‘Advertising doesn’t sell things; all it does is change the way people think or feel’ (Jeremy Bullmore). Evaluate this statement with reference to selected critical theories (Past & present).
Advertising is a tool which can be utilised in a variety of ways to create a certain appearance and impression of a company or brand. In current times this has been used in such a way to shock the viewer or do something unexpected, in the hope that it will change the viewers perception of the brand or product. In this case, Bullmore is correct; television advertisements are created to draw attention to the brand in general, often giving a certain lifestyle or way of living. This is most prominent in adverts for perfume or aftershave, where the whole clip is about that certain life the viewer will gain from that one product. The brand creates a desirable and aspirational way of living and places it on a product as a way of encouraging people to buy it, and ultimately buy into the facade the brand is putting up as a whole. This facade changes people’s perceptions of the product, even though it is exactly the same as it was without the advertising. It gives them the need to buy it, for the purpose of the lifestyle and not necessarily the product itself. In this sense, advertising does not sell things, it changes people perceptions of the product so they will buy into it all, and ultimately purchase the product because of this.
Looking into the work of John Berger, primarily the book ‘Ways of Seeing’, Berger looks at oil paintings and advertising in separate essays, before joining up the similarities between the two to show that there is not a huge difference between them and why people acquire products today, like they used to purchase oil paintings in the past. Oil paintings were, and sometimes still are considered to be those owned by the wealthy and high stature people of society. They were the objects that showed everyone else that they were in with the times and had the glamourised and sought after lifestyle that everyone craved.
‘Oil paintings are often depicts things. Things which in reality re buyable. To have a thing painted and put on a canvas is not unlike buying it and putting it in your house. If you buy a painting you buy also the look of the things it represents’ (Berger, 1972, p.83)
This statement by Berger is saying exactly that. If the painting depicts a wealthy looking lifestyle, it is assumed that the person who purchased it, has the same lifestyle, or at least is aspirational in gaining the lifestyle. It is used as a status symbol and shows everyone around what you have and that you have that life that is craved. Berger also relates it to ‘Still Life with a Lobster’ by De Heem (Fig. 1), saying,
‘Here the edible is made visible. Such a painting is a demonstration of more than the virtuosity of the artist. It confirms the owners wealth and habitual style of living’ (Berger, 1972, p.99)
In a sentence, the buyer of the painting has cemented their glamorous lifestyle because in the painting, the food is that of the dinner table of the wealthy population.
This is exactly like the modern advertisements of today, convincing someone that by having the said product, it will enhance their lives and give them the glamorous lifestyle that was shown in the commercial. It is needed to convince people to purchase the products, because if there is nothing there to persuade them why they need it, there clearly is no reason to need it. By giving a reason, and showing how much richer their life would be with this product, it takes them away from the realistic view. A realistic view is not a desired one. Everyone likes the idea of being taken away from reality and shown that light and bit of hope that their lives will change to become the one they have seen in the advertisements. This is a primary reason why advertisements are never a hundred percent truthful. If they were, the products would not sell. The adverts would be boring and essentially say ‘This is the product, this is what it does, this is how it will not change your life’. Looking back into paintings,
‘Adriaen Brouwer was the only exceptional ‘genre’ painter. His pictures of cheap taverns and those who ended up in them, are painted with a bitter and direct realism which precludes sentimental moralising. As a result his pictures were never bought.’ (Berger, 1972, p.103) (Fig 2.)
It shows that people, as a society will not change when it comes to purchasing goods and having a lifestyle. The glamour is always going to be the most desirable thing in most people’s lives, and any way of getting that will be used, including listening to advertisements and believing everything they show and say the product represents, even though the truth is very clear, that the product will not change your life immensely to the point that your life is like the advert.
Taking Apple as an example, in the companies most recent advertisements within the past ten years, it has produced simple ads, in which it mainly consists of the products and showing what they can do, instead of, like other advertisements, shows what lifestyle it can give you. Apple is clever in the fact that it shows the products, and what it can do, showing how it will enhance certain aspects of your life and make certain things easier, like listen to personal music or having a constant editable calendar. They keep their advertisements simple; a white background with the product as the main focus (Fig. 3), however, looking closer to these, it is soon discovered that everything done is done purposely, and each product sells a different sort of lifestyle, however similar the product advertisements are. The company has branded itself in the idea that it is an innovative, cool and current company, with technology that will give you that same status, whoever you are. They have been clever in the fact that when advertising, they have relayed it to the mass market and haven’t made any prejudices or targeted it at a certain group of society. It has been made so it is commercially appealing to everyone.The message put across is that these are technologies for everyone to use in everyday life with applications that are useful and needed, when in reality, anyone could get through the day without using the technology. This image Apple has given itself has the majority of people buying the products just for the image, not for the need of the product. It has created the idea that people need the products by this certain brand to stay current and contemporary, while being your own individual self.
As Rick Poynor points out in his book ‘Obey the Giant’,
‘There are no images to measure yourself against, apart from other human beings’ (Poynor, 2001, p. 124)
The need to compete and measure yourself against other people is essentially built into us as humans. If we do not measure up to others, then we do not feel as in society and the loop as we could. By purchasing products, whatever they may be, they give the false safety net that we do measure up and will accepted and ultimately envied by others because of the fortunes they have in all the life enhancing products and glamorous lifestyle. Again, Berger states,
‘Publicity is about social relations, not objects. Its promise is not of pleasure, but of happiness: happiness as judge from the outside by others. The happiness of being envied is glamour’ (Berger, 1972, p.132)
The idea of being accepted because of the lifestyle you lead is desirable, but to be envied because of it, makes it a lot more appealing. In reality, these products do not affect you and make your life better in many ways, if any, but because of modern day advertising and the way it convinces people they need the products, to have people envious of your ownership of these products adds more to the glamorous life. It gives that sense that the products are working, that the aspirational lifestyle is being achieved and that being envied is the result of success.
‘It is this avid and ambitious desire to take possession of the object for the benefit of the owner or even of the spectator which seems to me to constitute one of the outstandingly original features of art of Western civilisation’ (Lévi-Strauss in Berger, 1972, p.84)
Looking at advertising as a whole and how it affects our lives and perspectives of life, Kim Sheehan states,
‘Like many types of mass-mediated content, advertising influences our lives. Whether this influence is positive, or negative, depends on many different factors. These factors include the type of individual seeing the advertisement, the content in which the advertisement is seen, and the content of the advertising message itself’ (Sheehan, 2004, p.1)
Sheehan makes the point that although all advertisements will represent a certain lifestyle, it depends on the individual who is looking at it. As everyone has their own mind and opinions, one advertisement could completely convince one person, but another would just walk away from it. The affect of the advert is judged off of this fact. Advertisements may be considered prejudice or offensive to some, while to others it is their ideal, or they understand exactly what the message of it is. Arguably it goes back to the context of oil paintings again and how the persons background and upbringing changes their perceptions on the messages being put across.
A prime example of this, which directly relates to Bullmore’s quite is the renowned controversial ad campaigns by the Benetton clothing line ‘United Colors of Benetton’. Their posters consist of images entirely unrelated to the products, and were there primarily to get the viewers attention and make them think about the images displayed, which were often considered distressing or controversial to the viewer. However, like stated above, what someone considers distressing and inappropriate, another person considered to be truth and honest. The company has used these sorts of images for over ten years, and is still shocking the consumers today, however it is clever as it is keeping the company in the news and relevant all the time. By staying in the news, it reaches out to a larger audience and is continually having people look at the advertisements and consider their own opinions on them and the company, and as Sut Jhally comments on, ultimately advertisements are what structure the current media content,
‘It could be argued that advertising is the most influential institution of socialism and modern society: it structures mass media content’ (Jhally, 1990, p.1)
The images used are those of true fact, but are considered inappropriate to be seen so up front and boldly publicly, especially for an ad campaign, and even more so when they have no relevance to the product that the company sells. These ads certainly change the way the viewers think or feel on the subject and on the company brand, however this is not always in a positive light. If the consumers feelings are negative because of their ad campaigns then it is true that advertising does not sell the products.
‘The purpose of publicity is to make the spectator marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life. Not with the way of life of society, but with his own within it’ (Berger, 1972, p.142)
Although Benetton essentially does both with its advertisements, it does primarily get the viewer to look at their way of thinking and their perception on life, especially as the images are true facts. These images are not materialised or fantasies the viewer would want, they are realities, put out there very bolding. Going back to the painting by Brouwer, it is the same, it is showing the harsh reality, and perhaps that is why many people find them offensive. It does not built on their desired lifestyle, it simply shows what is already there and true.
