The Legacy of Advertisements: Irrational Purchases, Consumer Debt, Personal Bankruptcy

Michael Sabetta

3 Oct. 2011

RD2

The Legacy of Advertisements: Irrational Purchases, Consumer Debt, Personal Bankruptcy

Advertisements have been a part of human life since time immemorial. Long before the advent of television, radio, or even newspaper, advertisements have sought to influence the way that people utilize their resources. After thousands of years of trial and error, manufacturers and service providers have succeeded in honing their persuasive skills to a fine point. In light of this, I believe that the time has come to examine the overall effect that advertising is having on our society and the lives of our fellow human beings. The primary goal of the majority of advertisements has been to increase consumer spending on certain products or services. Advertisers have been very successful in achieving this goal, to the point where many consumers place their desire for these products and services ahead of making responsible financial decisions. [THESIS] When one considers the irrational purchases, the high levels of consumer debt, and the correspondingly high levels of personal bankruptcy that are so prevalent in this day and age, it becomes clear that advertising has had a negative effect on our nation’s economy, and on the lives of the people who live in our great country [THESIS].   

I had always considered advertising to be fairly modern practice. However, after doing a little research, I was amazed to discover that advertisements have been traced all the way back to 4,000 B.C. According to an online article titled History of Advertising, “Wall paintings depicting sales and commerce messages…[were] the very first advertisements of humankind” (Anderson). It would be interesting to know what percentage of those sales were for irrational or unnecessary purchases. Logic would seem to dictate that people living thousands of years ago did not have such modern marvels as The Clapper, Chia Pet, or the Slice-O-Matic enticing them to part with their hard-earned money. While it is possible that there existed similarly worthless items available to consumers, the half-hour infomercial was still several millennia away, and I would venture to say that most people probably limited their purchases to the basic necessities of life. 

Convincing consumers that the necessities of life include things that are not really necessary has become job number one for many advertisers. They do this by employing a variety of logical fallacies to persuade the unsuspecting consumer that he or she simply cannot get by without making the purchase. A prime example of this was highlighted in a post by Lisa Rodrigues, one of my English 215 classmates. She discusses a Sony commercial that tries to get people to purchase a big screen TV, by “Using a professional athlete to catch the attention of the sports fanatic and capture the younger generation by using Justin Timberlake” (Rodrigues).  The commercial begins with a young family in an electronics store, trying to decide which TV to buy. “I don’t know, these all look the same” says the father. The wall opens, and Peyton Manning is shown, playing ping pong with Justin Timberlake. While not missing a beat, they tell the man that the Sony Bravia is better than the other TVs. The logical fallacy here would be the faulty use of authority. While I have no doubt that both of these individuals are highly authoritative in their respective realms, neither one of them has the expertise or authority to tell the shopper why he should purchase this particular television. Notwithstanding that fact, their appeal to certain segments of the population, based on their football and entertainment fame, will probably be sufficient to sell a good number of televisions. English 215 student, Robert Gornichec, did a good job summing up the reason why advertisers tend to not be bothered about finding an actual authority on the product they are pitching, “…the fact that the major spokespersons for this product are major television stars gives the impression that this is a worthy product” (Gornichec). 

Another logical fallacy frequently utilized by unscrupulous advertisers is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This refers to a cause and effect relationship that can be deemed questionable, at best. Lisa Ancog, in her Laulima post, offers a great example of the use of this logical fallacy in a commercial for Axe body spray. The ad shows thousands of bikini-clad women determinedly running through the forest, while pushing and shoving each other out of the way. Finally, they converge on one man, alone on the beach, who is profusely spraying himself with Axe body spray. The message is that if you use Axe, women will be fighting to get their hands on your body. While this image probably resonates with millions of sex-deprived men everywhere, a little common sense should reveal the fallacy of this advertisement.   

  

Alas, common sense seems to be in short supply, when it comes to consumer reactions to cleverly designed advertisements. Compounding the problem is the abundance of easy credit available to many consumers. When coercive advertisements are combined with readily available credit, the resulting concoction should probably be accompanied by a warning label. Indeed, this powerful combination has gotten many consumers so deep in debt that it becomes impossible to dig their way out. According to the Consumer Federation of America, in 2008, Americans held $850 billion in credit card debt. That works out to an average of $8,568 per card-holding household (Dickler). As consumer debt grows, so do the profits of the credit card companies. A vicious circle is created, wherein the credit card companies invest a portion of their profits into more advertising, which in turn creates more consumer debt and makes more money for the companies to invest in more advertising.

The effectiveness of this advertising cannot be denied. The bandwagon approach seems to be one of the favored methods employed by the credit card companies. The average consumer sees ads with smiling, carefree people spending away, while suffering no ill effects. They believe that everybody else is using credit cards to improve their lifestyle, so why not join in the fun and jump on the bandwagon.

The major credit card companies, with their ubiquitous advertisements, have to be given much of the blame for the financial predicament engulfing many people today. However, poor financial health is not the only negative effect caused by credit card overuse. Worries over money can directly affect one’s physical and mental health as well. Depression, nervous breakdowns, and even suicide can often be traced back to financial stress. For those who feel that suicide might be too drastic an option, oftentimes, the best way out is bankruptcy. 

Bankruptcy, however, is far from painless. In addition to causing an individual humiliation and difficulties for years afterward, it also has a negative effect on our nation’s overall economy. Either creditors are forced to assume the loss, which can cause them to raise their prices, or the federal government assumes the loss, which may result in tax increases or a ballooning of our national debt. 

For some, the connection between a seemingly harmless TV commercial and an increase in bankruptcies might be a little hard to fathom. However, I believe that when the manipulative and coercive effects of credit card advertisements are thrown into the equation, the correlation becomes clearly visible. There exists a chain reaction, that one must consider: (a)the unsuspecting consumer gets duped into making purchases based on advertisements rife with logical fallacies, (b)the credit card companies use similar ads to encourage and facilitate these purchases, (c)the consumer debt level becomes unsustainable, (d)bankruptcy is seen as the easiest way out of the predicament, and (e)bad things happen. 

There are two simple steps that a person can take to avoid the scenario outlined in the preceding paragraph. The most obvious would be to take all advertisements with a grain of salt, and understand that the advertiser’s goal is not to better your life, but to coerce and to manipulate. The second step is to make wise financial decisions, based on your personal or family budget, and not based on the carefree spending habits portrayed in advertisements.    

Works Cited

Ancog, Lisa. “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc – Axe Billion Women Commercial.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]

Anderson, Shirley. History of Advertising. Hub Pages, 2011. Web. 2 Oct. 2011. [http://shirleyanderson.hubpages.com/hub/-Advertising]

Dickler, Jessica. “Getting Squeezed by Credit Card Companies.” CNN Money. Cable News Network, 27 May 2008. Web. 3 Oct. 2011.     [http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/23/pf/credit_debt/index.htm?cnn=yes] 

    

Gornichec, Robert. “Meaningful Beauty-Faulty Use of Authority-Robert Gornichec.” Online Posting. 29 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]

Rodrigues, Lisa. “Faulty Use of Authority.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011.   [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]