São Paolo

Yesterday I revisited the documentary by Morgan Spurlock called The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. Having already seen the movie, I had spoken to my girlfriend a couple of times about it, and she suggested we would see it together.

The movie itself is by no means a masterpiece. It deals with its message in a similar way as his previous movie Supersize Me, in that it slightly mocks the viewer with his obvious points all along. And even though I label myself an experienced observer especially when it comes to the central issue of the movie, product placement, I did notice a few extra items on my journey through his tale.

One particular issue did stick with me though. About half way through the movie Morgan introduces us to the legal ban in São Paolo on all outdoor advertisements. The returning reader will note that I have mentioned this before.

According to this article São Paolo is the 4th largest metropolis in the world and since 2007 when Mayor Kassab outlawed "visual pollution" the city has been free of billboards, posters and cab-commercials. This is very interesting to me, because it employs a fresh perspective on what pollution should cover as a term. Apparently pollution is not only toxic biproducts of other products. Pollution can then be understood in a broader sense as anything that is physically or mentally harmful towards any recipient. So if advertisement in São Paolo could be derived as harmful towards the recipients, take a look at this image of Times Square and tell me what your immediate impression is.

It might just be about time we ask ourselves just where we stand in the debate on heredity and environment. Do we believe the notion that we are from birth determined to make self-sufficient decisions or do we believe that the environment greatly influences our lives? While I am sure most readers already have a stand point in that debate, primatologist Robert Sopalski has some interesting insights on what comprises a human being.

What the movie, the city and the research seems to show is that human beings are very susceptible to marketing ploys. Indeed it is the only explanation why such an industry exists. The counter-argument always seems to be something about free will and anti-determinism, which makes perfect sense from a controversial stand point. But it should be quite obvious that Times Square would look a lot different if everyone were capable of making independant decisions in particular when it comes to patterns in consumption. It could be viewed as the greatest social experiement ever made ©.

And in its own way São Paolo is contributing to this debate by taking the stand point that a city with less visual clutter is a city with less clutter. Furthermore it is mentioned in an interview with a store clerk in the movie that they have noticed a rise in product quality in the stores, simply because referrals are now the primal force of marketing.
If that is not a hard hitting argument for less advertising I do not know what could be.