It's easy for Very Smart People to poke fun at the likes of television pitchmen such as the late Billy Mays. But John Stossel explains why such disdain is unwarranted.
Hi! Don Boudreaux Here for Free Markets!!!
Share
Previous post: Tired Protectionism
Next post: Unintended Consequences
{ 23 comments }
And if you act now I'll throw in Smiling Bob and the Shamwow Guy for free!
That's right!
Three dead pitchmen for just $19.95!
But you've got to act NOW!
I have to admit that the existence of M Jackson had penetrated my world; but, this Billy May guy? I had no idea who he was or what he did, nor where he did it.
Outside of losing another free market guy, always a downer in this world of left leaning loonies, I don't know as how I'll miss Mr. May anymore than I'll miss MJ.
However, I have a feeling that MJ is going to continue to plauge us for a lot longer than we'll care to suffer it.
Oh Don – people poke fun at Billy Mays because he was ridiculous and goofy and over the top in his ads. And even Billy Mays admitted as much.
Pointing out that Billy Mays sold some fairly superfluous stuff isn't "smug journalists not accepting capitalism", as Stossel opines. And the author doesn't seem to suggest that the products aren't useful – just that you wouldn't care that you didn't have it otherwise. The article itself calls Mays endearing and it's describing his style – not making an ideological statement.
And what's with this capitalized "Very Smart People"… you did a similar thing in an earlier post on Krugman. The author of this article is a PhD candidate. So? Why the back-handed compliment? Why the references to education as if it's suspect, or as if people who have a different opinion AND a high education are somehow snooty or smug? You have advanced degrees and disagree with people – is it legitimate for those who disagree with you to attribute what they perceive to be your wrong opinions as "he's just too smart for his own good"?
Stossel is highlighting an element of Billy Mays that I had not considered beforehand. In fact, I always made fun of the guy – too much yelling. After reading Stossel though I see him in a new, more respectful light. Furthermore, how often do you see American society give kudos and recognition to great entrepreneurs and capitalists in a voluntary fashion? Not very often in my opinion. So while it doesn't have to be an ideological fight over "who was Billy Mays?", Stossel is pointing out the other side, the side you probably wouldn't think of if you simply read the MSM.
Hat tip to Tommy Christopher over at the Daily Dose for this line:
I hope there is a heaven, and I hope Billy Mays is there right now saying, “Yaweh, are you tired of sacrificing your only son to wash away all those stubborn sins?”
John, great column, as usual.
Vidyohs, Give John a Break! his "backhanded compliment" to the "very smart people." was no more backhanded than the grudging praise of Mr. Mays by the author of the article. Furthermore, if the value of an invention is determined by whether or not we knew we needed it, then airplanes, telephones, computers, antibiotics and many other things that most people didn't "know they needed" must not be very valuable either.
closing italics
try again
Thomas -
I think that was for me, not vidyohs. I'm not complaining about Billy Mays at all, and I didn't get the impression the original letter writer was either. Advertising is hugely important because the economy is dynamic – we are constantly coming up with new products, and those products need to be introduced.
And one of the best guys at that job, Billy Mays, was over the top and funny to watch. Pointing that out and even saying that if people put a little more thought to it, they might not have bought everything from Mays that they did, isn't a repudiation of capitalism!
Thomas,
That wasn't Vidyohs who wrote that. It was just another poser. [/proofread for typos]
Closing?
My turn to try to close italics.
Wow, D Kuehn, why so touchy about the education? No need to be disingenuous about it. The CS Monitor author's tone isn't all too respectful to Billy Mays, and the writer attaches his education to the article as though we should give more weight to his thoughts because of it. Mr. Boudreaux is dismissing that. Really, I don't see this as insulting and don't see why you are so dense about it, except to drag out an argument and troll for pointless responses.
I never watched Pitchmen, and I doubt I ever sat all the way through a Mays commercial, and never bought any of the products.
But when other people said he was annoying, I always thought I rather liked the guy. There are a few people who project a positive, excited, passionate spirit with confidence, gusto, and joy for life. I got that impression from him in half a commercial.
The world is now covered in the milquetoast, the equivocating, and the sneering sarcastic commenters with no cajones.
Goodnight sweet prince.
DKH -
RE: "Wow, D Kuehn, why so touchy about the education?"
Haha. I'm not the one that mentions it so much in the posts – I'm not touchy at all. I'm curious why Don is. It's a perenial inclusion.
RE: "the writer attaches his education to the article as though we should give more weight to his thoughts because of it"
Ummm… you rarely see guest articles that DON'T have some professional affiliation of the author. Since this guy is a student that's his affiliation. Pick up any major newspaper – if it's not a regular columnist writing, they usually have their affiliation. It's not that big of a deal DKH.
Daniel, did you read the CSM article? Here's some quotes:
"But after a few seconds of watching housewives struggle with these esoteric problems in black and white, there he was to save us from our own ignorance, with a product guaranteed to change our life,""For two minutes at a time, he all but dared us to pass up the promise of social mobility embodied in a little plastic gadget or a tub of chemicals. "
"On the other, he promised that acquiring superfluous junk could be a ticket to a better life, even at a time when that life seems to be slipping further and further out of reach for so many of us. "
Really, the author is saying the Mr Mays was taking advantage of us, and we were too stupid to recognize it. Save me from my own ignorance? He was selling something that took stains out better than other products. That is hardly an "esoteric problem", unless you have a maid to worry about that kind of thing.
Everyone sells superfluous stuff. We don't "need" 99% of things we purchase. Rather the vast majority of things we buy and sell are to make our lives a little easier or more pleasing to us. Claiming that Billy Mays somehow was trying to trick us into buying things we didn't need is singling him out for what is essentially the activity of all advertising and marketing.
Also, Oxyclean rocks. I used it to remove months old blood and chocolate sauce out of my appartment's carpet without a trace. So, apparently it corrected a problem I knew I had, but for which I lacked a solution.
Eric -
Trick us? Who said that? I like Billy Mays. I like advertising. Which article did you read?
I like Billy Mays.
I think you've got him confused with Smiling Bob.
Exactly!
Billy Mays made himself relevant by persuading people to buy the products he was pitching. He earned an honest living (as far as I can tell), and surely did quite well for himself, unlike politicians who are willing to throw our tax dollars at groups and people who want to use force because they are not relevant.
I have nothing bad to say about Billy Mays thus far, and he never got a bailout like the financial thugs who created a massive financial calamity whose painful spillovers are still being felt.
–Pingry
Danny is just blowing hard without reading the article. Danny has the attention span of a 8 year old. Sure, he is smart @ times.
DK: I read the article I quoted. The whole theme was that he tried to sell us crap we didn't need for problems we didn't have. That is what is bothering people, the author's message that his living was made by duping us into buying junk.
Did you even read the bits I quoted? "there he was to save us from our own ignorance" Hello? The author is not exactly being evenhanded when describing Billy or his customers, is he?
Eric -
Geez guys. I'm not saying the author had a shining opinion of Mays. I'm saying he's commenting on the style and the necessity of some of the stuff – not the quality of Billy Mays as a person or the value of a market economy. And he's not being "smug" as Stossel suggests.
I know he's critical of Mays. I'm saying people are getting very worked up about it and putting words into his mouth. He didn't say that Mays tricked anyone, and he didn't criticize the market, and he didn't flaunt his credentials.
DK wrote: "Pointing out that Billy Mays sold some fairly superfluous stuff isn't 'smug journalists not accepting capitalism', as Stossel opines."
I disagree; here is the outline of the proof:
typical journalist = socialist clown;
socialist clowns + journalist = smug
ergo, typical journalist is blind to the beneficence of Smith's invisible hand;
ergo Stassel is correct. QED
[REMARK: This proof would NEVER do for the Journal of Economic Theory; although there are a few mathematical symbols above, there are no corollaries, lemmas or theorems nor inequalities or limits. Furthermore it proposes only ONE conclusion; this kind of unnuanced tripe might be refutable, but the interest at JET in empiricism is asymptotically approaching zero (and already arbitrarily close to zero).]
Fraud or not, I can't be sure, never having bought anything he pitched. But LOUD?! He was, all by himself, economic justification for the mute button. Calling him a hero is just hyperbole.