Advertising and Consumer Demands: Which Should Be Responsible for the Increasing Sales
Today's world has seen a booming of advertisements. They are literally everywhere. While some starts to link the fact that more products are being sold and consumed every day to the power of omnipresent advertising - commercials, billboards, flyers, website banners, to name a few - others think increasing consumer demand is the main contributor. In the following essay I will discuss both opinions and explain why I find justification in both of them.
Indisputably, advertising should be at least partly responsible for the good performance handed in by the market and merchandisers in recent decades. Mainly featured by glamorous celebrities, hot supermodels, and handsome heartthrobs, commercials have the second-to-none capability of stimulating interests in its audience and enticing them to make the final purchases - it is immensely easy and common for people to relate the idealistic image to the ones they will become right after they own the product. Also, adverts are known for those undetectable psychological tricks they play behind the scenes. For example, the mere-exposure effect suggests that the more we see something, the more likely we will fall in love with it. Thus simply raising up the frequency the public are exposed to a certain brand through a wide range of media - printed materials bus sides, light boxes, etc. - will have a huge impact on its sales performance.
On the other hand, advertising, as manipulative and powerful as it seems, may not work all the time. For example, for those who are not higher-ups or better-offs, the priority of the family is to make ends meet on a limited amount of disposable incomes. This is the situation where the cogency and manipulation of advertising lose its magic. Moreover, there are ample smart consumers out there who are immune to the plausible theories and ideologies ads impose on them. These people are highly opinionated, and are unlikely to be sway into doing anything on the spur of the moment.
That is why
Indisputably, advertising should be at least partly responsible for the good performance handed in by the market and merchandisers in recent decades. Mainly featured by glamorous celebrities, hot supermodels, and handsome heartthrobs, commercials have the second-to-none capability of stimulating interests in its audience and enticing them to make the final purchases - it is immensely easy and common for people to relate the idealistic image to the ones they will become right after they own the product. Also, adverts are known for those undetectable psychological tricks they play behind the scenes. For example, the mere-exposure effect suggests that the more we see something, the more likely we will fall in love with it. Thus simply raising up the frequency the public are exposed to a certain brand through a wide range of media - printed materials bus sides, light boxes, etc. - will have a huge impact on its sales performance.
On the other hand, advertising, as manipulative and powerful as it seems, may not work all the time. For example, for those who are not higher-ups or better-offs, the priority of the family is to make ends meet on a limited amount of disposable incomes. This is the situation where the cogency and manipulation of advertising lose its magic. Moreover, there are ample smart consumers out there who are immune to the plausible theories and ideologies ads impose on them. These people are highly opinionated, and are unlikely to be sway into doing anything on the spur of the moment.
That is why