To
what extent can advertisement influence or persuade its audiences?
As
designers, advertisements can be seen as a soulless use of our
talents and that to go into producing such things is “selling out”
and persuading audiences to spend their money, some can consider it
equally unethical. Both versions of the First things first manifesto
argue this idea 'We... graphic designers, photographers and
students... have been bombarded with publications devoted to...
applauding the work of those who have flogged their skill and
imagination to sell such things as cat food, stomach powders,
fattening diets and cigarettes.' (Garland, 1964) but the question
remains, just because designers and advertisement agencies will
trumpet the benefits of advertising in stimulating consumer purchases
do they actually have any effect on audiences?
I will
start by looking into the argument that advertising does effect it's
audience and I begin with the revised First Things First manifesto
from 2000. Like with the 1964 version there is an argument that
designers have causes much higher than the pushing of commercial
goods but that also the practice of advertising is manipulating the
general public into consumer machines 'advertising... [is]
supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so
saturated with commercial messages that it is changing the very way
citizen consumers speak, think, feel, respond and interact.'
(Adbusters, 2000). Lippke also comments on the effect advertisements
have on the general public, his issue with advertisements is not that
it pushes products on people but that it makes people into consumers
in the first place; adverts that 'consist of messages about, broadly
speaking, the consumer lifestyle'
(Lippke, 1989) persuade audiences in a way that makes them want a
life consistent with the worlds presented in advertisements, one
example being Malboro cigarettes. The Malboro Man may make a consumer
purchase Malboro cigarettes only because of it's linked connotations
to manliness even if the effect is only one he feels himself. Like
with Lippke and the First Things First manifesto, Galbraith not only
believes the power of graphic designers could be put to better use
but that consumerism as a whole causes a change in human behaviour.
His theory, the Dependence Effect suggests that the production
process not only creates but also satisfies human wants. 'Wants...
come to depend on output...The higher level of production has,
merely, a higher level of want creation necessitating a higher level
of want satisfaction.' (Galbraith, 2001) and that despite products
being produced in larger and larger amounts 'they do not seems any
less important. On the contrary, it requires an act of will to
imagine that anything else is so important.' (Galbraith, 1967).
All
these arguments are based on the idea that advertising can change an
individual through persuasive techniques and as a result change an
entire society and it's priorities towards consumerist based ones. In
principle the world they suggest advertising has created is an
unethical one and the practices used by advertisers are at their
heart unethical as well as influential and manipulative. Lippke,
Galbraith and First Things First all have their opinions on how
advertising techniques can be used in an ethical way that benefits
society. First Things First urges designers to put their talents into
social, cultural, environmental or political causes, Galbraith
suggests restructuring society so that public and private goods were
in a more harmonious balance, but just because they believe
advertising is bad and community projects are good, does it make them
so? As put by Michael Beruit 'Graphic designers do work that informs,
and... advertising agencies do work that persuades. In the First
Things First universe the former is good and the latter is bad. But
some of the most effective work on behalf of social causes has
appropriated nothing more and nothing less than these same
“techniques and apparatuses”: think of Guan Fury's work in the
fight against HIV, or the Guerilla Girls' agitation for gender
equality in the fine arts.' (Bierut, 2007). So it can be said that it
is not the techniques that advertisers use that could be considered
unethical, despite their manipulative nature, but rather the
intention with which they use these techniques- a principle much in
line with Kant's theory of ethics.
Kant's
principle is based on the will of the person's actions, this
determines whether their action is perceived as good or bad; even if
the action accomplishes nothing the good will that was behind it
'would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which
has its full value in itself.' (Kant, 1785). If we apply this theory
to the practice of advertising it can be argued both ways that
advertisers have good and bad will. It can said to be of good will of
the advertisers that their practice is intended to stimulate an
economy and keep a system we all rely on moving. On the other hand
using people as a means to an end for the purpose of making money
can be said to be applying a bad will; or the intention to persuade a
general public and influence them into buying products.
