.,t-b L - d .

Richard W. Pollay

The Distorted Mirror:Reflections on the UnintendedConsequences of Advertising

This article reviews the work of significant humanities and social science scholars for their thoughts andtheories about advertising’s social and cultural consequences. In brief, they view advertising as intrusiveand environmental and its effects as inescapable and profound. They see it as reinforcing materialism,cynicism, irrationality, selfishness, anxiety, social competitiveness, sexual preoccupation, powerlessness,and/or a loss of self-respect. Drawing heavily on original sources, these ideas are synthesized into aframework that structures advertising’s supposed effects and causalities. Also discussed are the problemsand prospects for needed research and the moral imperative for this research.

-.

--

It is worth recognizing that the advertising man insomercspcch isasmuch abrainattcrcr asisthcbminsurgeon, but his toots and instruments are different.Advertising Age (1957).

wHLLE the metaphor of brain surgery may behyperbole, the inflated, rhetoric so characteris-

tic of advertising, it still con~ains an element of truth.Advertising is without doubt a formative influencewithin our culture, even though we do not yet knowits exact effects. Given its pervasive and persuasivecharacter, it is hard to argue otherwise. The txolif -eration ~ion ;f various tned~ever@ay lives of the citizenty make advertising en-vironmental i rsistently encountered, andinvoluntarily experienced by the entire population. Itsurrounds us no matter where we turn, intruding intoour communication media, our streets, and our veryhomes. It is designed to attract attention, to be readily

qrd W. Pollay is Curator, History of Advefiising Archives, Uni=,of British Cd.urx@. Research assistance was provided by Ca~a’s So-

cial %tence and Humanities Research Council and the Acme DeliveryCompany. Constructive comments were made on preliminary versionsof tM article by Russell Balk Jim Forbes, Gerrv Gem. Hal Kassariian.Chuck Weinbe~ and anonynkus refere& - ‘ “ “

18 / Journal of Marketing April 1986

intelligible, to change attitudes, and to command ourbehavior. Clearly not every tiverti~ment accom-plishes all of these aims, but just as clearly, much ofit must-othetwi~ advertisers are financi~ly extrav-agant fools.

The applied ~havioral technologies for consumerbehavior and advertising research, like most technol-ogies today, have grown incmasiig]y sophktieated andelaborate. This gives at least the major tivertiser alarge arsenal of information and the technique withwhich to finetune a message, aided by an army ofexperienced professionals running market reseaXhsurveys, focus groups, copy testing procedures, reedmd awareness tests, and test markets. AS MarshallMcLuhan (1951, p. v) once commented: “Ours is thefirst age in which many thousands of the best trainedminds have made it a full-time business to get insidethe collective public mind . . . to get inside in orderto manipulate, exploit, and control.” Even if individ-ual efforts often fail, the indirect eff~ts of tie overdsystem deserve cimful consideration.

This consideration is aII too rardy given to ad-vertising by those most sophisticated in their knoWl-edge of the processes of advetilng s~tegy forma-tion and advertisement creation. These scholars andpractitioners, including those of us trained in the more

896 Journal of MarkotlngVd 50 1SSS) l ”

I

I

I1“}Ii[IiiI

iI

I.

I

II1I*1

I

1.

I!

[

I

II

TI ~cnc~l fields of consumer behavior and marketing,

~ by tradlt]on focused on the study of advertising’s@ical conquence, sales promotion: eve~ng that~imulates the purchase act or the intermediary stepstow~d that obJective. Knowledge of the u “.-;,I consequences of~sin~. the social bv-.

e exhortations to “buy p1 school teaching or consuhin~

+s ~ so Potentlallv far mfwe__challenging. Advertis-~ed consequences are seen by many as afi]ution. of our psychological and social ecology,which rinses mod alarm and tempts a defensive re-action from those of us whose expertise and sense of~Wnal worth is drawn from our knowledge of, andat least implicit assistance in, the processes of per-su~ion. Thus, the concerns of nonbusiness academics~d the general public are too often dismissed with awave of the ideological wand. Commonly we appealto some alternative value, as in the claim that unregu-lated adveti~sing is a freedom of speech or essentialto the efficient functioning of the economy, hardly~rceiving that this is distractive argumentation.

Not all scholm assume that mass advertising ofthe ch~acter and =ale we now experience is eitherinevitable or benign. Indeed, those from a wide rangeof disciplines have given the matter thought, includ-ing a surprising number of individuals whose fameand influence extend beyond their academic bound-aries. This ~icle review this scholarly thought. Apriori such a review has the potential for setting a re-search agenda, for suggesting public policy, and forrevising our ideas about the interplay between adver-tising and the social system in which it operates. Thisrevised perspective may in turn lead to an increasedsense of moral duty or social responsib~lity for individuals and organizations, professional and academic.

Who Are These People?This survey of the literature encompasses all NorthAmerican authors known to have written on the cul-tural character of advertising. Wile this study ex-cludes the European Marxist tradition, the researchprocess is otherwise a survey rather than a sampling,with no authors knowing] y excluded. Those whosewritings have been reviewed represent academic fieldswith diverse theoretical and methodological perspec-tives. While few of these authors have indepthknowledge of advertising or marketing, they are farfrom ignorant observers. Generally, they are scholarsof stature and include many who have already influ-enced our culture’s intellectual history far more thananyone in the professional disciplines. Although theideas reported here are echoed in multiple sources, thep==ges @Xted are primmily from those writers whoare more famous, articulate. and influential.

A particularly strong example is historian DanielBoorstin. His prolific and often profound output haspropelled him from a distinguished chaired profes-sorship at the University of Chicago, to serving as Li-brarian of Congress. Author of the trilogy, The Amer-icans (1973), he has won the Bancroft prize and thePulitzer Prize and, at last count, has garnered 18 hon-orary degrees. Some, like John Kenneth Gal~raith,Margaret Mead, and Marshall McLuhan, have beenhonored with public attention and have had broad in-fluence, while the fame and following of others, likeErich Fromm, George Katona, Clyde Kluckhohn, orHenry Steele Commanger, lie mainly in their own andclosely allied fields.

-e‘his review includes (1) psychologists who view

advertising as a source of Tamg or condltlorung,Wlul cognitiVE and attectwe results. (2) sociologistswho emphasue the role modeling aspects of ad-lng and lts lmilxi’m on socMI bt?hNIOrS. (3) anthroDol-og~sts who see-advertising m terms of ri&ls and s~m-bols-incantations to give meaning to material objectsand artifacts, (4) educators who question the influenceof advertising on child development, and (5) com-munications specialists who view ads as propagandaand question their role within and influence upon massmedia. Also represented is the work of linguists, se-manticists, philosophers, theologians, political sci-entists, economists, and, perhaps the most integrativeof the social scientists, historians. Information re-garding the areas and distinctions of some of thosesurveyed appears in Figure 1, while the names andworks of others appear only in the references and con-sulted sources listings.

Most of the criticism of advertising comes fromthose who focus on advertising’s social role, whereasmost of its defense comes from those who emphasizeits economic functions. Still, not all economists aresanguine about advertising, nor are all other socialscientists alarmed. This disparity of perspectives pre-vents an effective exchange of ideas, as the two sides(if there are but two sides) talk past one another, rais-ing wholly different issues and reaching judgments onwholly different criteria. It will be of no stupisc, then,that raising serious questions about advertising’s so-cial role is an inherent] y critical process. To ponderwhat advertising as an institution is doing to us asindividuals or as a community; to wonder if it aids orimpedes rational thought; to ask how it rediits ouraspirations, or channels and prompts our emotions; toassess how it may alter our values and morality; toquestion any of these things is to cast doubt on thesocial value of advertising. Thus, we should fully ex-pect this inquiry to illuminate those ways in whichadvertising might be a less than ideal cultural influ-ence. Amcki-ever. is the veri<

nce of perceived positive influence. \

897

FIGURE 1Select Biographical Highlights

4ame Field Distinctions’

3arnouw. Erik. . Professional advertising exc)erience

Bell, Daniel

Berman, Ronald

Boorstin, Daniel

Commanger, Hen~ Steele

Galbraith, John Kenneth

“-” ‘4ayakawa, S. 1.

Heilbroner, Robert

Homey, Karen

Krutch, Joseph Wood

Lasch, Christopher

MacBride, Sean

McLuhan, Marshall

Mead, Margaret

Potter, David

Silber, John Robert

commumcauonsHistoty

Sociology

Humanities

American History

American History

Economics

Semantics

Economics

Psychoanalysis

Literature

History

Law, Politics

Literature

Anthropology

History

Philosophy

Editor, Columbia Univ~rsi~ PressChief, Broadcasting Division, Library of CongressGeorge Polk Award; Frank Luther Mott Award; Bancroft Prize in

American History

Professor, Haward UniversityEditor, The Public Interest, DaedalusFellow, Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral SciencesHonora~ degrees

Chair, National Endowment for the HumanitiesChair, Federal Council on Arts and HumanitiesGold Medal (Phi Beta Kappa)

Distinguished Professor of American History, University ofChicago

Librarian of CongressChair of American History, SorbonnePresidential Task Force of Arts and HumanitiesPulitzer Prize; Dexter Prize; Bancroft Prize; Frances Parkman PrizeHonorary degrees (18)

Bullitt Professor, University of WashingtonGold Medal, American Academy of Arts and LettersHerbeti B. Adams Prize (AHA)Honorav degrees (45)

Paul M. Warburg Professor, Harvard UniversityFellow, Social Science Research CouncilFellow, Academy of Arts and SciencesPresident, American Economic AssociationAmbassador to India

President, San Francisco State CollegeU.S. SenatorHonora~ degrees (4)

Norman Thomas Professor, New School for Social ResearchDean, American Institute for Psychoanalysis

National Book AwardEditor, The NationFounder, The Literary Guild of AmericaHonorary degrees (4)

Watson Professor, University of Rochester

Chair, UNESCO, Communications ProblemsNobel Peace PrizeLenin Peace PrizeAmerican Medal of Justice

Albeti Schweitzer Professor of Humanities, Fordham UniversityChairman, Ford Foundation, Culture and CommunicationsGovernor General Award (Canada)Honora~ degrees (9)

Curator Emeritus, American Museum of Natural HistotyNumerous awards and prizesHonorary degrees (12)

Coe Professor of American History, Stanford UniversityPresident, American Historical AssociationPresident, Organization of American HistoriansPulitzer Prize

Wilbur Lucas Cross Medal, Yale UniversityExecutive Board, National Humanities InstitutePresident, Boston University /

,% of 1984. All have terminal academic degrees, and those still active continue to accumulate distinctions. Sources: American“-’ Men and Women of Science; Social and Behavioral Sciences; contemporary Authors; f)irectory of American !ikholars; ~ntem-

tional Who’s Who; National cyclopedia of American Biography; Who’s Who in America.

