Skip to comments.(Vanity) A Generation of Children, or, President <strike>Hoover</strike> Electrolux
Posted on 05/17/2009 4:30:37 AM PDT by grey_whiskers
There has been a particularly annoying advertisement running on the radio in Minneapolis over the last couple of weeks. As messages go, it is pretty good, since it is inspiring me to let all of you know about it...but as an advertisement, it fails, since it sends a stronger message about our culture than it does about the company (I can't even remember the name of the product for sure). Let's walk through the ad and see what we can find.
The commercial appears to be set in a Movie Theater. It begins with a dialogue between a cheerful young female, and an older male:
"Welcome to Overpriced Cinemas. How may I help you?"
"Four tickets, please."
"That'll be forty dollars."
"Forty dollars!!" (mumbling complaints in undertone.)
"Thank you. Concessions are on your left."
Footsteps, then a new voice enters the conversation, that of a young man:
"I want a popcorn and a large pop. No, I said a *large* popcorn."
And a young female voice chimes in:
"Can I have a hot dog?"
To which the older male replies:
"Honey, the hot dogs are seven dollars..."
And he is cut off by the young female voice shouting in a sudden, loud, I'm-making-a-scene-on-purpose voice:
"I WANNA HOT DOG!!!"
And the voice of the vendor behind the counter says:
"Thirty-five dollars, please."
The adult male voice then sighs out:
"Here we go again..."
The commercial then segues into how everything costs so much and how this company give you more for less, or some such spiel.
The advertisement is interesting from a sociological point of view, since one of the first techniques taught in advertising is to present things in terms familiar to your audience. And this implies several things. First, the target market is obviously that of a middle-aged father, used to being being overcharged to satisfy his children's whims, but unable to do anything about it.
But there is a deeper significance to this. When the father does remonstrate against the high prices, he is not persuaded, nor reasoned with. The little girl goes right for the jugular. "I WANNA HOT DOG!!!". For you see, in our society, it is unthinkable for a parent to discipline his or her children in public: someone might see, and call Social Services. And both the parent and child know this. So all the child has to do is make a scene, because after all, "The more you know..." and "It's all for the children." You may argue that I'm exaggerating here. Sure, but the *possibility* is in the back of many people's minds. When I was a child, nobody would side with a disruptive child in public over the parents; in many places, the neighbors or bystanders would judge the parent for FAILING to discipline the child. How did we get here in one short generation?
There are a couple of reasons, I think. First, let it be noticed that the country has gone well downhill in many ways over the past 40-50 years. Remember that within living memory, even prime time network TV shows would not show even a married couple in bed together, unless one of them had their feet on the floor. Divorce was a whispered scandal; crime rates were low -- I can recall walking unescorted at the age of 8 over a mile from home, in a major urban area, to the drugstore, or bicylcling, unattended, for hours at a time; and nobody thought anything of it. Free love wasn't the norm: no hookups, no sexting, no prime-time ads for herpes medications. Don't try the bullshit about "Borking" me and segregated lunch counters: these items are MEMORIES, of values the entire country shared, and most people secretly wish we could get back there.
So again, how did we get away from it? I think the answer goes back to the 1960's, when the counterculture came into being. Not only was there a systemic campaign to undermine the moral values common to the country, but there was a systemic effort to implant into positions of power, people who did not *want* those values for themselves, or saw in the breakup of those values, an excellent opportunity to increase the need for government. Stable two-parent families don't really need bureaucracies, so they must be eliminated. (Paging Daniel Patrick Moynihan!)
So we now have a situation where many of the leaders mouth our values, but when push comes to shove, they don't really support them. In fact, one could argue that the politicians lie to get power, and then, instead of reflecting the will of the people, and passing laws which reflect the majority will, the politicians see it as their noble socialist duty to "stand up" for the minorities, the downtrodden, the oppressed. But the problem is, many of the "minorities" are not minorities because they are repressed; they are minorities because they are moonbats. (Cue to the the opening scene of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!") And so the will of the politicians -- conditioned to listen to the shrillest of the voices of their constituents -- ignores the plain will of the people and instead *suppresses* it.
Yes, this is exactly like the commercial. When the father says, "Honey, those hot dogs are seven dollars..." the child, sensing that they are not going to get their way, shouts "I WANNA HOT DOG!"
Very much like the bailout and stimulus crowd today, who substitute their wants in place of everyone else's needs. ("From each according to his means, ..." -- is it any wonder people accuse Obama of being a socialist or worse?)
