Modern marketing techniques are designed for people like you. They're specifically made for people who don't pay attention to ads.
So? Doesn't matter who they are designed for. What matters is if they work on me. They don't.
Nobody who lives in any community more dense than the human population of Kobuk Valley National Park is immune from the impact of modern marketing techniques.
Yes, I live in a very rural area, and further, I keep to my own property as much as possible and have done so for just a little short of thirty years now.
And I find it's the people who believe they are immune from advertising who are least prepared to defend themselves from its effects.
What you have "found" about W, X and Y doesn't mean that you will find the same about Z. You're falling into the trap of assuming everyone is gullible to the degree you are arguing, based on the evidence that that a lot of people are.
Consider for a moment why we have atheists and skeptics as well as the religious. The social pressure to "be" religious, at least here in the US, is considerable. Yet atheists don't buy in. If everyone is equally affected by propaganda and the various levels of social influence, how then can atheism and skepticism exist? It is quite clear that some people tend to follow the narratives they are presented with, while others tend to not do so. Denying that -- which is essentially what you are doing -- is a bankrupt POV, and appropriately enough, I find it insufficient to your argument, which is to say I am quite skeptical that you understand the issue you're so passionately trying to describe.
Wow, is that really what you think?
I looked at your search, and it made me laugh. Yes, that's precisely what I think. That stuff is almost entirely G-rated pap; not sexy at all. with the exception of one image that came up showing a very good-looking woman in stockings and garters, the rest left me cold. And that image, or anything like it, isn't going to appear in product advertisements for those things which I am interested in buying. So yes, sex is not being used in by far the majority of all advertising -- even if it would then work on me, which I assure you, it would not. I am well aware that I am not the actor (and they are actors) in the fictional situation presented by ads. Not only does the fictional depiction not represent my life or lifestyle, the actual ad itself is constructed of illusion -- actors, scripts, etc. To me, this is wholly obvious. To you, apparently not. The error you're making here is assuming others are like you. As per the bard, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "
Also: When I say sex, I mean sex. I don't mean bikinis or pretty faces. When I say "sexy", I mean, sex is used to sell the product. The amount of advertising for which that is the case is miniscule. Even when it occurs, and I am exposed, and the sex gets me to look, it won't get me to buy. I am not them; they are not me; the depiction is fiction, or in the even rarer case where it might not be, I am still not them, nor do I have any urge to be them.
Then how the fuck would you know about the "industry's kowtowing to political correctness" causing them to divest themselves of sexy women in ads? Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Primarily, I am aware of the current state of affairs because relevant material is discussed quite often in the communities that I frequent, including this one. How many articles and associated commentary have you seen here that delve into issues like "booth babes" and "objectifying women" and the argument that physical beauty is a justifiably monetized resource just as athleticism and intelligence are -- and so on -- just on slashdot alone? I am also aware that there are whales in the sea, but that doesn't mean I've ever seen one. You present a decidedly shortsighted view of information gathering, I'm afraid. If you want to reason well about this issue, you're going to have to wrap your head around the idea that knowledge gathering is not constrained by personal engagement.
Did you even know that Ridged Tools still publishes it's calendar of sexy ladies every year?
No, I don't even know who they are. But assuming for the sake of your argument that said calender would get me to take an interest if I ran into it, it does not follow that I would ever lift a finger to buy a Ridged Tool. Because the things others do do not form the basis for my evaluation of my needs, nor does a fiction serve to affect my self-image in any significant way.
Sports Illustrated still makes with the camel toe every February.
There are only two sports of more than academic interest to me. Sex, and martial arts. Sports illustrated covers neither to any meaningful degree -- yes, I've seen the magazine -- and so lies totally outside my range of interests. And "camel toe", frankly, is not something I find sexy at all. You're clearly confusing what you think is sexy with what others think is sexy, and assuming therefore that you know how all others will react. You're wrong on every count. You don't know your subject here, and the surface-level, presumption-riddled arguments you are making are wholly insufficient to make your case.
I just watched a few minutes of the British Open on CBS and there was an ad for Mercedes with an entire line of supermodels in skimpy outfits.
That's you. I didn't. I wouldn't. I don't think "supermodels in skimpy outfits" are sexy. I don't care about the British open. I don't watch broadcast television. Catching on yet? These things are essentially irrelevant to the case you're trying to make. They're based on your mode of interacting with the world and how you think about it. Not mine. Your attempt to assign your reactions to me completely fails.
Friend, instead of imagining what the "PC Police" are doing to your eye-candy, you might want to take some time out to evaluate your strategy for "ignoring" advertising, because the people who are involved with modern advertising techniques are smarter than you and me and Neil Degrasse Tyson when it comes to getting people who "don't watch broadcast TV" to respond to their campaigns. They know what they're doing and they know that it works.
I am not making the case that advertising doesn't work. I am only making the case that it doesn't work on me. As a tech guy, you should have at least a basic grasp of statistics; as a member of society, you should understand that people differ; as a slashdotter, I suspect you've seen at least some evidence that some people don't buy into religion; As someone who spends their time watching television, but knowing others do not, you should be able to grasp the idea that someone who does not so do is going to be far less exposed to, and therefore influenced by, whatever goes on within the context of the medium. Even if you've convinced yourself that the actors in commercials and dramas represent something worthwhile to emulate or some kind of worthwhile depiction of reality, that does not mean that everyone else has done so. Finally, I am telling you straight out that I am not so convinced, nor do I indulge in imagining that to be the case. Fiction presents an entirely different use case as compared to fact for me. I'm fairly clear on how to treat them both, and I can assure you, those treatments are not even remotely like each other.
You'd be better off accepting the effect that advertising is having on you, being aware of it, and actively subverting it. Adbusters is a good place to start. Otherwise, you'll still be reaching for the brand name and not knowing why.
Brand names, eh? So you assume I gravitate towards products by brand now? Could you be any more presumptuous? Do you also assume I am Christian? That I buy clothing? That I think spectator sports are of interest? That I am Democrat? Republican? You would be wrong in every case.
Horatio, indeed. Wake up and smell the variety of the human experience. We are not all instances of you with minor differences. Some of us are really unlike you, and won't fit into your cognitive model of "other people" worth a tinker's damn.