20 / Journal of Marketing, April 1986 898f -L

what Are They SayingAdvertising?

About

1[ is. difficult to summ~~ the Overal] critique of ad-“efllslng s soaal role without occasionally simplify -~g ~ arguments of the original authors. Ftier, whilehis summw mquhs a broad examination of pro-~sd conwquences, it should be clear that every au-~or would not fully subscribe to each effect. Also,tie ~lative importance of some issues may have~h~ged. l%ese CaVt3ats notwithstanding, the current~nbusineSS scholarly views about adveflising’s rolein society are synthesized in Figure 2. It need not be~peated here, beyond a summary provided by~co:

Rcg* u a fOqI of communication, it (advertis-ing) has been cnucmed for playing on emotions, sim-plifying real human situations into stereotypes, ex-ploiting anx]et]es, and employmg techniques ofintensive pcrs:@On that amount to manipulation.Mm.y socl~ cnttcs have stated that advertising is es-sentmlly concerned with exalting the materialisticvirtues of consumption by exploiting achievementdrives and emutative anxieties, employing tactics ofhidden manipulation, playing on emotions, maximizi-ng app@ and rmnmizing mforrnation, trivializing,eliminating objective considerations, contriving il -togicai situations, and gencndly reducing men, women,and ctuldren to the role of irrational consumer. Cri-ticism expressed in such a way may be overstated butit cannot be entirely brushed aside (MacBnde 1980,p. 1s4).

These allegations are not very different in char-acter from the listing of unintended consequences ofadvertising in a major review of advertising’s effectson children (National Science Foundation 1978, pp.145-146). This report listed, among others, the “pos-sible outcomes” of encouragement of unsafe behav-ior, confused assessment of products, encouragementof inappropriate standards for choice, promotion ofparent-child conflict, modeling of hazardous behavior(especially malnutrition and drug abuse), and rein-forcement of sex role stereotypes, cynicism, and sel-fishness. The only positive effect suggested was thedevelopment of consumer skills, but this tautologi-cally presumes the desirability of socializing citizensas consumers.

The review of the evidence and arguments sub-mitted to the FT12 (Howard and Hubert 1973) say verylittle in response to these charges. Despite the volumeof submissions reviewed, some 105 pages of anno-tated bibliography, the report looked only at influ-ences directly related to buying behavior. Submis-sions pertaining to broader social effects weresystematically excluded, even though these effects wereheld to be “of obvious importance. ” The criterion ofimportance, however, gave way to the criteria of man-ageability and measurability, a reflection of the pre-vailing scientific bias. But clearly it is not acceptable

for our entire discipline to avoid addressing questionsmerely because cettain constructs are difficult to mea-sure. Many of the most important aspects of life eludesimple measurement. Indeed, measurability y may behighly correlated with triviality.

Discussion of the broader social impact of adver-tising certainly continues with some vigor in allieddisciplines. In order to flesh out the arguments out-lined in Figure 2 and to more faithfully capture thetone of the original works, excerpts will be exten-sively used. The positions advocated by those citeddo not necessarily represent the opinion of the author,other academics, or the marketing profession gener-ally. It is, however, the prevailing opinion in widercircles having no vested interest in advertising.

The Subtleties of Seduction

Advertising is seen as having profound consequences,despite the fact that its intent is clearly the pedestrianone of effecting sales, and despite the fact that manyof the forms of advertising are transparent in intent toeven quite unsophisticated subjects. The intent of ad-vertising, especially in the aggregate, is to preoccupysociety with material concerns, seeing commerciallyavailable goods or set-vices as the path to happinessand the solution to virtually all problems and needs.In so doing, advertising makes consumption a top-of-mind behavior. This state of mind seems natural orrational because this persuasion also provides a worldview with a value scheme that rationalizes such be-havior and presents itself as commonplace. Commer-cial persuasion appears to program not only our shop-ping and product use behavior but a!so the largerdomain of our social roles, language, goals, values,and the sources, of meaning in our culture.

The potential for advenising to penetrate our con-sciousness and channel our very modes of thinking isseen as highly likely, if not for individual ads, thenat least for advertising in the aggregate. Several rea-sons are offered to explain advertising’s effect: It is(1) pervasive, appearing in many modes and media;(2) repetitive, reinforcing the same or similar ideasrelentlessly; (3) professionally developed, with all ofthe attendant research sophistications to improve theprobabilities of attention, comprehension, retention,artd/or behavioral impact; and (4) delivered to andience that is inc “~m traditional‘bsources of cultural influence .l&@rnilies, churches,or schools.

It is further argued that the more profound impactsof an intensely commercialized culture may be readilyunderestimated because, viewing the culture fromwithin, we cannot see the forest for the trees. AsMcLuhan and Fiore (1%7) noted, “Environments areinvisible. Their ground rules, pervasive structure, andoverall patterns elude easy perception. ” In addition,

899

FIGURE 2Reflections on “The DistoRed Mirror”

t. BECAUSE ADVERTISING WORKS: IT (S A PRWESS OF:~. To persuade and introduce A. Change for cognition, attitudes,

behaviors, and values

B. Within a cultural context B. Selective reinforcement of thosestyles, roles, and values—readily commercialized—easily linked to products—dramatically visualized—reliably responded to

Il. BECAUSE ADVERTISING ISCNARACTERISTICAUY :A. Pervasive and persuasive

—in proliferated media—penetrating everyday life—relentless over time—professionally executed

B. Promoting of goods (objects)!

C. Advocative.l—incomplete information,

half truths, or carefuldeceptions

.2—insistent, exhortative,emphatic

D. Appealing to the individual

.1

~ PRESUMED UNINTENDED EFFECTS ARE:A. 1 Profound

—social, political, cultural—moral and spiritual—not just personal, practical

A.2 Environmental—hard to detect and measure—impossible to avoid—affecting all (despite myth

of personal immunity)

A.3 Intrusive and dominating—setting agenda and goals—specifying alternatives—specifying criteria for choice—prompting passivity, “copy-

shock”

B. Materialistic—belief that consumption is the

route to happiness, meaning,and the solution to mostpersonal problems

—reification; displacement offeeling from people to objects

—displacing spiritual develop-ment with secular hedonism

—distorted political priorities;private goods vs. publicgoods; gross economic goalsvs. justice, peace, etc.

—ecological wastefulness anddamage

C.1 Cynical—distrust of authority—anomie; disbelief of received

cultural wisdom and norms

C.2 Irrational—hypnoid, neurotic

compulsiveness to consume—indulgence vs. deferral of

gratification—shoflsighted here and now

attitudes, with reducedperceived responsibility forconsequences

D. Greedy and selfish—loss of community ethic,

cooperation, charity, andcompassion

9(-)0

REPRESEfWAITVE AUIHORSsA.1 Bell

BermanPotterToronto School of Theology

A.2 BarnouwKuhnsMcLuhan

A.3 CommangerHayakawaMcLuhanSchiller

B. FrommGalbraithKrutchLeissSkolimowski

C.1 HeilbronerHen~Skornia

C.2 FrommMcLuhanSchillerSkolimowski

D. BermanLaschToronto School of Theolo9Y

i

II{Iw

IIII

{

ii

1I

FIGURE 2 (continued)1

~

Iii,

1

i

iI

i

~BECAUSE Aovsm’tsma w CnARACTER-ISTNXLLY : ~S PRESUMED UNINTENDED EFFSCTS ARE:

1. Easily understandable,using:.1 modal characterizations E.1

,2 strong symbols, poetry E.2

Reinforcing social stereotypes—dehumanizing interpersonal

relations—encouraging simplistic social

analyses—aggravating sexism, racism,

ageism, etc.

Trivializing of language—debasing currency of

community and communion—degrading spiritual symbols,

e.g., secularizing ofChristmas

—thinning of experience

F. Idealizing ‘“the good life” F. Perpetually dissatisfying—economic treadmill, rat race—loss of self-esteem, self-

-respect—inadequacy, marginality,

powerlessness—frustration, displacement. and

criminality

REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORS’

E. CommangerFrommMarines

E.2 BoorstinHayakawaHeilbronerNouwen

F. HomeyLaschMeadMyers

ill. AND WMEN AOVERTIStNG EMPLOYSAPPEALS TO: rr Auo PROMOTES:A. Mass markets A.

B. Status B.

C. Fears c.

D. Newness D.

E. Youth E.

F. Sexuality F.

Conformity

Social competitiveness. envy,false pride

Anxieties, insecurities

Dkrespeet for experience,tradition, and history

Reduced family authority,disrespect for age

Sexual meoccuDations and

A. Baran and SweezyMcLuhan

B. BarnouwKrutch

C. LaschMarines

D. LeissReal

E. FisherMarines

F. Kuhnsdissatisfaction, pornography Slater

l%is cksssification is suggestive only of those apparently influential and ignores many others. Most authors offer comprehensivecommentary bayond indicated themes. While this identifies starting points, serious scholars should read broadly.

we like to think of ourselves as personally immune to respect requires a rejection of most commercials onadvertising’s inducements. This is clearly a delusion the conscious level, atong with some ridicule. Be-

for some or perhaps marsy or even most of the public. neath the ridicule the commercial does its work (Bar-

This myth of personal immunity gets generalized intonouw 1978, p. 83).

an attitude that advertising is of little impotl to arty-one, a view that seems rough] y consistent with theobvious banalities of some advertising. Advertisingoperates successfully despite the cynics, virtually allof whom feel sufficiently sophisticated so as to be im-mune.

l%e creators of advertising can claim that no one takesit all very seriously; it is all more or less in fun. The*wCr CSIl SdOpl a SimilSr attitude. The viewer’s *if.

The myth of immunity from persuasion may domore to protect self-respect than accurately compre-hend the subtleties and implications of influence.

. . . advertising begins to play a more subtle role inchanging habits than merely stimulating wants. . . .Though at first the changes were primarily in msn-ners, dress, taste, and food habits, sooner or laterthey began to affect more basic patterns: the structureof authority in the family, the role of children andyoung adults as independent consumem in the soci-

901 The Distorled Mirror/ 23

I

Icty, the pattern of morals, and the different meaningsof achievement in the society (Bell 1976, p. 69).

.,\ This cultural role of advertising may have pro-found, pervasive dimensions, and while this might beoverestimated, it is more commonly underestimated.As Galbraith ( 1967) noted, it is hard for solemn socialscientists to take seriously anything so patently self-serving as commercials. But as Daniel Boorstin notes,the attitude of critical but cal!ous disregard by somescholars limits their perception of the often very fun-damental impact of advertising in providing us withthe concepts and criteria with which we view our ex-

* perience.

Our frenetic earnestness to attack advertising, our fewof advertising, and our inability to tit advertising intoold-time familiar cubbyholes of our experience-allthese prevent us from seeing its all-encompassingsignificance as a touchstone of our changing conceptof knowledge and of reality (Boorstin 1 %2, p. 211).

