MS 190: Authorship is the course website for the Fall 2006 Media Studies senior seminar at Pomona College in Claremont, California.
Board of Shadowy FIgures....
Submitted by PureJaqassary on 15 September 2006 - 6:08pm.
I have to admit finding two things to talk about every week, beyond the readings, that are interesting to us, that nevertheless have to do with authorship seems a little daunting to me. I don't even update my personal blog this often and I can say whatever I want there (in fact my personal blog is suffering greatly at the hands of this blog. I don't think I've updated since the class started).
However I do have something I want to direct all your attention to becasue I feel like everyone needs to be made aware, and I've been really dissappointed by the responses I've been getting from other people when I try to draw their attention to this. They all tell me that they're just doing their job and how can I criticize someone when my criticism basically comes down to "they're doing their job too well". I'm talking about PSYOP. This, my friends is the Board of Shadowy FIgures behind the Evil Empire.
They are very quietly and very effectively creating a cultural and visual hegemony and they've got some powerful bedfellows. They're behind pretty much all of the most effective ads right now, and it strikes me that these companies they're advertising for are mostly pawns in their game of hegemonic world domination. Check it out and tell all your friends, spread the word about these people becuase they *are* programming our brains and people need to be made aware. Maybe I am just being a paranoid, but, as I'm sure you've all heard, just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean that they're aren't out to get me.
Check them out at http://www.psyop.tv/main.php
Be sure to read their "Operations" and check out their "Propoganda", especially their "anthem".
I want responses.
Now what does this have to do with authorship, you might ask? Not much I guess, mostly I just really want to make people aware of PSYOP. They're so good at what they do it's frightening. Their ads are beautiful, they're mesmerizing, I can't look away. I *want* to watch them. Beyond that, after looking through their archives I began to notice a sort of "style cluster" system that they have going. They have a few distinct visual styles, permutations of which get reused for different ad campaigns. What occured to me is that they style cluster encompass lifestyle cluster of products. At a very low flying visual level the style of the commercials is informing us that if we like Starbucks, if Starbucks is a part of our lifestyle, then we'll also like these other products that they advertise with the same style because they're part of our lifestyle cluster too. And it works. I love the visual style of the Starbucks and VW Bug comercials and if I saw other commercials in the same style I probably would pay more attention because at some level I've learned that that visual style is a cue for products in my lifestyle cluster. Subtle stuff that I don't think that most people would notice, which makes it even more effective.
But again what does this have to do with authorship? Here's my link. When you see a Starbucks commercial I feel that we mostly assume that it was created more of less by Starbucks to serve their own purposes. We grant Starbucks, as an entity, the authorship of the ad. This allows PSYOP to go almost conplete unnoticed except by the companies that pay them. They author the ad campaigns, and though they are intended to serve the advertized company's purposes, they also serve PSYOP's purposes. A good ad brings PSYOP important business as much as it does Starbucks. In the end PSYOP serves it's own purposes and the companies that pay them are just the medium and the bankroll and the lightening rod, because any criticism the ad garners, any backlash, will be directed at the advertized company that we percieve to have authored it, rather than PSYOP. They are better at what they do than pretty much anyone else out there right now. And if what they do is convincing people to buy into the capitalist machine in the ways they so blatantly outline in their own propoganda, I feel that I am completely within the bounds of reason in criticizing them for doing it well.
»
- PureJaqassary's blog
- Login to post comments
I think you are very
I think you are very justified in posting this on the authorship blog - advertising and public relations are perhaps some of the most interesting (especially in a practical sense) issues in authorship and its function in a text. Like you write, authorship in an ad is usually displaced from the advertising company to the company being advertised - we attribute a great ad campaign to the creativity of the brand. Public relations is even more eager to displace and even obscure the author, using product placement, authoring "articles," some companies have even used "graffitti" campaigns. Companies are eager to displace the perceived authorship of advertising campaigns and I agree that it is important for us to understand that.
Curb your animosity...
Ok. I'm going to have to disagree with the directed animosity towards PSYOP; why does it matter that they are completely unnoticed? I dont see the point of getting mad at people who can do their job really well, especially when that job focuses on making enjoyable advertising. The way I see it, It is impossible to escape the phenomenon of advertising - it is too much a part of our lives. I realize that I might come across sounding like a cynic, but, I really don't think there is much that can be done about it. Are you specifically targeting PSYOP because they make you want to watch their ads, whereas other advertising companies have no such luck?
It was interesting to discover that Starbucks, Adidas, Nike, AAA and others do not author their commercials - but to be honest, did you really think that advertising was such a vertically integrated process?
Heres a question, if PSYOP were not making money (doing non-profit work, of simply being an "art" coalition), you would like them, right? Maybe I'm wrong for arriving at that conclusion, but that's what it seemed like to me after reading your post. And, if thats the case, I think that you should consider the fact that 5 creaative individuals got together to earn a lot of money by making people enjoy their lives a little bit more - I think most people would prefer to watch an entertaining ad over a boring one...
I do realize that some advertising is negative. But, after watching loads of PSYOP's previous work I really couldn't find one instance of anything that made me percieve it as such. The way I see it: everybody advertises, some just do it better than others.
I will not curb my animosity...I feel you have missed my point
Out of curiosity, did you check out their Propaganda section and specifically the Anthem? If you didn't, you should really have a look. If you have, I don't understand how you can fail to be outraged by the way they view consumers, including yourself. Are you not offended by how blatantly they refer to you as a cog in the capitalist wheel? That your sole purpose in life is to consume so that the wheel keeps on turning? That their purpose is to convince you that A) you are unhappy and B) consuming will make you happy? Doesn't it bother you that that is their explicit business model? Before stumbling onto the PSYOP site I had idly wondered how self-aware advertisers were, whether they really *understood* what they were doing to society, or whether they were just taken in by it, same as everyone else, and doing their part, more or less the unknowing drones that they conceive consumers to be. Their Propaganda section makes it abundantly clear that they know *exactly* what they're doing and that it is their explicit business goal. They are directly contributing to the culture of depression, dislocation, detachment, disappointment, and needless consumption that is destroying this country and any sense of morality, ethics, or higher purpose that we may have ever had, a cultural disease which we are exporting to other nations around the world. For all that we have among the highest standard of living in the world, we are a chronically unhappy nation. We consume far more of the world's resources than we have any right or reason to and we are responsible for a shameful amount of the (toxic/industrial/consumer) waste that we are rapidly running out of means of disposing of and yet we keep producing it, and companies like PSYOP are directly to blame.
In response to your question, no, I didn't think that advertising was that vertically integrated. You took my point far too literally. I don't mean to say that we all have the idea that every business houses their own in-house PR and Marketing department. My point was that when we see an ad for Starbucks, we don't think "Hmmm, I wonder who their advertising agency is?" or at least most of us don't most of the time. I feel that mostly we accept that the ad emanates from Starbucks, whether they directly employ the advertisers who made it or not. The point is that we hold Starbucks fully responsible for the ad, for better or for worse, and advertising agencies can get away with a lot without being held responsible for it, precisely because they go *unnoticed*.
Honestly I'm surprised that you claim that you couldn't find one instance of negative advertising in PSYOP's archives. Perhaps you didn't watch the ads commissioned by Brazil’s department of tourism, but for a country that is ostensibly trying to curb sex tourism, the ad had very clear and explicit sexual imagery, and if it isn't intended to encourage sex tourism I don't know what is. Can you really say that that ad has no possible negative effects?
I also don't think your hypothetical question about a not-for-profit PSYOP is plausible. I am not criticizing their artistic ability. If the AfterAffects specialists and graphic artists currently employed by the company were using their immense artistic ability for artistic or altruistic purposes, then no, I would not be criticizing them for their abilities, but then they wouldn't be PSYOP. My opposition to PSYOP is the way in which they envision consumers and the way that they encourage consumers to envision themselves. I don't think that "5 creative individuals got together to earn a lot of money by making people enjoy their lives a little bit more" at all. If you'd watched the Anthem and other Propaganda material you would see that nothing is further from their intent. Their goal is to make people *unhappy* and dissatisfied with their lives so that they will be willing to buy the products that the company claims will make you happier. Except they never do, but instead of learning from one experience we allow companies like to PSYOP to drive us into a constant consumer frenzy in the desperate search for the one product that really is the secret to our happiness. The fact that most people would prefer to watch an entertaining ad to a boring one is just a symptom of the over all problem. They are not out to make you happy, they aren't even out to entertain you, they’re out to hook and dazzle you so you'll be a good sheep and do exactly what they tell you. They’re out to make money for themselves, the fact that other companies profit from this is only a side-effect.
I also don’t agree with you that advertising can’t be changed. The whole reason I got into Media Studies was to try and understand the systems of production so that I can understand how they can be subverted, altered, and overthrown. I think that the example of the Madrid Fashion Week organizers enforcing bans on underweight models is a great example of how change can occur. Have a little more hope for the future.