Modern Day Subliminal Advertising
Introduction
Although advertising has been around for centuries, explicit "branding" is a product of the late 1800s and came about during the Industrial Revolution.1 Due to the lack of regulation within certain industries and the prevalence of hazardous products, brands were introduced to increase the reputation and value of a particular manufacturer.1 Much like today, brands were synonymous with certain attributes, like quality and safety, that manufacturers wanted to convey.
Despite its many benefits, advertising has been met with an onslaught of debate and criticism. This paper addresses the criticisms and the benefits of advertising so that, hopefully, readers can make their own informed decision on whether advertising is a friend …show more content…
or a foe in our society. However, no matter the controversies surrounding advertising, it's safe to say that it's here to stay.
Everyone's a Critic Advertising is "accused of encouraging materialism and consumption, of stereotyping, of causing us to purchase items for which we have no need, of taking advantage of children, of manipulating our behavior, using sex to sell, and generally contributing to the downfall of our social system."2 Sut Jhally, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, goes as far as to say that advertising will eventually lead to the end of the world. In his article, Advertising at the Edge of the Apocalypse, he claims "20th century advertising is the most powerful and sustained system of propaganda in human history and its cumulative cultural effects, unless quickly checked, will be responsible for destroying the world as we know it."3 He further goes on to argue that advertising isn't about informing consumers but fooling them into believing that consumption of commodities is the only means of attaining true happiness. He poses, "Do we get happier as a society as we get richer, as our standard of living increases, as we have more access to the immense collection of objects?"4 The United States alone spends, on average, $175 billion a year5 on advertising trying to make consumers believe that the answer is yes. However, according to the article in BusinessWeek magazine, Rating Countries for the Happiness Factor, the United States was ranked 23rd.6 In fact, Bhutan, a small South Asian nation between India and China, is ranked 8th and has a GDP per capita of only $1,400.7 One could assume, then, that commodity purchases is not what makes the people of Bhutan happy. Whether you agree with Professor Jhally or not, it is easy to see where he is coming from when you look at the various types of unethical advertising, specifically subliminal, deceptive, advertising to children, and economic censorship.
Subliminal Advertising
Modern day subliminal advertising originated in 1957 by James Vicory.
He claimed to increase concession sales at a movie theater by subliminally directing the audience to buy Coca-Cola and popcorn. His technique was to flash a visual stimulus "eat popcorn" and "drink Coca-Cola" on the screen for 1/3000 of a second.8 His technique is one of three ways in which subliminal advertising can be communicated. The other two are by using sub-audible messages and by using embedded stimuli. Sub-audible messages are auditory stimuli that are played at a low volume and under a "carrier" of music, ocean waves, etc. so that they cannot be heard, …show more content…
whereas embedded stimuli are words or pictures, usually of a sexual nature, hidden within larger illustrations.9
Much of the controversy around subliminal advertising stems from the misuse of the word. In psychological terms, "limen" is the threshold of consciousness. Therefore, a subliminal stimulus, by definition, is below the level of someone's conscious awareness.10 The ethical debate around subliminal advertising is that it controls human behavior through manipulation because people are unconsciously aware that it's happening. For example, much controversy surrounded the Republican National Committee during the 2000 presidential election for allegedly using subliminal messages to attack Al Gore.11 In the ad, the word "rats" flashed onscreen for a split second.
However, most reputable advertisers vehemently deny that they use subliminal advertising as a tool to encourage specific consumer behavior.
"The preparation of every ad or commercial involves many people, and it is difficult to conceive how any advertiser could keep the inclusion of subliminal messages secret. The advertising managers would have to know about it. The copywriters and art directors, the people who plan the ads, would have to work out how the subliminal messages would be hidden. The people who produce the ad would have to be informed, since they put it in final form and need to make certain the hidden messages are properly reproduced. All it would take would be one person to stand up and say, Look at what we did!'"12
Their argument is that subliminal advertising doesn't work. No empirical evidence exists to demonstrate that subliminal advertising has an effect on changing attitudes or an impact on consumers' purchasing behavior. "The point is simply that subliminal directives have not been shown to have the power ascribed to them by advocates of subliminal advertising. In general, the literature on subliminal perception shows that the most clearly documented effects are obtained only in highly contrived and artificial situations."13 However, the underlining ethical question isn't whether subliminal advertising exists, or even works, but whether consumers believe that it does.
According to the article Public Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising, 75-85% of American adults are familiar with subliminal advertising and think advertisers use it at least part of the time to sell their products.14 Therefore, even if consumers' perceptions of subliminal advertising are wrong and inaccurate, it is nevertheless these beliefs that shape consumer reactions toward ads and the advertising industry.
Deceptive Advertising According to the FTC's 1993 policy statement on deceptive advertising, there are three elements in determining whether an advertisement is deceptive:
1) "First, there must be a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer.
2) Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.
3) Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a "material" one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the
deception."15
The clear ethical dilemma is that deceptive advertising, essentially, causes consumers to purchase products based on lies. In order to prove that an ad claim is, in fact, deceptive, the FTC must determine how the message is conveyed to consumers. In general, the FTC is not concerned with what the message says but how it is perceived by consumers. The claim is considered deceptive if it differs from the reality of the product attribute being advertised.16 Several companies have been accused of using deceptive advertising to sell their products. One notable example is the Colgate-Palmolive Co. "sandpaper" case. For a television commercial promoting its "Palmolive Rapid Shave," Colgate-Palmolive used a piece of plexiglass covered in sand instead of real sandpaper. Their argument was that real sandpaper is indistinguishable from smooth colored paper due to the technical difficulties of television photography . An actor then proceeded to shave the prop in one stroke, claiming that the efficacy of "Rapid Shave" is so high that it can shave even the heaviest beards. The Commission found the commercial deceptive because "Rapid Shave" in fact could not shave true sandpaper even after an hour of soaking. The Commission took it one step further by saying that the prop constituted "an illegal deception even if the shaving cream could actually shave real sandpaper as fast as it shaved the mock-up and in every other particular was exactly as depicted in the commercial"17 because in reality, consumers wouldn't be shaving sandpaper. A second example of deceptive advertising occurred with the maker of Wonder Bread, Interstate Bakeries Corp (IBC). IBC aired an ad featuring a fictional spokesperson, Professor Wonder, who made unsubstantiated claims that as a good source of calcium, Wonder Bread helps children's minds work better and helps their memory. The FTC's allegation was that the advertising "implied to consumers that its product was unique through statements speaking explicitly only of nutritional qualities."18 Despite the FTC's best intentions to protect consumers against deceptive advertising, the FTC itself may pose a threat. After the "sandpaper" case, the FTC announced its intention to prohibit the use of any prop or mock-up in a commercial message, except as background material. Therefore, an "advertiser may not use a prop or mock-up to show the actual qualities of a product or its performance, although it might be lawful for him to exploit the distortions of television projection to make a product or its performance appear superior on screen, so long as the real object is used in the studio."19
Advertising to Children Many advertisers view children as a profitable three-in-one market: as buyers themselves, as influencers of their parents' purchases, and as future adult consumers. According to the Education Resources Information Center, elementary school children have an estimated $15 billion of their own money and influence at least $160 billion in parental purchases.20 Therefore, advertisers closely target children as consumers. They have their own TV and radio networks, clothing brands, magazines, video games, etc., all outlets for advertisers to showcase their greatest work.
"Other recent advertising tactics include kids' clubs, store displays directed at children, direct mailing to children and their parents, and marketer-sponsored school activities. Linking their products to educational goals, advertisers have reached into the schools by sponsoring such activities as literacy programs, reading projects, anti-drug campaigns, and communication skills training, while rewarding students for good performance with coupons for products and free meals. This spread of advertising in the schools can be seen as part of a historical pattern toward the commercialization of youth."21
The concern around advertising to youths in an academic environment is the integrity of education in our democracy. Increased time and pressure is put on teachers and administrators as they sort through offers from businesses hoping to advertise in their schools. Additionally, many educators do not want to participate in offering their students as bait to the many sharks of advertising. However, some educators believe that commercially produced materials supplement their curriculum. For example, Channel One is a 12-minute daily news program shown in over 350,000 classrooms.22 Its contents include environmental, domestic, and global issues that children may not have known otherwise and provide a means for further class discussion. Perhaps a greater overall concern with advertising to children is the influence advertisers have on children's ability to make good judgments concerning products and brands, one of the largest outcries being the targeting of youths in cigarette ads.
"The ethical reservations about cigarette advertising stem from two unique and devastating aspects of tobacco products: their addictive and too often lethal consequences. From the industry's perspective, the lethal consequences of smoking create a chronic and substantial need to replace those dying off, while the addictive nature of nicotine leads to phenomenally high rates of brand loyalty among smokers. This combination of factors leads naturally to a strategic interest in replacement starters, since brands able to attract starters will enjoy the profitability of heir brand loyalties for many years. It is not surprising, therefore, that cigarette advertising has long been suspected of intentionally appealing to the young, for it is among the young that virtually all starting occurs."23
Earlier targeting tactics, post-WWI, included heavy network broadcasting. For example, a single hour of television programming could easily contain seventy promotional references to cigarettes. Companies then moved to advertising their products in magazines and billboards, often using a character to appeal to consumers. In fact, no other character is more infamous than R.J. Reynolds' "Smooth Move" camel, as it was found to be better recognized by the very young than by the claimed older target audience.
