerist society needs to take a step back and redefine personal ethical values and regain the common-sensical understanding of brand fidelity versus relationship fidelity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment