Addiction to a society that promotes addiction
According to research, a huge number of people in the world experience despair. Suicide is becoming more common. Many people use drugs - not because they enjoy living this way, but to calm themselves down and avoid problematic issues. Essentially, this is the key question about the meaning of life: “Why should I exist?” A person wonders why he lives and does not receive an answer. The key question of meaning arises not among a handful of people struggling with philosophical problems, but, in fact, among everyone who faces modern dilemmas. If a person manages to lower his head, lower his expectations, muffle the eternal questions about the meaning of life, then he survives until death. But if he fails, if development does its job and leaves fewer and fewer opportunities to forget, then his life is difficult.
How can you help someone with more punishment? The relationship of addicts to authority and any superior people or institutions is based on fear and suspicion. They want just the opposite. And so it turns out that we are trying to punish them for trying to self-soothe, for the most accessible way for them to find peace in a monstrously uncomfortable world for them. This is simply absurd. Harm reduction does not aim to cure addiction. This is just the first step in a gradual return to normal life. But you need to start acting precisely at the level at which addicts are.
This is a problem with the entire system. Yes, drug policy itself is practically the same addiction. This is a series of actions with negative consequences that society cannot refuse. And this gives society some emotional relief, because people feel hostility towards addicts. And when one of them is put behind bars, it certainly gives a feeling of relief and satisfaction, but, unfortunately, it does not get rid of addiction. This situation is a consequence of denying the connection between trauma and addiction, and this is just one of many consequences. Stress in early childhood and its effect on the child’s brain and immune system, trauma is the basis of not only mental illnesses and addictions. Society does not pay attention to the relationship between these phenomena. We see only the consequences, and we blame addicts for these consequences, but we refuse to look at the cause.
Because we live in a society that promotes addiction in every possible way. Addiction, in essence, is when we try to fill an internal emptiness with something from the outside and ease the pain. The entire modern economy is based on seeking relief from the outside. And a dependent person symbolizes all our self-hatred. The expression “scapegoat” is very typical in this sense. In the Bible, this term means a goat onto which society projected all its sins and then drove it into the desert. This is exactly what we do with addicts. Addicts embody all the despair of trying to drown out the inner emptiness with something external that characterizes our culture. It is extremely unpleasant for us to see this, so we make addicts scapegoats and think that by doing so we are getting rid of our own sins.
The most important and immediate thing we can do is to recognize that addicts have suffered trauma and that what they need is compassion, not punishment and more trauma. The most amazing thing is how people survive, no matter what. Even though they try to profit from each other by selling drugs, there is still a huge amount of caring about each other in this community. Despite all the stress and suffering of such a life, people are closely connected to each other. When someone is sick, everyone else supports him. People there accept each other as they are and really need community. Especially those who lack emotional support - for them, community means everything.
Gabor Mate, doctor who works with drug addicts
Mister Ego. How to live in society and be free from society? Denis Vladimirovich Pilipishin, 2020
.1
What does the average person depend on?
Why is separation from ordinary people assessed positively by us? Let's analyze the problems inherent in the philistine way of life, thus getting an idea in which areas the department will be positive.
To be fair, we note that philistine life has a number of its advantages. However, the essence of our position is that there are many more problems in everyday life, and these problems are insoluble for the average person. More precisely, the one who manages to resolve them ceases to be an ordinary person. Let us point out some of them, emphasizing that we are talking about a certain “average”, integral portrait that characterizes the average person as such.
What is the main disadvantage of the life of the average person? The average person is not free, dependent. He does not control his life, his life is in the power of another (others).
Usually it seems to him that he has his own (like his own) opinion, that he makes decisions, makes choices in his life, based on personal will. But unfortunately, it only seems so. Let's argue our position.
As the famous psychoanalyst and philosopher Erich Fromm rightly noted, a great misconception is widespread in modern Western society: it is believed that if there is no external coercion, then a person’s conclusions, desires and actions are his own. However, they are still imposed on a person from the outside, from the outside.
The question of power helps to capture the essence of the problem. Who has power over a person's life? What is the degree of human participation in managing one’s own destiny, self-determination, independence? And if we talk about independence, then from whom is this independence? The topic of personal freedom contains many aspects, and the manifestation of freedom as independence from the forces of external coercion is only one of them.