Advertising utilizes both modes effectively—the in-formational and the mythic—as a socializing agentstructuring assumptions, feelings, attitudes, and be-liefs in the intemat consciousness of contempo~individuals. . . . As a system, advertising cumula-tively conveys art integrated vatue stmctum deter-mining individual and group living (Real 1977,p. 29).

[t is ironic that it is advertising’s very omrtipres-ence that contributes to its being ‘taken for gr&ed.

j Like all environments, its impact may be profound—certainly beyond the obvious.

To think that the effects of advertising, such a potentenvironment in any industrialized country, could belimited to economics, is as absurd as assuming thatthe effects of a hot climate u n a culture could be

rlimited to tropicat diseases ( uhns 1970).

Giving symbolic significance to prosaic productsis what anthropologists describe as the magic of ritual.In this sense, ads are rituals, incantations to make in-ett objects meaningful, to convert products into “goods”and, occasionally, to convert the needs into “taboos, ”elevating their social significance.

. . . we see advertising actually creating and namingtaboos. The most famous, B .0. and Halitosis, arearchaeological specimens t?om an age which we mightfix as either Late Iron Tonic or Early Soap. . . .Bad breath and body odor have always existed, ofcourse, but as individual matters. To transfer themfrom personat idiosyncrasies into tribal taboos is amagicianly trick indeed (Gossage 1%7, p. 366).

it is ctear that we have a culturat ttem in which~~ objects ate not enough but must ~ validated, ifonly in fantasy, by association with sociat and per-sonal meanings which in a different cultural patternmight be more, directly available, The short descri-ption of the pattern we have is magic: a highly orga-nized and professional system of magical induc-ements and satisfactions, functionally very similar tomagicat systems in simpler societies, but ratherstrangely coexistent with a highly developed scien-tific technology (Williams 1960, p. 27).

Advertising has influence in part because it nor- !really addresses many of life’s common issues, while Iother institutions seem to fade in relevance. 1

I

bThe institutions of family, teligion, and education have ‘.grown noticeably weaker over each of the past threegenerations. The world itself seems to have grownmore complex. In the absence of traditional author- ‘1 ~,ity, advertising has become a kind of social guide. Itdepicts us in all the myriad situations possible to a

rli!

life of ftte choice. [t provides ideas about style, mo-ratity. behavior (Berman 1981, p. 13).[t reiterates the essential ~roblems of life—good andevil, life and death, happiness and misety, etc.—andsimultaneously solves them. To the constant anxi-eties of life, advertising gives a simple answer. [nconsuming certain products, one buys not only a“thing - but also an image, an image which invokesthe belief and the hope of having the good rather thanthe bad, happiness rather than misery, success ratherthan failure, life rather than death. And the more anx-ious, confused. uncertain. and bewildered modemsociety gets. the stronger will be the role played byadvertising (Leymore 1975, p. x).

iSince its impact on culture may be penetrating, we

need to question the selective influence pattern of ads.

. . . I don’t think the advertisers have any rest ideaof their power not only to reflect but to mold soci-ety . . . . And if you reflect us incorrectly, as I be-lieve you are doing, you are raising a generation ofchildren with cockeyed values as to what men andwomen and life and family Katly are. You may betraining them as consumers, but you are certainly noteducating them as people (Marines 1964. p. 32).

Consequences of Commercialism

Given the position that adve~ising, a propag~da forproducts, might have penetrating consequences, muchof the discussion attempts to identify just what theseconsequences might be. fkf~y authors, including theUNESCO Commission concerned with advertising’simpact in the Third World, readily admit that someof these consequences are potentially beneficial, suchm facilitating marketplace efficiencies and helpingmedia to be autonomous from politics, even if not au-tonomous from commerce. But when considering theimpact on the cultural character or the modal person-

ality, it is less clear to most obsewets that the effecuof a highly commercialized cultute are beneficial. Themis no reason to presume a virtuous cultural impact,critics argue, because the institutions of advertisingare inherently amoral, serving their Seif-interests mdwith no ennobling social purpose. Just as it seems un-

wise to assume that advertising h~ no ]ong-term ef-

fects whatsoever, the UNESCO report holds that itwould be urtwi~ to ~sume hat such eff~s are whollYbeneficial (MacBride 1980, p. 154).

Advertising undoubtedly has positive features. [t isused to promote desimblc social aims, like savingsand investment, family planning, purchases of fertil-izer to improve agricukurat output, etc. [t providesthe consumer with information about Possible @-

902

I11III

Ii

III

1i

T. ’

. . .“.

II

\1

III;.. .\\

i

I

tcms of expenditure . . . and quips him (o makechoiccS: *15 coul~ not bC done, or would be done ina much, MOrC IImlted W?Y. without advertising. Fi-nally. since the advefllslng ~ven.ue of a newspa r

“ror a broadcaster comes fym multlpie sources, It OS.tmeynomlchealth~d Independence . enabling theenterpn~ to defy P~~SUR from any single economicinterest orfmm phtlcrd authorities (ibid, p.110).

At the Iemt, advefiising is seen as inducing us to~&p. working in order-to be able to keep spending,k~~plng us on a treadmdl, chasing new and improved~ts wi~ no less vigor, even though our basic needsmay be well met. This impact was manifest in an un-~sua] personal admission by a famous Yale psychol-ogist (Dollmd 1960+ p. 307) that “advertising makesme miserable” by an intensified pursuit of goals thatwould not have been imagined save for advertising.nus, advefiising’s most fundamental impact may bethat it induces people to keep productive in order tokeep consuming, to work in order to buy.

Advertising and its related asts thus help develop thekind of man the goals of the industrial system re-quire-one that reliably spends his income and worksreliably because he is always in need of more. . . .in the absence of the massive and artful persuasionthat accompanies the management of demand, in-creasing abundance might well have reduced the in-terest of peo Ie in acquiring more goods. . . . Being

Enot pressed y the need for these things, they wouldhave spent less reliably of their income and workedless reliably to get more. The consequence-a lowerand less reliable ropensity to consume—would have

fbeen awkward or the industrial system (Galbraith1%7, p. 219).

This maintenance of our propensity to consume isaccomplished, in part, by channeling our psycholog-ical needs and ambitions into consumption behaviorsby romanticizing goods. But this romantic attitude to-ward objects is seen as having serious side effects forour personalities; a social effect of displacing affectfrom people to objects and an alienating effect wherethe self is perceived not as a child of God or as anelement in community, but as an exchange commod-ity. Whatever advertising’s economic contributions,these do not invalidate concern for its influence on ourpersonalities and values.

For material things cannot in themselves achieveanything. They count only where there is a will 10use the m. and whether they count for weal or woedepends upon the way that they are used. What is,in the end, of decisive importance are the intangiblefactors that we call character . . . the ideals hat ~held u to children and the pattern of conduct that is

rfixed or them, the morat standards thai are acceptedand the moral values that are cherished (Commanger1947. p. vii).

There is a reluctance to simply presume innocenceof influence on our character. This is rooted in a viewof advertising as inherently amoral, acting only for itsown ends and without more ennobling ~oals~ A late

Stanford historian, highlyexpresstxl it as follows:

influential in his discipline,

. . . though it wields an immense mid influence,comparable to the influence of religion and learning,it has no social goals and no social responsibility forwhat it does with its influence, so long as it refrainsfrom palpable violations of truth and decency. h isthis lack of institutional responsibility. this lack ofinherent social purpose to balance social power, which,1 would argue, is a basic cause for concern about therole of advertising (Potter 1954, p. 177).

A simple materialistic orientation without com-pensating values is seen as problematic, for a roman-tic attitude toward goods comes at some cost. As mostthoroughly discussed by Leiss (1976), the transfer offeeling toward goods and away from people, the reifi-cation of abstract meaning into objects, and the si-multaneous objectification of personal relations, aremanifestations of this materialism.

1 should like to suggest that perhaps a transfer of at-titudes through the change of the semantic environ-ment has taken place. Previously. highly emotionalexpressions were applied to human beings. Nowa-days, they are constantly and massively applied bythe admen to objects. . . . It is quite natura] thatwhen we become more and more emotionally in-volved with objects, we tend to be less and less in-volved with people. . . . lrr love, in friendship, andin the multitude of other human relations, detach-ment, lack of interest, and coldness seem to prevail.Human beings are treated like objects (Skolimowski1977, p. 97).

The objectification of self has been explicitly de-scribed in personality theoty as a “marketing orie-ntation,” where a person is mannered for mercenarymotivations and has a detached view of self as a com-modity.

in thk orientation, man ex nenees himself as a titngr(o be employed successfu ly on the market. He does

not experience himself as an active agent, as the bearerof human powers. He is alienated from these powers.His aim is to sell himself successfully on the mar-ket. . . . His body, his mind, and his soul are hiscapi[al. and his task in life is to invest it favor-ably,to make a profit of himself. Human qualities likefriendliness, courtesy, kindness. are transformed intocommodities. into assets of the “personality pack-age,” conducive to a higher price on the personality ymarket (Fromm 1955, pp. 140, 142).

Intrusion and krationahy

Advertising is designed to be intrusive. Indeed, intru-siveness is one of the concepts currently in vogue inpte-testing the effectiveness of television cmnrnercia.ls.This successful commanding of attention makes theattempt to concentrate on the remaining content ofmedia “like trying to do your algebra homework inTimes Square on New Year’s Eve” (Hayakawa 1964,p. 265). Such intrusion, first into our consciousnessand then into our inner voices, distracts us from theserenity of solitude and thereby inhibhs self-aware-

903 The Distorted Mirror / 25

. ..

..-.

.

ness. Freoccupled with commercial blandishments,what passes for common culture in our affluent so-ciety are sets of jingles, slogans, and selling phraseswhich are perhaps more uniformly known than anyother creed, ideology, or set of myths.

The repetitive, fantastic, one-sided, and often ex-hortative rhetorical styles of advertising combine, it isfelt, to blur the distinction between reality and fan-tasy, producing hypnoid states of uncritical con-sciousness wherein the subject is reduced to passivityand a relative sense of powerlessness. Being inun-dated with propaganda for products, only “an excep-tional degree of awareness and an especial heroism ofeffort” can free the individual from becoming the “su-pine consumer of processed goods” (McLuhan 1951,p. 211). In this view, such autonomous awareness isunlikely, not only because of the monopolizing pres-ence of commercial coercions but because their chara-cter is “anti-rational” or precipitates irrationalities.Titus, intellectual submission seems almost inescapable, given the omnipresence of advertising and thesuccess with which its ideas, phrases, and melodiesare implanted in our minds. -

And so wc are &tied chances to discover the valueof silence and nothingness, an environment condu-cive to contem Iation. Advertising has taken quietaway from us, Ras made the choice impossible. tluminds become jammed with bk and pieces of jin-gles, buzz words, products, act images, brand names,and slogans so there is no room for rnedkation andIittte room for Self-confrontion (SCM 1977,p. 90).

