Can Advertising Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony?
Thursday, July 2, 2009 - FEATURES
[SP EXCLUSIVE]
When I first saw the “Be Brave” commercial, I loved it. I actually still do. I mean, aside from the credibility a white, tween graffiti artist has, they pretty much had me at sick kid. And who would argue with the message? You don’t have to be dumb or premenstrual to be moved by that. And yet, here’s the hypocrisy: The company that paid to have the commercial made—Pfizer—is presently being sued by authorities in Kano, Nigeria, for violating international law and completely disregarding human rights. How “brave” is that?
In 1996, Pfizer sent a team of doctors to the Nigerian slum city of Kano to test a broad-spectrum antibiotic on hundreds of children and infants in the midst of a meningitis epidemic. Researchers involved in the testing had full knowledge that the medication had possible life-threatening side effects and may have been “unfit for human use.” Parents of the children tested did not give consent, were not provided with accurate information about the drug, and were not allowed to visit during testing. The outcome: 11 children died, and many more suffered serious permanent side effects ranging from organ failure to brain damage.
It should be impossible to like the commercial now, right? But it’s more complicated than that. This is not a regular TV commercial—the kind you can fast forward thanks to TiVo, while muttering, “those evil corporations…” and heading to the kitchen for a bowl of ice cream. In other words, it is not the typical commercial that you are predisposed to view with the understanding that it is a manipulative attempt to get you to buy something (in this case: a load of crap). This particular commercial came in the form of a viral video, the kind my sister—a sweet, caring, and thoughtful person—sent me in an email with a note that said, “Check it out. This is awesome!” How could I resist?
I’m beginning to think that perhaps all commercials should come with a disclaimer like the ones for medications, where some sexy voiceover says, “Side effects may include explosive diarrhea, impotence, and migraine headaches.” Maybe there could be a ticker tape-like banner running along the bottom of the screen that gives all the information the commercial leaves out. I might still get choked up, though, in which case I’d feel guilty about it.
Should I feel guilty about it, though? I think I can separate the commercial from the company. I love watching those Clydesdales gallop through the snow, for example, but that doesn’t make me want to buy Budweiser. And there are some pretty amazing commercials out there, ones directed by talented filmmakers like Spike Jonze and Jim Sheridan. Are they just sellouts? Is advertising a first step towards corporate propaganda? It’s this kind of thinking that leads to conspiracy theories.
Creators of a new documentary, The Obama Deception, have gone so far as to suggest that it was corporate financiers who created the new face of “Hope”—and Obama fit the bill. They argue that our president is merely a pawn of the Military-Industrial complex. (The Military-Industrial complex includes the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as defense contractors, the Pentagon, the Congress, and the Executive Branch.)
Another documentary, The Corporation, addresses the “personality” of the corporation and parallels its behavior with that of a psychopath, defined by “its callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, deceitfulness, and an incapacity to feel guilt. Hmm. That sounds an awful lot like Pfizer. But why can’t I just like the “Be Brave” commercial? It was a sweet message of hope sent out across the Internet. Uh oh… wait a minute.
There are some commercials that aren’t made by huge corporations. Where do they fit in? You know, the ones that make us laugh, feel good, or watch in awe at their bizarre good humor. Like this one:
Is there ever an upside to advertising? And how do you deal with the internal conflict when you are moved by something that you know is likely disingenuous?
:: propaganda pondered by Deirdre Lewis
I think, often, advertising is aimed at the materialistic side of all of us. There are very few advertisements that promote a positive change or a concept or an ideal to which a sane-minded individual should, in a perfect world, aspire to reach or become. Most advertisements, in face, leave it unclear as to what product they are even advertising. Sex, eroticism, innuendo's, and fantasies are all the concoctions of advertising executives who seek to increase their profit by appealing to our baser human instincts. PSAs and other human rights advertisements/announcements are often attempting to aim at our higher human instincts but even they often miss the mark through the use of celebrity endorsements and badly portrayed messages. I saw a PSA the other day about senior abuse and I thought it was one of those joke advertisements like you see on Funny or Die. It wasn't. Yet, every time I see the ad I giggle because I can't take it seriously. Other PSAs where they use celebrities like Pamela Anderson and get them naked in order to stop us from wearing fur and using animal products also miss the mark because all I see is a naked Pamela Anderson--you almost forgot the cause she's trying to promote in that particular scenario.
The only kind of advertising I think might make the world a little better would be ad council PSAs. I hate to admit it, but I totally detest those "The More You Know" ads meant to influence culture in the light of what is politically correct or trendy at the moment. In college we called those (as well as Brandon on 90210's "teaching moments" and Bob Saget's Moral lessons on Full House) Power Downs. It basically signaled that it was time to turn off the television and go do something lurid.
hmmm... Hard question... I was in Eastern Europe for awhile and there was this one commercial that played all the time and due to not speaking the language I had no idea what the commercial was for. But this lil kid was drawing all over the wall of the living room. His parents come in on it. Next we see the dad hanging a frame around the wall scribbles. It just really touched me. Where as most parents would freak if they saw it these parents wanted to display it as art. I had just never thought of it like that...
I don't know... i just still remember that commercial years later... maybe for a bank? :P
As some people have pointed out below, marketers use psychological techniques (like classical conditioning) to make us have to have the product. By pairing a pleasurable stimulus with their product, we feel that buying that product will get us that stimulus. While this could seem like a strange approach it does work. John Watson, a scientist who perfected the classical conditioning process, started out as a psychologist and then went onto advertising, and through this method made a huge amount of money. Nowadays, however, some companies seem to use this method ad nauseum. Just look at that one commercial of Paris Hilton eating a whopper, wearing scantily clad clothing, and (above all else) bending over washing a truck. Some marketers take that whole "pairing a pleasurable stimulus" a little bit too far.
@schadenfreude unfortunately the people who make the ads are interested in one thing...money, and the best way to get this is to make us, the audience, want to have their product more than anything.
I found this surprisingly profound for something coming from Pfizer, who I think is pretty much the devil. They give medicine to the sick, but only after they squeeze every last penny and every last ounce of life from them. That's like giving a homeless guy food IF he first dances for you, acts like an animal, crawls on all fours, begs for the food, and gives you the clothes on his back.
That said, I think this ad has a good message, and that advertising, as shallow as it is, can sometimes be a good thing. It can spread messages of hope and revolution, even if it happens to be sponsored by, say, smooth, refreshing Coca-Cola. If I see a good ad with a good message or idea, I try to just ignore everything BUT that message, including the company, and just focus on what the as itself is saying.
@faintestofhearts and @MElamas - And Ellen Degeneres is really a Cover Girl??
@schadenfreude and @crazy_mama - the funny thing is that if ads were straightforward communication of a product's usefulness, they would sell no product, and would be unbearable to watch. Advertising works because they manipulate our emotions, but that is not advertising's fault, we're already wired to receive those frequencies.
The fact is, you can do the same to push a worthwhile cause, or get a message out that the public wouldn't already get. And now that we enter the era of the 12 second ad, the challenge, and opportunity is there for everybody, whether they are pitching dubious herbals or a way to bring wifi to Africa's poor.
Question is, how far would you go for a worthy cause?
- LIFE's BIG QUESTIONS
- ATTACK A CHALLENGE
@yasijoon: I think Adbusters hit the nail on the head with these PSAs:
https://www.adbusters.org/category/video_type/adbusters