Tag Archives: advertising

(oh dear…for the first sociological theory class I ever took, we had to write the usual paper about one theorist’s ideas.  We were somewhat limited, having to pick a piece from a textbook that was comprised of several 5-6 page excerpts from original works.  I really wanted to write about advertising.  The only theorist who spoke explicitly about advertising was Jean Baudrillard.  I can imagine that anyone that has encountered this man’s writing before may be laughing now.  He is the ultimate “postmodernist”, in the sense that there are a few good points in his work, but they are so hidden by fluff and nonsensical sentences that go on for one or two paragraphs, that reading Baudrillard is something like going on an archaeological dig.  I recall the look on my roommate’s face, an architecture school graduate, when I told him of my choice.  There were many tears as I struggled to understand the mere 6 page except, but he was able to help me sift through the, dare I say, crap?  This ended up being what I handed in.  I doubt it makes much more sense than Baudrillard himself…well, maybe a little?)

Advertising Discontent

Introduction

Over the past century, advertising has become an inescapable and powerful force in our culture.  Perhaps the main reason for its predominance is that it has come to operate on two levels: the imperative and the indicative.  The imperative refers to the primary and seemingly sole purpose of the ad – to sell a given object.  The indicative refers to the fact that even if the object is not purchased, advertising itself has become an object of consumption and one that is literally impossible to avoid (Baudrillard, 1968:403).  This said, determining exactly how advertising affects us, as members of society, is obviously an important issue for the sociologist and average citizen alike.  In his essay on the topic, Jean Baudrillard gives one perspective, citing Freudian concepts in an attempt to argue that in the modern world, this medium constitutes a maternal figure for society, that is, that advertising takes care of us.  Although Baudrillard recognizes the illusory quality of the ad, describing how it fails to mention the “objective processes and social history of the [object]” being advertised, he contends that this is necessary and allows us to make choices, thus allowing the perpetuation of consumerism (Baudrillard, 1968:407).  My opinion and Baudrillard’s come to a crossroads at the end of the former statement, as I believe that these choices are only another illusion, and consequently, that the ad’s ultimate effect is deception.  I believe that the ad does not play a maternal role, as rather than enabling us, it disables us, feeding us a constant stream of lies that leave no room for truth, but breed disappointment and general discontent.  I believe it is not choice, but discontent, that fuels our consumer society.

The Illusion of Choice

Of course, at a first glance, the barrage of advertisements we, as members of society, encounter at any given moment, seem to imply a vast array of choices.  However, a more careful examination of these ads and their meanings, on both the imperative and indicative levels, reveals that this is an illusion (Fiske, 1987:116).

An example of the false premise of choice on the first level may be found in the car advertisement that encourages the consumer to “be different” by driving a certain vehicle.  The message seems at first to preach individuality by presenting its audience with the opportunity to make a choice to be different from the rest.  At least this is what the corporation behind the ad wishes its target market to draw from the message – the car company’s intention is for each member of this audience to make the same choice under the guise of choosing to “be different”.

The second type of illusory choice, that which operates on the indicative level, becomes visible upon the comparison of ads for similar products made by different corporations.  Take, for example, advertisements for beer.  These messages all have certain things in common – attractive men, scantily clad women, romantic interludes between the two and wild parties.  Here, the consumer is offered a choice between beers, but only one image and only one cultural norm.  Thus, if the individual does purchase any of these products, he is implicitly choosing the same thing no matter which he buys.  If the individual does not purchase any of these products, he is still offered no choice but to consume the image, and accept the fact, even if only subconsciously, that somewhere there are guys having more fun than him, drinking beer and getting chicks.

In reality, this is not fact, but fiction.  The image is not actually a cultural norm, but a norm in that it is a formula, one that favours sales (Ibid.).    Unfortunately, when one is constantly bereaded with the same image of a stereotype, the effect is much the same as that which occurs when one is constantly bereaded with the same political rhetoric.  Ideas become limited – it grows to be difficult to think outside the box or to realize that the dominant image being portrayed is only one of many possibilities, and not necessarily the most accurate one.  In fact, in the world of ads, these images are most often completely inaccurate.

Weapons of Mass Deception

Providing its audience with an illusion of choice is only the first in a long list of ways in which the ad deceives.  This is why, unlike Baudrillard, I do not believe that the ad plays a maternal role in society.  It is true that both the mother-child relationship and ad-consumer relationship are fuelled by emotion.  However, the reason for these emotional ties in each case is quite different. In the case of a mother and child these emotional ties result from the child experiencing the satisfaction of his needs, that is, being taken care of by the mother (Storr, 1989:136).  On the contrary, in the case of ad and consumer, these ties arise from the ad using various forms of manipulation to appeal to the consumer’s emotions, and not by any concrete experience shared between the two (Fiske, 1987:258).  Both the child and the consumer become vulnerable in these relationships, but while the child is made vulnerable by the mother because he depends on her to fulfill his needs, the consumer is made vulnerable by the ad because it reminds its audience of these needs but never actually fulfills them.  The relationship between mother and child is one of mutual caring, whereas the ad is an exploitive fabrication, that is, a relationship in which one party contains others in a construction that is clearly inimical to their private interests (Goffman, 1974:103).

As stated before, advertising is formulated to appeal to the emotions of its audience.  This is accomplished by the presentation of images that imply that the product in question will make you feel good, rather than using any logical argument to encourage its purchase.  These include images of highly expressive situations, such as those of people laughing or hugging, that suggest the product will provide fulfillment in areas with no relation whatsoever to its actual purpose (Meyorowitz, 1985:104).  Often these images appeal to sex, the desire of which is very basic, intense, and nearly universal.  Other ads draw their viewers’ attention towards their own physical imperfections, flashing images of ideal body types that are nearly impossible to attain.  Once again, the ads operate on imperative and indicative levels, and end up achieving the same effect on both.  The image causes one to become hyper-aware of a particular desire – whether it is physical companionship or physical perfection – but offers no answers or satisfaction, whether or not a certain object is acquired.  Ultimately, even the cynical viewer cannot help but be deceived, as the image is a suggestion that what it illustrates is not only possible, but proper.

If advertising were really a maternal figure, it would reciprocate this suggestion by providing a route to achieving that ideal.  But remember, the exploitative fabrication is not concerned with the interests of its victims.  In the case of advertising, the sole concern is money.  Long ago, the corporate minds behind the ads discovered the best way to lure people into spending money is to convince them that they are purchasing not just an object, but satisfaction.  The ad’s greatest deception is leading its audience to believe that happiness is a commodity.

And When It Comes It’s So, So, Disappointing

Deception inevitably breeds discontent.  As advertising operates on two levels, so do its harmful effects on anyone who encounters it – and everyone encounters it.  Advertising is one of the main sources of the mass disappointment and mass discontent that are epidemic of our society.

The type of distress most easily traced back to advertising is that experienced by the buyer of a product, with that object.  The consumer purchases any given item after seeing an ad that uses images that promise to solve their problems – weight problems, relationship problems, time-management problems or others.  Or perhaps the consumer purchased the item simply because of its fancy packaging or its brand connotations that promised some excitement, an increase in social status, or something different.  For a few golden moments after exchanging money for the item, the consumer experiences a rush, as he imagines that he now holds any or all of these things in a shopping bag and that they are now his.  However, after the flashy wrapping is removed and the consumer is alone with the item, things appear much different.  The new item’s novelty quickly wears off along with the subtext.  The consumer is left frustrated and unhappy upon realizing that he is not the proud new owner of some kind of miracle solution, but only of an object, and all of an object’s limitations.  This disappointment is not the object’s fault; it is the ads fault, but now the ad is gone, so it becomes almost natural to blame the object, and to seek yet another one, a better one, one that will keep the promises that the now forgotten ads made.

Advertising makes promises not only to those who respond by purchasing the items they promote.  Even the least active members of the consumer culture we live in cannot avoid being bombarded with the images presented by ads – images of ideals, images of satisfaction, images of perfection.  Advertising promises, to everyone, that such perfection exists.  The implication that follows is that it is up to the viewer to find it, to achieve it.  Of course, there is no such thing as perfection in the real world; the ads are blatantly lying.  Yet the non-discursive nature of the ad prevents this from being exposed.  The ad deals only in images, which are hard to argue with.  They leave the viewer asking why he has not attained that image of perfection or the same degree of satisfaction portrayed in the ad, asking why their face does not mirror the faces of the smiling, laughing, hugging people in the ads.  Again, the ads quickly discard themselves, after occupying a 30 second TV spot, a billboard that is sped past, or a page in a magazine that is quickly flipped over.  The individual is left discontented and without an object to blame, blames himself for failing to accomplish what the image demonstrates and asks for.

Closets full of clothes but nothing to wear, and minds full of images of friends and lovers but no one to call.  These are the epitomes of the disappointment and discontent caused by the ad culture.  But they are also what fuel consumer culture itself.  Discontented people with nothing but wallets full of money and credit cards, desperate for a miracle product and a miracle cure – it must be out there!  Feeding the system with their willingness to buy more and more objects.  Eating their way through self -help books, diet books, and motivational media.  Sometimes even caught skulking around the drugstore perusing a soundscape escape.

Conclusion

And so the cycle continues.  The ad functions by deceiving us, giving us false reasons to buy more and more objects with more and more money, and we obey.  Jean Baudrillard believed that this relationship of obedience led to the conclusion that advertising acted as a maternal figure for society, offering us choices that we are then free to make (Baudrillard, 1968:406).  These choices, however, prove to be an illusion, as they are really all the same.  Advertising promotes the same kinds of images, again and again, giving us a range of products to choose from, but only one reason to buy them, and never a reason not to buy.  It accomplishes this by means of deception, using images that appeal to our emotions and draw our attention to what we lack, leading us to believe that if we purchase a certain item, our lives, on the whole, will improve.  As well, the ad promotes unrealistic images of perfection.  Thus, the ad’s ultimate effect on society is the spread of disappointment and discontent, because the consumer will be let down no matter what, as he finds himself unable to equate those images, after the purchase of a new product, or otherwise.  Each of the components of deception, and the harmful effect that is felt by society, operate on two levels, as advertising is something that is inexorably consumed by everyone, whether or not it leads to the purchase of an object.  Overall, I disagree with Baudrillard in his argument that advertising constitutes a maternal figure for the masses, as a maternal figure takes care of us by satisfying our needs, while the ad makes us overly aware our needs, but offers nothing to truly satisfy them.

Works Cited

Baudrillard, J.  1968.  “Advertising.”  In Social Theory, Roots and Branches.  2^nd ed.

P. Kivisto (ed.)  2003.  Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing, pp. 403-409.

Fiske, J.  1987.  Television Culture.  London: Methuen.

Goffman, E.  1974.  Frame Analysis.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Meyorowitz, J.  1985.  No Sense of Place.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Storr, A.  1989.  Freud: A Very Short Introduction.  New York: Oxford University Press.