Apotheose

Interesting insight, my friend. I don’t automatically agree with it though. But I’ll meditate about it. Magic will only work in marketing if it uses, in its own favor, that which is already socially accepted. It will never work if it uses, as a premise, something which is socially unaccepted. You can’t convince a man that painting his nails will be biologically attractive for a woman. But you can tell him that modern women want sensitive men, and that painting his nails will give him a charming style and that women will regard him as an emotional kind of guy. I just reported to you something that has happened in the last 2 years or so, and that has worked for many beauty/style businesses. 1) As in Memetics, notice how these businesses NEVER used the nucleus (meme) that “women regard men who paint their nails as biologically attractive”. That would have been an absolute marketing failure, since this idea is not a social axiom, meaning it’s not already accepted by the community. 2) Instead, they used the meme (nucleus) that “modern women feel attracted to sensitive and emotional men”, which IS a social axiom (it is an accepted idea within the community, at least in some parts of the globe). 3) Lastly, the consumer accepts the association between “painting his nails” (with the product that is being offered) and “women liking emotional/sensitive men” (which necessarily has to be an ACCEPTED idea within his own consciousness) and infers: “I will paint my nails to be perceived by women as sensitive/emotional in order to become an attractive man”. Notice that there is never a violation of free will, since there is no corruption of a preexistent axiom. The magician/marketer only suggests a new way of looking at a specific matter and the consumer accepts an association ONLY IF the premises are accepted ideas (memes) within their consciousness. Thus, a guy whose life experiences STRONGLY DISAGREE with the memes (premises) used in the marketing campaign simply won’t buy the product — Example: a guy who genuinely does NOT believe the ideas that “painting nails will convey the idea of sensitivity in an attractive and charming way” or even that “women like emotional/sensitive men”. So, in conclusion, I don’t agree that free will can be tainted in such cases. The person who falls for the marketing campaign has to recognize at least one idea, which has been presented by the marketer/magician, as “valuable”. And, ultimately, they are responsible for their own following associations, conclusions and decisions. If they happen to psychologically accept an association between a socially accepted idea and a harmful/toxic/unaccepted idea (product/service) they are responsible for making their own economical decisions.

That seems wicked. If a product’s value is exclusively (or majorly) influenced by the marketing campaign, there may be something fundamentally unethical behind it. And notice how the more “naive” customers support this system. Firstly, (1) they want to buy expensive wines, for the sole purpose of status. But (2) who triggered this specific desire? The marketer, of course! So, (3) who is more wrong here? The marketer, for artificially creating/triggering a low vibrational desire on the customer, or the customer, for not being “strong and socially ethical” enough and, therefore, succumbing to a low vibrational desire that is bad for society?

You hit the nail on the head. Now it’s all about comparison. One of the worst human thinking habits. Comparing yourself with your neighbor, cousin, coworker etc… And that’s where I think “bad magicians” intentionally capitalize on — they create complex campaigns solely to trigger this rat race. The thirst for standing out does compel people to buying “high level” products and services that they don’t need — which is an artificially created demand, by those who want not to offer good products/services, but to psychologically coerce consumers into succumbing to their memetic fears.

Yeah, I was actually playing devil’s advocate. I don’t have a firm opinion in any aspect of this discussion. I won’t be politically correct here, though. Haha. I do think “magicians” need to back it up; otherwise it’d be made up B.S. (Via Sinistrae). Actually I meant people who could back it up and who would just shorten the timespan of getting to the top through the use of marketing. That would explain my question, which was “isn’t marketing a merit/competence?”. Does humanity need to follow the “organic way to the top” — characterized by the rock solid social proof earned by years of reliability within the tribe? That’s just a question for the benefit of the discussion; I don’t have an agenda and I’m not a billionaire marketer using a burner account on an online forum hahah. I know you got it @Nungali, and, by the way, by looking at our past conversations in this forum, I suppose your literacy on magic could absolutely lighten up this discussion.

I’d submit that to meditation. I don’t have an answer, but I’d assume it is low vibrational.

That is very interesting. That reminds me of luxury products. Have you ever noticed the luxury market, in general, feels quite depressing? It seems to follow a path which is not that of the mystical Heart but, rather, that of comparison. In fashion, you got models that look like extraterrestrial beings — you can tell the “unachievable” nature of this particular niche. In real state, you got extremely white and minimalist architecture, devoid of cosiness. And the list of niches goes on… It seems to trigger a sense of exclusivity which, by its own nature, is based on human comparison and social fear.

Sure! But the thing is: would you think of the Mazda cars as being emotional vehicles if this information wasn’t intentionally been given to you?

Amazing! That, IMO, is marketing — and a good one! It triggers the human demand for reliability and cosiness. It isn’t automatically inferred by the customer; it’s inoculated, exactly by the marketing maneuver, “like magic”.

That’s a valid point.

That’s is interesting. I read a newsletter the other day that explained the difference —in marketing— between charisma and glamour. Charisma is aural and it encourages people to take action. The charismatic marketer will show his “grind” and his daily ups and downs. He can create a legion of followers that will value the process instead of the results. However, the bad part is that he loses its individuality and becomes a vessel of his followers’ memetic desires. Glamour is visual and it distances the marketer from the consumer. It’s somewhat occult and allows the consumer to fill the inherent voids with their imagination. It’s static and “done” — it focus on results, not in the process. The bad part is that there is less tolerance from consumers, since every mistake shatters their idealistic view of the product and or service. When you “engineer” your image (and age) to be perceived as younger or older, you will be perceived differently by the customers. That may or may not increase or decrease the level of charisma or glamour in your product or service.

Honestly, I have no agenda. I’m just trying to discuss the matter and listen to your opinions. It’s not that deep, my friend.

Not religious, but esoteric/mystical/magical. Probably there are marketing maneuvers which are “good magic” (fiat voluntas Tua — “Thy will be done”; via dextereae — “the right hand path”), likely being those which are intended to exclusively show the benefits of the products and or services. But certainly there is “bad magic” in marketing IMO (fiat voluntas mea — “my will be done”; via sinistrae — “the left hand path”). Likely being those that are intended to directly interfere with decision making. But all of this is a grey area. I have no definite opinions or answers.

Actually, I got it wrong, @Surya, @BigSkyDiamond, @Nungali. I will correct my last post right now. English is not my first language, and I didn’t fully understand the meaning of “social engineering” when I posted my last comment. Please, forget the social engineering part. I meant only marketing — the “art” of emitting and omitting information to shape the form of how people perceive you. Would this be “competence” and “merit”?

Firstly, thanks for the great work! I found this excerpt quite intriguing because I think we assume ancient tribes were exclusively based on merit, but possibly their very leaders could have been “magicians” as well as the contemporary ones are. Lets’s think of social media. People only publicly show what they want others to see, and that will necessarily include omitting a vast amount of details. The same applies to getting to know new people — we wouldn’t immediately let them know of our flaws, because that would generate a counterproductive social outcome considering our social desires and objectives. Emitting and omitting things according to how we want to be perceived is a practice rooted in our psyche — and that may have been a thing in ancient times alongside the “organic” leadership recognition due to exclusive competence and “merit”. Another interesting question would be: isn’t magic (marketing) a form of merit?

For the benefit of the discussion, I prefer not to give any context or meaning for “Magic”, exactly to allow any personal comprehension of it. Feel free to tell us your insights!