The one-sided rhetorical styles of advertisintz seemto inMbit rationality and con&on sense, as d&s the

i ’

I repetitive nature of claims and encouragements.

k(

The nature of any communication in which the actuatinformation conveyed is 16s significant than themanner of its presentation is, to say the least, illog-icat. The itlogicai man is what advertising is after.This is why advertising is so anti-rationat; tltk is whyit aims at uprooting not only the rationality of manbut his common sense (Skolimowski 1977, p. 95).

We have become so groggy, so passive. so helplessamidst the entttess bamage of appeals that “we goabout our business,” as we say. But the business ofthe advertiser is to see that we go about our businesswith some magic spell or tune or slogan throbbingquietty in the background of our minds. . . . Todayour whole society is reeling from copy-writer’s shockas much as any soldier ever felt battte-shock (Mc-Luhan 1953, p. 557).A vast sector of modem advertising . . . does notappeal to reason but to emotion; like any other kindof hypnoid suggestion, it ties to impress its objectsemotionally and then make them submit intellec-tually. This type of advertising imprtsscs the cus-tomer by all sorts of means: by repetition, . . . bythe influence of an autiori~tive imagq . . . by at.

_J &acting the customer and at the same time weakeninghis critical abilities by the sex appeal of a pretty gM;. . . by terrorizing him with (a) threat; . . . or yetagain by stimulating daydreams about a sudden change

in one’s whole course of life. All these methods areessentially irrational; they have nothing to do withthe qualities of the merchandise, and they smotherand kill the criticat capacities of the customer like anopiate or outright hy nosis. They give him a certain

Isatisfaction by their aydrcarning qualities just as themovies do, but at the same time they increase hlsfeeling of smallness and powcrtessness (Fromm 1976,p. 1 lo).

Mirroring and Modeling

Advertising models a pattern of behavior that is heldout to be “the good life, ” with the props, of course,for sale, and this is shown to be the ideal for all tostrive toward. Indeed, the lifestyles displayed are idealfrom a consumption peqxctive, and they probablyprovide a fair portrayal of a materialist’s hedonic con-ception of utopia or heaven. Such conceptions maybe increasingly common and unquestioned. As Potter(1954) notes, the stimulation and rehearsal of materi-alistic drives and emulative anxieties inevitably in-volve processes of validation, sanctioning, and stan-dardization of the drives as accepted criteria of socialvalue.

But the behaviors displayed often appear less thanideal judged fivm other perspectives. To most ob-servers, the image presented in the cultural mirror ofadvertising is not unambiguuly worth imitating. Evenif it were, imitation requires some effort, perhapsfrustrating, and the prior acceptance of an unworthi-ness of one’s own life experiences.

StriCtly considered, however, modern advertising seeksto promote not so much self-indulgence as selfdoubt.It seeks to create needs, not to fulfill them; to gen-erate new anxiet~s instead of atlaying old ones. Byf~~nding the consumer with images of the good

the propaganda of commodities simulta-rteo’w.ly &Ices him acutely unhappy with his lot. B

/fostering gmndiose aspirations, it also fosters sel -denigration and self-contempt (Lasch 1978, p. 180).

It addmwes itself to the spiritual desolation of mod-em life and proposes consumption ss the CW. [t notonly pforrtiscs to palliate all the old unhappiness towhich ftesh is hcii, it creates or exacerbates new formsof Imha@ness-personst insecurity, status anxiety,anxiety rn parents.. . . Advertising institutionalizesenvy and its attendant anxieties (ibid, p.73).

Whether or not people are very successful in pWsuing the ideals offered, they may more easily sufferself-denigration and doubt. By constntly showing usthat the grass seeMs greener el~where, we’re led tolook askance at our immediate environment and ex-

perience. We may not be sure where the action is, butwe suspect it’s almost always somewhere else.

This fear that advertising instills a sense of inad-equacy has been particularly expressed with respectto women’s self-concepts.

Advertisers in general bear a large part of the t’c-s~nsibitity for the deep feelings of inadquacy thatdfivc wonten to psychiatrists, pi]ls, or the bode. YOU

904

-——- ,..

.

J

I

k~p telling us over and over that if we could use~at or have this or look hke that, we would he for-ever desl~ble, fo~ver happy. So we spend our timeworrying over the gmy s~+ or the extra pound or@ dry sknr instead of our mmds, our hearts, and ourfellow men (Marines 1964, p. 31).

Women ~ not tie only segment that feels stresswhen conf~nte$.by advertising imagery. The elderly,we other ~non~es not gl~oriti in advertising, have~! f-concepts threatened by the gospel of advertising.

The exploitation of age, fear. and social acceptanceSR so closely interwoven that it is difficult to sepa-rate them for the PWPCXS of examination. But ex-ploited they ye, ruthlessly and continually wearingaway at tlus Image we have of ourselves. Our soci-ety’s vsdtses are being corrupted by advertising’s in-sistence. on the equation: Youth quats FOpularit y,Popularity quals success, success quats happiness(Fisher 1%8, p. 117).

We are all potential victims of the invidious com-parisons of mality to tie world seen in advertising.@ce convinced that the grass is greener elsewhere,one’s own life p~es in comptison and seems a lifehalf-lived.

So people do worry, feel inferior, inadequate, uilt“f “~ey sense that they live without living, that h e runs

through their hands like sand (Fromm 1955, p. 166).

Advertising, using “ideal types,” can lead the re-ceiver to tx dissatisfied with the reatities of hiseveryday world—his wife, his friends, his job, evenhis life itself. Fantasies are a loaded gun. They maysweeten life and advance culture; they may also de-stroy life in a reckless pursuit of impossible accom-plishments (Toronto School of Theology 1972, p. 22).

Simplistic, symbolic stereotypes, chosen for theirclarity and conciseness, serve as poor models and in-hibit sympathetic understanding of individual differ-ences. This position has been articulated in detail re-garding the portrayal of women, but the problem isuniversal, as ads can reinforce stereotypes for not justthe sexes, but also for races, ages, occupations, fam-ily relations, etc. To the extent that these images aredisrespectful or unworthy of emulation, they are so-cially divisive.

Advertisers should be made much more sensitive tothe fall-out fi-om their ads (using strong stereotypes).

Such advertising is disseminating offensive and~le~erious images which cannot be laughed off asmere harmless buffoonery (ibid, p. 17).

Few would argue that advertising faithfully mir-rors reality. What are the supposed consequences ofconfronting the imagery in the mirror of advertising?What strains are felt facing the distortions inherent inselective feedback? While some wony about masspersuasion creating conformity, more worty more aboutthe nature of norms that we may be conforming to.One fear is that the advertising system will create thekind of consumer citizen it seems to assume or prefer.

[These would be] insatiably desiring, infinitely plas-tic, totatiy passive, and always a little bit sleepy; un-predictably labile and disloyal (to products); basicallywooly-minded (Henry 1%3, p. 79).

A.meriC~ society, as popular advertisements p.trayed It, was a nightmare of fear and jealousy, gos-sip and slander. envy and ambition, greed and lust.

. ~e typicat American. as they pictured him,iiied m a torment of anxiety and cupidity and reg-ulated his conduct entirely by ulterior considerations.

. To the advertisers nothing was sacred and noth-~n~ private; they levied impartially upon filial de-votion, marriage, tdigion, health, and cleanliness.

love, as they&tit;ve. . . . Frien~h~& ‘t’ ‘u P~ly corn.,was for sake. . .(Commanger 1950, pp. 416-417).

Social Change and Social ProblemsThe education to abundance by advertising has al-ready, it is claimed, induced cultural change.

Commercials have worked-with success—towardrevision of many traditional tenets of our society. Aswe have seen, reverence for nature has been replacedby a determination to recess it. Thrift has been re-

Eplaced by the duty to uy. The work ethic has beenreplaced by the cmwmption ethic. . . . Modesty hasbeen exorcised with help from the sexuat sell. Re-straint of ego has lost starsding (Barnouw 1978, p.98).

Ironically, commercials often romanticize the lifebeing lost, just as museums encapsulate ways of iifeno longer possible.

Tltis back~nd texture is often compxed of tta-ditionat images of well-being drawn from social sit-uations which have largety disappeared from every-day life: a slower pace of life. quiet and serenity,open space, and closeness to the naturat environment(images of ruml life); contributing to the happinessof loved ones (images of family life); attainment ofgoals set in accordance with personal rather than in-stitutional demands (images of success in noninsti-ttstionat settings); a sense of familiarity and securityin purchasing goods (images of craft skills); a con-cern for quatity and good judgment (images of dis-cerning tastes) (Leiss 1976, p. 89).

In most western cultures, families are nearly sa-cred and seen as the basic social unit. Yet, familycomposition and character are changing for many so-cial reasons. Nowhere may interpersonal relations bemore affected by advertising than in the home, as theroles of both women and children as consumers getexpanded and redefined.

The ● dvertising indusay thus encourages the pseudo-emancipation of women, flattering them with its in-sinuating reminder, ‘You’ve come a tong way, baby,”and disguising the freedom to consume as genuineautonomy. Similarly it flatters and glorifies youth inthe hope of elevating Young people to the status offull-fledged consumers m their OW right (bsch 1978,p. 74).If advertising has invaded the jud ment of children,

fit has atso forced its way into the amily, an insolentusurper of parentat fimction, degrading parents to mereintermediaries between their children and the market.

This indeed is a social revolution in our time! (Henry1%3, p. 76).

Relations with neighbors, the proverbial Joneseswe strive to keep up with, are increasingly based onenvy, emulation, artd competition (Krutch 1959, p.34). But social competition can turn asocial and pre-cipitate violence and theft.

Two processes could be involved in this type of re-sponse. Fret, the inaccessibility of the products beingoffered may create in some viewers feelings of frus-tration sufficient to make them engage in antisocialacts. Second, the arousat process associated wirh thead itself may have behaviorat consequences aboutwhich very Iittte is known. Much advertising is de-signed to gain attention and build positive attitudesto brands essentially by a tension-arousat and ten-sion-reduction process. . . . If, for a number of ma-sons, frtmation is an outcome of such a process, itis possible . . . that aggressive acts of one kind oranother may follow (Myers 1978. p. 176).

Other social problems that have been linked to ad-vertising are those of ecology and pornography. Sincethere is rarely consumption without waste and unin-tended by-products, promotion of consumption alsopromotes pollution.

The squandering of resources only begins the prob-lem. lle consumption binge which television has doneso much to push has been fouling air, water, roads,

—, . streets, fields, and forests-a trend we failed or de-} clined to recognize until almost irreversible. It haa

given us garbage statistics as staggering as our con-sumption statistics, and closely related to them (Bar-nouw 1978, p. 156).

