In 2003 an ad campaign system was launched by an agency in England that featured tattooing the foreheads of university students.
Students will have logos semi-permanently tattooed on their foreheads and will be paid 4.20 pounds an hour (about $7) for three hours, the amount of time they are reckoned to be “out and about” and thereby promoting the product. (CNN)
This seems like it would have been rather cost-effective, though terribly counter-evolutionary, way to advertise.
Today, a college student in the U.S. is auctioning off ad space on his head, with a current bid of $20,950 (U.S.).
“The winner will be able to send me a tattoo or have me go to a tattoo parlour and get a temporary ink tattoo on my forehead and this will be something they choose, a company name or domain name, perhaps their logo,” he told the Radio 4 programme. (BBC)
While the poor fool will likely make enough to pay for his tuition, it’s rather sad that his rehashed idea (we’ve seen human advertising for decades, it’s a tired curse of consumerism) elicts the praise of his mother, who claims her son is “thinking outside the box.”
Oh how comsumerism and corporate subversion has brought people into lockstep of the capitalism march.
11 comments on “Selling Souls and Skin”
I suppose this is slightly better than wearing clothing with advertisements, because the people are being paid to be a living billboard instead of it being the other way around. Still, it’s very bizarre. I can only imagine how painful a forehead tattoo must be : P
I don’t know if it’s better or not, but I can’t imagine the mindset you’d need to do it.
i don’t know – it seems to me that if someone is willing to do such a thing they are obviously in a dire financial situation and maybe don’t want to resort to financial aid from the government. I wouldn’t want to do it myself, and it seems like a rather disturbing idea. I can see Chobe’s point though. Buying name brand clothing can be terribly expensive, when really all you’re doing is paying for a logo, making you as she said, a living billboard. Is it really that much different to have them paying you?
I think it’s just slightly better to have them pay you to advertise. It makes very little sense to me to pay $100+ for a t-shirt that’s taken up almost entirely by a corporate logo. I understand that it’s a status thing – some people really want the whole world to know that they shop at American Eagle or whatever – but the logic behind it baffles me.
As for band t-shirts, I don’t even wear those often anymore, but I don’t mind giving ad space for a band or artist that I really admire. Anything that gets the word out about good music is a positive thing, I think : )
For one thing, this fellow is obviously not in dire financial straights, at least not after charging $200 per day for text ads on his website.
Well, I’d never buy name brand clothing, so that’s something I likewise can’t relate well to.
I was more talking about the first part of the article with the college students – not so much the ebay guy.
Oh, me neither. I don’t even like wearing any clothing with logos on it, so I can’t imagine having something that permanent : P
I think the title you gave the entry is a little misleading though. It’s hardly selling one’s soul. Skin yes, soul hardly. As I said in my comment above, I don’t see it as much different than paying $50 for a hat with a certain symbol on it. Hell, even wearing a band shirt turns the wearer into a walking advertisment for the band. Granted, in that case, you like the band in the first place, but you are still advertising for someone. I know a lot of people who have band logos tattooed on them. Granted no one was paying them to do it, but even so.
I believe that selling one’s body as ad space is a compromise of self and thus soul. If one lowers their morals so as to allow any entity to use their body to convey an agenda, I believe they are damaging their soul, whether whatever buys them is moral, amoral or immoral.
With wearing band logos there are two differences that I think are important. The first is that there is a choice of what you support. I wear a Collective Soul shirt, for instance, because I approve of their message and art. Secondly, I believe art usually has a positive impact on society, so promoting art in general is positive. I can not say the same for most large corporations or other organizations (lets say a church buys his forehead) who would be interested in such an auction.
Who’s to say these people haven’t approved the message before agreeing?And I don’t see how it is a lowering of morals to allow them to use their body to convey an agenda if it’s something they believe in. I have the symbol for Amnsety International tattooed on my body. Granted, they didn’t pay me to do so, it is using my body to convey the agenda of another entity.
In the end, it’s an individual choice, and you have no idea what personal motivations they might have for doing something of this nature. I think it’s quite ignorant to assume someone has damaged themselves in some way, simply because you don’t understand why they are doing what they are doing.
Many of the bands, including Collective Soul (for much of their career) were part of a large corperation and were sponsered by large corperations. Big corperate money paid for at least four of their albums, so would that not make then damaged as well? Or is art exepmt from that?
In the ebay case, the author only will not put overtly offensive things (“666”, porn slogans) on his forehead. I see it as a lowering of morals to do this because it’s effectively saying, at least from my point of view, “I’ll support anything if you pay me.”
We don’t know anyone’s motivations for doing anything, but we can judge certain actions as harmful or not harmful. I don’t claim this to be damaging because I don’t understand it, but because I see it as harmful on a wide social scale (our acceptance of advertising and consumerism) and also as a personal choice (this man’s willingness to sell himself so indescriminately).
Yes, much of art is tied up with corporations and marketed in a product-first manner. I don’t like this and wish for it to change. It’s something I of course consider. I believe the value of art outweighs the harm done through purchasing it, however. This is how we make moral decisions, by accessing harm and benefit.