It
can be argued however that advertising has bad will when advertising
towards the vulnerable targets, directly targeting insecurities and
their desires as a means to sell products. For women, the main target
it beauty products; especially with a younger audience of girls who
are entering their teenage years. Makeup and beauty products make
claims in their adverts to easily rid a consumer of their physical
problems and instantly improve physical appearance. Facial scrubs
claim they will rid the user of acne and blackheads, lip glosses
display their ability to make a users lips luscious and 'kissable'.
In a teenager's world (or even in a grown woman's world) where
advertisers display digitally touched up unrealistically beautiful
models it appears to the individual that if they use these products
they too can be beautiful. In support of this a survey I conducted
which asked what advert category participants would consider the most
influential, 80% selected health and beauty products (Ethical
Advertising,
2015)- they connect directly with an insecurity and claim to be able
to fix it.
Children
are another vulnerable market; born with a childish naïvety into a
world where products and advertisements are everywhere, they believe
everything an older child or adult tells them and are easily
attracted through bright colours and loud noises, they are a group
very susceptible to adverts. If a bright colourful and noisy advert
tells a child that this particular toy is the coolest, that all kids
love this toy they will want it and feel excluded if they do not
have it. Each new generation that is born is brought into a world
surrounded by more and more products and the want to own the newest
products or fear being left out. For children this expectation to own
items is engrained into their lives and to have the latest toy/gadget
bought for them so they may be included in their peer group is
essential, children want to fit in to their social group and
advertisers play on this putting it directly into their messages. In
a study conducted by Ad Age International 70% of those questioned
believed that advertising brain washes children and manipulates their
desires into wanting essentially useless items. (Robinson citing Ad
Age International, 1998)
Another
market vulnerable to manipulation through advertising are the
elderly. The main adverts geared towards the ageing population are
products and services intended to help them maintain independence;
one only needs to watch any adverts that appear on daytime television
to see just how many are aimed directly at this insecurity. Meal
delivery services without the 'hassle' of cooking, chairs that make
it easier to stand up and sit down, bath tubs the lower you in and
showers with seats for ease of use when bathing', stair lifts that
make upstairs of their homes easy to reach; all of these adverts pray
on the fear of not being able to complete daily tasks anymore and the
desire to maintain independence into old age. All adverts directed at
these vulnerable markets tap wants, fears, insecurities and needs in
order to sell products, however it isn't just these three target
audiences that play on our wants and desires, they all do.
A
technique used by advertisers is to appeal to our innate human wants
and suggest that a particular product may be able to satisfy them.
They all target our basic needs for shelter, status, sustenance and
sex (known as the 4 s's) and claim that pushing all the right
buttons would sell products, 'Once a businessman knows where his
product stands in relation to the Four-S's he can gauge his selling
appeals with maximum effectiveness' (Robinson citing Dichter, 1998).
However, Abraham Maslow developed a more in depth version of the
innate wants, by layering five general categories into a Hierarchy of
Need. His five levels included the physiological relating to food,
water, oxygen, temperature. The second, safety, involving shelter and
protection. The third, love maternal love, family love etc. The
fourth, esteem, acceptance by others, self respect and recognition
and the final layer Maslow coined self-actualisation which is our
need for spiritualism, aesthetic appreciation, growth, learning and
charity. Higher levels on the hierarchy cannot be attained without
layering the initial ones. This more in depth look at the psychology
of selling leads advertisers to understand where they can sell
products and who to target with what; it was no longer just about
pushing buttons it was instead finding the right audience with the
right set of buttons. 'There is plainly nothing to be gained by
advertising a Rolls-Royce in the barrios of Rio de Janeiro because
ghettos are all about food and shelter- first and second level needs'
(Robinson, 1998). Or as Galbraith put it 'A man who is hungry need
never be told of his need for food' (Galbraith [in Advertising],
2000) Advertisers could more accurately target specific products to
specific types of society, their methods for categorising people
become more in depth and the ability to influence their audiences
apparently stronger.
Taking
all of these factors into consideration: the creation of consumers,
playing on innate human needs and attempting to falsely satisfy them,
the bad will to make money and push products without care of the
consequences, making audiences believe they need stuff they don't,
targeting our insecurities and desires, we could seriously consider
adverts to be an influential creation. In support of this conclusion
we can look at survey results I produced, when asked if participants
had ever felt persuaded to buy a product because of advertising as a
whole 80% said yes and whether they have ever brought a products
specifically because of its advert just over half said yes (Ethical
Advertising,
2015).
