To receive a statement that “one is a play safe” is not actually a compliment, implying that one does not defend his verdict over an argument or does not even have a stand on it. While playing safe might be a reason for a housemate to be nominated for eviction in the Philippine reality show Big Brother as it may infer pretentions, or be a reason for a journalist’s write-up on a corruption issue to be crumpled by an editor as it did not voice out the sleaze, to say that advertising is both a positive and a negative social tool is actually ‘safer’ than playing safe, and indeed, a positive comment.
It is inevitable to see advertisements everywhere. You see your favorite shampoo (which is effective) commercial on TV; you go past a call-center-job-opportunity flyer glued on a post (and you applied, got hired and paid your bills on time the next month); you read posters inviting you to buy your own condominium unit with as low as P5,500.00 monthly amortization (then found out after communicating with the contact person that it was a promo three months ago); you read from newspapers concert invitations highlighting the word ‘only’ in every admission fee (as if P2,000.00 costs really cheap); you notice empty billboard with still advertisement on it saying that ‘this space is available’ (and the next time you saw it, a high-end apparel brand took advantage of the space). Certainly, ads come to be part of our dailies and their effects vary accordingly.
Although there is this human connotation that consumers implicitly pay for the advertising outlay of the brands they are using, it is safe to say that we still get access to a lot of free advertisements. With just a few clicks online, we get to see the interior of a townhouse we have been eyeing to buy without the worry of committing trespassing. Classified advertisements from daily newspapers are readily available to check and save us from initially compelling walk-in application.
Because we do not directly get money out of our pockets and say, “Here’s 20 bucks. Allow me to read that,” we can enjoy the perks of being the targets of these media freebies.
Advertisement is an Effect.
Advertisement is an end-result of a research. According to Wimmer and Dominick (2006), there is a three-step Philosophy of Success in business: (1) Find out what the people want; (2) Give it to them; and (3) Tell them that you gave it to them. The first step is researching, while the second and third steps are publicity chunks. Marketing companies instil in the minds of the people that they were able to create something which, according to the first step, the public wants.
Today, the demands of people for convenience and technologies are evident. This drives scholars to cater to their requests. Without publicising the outcome, how can we know what there is? When a scientist discovers and advances a tooth-whitening technology that takes effect in just one week, better than the existing product that gives results in three weeks’ time, a TV commercial is launched and most probably, people will buy the product they learned about from the TV ad. The public is informed and gets aware that there is such product. This depicts product-information advertising, which has long been existent since early 1920’s and aims both to familiarize the public with the brand, and to introduce new products and educate the consumer as to its benefits.1
Without advertising, is there such other way to inform us about new products or about the new medical technologies that we urgently need? Without advertising, can investors sell their inventions as fast as a click to a mouse? Nonetheless, with advertising, the society is well-informed of what products and services it needs, where to buy such and how to use them. Plus, production industries open a wide array of consumption.
Advertisement is a Cause.
Changing our behavior and perspectives may be traced from our exposure to advertisements, most likely those that we see everyday on TV. Perception of beauty is one. It is possible that before all these massive commercials dictating that to be slim and fair is beautiful, Filipino women were content with their built and complexion. The influence of mass-media advertisement even becomes more persuasive if a popular and reputable brand holds account of it. Proponents of advertising say it is therefore safer to buy advertised products because when a company’s name and reputation are on the line, it tries harder to fulfill its promises (especially when it lists product benefits).2
Since most advertisements seem to portray the same set of stereotypical standards of masculinity and image of women, psychologists perceive these to bring cognitive effects to the audience through attitude formation. Fishbein's (1967) attitude model is derived from operant conditioning. With this model, we could hypothesize that the continued pairing of an attribute and a brand through advertising repetition will increase the strength of our beliefs that the brand possesses that attribute.3
Sometimes, advertising becomes manipulative to our rational thinking that what we believe is not good enough.
Advertisement is a Deception.
