Super Cool Guinness Ad

[Gabriela]

What could lend legitimacy to some connection, and what might make others spurious? 

 

A legitimate connection is one that exists naturally between the reason for buying the product and the product itself, i.e., some moral stance of the consumer is the very cause of or motivation for the consumer's purchasing that product. Me being a good friend is not a reason I buy Guinness. Me being concerned about exploitation of farmers in South America is a reason to buy a fairtrade product. If an ad makes the latter claim, I have no problem. If an ad makes the former claim, it's consumerist hype.

 

I think the commercial world and advertising is inherently superficial and cannot possibly contribute anything serious to moral life. It is always manipulative and always has its own purpose. I appreciate the art and skill that goes into it, but I don't think it can ever be take seriously as a cultural or moral stake. And I include "noble" commercialism like buying natural products or supporting companies that create a nice message. I don't think that makes anyone more moral because they drink Guinness or go to Chipotle, as opposed to someone who buys a 40 ounce at the corner store and shops at Dollar General.

 

As I've explained above, I think it can. But your example brings up issues of class and consumer power. Just because a person does buy fairtrade/local/whatever doesn't mean that s/he's doing it for moral reasons. S/he might just be doing it because s/he's a yuppy on the bandwagon or because it makes rich people feel less bad about hoarding their money. That's not a moral reason, so it's not a moral purchase (although one could argue that intent is irrelevant and the mere act of sending one's money to well paid farm laborers is objectively more moral than depositing most of one's money into some over-fed CEOs pockets). In my opinion, though, at the very least, good intent makes the act more moral. But if someone can't buy local/fairtrade/whatever because those products are outrageously expensive, then buying something else instead (if it is a basic necessity) is at least not a reflection on the person's moral character. At most it is a reflection on their state in life. This is why I don't object to the indigent shopping at Wal-Mart, but I do object to the upper middle class shopping there.

Edited September 8, 2013 by curiousing

[Era Might]

A legitimate connection is one that exists naturally between the reason for buying the product and the product itself, i.e., some moral stance of the consumer is the very cause of or motivation for the consumer's purchasing that product. Me being a good friend is not a reason I buy Guinness. Me being concerned about exploitation of farmers in South America is a reason to buy a fairtrade product. If an ad makes the latter claim, I have no problem. If an ad makes the former claim, it's consumerist hype.

 

 

As I've explained above, I think it can. But your example brings up issues of class and consumer power. Just because a person does buy fairtrade/local/whatever doesn't mean that s/he's doing it for moral reasons. S/he might just be doing it because s/he's a yuppy on the bandwagon or because it makes rich people feel less bad about hoarding their money. That's not a moral reason, so it's not a moral purchase (although one could argue that intent is irrelevant and the mere act of sending one's money to well paid farm laborers is objectively more moral than depositing most of one's money into some over-fed CEOs pockets). In my opinion, though, at the very least, good intent makes the act more moral. But if someone can't buy local/fairtrade/whatever because those products are outrageously expensive, then buying something else instead (if it is a basic necessity) is at least not a reflection on the person's moral character. At most it is a reflection on their state in life. This is why I don't object to the indigent shopping at Wal-Mart, but I do object to the upper middle class shopping there.

 

Good points, but that also suggests to me that our consumer system is inherently un-moral, because in order to turn purchasing into a "moral" matter, you have to get consumers to think like producers, and get involved in the work of producers. In the same way a lot of "art for art's sake" cannot really be moral because you have to be able to think like an artist to make any moral connections. A real moral / cultural system should facilitate goodness within the roles themselves, rather than requiring people to step outside of their roles. If that makes sense.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think the commercial world and advertising is inherently superficial and cannot possibly contribute anything serious to moral life. It is always manipulative and always has its own purpose. I appreciate the art and skill that goes into it, but I don't think it can ever be take seriously as a cultural or moral stake. And I include "noble" commercialism like buying natural products or supporting companies that create a nice message. I don't think that makes anyone more moral because they drink Guinness or go to Chipotle, as opposed to someone who buys a 40 ounce at the corner store and shops at Dollar General.

