I completely agree with the assessment of film in America by Bernays. However, I do not believe "the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda" really relates well to the "documentaries" of Michael Moore. I feel like movies such as his pose an obvious meaning, and anybody watching them is much more consciously aware of his propaganda filled films. On the other hand, I believe Bernays relates much closer to certain cultural aspects in film like smoking cigarettes and even buying a certain car, and these are more likely to be viewed as "normal" in the viewer's mind. Its not these subtle product placements that are sometimes hard to view, but occasionally there are certain themes like shopping on Black Friday in the movies that affect the unconscious mind much more.

Picture Shows

Bernays wrote in 1928, "The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today. It is a great distributor for ideas and opinions. The motion picture can standardize the ideas and habits of a nation. Because pictures are made to meet market demands, they reflect, emphasize and even exaggerate broad popular tendencies, rather than stimulate new ideas and opinions."

Does this statement ring true?

And Bernays' statement is most definitively true, and has been true for decades. Product placement or not, if there is one definitive way of reaching millions and billions (depending on the film) of people worldwide in almost every continent in the world, it is through film. And whether we like it or not, these ideas often shape our behavior, whether in simply trends of clothing or drinks due to it being seen in the film, or even in how men or women may behave around the opposite sex due to ideas they have seen in films like Gone With The Wind or any Julia Roberts or Hugh Grant movie, Bernays is correct in that films, through propaganda, have the power to shape and influence the world's cultures.

Propaganda seen in film today is an interesting topic to discuss. For, I do not believe that movies are made today solely to feature certain products so that moviemakers can say "buy this now." There are more politics involved than to simply narrow it down to that. Studios need money in order to finance films. Distribution companies need money in order to distribute. Coca-Cola needs people to buy Coke. Plain and simple. So, if Coke says that it will pay Dreamworks millions if they will have an actor use a can of Coke instead of another brand, and Sony needs millions in order to finance the next Steven Spielberg film, then the perks seem rather tempting. Im not saying that propaganda isnt in films, for it certainly is. I simply do not believe that most times it is the fault of the filmmaker and productions companies. I think that it does, and always has, been the doing of companies that need propaganda in order to keep their products thriving. It just happens to benefit the film industry. Granted, there are filmmakers like Michael Moore and there are documentaries made solely to influence the viewing public. If propaganda exists in films and filmmakers, it lies not in product placement, but in what the filmmaker is trying to say in his film. If a character is compared to Jesus Christ in image, or if a war movie comes out, one must ask "how does the filmmaker feel and what is he or she trying to say in this film?" Therein lies the propaganda.

There may be some truth in Bernays' statement about the power of motion pictures. However, today perhaps they can't be called "the greatest carrier of propaganda" so much as "a major" carrier. In 1928, television had not been invented yet and the internet wasn't even a twinkle in the eye of technology. Today, t.v. is a major source for learning our social cues with programming targeted to audiences as young as babies (literally). The internet also has a major influence on our perceptions of society.

Movies and Propaganda

I agree with Bernays. Movies are a driving force in our society. They have so much potential to reach so many people. Movies are not usually considered or associated with propaganda, but in many ways they can be. Think of Michael Moore's numerous documentaries.... perfect examples of propaganda, at its best (or worst), depending on your views. Also, more and more movies and products are utilizing "product placement", as seen in CastAway with Tom Hanks. People flock to see these films, and they often don't even realize the advertising and propaganda they are being exposed to. Also, the movie industry is all about making money...as most industries are. They want the public to be interested in their film, therefore they will tailor it to popular interests, ideas, etc. that are prevalent in society at that time.

Picture Shows

Bernays statement towards motion pictures is true now more than ever. Back in 1928 when he stated this, he probably did not realize how almost 80 years later his idea would still be correct. When you go into a movie theater, all that is around you are advertisements. You see Coca-Cola and Pepsi signs everywhere along with the posters for other movies that are not out yet. When you sit down in your seat to watch the movie, the previews for upcoming movies are made to stick in your mind so that when they come out, you'll remember you wanted to see it. Oh, and please let's go so far as to discuss a movie such as any recent James Bond film where all he drives are BMW's or the new Ford sports car. It's all about product placement. Movies are a great tool to use to reach the masses. Millions of people go see movies as soon as they come out in theaters. If your movie has an important message or you would like to change the audience's opinion about a situation, what better way to do it than a movie. A motion picture lasts forever. As far as exaggerating broad popular tendencies, movies these days are all starting have the same layout. I agree with one of the other posts for this topic that ever since 9/11 there has been an increase in the war movies that have come out. Currently, it does not seem like there are any new ideas floating around towards movies. They either all are a love story and have a happy ending or they are about war in the middle east. It has become a repetitive cycle and needs to be broken.