This
previous argument; that advertising not only influences people into
buying products but can also manipulate them, relies on the premise
that consumers are incapable of making a purchase decision without
advertising guiding them, however, this cannot be the case. Most
advertisers will argue that adverts are at their core informative
rather than manipulative. The car company Volvo for example claim
their cars will keep a family safe, we could argue that they are
merely pulling an emotional string in the consumers heart however,
'The claims are supported by proofs such as armoured plating applied
during the body paint process, independent research on automobile
safety records and so on.' (Spence, Van Heekeren, 2005) This means
when Volvo say their cars will keep a family safe they are merely
informing the customer of a researched and proven truth.
Also
we must understand as consumers we are capable of independent thought
and opinion and are able to choose products based on personal
preference rather than advertising; we also know that all advertising
must be taken with a pinch of salt. 'the new defence of advertising
views [adverts] as primarily informative rather than manipulative. It
assumes that consumers are rational, self-interested actors whose
product preferences are determined by factors other than advertising'
(Phillips, 1997). In 10 footnotes to a manifesto Michael Bierut makes
a sarcastic comment on First things first's belief that we purchase
products precisely because of its adverts rather than rational
thought 'Human beings have little to no critical faculties. They
embrace the products of Disney, CM, Calvin Klein, and Phillip Morris
not because they like them or the products have any intrinsic merit,
but because their designer puppet masters have hypnotised them with
things like colours and typefaces.' My survey results support these
arguments, when asked what degree they believed advertisements to be
untruthful 52% agreed that to some extent adverts were untruthful,
only 24% believed them to be somewhat truthful, no one considered
them to be wholly truthful (Ethical
Advertising,
2015). This statistic is support by research conducted by Ad Age
International, they reported that 72%of consumers they questioned
believe the companies exaggerate the benefits of their products
(Robinson citing Ad Age International, 1998).
Along
with the addition of intelligent consumers the main argument against
advertising manipulativeness is it's effectiveness, which apparently
is something that cannot be accurately measured. Even advertising
agencies do not fully understand whether the money they spend on
advertising has any effect on their sales as Micheal Schudson says 'I
know that at least half of my advertising money is is being wasted.
My problem is- I do not know which half' (Robinson citing Schudson,
1998). In a survey conducted in 1992 on Advertising Effectiveness it
was summarised that many firms cannot estimate the effectiveness of
adversing, that they only use advertising because they do not know of
any better or more efficient way of generating sales and that they
continue to use advertising out of fear that they will loose sales to
competitors who do advertise 'It is reasonable to expect that one's
competitors will advertise. Thus, [a] decision maker's firm may be at
a disadvantage if it does not do the same... in sum, it may well seem
less risky to advertise than to not advertise.' (Phillips, 1997)
For
further proof of advertising's ineffectiveness we only need to look
at an example- The Edsel. In 1955 a campaign began to promote a
ford's entirely new car for the people, and for 24 months before the
car had even been made Ford began to carefully leak stories to the
press and prime markets. A huge amount of hype was created around
this car, Time and Life magazine wrote major features on it, teaser
adverts were released showing only the steering wheel and never the
full car itself , billboards, newspaper adverts and a total of $8
million (equivalent to
$66,000,000
today) was
spent on generating hype around the new car. It was a failure, very
few of the cars were sold and despite the amount the company had put
into advertising the vehicle people just didn't want to buy it. It's
downfall was not only in the choice of name but also in its over
exaggeration, it couldn't live up to the hype that had been created
around it 'The promise of Cone's copywriters- 'There has never been a
car like the Edsel'- helped draw huge crowds to showrooms. But once
they got there all the public could do was yawn.' (Robinson, 1998)
Perhaps
what makes the Edsel's failure all the more catastrophic is that it
was produced in a time when adverts were considerably more effective.
As time goes on more and more adverts fill the market and invade our
daily lives, a result of this is that we become more and more immune
to them, in today's world 'advertising messages tend to cancel each
other out.' (Phillips, 1997). Adverts have to do so much more to grab
our attention and the question now may be not whether they
effectively pursuade us but whether they have any effect at all. In a
video produced by cracked magazine an argument was made as to why
advertising doesn't work anymore, they argued that despite companies
attempts at personalising advert delivery methods through search
histories and browsing patterns to the point where 'one Atlantic
writer... over a 36 hour period his movements were tracked by over
105 different ad companies' that the number of people viewing these
personalised adverts is lower than ever. When the first banner ad
came out in 1994 it had a click rate of 44%, now that rate has
dropped to 0.07% (8 rReasons
Why Advertising Doesn't Work Anymore,
2015). They placed the blame on the 'meem effect'- the action of
taking an idea and replicating it and rehashing it into new comedic
forms; like with the Old Spice adverts, a once funny and original
idea that got remixed and remade until it lost all initial appeal.
'The internet kicked it up to... DSL speed, so every occasional
actually clever idea got oversaturated and imitated until the company
realised they spent millions promoting funny deodorant stud but can't
hold onto to these fans because they didn't do the even harder
alchemy of leveraging meem into money.' (8
Reasons Why Advertising Doesn't Work Anymore,
2015).
Despite
two contrasting arguments, the extent of advertisings influence is a
purely individual to individual thing. Although certain consumers
will be more vulnerable to certain products and will be more
effective as a whole on a more naive person, we are becoming less
influenced by advertising. When concerning all products and all
adverts, to say we are all influenced and persuaded by them would be
an over exaggeration however it is true that different individuals
have certain product adverts that have an effect, whether this
influences the public into buying particular brands or products is a
different matter. It is true however, that we are exposed to a great
number of adverts every day of our lives and that anything overdone
will loose it's effect, adverts now have to rely on entertaining us
to even get us to look or to stop us from clicking away or changing
the channel. That being said the bombardment of advertisements and
persuasive techniques can become normalised, making them dangerous
over a long period of time. Its influence may be subtle and even
unrecognised but honestly if it were having an effect would anyone
even recognise that when immersed in advertising culture. And in
terms of influence is it a form of persuasion that makes us consume,
makes us unhappy and fills our innate human wants with stuff, or is
it purely advertisers trying to inform us about their product and
allowing us to make rational decisions based on their adverts?
Advertiser Phil Dusenberry had this to say, 'Is it manipulation? In
one way or another all advertising is manipulation. But all we're
doing is manipulating people either away from our competition to our
brand, or into using our brand more often.' (Robinson citing
Dusenberry, 1998)
Bibliography:
8
Reasons Why Advertising Doesn't Work Anymore [televison
programme online]
Scmidt,
Alex Youtube.com (2015) 6 mins 40 seconds at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcGVbo57bAU
(accsessed on 23.01.2015)
Adbusters
(1999)
'First
Things First Manifesto' In: Eye
Magazine Vol:
9 (issue 33)
Bierut,
Michael (2007)
Seventy
Nine Short Essasys on Design
New
York: Princeton Architectual Press
Galbraith,
John (2000)
'The
Implications of the Dependence Effect' In: Tittle, Peg (ed.)
Ethical
Issues in Business
Ontario:
Broadview Press Ltd. pp. 99-100
Galbraith,
John (1967)
The
New Industrial State
New
Jersey: Princeton University Press
Galbraith,
John (2001)
The
Essential Galbraith
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company
Garland,
Ken (1964)
'First
Things First Manifesto' In: The
Guardian
Halford,
Rosalyn (2015)
Ethical
Advertising
26th
January 2015
Kant,
Immanuel (2002)
Immanuel
Kant: Groundwork of the Methphysics of Morals
London:
Routledge
Lippke,
Richard (1989)
'Advertising
and the Social Conditions for Autonomy' In: Business
and Professional Ethics Journal
Vol:
8 (issue 4) pp. 35-58
Phillips,
Micheal (1997)
Ethics
and Manipulation in Advertising: Answering a Flawed Indicment
West
Port: Quorum Books
Robsinson,
Jeffery (1998)
The
Manipulators: Unmasking the Hidden Pursuaders
London:
Simon and Schuster
Spence,
Edward and Van Heekeren, Brett (2005)
Advertising
Ethics
New
Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment