Cultural imprinting is the mechanism whereby an ad, rather than trying to change our minds individually, instead changes the landscape of cultural meanings — which in turn changes how we are perceived by others when we use a product. Whether you drink Corona or Heineken or Budweiser “says” something about you. But you aren’t in control of that message; it just sits there, out in the world, having been imprinted on the broader culture by an ad campaign.
This is an important read as we start producing our agitprop. There’s a lot to think about as we try producing messages that will actually break through to the masses.
I feel like the author is just repackaging a concept and acting like it’s new. Aren’t culturally-motivated emotional associations with ads still emotional associations with ads at the end of the day?
it’s just a rational-agent repackaging of emotional association, as you say. Even worse, it is a fundamentally spectaclist perspective.
“The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images.”
For certain types of agitprop (e.g. motivating people for an action) i think advertising psychology can be effective, but we shouldn’t fall into the trap of theorizing all our agitprop with this lens.
Is there a different lens you suggest? Or a different, more grounded, theory as to what makes ads “work?” I’m sharing this partly because I want to produce agitprop that’s more effective.
the grounded theory is to avoid restricting yourself to a theory of advertising. The theories of advertising are all just tools, of which we should use the most effective one for a given task. But must also be wary of cynically selling communism as an identity or a brand. communism must be revolutionary, and that will ultimately differentiate it from a commodity to be advertised.
Good agitprop is no-holds-barred. it can inhabit the entire cultural field. limiting yourself to cheap psychological tricks and refusing to use them are both mistakes.
Revolutionary agitprop or revolutionary thought or lines of flight are rare, but it should be seeked, recognized, leveraged. Recall the situationists’ revival of the utopian tradition not as an example to follow, but an example of the required jouissance.
I don’t think its a big distinction, but it might be an important one?
Perhaps? I’m sharing things that are what I’m thinking about when making my plan for agitprop. I have another post coming explaining why IMO we need agitprop as a “gap” between burgerland’s understanding of Marxism and the current left who thinks everyone reads 500 pages of theory on a weekly basis.
It’s an interesting theory and dovetails with the fact that advertisements tend not to work as well on autistic people. We tend not to be as big on social conformity, so of course ads that rely on social conformity would be less effective on us.
First, a lot of ads work simply by raising awareness. These ads are essentially telling customers, “FYI, product X exists. Here’s how it works. It’s available if you need it.” Liquid Draino, for example, is a product that thrives on simple awareness, because drains don’t clog all that frequently, and if you don’t know what Liquid Draino is and what it does, you won’t think to use it. But this mechanism is pervasive. Almost every ad works, at least in part, by informing or reminding customers about a product. And if it makes a memorable impression, even better.
This is a hilarious example because the author has mashed up two different brands in their head and then uses the non-existent brand as their example for ads that make you aware of a product.
Overall it’s a meh post. High on vibes and assertions, low on sources and warrants for those assertions. Once I hit that passage it wasn’t worth it to me to finish reading.
