“Advertising doesn’t sell things; all advertising does is
change the way people think or feel” (Jeremy Bullmore) Evaluate this statement
with reference to selected critical theories (past or present).
This critical analysis shall focus on evaluating the depth
to which Jeremy Bullmore’s statement ‘Advertising doesn’t sell things; all
advertising does is change the way people think or feel’ is a valid and
appropriate statement, or whether other critical theories are more appropriate
in defining advertising. As we can see within this statement Jeremy Bullmore is
clearly stating that the notion of advertising is reliant on a psychological
change in the thought process of a consumer, rather than focusing its strategy
on selling the product/service through its aesthetic use or value. By using key
theories to evaluate the statement above and references them in a logical
manner this analysis shall also look at the effects of commodity culture,
commodity fetishism and reification on consumer culture and its contribution to
advertising. Although Bullmore’s statement can be evaluated in many ways this
analysis shall be attempting to dissect and differentiate the catalyst of
advertising, by establishing its effect on the consumer, whether it is a:
psychological aspect or the sales aspect that motivates consumers to indulge in
products/services which are exposed through advertising.
Within the book ‘Decoding advertisements, Ideology and
meaning within advertising’ (Williamson, 1978, p11.) outlines her theory
towards advertising. Within the book she outlines that advertising is ‘an
inevitable part of everyone’s lives’, it is inescapable, even if we chose
to ignore advertising it is still pervading through different platforms within
the media, therefore consciously avoiding it does not necessarily mean that we
are unaffected by it as it may effect us subconsciously. To a certain extent Williamson’s
theory within the book disagrees with Bullmore’s statement ‘Obviously it has
a function, which is to sell’, otherwise there would not be any need for a
product or service to have an advertisement produced and shown to potential
consumers. However on the other hand (Williamson, 1978, p11/12.) states ‘But
it has another function, which I believe in many ways replaces that traditionally
fulfilled by art of religion, it creates a structure and meaning’. This
statement by Williamson is simply stating that advertising has another function;
this function is based upon the idea that there are two types of worlds in
society one being ‘the real world’ and the other being ‘the ad world’, as both
of these worlds run coherent to each other the ‘ad world’ distorts normality in
the real world. Later on in the text (Williamson, 1978, p12.) follows up this
ideology by stating ‘Advertisements must take into account not only the
inherent qualities and attributes of the product they are trying to sell, but
also the way in which they can make those properties mean something to us’.
Williamson’s basic ideology through this text which supports Bullmore’s statement
is that advertisements have a form and function, through associating the form
into the function for example relating the product (ad world) to the way it
will effect and better an individual’s lifestyle in the real world triggers a
psychology response from the consumer to go out and by the product. `As we can
see Williamson’s theory clearly agrees with the psychological aspect of advertising
of Bullmore’s statement ‘advertising changes the way people think’, this is
evident through association from products to there personal lives.
Although Jeremy Bullmore’s and Williamson’s theories seem
relevant and clearly understandable supporting this idea that ‘Advertising
doesn’t sell things, all it does is changes the way people think’, within
the book Ethics and Manipulation in Advertising there is a quote which states “Advertising
is the product. What people are buying whether it’s drink, jeans, medicines, or
electronic gadgets, is the perception of the product they have absorbed from
advertising” (Clark, 1988, p53). In this statement Eric Clark is clearly
outlining that no matter what the product may be that the advertisers are presenting
to consumer the core key concept of advertisements is to sell them. The
association made between the product that is being advertised and how the
product can benefit a consumer/audiences lifestyle, is most defiantly down to
the translation that the consumer makes of how the product could be used once
purchasing it. The main point that is being outlined here is that advertising does
not come with a psychological attachment from the advertisers perspective,
however instead has a key purpose to sell, the psychological aspect of
associating how the product ‘changes the way people think’ is not at all an
advertisers intentions. In this instance the consumers/audience are responsible
for the way they manipulate the given product and information that is being
advertised, and interpret to fit comfortably into their daily lifestyle, in
order to convince and give themselves justification for buying the product.
