I was raised to regard loyalty as one that once earned, remained for life, or until the demise of those to whom we were loyal, or until that loyalty was betrayed. So, one was loyal to one’s family, one’s country (even in battle), to one’s old school, and beyond academic years to being an “old boy” of the school, to university or college where networks built lasted until retirement. We even remained loyal to the political party that best mirrored our values, and did not see the reason to flip sides.
Whenever I re-established contact with an old school chum after many years (most likely on Facebook, for many are dispersed all over the world), the reunion was always fluid, as if we had only parted yesterday with just a lot of missing ground to cover. I didn’t have to constantly invest in them to earn or keep alive that loyal bond between us. But now that form of loyalty appears to have changed. It has become fickle and nebulous, and flips from one side to the other, making the custodians of loyalty untrustworthy and unreliable. One now has to constantly invest in loyalty and retention programs to keep one’s fans and friends, it appears.
I saw huge investments in this area during my final years in the corporate establishment when programs dedicated to loyalty ̶ such as “employee loyalty” and “customer loyalty” ̶ with commensurately huge budgets began to pop up. Fanciful titles like Director of Loyalty and Vice President of Customer Experience were born. Initiatives such as Best Place to Work, Company Values, and Customer Loyalty Points Programs interfered with the normal trading of goods and services which corporations had been created to transact in the first place. Politicians also tapped into this elusive loyalty factor by trying to convert “undecided voters” and by catering to their “bases.” That some of these politicos were cheap vaudevillians escaped us. So how deep does loyalty run today and why does it fade the moment attention is not showered upon the loyalists?
Advertising is the puppeteer pulling the strings of our loyalties today. Somewhere along the way when consumerism was reaching its zenith, we gave up internal discernment and gave in to being told what to like and dislike. We abdicated choice to the commercial ad. We let Oprah or Heather decide for us. Competing and compelling choices vied for our attention, and our loyalty was dislodged from a morally anchored base to start swaying in the winds of advertising. And social media ensured that six five-second ads were more effective than the old 30-second commercial. Independent thinking died, and so did loyalty as we once knew it.
Winning came to be defined as how big your advertising budget was, and customers took their eyes off the product being sold. When Joe Biden sleepwalked through the first 2024 presidential debate, his donor contributions tailed off and his opponent was declared the de-facto winner. When Kamala Harris burst on the scene and upended the second debate, her donor coffers swelled exponentially and she was declared the potential winner. Gimme a break!
The winner is Advertising. Ads now need to increase year over year to maintain one’s lead in loyalty and retention and stay above the mounting noise. Attention spans deteriorate with the increasing barrage of advertising, so more ads are needed to stay top of mind – hence, the winner is always Advertising. And when the Attack Ad came of age, we conclusively descended into the Golden Age of Advertising – because shit had to be met with more shit, and those who threw the most shit won. Advertising sits in the middle of every shit-throwing party and siphons off the money that’s paying for all the shit.
There is no coming back from this pit unless and until we have an educated public who can think independently again. The road back will be long because, in my living memory, we started on this journey when Boomers fell prey to the post-war boom in materialistic abundance and passed the philosophy of “Me First” to the generations that followed. Now, people need ads as part of their daily dose of media consumption, more than they need their morning coffee.
A return to “Needs” instead of “Wants” would put the much-needed brake on this headlong plunge, because Advertising fuels Wants but isn’t required for Needs. Alas, it will take a tsunami of bankruptcies and personal losses, a global financial meltdown perhaps, even a war, before humankind, as a unit, would be pushed to refocus on Needs.
And my apprehension as a Boomer, if I go back to basics without that push and throw out all my accumulated junk, saying I’m henceforth a “Needs Only” guy, is that my children and grandchildren would shrug and say, “Oh, he’s just Downsizing – it’s a trend with Seniors these days. He’s been watching too many retirement ads.” I hope they’ll still remain loyal to me, though ̶ without requiring more ads for that!