And this brings us to the last part of the title, President Hoover. Hoover was President when the economy started to go downhill, but got all the blame, despite the fact that it was the Socialist policies of Comrade Roosevelt which prolonged the Depression for years. (Not to mention his Unconstitutional laying of the foundations for the nanny state, Social[ist] Security.) Today, President Bush was in office during the beginnings of what was then merely a slow-burning recession, based on unsustainable debt levels in a number of markets; he may play Hoover to the current occupant of the White House, President Electrolux, who has promised to suck all the wealth out of the wallets of "The Wealthiest Americans" (read: most productive wage earners and wealth-creators), to fulfill his redistributionist wet dreams. And all driven by the insistent cries of, "I WANNA HOT DOG!": an entire generation of children.
fixed it...the title ain't html
Oh, now they'll do both. Haven't you been on any threads about child-rearing? The same people who complain that children don't act like paragons in public also complain about any efforts made to teach proper behavior. I assume all children are supposed to be kept out of sight until age 21, at which point they can be released on society IF they're as perfect as the poster now is.
html is disabled in titles. As far as I know there is no way to use html in a title.
Very good read.
Two words: Time constraint.
This is, first and foremost, a radio ad. Billed by the second, ad cost money; therefore, it needs to be brief, to the point, "familiar" (who hasn't dealt with a bratty kid?), and memorable.
IOW, there isn't time in the ad. Let us not attribute a social malaise to what is, in fact, an economic creation/decision from a company simply trying to make a buck.
This has nothing to do with anything ... but thought you might allow me to park it here. Your kids will say, "I want one!":
The Electrolux Deathray.....
A modified Electrolux canister vacuum atop a Steelcase chair base. Made of steel, machined aluminum and acrylic, it stands 20 inches tall with a length of 54 inches. When fired from a trigger at the back of the gun, clear acrylic rods glow a bright ruby red, and a jet like sound comes from 6 German siren whistles powered by vacuum pressure. The sound can be adjusted with the variable pitch dial on the side. Watch the infamous DeathRay commercial here.
It has to be familiar to the target market, hence representative of the society.
There's no time in the commercial, but why did they choose *that* example? You don't see ads with strong, respected, competent fathers, either, because that's not what the mass culture is allowed to value anymore.
In another connection check out this banned Volkswagen commercial from YouTube.
BTW, thanks for reminding me, I was going to add to the piece but I forgot.
Hoover is the name of the President associated with the Great Depression: but it is also household name for vacuum cleaners. Another brand of vacuum cleaners is Electrolux.
You do the math.
This is your money sentence. Down hill is one view, miles away across a flat plain is another.
Away from what you ask?
The purpose of liberalism and of the current extremely successful quest for change is to move away from Victorian era morals and manners. The goal of liberalism is freedom from what is perceived as the regimented and stifling shackles of Christian moral ism.The progress of progressives is movement is away from Christian Victorian society.
If we can postulate evolving social structures based on the new protestant ethics and morals of the Reformation, the system peaked around the turn of the 20th century. Since that time there was a tendency to move away. All the old ways are rejected. All the old taboos are to be embraced and experienced. All the accumulated knowledge of cultural human history is to be disposed and trashed.
All the old ways are being replaced with the new ways constructed from thin air by the liberal enlightenment. It should be viewed as an irreversible fiat accompli.
The Liberal trend is successful and in the absence of massive blood shed irreversible. The only people willing to shed that blood are the radical fundamentalist Muslims of Al Queda and the Taleban.
I have a Dyson.
Thats what the participants flatter themselves into thinking.
I believe, however, that the appearance of such is merely two things:
1) The disaffectation of the masses with politics ("my vote won't matter anyway")
2) The separation of the mores of the cultural "elite" (candidates, acamedicians, Gramscian infiltratees) from those of the masses.
There was a reason Sarah Palin drew hyperactive crowds. With anyone decent at the top of the ticket, they'd have won in a landslide.
We did do that in our bedroom with water once. 42 years later the memory of standing in line watching while my brother got his spanking from dad first, is as vivid as if it happened yesterday
It takes high power to clean up after so many people. And speaking of which, I’ve got the four biggest slobs out of the house for now, so it’s time to break out the mop machine!
......Thats what the participants flatter themselves into thinking.......
My view of that sentence is that the thinking is now pervasive. Obama and the liberal elite were elected. The tipping point was reached on November 7, 2008. The Urban Masses are now in control and demanding rapid disposition of the old ways. It is no longer peripheral eddy, but the mainstream
The crowd appeal of Sarah Palin is not that of the Urban Masses, but of the new Exurban Minority.
So again, how did we get away from it? I think the answer goes back to the 1960's, when the counterculture came into being.
Them damn hippies!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.