how advertising was created to get rid of excess crap
Rethinking consumerism and shopping as an American pastime was one of the first goals of my business, and part of the reason behind my business name, mindful closet. I saw over and over that women had closets full of clothes that they didn’t wear, and weren’t even sure why they bought them.
For some, it was cultural pressure to always wear something new and different for every event. For some, it was the promise of a deal they couldn’t pass up. Some felt bad for the salesperson helping them. Some bought things when they had an hour to kill in between appointments and dropped into a store just to look. Some had subscription boxes that charged you less the more clothes you kept. Some were forced into a state of panic by scarcity and a time limit on the price. Some were influenced on Instagram. For many, there was a promise that the item would bring them acceptance and belonging by making them look as close to the ideal standard of beauty as possible.
It makes sense. It’s completely human to fear not fitting in, and can translate quickly into the fear of not being loved.
Has advertising always existed? To an extent, yes. First we had town criers, signage, and early printed materials. Then came newspapers and magazines, then radio, then TV. Now there’s hardly a facet of life that doesn’t include advertisements of some kind.
Even though advertising existed, up until a couple of hundred years ago there was only the physical ability to make things for the actual need in a community.
Prior to the industrial revolution, people made most of what they consumed. Any excess household production could be brought to town and sold or traded for other goods. This type of economy is commonly referred to as a pure subsistence economy. In a pure subsistence economy, there is little need for marketing (to facilitate exchanges) since each household produces what it consumes.1
During the Industrial Revolution, suddenly factories were able to produce a number of things that exceeded the demand.
“Everyoneagrees,then,thatadvertisinggotintoitsstridewiththe industrialrevolution–aidedand abettedbytheriseofthenewspaperas amassmedium.Advancesintechnologymeant consumergoodscouldbeproducedandpackagedonapreviouslyundreamed-ofscale.Thisglut offood,clothing,soap,andsoforth,encouragedmanufacturers whohadpreviouslybeenconfined todoingbusinessintheirbackyardstoseekfar-flungnewmarkets.Someofthem established chainsof retailoutlets.Othersdistributedtheirwaresthroughwholesalersand intermediary retailers.Inordertoblazethenamesandvirtuesoftheirproducts intothememories ofconsumers, they branded their goods –andbegantoadvertisethem.”2
Basically, manufacturers had to find a way to get rid of the excess stuff that no one actually needed.
For example, mouthwash didn’t exist until Listerine created an advertising campaign for it. Listerine was seen as “a product in search of a use”. It had been previously used as a floor cleaning product, among other things. The ad campaign went so far as to imply that women would end up alone and unloved if they didn’t use their product and originated the phrase “always a bridesmaid, never a bride”.
Diamonds weren’t rare and were not customarily given as engagement rings until the “Diamonds are Forever” marketing campaign. The Marlboro Man was created to sell filtered cigarettes (previously seen as feminine) to men. Orange juice became a common breakfast drink after orange growers needed to get rid of surplus harvests.
As the advertising industry continued to develop, advertisers began to use psychology to get humans to change their behavior, presumably because without a behavior change, they would see no need for these additional purchases.
In the early 20th century, psychologists Walter D. Scott and John B. Watson contributed applied psychological theory to the field of advertising. Scott said, "Man has been called the reasoning animal but he could with greater truthfulness be called the creature of suggestion. He is reasonable, but he is to a greater extent suggestible". He demonstrated this through his advertising technique of a direct command to the consumer.3
Sometimes people would buy things they needed, and be done buying. Can’t have that.
The Great Depression, too, changed the very nature of consumerism. The economy desperately needed stimulation — and consumer goods were one way to do it. It was around this period that advertising heavyweight Earnest Elmo Calkins laid out a selling strategy that came to define purchasing habits for the next century: “consumer engineering,” or how advertisers and designers could artificially create demand, often by making older objects seem undesirable. Real estate broker Bernard London is often credited with coining this process as “planned obsolescence” through his 1932 paper that suggested the government put a lease on products’ life. “That’s when manufactured products started to be sort of done in season for the cycles and fashion,” Bird says.4
Not only are we being sold things we don’t need, manufacturers are designing those things so they won’t last (looking at you, Apple) and so we’ll buy more. If things did last, like clothing, trend cycles were created so that even though you had perfectly functional clothes, they were no longer good enough until we had the next new thing.
But the “newest” thing doesn’t last long either.
The study by Oxfam of 2,000 adults revealed almost half enjoy shopping for brand new clothing – but the post-shopping glow doesn’t last long. More than 20 per cent admit the excitement of the item’s “newness” is fleeting, while 17 per cent start to question whether they actually like their new item once their shopping high subsides.5
I’m not qualified to give an in-depth analysis of the history of advertising and I certainly don’t have all the answers. Something that has helped me is inserting a pause before I buy anything. That pause allows me to let the excitement dissipate and for my thinking brain to kick back in after being hijacked by dopamine searchers activated by marketing ploys. Once I return to a regulated state, I can think about the item logically and ask myself a few questions about whether it’s something that will add to my life.
Is this on my list?
Will it add joy when I get dressed? Or will it add stress when I see it hanging and feel guilty that I’ve never worn it?
Will I feel safer because I now have clothes that fit, a basic human need? Or will I feel less safe and secure because of potential financial hardship?
Who benefits from my buying this?
There’s no guilt or shame required here if you’ve been manipulated into purchases by corporations seeking to make money. We’ve all been there. And also, there are some things we truly need (clothes that fit is a big one). Advertising that isn’t manipulative does exist.
I just want to inject a little dose of cynicism into your brain so that you question all the messages coming at you over the next couple of months. Good luck!
Benjamin, L.T., & Baker, D.B. 2004. Industrial-organizational psychology: The new psychology and the business of advertising. From Séance to Science: A History of the Profession of Psychology in America. 118–121. California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23529587/consumer-goods-quality-fast-fashion-technology
I used to teach a weekly middle school class that I developed called Media Literacy. It was an attempt to help the kids understand just what you're talking about here, and to become skeptics about consumerism. We started out with the history of advertising. Over a semester, I showed a very good documentary from The History Channel called Sell and Spin: A History of Advertising. It's on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPBf7km7NAk&t=25s. It's admittedly dated but covered the topic well.
I invented LogoCheck which we would do at the beginning of every class. Each student would stand up and point out what logos they were wearing. We would talk about that they were paying the company to advertise for them when it should be the other way around. It was a revelation to most of them!
We also watched the movie "Josie and the Pussycats" which is a gem of a satire on product placement, subliminal advertising (real or not?), and teen consumerism.
The second semester would be spent on the Disease/Cure project which was inspired by the Listerine story - how the dreaded disease of "halitosis" (invented by Listerine) was miraculously cured by their product. I divided the kids into small groups, and they had to come up with a "disease" and a "product/cure", create an ad campaign, and film a commercial. Many of them were so clever, and it really helped them understand how they were being marketed to. Many former students have told me it was the most practical class they had.
What was interesting was that, as the years went by, students became less aware and less outraged by the amount of marketing they were exposed to. It was like they were so immersed in marketing that they didn't see it anymore. I finally stopped teaching the class partly because of that, and partly because I think that marketing has gotten so skilled and so manipulative that I really didn't want it in my head anymore. (I was also the school librarian so I had lots more fun stuff to think about!). I truly have come to believe that the consumerism we're all exposed to is immoral and encourages many negative attitudes and behaviors. It's a shame.
While this quote has little to do with the discussion at hand, I thought many of you could appreciate it as do I. "I wear forgiving pants. The world is too hard as it is, without letting your pants have an opinion on how you are doing" -- Anne Lamott