Barbelith Underground > Head Shop > Investigating Advertising

I apologize for the length of this response, but I have been a little neglectful of this thread, and I feel it is appropriate to address much of what’s been said!

“Well, somebody who can spend a dollar on a lottery ticket is better off than somebody who earns that dollar over two days of working in a truly shitty Singaporean factory making shoes, who in turn is better off than somebody with no means of making money at all.”

I certainly agree. The lottery ticket allusion was simply some “poetic” imagery that came to me while I was writing. I feel that here in the West we often take our position of privilege for granted; i.e., even being poor here in the West can often mean a better standard of living than in many other parts of the world! However, I do not feel that this in some way invalidates what I’ve said. In fact, it seems more of an aside than dealing directly with issues surrounding ads.

I don’t quite get what you are saying with respect to advertising with the link to the Onion article. It actually made me a little queasy to read the views of Manny, especially with the emphasis on being a “player,” and how his “higher status” over his family and peers is due to the fact that he can buy ridiculously priced clothing with its labels as markers of, what appears to be, nonchalant excess. This is exactly the kind of mind-set that gets coupled with consumerism that makes me want to retch. So yes, I do “[b]lame advertising for associating ways to express self-worth with consumption,” without a campaign that spins a label into an shallow image of status over quality (granted, these high priced articles of clothing might be of good quality, but I don’t think the quality is the issue qua price of product) I don't think there would be near as many individual's such as Manny. And, like I’ve tried to make clear, it’s not so simple in my mind that ads are the biggest and only culprit—again, it seems more that some ads and ad campaigns seem to reinforce and perpetuate this essentially hollow mindset. In other words, yes, I “…also blame capitalism, and free markets, and the fact that Manny is largely allowed,” due to the passive acceptance of our society at large, to be exposed to, and thus, have the choice to personally integrate, the ads and products—whose images generate a false or shallow sense of value and worth as a human being—into his lifestyle and attitude.

“ Likewise, if the chiefs of Coke and Pepsi were to say "hey, why don't we spend $x million a year less on advertising and channel it towards better environmental performance in our factories", or third-word debt relief or community initiatives, or even taking a cent off the price of their drinks, then excellent.”

Excellent indeed! Although, not so much with regard to a penny off their drinks, though—not so much impact there, really, but the other ideas—the money being re-directed to better factory conditions, emissions, etc., or the aid ideas are beautiful. Myself, I’d be more interested in companies that funneled money back into the local economies where their factories are via food or shelter for the less fortunate programs or such. The problem is, though, like you recognize that the likelihood of this is marginally slim, and even if it was recognized as a “good” or “humanitarian” initiative, it would be, as you recognize, likely co-opted back into an ad or image campaign. Sigh. Whatever happened to the noble idea of being able to offer assistance to fellow human beings without seeking attention or recognition for such and such a benevolent act?

“I'm still not sure what you're looking for here, >0<. Is it an analysis of what makes a good or a bad advert, or a way to make advertising less negative overall?"

Hmm, what am I looking for? Good question. Probably to spread the idea that some ads are harmful to people in ways that seem to go unrecognized and to provide insight into how any particular individual can use certain tools to become aware of this largely unnoticed and somewhat disguised aspect of some advertising. Suggestions and ideas that could be generated from this discussion that could make certain methods of advertising less negative would be nice, but I am certainly not I a position to implement them!

“And is that just in terms of the messages it sends out, or also in how to reduce advertising without also destroying all the industries and creators like Mu who depend on advertising?”

I’m leaning towards “Yes” to both questions. But again, I’m not in a position to really have much impact on either.

“I'm also interested in the term "ubiquitous" that has cropped up from two people so far. It appears to be an undefined quality expressing that there is too much advertising about, but how does one gauge that as an index of culture?”

Hmm, I’m not entirely sure that the “ubiquity of advertising” was being used as a gauge to index culture (I’m not even entirely sure what you mean by this!). I think the point was more towards establishing that we live in an advertising rich environment and that a typical individual encounters many ads each day, the amount of which promotes desensitization to the power of the slogans, images, etc. connected to particular ads.