Deception in advertising could go two ways. First is the subtle trick on branding and image by which advertising adds value to the brand. Consumers remark a good product as something that ‘jurassicly’ exists in the media sphere or which already established a spot in the marketplace. When this position is identified, producers of consumer goods try to sell the image rather than the product itself (Wimmer and Dominick, 2006). In 1975, although the first Pepsi Challenge claimed that people preferred Pepsi in a blind taste test than Coca-Cola4, Coke—being professed as the brand with ‘personality’ (e.g. Coke drinkers are more likely to have graduated college, are classy eaters and read the New York Times, etc.)4—seems to be hitting the top sales. People’s social view can be mirrored in this instance, something that conforms to the ideals of the society. Hence, loving and choosing Coke can classify one under this social icon.
Second, advertising misleads the public with confusion between necessities and luxuries. According to O’sullivan, advertising degrades our value system by suggesting that the means to a happier life lie in the acquisition of goods, more material things. Some people who did not even know they needed an iPhone, or worse, who did not even know how to use a smart phone; began buying one. Critics claim advertising manipulates us into buying things by playing on our emotions and promising greater status, social acceptance, and sex appeal. It causes people to take up harmful habits, makes poor kids buy $170 sneakers, and tempts ordinary people to buy useless products in the vain attempt to emulate celebrity endorsers.5 In fact, a study reveals that majority of its respondents agree that advertising persuades people to buy things they should not buy.6
Deception is a Choice.
Granting that we see our society as a vacuum congested with influences of the more powerful and controlling social voices, we could not solely blame the mass media for manipulating our social discernment. The simple fact that we have the total control of our own will can suffice.
The social distortions pointed to advertising are inevitable. But there still lies the good intention of the advertisement medium to inform, sell and improve the quality of life. To accept that something cannot be purely good or purely bad rests as a positive comment, denoting that the humankind has the will power to control and limitations to accept that nothing is ever picture-perfect.
Although it remains safe to say that advertising brings both positive and negative effects to this cultural vacuum, in the end, we can still give the credits to billboards, TV and radio commercials, posters, newspapers or web marketplaces for transporting us the necessities and indulgences of life, even without us asking. ♥
--------------------------------------------
1 Jeremiah O'sullivan R., “The Social and Cultural Effects
of Advertising,"
2 “The Economic, Social, and Regulatory Aspects of Advertising”
3 Andrew A. Mitchell and Jerry C. Olson, “Cognitive Effects
of Advertising Repetition”
4 Alana Horowitz, “The Real Differences Between a Coke and
Pepsi People”
5 “The Economic, Social, and Regulatory Aspects of Advertising”
6 Dr. Raghbir Singh, “Socio-Economic and Ethical
Implications of Advertising – A Perceptual Study”
--------------------------------------------------------------
References
Baker, W., Hutchinson, J., Moore, D. & Nedungadi, P. (1986). Brand Familiarity and Advertising: Effects on the Evoked Set and Brand Preference. Provo, UT. Association for Consumer Research.
Horowitz, A. (2011). The Real Differences Between a Coke and Pepsi People. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-coke-pepsi-people-2011-5?op=1.
Mitchell, A. & Olson, J. (1977). Cognitive Effects of Advertising Repetition. Retrieved fromhttp://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=9356.
O'sullivan, J. The Social and Cultural Effects of Advertising. Retrieved fromhttp://www.crvp.org/book/series05/v-4/chapter_vi.htm.
Singh, R. (2007). Socio-Economic and Ethical Implications of Advertising – A Perceptual Study. Retrieved from http://dspace.iimk.ac.in/bitstream/2259/389/1/45-59.pdf.
The Economic, Social, and Regulatory Aspects of Advertising. Retrieved from http://www.aef.com/pdf/arens_ch03.pdf.
Wimmer, R. & Dominick, J. (2006). Mass Media Research: An Introduction. Belmont, California:
Thomson Wadsworth.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I'd like to hear from you!