when life becomes a performance
In the 80s, Apple, the then 20-year-old tech company, released the Apple II and Macintosh systems, both of which were extremely successful. Gone were the days of bulky systems. Suddenly, a new era had begun, characterized by color graphics and spreadsheets. Behold, the power of the home computer.
In the mid-90s, Apple’s growth came to a halt. The company alienated its computer-loving buyers with the release of the Newton tablet and other experimental products. At the same time, the Macintosh system aged out of relevance, and cheaper and more efficient Windows PCs accelerated Apple’s downfall. The company nearly went bankrupt. Apple desperately needed a rebrand.
Then came 1996. An ad was published in Apple’s Mac AddictMagazine (Fig. 1). This ad compares the average “Windows User” with the “Mac Addict.” The operating systems in question aren’t included in this ad. Instead, Apple personified the two systems and drew a stark contrast between them. On the left, the “Windows User” wears a suit and tie and appears professional. However, his high-end Brooks Brothers shoes are accompanied by an “imitation Rolex.” His “close-cropped hair” resembles his fathers’, and he makes an effort to “keep a straight face” constantly.
On the other hand, the “Mac Addict” dresses casually. His shoes are from FootLocker, a “mandatory wacky watch,” and earrings. He’s not dressed for the traditional office job, yet he just seems so...cool. Even his watch is just “so cool.” By rejecting stiff suits and fake luxury, readers get the impression that the “Mac Addict” is emulating his authentic, casual self, the kind of persona that white-collar workers can only enjoy 5-to-9, after their 9-to-5. By contrast, the Windows user looks like he’s ready to fire somebody. Mac users are cool and interesting, but Windows users are uptight and boring. In the end, this ad was unsuccessful in convincing the public to abandon Windows PCs. To revive interest in Macs, Apple partnered with Microsoft in 1997 and released the iMac, fitted with an updated version of Microsoft Office. This ad marked a notable moment of aesthetic advertising in the Tech industry. Aesthetic advertising, which blends artistic principles and clever marketing tactics, was largely spearheaded by prominent figures in the arts. By the late 20th century, its influence had spread to a myriad of other industries. Apple used this method of advertising to its advantage and mastered a casual aesthetic. Though Microsoft assisted the company in the late 90s, it quickly grew into a league of its own, and its profits grew year after year. Enter the 2020s, a decade defined by TikTok, Instagram, and other forms of social media. Most of these platforms have a shopping feature built directly into the app (TikTok Shop, Instagram Shop, etc.), making it even easier to swipe, click, and purchase items. As a result, influencers–creators with a large following–have begun to promote certain products in posts and videos. The aim is to convince
viewers to buy a certain product, and in return, the creators themselves often earn a small commission.
This form of promotion is an extension of the aesthetic advertising model previously mentioned. Influencers use social media platforms to market their lifestyle and appeal to a particular niche or interest. They often aestheticize their daily routines to attract certain viewers, many of whom grow to admire their behavior and trust them. So when trusted influencers promote certain products, viewers are naturally inclined to trust their word, and may purchase the very product that the creator claims to use daily. Some influencers, however, promote for the sake of earning an income. And who can blame them? When inflated prices have choked the funds out of our wallets, and rent, bills, and other utilities grow more and more expensive. Here represents a paradox. To survive and earn a livable, some creators engage in false advertising, and post dishonest reviews.
Lying to viewers is oftentimes a last resort for this group of influencers, but in some cases, they must. They must perform. In today's age, companies no longer have to fork over hundreds of thousands for expensive commercials. They can simply pay an influencer to promote for them. The corporations continue to win. Has influencing, then, become a new, Gen-Z version of the 9-to-5? A career that promises creative liberty, but ultimately leads to the same reality? If so, how can we change this? How can we liberate creativity,
and maintain a livable income?
In the mid-90s, Apple’s growth came to a halt. The company alienated its computer-loving buyers with the release of the Newton tablet and other experimental products. At the same time, the Macintosh system aged out of relevance, and cheaper and more efficient Windows PCs accelerated Apple’s downfall. The company nearly went bankrupt. Apple desperately needed a rebrand.
Then came 1996. An ad was published in Apple’s Mac AddictMagazine (Fig. 1). This ad compares the average “Windows User” with the “Mac Addict.” The operating systems in question aren’t included in this ad. Instead, Apple personified the two systems and drew a stark contrast between them. On the left, the “Windows User” wears a suit and tie and appears professional. However, his high-end Brooks Brothers shoes are accompanied by an “imitation Rolex.” His “close-cropped hair” resembles his fathers’, and he makes an effort to “keep a straight face” constantly.
On the other hand, the “Mac Addict” dresses casually. His shoes are from FootLocker, a “mandatory wacky watch,” and earrings. He’s not dressed for the traditional office job, yet he just seems so...cool. Even his watch is just “so cool.” By rejecting stiff suits and fake luxury, readers get the impression that the “Mac Addict” is emulating his authentic, casual self, the kind of persona that white-collar workers can only enjoy 5-to-9, after their 9-to-5. By contrast, the Windows user looks like he’s ready to fire somebody. Mac users are cool and interesting, but Windows users are uptight and boring. In the end, this ad was unsuccessful in convincing the public to abandon Windows PCs. To revive interest in Macs, Apple partnered with Microsoft in 1997 and released the iMac, fitted with an updated version of Microsoft Office. This ad marked a notable moment of aesthetic advertising in the Tech industry. Aesthetic advertising, which blends artistic principles and clever marketing tactics, was largely spearheaded by prominent figures in the arts. By the late 20th century, its influence had spread to a myriad of other industries. Apple used this method of advertising to its advantage and mastered a casual aesthetic. Though Microsoft assisted the company in the late 90s, it quickly grew into a league of its own, and its profits grew year after year. Enter the 2020s, a decade defined by TikTok, Instagram, and other forms of social media. Most of these platforms have a shopping feature built directly into the app (TikTok Shop, Instagram Shop, etc.), making it even easier to swipe, click, and purchase items. As a result, influencers–creators with a large following–have begun to promote certain products in posts and videos. The aim is to convince
viewers to buy a certain product, and in return, the creators themselves often earn a small commission.
This form of promotion is an extension of the aesthetic advertising model previously mentioned. Influencers use social media platforms to market their lifestyle and appeal to a particular niche or interest. They often aestheticize their daily routines to attract certain viewers, many of whom grow to admire their behavior and trust them. So when trusted influencers promote certain products, viewers are naturally inclined to trust their word, and may purchase the very product that the creator claims to use daily. Some influencers, however, promote for the sake of earning an income. And who can blame them? When inflated prices have choked the funds out of our wallets, and rent, bills, and other utilities grow more and more expensive. Here represents a paradox. To survive and earn a livable, some creators engage in false advertising, and post dishonest reviews.
Lying to viewers is oftentimes a last resort for this group of influencers, but in some cases, they must. They must perform. In today's age, companies no longer have to fork over hundreds of thousands for expensive commercials. They can simply pay an influencer to promote for them. The corporations continue to win. Has influencing, then, become a new, Gen-Z version of the 9-to-5? A career that promises creative liberty, but ultimately leads to the same reality? If so, how can we change this? How can we liberate creativity,
and maintain a livable income?