I think this statement made by Bernays is extremely true-both back in 1928 when it was written and especially today. Movies are being used much more often today as advertising, especially because of zipping and zapping with TiVos and other devices that allow consumers to skip commercials and advertisements more often. Product placement is very prominent as well. It is not just advertisements that are being shown and influential in movies but other ideas in general that influence the way that people think. They also change people's views on things-take Michael Moore's documentaries for example. Think about how most movies reflect things that happen just a year or two before the movies are released.

Picture Shows

There are many examples of how movies perpetuate everyday life with regards to exaggerating broad popular tendencies. Somehow Bernays knew in 1928 the practices and procedures that still are followed today by the producers of movies and films. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 have heightened the American citizen’s fear of terrorism tactics, increased the sense of patriotism and flooded the box office with movies playing on the fears and virtues that are a result of 9/11. Just a few of the examples of the movies resulting from the attacks are The Kingdom, Fahrenheit 9/11, Jarhead, Munich, World Trade Center, Team America: World Police.
These movies do nothing to improve the circumstances that we are living in right now, they just exaggerate the popular tendency of being afraid that it could happen again and people unconsciously behaving with more patriotism stemming from the attacks. It has been over six years since 9/11 and instead of trying to move on from what happened, Hollywood is still trying to make money from it. They are not stimulating any new ideas or opinions from their consumer, the general movie going public, they want to ride the wave of fear as long as it continues making money.

motion pictures

that's so true. the motion pictures play upon stereotypes and things that make us, as the audience, kind of uncomfortable to actually say. it takes reality to a new level.. it pushes us. i guess because they know the response of the public on specific situations and that drives the market demand. It takes what we think and plays with it, and molds the way we view things and how we respond to them. In the 1970's there were a lot of blackplotation films that played upon the views and opinions of the audience. Take blacula for instance, the main monster.. blacula (who was infected by dracula) is actually seen as a good guy who is just trying to get back to his african roots... who he was before he was "cursed." some could argue that this curse is how whites brought slaves over to america and forced them to leave all their beliefs, views and their hertiage behind. motion pictures are so fitting to society.. they have great power in creating the way we think about something or someone. more and more they have molded our society into who we are and how we respond today.

Movies

I think that Bernay's is correct that movies are an incredibly powerful carrier of propaganda. He also says that if you can change the minds of a few, then you also influence the people who they influence. That being said, movies made now reflect the interests of society, if they didn't then nobody would go see them. Since 9/11 for example there have been an outrageous amount of patriotic movies that pull at the heart strings. People are going to go see them now, in 20 years, who knows. Since the film makers know that these movies will be seen, they are definately going to try and persuade audiences to believe things like they do, or see events in a different light. If they convince at least some of their audience to think this way, they will be able to influence the masses through them. Movies are a great way to use Propaganda to enact change because they are so far reaching and entertaining, that they will reach an enormous amount of people like no other meduim could.

Reflections

Movies as reflections of larger social tendencies is amazingly accurate. We as a country of free thinkers decide to only view movies that might exaggerate or illustrate social problems and the human condition. I would agree completely that Bernays is 100% accurate in his assumption that movies are an ultra-effective method for displaying and relaying propaganda. We glorify movies that either shock us or motivate us into actions. It is as if we almost want to see the train wreck so that we can steer clear of it in our "real" lives.

Matt

Strategy

Impeccable example of sheer propaganda, this clip of Lowell Thomas was beautifully constructed to address all needs and concerns of it's viewers and patrons. Starting off by explaining how successful we, as a nation, have already been at war by "crushing Germany", but our nation cannot stop now. Getting a little more personal, the speaker explains the effort of our fellow countryman in New Jersey who built thousands of unmanned fighter planes. Strategically, Mr. Thomas next goes into the benefits and possible pay that each man who signs up, tapping into the need for survival for some and desire for a better way of life for others. Signing off with, "Stay in the Fight!" Mr. Thomas finally says what he wanted to say the entire clip. He mumbled a small phrase afterwords, but the point was to stay in the fight. This clip provided extra support to those who were still in the fight, an inlet for those not yet in the fight, and united those not willing to fight with brief patriotism for our nation. Everything excellent propaganda needs.

Movies

I believe this statement is true to an extent. It's not secret that we have had and influx of war movies, particularly concerning Iraq, since America has gone to war. However, I think that movie makers are not so much trying to sway popular opinion as they trying to capitalize on an issue that affects most Americans. I do believe movies are some of the greatest enforcers of stereotypes. Because most movies only last a few hours, they must make their point as hard hitting as possible to obtain that lasting impression. In doing this, they often manage to stretch the truth or overly emphasize characteristics of groups of people. For example, war movies like "The Kingdom," seem to glorify the idea of American heroism while simultaneously evoking stronger, somewhat skewed stereotypes of some Middle Eastern countries.

Complements

“Just as men and women complement each other in private life, so they will complement each other in public life by concentrating their organized efforts on those objects which one or the other is likely to ignore.”
For me this is a more modern statement which could be used in the 21st century. Today women are not looked at as supplements to men; many men and women today complement each other in many different ways: emotional and physical.

I do believe this statement rings true. Motion pictures have the ability to stimulate new ideas and opinions but they rarely do. It is safer, it seems, to create works that reflect what we as a society know, rather than what we don't (because that is what we fear.) It is easy to believe this statement because you always hear of the film that "broke through" or "made a statement." These few films, because they are the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda, create ideas and habits of a nation and then many more are created around this new, broad popular tendency.

I agree with his statement. Movies are made to be entertainment for the public. New ideas are not formed from viewing movies. I think that there are some movies that can create new ideas, such as Micheal Moore's movies, but not enough people see them and if they do not many people agree with him or his ideas. Movies offer a "getaway" to the public, not an outlet for new ideas.

I must say that this statement was probably very true back in 1928 when Bernays wrote this, but times are changing. Sure, we still have the overdramatic chick-flick that makes every girl in America hate her own relationship, but also think about people like Michael Moore. Even though I happen to hate Michael Moore, you have to admit that the ideas he conveys in his movies are anything but "popular tendencies." He, along with many other artists of our time, are beginnig to encourage audiances to think out of the box, rather than listen to everything they are told. I personally believe that Bernays is a brillant man, but some of his ideas, like this one, simple won't translate into today's world.

Picture Show

I disagree that motion pictures do not stimulate new ideas and opinions. I think films can be used as an art form as well as a marketing tool. It is true that movies can be a great opportunity to use product placement as a form of advertising. However many film-makers are creating movies to primarily stimulate the public's ideas and not capitalize off of them. The industry has changed since Bernay's time and this statement is too general for the motion picture industry today.

Changing Supplement Furthur

When I first read the exert, I noticed that it was incredibly sexist and would be read that way among most people in the 21st century. I also thought of some words that could be synonymous with supplement, but would denote a more symbiotic relationship, or a relationship with mutual benefits. I came up with words similar to "complement", which another poster found to work. And while I agree, you would have to revise the sentence to not only say that one sex complements the other, but to also clearly show both sexes complement each other. In my opinion, saying a woman complements a man could still be viewed as sexist in this society without saying a man complements a woman as well.

Picture Shows

I believe that this statement is very true, although today television may be just as strong if not a stronger influence than movies. If movies and television did not have unconscious power that it does advertisers and public relation workers would not use product placement and integrated marketing strategies.

helpmates complement vs. supplement

For me the biggest problem with the statement is the use of the word supplement. When I read the word supplement, I infer that there is a deficiency or incompleteness to the parties involved, which is most certainly not the case with men and women. However, if the word compliments was substituted I think it could be salvaged. Complements, does not suggest any type of deficiency to either party but rather that they can be improved when combined. Even though men and women both can function successfully independent from one another, both parties benefit from the other. The typical differences between the sexes compliment each other, so that when they come together in work or home life both stand to gain from the partnership.

Helpmates

The statement that women will supplement men in public life as well as private life has changed substantially since Bernay’s published his statements in 1928. There have been so many significant changes in the social atmosphere when it comes to gender roles and standards for each of the sexes, that saying women will supplement men in public is a disagreeable statement.I interpret Bernay’s statement as a preliminary thought for the propaganda campaign of “Rosie the Riveter” that was so prevalent during World War II. Not in so much as men ignoring their roles, but when men are unable to perform duties on the home front because they are out fighting a war, women will be looked to fill their positions at the factories and in the job force.
Some examples of how women perform jobs in the public eye that men “are likely to ignore”, are the responsibilities of buying groceries, getting the children’s haircut, and buying birthday presents for the extended family. Men do not typically take the time to do those things unless asked to do so by their wives, so Bernays argument still holds some truth today.
However, women have held many duties and responsibilities in the past that men now perform, so to say that only men have been supplemented by women is wrong.

Helpmates

What I got out of the original statement was that women are the clean up crew for men. Women are right behind the men to take care of things that they overlook or things that they are careless about. Being that this is the 21st century and people nowadays are more likely to get offended by sexist statements, it could definitely use some rewording. Since the word supplement gives off a demeaning connotation, I would replace it with a word that exemplifies support so it would equalize the man and woman as far as partnering go. Neither the man nor woman role in each other’s lives should be less meaningful than the other. The statement should exemplify unity rather than supplementation.

Helpmates

Bernays wrote in 1928: "Just as women supplement men in private life, so they will supplement men in public life by concentrating their organized efforts on those objects which men are likely to ignore." Allowing that there is a salvageable notion here, how might Bernays' statement be reworded for a 21st century world?

Supplement

Supplement means "something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole." If this definition is linked with Bernays' statement then I think there is definitely a salvageable notion here. Women supplement men, just like men supplement women, women supplement women, and men supplement men. I think the key to rewording this for a 21st century world would be to make this statement equal for both sexes; "Women and men supplement each other in both private and public life by working together to create a product which is a result of a combined effort." I believe that men offer insight that women cannot and visa versa because we are natually different. If the statement needs to be more broad then it could be reworded by simply saying "individuals" or "humans" but the reality is that we, as a society, continuously work together to complete a "thing" regardless of what that "thing" is.

Equal Rights

I think that it would be near impossible to reword Bernays's statement without it losing its original meaning. While I'm sure that there are still households where it is the wife's primary job to take care of the husband, house, and kids, these households are declining. I agree with some of the previous posts in that the statement should be reworded to be something like, "Men and women work together, both in private and in public, to support each other, their households, and their families." I believe that Bernays's statement would not be well received today as there has been such dramatic movements to establish equal rights among males and females in the decades following Bernays's statement. The thinking among most Americans, in terms of gender roles, has changed dramatically as well.

Men vs. Women

Bernays' statement would definitely have to be reworded just for this statement to be socially acceptable. There are so many women's right groups out there that would practically tear Bernays apart for that statement. To change the original statement to bring it to the 21st century, it should say something along the lines of "Men and women have developed a partnership that allows them to assist each other in both private and public life." I know my statement is not as profound as something Bernays would say, but it needs to be stated that men and women are equal. We are no longer their "slaves" and do not live and breathe just for them. We do not pick up the pieces when a man overlooks an important detail and then screws everything up. Women were known for being the housewife that had dinner on the table as soon as the man of the house returned home from work. Men were the ones that brought home the money and fixed things around the house that the woman could not do. Now, there are no boundaries between what men and women do. I know families that the man stays home and cooks and cleans while the wife goes to work. There are no set rules as to what the man has to do and the same goes for the woman.

Equal

I honestly don’t think this statement is salvageable for the 21st century. If I had to re-word it, I would make sure that women are not viewed as supplements to men. Women should be viewed as equal to men. “Women are not only companions to men but also are partners with men and facilitate them in public and private life.” I think that statement makes it clear that women are equal and they have more to offer than helping men with what they overlook.

While I am not entirely sure how to reword Bernays' statement to make it more applicable and understandable in the 21st century, I do feel that the wording needs to pull away from the perception that women are objects, as Bernays' quote suggests. The first part of the quote, "Just as women supplement men in private life", should be completely left out of the 21st century quote. This suggests that women are nothing but sexual objects who are there to pick up the pieces when men screw up without recognition. Or that women are there to deal with things that men choose not to. The new version of the quote should somehow suggest that men and women are simply different and have different responsibilities. It should be a mutual understanding that what one sex does is just as important as the other.

When Bernays wrote "Just as women supplement men in private life, so they will supplement men in public life by concentrating their organized efforts on those objects which men are likely to ignore," he may have seen women as representing life inside the home and family while men's public life represented life outside the home and beyond the family (i.e. work, social groups, etc.). Women took care of maintaining the household and raising the children while men were the primary wage earners, were generally responsible for paying bills, were often the primary rule maker for the household, and were generally seen as the representative of the family unit in social concerns as can be seen in their title as 'head of house.' Men could also have more of a life away from the family as their career was seen as another responsibility they had to attend to. However, in the 21st century, men and women often do not have these defined in-household and out-of-household roles. They both can feel the pressure to manage both a home life and a work or social life (although many times women feel this pressure more than men). Rather than focusing on the stereotypical roles that were nonetheless relevant at the time Bernays made his statement, we can revise his statement to more reflect today's lifestyles: "Peoples' concerns about their family life are not just private affairs seperate from their idealized views of the world. Their families' needs will combine with other broader social and political ideals to influence how they respond to different messages."

Carnegie and Roberts

For me, Carnegie’s quote "Get the other person to do what you want them to by arousing their desires" seems as if the consumers desires are going to be subconsciously aroused. If this is what Carnegie is implying then I strongly believe that his opinion and Roberts opinions are similar. Roberts believes also in the subconscious thoughts of a consumer with his quote “loyalty beyond reason”-having such a stong loyalty for a brand that the brand is never questioned.

Reason For Loyalty

Loyalty beyond reason has the potential to be incredibly profitable for a company willing to adapt its principles. The way to get customers that will be loyal beyond reason is to offer them products that will satisfy their hierarchy of needs as presented by Maslow. Companies will be significanlty more productive if they can somehow tune in with a consumer base that will stick with them through thick and thin because they believe in them and their products.
Companies must be able to build a repport with customers based on solving more than one problem they have. This is also true for cults. The cult offers need fulfillment that the person can't satisfy by themselves. If the person feels that the cult can satisfy them in many aspects of their being, they will be loyal to it beyond any reasonable measure. If you can arouse their desires with what you offer (both in products and cult activities) you will be able to satisfy them and have built a truly loyal consumer.

It is all the same...

I don't personally feel that Kevin Robert's M.O. of "Loyalty Beyond Reason" is any different from Dale Carnegie's version of enlightened self-interest. Furthermore, I feel that Having the ability to create that brand loyalty beyond reason most likely leads to the ability to have people do something that benefits not only that person, but you as the advertising executive as well. I feel very strongly about the "loyalty beyond reason" mantra. Kevin Roberts hit the nail square on the head when he described those successful areas of advertising that are timeless and evoke feeling and emotion in buyers far beyond the scope of just needing the product. If you can create that loyalty beyond reason then you have tapped into the very essence of why someone does the things they do and then you can potentially sway their purchasing habits from that aspect.

md

Arousal vs. Brainwashing

“Loyalty beyond reason” is a phrase that Kevin Roberts used to describe his goal of winning and keeping consumers. While ‘loyalty’ to a brand is important, it is the phrase, “beyond reason” that infers a strong emotional or spiritual attachment, similar to the attachments cults hope to create in their new recruits. Therefore Dale Carnegie’s advice, “get the other person to do what you want them to do by arousing their desires,” is similar to Roberts’ own strategy. (“Desire” is a word that stems from emotion, and any “loyalty beyond reason” could only come from an emotion-based thought.)

However, one difference exists between the two strategies. Carnegie acknowledges the need to “get the other person to do what you want by arousing their desires. Thus, he recognizes the persuader, the person being persuaded, and the necessity of constantly arousing the persuaded in order to get them to do what he wants. Roberts’ strategy, specifically his use of the words “beyond reasoning,” brings to mind brainwashing—perhaps a left-over from his cult research—which would negate the need to constantly arouse the persuaded. Instead, the person would believe he or she knew, “beyond reason,” some action or belief was correct; in turn, this belief would be considered loyalty.

So the difference between these two strategies, I believe, is how they are carried out; Roberts would expect brand loyalty be practically brainwashed into the consumer whereas Carnegie is more subte and would constantly arouse a person's desirse so that he or she would feel as if they need a product.

Roberts/Carnegie

Kevin Roberts has something in common with Dale Carnegie; they both understand what it takes to sell your product, brand and company to consumers - emotion and desire. Dale Carnegie's advice, "Get the other person to do what you want them to by arousing their desires," was the beginning of how to reach consumers on a deeper level. Many companies have taken this advice and are trying to arouse those desires, but in today's cluttered society, there has to be more. Roberts understands that and is going as far to say there needs to be "loyalty beyond reason." He has gone as far as to study the behavior as cults to figure out how ot succeed at creating this type of loyalty. I think Carnetgie would be surprised today by how far people like Roberts has taken such an idea but would agree with him.

