COMMENTARY

Advertising: deciphering the truth

David Forbes

“They say the new car has powers magical.”

The words of this commercial, for the Lexus ES300, coming from the television in my room, struck me as I was on the computer one night.

“They say, when you step inside it, you become a different person.”

At first I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, but then I quickly became disgusted and flipped the channel, only to find some model talking about how her life was so much better since she had started using a certain shampoo.

At that point I did what I should have done from the beginning and turned the television off.

Apparently, all these years I’ve been wrong. Apparently, it’s not religion, love or personal insight that can change a person’s life for the better.

It’s simply a matter of buying the right products. How could I have been so deluded as to think otherwise?

I remember why I used to have a bumper sticker that blared “Kill Your Television.” As insipid as much of the regular programming is, the commercials are even worse.

Granted, television shouldn’t take all the blame. The same type of advertising is present on magazines, billboards, radio and pretty much everywhere.

The particulars of the advertisements may vary, but there are only really two messages in them: “Buy our product and you’ll be a more free and whole person,” or “Buy our product and you’ll end up in bed with someone attractive.”

With some exceptions, rarely do the commercials cite any statistics or awards to let the audience know what they’re selling actually does its job well.

All image, no substance.

I could go the easy route and blame large, faceless corporations for this state of affairs, but honestly, they wouldn’t be putting out this sort of advertising if it didn’t work.

So a good part of the blame falls on the populace as a whole for believing these images, for believing that buying things will solve their various problems.

A car is a machine, made of metal and plastic. It will get you from place to place.

Shampoo will get your hair clean.

A toy will entertain a child. Nothing more.

The above products will not help one become a better or more confident individual, weld a dysfunctional family together, or assure success in life, and if you’re expecting them to, then you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

Life’s not that easy and shouldn’t be.

The information is out there, for those who want to look. Magazines such as Consumer Reports and other independent media sources give the information needed to make decisions based on how good a product actually is, instead of on the image put out by the advertiser.

Thanksgiving has just passed, and for many it had a special resonance this year. Yet before Thanksgiving, the Christmas advertising blitz had already begun.

I encourage anyone reading these words to extend the spirit of Thanksgiving just a bit longer and be thankful for what we already have.

The year about to close has taught us many lessons, and I hope one of those is there are no commercials for the things that are truly precious.

Our Perspective ...

Fairness of fee for new facility questionable
Forcing students who will never use
facility to foot part of bill an unjust move

A yet-to-be constructed recreational facility may soon cost students an additional fee of $142 for the upcoming academic year, according to an Appalachian State University administration proposal.

The proposed addition falls under category of indebtedness fees.
While currently standing at $143, indebtedness fees would nearly double the cost to $285 that students now pay in this category.

Tied to several other student fee-hike proposals, on-campus students could pay an additional $760.50 during the 2002-2003 academic year.

Final approval will be given at the University of North Carolina system Board of Governors’ (BOG) annual March meeting.

Additional proposed fee increases include a $150 campus-based tuition increase for faculty salaries and a $49 system-wide hike handed down by the BOG, a $375 room and board increase, $44.50 in general fees and $8.50 in miscellaneous service charges.

While some of these monetary increases may seem necessary, we question the soundness of the $142 fee for a recreational facility, a facility many of the Appalachian student body will never be able to utilize.

Should the hike be approved, currently enrolled juniors, sophomores, freshmen as well as Dec. 2002 graduates would immediately begin paying for the recreational facility that may not be completed until their respective tenures at Appalachian have ended.

The university would pool nearly $2 million from the $142 increase alone.

We also fear the additional increases in these volatile times could be the final straw preventing some from receiving a higher education at Appalachian.

While we recognize the need for campus improvements and the need to keep up with the rising cost of living, the possible effects of the increase could be devastating to some.

A lost chance for a college degree is indeed disconcerting.

Dr. Gregory Blimling, vice chancellor for Student Development, said Appalachian was the seventh lowest in the UNC System for overall expense during a Nov. 6 Student Government Association (SGA) meeting.

With a $760.50 proposed fee hike, we wonder how long this will be the case.

Also, whether or not Appalachian has one of the lowest costs in the system does not matter to people who can no longer afford any of them.

We call on university officials to seriously consider whether Appalachian students who will graduate before the recreation center is opened should be forced to foot a portion of the hefty bill.