Purchasing Power

When Google released GMail back in 2004, there was some discussion around the internets about how they could be offering this service, all this storage space and email, for free. Here's a quote from www.i4u.com: "Well I see it this way: its free, nobody forces users to use GMail, so why is it such a big deal?" But GMail is not free, it is ad supported. Moreover, it is "relevant" ad supported but that's a topic for a different article. Now this discussion has been revived again by a "free" computer that is being given away to people in developing countries - as www.worldchanging.com observed, it seems to be the consumer-solution inverse of the "One Laptop Per Child" project. The computer has hotkeys that take the user to a sponsor's website (provided the poor person in the developing country has dial-up internet access and working electricity) in the hope that those poor people will buy stuff from the sponsors.

From an end-user point of view it means getting straight to what they're looking for with one touch [...] Not only will Sponsors benefit from a huge new market, but the social responsibility and impact of being involved with [this project] cannot be underestimated. Not to mention the fact that sole ownership of a hotkey ensures a level of brand loyalty that you could only dream about.

Again, the computer is not free, it is sponsored. In this case, disturbingly and paradoxically so. And while I think a very interesting discussion could develop around that subject too, I am going to focus on some other pitfalls of our current invasive advertiscape and how powerless we have made ourselves. But just remember that no matter what the "free" computer ad campaign says, no matter what the GMail advocates say, it is not free. You are paying for it.

---

We have come to take for granted that we will be marketed to. We expect advertising. We are not saddened anymore by the invasive and pervasive nature of today's advertising efforts. When a company's product shows up in a video game, or a brand name is dropped into the dialog on a TV show ("I want you to keep talking your Zoloft".... "You know, a better Amy") we are not angry or shocked or surprised at all. We expect it. In fact, I will go out on a very short limb and say that much of the time we look forward to it.

I understand the role of advertising in our culture. I have grown up in a society that revels in its love for jingles, slogans, catch phrases, and (almost irrelevantly) products. I also understand how marketing campaigns can work themselves into our society so much so that the images they present can become "Cultural Icons". Hell, the image of Santa Claus that our society is most familiar with was developed by Coca-Cola. How telling is THAT?

I am infatuated with a wide variety of products myself. I am intrigued by advertising campaigns and presentations. I laugh at good ads and am insulted by bad ones. My love for typography has a very direct link to posters, albums, and magazine ads. I can sing TV show theme songs from my childhood and jingles from the radio. I think we are all affected by the wide breadth of advertising's alluring embrace. This advertising - she is a seductive beast. I think we suffer from Advertising Stockholm Syndrome.

And we describe and define ourselves by the connections we make to products and companies. The iPod revolution is a good example of this. And the fanatical iCommunity continues to flaunt the product, proudly display the logo, rant and rave about the glorious iPod well after the initial campaign has ended. That's some powerful kool-aid!

---

It is true that what I see, what I look at, is up to me. That is why I do not go to the theater to see Slasher Movies; I do not enjoy watching them. And sometimes when I'm watching the TV and I see an ad for a slasher flick, it reaffirms my knowledge that I do not what to spend money to go see a slasher flick in the theater. But this kind of injective marketing, the kind that puts logos and products into our line of sight without our consent, makes it a little trickier to spot and even harder to avoid.

And the right to advertise to you should be retained by you; it should be your choice. Why would you unwillingly subject yourself to a corporation's advertising (in whatever form it takes)?

I am not going to give away my power as a consumer, as a willing participant in a capitalistic society, to receive "free" services. I still have control over what I see and hear and, most importantly to the folks trying to hawk products to me, what I buy.

So, yes, GMail is free in that you do not have to expend any cash to use the service. But the right to market products to you is worth something, isn't it? That's why companies spend billions of dollars trying to market products to you. That's why companies continue to look for new and innovative ways to reach you. So, GMail is free? No, it is ad supported. You are giving Google the right to put advertisements in front of you. You are telling them that it is okay to market products to you. You are telling them that their market research finally paid off. But it is not free.

Your purchasing power is just that - power. And I think that we've forgotten that.