I do not think you are picking up what I am trying to lay down. :P

 

A legitimate connection is one that exists naturally between the reason for buying the product and the product itself, i.e., some moral stance of the consumer is the very cause of or motivation for the consumer's purchasing that product. Me being a good friend is not a reason I buy Guinness. Me being concerned about exploitation of farmers in South America is a reason to buy a fairtrade product. If an ad makes the latter claim, I have no problem. If an ad makes the former claim, it's consumerist hype.

 

 

Fair points. But what about some instance where someone's consumer choices, while not connected in some kind of causal sense to a moral cause, nonetheless indicate a sort of broad moral orientation? Maybe, through a long chain of events, a particular brand of beer strongly reminds someone of family and the church. When he buys that beer, he is thinking of his family and their living a moral life in accordance with God's will. If he were to buy a different brand - to him mind you, only to him - he would be setting aside the focus on family and morality.

I suppose we are getting more into a psychological realm rather than strictly moral. But I think it is fun regardless.

[Gabriela]

Good points, but that also suggests to me that our consumer system is inherently un-moral, because in order to turn purchasing into a "moral" matter, you have to get consumers to think like producers, and get involved in the work of producers. In the same way a lot of "art for art's sake" cannot really be moral because you have to be able to think like an artist to make any moral connections. A real moral / cultural system should facilitate goodness within the roles themselves, rather than requiring people to step outside of their roles. If that makes sense.

 

Our consumer system is inherently unmoral, but not just because of the role issue you mention. (I don't see how asking someone to think outside of their role is immoral. For example, if I am a mother, I need sometimes to think like my child, in order to be an effective mother.) I think that none of this corporations-trying-to-fill-our-moral-void would be a problem if we ditched the industrial-consumer way of life and returned to local artisans crafting everything we need (not everything we want, but everything we need).

[Gabriela]

Fair points. But what about some instance where someone's consumer choices, while not connected in some kind of causal sense to a moral cause, nonetheless indicate a sort of broad moral orientation? Maybe, through a long chain of events, a particular brand of beer strongly reminds someone of family and the church. When he buys that beer, he is thinking of his family and their living a moral life in accordance with God's will. If he were to buy a different brand - to him mind you, only to him - he would be setting aside the focus on family and morality.

I suppose we are getting more into a psychological realm rather than strictly moral. But I think it is fun regardless.

 

I think that example does stop at psychology, but it could extend to morality. If, say, buying Guinness causes one to reminisce about the morality of one's family, and that then leads to more moral behavior, e.g., to reversion or a return to a more moral way of life, then yay for Guinness. (Or more directly: Yay for the Guinness-morality association that individual makes.) But that final link to action is critical. And note that it's not Guinness per se that leads directly to the more moral behavior. It's the association in the individual. The beer brand depends on the family history, and so is interchangeable for any other brand. It's the family, the memory, the association, the personal history that leads to the moral behavior, not the brand itself.

 

Even so, I don't think that's what this commercial was about. It could be argued, but I think it's a stretch.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Even so, I don't think that's what this commercial was about. It could be argued, but I think it's a stretch.

Oh yeah, absolutely. I am just musing.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Era Might]

Just saw this while watching the World Series, this is an example of an idea that executes and works:

 

http://youtu.be/3ngOek2J65s

[Seven77]

 As someone who is in a wheelchair, I thought the commercial was effective in its appeal to emotion. Like Basilisa pointed out, it's a group of guys who enjoy being with their friend even to the point of getting in wheelchairs to play basketball with him. They reinforce their bonds of friendship over Guinness. Drinking beer with friends is a socially uplifting experience. I think that the guys came up with the idea of playing wheelchair basketball while they were drinking and hanging out. Just $.02.