Yes, in other times, when there was no democracy, despotism was often observed (and in a number of countries it is still observed). A person depended on the arbitrariness of power and did not have sufficient rights. A superior person, at his own absurd discretion, could impose his will on him. In today's democratic system, at least in Western countries, the gains in freedom are significant, and the situation has become qualitatively different. But is it possible to liberate the individual only through political means?
From a certain point of view, we are still not free, only the form of dependence has changed. The essence has remained the same, only the external factors that control us have been transformed. Instead of specific dictators and political structures, these are now anonymous market forces, the values of the consumer society, the rules of the game, in other words, social stereotypes. Which, of course, is easier than the dictatorship of leaders, but gives rise to other problems. And “a person today suffers not from a lack of material values, but from the fact that he has become just a small part of a huge machine, turned into a robot, whose existence is devoid of any meaning” [50;338-339]. In addition, despite the absence of dictators, there is still a dependence on completely personalized forces. The average person is subject to the influence of others. What exactly does it depend on? Below we will discuss this in detail, but briefly the following points can be listed.
The formation of the worldview of the average person occurs primarily under the influence of the external environment, without the constructive participation of the individual himself; throughout his life he follows a clearly (strictly) script given from the outside; he does not have his own (own) thinking (thoughts, ideas, assessments, conclusions, actions). As a result, he uncritically perceives other people's ideas, is unable to determine (at least to some extent) his own destiny, depends on others, and risks becoming an object of manipulation and power of external forces, which, as a rule, are not at all concerned with the well-being of the average person himself. Next, we will prove that the average person is inflexible in his thinking, worldview, way of life, and is incapable of self-adaptation, creativity and creation.
As can be seen from this listing, the average person depends on both external and internal factors. By internal we mean limitations stemming from a person’s very personality, from his attitude to the world, worldview, and value system. In contrast, external factors influence from the outside, let’s say, from “objective reality”, and represent a fairly wide range of possible influences: starting from public opinion and ending with deliberate manipulations on the part of certain individuals.
Now let's look at what has been said in more detail, first turning to internal factors. It would be correct to consider the worldview as their container. What are its components? Among its main components are various knowledge (practical, theoretical), as well as values and norms, which together determine the picture of the world that opens to a person, his methods of action and preferences in this world. Worldview plays a greater role than it might seem at first glance in determining the quality and lifestyle, seriously influencing fate as a whole.
Naturally, it is formed under the influence of the surrounding social environment in which a person’s formation takes place, or, to use our terminology, under the influence of external factors. But the question is, what is the degree of participation of each person in the formation of his personal worldview?
. It’s one thing when a person constantly tries to understand and educate himself, selectively perceiving and rethinking the information coming to him, trying to create and grow his personality, and quite another thing if an individual simply perceives knowledge, attitudes, values and blindly acts according to them. (According to the principle “This is how it should be!”).
In the latter case, the formation of his worldview resembles stamping on a conveyor belt: a part comes to the press, a smack - the proper imprint is made, the part moves on. External conditions (environment, surroundings, upbringing, traditions) set a certain system of life values, priorities, patterns and models of action. This system is accepted by the average person as something proper, and his further steps are based on given settings. It’s sad, but among ordinary people such “clichés” are the majority. From the side of society, this process can be called social programming, and from the side of a person - uncritical adherence to stereotypes.
From our point of view, uncritical adherence to stereotypes is a problem that requires adequate understanding. Including because not only in the average person, but also in each of us, although to varying degrees, some part of consciousness is “stamped”, and in order to realize our dependencies, it is necessary to understand the mechanism of their formation and existence. Let me emphasize that it was no coincidence that I wrote specifically to understand dependencies
rather than
getting rid
of them. When a person understands what and where it came from in his worldview, he can independently conclude how much he needs this or that component and whether it is worth getting rid of it. It may well happen that, having realized, he will come to the conclusion about the appropriateness of certain components.
Let's say someone is manipulating me, but as a result of his manipulations I feel better - so why not allow him to manipulate further. For God's sake, but only for now this process is beneficial to me. When he starts to interfere, I will take action. In this case, consent to become an object of manipulation is no longer following stereotypes, but a manifestation of a conscious choice.