Some may argue the underlying aim for advertising is to
sell, others may argue is down to this idea of society wanting to be involved
in commodity culture. Commodity culture is this idea that when consumers see a
new product they immediately have a aesthetic innovation and desire to have
this product in their lives, thus leading to a planned obsolescence which is a
conscious rejection of old products which they currently have, this further
takes them down a path that leads them to fixating on having this novelty (new
product) in their lives, thus resulting in the perpetuation of false needs. Stuart
Ewen stated “the notion of value is extended beyond the question of how a
given commodity is to be used by people in their daily lives” (Ewen,
1976, p53) It is known that within commodity culture we construct our identities
through the consumer products that inhabit in our lives, Stuart Ewen stating
that this is the commodity itself. Stuart Ewen is clearly stating here that the
desire to buy and consume these new products shapes our identities within
society and the way we perceive each other through wealth, the larger amounts
we spend on consuming products gives us a higher status within this social
hierarchy within society. The argument proposed by Stuart Ewen based on this
theory of commodity culture supports Bullmore’s statement ‘advertising
doesn’t sell things; all it does it change the way people think’, as
advertising in this context is changing the consumers thoughts upon their status
within society and leaving them surrounded within this commodity culture, in
order to reflect and draw to a conclusion that buying this new product will
give them a higher status within society, thus a feeling of acceptance and
satisfaction.
Advertisers such as the Lever Brothers (William Hesketh
Lever and James Darcy Lever) an iconic pair of manufactures and advertisers are
a historic example that can both support and contradict Bullmore’s statement. The
Lever brothers invested and promoted a soap making process that was established
by the chemist William Hough Watson. William Hesketh Lever discovered a painting
called ‘The New Frock’ fig. 1 (William Powell Frith) and purchased this
painting for around £157 at the Royal Academy Summer exhibition to use within
the advertising of this newly invested soup process. This painting of a pretty
little girl dressed in white linen was then used to advertise this soap process,
which was called ‘Sunlight soap’, the tag line used across the painting when
advertised vocalized the words ‘So Clean’ to the audience. During this period
of time advertising had evolved a vast amount and advertisers were aware of the
implications that careless advertising could lead to, the Lever brothers
therefore decided to take a tactical approach to the way that they promoted
this new product. The portrayal of this painting for Sunlight Soup depicted
this sense of ‘The pretty girl wearing here white dress’, ‘The sense of pride of the little girl coupled with
cleanliness’. This depiction resulted in the
advertiser planting the idea to the consumer in this instance being mothers and
housewives: ‘The sense of pride of the little girl coupled with cleanliness’.
As we can see from this source the Lever Brothers were carrying out the
technique of emotional strategy. This strategy made the target audience
(mothers and housewives) ponder upon the relevance, the necessity and the need
for this new soap product in their lives. The emotional response being that if
they invested in product they would achieve this sense of pride, which was
being advertised equally as desirable, and a necessity. On one hand this
example supports Bullmore’s theory that ‘all advertising does is change the
way people think or feel’ as in this instance the Lever brothers approach
was to sell this product based on an emotive driver, which would create a
emotive stimuli to the consumer, thus an emotive response. However on the other
hand one could argue that although they have used this emotive strategy they
have sold this ‘Sunlight Soap’ product based on the products performance and
used a colour and material (white linen) to demonstrate the power of this
product and the outcome it generates, thus contradicting Bullmore’s idea of
‘advertising changes the way people think and feel’ and supporting this idea
that advertising’s underlying and predominant aim is to sell.
Although the argument above as to whether
the Lever Brothers Sunlight Soap example is supportive or contradictory to
Jeremy Bullmore’s statement, we can apply their example of the strategic
procedure of the product Lipton Yellow Label, much more transparently when
evaluating Bullmore’s statement. In this particular article ‘What type of
positional mix strategy Lever Brother is using for Lipton Yellow Label’ that was
found through a web-based source, it is noted that for this specific product
the Lever Brothers use a Pull Strategy as oppose to a Push Strategy when
advertising to their chosen target audience. A Pull based strategy is targeted
towards the consumer; the consumers for this particular product are loyal as
the product was released a while back, through concentrating on the consumer through
creating sales promotions along with advertising these promotions the Pull
strategy is clear evidence of strategic and direct selling. In comparison to
the Push strategy, which used ‘marketing skills to promote products in order to
create demand for the product’ this is done through intermediates. This Pull
strategy that the Lever brother have used in the past contradicts Bullmore’s
statement of ‘advertising doesn’t sell things; all advertising does it change
the way people think and feel’. Evidence here clearly proves that it
contradicts Bullmore’s statement as it proves that if customers have brand
loyalty through having a satisfying experience using the product (which is
initiated through being sold the product in the first instance) then the
advertisers such as the Lever brothers would continue using this sales approach,
too advertise their products rather than change there ethos and approach to
trying to ‘changing the way people think or feel’.
The subject of commodity fetishism is an
interesting economic, social and cultural web of complexity that can contribute
to evaluating the statement proposed by Jeremy Bullmore. Looking at Commodity
Fetishism from a magnified perspective the general idea is based upon that true
value of a product and its context in terms of its production being hidden from
the consumer by the advertisers results in the audience not being aware of the
products true value, this creates a fetishism (non-sexual), this fetishism
being a feeling which is attached to the product which the advertisers plant in
the consumers minds, this is called reification. As consumers we then fetishize
about wanting these products in order to inherit and experience this feeling
that is injected into us. For example the labour put into making Nike shoes in
sweatshops where workers are given minimal amounts of wages, made to work under
more than poor condition and treated with disregard are hidden from the
consumer (this is the context of the shoe), “there is nothing material in a
commodity that makes it worth a specific amount of labour time, these are
objects and their value is in your mind” (Marxism 108 Commodity Fetishism), Nike
portray there products to be ‘cool’ and in response the consumer desires to
encounter this feeling, however this feeling/desire is generated through our
projection of the product and through the weapons that the advertisers use to
present us with these products. The idea of commodity fetishism supports
Bullmore’s statement of ‘advertising doesn’t sell things; all advertising does
is change the way people think or feel’. In this context the specific example
is ‘changing the way people feel’.
Within the book ‘Advertising as
Communication’ Gillian Dyer stated, “Advertising’s central function is to
create desires that previously did not exist. Thus advertising arouses our
interests and emotions in favor of goods and more goods, and thereby actually creates
the desire it seeks to satisfy” (Dyer, 1982, p.6). Within this statement it
is clear that the this idea of commodity fetishism and reification is visual
and intersecting the perspective of Gillian Dyer and the response of the
consumer, the part of the statement which reads “advertising arouses our
interests and emotions in favor of goods” (Dyer, 1982, p.6) is a clear
demonstration that the products we decide to buy as a consumer fulfills this
want and need that we as a consumer project onto the product which is derived
by the initial message given by the consumer, whether it may be; cool,
romantic, sexy, funny to have the product that the advertiser is trying to
sell. Gillian Dyer later states ‘our desires are aroused and shaped by demands
of the system of production, not by the needs or society or of an individual.
It is thus the advertiser’s task to try to persuade rather than inform”. This
statement that has been proposed is supportive of Bullmore’s statement that
advertising changes the way people think or feel rather than advertising is
there to sell. The idea and notion of commodity fetishism and the want and
desire that is created results in reification of the product, thus supporting
Bullmore in saying that advertisers have a psychological approach in the
process of persuasion in advertising.
Although this idea of reification can
be justified through examples, the advertising strategy of product placement is
just as well worthy and strong theory that can justify why advertising is there
to simply sell. Product placement is simply the act of embedding a product into
a movie, TV show, music video or platforms similar to this. For example a broad
and knowledgeable example would be the product placement of Sony electrical
product within the marketing and full-length film of the series of James Bond
movies, on the 02 website the Sony phone has been advertised as “Sony Xperia T
– The Bond Phone” fig. 2 after the films release and once this placement had
been made and exercised. As this strategy has been used for decades a more
historical example of product placement would be the placement of the bars of
Sunlight Soap which was “substituted for the clock on the mantelpiece and the
cup and sauces or on the table” in the painting “The wedding Morning” fig 3.
which was purchased from the painter John Henry Fredrick Bacon by the Lever
brothers. A latter example of product placement, which is more contemporary, would
be ‘Channel 4's first product placement deal is with high street chain New Look', for
a new show in youth strand T4’ fig 4. which was agreed in March 2011 and published in the Guardian broadsheet.
From these three examples of product placement it is valid to say that this
strategy of advertising is clearly effective for the advertisers along with
having an underlying purpose to sell rather than ‘change the way people think
or feel’. This underlying purpose to sell has clearly driven advertisers to
promote their products through aesthetic use and value through showing the
product in use, through placing them in different environments according to the
genre of film or TV show/ music video. This has been done in order to expose
the audience to the true greatness of the product thus triggering a response in
the consumer’s mind that this product should be purchased. Therefore this idea
of product placement is a evident example of Jeremy Bullmore’s theory being
incorrect and the true purpose of advertising being to sell rather than to
create a psychological change in the consumers thought process.
