Advertising in a Pill
A Canadian humorist, Stephen Leacock, once said that advertising is “the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.” The statement was true in Leacock’s lifetime (1869-1944) and it is true today.
Traditionally, advertising is defined as a form of communication intended to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to take some action, such as purchase or consume a particular brand. It includes the name of a product or service and usually shows how that product or service could benefit the consumer. Through the repetition of an image or product name, advertising campaigns associate related qualities with the brand in the minds of consumers.
Although advertising is most often used to sell commercial products and services, some non-for-profit organizations (political parties, interest groups, religious organizations and charities) use this method of communication to inform, raise awareness and funds for a particular cause. Commercial and non-commercial ads are usually but not always (as I we will see later) easy to distinct from each other. Nowadays, both types utilize traditional media (newspapers, magazines, television, radio, outdoor or direct mail) and new media (websites and text messages).
Advertising's Got Some Issues
Regardless of the means of communicating, advertising has always been a controversial subject. Since its very purpose is to persuade customers to act in certain way, advertising is often accused (not without a reason) of manipulating or even ‘brainwashing’ people.
There is a number of ethical issues surrounding the field of advertising and these include:
- The use of sex and/or violence in advertising campaigns;
- The right to advertise products considered to be harmful to humans, such as alcohol and cigarettes or unhealthy foods;
- Advertising aimed at children and other vulnerable social groups;
- False claims, lies and misleading the consumers (especially evident in recent trend to show brands as ‘green’ and ‘eco-friendly’ in order to win the environmentally conscious customers);
- The use of shock tactics crossing the boundaries of taste and decency (frequently utilized in charity fundraising campaigns);
- The cultural and moral impact of advertising on customers and customs as well as the overall spread of consumerism.
In order to protect people from the impact of unethical advertising, a number of laws and regulations have been introduced. In the UK, for example, the
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) acts as an independent watchdog ensuring that ads we see everyday are legal, decent, honest and truthful by enforcing the
Advertising Codes written by the
Committee of Advertising Practice and acting when marketing communications break the rules.
Personally, I do understand the need to have some control over what can and cannot be used in advertising. However, I always find it interesting that people who raise accusations against advertisers are not usually concerned about themselves but about ‘someone else’: children, teenagers, young adults, working class people, elderly, the ill, the troubled, the stupid ones, etc. I do acknowledge the fact that we all, at times, become ‘victims’ of manipulative advertising. But I also believe that the fears of the entire, ‘brainwashed’ human civilization heading for the inevitable self-destruction are a bit exaggerated and those who spread such panic simply underestimate customers’ intelligence. People are not dumb! We know advertisers are biased! We know they are just trying to sell us something! We no longer take adverts seriously! We really can negotiate advertising or ignore it completely.
With this in mind I begun questioning what ‘ethical advertising’ really is. Does a commercial become ethical by simply obeying the laws and respecting the rules of social and cultural decency? Is a charity ad an ethical ad only because it supports a good cause? How do we distinguish good advertising from bad advertising? What makes a ‘good’ advertising campaign: a stunning graphic design, a commercial success it generates, or the charitable cause it advocates? And finally, is it possible to generate a profit while promoting an important social issue through a stunning graphic design? Can we have it all?
My answer is ‘Yes’! And it is not a totally new concept!
Advertising for Social Responsibility
While in 1980s the West was dealing with the issues of race, racial equality, inequality and diversity,
United Colors of Benetton launched the first of many controversial advertising campaign featuring multi-racial couples and families. Instead of showing multi-coloured clothing and telling us where to buy it, Benetton ads represented important social issues, religious and political conflicts (the Palestinian and the Israeli), religious and sexual conflict (a priest kissing a nun) and yet another portrayal of moral conflict (the stereotypes of good and ever, symbolized by an angel and the devil). Paradoxically, the growing popularity of Benetton merchandise translated into the disappearance of those good from the ads.
In early 1990s Benetton’s advertising style became even more ‘realistic’ through the use of photojournalistic imagery instead of staged photography and manufactured reality used in traditional ads. Again, instead of pictures of happy people in colourful clothing, customers had to face terrifyingly real images of war cemetery, a newborn baby, a man dying from AIDS, a soldier gripping a human thigh bone, a ship being stormed by emigrants, etc.
The reactions to those real-life photos were sometimes violent. The campaigns were criticized not only for using shocking images and violating taboos but also for using AIDS, war, racism and so forth, as a source of income and a component of a profit-making venture. Nevertheless, Benetton’s campaigns stimulated public discussion of those important issues more than efforts of many purposely-established non-for-profit organizations. United Colors of Benetton proved that a ‘different’ use of advertising was indeed possible.
Designers Vs. Advertisers
The Benetton example serves also as a valuable contribution to the discussion of the graphic designers’ role in advertising. Back in 1964 Ken Garland questioned the application of graphic designers’ talent and skills to advertising. In his famous manifesto
First Things First Garland argued that advertising had “reached a saturation point” (questionable from our perspective) and that it had been persistently presented as “most lucrative, effective and desirable means” of using graphic designers’ potential.
As the advertising field grew, it became more and more difficult to differentiate between graphic designers and advertisers. More than ever before, graphic design is now being used as a tool for advertising.
Garland’s call for “reversal of priorities in favour of the more useful and more lasting forms of communication’ was
updated and reprinted by the Canadian magazine Adbusters in 2000. Many of the most influential contemporary graphic designers, art directors and visual communicators became uncomfortable with “devoting their efforts primarily to advertising, marketing and brand development”. They spoke against serving commerce and in favour of applying the problem-solving skills to unprecedented environmental, social and cultural issues demanding designers’ attention, expertise and help.
With the
First Things First manifesto in mind, Benetton’s past and present marketing campaigns seem even more admirable and significant. The brands’ socio-commercial work of the past two decades strikes as a perfect example of a rare marriage of advertising and social responsibility. My point is that United Color of Benetton proved time and time again that combining aesthetics, social impact and commercial success is indeed possible. And this is what I call ‘good advertising’!
The problem
