i get a lot of flak for working in advertising. i get told, on a somewhat regular basis, that all advertising is manipulative crap, only designed to sell shit people don’t need. the thing is, that’s absolutely true. the other thing is, it’s also absolutely true of all forms of communication.
every play, every painting, every song, every movie, every distinct form of communication is designed to do one thing: manipulate you. they’re designed to “sell” something. that’s not a bad thing. all we’re trying to do is get people to see things from our perspective. the core of all communication is essentially the same: i want you to understand ___________.
a teacher instructing an history class: i want you to understand the cause and effect of events and how to use that information to make better decisions in the future.
telling a joke: i want you to understand that this is funny, this is a common thread we share, our laughter in this, and i want you to like me for it.
a painting: i want you to understand how i see the world.
a movie: i want you to understand these characters and how they reflect a little bit of all of us.
a advertisement: i want you to understand that coca cola tastes good.
every form of expression is about trying to convince people to understand. if that weren’t the case, we would have never evolved language beyond simple grunts and noises to signify danger. there’s no other point. think about any conversation you’ve ever had. what was the goal? to share your viewpoint, and try to understand someone else’s. if anything, advertising is more honest because it comes right out and says “i’m trying to convince you to do something.”
everyone, always, has ulterior motives. it’s how we survive. it would be naive to proclaim that anything you create isn’t at some level inherently selfish. again, that’s not a bad thing. why else would we demand credit for the things we do? why else would we put our names on our art? even if we didn’t, we’re still trying to manipulate someone into seeing our viewpoint, whether they know it, or we know it, or not.
roger ebert famously said, “the value of a movie is not what it’s about. it’s how it’s about what it’s about.” i think that applies to all forms communication. the value of a piece of art is not the subject matter, but how the subject matter is depicted. advertising is no different. the value of an ad is not in its motive, but its execution.
-srd
2 responses so far ↓
joethecabdriver // November 25, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
My main problem with advertising is that is it so pervasive and hard to get away from. We are pummeled with it. If you do not want to hear a joke, you can either turn off the TV or radio, or walk away from the person telling it. With advertising, that is much harder. They advertise on friggin’ cornflakes now. Not only do you have to endure the … See Morepropaganda on the cereal box, but now you must endure a big K as you peer down in your bowl. maybe it’s not nationwide yet but its a good example of how pervasively it is creeps into our lives. I personally abstain from as much advertising as humanly possible. I can do that with all other forms of media with relative ease but with advertising it is much harder.
rusty // November 25, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
i never really thought that it was controversial or unrecognised that advertising, at its base, is simply another form of communication. nor would any average person have problems admitting that good literature exploits your emotions. rather, it is the nature of the manipulation that is problematic.
here is one form of manipulation, which claims give you the ideal smile (google recently approved a ban of these ads from its network):
http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CNaFtqqx-JXIchCsAhjvATIIfEjscUZszM8
and another kind of manipulation, meant to communicate the ideal soul:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moby-Dick/Chapter_23