Right my (non-existent) bloggership, here goes my first post. Well, it’s more accurately a rehash of someone elses post, but I guess there’s nothing wrong with a bit of ‘tried and tested’ to kick things off
A short while back the very interesting chap over at This Blog Sits at the (Grant McCracken) responded to a classic question posed by Tom Asacker on whether advertising should still be regarded as the pre-eminent meaning maker? I’ve been pondering on this question for some time now, especially given the rise of blogging, viral marketing etc, so I figured it’s about time that I offered my two cents …
Advertising is not the force it once was with regard to creating meaning and shaping and influencing the consumer (I don’t think many would dispute this), but, neither are we witnessing a complete cannibalisation of consumer ideas or a grand scale consumer DIY free-for-all. Lets use fashion as an example for the sake of simplicity. I decide to revolt against the latest sets of fashion codes (reinforced though advertising) by sporting an luminous green suit with a yellow tie (this is hypothetical!) for my stroll in Covent Garden. I happen to bypass Paul Smith (who funny enough, I do see from time-to-time on my lunch breaks) who takes to my vibrant style and robs the idea for his next collection and advertising campaign. A typical case of the individual feeding advertising and constituting culture? Not necessarily. The point being that my temporary moment of consumer emancipation (or freedom) only exists because it’s in opposition to the ‘dominant’ ideology of the latest fashion norms. Therefore, the meanings of fashion advertising are still being used – whether directly or indirectly – in the construction of individual identity projects. So, by the very fact that advertising exists and is so ubiquitous, it is constantly (re)creating meaning, be it directly or indirectly.