Advertising, for almost as long as it has existed,has used some sort of sexual sell, sometimes promisingseductive capacities, sometimes more simply attract-ing our attention with sexual stimuli, even if irrelevantto the product or the selling point. This provocation,while Iess graphic than more extreme pornography, isfar more public in exposure. The difficulty seems tobe that these sexual stimuli are frequent, vety hard toavoid, and employed for a broad range of products.This makes them inevitably offensive to some and ptentially jading. To all, advertising is more of a teasethan a whore, for sexual stimulation is moderated andchanneled. As SIater (1970) discusses, a modestarousal commands our attention and can be harnessedfor instrumental purposes, while too strong an arousalmight not. For at least some of the public, however,sexual ads represent a challenge to standards of de-cency and am in a real sense pornographic. Not every-one enjoys confronting near nudes on their streets’billboards or seeing things that flaunt conventionalpropriety on their living room TV. Certainly conven-tions of intimacy are frequently violated. Bamouw(1978, p. 98) notes as art example that we now seewomen caressing their bodies in showers with a fre-

quency and reverence of attention that makes ‘self-love a consecrated ritual.” This would have been un-heard of only a few years ago. So too with the TVselling of women’s sanitary products. Standards ofpublic decency have changed much in the twentiethcentury, and advertising has been one of the elementscontributing to changed norms.

It is also argued that our capacities for politicalresponsiveness to social problems like these may bereduced by virtue of living in a commercial culture,as consumers grow indifferent to either communica-tions generally or the plight of others in their com-munities.

Exhortations to buy assail everyone from every pos-sible dkction. Subways, highways, the airwaves, themail, and the sky itself (sky-writing) are vehicles foradvenisin$’s unrelenting offensives. The total indii-ferencc wnh which advertising treats any politicat orsocial event, insisting on intruding no matter whatelse is being presented. reduces all social phenomenato bizarre and meaningless happenings. . . . the te-sult is individual passivity, a state of inertia that pre-cludes action (Schilkr 1973, p. 2S).

Encouraged in our inclination to self-centered-ness, our personal political prioriti~ seem to reflectprivate economic goa!s with diminished counterbal-ancing social consciences. Our collective politicalpriorities shift to economic goals more exclusively,despite our lip se~ice that doing so is simplistic. Wetolerate higher and higher levels of Unemployment andwelfare needs as long as sales and profits are main-tained by aggregate consumer demand. We maximizeGNP, with little concern for economic justice.

Evcty featute and facet of every product having beenstudied for sell~g points, these are (hen describedwith talent, gravity, and an aspect of profound con-cern as the source of health, happiness, socialachievement, or improved community *g. Evenminor qualities of unimportant comrnodkies arc en-iarged upon with solemnity which would not be un-becoming in an announcement of the combined rc-tum of CMst and all the apostles. . . . Theconsequence is that while goods IXCOITW ever moreabundant, they do not seem to be any leSS important.On the contraty, it requires an act of will to unagittcthat anything else is so impottant. Morally, we agreethat the supply of gooda is not a measure of hu=achievemen~ in fact, we take for granted that it willbe so regarded (Gatbraith 1%7, p. 219).

Of course, if propaganda for products is a concernto the cultures within which it has gmdua.lly evolvedsit is even more threatening as a cultural intervention

in economically less developed societies.

Advertising is seen by many as a threat to the ctdtdidenti~ and self-teatization of many developingcountrtfi it brings to many people alien ctMcd v~-ues; it may deviate consumer demands in developingcountries to ateas which CSII inhibit &veloptWntpriorities; it affects and can often deform ways of lifeand lifestyles (MacBri& 1980, p. 11 1).

28/ Journal of Marketing, April 1986906

T.i &ibilitY,

~guage is,0 ~st in the validity of what-is comprehended Ver.

A

Cynicism, and Community

of vital cultural significance. The ability

~lly is a cornerstone of one’s mode of acting in theworld—the ability to accumulate knowledge, build~mmurtity, and establish a relationship with God.~~ are possible only with faith in words. Words~ be poetry for everyone; the richness of language~, with inspiration, express our passions, politics,~~se, and prayers.

our language is potentially affected by advertisingin NO ways. Adveflising provides us with vocabu-MY a ‘t of ‘C’rds ~d tie concePts theY exP~ss withwhich we stmcture our perceptions and judgments,~fining in large measure how “reality” is conceived.AH language d~s his. what advertising does is giveSOrne W~ ~ COnCC@ greater emphasis. But it also@ects k c~ibility of language, and so simulta-Pusly cheapens its own currency.

Poetic language is used so constantly and relentlesslyfor the -s of salesmanship that it has becomeatnpst Impossible to say anytlung with enthusiasmor JOY or conwctron without running ioto the dangerof sounding as if you were selling something. . . .To repeat, advertising is a symbol-manipulating w-ctqxmon. The symbols of fashion and ele ante areused to glamorize clothing arid cosmetics. LbotsofyoutMld gaiety seusoftdrinks arKicandysG:Thesymbots ofadventure and sportsmanship amusedto promote cigarettes and liquor. . . . Advertising isa tremendous creator and devourer of symbols. Eventhe symbols of patriotism are usul for the purposesof salesmanship. . . . Not even the symbols of re-ligion are off timits-Christmas and Easter are sostrenuo@y exploited commercially that they almostlose tkr rchglous significance (Hayakawa 1964, pp.268-269.Now we pay intellectual talent a high price to amplifyarnb@sih. distort thought. and bury reality. Alllanguages are deductive systems with a vast truth-telling ptential imbedded in vocabulay. syntax. and_rogY. yet no language is so perfect that menmay not use it for the opposite purpose. One of thediscoveries of the twentieth centuw is the enormous

Kvariety of ways of compelling Iang”&ge to lie (Henry

1%3. p. 91).

Because virtually all citizens seem to recognize this.tendency of ad language to distort, advertising seems

//,

I

JQ

to turn us into a community of cynics, and we doubtadvertisers, the media, and authority in all its forms.Thus, we may also distrust other received wisdomsfkom political authorities, community elders, religiousleaders, and teachers of all kinds. As Heilbroner ( 1976,p. 113) wondered: “How strong, deep, or sustainingcan be the values generated by a civilization that gen-erates a ceaseless flow of half-truths and careful de-ceptions?”

In fact. pd-iaps one of the most powerful effects oftelevision has been to teach a nationat tolerance offalsehood, exaggeration, and distortion. Parents who

ask their children to tell the truth must explain thatof course a certain cereal will not transform them into

$

grea[ athletes. as the highly paid announcer says, norwill the drug mentioned really cure hemorrhoids, orcancer, or afthritis. The announcer is really lying.. . . Somehow the parent must ex lain that truth is

1to be expected of the child indivi uatly, but that ahuge industry can be based on falsitJ, exaggeration,and distortion (Skornia 1%5, p. 15 ).

Reisman, Glazier, and Denny ( 1950, p. 294) onceasked: “Isn’t it possible that advertising as a whole isa fantastic fraud, presenting an image of America takenseriously by no one?” It may be possible, despite in-dustry attempts to attain credibility, but even fraudshave serious consequences. The consequence of ex-treme cynicism, the rejection or doubt of all offeredvalues, is the norrrdessness known as anomie. Thisfaithless position trusts no one and no word. Withouta teliance on words and a faith in truth, we lack themottar for social cohesion. Without trustworthy com-munication, there is no communion, no community,only an aggregation of increasingly isolated individ-uals, alone in the mass.

There was a time not too long ago without radios andtelevisions, . . . signs, bumper stickers., and the ever-present announcements indicating price increases orspecial sates. There was a time without the adver-tisements which now cover whole cities with words.. . . The result is that the main function of the word.communication, is no longer realized. The word nolonger communicates, no longer fosters communion,no ton er creates cornmutity, and therefore no longer

f“gives lfe. The word no longer offers trustworthyground on which people can meet each @her and buildsociety (Nouwen 1980, p. 22).

Ironically, the anomie isolation of the individualcreates some needs that well-advefiised goods mightmeet. Identification with society, or at least the appropriation of lifestyle roles therein, is easily affected.It requires only the wit to buy recognized brands withsymbolic value. Today, such brands, badges provi-ding identity, are proudly displayed on shoes and shirts,on pants and hats—from tip to toe, from fronts tobacks.

To use a brand of car, drink, smoke, or food that isnatiorsatly advertised gives a man the feeling that hebelongs to something bigger than himself. He is partof a prwess or a culture that contains and nourisheshim. And [he irrational basis of the ap als made to

r“him by the ads reinforces his sense o mystic com-munion (McLuhan 1953, p. 555).

Rites, Religion, and Morality

The criticism of advertising on moral grounds, seeingit often as a social force opposed to the values of re-ligion, is not new. Indeed, such observations wereprobably more frequent and came from more variedsources at the turn of the century. The emergence ofthe more secular, urban, and mediated society stoodin some contrast to the preceding gilded age. Here,

907

for example, is the thought on vulgar advertising bya copywriter/poet writing in a magazine of the old

“\ style, a literary journal for the - gentle reader. ”

On the moral side, it is thoroughly false and harmful.It breeds vulgarity, hypnotizes the imagination andthe will. fosters covetousness, envy, hatred, and un-derhand competition (Logan 1907, p. 333).

Spiritually based observations are probably lessfrequent in today’s more secular society, but com-mentary is still very evident in major places, as wit-ness those below by presidents of colleges, major the-ologians, schools of theology, etc. Their concerns haveintensified because of two features of adveflising inthe postwar era. Seeing advertising promoting not onlygoods but a whole lifestyle and accompanying ration-alizing attitudes, they see it as moral (or immoral) in-struction that contains injunctions about how life shouldbe led. Because they also witness this instruction beingaimed and delivered to children, primarily throughtelevision, they see this secular conditioning as di-rectly competitive with the instruction and ideals ofreligious teachings. Hence, they see the prideful self-interest of the commercial creed as impeding spiritualdevelopment. Faith in litanies such as, “Me, I’m theone. I deserve a break today! I’ll go for the gusto,and taste the good life, “ is hardly conducive to rever-ence, humility, or grace.-.

i [t shouldn’t surprise us that the temptations to whichj. . the flesh is heir are seen as problematic. Nor then shouldI we be surprised when the pefiistent, emphatic pre-

sentation of these temptations is seen as seductive tothe soul, the promising of immediate pleasures in lieuof the rewards of a spiritual life, which seem moreremote, even if potentially far richer and enduring.“Love things above all else, learn to want more andmore, waste rather than conserve, spend what you donot have” is a repugnant injunction, but, as Krtttch(1959, p. 37) notes, it is repugnant in part becausewe realize just how vulnerable we are to respondingto it.

We are called in this way at an early age. Ourcommercial education begins earl y with jingles, slo-gans, and catch phrases, the total commercial cate-chism, so that children learn the “rite words in roteorder. ”

The slogans, catchwords, values, mottoes, and otherlessons tattooed on young minds even before youngpeople learn to read are not educational but com-mercial. They dis lace, contradict, and cancel, inmany cases, in a&nce, those lessons and valueswhich education seeks and will seek at ublic ex-

!pense to teach and inculcate (Skomia 196 , p. 158).

Advertising commonly employs direct exhorta-~~ tions, literally a series of commandments, a secular

litany that Barzttn (1946, p. 53) identified as the “re-vealed religion of the twentieth century. ”

(This is) usurpation of moral instruction by cynicattelevision advertisers. . . . ,Schlitz, a tit-m with li-cense to brew but none to preach. intones. “You onlygo around once in life; therefore, get all the gustoyou can!” These are not statements about beer, buta theological claim and moral injunction (Silber 1982,p. 203).

Much of modem advertising offers a display oflifestyle attitudes as its focal point, so this is one ofseveral possible examples of such exhortation towardunconflicted self-indulgence. Of course, the tempta-tions are rarely presented in a way that would maketheir moral character too obvious.

Lust. sloth, greed and pride. . . . In the advertisingcommunity these words .m timvned upon. They havea bad connotation. so they must be changed. Lustbecomes the desire to be sexuatl y attractive. Cer-tainly no one can complain if a woman desires to besexually attractive; it is her birthright. Sloth becomesthe desire for leisure-for rest and recreation-andcertainly all of us are entitted to that. Greed becomesthe desire to enjoy the good things of thk world. Whywere they put here if not for us to enjoy? Pride, ofcourse. becomes the desire for sociat status (Mayer1961, p. 128).

The common use of these four of the seven deadlysins makes the effective morality of materialism, thegospel of goods, suspect in the eyes of those faithfulto almost any spiritual creed. The Christian perspec-tive on materialism has its roots in Bib!ical warningsabout the spiritual bankruptcy of self-indulgence, andthe socially cotnsptive consequences of its practice.

Self-indulgence is the opposite of the Spirit. . . .When self-indulgence is at work, the results are ob-vious: fornication, gross indecency, arid sexuat irre-sponsibility; idolatq and sorcety: feuds and wratt-gling, jealousy, bad temper, and quarrels; dis-agreements, factions, envy; drunkenness. orgies. andsimilar things. . . . What the Spirit brings is verydifferent: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, good-ness, trustfulness, gentleness, and self-control . . .if k sows in the field of self-indulgence, he will geta harvest of corruption (Gat. 5: 17-23; 6: 8).

Advertising also seems subversive of morality whenjudged from the perspective of a sectskir liberal hu-manism.

[f [ were asked to name the deadtiest subversive forcewithin capitalism, the single greatest source of itswaning morality—I would without hesitation nameadvertising. How else should one identify a force hatdebases language, drains thought, and undoes dig-nity? (Heilbroner 1981, p. 40)

What Research Is in Order?It is not clear now how to separate cause and eff~twhen discussing the relation between advertising ‘.dsocial character. Historians recognize the complexi-ties of our evolution as a society and point out ‘atour culture had materialistic leanings long before ‘Memergence of modem advertising. As modem adver-

1*I

908

9

-4,

9

If*

II.1nI

.

IIiIJ.

I

~i~ing emerged around the turn of the century, manyother aspeCtS Of society were also in flux-most no-@]y urb~ization, industrial expansion, geographic~d status mobilitys splintering of the extended fam-. .ily, increases m hteracy and education, etc. See Boor-~tin (1973) for a p~iculml y broad perspective, or anyof ~veral excellent treatments more focused on ad-“e~ising by FOX ( 1984), POPC (1983), Potter ( 19s4),or Schudson (1984).

None of the critics cited would argue that adver-tising alone is responsible for the conditions dis-~uswd, corrupting an otherwise innocent and perfectcu]tu~ and precipitating a condition previously non-existent. Even the neo-Marxist historian of advertis-~g (Ewen 1976), in an otherwise flawed work, rec-~pi~ this. Whatever their focus or theoretical bent,even the rrtos.t ctiticd histori~s would allow that there~em many preconditions to the emergence of adver-tistig and that adveflising ha evolved coincident with~~er social changes which make it impossible to de-termine caus~ity un~biguously. Advefising is alsocle~]y not alone in its attempts to influence our think-~g and behavior. .

Recognition of this historical complexity does notinv~idate our concern about advertising’s continuingculm~ role. while we may not be abIe to untanglethe historical fabric to trace the threads of influence,we can still question the extent to which today’s ad-vertising perpetuates and/or exacerbates the allegedeffect-s- MOrC rooted in the present, such research isless likely to dwell on recriminations and remorse andis more readily directed toward proactive policy.

lhe Need for Research

If one can justifiably say that advertising has joinedthe charmed circte of institutions which fix the valuesand standards of society, . . . then it becomes nec-essary to consider with special care the extent andnature of its iniluence-how far it extends and in whatway it makes itself felt (Potter 19S4, p. 177).

There is a ted need for an independent, comprehen-sive, and systematic comparative enquiry into adver-tising in all its many aspects. Such an enqui~, whichis long overdue. should ascertain both the direct andindirect, the intended and the unintended effects. andshould provide the base for decisions that are foundto be required and any ncw policies that may resultfrom thcm (MacBridc 1980, p. 155).

It is clearly appropriate for us to take these asser-tions about advertising’s unintended consequences se-riously. Despite the telative lack of data based re-search to date. despite the occasional naivete of someauthors with respect to the processes of strategy for-mation and adveflising execution, and despite thechallenge this indictment represents to our own vestedinterests and ideologies, the charges are much too se-rious to dismiss cavalierly. The convergence of thoughtamong intellectual leaders of so many diverse disci-

plines demands our attention and research as alliedacademics.

These ideas also deserve consideration because oftheir sobering and substantial nature. Taken as a whole,they constitute a major indictment of advertising. Itshould be acknowledged, however, that while this in-dictment is the result of the reflective ruminations ofsenior, highly respected scholars, the conclusions aretypical] y arrived at deductive y. While their insightsare sometimes self-evident and their rhetoric is oftenvery persuasive, few of the alleged effects are directlyobserved, nor is the causal role of advertising certain.Thus, the ideas constitute the conventional wisdom ofnonbusiness academics and are better thought of ashypotheses than conclusions.

Potential Research Approaches

It is all too easy to let suspicions or defensivenesspreclude more definitive research on these hy-potheses. Doing nothing, however, accepts ideologyin lieu of academic inquiry and information. Polemicstands on all sides of this issue are potentially tem-pered by research findings, which should illuminateour understanding of both the institution of advertis-ing and the character of its target, the consumer. Buthow many of the consequences are readily researched,especially with traditional consumer research metho-dologies? The traditional research methods of con-sumer behavior are drawn from psychology, and, toa far Iesser degree, from other social science disci-plines. Viewed tim the perspective of psychology,the research agenda suggested by the views reportedinvolves study of both the stimulus materials and theresponses, i.e., the ads and the behaviors to whichthey might be causally linked.

Content analysis of systematically drawn samplesof ads can provide insight into the nature of the stim-uli. Such a sample could be measured for its valuecontent (Pollay 1983), and these results correlated withthe findings of Rokeach (1973) or others to test theidea that advertising replicates the value hierarchy ofthe population. Data on cultural change might be ex-amined for movement toward reinforced values. Con-tent analysis cart also identify the relative frequenciesof tactics in order to establish some measure of therelative import of the various concerns listed in Figure2 and to establish subsquent research priorities (Pol-lay 1985). Behaviors most commonly role modeledand encouraged can also be identified and their fre-quencies observed. While this, of course, is notquivalent to researching behaviors that might ac-tually result from the exhortations of advertising, itwould nonetheless identify the patterning of behaviorsattempted. Systematically selected advertising copy isexce!lent grist for the historian’s mill, and there is noreason why it would not also prove valuable for con-

909

-’r .,,.,

temporary studies by marketing scholars.Traditional experiments can more directly test the

questions of effects produced by examining the extent“-l \ to which various types of advertising stimuli producevarious kinds of responses. For example, we couldverify the supposed tendencies of status appeals, fearappeals, or sexual sells to produce envy and socialcompetitiveness, anxieties and insecurities, and sex-ual preoccupations and dissatisfactions, respectively.There is no shortage of measures for dependent vari-ables, and treatments and experimental designs shouldbe quite straightforward. Our experimental para-digms. however, look to short-term impacts of spe-cific stimuli rather than the Ionger-tetm results of re-peated treatments. llms, while internal validity can behighly controlled, some issue of external validity willremain.

Experimental paradigms can also be used to ex-amine the extent to which ads work to set agendas,chanelling behavior by specifying the “evoked set” ofalternatives and providing the criteria employed tochoose from that evoked set. Nutritionists. for ex-ample, worry that our response to thirst is increasinglyimage~ of packaged goods and that, as a conse-quence, the “market share” for water is declining. (Oneonce suggested to me in jest that maybe we neededto package water and brand it in order to compete withdrinks of sugar, alcohol, or caffeine, ironically pre-

7 saging the bottled water successes of recent years.),::.+l Protocol measures, unaided recall, or other free re-

sponse methods are probably the best tools for vali-dating the general issue of agenda setting, but forcedchoice techniques could identify the perceived relativeimportance of criteria after exposure.

At first glance it might seem that survey methodsand other cross-sectional descriptive data about thepopulation, such as that used in segmentation studies,might be helpful. Unfortunately, while these mightprove descriptive of the current status of the Americancharacter and, hence, be valuable as a base line forfuture measures of change, this sort of data is of lim-ited value in addressing the issues of causality andsocial change. It often lacks historical reference pointsand contains weak evidence, if any, regarding attri-bution for any phenomena noticed. Even direct ques-tions which ask individuals the “why” questions arelikely to fall far short of the mark, for individuals areprobably unable to specify the reasons for culturalevolution of attitudes, norms of behavior, or relativevalues. We know full well how much difficulty re-spondents have reconshucting the determinants of evenan isolated major consumer purchase of recent occur-rence.

Even more unfortunately, it would seem that our~ research paradigms are at quite a loss in dealing with

fundamental questions in the macro market’s evolu-

tion, only partially due to the hypotheses and theirspecification. Most of the variables in question are po-tentially measurable with existing or creative metrictools which social science has recently produced insuch abundance. A less tractable problem is our in-ability to effectively research environmental issues fromwithin the environment. No major longitudinal ex-periments are possible, as all individuals are alreadyvery heavily “treated. ” The few “unexposed” indi-viduals are those with major differences on a widevariety of other significant dimensions—like those intotal institutions. remote geographic locations, foreigncultures, primitive economies, or in some combina-tion of these conditions. Hence, natural or quasi ex-periments aren’t possible, as significant variation inadvertising exposure isn’t likely without naturally oc-curring covtiation in other major variables, and itwould seem quite difficult to sort the covariance inorder to isolate relative determination.

But the shortcomings of our traditional techniquesonly suggest again that we need to broaden our con-cept of consumer behavior. Perhaps we should bedrawing on a far broader base of research tools, em-ploying techniques of historians, sociologists, anthro-pologists, or psycholinguists, and encouraging ourstudents in these directions. It might also mean aban-doning the academic concept of the consumer as acomplex information processor, however dignified andmorally reassuring that image. Instead of our currentfocus on short-term responses of individual con-sumers to specific configurations of stimuli, we needmethods which deal with the long-term effects of ag-gregated stimuli. We need to supplement our focus onmicrophenomena with macro concerns, and our meth-ods must expand accordingly.

Values and Research Objectivity

A common defense of advetiising against criticismsof its cultural role is that it must, of necessity, be inharmony with its culture; messages must employ sym-bols and cultural values that are readily understoodand accepted by the intended audience. in this view,advertising is seen as a mirror that only reflects andexposes existing cultural values and behaviors. It isargued from this perspective that to find fault withadvertising is simply to display a cultural alienation.But this argument typically ignores several key points:(1) any culture is a mosaic of multiple values, (2) aculture is characterized in substantial measure by therelative importance of these values, and (3) not allcultural values are employed and echoed in advertis-

ing.Not all values are equally suited for use in com-

mercials. Some are more plausibly linked to the prod-

ucts in current production, some are more dramati-

cally visualized, and some ruE more reliably respon~

32 / Journal of Markating, April 1986910

br-

b

●

II

i

I

. .

I

i

I,..1i!

i

I

to by the consuming public. Thus,” in the aggregate,~me of our cultural values are reinforced far mom~quently than others. Hence, while it may be truehat advertising reflects cu]tura] values, it does so on~ very selective basis, echoing and reinforcing certain~~~des, behaviors, and values far more frequently*M others. ~US, it bcomes a sefious research ques-tion, which values are subjected to this selective re-inforcement and which suffer from neglect, howeverbenign?

The possible distoflion of the relative importanceof various values may have far-reaching conse-quences. Most serious social decisions involve con-fllct between competing value premises, and it is thedative impoflance of tie com~ting values that tipstie balance and precipitates wholly different patterns

of behavior and pa~s of history. Political processes,for example t we typically the weighing of the relativeimport~ce of a series of values, each one of whichin isolation would ~ endorsed by virtually all citi-zens. But it is the balancing of these valued consid-erations (like dem~racy, prosperity, the sanctity offamily life, religious f=dom civil rights, nationalsecurity, etc. ) that leads to critical decisions and sep-arates the various political parties and policies. Thesame can ~ said for individuals and their balancingof values when confronted with nontrivial decisionsand moral quandaries. Thus, identifying the value

‘profile of advertising seems a research priority and isallowed by recent methodological developments (Pol-Iay 1983, 1984).

Many contentions about advertising’s impact andthe defensive responses to them are inherently ideo-logical in nature (Greyser 1972). Authors note criti-cally those ways in which they feel advertising leadsto deviations from their concept of an improved orideal society, and this unavoidably involves valuejudgments. But having said as much, it is not ade-quate, as so often seems to be implied, therefore todisregard the allegations and to accept the conserva-tive tautology that “what is, is good. ” While it maybe difficult to conduct a value-free inquiry into theeffects of advertising, in large measure because ad-vertising is itself so value laden, such an inquhy shouldbe attempted. When that inqui~ reaches its limits ofproviding information and insight, its data and con-clusions must then form the basis of a better informedjudgment. In the end, however, both research and moralJudgment seem necessary. The issues are too impor-tant to tolerate umnformed or amoral attitudes.

Greed, lust. sloth, and pride were identified earlieras common ad themes. One might also consider theextent to which advefiising encourages envy and glut-ton y. If anger were added to this list, we would havewhat are popularly known as the seven deadly sins.We could do far worse in our research agenda, as in

our moral reflections, than to consider the extent towhich advertising fosters these, or, in balance, en-courages the seven cardinal virtues of wisdom, jus-tice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, and love. Thiscriterion set at least transcends personal value pref-erences of different researchers.

A Last Call to Research

The need for this research, even at the risk of em-barrassing discoveries, has been recognized by fa-mous professionals, including a copywriter chief ex-ecutive and an advertising researcher who is a frequentindustry spokesman.

Criticism is much more wetcame, because much morehelpful, than praise. Criticism stimulates the nerveends; praise merely lards with cholesterol the mentalmerits. . . . [n my opinion, we in advertising shouldbe more concerned with those in our profession, oroutside it, who lack the interest to criticize, who lackthe urge to improve (Weir 1%3, pp. 179-180).We should be enlisting the support of cultural criticsand historians, as well as psychiatrists, to study theinfluence of advertising on the fantasy life of the pub-lic, on its conscious aspirations and unconscious mo-tives. We should be probing the symbolism evokedby the models and scenes depicted in advertising tosee what impact they have had on the national char-acter (Bogart 1%9, p. 10).

Despite calls for this sort of research from profes-sionals and despite nearly four decades of proddingfrom parallel social science paradigms, to date ourdiscipline has produced shamefully little in response.Perhaps this reflects the immaturity of marketing andconsumer behavior as autonomous academic disci-plines. We have been quite preoccupied with eitherprofessional practicalities and/or mimicking the es-tablished sciences, afraid, it would seem, of alienat-ing either constituency. Yet, this inhibition often pre-cipitates the most pedestrian and pedantic of research,ignoring questions meaningful to the larger commu-nities of schokrs and citizens. Hopefully, as we ma-ture into a more truly scholarly tradition, our scopeand courage will enlarge.

This is entirely possible for individuals as their ca-reers mature and as their concerns and perspective alsomature. As the methodologies of the discipline evolve,it also becomes more feasible to undertake researchwith the promise of its being satisfying. The meaning-fulness of the questions increases the satisfactions tothe researcher, and improved methods make the re-search product more satisfying to othem. While re-search on these topics is hardly simple, it is poten-tially significant.

Critical inquiry does not require researchers to be-lieve that advertising will be absolved of all chargesas much as it requires having faith that the institutionsof advertising have some potential for self-correctionand a capacity for moral action in the light of new

911

.

-\

-..

J

knowledge. Let us hope that marketing and advertis- scholars of it. Intellectual detachment suggests that weing scholars have this faith and carry out the needed should study the consumer in the marketing environ-research, Let us also hope that such faith is well- ment as the biologist studies the fish. As suggestedfounded. by Tucker ( 1974), all too often our perspective has

Failure to initiate this research would suggest that been exclusively that of the fisherman.academics are semants to marketing practice rather than

REFERENCESAdvertising Age ( 1957), “Editorial, ” 28 (February I I), 12.Barnouw, Erik ( 1978), The Sponsor: Notes on a Modern Po-

[enfute, New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Barzun, Jacques ( 1946), “Myths for Materialists, ” Chimera,

4 (No. 3), 52-62.Bell, Daniel ( 1976), The Cultural Contradictions of Capital-

ism, New York: Basic Books.Berman, Ronald (198 1). Advertising and Social Change, Bev-

erly Hills, CA Sage.Bogart. Leo (1%9), “Where Does Advertising Research Go

From Here?.” Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (No. l).3-12.

Boorstin, Daniel J. (1%2), The Image, New York: Atheneum.( 1973). The Americans: The Democratic &peri-

ence, New York Random House.Comtnanger, Henry Steel (1947), America in Perspective. New

York: Random House.(1950), The American Mind, New Haven: YaJe Univ.

Press.Dolkd, John (1960), “Fear of Advertising, ” in The Role of

Advertising, C. H. Sandage and V. Fryburger, eds.. Home-wood, [L Irwin, 307-317.

Ewen, Stu~ ( 1976), Captains of Consciousness. Advertisingand the Social Roots of the Cortwker Culture. New YorkMcGraw-Hill.

Fisher, John (1968), The Plot to Make You Buy, New York:McGnaw-Hill.

FOX, Stephen ( 1984), The Mirror Makers: A History of Twen-tieth Century American Advertising, New York Morrow.

Fromm, Erich (1955), The Sane Society. New York: HoIt.(1976), To Have or To Be?. New York: Harper.

Galbraith, John Kenneth (1%7), The New Industrial State,Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gossage. Howard Luck (1%7), “The Gilded Bough Magicand Advertising, “ in The Human Dialogue: Perspectives onCommunication, Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu,eds., New York: Free press, 363-370.

Greyser, Stephen A. (1972), “Advertising Att.acks ~dCountera, - Harvard Business Review, 50 (March-April),22-28ff.

Hayakawa, S. [. (1964), Laguage in Thought and Action.New York: Harco@.

Heilbroner. Robert L. (1976), Busbtess Civilization in De-cline. New York Norton.

(1981), “Demand for the Supply Side,” New YorkReview of Books, 38 (June 11), 37-41.

Henry, Jules (1%3), Culture Against Man, New York: Ran-dom House.

Howard, John A. and James Hulbert ( 1973), Advertising andthe Public Interest: A Staff Report to the Federal TradeCommission, Chicago: Cr-ain.

Jerusalem Bible, New Testament (1966), Garden City, NY:Doubleday.

Knstch, Jose-~ Wood ( 1959), Human Nature and the Human

Condition. New York: Random House.Kuhns, William (1970), Waysteps to Eden: Ads and Com-

mercials. New York: Herder and Herder.Lasch, Cnstopher ( 1978), The Culture of Narcissism: Ansen”-

can Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, New YorkNofion.

Leiss. William (1976), The Limits of Satisfaction, Toronto:Univ. of Toronto Press.

Ixysssore, Vatda IA@& ( 1975), Hio2kn Myth: Structure andSymbolism in Advertising, New York: Basic Books.

Logan, John Danier (1907), “Sociat Evolution and Advertis-ing, - Canadian Magazine, 28 (No. 4), 330-334.

MacBride, Sean ( 1980), Many Voices, Onz Worfd: Commu-nication and Society, To&y and Tomarrow, New YorkUnipub (UNESCO).

McLuhan, MarshafI ( 1951), The Mechanical Bri&, Boston:Beacon.

( 1953), “The Age of Advertising,” Commonweal58 (September), 555-557.

and Quentin FIore ( 1%7), The Medium IS the Mes-sage: An Inventory of Effects. New York: Random House.

Mantses, Marya ( 1964), But Will [t Sell?, New York: Lippin-Cott.

Mayer, Martin (1%1 ), “The American Myth and the Mythsof Advertising, ” in The Promise of Advertising, C. H. SasJ-dage, ed., Homewood, IL: Invin, 125-133.

Myers, John G. (1978), “Advertising and Socialization, ” itsResearch in Marketing, Vol. 1, J. Sheth, cd., Greenwich.~ JAI preSS, 169-199.

National Science Foundation (1978), Research on the Effectsof Television Advertising on Children: A Review of the Lite-rature and Recommendations for Future Research, WA-ington, DC: NSF.