Focusing mainly on the 1991 advertisement by Benetton, the new born baby (Fig. 4), this advertisement was one that was considered very inappropriate for the context in which it was put in, which was posters around cities, advertising clothing. Although the image is essentially showing new life, and in the context of clothes, promoting the new season of clothing items, it is considered wildly inappropriate and offensive. It prompted over eight hundred complaints, and made it the most controversial advertisement ever. However, compared to other advertisements by the company (Fig. 5), which was released the year after, in which a man dying of HIV with a huge resemblance to Jesus Christ, it is still considered to be more offensive. It is almost like the first had such a huge affect on people and what they thought, that the second advertisement did not seem as shocking, even though morally it is. The second is a lot more offensive, depicting Jesus Christ as a man dying of HIV, rather than a child that has just been given birth to. It begs the question of what feelings the consumer public has on the two subjects of life and death, clearly having a lot more open mind to death than life, and not having such a big problem with a company using that sort of image to advertise their clothing. These advertisements shows that there is a thin line between having a advertisement that is shocking, but relevant and will convince the consumer to buy the product, and an advertisement that is just shocking to the viewer and off putting. This, and their other advertisements gave Benetton a reputation to be shocking, controversial and inappropriate when it comes to how they convey themselves as a brand, which will not necessarily help sell the products they offer. However, saying that, it certainly keeps them current and in constantly in the media, with people following the advertisements with interest. In one aspect, it could be said that Benetton are going against the usual advertisement trends, and are paving themselves a way through to get customers. Instead of showing a desirable life, or product, like Apple products, they are simply getting attention, and ultimately sales by shocking the viewer and changing the way they see the world.
‘Within publicity, choices are offered between this cream and that cream, that car and this car, but publicity as a system only makes a single proposal. It proposes to each of us that we transform ourselves, or our lives, by buying something more. This more, it proposes, will make us in some way richer - even though we will be poorer by having spent out money. Publicity persuades us of such transformation by showing us people who have apparently been transformed and are, as a result, enviable. The state of being envied is what constitutes glamour. And publicity is the process of manufacturing glamour’ (Berger, 1972, p.131).
Like Berger states, advertisements are what give the extra push in the direction of a product by a certain company, instead of an identical one by another. Either way, each will apparently give the fulfilment which is craved by the consumer. Advertisements play on what the viewer wants, and creates a scenario in them adverts which shows the viewer why they need the product. If advertisements were made to sell the products, just on the products themselves, there would not be many sales because of the simple fact that not all products are needed at all. In this, it seems Bullmore is correct. If advertising sold products, none of the advertisements would use the strategy of glamourising and convincing you that it will enrich your life. They would be simple, explaining the product and leaving it at that. However in this time a lot of products are more for leisure than necessity, and because of this, the public will need a reason to spend money on them. Advertisements play on the needs of people and change the way their view the products and how they feel about the products, giving an adequate reason to purchase. Advertisements are essentially what control the trends in what people consider what will fulfil our lives and give us that glamorous lifestyle. As more and more people buy a certain product, it will influence others around them, convincing them that the product is needed in their lives and a necessity, even though it has never been before. Advertisements have an almost subconscious effect, changing peoples views on what is necessary in life and that the products will be the future.
‘Advertising is not part of the dominant culture. It is the dominant culture’ (Twitchell in Poynor, 2001, p.123)
Bibliography
Books
Berger, J (1972) ‘Ways of Seeing’, London, Penguin Books, LTD. Pg. 83, 84, 99, 103, 131, 132, 142
Jhally, Sut, (1990), ‘The Codes of Advertising: Fetishim an the political economy of meaning in the consumer society’ London, Pinter Publishing, LTD. Pg, 1
Poynor, R (2001) ‘Obey the Giant’, London, August Media. Pg. 123, 124
Sheehan, K (2004), ‘Controversies in contemporary advertising’ USA, Sage Publication, Inc. Pg. 1, 82
Videos
Images
 |
| Fig.1 (De Heem, 1643, ‘Still Life with a Lobster’) |
 |
| Fig.2 (Adriean Brouwer, 1935 ‘Tavern Scene’) |
 |
| Fig.3 (Apple, 2011, iPad 2) |
 |
| Fig.4 (United Colors of Benetton, 1991, New Born Baby) |
 |
| Fig.5 (United Colors of Benetton,1992, HIV) |
