Third pill

Slavoj Zizek : Lacanian-Marxist, philosopher, "Elvis of cultural theory" and the greatest contemporary Eastern-European thinker:

 

In the Matrix, Morpheus gives Neo choice between red pill that would reveal the truth of the “Matrix” and a blue pill that would let him go back to the illusion. Zizek comes in at this point and expresses the need for a third pill. “What is the third pill? Definitely not some kind of transcendental pill which enables a fake fast-food religious experience, but a pill that would enable me to perceive not the reality behind the illusion but the reality in illusion itself.”

The influence of illusion - fiction, movies, advertising, brands - over our daily lives is much stronger than the influence of the non-symbolic (and inaccesible) reality.  Illusion - and movies most of all - says Zizek, is what teaches us how to desire...Clearly, the task of (marketing) research is to tackle directly the reality of illusion rather than trying to get to it through interrogation of consumers. We need the third pill. 

Comments

[Britta Plattner]

As Zijek, Cultural Theorists like John Fiske refer to Lacan and other structuralists when analyzing cultural products. In "Reading the Poupular" Fiske explains, how important it is, that a cultural product - or "text" as he calls it - stays open and leaves room for different forms of "reading", of reception and consumption of cultural products. The more open a text is, the more potential it has to be read in a "subversive" way. A way, that leaves room to oppose against the hegemonical norms of the dominating ideology. In these rooms of subversion Fiske identifies the potential of popularity. Applying this theory on brands, which are indeed popular cultural products, as they are nothing else than stories or myths of todays world, this would mean, that the way, in which we tell the story, needs room for subversion. The brand story must be open enough for people to tap into and express their desires, their selfs. Only then brands will become popular, will become popular culture products with the power to bond with people. Dove is a beautiful example - literally. It perfectly tapped into a boiling discourse and opened it up. The brand became a platform for expressing subversion against hegemonical beauty ideologies. But it of course might face the danger of any subversion: that it becomes part of the dominating discourse and loses its subersive potential. We need to open brands for dialogues and have the balls to place and keep them in discourse tensions. Makes sense?

[Jaroslav Cír]

Make complete sense. I think that your point about Dove is spot on - it doesn't create the discourse, it taps into it and then, from its position of main stream global brand, makes the discourse dominant. Keeping brands in discourse tension is a tough job and as far as I see it is a job falling upon the agencies - the planners and creative directors who have to persuade the inevitably more conservative clients. It is a tough job.

[Gaven]

Well, that makes sense.
http://www.rapidsharemix.com