Nouwen, Henri ( 1980), “Silence, the Portable Ceil,” Sojotufl-ers, 9 (July), 22ff.

Pollay, Richard W. (1983), “Measuring ~ CUIW Val@Manifest in Advertising, “ in Current Issues and Rese~hin Advem”sing, James H. Leigh and Claude R. Mart& jr.,eds., AIM ArboK UNV. of Mich., Gradua@ SChool of Bti-ness, 71 –92.

(1984), “The Identification and D&ibution of V~-ues Manifest in Print Advertising, 1900- 1980,” in Per-SOMI Values and Consumer Behavior, A. G. Woodside ~R. Pitts, eds., Lexington, MS: Lexington Books, 111-135.

(1985), “The Subsiding Sizzle: A Descriptive His-

tory of Print Advertising, 1900- 1980,- Journal of MSU-keting, 49 (Summer), 24-37.

Pope, Daniel ( 1983), The Making of Modern Advertising, New

York: Basic Books.Potter, David M. ( 1954), People of Plenty, Chicago: UniV. of

Chicago Press.Real, Michael R. ( 1977), Moss-Mediated Culture, Englew~

Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hatl.Riesman; David, Nathan Glazier, and Rauel Denny (1950)’

91234 / Journal of Marketing, April 1986

“!

Ib

II:I

,I[k..\II

,,I

I

1

I

I

[

)

4

II

~hc Lonely Crowd. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. PI-MS.Rokeach, Milton ( 1973). The Nurure o~ Human Values, New

York: Free press.Schi\ler, Herbefl 1. ( i 973), l%e Mind Managers, Boston: Bea-

con.s,-w~, Jeffrey (1977), Snap, Crackle, and Popular Tasw:

The !Iluslon OJ Free Choice in America, New York: De-]acotle.

Schudson, Michael (1984), Advertising, The Uneasy Persua-sion: Its Dubious Impact on American Society, New York:Basic Books.

S.l@r, John R. ( 1982), Democracy: Its Coun/e~eirs andpromises. Quoted in Lewis Komfeld, To Catch a Mouse,Make a Noise Like a Cheese. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice-HalI.

Sko]imowdci, Henryk (1977), “The Semantic Environment in~ Age of Advertising, “ in The New Languages: A Rhe-torical Approach to the Mass Media and Popular Culture,Thomas 1-1. Ohfbren and I-. M. Berk, eds., Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall, 91-1OI.

Skomia, Hq J. ( 1965), Television and Socie~, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Slater. philip E. (1970), The Pursuit of L.aneliness: AmericanCulture at the Breaking Point, Boston: Beacon.

Toronto School of Theology (1972). Truth in Advertising: ASymposium, New York: Harpr.

Tucker, W. T. (1974), “Future Directions in Marketing The-ory,” Jourrud of Marketing, 38 (April), 30-35.

Weir, Walter ( I %3), Tru(h in Advertising and Other Heresies,New York: McGraw-Hill.

Williams, Raymond ( 1960), “The Magic System, - NeM L.@RevieM’, 4 (July-August). 27-32.

. .

CONSULTED SOURCESArendt, Hanna (1959), The Human Condirion, Garden City,

NY: Doubleday.Baran, Paul A. and Paul M. Sweezy (1964), “Theses on Ad-

vertising,” Science and Society, 28, 20-30.Bell, Daniel (1960). “The Impact of Advertising .- in The Role

of Advertising. C. H. Sandage and V. Fry burger, cds.,Homcwood. IL. Irwin, 280-285.

Bembach, William ( 1980). “A Creative Credo for the Adver-tising Business,” Advertising Age, 51 (April 30). 206ff.

Boorstin, Daniel J. ( 1974a), ‘The Thinner Things of Life .- inAdvertising’s Role in Society. John S. Wright and John E.Mertes, eds., New York: West, 111-116.

( 1974b), “Advertising and American CiviIization.-

in Advertising and Society, Yale Brozen, ed.. New York:New York Univ. Press. 11-23.

Botdding, Kenneth (1956), The Image, Ann Arbor Univ. ofMichigan Press.

Buzzi. Giancarlo ( 1968), Advertising: Its Cultural and Polit-ics/ Eflects, Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.

Coleman, James (1982), The Asymmetrical Society. Syracuse:Syracuse Univ. Press.

Doob, honard W. ( 1948), Public Opinion and Propa~anda,New York: HoIt.

Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood ( 1979), The World ofGoads, New York: Basic Bmks.

Dyer. Gillian ( 1982). Advertising as Communication; Adver-tising and the Social Roots of /he Consumer Culture. Lon-don: Metheun.

Fox, Richard W. md T. J. Jackson Leas-s, cds. ( 1983), TheCulture of Consumption: Critical Essays in American His-tory, )880- 1980, New ‘York: Pantheon.

91

Fritsch. Albert J. ( 1974), The Contrasumers, New York: Prac -ger.

Galbraith, John Kenneth ( 1958), The Aj7uent Society, Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Glick, Ira O. and Sidney J. Levy ( 1%2), “The Love and Fearof Commercials, - in Living with Television. Chicago: Al-dine, 204-228.

Griff, Mason ( I %9), “Advertising: The Central Institution ofMass Society, ” Diogenes, 68 (Winter). 120-137.

Hanan, Mark ( 1960), The Pacifiers: The SU Symbols We LiveBy, Boston: Little, Brown.

Heilbroner, Roben L. (1977), The Economic Transformationof America, New York: Harcourt.

Homey, Karen (1937), The Neurotic Personality of Our Time,New York: Norton.

Jan-en, Randall (1%1), “A Sad Heart at the Supermarket,” inCulture for fhe Millions, Norman Jacobs, ed., Boston: Bea-con, 97-110.

Jellinek, J. !Nephan ( 1977), The Inner Editor: The Offense andDefense of Communication. New York: Stein and Day.

Johnson, Harry G. ( 1968), ‘The Consumer and Madison Av-enue, “ in Social Issues in Marketing. Lee E. Preston, ed.,Glenview, IL: Scott. Foresman, 253-259.

Jones, Mary G. (1970), “The Culturaf and Social Impact ofAdvertising on American Society, - Osgoode Hall LuwJournal, 8 (No. 1), 65-89.

Katona, George (1964), The Mass Consumption Society, NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

( 1974), “Attificially Created Wants,” in Advertis-ing’s Role in Society, John S. Wright and John E. Mertes,eds.. New York: West. 126-132.

, Bernhard Strumpel, and Ernest Zahn (197 1 ). As-pirations and Afluence: Comparative Studies in the UnitedStates and Western Europe. New York: McGraw-Hili.

Kavanagh, John Francis (1981). Following Christ in a Con-sumer Society: The Spirituality of Cultural Resistance,Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Kaysen. Carl ( I %7). “The Business Corporation as a Creatorof Values. “ in Human Values and Economic Polio, SidneyHook, ed.. New York: New York Univ. Press.

Kluckhohn, Clyde ( 1949). Mirror for Man, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Levitt. Theodore (1960), ‘Are Advertising and MarketingCorrupting Society? It’s Not Your Worry, - in The Ro/e ofAdvertising. C. H. Sandage and V. Fryburger. eds., Home-wood, IL: Irwin. 442-450.

(1970), ‘The Morality (?) of Advertising.” HarvardBusiness Review. 48 (July-August), 84-92.

Linden, Eugene (1979), Afluencr and Discontent: The AMt-om-v of Consumer Societies, New York: Viking.

Mander, Jerry (1978). Four Arguments for the Elimination ofTelevision. New York: Morrow.

McLuhan, Marshall (1947). ‘American Advertising, ” Hori-zon, No. 93-94 (October), 132-141.

(1966), Understanding Media: The Extensions ofMan, New York: New AztAcan.

Mead, Margaret (1960), “The Worm of Self-Consciousness inAmerican Culture, ” in The Role of Advertising. C. H. San-dage and V. Fryburger, cds.. Homewood, IL: Irwin, 286-293.

Patai. Raphael ( 1972), Myth and Modern Man, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Payne. Richard J. and Roberl Heyer ( 1 %9), Discovery in Ad-vertising. New York: Paulist Press.

Pease, Otis ( 1958), The Responsibilities of American Adver-tising. Private Control and Public lt@cnce, 1920-1940.New Haven, ~: Yale Univ. Press.

3

Pollay, Richasd W. (1984), “Twentierh Century MagazineAdvertising: Determinants of Informativeness,” WrittenComntunicurion, 1 (No. 1), 56-77.

Price, Jonathan ( 1978), The Best Thing on TV: Convnerciafs,New York: Penguin.

Rosten, Leo (1%1), “The Intellectuaf and the Mass Media, ”in Culture for the Millions, Norman Jacobs, cd.. Boston:Beacon, 71-84.

RoyaJ Commission on Consumer Problems (1974), “SocialEffects of Advertising, - in Advertising’s Role in Sociery,John S. Wright and John E. Mertes, eds., New York: West,117-120.

Schramm, Wilbur ( 1960), “The Effects of Mass Communi-cations, -

in The Role of Advertising, C. H. Sandage andV. Fry burger, eds., Homewood, [L: Irwin, 204-221.

Schwartz, Anthony (1973), The Responsive Chord, Garden City,NY: Anchor Press/Doubledav.

American Life, New York Marzani and Munsell.Shils, Edward (1%1), “Mass Society and Its Culture, ” in cu/-

ture for the Millions, Norman Jacobs, ed., Boston: Beacon,1-27.

Warne, Colston E. ( 1%2), “Advertising-A Critic’s View, ”Journal of Marketing, 26 (October), IO- 14.

White, Isving S. (1960), “The Functions of Advertising in OurCulture,” in 7’he Role of Advertising, C. H. !+mdage andV. Fryburger, eds., Homewood, IL: Iwin, 195-203.

Whitehead, Frank ( 1964), “ Advemising, ” in Discrintinarionand Popular Culture, Denys Thompson, ed., Baftimore:Penguin, 23-49.

Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1956), Language, Thought, and Real-ity, New York: Wiley.

Williams, Raymond ( 1974), Television: Technology and Cul-tural Form, Fontana, Great Britain: Colins.

Winick. Charles (1971). “Sex and Advettisine.” Sexuaf Be-Seldin, Joseph J. ( 1%5), The Golden Fleece; Advertising in havi~r, 1 (April), 36ff.

---

Nothing deflates anew product launch more surely than aweak brand name.

At NameLab, we’ve made crisp, meaningful and memorablenames like Acwq Cbnqxzq and Sm.tm by cwx%nx..onallinguistics

The result of a NameLab project is a report presenting andan-g trademark<leared names which exp~ your marketingiden~ precisely and powertidly We quote c- accurately inadvance and complete most pmjwts within four weeks.

For an information packet contact NameLab Inc.,711 Marina Blv@ San Francisco, CA 94123, 4UX63-1639.

36 / Journal of Marketing, April 1986 914

i

I

IL.