In the book ‘The hidden Persuaders’
Vance Packard states “Our psychological peculiarities are nowhere more manifest
than in the way we hear and see things in selling messages that were not
intended to be heard or seen” (Packard, 1914, p.146) In this statement Vance
Packard is clearly agreeing with Bullmore in saying that advertisers do take a
psychological approach and do try and change the way people think. However he
latter states “The acute sensitivity of our inner eye and inner ear in
receiving messages that were totally untended almost makes you feel sorry for
the poor marketer at times” (Packard, 19.14, p.146). In this statement
Packard confirms that advertisers do take a psychological approach to
advertising however Packard uses scientific investigation to point out that
despite advertisers taking this approach the consumer is evoked subconsciously
to use their inner sense to be selective and absorb certain pieces of
information from the adverts, in this instance the advertisers can portray
incorrect messages without even realizing. The example Packard used is when the
washing machine –maker (Bendix) got itself into a dilemma, where what they were
advertising was misconceived, “showing its duomatic washing and drying the
family’s clothes” whilst the family of five slept in one bed, instead of the
audience focusing on the product being sold the thought by many consumers was
‘why are they investing in the washing machine if they can not afford five
separate beds’. On one hand Vance Packard’s statement supports Bullmore’s
statement in terms of agreeing that advertisers do try and ‘change the way
people think or feel’, however on the other hand Packard then goes onto stating
that although advertisers take this approach the consumers response is not
effected by this approach taken, as the consumer inner-senses have dominance in
controlling what is perceived through interacting with the advert.
In conclusion to the supportive
arguments and contradictory arguments made above it is clear that the
advertisers overall aim is to sell the product and the approach taken in doing
so is ultimately sales driven. Looking at past and present studies and theories
such as the commodity culture theory and others analyzed above it is much more
evident that advertising do take a psychological approach to the way that a
product is sold, whether this is subtly or blatant is arguable. However after
looking at the arguments that support Bullmore’s statement another questionable
debate has arisen as whether the psychological change in the way the audience
think or feel is due to the advertisers implementing this onto the consumer or
whether the consumer interprets the advertisement being presented to them in a
manner that results in a psychological response. Whether the sources used above
are reliable enough to conclude and justify Bullmore’s statement are down to personal
opinion. However within this critical analysis above the evidence and examples
given to support Bullmore’s statement of “advertising doesn’t sell things; all
advertising does it change the way people think or feel” are much more stronger
thus more reliable and valid, in comparison to the examples and evidence given
to argue opposing which seem weaker thus lacking little or no substance when
applied to advertising. It is safe to say that Bullmore’s statement is true and
valid taking into consideration the vast in-depth and logical examples given in
the analysis above.
Fig. 1
Fig 2.
Fig 3.
Fig. 4
Harvard References:
Books
Clark, E. (1988)
‘Ethics and Manipulation in Advertising Answering a Flawed Indictment’, 1st ed.
P.53, Phillips, J.M. Quorum Books, Westport, Greenwood Publishing Group Inc.
Dyer, G. (1982)
‘Advertising as Communication, 1st ed. P6, Methuen & Co Ltd
Ewen, S. (1976)
‘‘Ethics and Manipulation in Advertising Answering a Flawed Indictment’, 1st
ed. P.53, Phillips, J.M. Quorum Books, Westport, Greenwood Publishing Group
Inc.
Packard, V.
(1914) ‘The Hidden Persuaders’, 2nd ed. P146, Miller, C.M. IQ
Publishing, Brooklyn NY
Williamson, J.
(1978) ‘Decoding Advertisements Ideology and Meaning in Advertising’, 1st
ed. Marion Boyars, London. P11-12
Internet:
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/picture-of-month/displaypicture.asp?venue=7&id=168 Accessed 27th January 2013
http://www.blurtit.com/q468082.html
Accessed 27th January 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwEqUy0TPMs
, 1:12-1:17 Accessed 27th January 2012
http://shop.o2.co.uk/mobile_phone/pay_monthly/init/Sony/Xperia_T
Accessed 27th January 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/15/channel-4-product-placement-new-look
Accessed 27th January 2013
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ladylever/collections/paintings/gallery3/theweddingmorning.aspx
Accessed 27th January 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment