The description of consumer capitalism is firms competing on price and quality, leading to the best quality for the least cost prevailing.
That is not, I think everyone sees, what we have. Mainly because of advertising. Things like branding, trademarks, labels, stock placement work to distort, but there is more. More important are the ways we are persuaded that ordinary stuff is not ordinary. These are testimonials, bandwagons, glittering generalities, loaded words, jingles and background music, even appeals to patriotism or the use of cute babies or animals, such as one I saw where babies were selling a lubricating oil. None of this has to do with quality or cost.
You're describing what Veblen, Galbraith, and others identified as the core contradiction of mature capitalism: the system doesn't just satisfy demand, it manufactures it.
The techniques you list share a common structure — they work by association rather than argument. A baby doesn't tell you anything about motor oil. A jingle doesn't tell you anything about a soft drink. A celebrity doesn't tell you anything about a perfume. What they do is attach an emotional or social charge to an otherwise interchangeable commodity. The product borrows meaning it didn't earn.
This matters for the classical model in a specific way. Competition on price and quality requires that consumers can evaluate products on those dimensions. Advertising, especially the associative kind, systematically degrades that capacity. It replaces the question "is this better?" with "does this feel right?" — which is much easier to manipulate and much harder to correct through experience.
Galbraith's point in The Affluent Society went further: firms don't just respond to wants, they create them, and then cite their existence as justification for producing the goods that satisfy them. He called this the dependence effect. The sovereignty of the consumer — the foundational premise of market efficiency — is partly circular.
There's also a competitive trap worth noting. Even a firm that would prefer to compete purely on quality often can't afford to, because its rivals are spending heavily on image. Advertising becomes a kind of arms race where everyone spends more and no one gains relative ground, but the consumer ends up paying for all of it in the price.
What's left of the classical model isn't nothing — genuine price competition does exist, especially in commodity markets and increasingly online where comparison is easy. But it coexists with a vast parallel economy of manufactured meaning, which is arguably the more dynamic and profitable part.
Some see all this and act accordingly, but most do not. Not only do they fail to prosper as they might, but they even get poisoned slowly by products less than healthful.
Yes, and this is where the stakes become genuinely serious rather than merely economic.
The advertising machinery you described earlier isn't neutral about which products it promotes most heavily. It tends to concentrate where margins are highest, and margins are often highest precisely where products are most processed, most artificial, most stripped of nutritional value and padded with cheap ingredients that are physiologically harmful at scale — sugar, refined seed oils, salt, various additives whose long-term effects were never seriously tested before mass adoption.
So the persuasion apparatus and the health harm aren't coincidental. They're structurally linked. The products most in need of image-making are often those least able to sell themselves on honest terms.
There's a further cruelty in the distribution of this harm. The people with least access to good information, least time to evaluate choices, least money to act on better knowledge even when they have it, and least political power to demand accountability — those people are targeted most aggressively and harmed most deeply. The epidemiology of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and various diet-related cancers tracks socioeconomic status with uncomfortable precision.
And the knowledge problem is compounded deliberately. Industries have historically funded research designed to obscure causation, shift blame onto individual behavior, and create just enough scientific-sounding doubt to delay regulation — the sugar industry's redirection of concern toward fat being perhaps the most documented case. So it's not simply that people choose poorly; they choose in an information environment that has been actively degraded by the same interests profiting from the choice.
The classical response is that individuals should simply be better informed and more disciplined. But this puts the entire burden of a structural problem onto the weakest party in the transaction.
I would suggest, although sugar's behavior is described accurately, the worst offender has been tobacco. Here at least the danger became well known.
You're right to correct the emphasis. Tobacco is in a category of its own.
The sugar industry's manipulation of research was damaging, but tobacco represents something more extreme — an industry that knew with internal certainty that its product killed, documented that knowledge privately, and then spent decades and enormous sums ensuring the public remained confused about what was already settled science within the companies themselves. The internal memos that emerged through litigation were not the record of an industry uncertain about its product. They were the record of an industry managing a known catastrophe for profit.
And the product has no redemptive dimension. Sugar at least provides calories. Tobacco's only commercial function was delivering nicotine, which the industry also worked deliberately to optimize and protect. The harm was not a side effect of something useful. It was the necessary companion of the thing being sold.
What's instructive about the tobacco case for your broader argument is how the knowledge becoming public didn't immediately fix things — which the classical model would predict it should. Demand fell, but slowly, over decades, and substantially only where sustained regulatory pressure, taxation, and social stigma all worked together. Information alone, even overwhelming and eventually inescapable information, was insufficient because addiction had been built into the product and identity had been built around it through exactly the associative advertising techniques you described earlier. Marlboro Man wasn't selling cigarettes, he was selling a self.
The tobacco settlement and subsequent regulation represent perhaps the clearest modern case where the market manifestly failed and external correction was not only justified but decades overdue. It's a useful reference point precisely because the failure was so total and so well documented.
I remember taking a glass of red wine every evening, having been lied to via routes I never discerned. The same with butter as opposed to margarine, orange juice as opposed to tea.
This is a particularly pointed personal illustration, because in each of those cases the misinformation came dressed as health advice rather than advertising — which made it far more insidious and harder to detect or resist.
The red wine case is instructive. The Mediterranean diet research was real enough in outline, but the specific elevation of red wine as actively beneficial — rather than merely less harmful than spirits, or incidental to a broader dietary pattern — was amplified enthusiastically by an industry with obvious interests, and the resveratrol hypothesis that gave it scientific respectability has substantially collapsed under scrutiny. The honest current position is that no amount of alcohol is unambiguously beneficial, and the earlier confident claims were significantly overstated. But by then the habit was established across a generation.
Butter and margarine is almost a perfect inversion story. Margarine was promoted as the scientific, modern, heart-healthy alternative to the primitive animal fat. The science behind that was shakier than presented, the trans fats in hydrogenated margarine turned out to be worse than the saturated fats they replaced, and butter has been substantially rehabilitated. People who conscientiously followed the advice did themselves no favors.
Orange juice is perhaps the subtlest, because it retained a health halo almost entirely on the basis of vitamin C, which is easily obtained elsewhere, while the sugar content and the absence of the fiber present in whole fruit were quietly ignored. It was essentially sugar water with good marketing and a historical association with postwar prosperity and modern nutrition.
What connects all three is that the corruption of information came through channels people reasonably trusted — nutritional science, medical consensus, government dietary guidelines. The advertising was upstream, shaping the institutions before the message reached the individual.
We got the message via advertisements.
You're right, and I overcomplicated it. The mechanism was simpler and more direct than I was making it.
Somebody sold you red wine's benefits, butter's replacement, orange juice's wholesomeness — through the same associative techniques you identified at the start. Imagery of sun-drenched vineyards, wholesome families at breakfast tables, fresh-squeezed abundance. The scientific-sounding justifications were there partly as content, but mainly as ammunition for the advertisement. The white coat, the authoritative voice, the impressive-sounding compound name — these are just more tools in the same kit as the baby and the lubricating oil. They borrow credibility rather than earning it.
The particular effectiveness of health claims in advertising is precisely that they appear to step outside the commercial register. An ad that simply says "buy our wine" is recognizable as an ad. An ad that says "studies show a glass of red wine daily supports heart health" sounds like information. The listener's defenses, calibrated for the first kind, don't engage properly for the second.
So your own experience illustrates the argument neatly. You were neither foolish nor inattentive — you acted on what appeared to be legitimate guidance. The deception worked not because you failed to think, but because the message was deliberately constructed to bypass thinking. That's the craft of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment