There have been many debates in the past about ethics in advertising.
Academics and social scientists against practitioners, supporting how advertising is promoting harmful images, advertisers supporting they are just doing their job and so on....
Jean Kilbourne once said that it isn't so much about advertising intending to harm, but rather in order to succeed in its task, it inevitably does so.
I recently had a thought.
Is it an issue whether an advert is harmful or unethical or not, or is it rather that it is inevitable to have advertising-in any form, without ethical issues being implicated?
Now, the most amusing thing you-and any consumer can respond to an advertiser or advertising is:
'I'm not influenced by it' or 'no-one can make me buy things if I don't want to'.
That is the very first instant advertisers have succeeded.
Advertising does not work like when your mum told you to do things when you were young: 'you have to eat this'!
Advertising instead tries to achieve its goals by a not so direct manner, by creating needs.
Advertising does not come straight to your face saying: 'buy this' it does not order you to do anything.
What on earth do I mean? Ok, let's think of some examples.
I'm sorry but I haven't seen any woman who looks like this at any burger house - probably- and I know this will shock you-models don't eat in places like this!
Many years back, in the 80's, a young lady, only 15 years of age was casted to take part in a Calvin Klein advert. This you lady was Brook Shields. Now...the advert raised some serious ethical concerns. Not only because of the way the camera showed and focused on the body but because this teenage girl was depicted as a sexual object-made to look like a grown woman and focusing on her buttocks.
Now you say ok so what? How is this considered unethical? Distasteful or wrong maybe but unethical? Well just imagine you have a 15 year old daughter....behaving like that and looking like that in any other place-or being friends with another girl who is like that and wants to copy her....
Now my favorite shitty advert.
Black opium perfume. Isn't it a f*&*%%# treat!
Girl gets up in the middle of the night alone rushing through the streets obviously looking for someone or something, to finally get to a guy's apartment where he puts his arms around her and she searches his back pockets until she manages to find 'black opium' (get it) sprays it on and as soon as she does, sighs in relief-just like a junky getting the his hands on his 'opium'.
If you replace the perfume bottle at the end of the advert with a 'fix' you could summarize' requiem for a dream-have you seen the film? Didn't end so well. For anyone!
You know, the film with junkies, really good soundtrack...So what is unethical about that you might say? Oh not much just trying to make a perfume seem so important that it acts in a way that drugs to for junkies-gives that so good feeling-making a perfume look addictive- a perfume! Wow imagine life without it-what would we become without this so important liquid! Can't even imagine....
Now, an advertising team would say this is creative-yes, so?
Let me tell you art has shown some pretty harmful shit in the past.
Just type nazi propaganda in google search and see how many 'artsy' fartsy images you get.
Besides, art is a fluid concept... An image is so strong that could work even before you start thinking about stuff.
For the 'I don't get influenced' people just think- someone tries to sell you a product by 2 different companies. One company you see advertised all the time-the other never- you haven't tried either before-which do you choose and why?
At 6 months babies can identify corporate logos (Jean Kilbourne) and apparently that is the age we are started to get targeted by companies now. Now if that is not brainwashing what is? So of course at 30 you think you 'are not influenced'.
Cosmetics-how many of you ladies bought that mascara you saw advertised because it gives x times longer - as shown- eyelashes......
Not to mention you gentlemen thinking the Marlboro man looks so manly...let me tell you - he can't have looked that manly in hospital dying of cancer....think about it!
Of course you are not going to see cancer in the advert-or chemotherapy or even the funeral service! You will see whatever image they want to attach the product to, to make the target group buy it! Why? because they link the image to the product-the image they want to adopt.
After the war smoking was considered so glamourous and even when the studies showed how harmful it was, the adverts kept on trying to show it is sooo damn fabulous:
Just like it says, made for women, beautiful and sweet-and what more beautiful than that sweet smoking cough and ashtray breath-what is more delicate, feminine and ladylike than to stink of cigarettes.
Of course you say but how is that unethical? Well it is misleading..... it promotes something harmful as beautiful....trying to promote an image far from reality.....linking it to positive images. Now don't forget children or teenagers are also targeted in advertising to create future customers....
But it works right?
Doesn't she look attractive? Just don't sit next to her cause you will stink as well.
Now, what about men with cars......Women love these. Well not the clever ones.
The validation of having a big car, possibly as a compensation to having something very small, maybe, just saying!
Now, again we have the more feminine cars and the more 'manly' cars.
Now I'm sorry gentlemen but you will still need whatever you have in your pants-cars don't make up for your size you know! Usually I think women do think size matters - and they don't mean that of your car, but the one you have in your paaaants! Can't put your car in every place now can you?
But look at this car advert-never mind the small print-it is slick, powerful-catches your eye and so on. Makes you feel like you need it cause it will make you look so good that panties will instantly drop (flup).
So the consumer starts to feel once he has that, he will also be like that...nope...nope you won't.
Now again-how is this unethical? The advert doesn't try to make you buy it right? It doesn't have the words you need to buy it.
So let's just say, it tries to make you feel that IF you buy this, you will have certain benefits. What is wrong with that? None of those it is promoting in its image, has to do with safe driving! Not to mention trying to promote how it will improve your image and make you look good trying to make personality less important, your looks or qualities. Of course if you are an asshole it might-but again - it will not compensate!
The issue isn't though whether an advert is or not unethical - the issue is could you have an advert-one fulfilling its purpose that is-without it being unethical?
Will you sell burgers if you showed heart attacks? Nope you won't and last time I checked you can't have burgers while sliming down-at least not the ones in Mc Donald's-you know that plastic stuff they pretend its meat?
Would you sell as many cosmetics if most (I know there are a few exceptions now-just a strategyyy don't be fooled my dear) anti-wrinkle creams would be sold by women who actually have fucking wrinkles-usually over 30-with children, busting their arse all day to make it.
Of course not! Why? because the 20 year old will sell better -cause she doesn't have wrinkles-she hasn't even got wisdom teeth yet, never mind wrinkles!
Would you buy a cream even if it truthfully showed improvement? No! Why? Because the 20 year old makes you deny truth - pretend you could get to that. It's like with women in denial with their cheating husbands. Its like people being in denial of what they don't want to believe so just pretend it doesn't exist....
So you see, advertisements cannot sell things if they show the true picture or just confine their message to simple information for what they are selling. In order to make you buy it-they will show you what you want to see and that is-nothing unpleasant.....
sources:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=burger+advertising&view=detailv2&&id=73E2D78E8D49B0DD3D1F8F306A22F518800F35E6&selectedIndex=9&ccid=LaD93vIW&simid=608026357815708788&thid=OIP.M2da0fddef216b7845e77ef5546f35ac7o0&ajaxhist=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_tom65LKiE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA_ow1ZzdLo
Academics and social scientists against practitioners, supporting how advertising is promoting harmful images, advertisers supporting they are just doing their job and so on....
Jean Kilbourne once said that it isn't so much about advertising intending to harm, but rather in order to succeed in its task, it inevitably does so.
I recently had a thought.
Is it an issue whether an advert is harmful or unethical or not, or is it rather that it is inevitable to have advertising-in any form, without ethical issues being implicated?
Now, the most amusing thing you-and any consumer can respond to an advertiser or advertising is:
'I'm not influenced by it' or 'no-one can make me buy things if I don't want to'.
That is the very first instant advertisers have succeeded.
Advertising does not work like when your mum told you to do things when you were young: 'you have to eat this'!
Advertising instead tries to achieve its goals by a not so direct manner, by creating needs.
Advertising does not come straight to your face saying: 'buy this' it does not order you to do anything.
What on earth do I mean? Ok, let's think of some examples.
Research has shown in the past that the images in advertising as well as the slogans, create powerful messages.
The purpose is to create 'needs', 'ideals' even substitutes.
Substitutes for love, happiness , relationships, etc.
Have you ever considered how an advertisement for a chocolate includes sexy images rather than a dentist, diabetics or even overweight individuals which are common outcomes?
Chocolate is more likely to make you fat rather than attractive.
The same story is repeated in other instances like burgers like the following advert:
I'm sorry but I haven't seen any woman who looks like this at any burger house - probably- and I know this will shock you-models don't eat in places like this!
Not to mention eating her burger like this. This is a perfect example of how images are linked to the product or even service. Not to mention the other ethical issues, such as the sexual -not so subtle-element of the picture on the bottom right with the woman's mouth half open (of course the red lipstick which is a highly sexual color) and the snack approaching the mouth, at the shape of a ... guess what.....grrrr!
Many years back, in the 80's, a young lady, only 15 years of age was casted to take part in a Calvin Klein advert. This you lady was Brook Shields. Now...the advert raised some serious ethical concerns. Not only because of the way the camera showed and focused on the body but because this teenage girl was depicted as a sexual object-made to look like a grown woman and focusing on her buttocks.
Now you say ok so what? How is this considered unethical? Distasteful or wrong maybe but unethical? Well just imagine you have a 15 year old daughter....behaving like that and looking like that in any other place-or being friends with another girl who is like that and wants to copy her....
Now my favorite shitty advert.
Black opium perfume. Isn't it a f*&*%%# treat!
Girl gets up in the middle of the night alone rushing through the streets obviously looking for someone or something, to finally get to a guy's apartment where he puts his arms around her and she searches his back pockets until she manages to find 'black opium' (get it) sprays it on and as soon as she does, sighs in relief-just like a junky getting the his hands on his 'opium'.
If you replace the perfume bottle at the end of the advert with a 'fix' you could summarize' requiem for a dream-have you seen the film? Didn't end so well. For anyone!
You know, the film with junkies, really good soundtrack...So what is unethical about that you might say? Oh not much just trying to make a perfume seem so important that it acts in a way that drugs to for junkies-gives that so good feeling-making a perfume look addictive- a perfume! Wow imagine life without it-what would we become without this so important liquid! Can't even imagine....
Now, an advertising team would say this is creative-yes, so?
Let me tell you art has shown some pretty harmful shit in the past.
Just type nazi propaganda in google search and see how many 'artsy' fartsy images you get.
Besides, art is a fluid concept... An image is so strong that could work even before you start thinking about stuff.
For the 'I don't get influenced' people just think- someone tries to sell you a product by 2 different companies. One company you see advertised all the time-the other never- you haven't tried either before-which do you choose and why?
At 6 months babies can identify corporate logos (Jean Kilbourne) and apparently that is the age we are started to get targeted by companies now. Now if that is not brainwashing what is? So of course at 30 you think you 'are not influenced'.
Cosmetics-how many of you ladies bought that mascara you saw advertised because it gives x times longer - as shown- eyelashes......
Not to mention you gentlemen thinking the Marlboro man looks so manly...let me tell you - he can't have looked that manly in hospital dying of cancer....think about it!
Of course you are not going to see cancer in the advert-or chemotherapy or even the funeral service! You will see whatever image they want to attach the product to, to make the target group buy it! Why? because they link the image to the product-the image they want to adopt.
After the war smoking was considered so glamourous and even when the studies showed how harmful it was, the adverts kept on trying to show it is sooo damn fabulous:
Just like it says, made for women, beautiful and sweet-and what more beautiful than that sweet smoking cough and ashtray breath-what is more delicate, feminine and ladylike than to stink of cigarettes.
Of course you say but how is that unethical? Well it is misleading..... it promotes something harmful as beautiful....trying to promote an image far from reality.....linking it to positive images. Now don't forget children or teenagers are also targeted in advertising to create future customers....
But it works right?
Doesn't she look attractive? Just don't sit next to her cause you will stink as well.
Now, what about men with cars......Women love these. Well not the clever ones.
The validation of having a big car, possibly as a compensation to having something very small, maybe, just saying!
Now, again we have the more feminine cars and the more 'manly' cars.
Now I'm sorry gentlemen but you will still need whatever you have in your pants-cars don't make up for your size you know! Usually I think women do think size matters - and they don't mean that of your car, but the one you have in your paaaants! Can't put your car in every place now can you?
But look at this car advert-never mind the small print-it is slick, powerful-catches your eye and so on. Makes you feel like you need it cause it will make you look so good that panties will instantly drop (flup).
So the consumer starts to feel once he has that, he will also be like that...nope...nope you won't.
Now again-how is this unethical? The advert doesn't try to make you buy it right? It doesn't have the words you need to buy it.
So let's just say, it tries to make you feel that IF you buy this, you will have certain benefits. What is wrong with that? None of those it is promoting in its image, has to do with safe driving! Not to mention trying to promote how it will improve your image and make you look good trying to make personality less important, your looks or qualities. Of course if you are an asshole it might-but again - it will not compensate!
The issue isn't though whether an advert is or not unethical - the issue is could you have an advert-one fulfilling its purpose that is-without it being unethical?
Will you sell burgers if you showed heart attacks? Nope you won't and last time I checked you can't have burgers while sliming down-at least not the ones in Mc Donald's-you know that plastic stuff they pretend its meat?
Would you sell as many cosmetics if most (I know there are a few exceptions now-just a strategyyy don't be fooled my dear) anti-wrinkle creams would be sold by women who actually have fucking wrinkles-usually over 30-with children, busting their arse all day to make it.
Of course not! Why? because the 20 year old will sell better -cause she doesn't have wrinkles-she hasn't even got wisdom teeth yet, never mind wrinkles!
Would you buy a cream even if it truthfully showed improvement? No! Why? Because the 20 year old makes you deny truth - pretend you could get to that. It's like with women in denial with their cheating husbands. Its like people being in denial of what they don't want to believe so just pretend it doesn't exist....
So you see, advertisements cannot sell things if they show the true picture or just confine their message to simple information for what they are selling. In order to make you buy it-they will show you what you want to see and that is-nothing unpleasant.....
sources:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=burger+advertising&view=detailv2&&id=73E2D78E8D49B0DD3D1F8F306A22F518800F35E6&selectedIndex=9&ccid=LaD93vIW&simid=608026357815708788&thid=OIP.M2da0fddef216b7845e77ef5546f35ac7o0&ajaxhist=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_tom65LKiE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA_ow1ZzdLo