Let us dilute the abstract reasoning with a life example illustrating the practical and normative components of the worldview. When I was a graduate student in the Department of Philosophy and, by the will of fate, I was in one of the villages of the Tula province, a simple rural guy (a tractor driver) came up to me and said with undisguised condemnation: “And aren’t you ashamed, healthy forehead, to sit at your desk! After all, a real man must serve in the army, get married, and go to work. And if it works, you have to give in!” I asked him: why? To my surprise, he did not utter the usual answer in such cases: “Are you a fool or something?”, but became thoughtful. Not accustomed to intellectual activity, rarely confronted with it face to face, he seemed to be in a stupor until the evening. Finally, he returned with an enlightened look and blurted out: “That’s how it should be!!!” It was felt that he felt, as they say, “lightened up”, the foundations of life that had been shaken once again fell into place.
What do we see? The tractor driver works out the life program, the script, laid down in him. Like a biorobot, it follows the instructions of a “mental punch card” in its head. By the way, we should not assume that we are laughing specifically at the tractor driver. His example is interesting, since such a primitive-comical worldview quite clearly emphasizes the essence of our thought, which is valid in relation not only to the provincial Russian peasantry, but also to other strata.
Here we recall Erich Fromm, who paid a lot of attention to the discussed aspects of life and, among other things, noted, based on the analysis of Europeans, that marriage only appears to occur at will, but in reality it is a programmed social ritual.
Let us especially note that for us the very presence of a ritual (program) is fundamental, its content is secondary. Those who say: “A guy wants to get married - what’s wrong with that?” are far from understanding the essence of the problem. Although for a specific person its consequences really matter - for example, in the same village I more than once observed how a young man begins to systematically drink after reaching a certain age in accordance with local tradition. But something else is more important: no matter what the program is - good or bad, the tasks set in it may not correspond to the actual goals of the individual, since they are set from the outside, imposed on the person, and manipulate him.
Did the mentioned tractor driver, through his own reflections and analysis of existence, really come to his opinion about the army, the timing of marriage and his attitude towards alcohol? Did he choose the best option for himself? Is his life path determined by himself? Is he mature enough to solve the tasks at hand? It's funny to even ask such questions.
Above, we attributed the establishment of a life scenario to the practical and normative components of a worldview. But the problem of social programming also extends to the theoretical component. By it we mean a complex of knowledge, judgments, opinions shared by a person. The example of the tractor driver, being an interesting particular case, illustrates a broader idea, not limited, on the one hand, to issues of family and marriage, and on the other, to any one social stratum
. The fact is that the average person does not have his own thoughts, judgments, opinions on the entire breadth of life's problems. The consequence is the inability to make independent decisions. That is, as such, thoughts, of course, exist, “... the only question is whether the thought is the result of one’s own thinking, that is, one’s own mental activity” [50;241]. Most often these are other people's thoughts. But they are about everything - about the norms and rules of public morality, personal moral position, about art and culture, about science, technology, progress, ecology, politics, approaches to raising children, behavior in the family, attitudes towards religion, etc. and so on.
As already noted, these issues have been well explored by Erich Fromm. In particular, he wrote: “The form and content of our thoughts, ideas, feelings and aspirations are induced into our brain from the outside, and this happens so often that we are inclined to consider such pseudo-acts as the rule, and the individual’s own thoughts as the exception” [50 ;237]. Fromm illustrates this thesis with various situations from life. For example, he suggests asking the average person what he thinks about a certain political problem. In response, we hear a more or less consistent statement of what is said about this in the newspaper he read. But what was said is presented as his personal opinion, and without any ulterior motive. The average person himself, repeating propaganda slogans, is absolutely sure that everything he has said is the purest result of his conclusions and analysis of the political situation. Obviously this is not the case.
Similar situations were noted by Fromm in terms of aesthetic judgments. Continuing his experiment, he asks the average person about the famous painting by the great Rembrandt and receives an inspired answer that this painting is beautiful and impressive. But further psychological analysis shows that the masterpiece does not evoke any emotions, any internal admiration in the average person; he “considers” it beautiful only because such a social stereotype exists.
But the problem is broader. As a result of social programming, not only what a person needs to do and how to evaluate what is happening is “stamped”, but also what he needs to want. We are talking about the so-called mass consciousness. “In any large society, the spirit of culture as a whole is determined by the spirit of the dominant groups in this society. This is partly because these groups usually control the educational system, the school, the church, the press, the theater, and thus have the opportunity to indoctrinate the entire population with their ideas; but, in addition, these ruling groups also have such prestige that the lower classes are more than ready to accept their values, imitate them, and psychologically identify themselves with them” [50;140].
The way other people's desires, goals and values invade a person and subjugate him is illustrated by the example of modern workaholics - people of whom there are quite a lot now. They are completely immersed in work, ready to come to the office early in the morning and leave late in the evening. Having accidentally found themselves at home on weekends or holidays, they continue to think about work, sometimes feeling uncomfortable being separated from it. Their family doesn’t see them, they get tired, waste their health, strength, and nerves. Sometimes, however, their efforts are rewarded and they receive a promotion. It happens that they manage to earn a lot of money.
Immersion in the topicality of workdays creates a special image and mentality. They pride themselves on working harder than everyone else. Dedicating the whole day to work, coming home late, and being very tired is considered by many of them to be a very worthy thing. Such things are considered as necessary signs of a business man and are not only highly valued, but are considered completely inevitable. Try to explain to such a figure that you can work differently - and you will see for yourself.
Let's take a look at the described phenomenon from the perspective of the problem under discussion. From the point of view of society, the presence of workaholics should apparently be welcomed. Indeed, if they want it, let them work and increase the gross product. What about from a personality point of view? Are all workaholics “at the call of the heart”, due to a special mental make-up? Doubtful. But only for the latter the described lifestyle is optimal. For others, it is unnatural and debilitating. Of course, there are people who feel an irresistible need to actively act, assert themselves, fight, devote themselves to serving something, including a company, industry, their own path, etc. The question is how many there are, and what is the ratio of their number to the total number of workaholics.
To estimate quantities, information from the well-known Russian agency RosBusinessConsulting, which conducts daily surveys among visitors to its Internet portal, is of interest. Thus, the survey dated September 19-20, 2002 - “What do you prefer?” - shows that 68% of people prefer “to work hard and earn a lot”, 20% - “to have their own business”, 5% - “not to work at all”, 4% - “to have a small income, but more free time”, and 3 % want something else (curious, what?). An interesting picture emerges. It turns out that the majority of us are workaholics. At least 68%, and if you add to them the 20% who want to have their own business, then even more. But there are only 5% of parasites. Of course, you can say that RIA RosBusinessConsulting has a specific audience that does not reflect popular trends. To this we will argue that it is precisely for this audience that the problem of workaholism is relevant - after all, you can’t look for workaholics among asphalt pavers (remember the joke - two workaholic workers meet, and one says to the other: “Well, one more brick at a time?”).
It's hard to believe that almost three quarters of society actually want
work a lot, and that they have
exactly the kind of soul
that will allow them
to feel happy
this mode It's much easier to believe that they really think they want
it. After all, “modern society, despite the enormous importance it attaches to happiness, has convinced man that his happiness (or, in theological terms, his salvation) is not the goal of his life, but the real goal is his duty to work or his success. Money, prestige, power have become the main stimulating factors and goals of human life. And he is in the illusory belief that he is acting in his own personal interests, but in fact he is serving anything but the interests of his real “I”” [50;294]. Indeed, here we have a situation essentially similar to the marriage of a tractor driver. Values and behavior patterns are imposed on a person from the outside and are accepted by him without his constructive participation.
Additional proof that the described position of a workaholic is just a manifestation of the influence of social stereotypes, and not an objective necessity, is the following conversation, which I once witnessed on the shores of Foggy Albion. An Englishman and a Russian were talking. The Russian proudly told how often he stayed late at work, how hard he worked. This surprised the Englishman. From his point of view, this situation is typical for underdeveloped countries where exploitation of man by man occurs. In the civilized world, citizens have rights determined, among other things, by labor legislation that protects workers. A normal person does not allow himself to be exploited; he respects his personal life, devoting enough time to it. When a person does not have enough opportunities and rights, he makes concessions to the employer, sometimes considerable ones. Among them are agreement to a small salary, an increase in working hours (which, by the way, is equivalent to a decrease in unit wages), personal expenses for the sake of the company (operating your own car, using a mobile phone at your own expense, etc.). A radical continuation of the series for women is consent to intimate relationships with the boss. Delays at work can be justified only if the company pays substantially, i.e. really well above average. Or there are clear prospects - for example, brilliantly completing current projects, after which you will be appointed to a higher position. This is the Englishman's position. I would like to add that the amount of work does not always mean its effectiveness. Yes, from my own experience I can say that the working day in Moscow offices is much longer than in London offices. And look at the labor productivity statistics - in England it is up to 10 times higher!
But we digress. The difference between a self-aware person and an ordinary person is that the first makes a balanced choice of the type of activity that is most suitable for him, and the second enthusiastically follows other people's values and foams at the mouth in defending adherence to one or another stereotype, not at all understanding the lack of awareness of his position.
In this regard, we are close to the point of view of Friedrich Nietzsche, who described the main shortcoming of active people: “Active people usually lack higher activity - I mean individual activity. They are active as officials, merchants, scientists, that is, as generic beings, but not as completely definite separate and unique people; in this regard they are lazy. The misfortune of active people is that their activities are almost always a little unreasonable. You cannot, for example, ask a banker who accumulates money about the purpose of his tireless activity: it is unreasonable. The active ones roll like a stone due to the stupidity of mechanics. All people, even now, as at all times, are divided into slaves and free; for whoever does not have two-thirds of his day for himself is a slave, be he otherwise anything: a statesman, a merchant, an official, a scientist” [30;390].
This concerns the degree of involvement in work activity. But the situation is no less serious when it comes to choosing a profession. The practice of psychologists shows that it is extremely important for a person to be able to choose in his life the path that is most suitable for him personally, corresponds to the character, deep inclinations and aspirations of his personality. To do this, some parents specifically take their children to highly qualified psychoanalysts, and the latter help determine in which area the child’s future should be looked for. This process requires significant financial expenditure, but it is not in vain. Psychological literature is replete with examples where a person engaged in “not his” business cannot find inner peace, peace of mind, or achieve happiness.
The same risks exist when following social programs. After all, “it is the abstract social “I” that is the very “personality” in whose interests modern man acts; this “personality” plays the role that the individual has taken on, and in fact represents only a subjective disguise of his objective social function” [50;146]. From this point of view, due to the focus on affirming the social personality, the true personality is suppressed, and, as a result, we have another unhappy person.
As you can see, examples can be multiplied, using almost any sphere for illustration. And there is also a psychological aspect to the problem. This refers to a person's life experiences. Their composition is sometimes very important, since the emotional background of life actually determines the quality of life. In the struggle to improve this quality, it would be logical to strive to find a mechanism for adjusting our emotional states towards their improvement. Many specialists have been engaged in such searches, and one of them, who most selflessly attacked this problem, is quite well known in Russia - we mean Nikolai Kozlov, founder of the Sinton club of practical psychology and author of a number of popular science books.
From the perspective of our presentation, the issues discussed are interesting in the following ways. The practice of psychologists has shown that in terms of emotional reactions, the situation is essentially almost the same as that of a tractor driver getting married. That is, a person has a kind of matrix of predetermined emotional responses. “Well, naturally, I was offended!!!” — the lady complains. “Why natural?” - asks the psychologist. “How could it be otherwise,” “this is how it should be,” etc. - a typical set of answers. There is no awareness of the situation. In general, there is no answer to the questions of why she was offended, what goals she pursued by this. No, because there is no practice of self-awareness, no experience of such attempts, as well as an expedient approach in general. As a result, it is not the person who controls the situation, but the situation that controls the person. He was offended - he was offended, he was angry - he was angry, he was upset - he was upset, he was delighted - he was happy... “In this world, a person considers it natural to be in the position of an irresponsible child, submitting without question to any forces and elements: simply those that happened now in influence him. WEATHER... Well, what do you want from me if the weather is like this? MOOD... CIRCUMSTANCES... I have nothing to do with it - circumstances are to blame for everything. And so on: I want, I don’t want, I was pulled, I wandered, I ran over, I got attached, I lost the habit - for him it is as natural and irresistible as the law of universal gravitation" [20;111].
Taking advantage of such “self-control,” individuals use the emotional destabilization of the enemy for their own selfish purposes. This is what they did with artists and athletes, immediately before a performance they said nasty and unpleasant things to them in order to knock them out of proper tone. Similar methods are used in discussions. For example, in a book on the theory and practice of dispute by S.I. Povarnin devotes an entire section to ways to combat “psychological terrorism” in a dispute - because, other things being equal, the cooler disputant wins.
If you approach the situation constructively, it looks different. Offensive words are just vibrations in the air, a sound wave. In itself, it is no more offensive than the rustling of leaves or the braying of an indignant dog. It is we who give it meaning. The average person cannot choose the meaning; his consciousness is also “stamped” with the corresponding patterns of prescribed reactions. But a free person, after some training, knows how to choose his reactions, which gives him considerable strength. I have met such people. Their advantage is their impenetrability. They cannot be “hooked”; they are almost impossible to manipulate. They decide for themselves how to react to circumstances.
This topic can be developed further, but we will refrain. Firstly, it has been sufficiently developed by other authors, and secondly, its in-depth discussion requires a lot of space and time. Let us only note that a person who controls his emotions at least to some extent will be marginal in relation to the crowd.
In addition to your own internal limitations, there are a sufficient number of external restrictions. Of course, they are closely related. As we talked about this, initially internal limiting factors are formed under the influence of external ones during the period of education and the formation of a worldview. In the future, however, the effectiveness of external influences depends on how strong the barriers are inside, and, as a result, liberation from external factors can occur through victory over internal ones. It must be noted that these factors cannot be distinguished with complete accuracy. However, we use the metaphor of dividing factors into external and internal, as this will help systematization. External factors include both abstract influences (public opinion, traditions and orders in society, advertising) and personalized ones (political leaders, “stars”, authorities, managers, etc.).
Let's look at some examples of external influences. Today, the consumer is included in the production chain as an element. One of the elements. If in relation to earlier times it can be said that the manufacturer of something (producer of a service) achieved success if the requirements of a potential client were successfully met, then today a different trend is stronger. Modern marketing involves not only studying needs, but also shaping them. This difference is very fundamental. At one time, I studied this problem when I was writing my PhD thesis, then I encountered it in the practice of commercial work, and then while taking the MBA course “Marketing and Sales Management.” The logic of the interdependence of production and consumption is as follows. The task of the manufacturer is now to a lesser extent to find out what everyday problem interests you, offer a solution to it and make reasonable profits. The task is reformulated. First, we determine which area of business is currently the most profitable, and then we create corresponding needs among the masses. Managed ordinary people enthusiastically consume what they actually did not need at all, bringing high incomes to businessmen. This approach is typical for most areas of industry and service sectors.
Various ideas are being introduced into the mass consciousness - from the lifestyle in general, the image, the archetype of a successful person and ending with various small details such as the currently fashionable color. There are many ways to influence, and modern media make all technical problems solvable.
For example, a businessman wants to make money by producing beer. He hires specialists who promote the brand, forming a so-called “consumer audience.” As is the case with Klinskoye beer. It was on the market for several years without attracting much attention. Decent beer, and cheap too. But then they decided to “translate” it to a youth audience, that is, to artificially create for it the image of a drink consumed by advanced youth.
On television (at that time round-the-clock beer advertising was still allowed), an active showing of relevant videos began, in which it was made clear, directly and indirectly, that a real teenager definitely drinks Klinskoe, and drinks it a lot. At the same time, the label design also changed. If earlier it was designed in the classic style of a traditional Russian product, now it has become primitively tacky, as they say, “acidic”. There is no doubt that it was created in close contact with psychologists who know for sure what kind of design can “hook” our youth.
After some time, the results appeared - I myself saw how a teenager, in the process of buying a box of Ochakovsky, categorically insisted that several bottles from the box be replaced with Klinsky for him personally. The trick worked.
By the way, the case with this brand is somewhat different. Its promotion was so successful that it subsequently caused problems, as the producers were accused of drugging young people and were subject to sanctions. However, the latter turned out to be ineffective. But in general, this story shows how, with the help of manipulation of mass consciousness, it is possible in a short time to force a certain group of the population to actively buy (and love!) a product that does not have any outstanding properties and, moreover, has long been known to the consumer.
You shouldn’t think that only young people are manipulated. The situation is similar with older comrades. Forms of manipulation can vary while maintaining its effectiveness. And in the end, the mass of the people is chosen by an uncle who earns millions from ordinary people, sells them completely unnecessary and sometimes unsafe things, dictates to them the “correct” (i.e., beneficial for him) way of life, style of clothing, pattern of thinking, and finally .
By the way, the change in the Klinsky label (referring to the redesign of the early 2000s) is not even accidental and indicates that our home-grown manipulators are successfully adopting Western techniques. The image on the label is very important. Moreover, the color scheme is of great importance. In the USA, there are special marketing consulting firms that, among other things, pay serious attention to color issues. Some of these consultants, based on the results of many years of work, publish books where they will explain to you in detail the use of which colors in which products and for which age groups will allow you to get people to buy your products. The authors, without hesitation, claim that this color scheme guarantees that a child will cry at the toy he likes, and his parents will not be able to leave without buying, but the other is aimed at teenagers, the third - at people 25-30 years old who follow fashion , and so on, up to a group of older people. The experience of American consultants shows that the influence of color on sales volume is significant. The main thing is to correctly recognize the patterns.