“I would say that there was too much capitalist profiteering, too much inter-company competition, too much focus on sales, too much capital that needs to continue to be shunted around to avoid a massive recession - all of these things are both terrible and ubiquitous, and advertising is as a symbiote and, realistically, a parasite upon these things, a consequent rather than instigatory evil.”

Well yes. I already called advertising a parasite in my article. Of course, I said it was parasitic on people and you say its parasitic on the “evils” you list (again, I am reluctant to label any of these things “evil” but would freely call them “negative” or “harmful”): I’d say, it’s clearly both; however, I am looking more at its parasitic aspect towards people.

“What images are getting attached?”

I think this is relative to the particular ad. Yes, some ads promote images of “luxury, beauty and sex,” but it certainly doesn’t stop there. Dependent upon the intended use of the product, ads also might convey images about family and values, health and cleanliness, freedom and choice, etc.

“These images are still used but there is also a very common trope of the 'creative' or 'spiritual' individual in ads.”

Yes, like Psychic TV selling VWs, or this really annoying ad for an SUV that employed monks and attached the message that enlightenment is found in owning such and such an SUV. Yep, great.

“These goods aren't designer in any real sense of the word because they are just as mass-produced as the Levis type brands they are replacing, but they are more effective brands. And largely, they are more effective brands precisely because they don't advertise.”

What?! Like not as in a paid for commercial on TV maybe or a radio spot, but certainly in terms of “style and fashion” rags, placement of article or product on or near so and so onTV, the fact that there is a populace that consumes these “just as mass-produced” goods and display their labels (and so, associated image of…) to one another—all this seems as “advertising” to me.

“As for being 'debased and deluded' I don't buy this. If advertising debases and deludes, then logically rock music has led to a decline in morals and the break-up of the family.”

Perhaps rock music shares a role (‘rock’ & ‘role’—haha) in the decline of morals and the break-up of the family—I don’t care about this here: it’s not what we are investigating. Here I am trying to look at the ways in which some ads promote and perpetuate some delusions or at least promote and perpetuate false ideas or a false sense of reality. Thus, since ads, in a sense, convince people to believe lies, then these same people are being debased—lives are made less valuable and the quality of those lives suffer.

“You tell me who is more creative in their dress - your grandad who wears generic, unbranded M&S, or your logo-heavy youth on the street? It is a myth that creativity is inhibited by other people's ideas.”

Hmm, I don’t think I said that “people aren’t free to create” (you are kinda’ misquoting me here) and I don’t think I am in a position to judge based on any way other than my own subjective standards as to what counts as “creative” and how that is expressed. I would tend to agree with your statement that creativity is not limited by other people’s ideas—that’s not what I am saying. I’m guess I am saying something here, again, about human nature and how it is easily exploitable. I think that people are generally creatures of habit and often the less “work” we have to do the better. Thus, instead of generating images and adornments that reflect their own sense of self, which are based on their actual relationships with other people, they instead get an image with little depth or “real” significance. That is, it becomes easy for (some) people to identify with a ready-made image that reflects little of a person’s actual character and more of their desired or projected character. Again, this is something that seems somewhat unhealthy to me.

In order to clear up confusions, and to restate what I already said above, I am counting PR, branding, and marketing & promotion in with the synecdoche of ‘advertising’ for this discussion. Thus, the word ‘some’ needs to be emphasized with respect to these aspects of what I am calling “advertising.” Again, it is possible that any of these things employ images that can be loaded or emotionally charged to manipulate people in subtle ways.

Now wrt “1) Consumerism is bad because it is materialistic and empty. Advertising is part of consumerism (and a reinforcement of it) and therefore bad.” I think that this has been a small part of what I’d want to get at. I do tend to think that little or no advertising, or different tactics of advertising, has the potential to be helpful as opposed to harmful. But yes, as we’ve mostly come to agree, there is much inherent in consumerism that isn’t so healthy; however, not so much a part of what I’m getting at. Last time: some advertising perpetuates and promotes certain unhealthy ideas and images that can be harmful to some individuals—yes, these harmful elements are part of deeper structural problems; however, this does not mean that ads aren’t worth paying closer critical attention to. Wrt “2) Advertising spreads unrealistic expectations of body image and lifestyle...” I would also add unrealistic projections of desire and status, false or askew sense of self esp. with respect to others, and deceit or potential deceit. Certainly I wouldn’t object to the idea that some “films, pop music and…fashion industr[ies] are probably far more culpable than advertising,” but again, that’s not what we’re talking about—we’re talking about how ads can do this. There can be many factors that play a role; however, it matters not how large the role is: what is important, to me anyway, is recognizing where, when, and how such harm or deception is occurring. I feel that small changes can greatly alter systems over time; thus, wider awareness and recognition serve to make some small changes.

