Comments on: Is Undercover Marketing Corrupting Your Friendship? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/06/is_undercover_m.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:22:46 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Andrew Carlon http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/06/is_undercover_m.html/comment-page-1#comment-48985 Andrew Carlon Sat, 07 Jun 2008 06:11:50 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/06/is-undercover-marketing-corrupting-your-friendship.html#comment-48985 I am not sure I understand. I don't see how having brands constitute consumers' identities changes anything. It still subverts the "selfless" aspect of friendship by making it selfishly instrumental. Imagine I try to convert you to a religion, or political persuasion, or change some other non-commercial aspect of identity, not because I think it would be better for you, but because I am being paid. The problem is that friendship is becoming commodified, not that other commodities are more or less important to begin with. If you and I bond over our shared love of Rolex watches and Armani suits, what of it? The bond can still be authentic and mutual. It is no less a betrayal if, for an exclusive, unshared gain, I exploit <i>that</i> relationship, rather than one formed in High School, or in the Army, or Church, or over a shared love of surfing or Mahler, or whatever. Indeed, couldn't you say that the betrayal is even more profound if I am selling out my friend's <i>identity</i> rather than just his purchasing habits? How is it any <i>less</i> mercenary to sell your friend's soul than his wallet? I am not sure I understand. I don’t see how having brands constitute consumers’ identities changes anything. It still subverts the “selfless” aspect of friendship by making it selfishly instrumental. Imagine I try to convert you to a religion, or political persuasion, or change some other non-commercial aspect of identity, not because I think it would be better for you, but because I am being paid. The problem is that friendship is becoming commodified, not that other commodities are more or less important to begin with.

If you and I bond over our shared love of Rolex watches and Armani suits, what of it? The bond can still be authentic and mutual. It is no less a betrayal if, for an exclusive, unshared gain, I exploit that relationship, rather than one formed in High School, or in the Army, or Church, or over a shared love of surfing or Mahler, or whatever. Indeed, couldn’t you say that the betrayal is even more profound if I am selling out my friend’s identity rather than just his purchasing habits? How is it any less mercenary to sell your friend’s soul than his wallet?

]]>