Mediologist Régis Debray claims that « if publicity promoted the qualities of an object, then its successor, advertising, flatters the desires of a subject ». Marshall McLuhan,1960s Canadian media guru, believed that « ads are not meant for conscious consumption. They are intended as subliminal pills for the sub-conscious…». Or : « They are quite in accord with the procedures of brain-washing ». And, « any acceptable ad is a vigorous dramatisation of communal experience », as (expensive) ads are « carefully built on the tested foundations of public stereotypes or ‘sets’ of established attitudes…».
A Frenchman, Armand Dayan, cites sociologist Edgar Morin, for whom « (advertising) consists of transforming a product into a minor drug - its craving stimulating the purchase of the product/service which procures the effect of relief and, ultimately, slavery to the same ». For French advertiser Bernard Brochand, « advertising nourishes the body social in its entirety with an ethical system of moral values, in effect, with a culture ». In the same book, the advertiser and author Bernard Cathelat, states that « the content of the advertising message is quite clearly cultural, civilisational, a statement of faith and morality, a semi-official standard-setter of aesthetics and good taste, in a word, a lifestyle model ». In addition, « advertising is an interface between economic reality and dream », according to Cathelat.
For Briton John Berger, in his book ‘Ways of Seeing’, circa 1970, « publicity is about social relations, not objects ». ‘Publicity’, as he calls it, creates envy, and the state of being envied is what constitutes glamour. And publicity is the process of manufacturing glamour ». And again, « The purpose of publicity is to make the spectator marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life » ; « All publicity works on anxiety ». In conclusion, Berger states : « …without publicity, capitalism would not survive… Capitalism survives by forcing the majority, whom it exploits, to define their own interests as narrowly as possible…by imposing a false standard of what is and what is not desirable ».
If advertising exists to sell, it exists first to persuade. The great American advertiser, Rosser Reeves, was claimed to have said that advertising « was the act of moving an idea from the head of one man into the head of another ». The writer H.G.Wells believed it was « the art of teaching people to want things ». Eric Clark, in the same book, says that « advertising has become far too important to be left to the advertising men », for it has real power, « the power to prevail » over the consumer through high volume and ubiquity. For the philosopher Malcom Muggeridge, advertising was a « real evil ».
A final comment from semiologist Roland Barthes in 1964 : analysing a print advert for Panzani pasta, he made the following remarks on meaning and image : « Let us study an advertisement…because in advertising, the meaning of the image is certainly intentional…its signs are clear and straightforward, even emphatic. » (translation by WS). Here indeed lies the advantage of commenting print adverts, for their stability and accessibility.
The same cannot be said for the moving image, far trickier to analyse by its very nature. To grasp the linguistic and meta-linguistic message as Barthes did with his pasta ad, the moving image must ideally be recorded and watched closely a hundred times by several media specialists, then analysed, for it to reveal its deeper meaning. Clearly, and this has massive implications for the viewing public, when attempting to understand a television commercial, it is impossible, for a deeper analysis, to rely simply on one’s superficial memory. It must be said that advertisers play on this difficulty of apprehending the full sense of the moving image, especially given that the general public is no collection of Roland Barthes.
Indeed then, what is the hidden message, the hidden intent behind commercials and adverts ?
Posts
