• by Jeff Einstein , August 2, 2004

Why do we think it's okay to hire viral marketers to walk into bars, pretend to be someone they're not, and deceive other people in an attempt to market a product? When did we begin to believe that such deceptive behavior was acceptable, when in fact it constitutes a fundamental betrayal of trust -- the selfsame trust that helps people relax enough to congregate in public places in the first place? And speaking of our willingness to congregate, would the practice of viral marketing be acceptable in a church, synagogue, or mosque? What if the reverend's shiny new watch was in fact on loan from Rolex? Why do we think it's okay to do something merely because there are no laws on the books to prevent it yet? Why is it okay for marketers to engage in such deceptive practices, but not the FBI?

Is it any wonder that millions of individuals and corporations alike now invest billions of dollars to eliminate advertising? Or that legitimate marketers with ethics are tainted by their equally legitimate, but less ethical counterparts? How can it be otherwise if we can no longer tell the difference between the two, or if we no longer know when we're being marketed to in the first place?

I would suggest that one real reason why we think it's perfectly okay to deceive and manipulate other people in marketing and advertising is because we don't really believe in the efficacy of what we do. As professionals go, we good folks in advertising and marketing just don't believe our own hype. We don't believe it works, so we constantly explore more insidious or invasive ways to do it.

The good news, of course, is that marketing and advertising does work. The bad news, of course, is that it works on us, too. I am constantly amazed by the number of marketing and advertising professionals who simply don't believe their own vulnerability to their own work, intelligent people who claim they can just tune out the ads en route to the truth buried somewhere deeper inside. Or the number of media professionals and media literacy professors who summarily reject the notion of media addiction, people who claim they can just turn it off whenever they please. It's as if our training as media professionals somehow inures us to the narcotic power of the drug, the same narcotic power that is expected to perform upon the otherwise hapless, less informed masses -- the poor dupes we refer to as "consumers." It's a particularly distasteful form of condescension, what happens whenever we think we know better but don't truly believe it. It's what happens when addiction takes hold of us: We suddenly become smarter than anyone else, but deep down inside we know it's just a hoax, so we are constantly on the hunt for faster, smarter, better ways to perform - faster, smarter, better ways to conceal our addiction.

As is the case with all addictions, however, the truth is exactly the opposite of its appearance. Both advertising and addiction in fact rely on our unwillingness to admit their power over us, our willingness to dismiss their power as cavalier and unworthy of our consideration. They both rely on our denial as a primary source of their escalating power. And why not? As addicts, our denial is entirely reliable and in endless supply. So we laugh whenever someone suggests that maybe what we do is more effective than we imagine. "It's just advertising," we say. "It's just a game." Well, maybe it's more. Maybe as professionals we no longer control the media. Maybe the media controls us. Maybe we laugh because we can no longer bear the alternative.

As modern propagandists we can only model cynicism for future generations whenever we engage in some practice that doesn't elicit our own trust or belief. As long as we don't truly believe in the sheer power of advertising and media, we are forever consigned to pushing the Sisyphean boulder of betrayal and deception up the evermore slippery slope of increased reliance on new technologies and regulation as ersatz solutions to ethical questions -- questions better asked up front, not after the fact.

This is why I suggested in last week's column that the buck must start with legitimate marketers. The ethical question "should I?" must always precede the tactical question "can I?"

We are rapidly approaching the point where spam may soon be the only honest form of marketing left. At least we know what it is when we see it. And, at least we can see it.

Many thanks as always for your gracious time, dear reader. Best to you and yours...

Please note: The Einstein's Corner discussion group at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/einsteinscorner/ is dedicated to exploring the adverse effects of our addictions to technology and media on the quality of our lives, both at work and at home. Please feel free to drop by and join the discussion.