Carnegie's advice

Those people today, in the 21st century, seeking success in business should definitely read Dale Carnegie's book. The rules in which he asks those to follow still hold true today. "The customer is always right" is a saying that you costantly hear in business and it encompases two of Carnegie's rules which say, "Don't criticize, condemn or complain," and "Give people a feeling of importance." A 21st century business person may not believe that in today's society that consumers can be sold things simply by arousing their desires, however those who understand this concept and run with it are those who will be successful. With an on-the-go society, we as consumers don't have time figure out what we're looking for in a product; we need businesses to dig deep into our souls and find those desires and reach out to us through them. Digging into our emotions and touching on our desires is the key to success in today's cluttered world.

Roberts/Carnegie

Roberts strategy coincides with Carnegie's statement in many ways. Kevin Roberts studied cults to determine and understand more about the way people are attached to certain things and then he applied it to brand promotions. He targeted certain groups, or cults, because they all share the same beliefs. If he could figure out what they wanted and what pushed their buttons just the right way, he could link that to brand promotions so that the companies could target all of the different groups with creative advertising. With Dale Carnegie's advice, it is the same basic principle that Roberts was trying to achieve when studying cults. If you make the other person or group feel that you are targeting the specifically and giving them exactly what they want, then they are more tempted to buy your product or visit your store merely because you made them feel as if you sought them out. People respond strongly to ads that make them feel important or fulfill their desires. Basically, both Roberts and Carnegie had the same idea, just worded differently.

Loyalty beyond reason

The phrase "loyalty beyond reason" was used in the program The Persuaders by ad man Kevin Roberts to describe his goal of winning and keeping consumers. Roberts studied members of cults in hopes of understanding more about the nature of attachments so that he might apply what he found to brand promotions.

How does Roberts' strategy square with Dale Carnegie's advice, "Get the other person to do what you want them to by arousing their desires"?

re:handling

I think Carnegie's statement still holds true and may even hold more truth today. It is has always been more productive to appeal to people's egos than to demean them. People respond positively to flattery and other things that make them feel good about themselves.Today many people will not tolerate even the slightest bit of criticism. Co-workers and employees are a prime example of how this works. Many times it is more effective to make a coworker believe that they are more important than they actually are, in order to get them to preform a routine job function. Rather than telling them that they are not adequately preforming their duties, making them feel important makes them want to do it. Employees feel as though they are special for being selected to have a responsibility , the other option usually just results in lackluster performance of the bare minimum.

Handling people

Dale Carnegie (right) advised those seeking success in business in the mid-1930s to follow a few simple rules. Among them ~

"Don't criticize, condemn or complain."
"Give people a feeling of importance; praise the good parts of them."
"Get the other person to do what you want them to by arousing their desires."

Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People, from which those notes are cited, is still in print. Is this advice suitable for 21st century man and woman?

Carnegie's advice

I agree with Carnegie’s advised and believe that it is still suitable for the 21st century. There are defining things that have changed in Americans since the mid-1930’s however I do not think that Carnegie’s advise for success in business from the 1930’s is much different from what someone might advise for today. In the very high pace of today’s business world it becomes insufficient and nonproductive to condemn or complain- especially if you are on the lower end of a corporation. Obtaining good productivity from a workforce is more likely if the workforce receives praise and a feeling of importance- this is part of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and is still a part of people today.

Carnegie Advice

The advice that Carnegie gives to help people succeed in the business world still holds true today. No one likes being criticized or ostracized if they mess up, especially if they are socially humiliated at work. Constructive criticism is the best way to approach a situation where you or your coworker are incorrect.
The quote of give people a feeling of importance is definately still sound advice today. The generation entering the workforce now is one that has been raised on immediate gratification and constant rewarding towards behavior. It is easier to win someone and get them to work hard for you if they are recognized for their efforts afterwards. It is very essential to build goodwill with the employee/employer relationship, and also within coworkers as well. By doing that it will increase their willingness to help out.
Arousing desires within people is key to getting them to work harder. Giving incentives for their extra effort will make them want to continue to work hard for you. Carnegie's advice is still valuable today.

I feel that Carnegie's advice can still be followed today to ensure success among today's business leaders. I do not agree with his quote that you should never complain or criticize because if you do not, you will be walked all over and taken advantage of-and that applies to everyone, not just those who want to be successful in the business world. His two other quotes are extremely accurate, though. As a marketer and a promoter of your company, it's not always about catering to people's needs. Sometimes, the measure of your success, is whether or not you can take your products or services and make your customer believe that that is what he/she needs. Of course you have to appeal to your customer's desires-otherwise, there would be no customers.