“Both objections suffer from the fallacy that the general populace is passively accepting of whatever messages are chucked at them and possess no critical faculties.”

But it seems to me that this objection/assumption is barking up the wrong tree. I’m not saying that people can’t be critical and assess situations and images, etc. on their own. However, I do feel that many people feel that wrt advertising there is not much to be critical towards; thus, as I’ve said before, this is when images and such have their most powerful effect. So it is not a passive conscious reception, but rather a passive un or subconscious reception, and so, there is necessarily no engagement of any conscious critical faculties that a person might posses.

Since that was already getting rather lengthy, and since I am going to do this largely off the top of my head full of caffeine and it might get a little “ranty” (apologies in advance), i.e., it’s late, I’m a little wired, and feeling a touch ornery, so I decided to put this up separately from my preceding post.

OK, so I have been somewhat vague about notions of “harm” or ideas of the “unhealthy” or “shadowy’ aspects of ads. I have assumed, perhaps in err, that people would be able recognize, and so, piece together their own interpretations of harmful, unhealthy, or otherwise deceptive ads from what’s been said and referred to thus far. I’m lazy and don’t want to have to do too much work!

But let me try to elaborate by examining some ads that I’ve seen wrt a certain class of products—automobiles. Over the course of paying more attention to commercials automobile ads have really rubbed me the wrong way. So here’s some things that I’ve noticed (here I mention that much of this interpretation is obviously subjective and while some of it will clearly seem “absurd,” “out of left field,” or “grasping” to some readers, I feel that there will also be some of it that makes a more reasonable sense to a wider audience: this is why it’s better if people try to do this stuff for themselves—then they see what they see!): I’m going to call it like I see it.

[also note that I will use ‘&/v’ for “and/or” in the following]

One of the first things about automobile ads is the promise of freedom or provoking ideas of freedom while at the same time negating the very images that promote notions of freedom. Here I am thinking mostly about ads for sporty cars, some types of trucks, and some SUV ads. Typically we’ll see someone driving all Dukes of Hazard stylee—hard turns, fast speeds, skillful maneuvers, etc. or we’ll see some truck/SUV barreling through rough and rugged terrain—mud spraying, vehicle bouncing around, etc.. At the very same time we are receiving these images of freedom &/v rebellion &/v adventure &/v daring &/v excitement in tiny letters at the bottom of the screen it says, “professional driver on a closed course do not attempt.” So we are fed, via the images, lies about the intended use and appeal of the product. The ad is set up to give us things we want (choose any combination or feel free to add to the preceding list) while at the very same time denying that it can possibly give these things to us—note that probably 99% of the screen and all the sound are devoted to deception for most of the commercial while for a few seconds, and taking up about 1% of the screen, is the truth: don’t drive like this in the real world, ya’ schmuk.

Another thing about some SUV adds is that they provide an illusion of security and safety when in fact there is evidence that shows that SUVs are some of the least safe vehicles on the roads. Some adds try to capitalize on the fact that such and such a vehicle was “safest in its class,” but when this “class” is full of other relatively unsafe vehicles, I think this claim is deceptive. SUVs are also a notorious class of vehicles for large quantities of fuel consumption, and so, likely a higher amount of emissions. And while some economy cars ads will talk about high mileage rate, no automobile ads ever mention anything about amounts of toxic or harmful emissions with regular use of the product. My cigarette pack loudly tells me how I am polluting my body and the bodies of others—no vehicle ad or vehicle displays the same warnings, although it is clear that vehicles do poison us.

Things brings us to injuries and deaths caused by vehicles. While some automobile ads will address issues of safety, none of them ever show the reality of harm caused by use of cars, trucks, SUVs, etc.. So every ad is at least a diversion away from the actualities of driving by always pointing to some ideal fantasy driving situation. I wanted to get some stats, but StatsCan gave me the run around earlier; however, I bet that the number of deaths each year caused by vehicular related incidents is close to the number of deaths caused by “smoking related diseases.” Again, there is no concern in any ad to address the reality of owning and operating a vehicle—this is lulling and deceptive. Certainly people are aware of the dangers of driving through other channels of communication; however, the images we are repeatedly exposed to by advertising for automobiles can serve to place such concerns aside for some individuals. I generally don’t think about crashing when I’m driving, but I don’t really think about the images I see in ads either; however, I tend to feel that there are at least some people who don’t think about crashing & who operate their vehicle with some of these images in mind. Granted, some of these individual’s would certainly tend to drive irresponsibly regardless of ads, but all of them?—I doubt it.

There’s a company out there that uses this formula for a slogan: “DRIVE = LOVE.” Now, I dabble with numbers, patterns, and numerology, but I fail to see the connection here—I’d like to see the derivation for that formula! However, I don’t think this is merely an empty statement: it’s been designed to accomplish something. Love is certainly an exploitable human characteristic and they have equated this with the function of their product. In a sense, this is not necessarily harmful nor deceiving—I really love to drive, sometimes. However, I do think it can also operate as one of those “so under your nose you don’t see it” things. First, it promotes an intense human relationship as the equal of driving. This seems to me to be quite a embellishment of a passion for driving—it suggests we take a certain stance towards our attitudes about driving, and thus, about the products that allow us this privilege. Moreover, it seems to me that there is also a subtle subtext present here where ‘drive’ is also referencing the attitude of the Consumer-Spectacle society: the drive at high speed to the next excitement, the next joy, the next success, and the next love. The “pedal to the metal” pace of our society and its shallow desire are equated with a sublime and precious human feeling. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And what the hell does “Built FORD Tough” mean anyway? I mean shit, I could make any product and say it was “Built … >0< … Tough,” and it doesn’t mean jack! It gives the illusion of saying something, and this something is entirely dependent upon the image that FORD creates for itself via its marketing/advertising, but really, it’s not saying anything.

There’s another company, Chevy?, that has “Like a Rock,” and uses the song as the truck accomplishes all sorts of “strong,” “enduring,” “dependent,” etc. feats. Sometimes the word “dramatization” appears quickly in tiny letters somewhere on the screen, sometimes our “professional driver…” either way there is clearly an ideal image being spun here about said product’s integrity, and this seems largely out of proportion to the reality of the product in the real world. Also, “Like a Rock” carries a subtle Xtian subtext, which, while not necessarily harmful in itself, certainly seems like a form of manipulation.

I recall one add for a mini-van that shows a clothesline with a dress hanging on it. The voice-over is talking about how great it is to be prepared for new arrivals in order to maintain a happy and ideal life as the wind catches the dress and nifty animation blows it into the shape of filled maternity ware. Then the shot cuts to this happy ideal family, in their happy ideal suburban setting. Note that there is a mother, a father, and three children. The min-van seats eight, luckily, so after that fourth kid, you still have room for two more future consumers. It’s like that game “Life” where you’re encouraged to fill your little car with a wife and kids in order to have a better chance of winning the game—except life ain’t no game (well, it is, but ya’ know what I mean), but the ad promotes certain values regarding families, breeding habits, and lifestyle choices that appear to me to be harmful or destructive to people in general (I tend to think that people need to be more selective in their breeding habits as currently most of the human race seems more like a virus and infection of this planet as opposed to living in a healthy symbiotic relationship with it.). These images again seem so “under our nose” that I feel that they get by unnoticed in many who don’t pay attention—this is when these images act more directly on the mind as they go by unexamined.

So there are a few examples of how I interpret certain ads to be deceptive or assisting to deceive or divert our attention, to promote harm or at least to disguise or conceal possible harm, to leave misinformed or uniformed about certain important issues surrounding a product, to use images and sound to promote certain easily manipulated emotional responses in people, &/v to create unreasonable or idealized conceptions of a product and its potential role &/v function in a person’s life. Again, not all people are going to be overrun and transformed into a zombie by these messages, but I do think that at least some people are going to be negatively affected.