Other targeting tactics that advertisers used to bring in more starters included collegiate programs, sporting event sponsorships or athletic endorsements, and "sexier" packaging, all of which exposed youths to the "benefits" and "coolness" of smoking. When Philip Morris redesigned their package, the President said, "We wanted a new, bright package that would appeal to a younger market."24 The criticisms became particularly vocal when, back in the 1960's, cigarette sales among teens grew despite the growing cancer concern. Back then, smoking was more of a social norm than a social stigma and teenagers were not impressed by anti-smoking campaigns. Although youth cigarette smoking remains a concern today, it is much less so than in the past. More of the ads on television now focus on anti-smoking campaigns than on advertising. Also, society, in general, is much more aware of the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke. However, does that mean that advertisers have suddenly grown a conscience or is it the market forcing them to be more socially responsible? I fear that advertisers will be the first to jump on the next youth craze and it won't be in the best interest of children.
Economic Censorship Adding to the numerous complaints around advertising is the notion that the ad industry threatens our "free press," using its financial leverage to dictate media content and censor the information received by the populace. Because advertising is the source of income for most media outlets, it's important that radio stations, TV networks, magazines, etc. keep their advertisers happy. The argument, then, is that advertisers are able to unofficially censor the press, barring the media from publishing or broadcasting certain material. "Anything preventing the press from effectively providing information and commentary that the public would want or that an "independent" press would conclude the public needs, is a serious threat to sound social policy and a properly functioning democracy."25 However, the alleged victim, the consumer, has greater power over advertising content than some would expect. The problem is that consumers (albeit not all) remain silent.
"In reality, if they were to take a more active role and collectively demand that media address controversial issues, both advertisers and media would readily comply. Alternatively, if these "victims" are sufficiently upset about the lack of information caused by EC (economic censorship), they can send a message to those media that accept no advertising. If they neither protest nor switch to alternative media, we can assume that most consumers are willing to accept the limitations of their current media."26
Again, not all consumers remain silent. There are several advocacy groups that actively strive to alter the content of the medium, e.g. Conservative and religious groups, antiviolence groups, social-activists, etc. Additionally, these groups are protected constitutional protection. In the case, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court declared a "new consumer right to engage in concerted refusals to patronize even if such refusals are economically disruptive."27 The case arose from an African-American consumer boycott of Caucasian merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, aimed at compelling elected officials to support demands by civic and business leaders for racial equality and integration. The Court found the nonviolent elements of the NAACP's activities entitled to First Amendment protection.
Conclusion
Despite the many social criticisms of advertising, there are also several economic benefits. "Most economists believe that advertising has a positive impact on the economy because it stimulates demand for products and services, strengthening the economy by promoting the sale of goods and services. Manufacturers know that advertising can help sell a new product quickly, enabling them to recoup the costs of developing new products. By stimulating the development of new products, advertising helps increase competition. Many economists believe that increased competition leads to lower prices, thereby benefiting consumers and the economy as a whole. These economists also argue that by interesting consumers in purchasing goods, advertising enables manufacturers and others to sell their products in larger quantities. The increased volume of sales enables companies to produce individual units at lower costs and therefore, sell them at a lower price. Advertising thus benefits consumers by helping lower prices."28
No matter which side of the fence you're on, advertising isn't going anywhere. However, many of the concerns mentioned above are being addressed through government regulation, like the FTC and FCC. Consumer advocacy groups also play a significant role in monitoring the activities of advertisers. Like everything else, the marketplace and society will determine what is appropriate and what's not, and advertising will (have to) react accordingly.
Endnotes
1. www.wikipedia.com
2. www.advertising.utexas.edu/research/law
3. www.sutjhally.com/onlinepubs/apocalypse.html
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Marina Kamenev, Rating Countries for the Happiness Factor, BusinessWeek Online, October 11, 2006.
7. Id.
8. Martha Rogers and Kirk Smith, Public Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising: Why Practictioners Shouldn't Ignore this Issue, Journal of Advertising Research, March/April, 1993, at 10.
9. Geoffrey P. Lantos, Ice Cube Sex: The Truth about Subliminal Advertising, 13, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 62, 62 (1996).
10. Sheri J. Broyles, Subliminal Advertising and the Perpetual Popularity of Playing to People's Paranoia, 40, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 392, 393 (2006).
11. Eleftheria Parpis, Hide and Seek, AdWeek, March 31, 2003, at 27.
12. Sheri J. Broyles, Subliminal Advertising and the Perpetual Popularity of Playing to People's Paranoia, 40, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 392, 401 (2006).
13. Id. at 396.
14. Martha Rogers and Kirk Smith, Public Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising: Why Practictioners Shouldn't Ignore this Issue, Journal of Advertising Research, March/April, 1993, at 16.
15. Gary T. Ford and John E. Calfee, Recent Developments in FTC Policy on Deception, 50, Journal of Marketing, 82, 86 (1986).
16. www.advertising.utexas.edu/research/law
17. Note, Illusion or Deception: The Use of "Props" and "Mock-ups" in Television Advertising, 72, Yale Law Journal, 145, 145 (1962).
18. Ivan L. Preston, The Federal Trade Commission's Identification of Implications as Constituting Deceptive Advertising, 57, The University of Cincinnati Law Review, (1989)(Lexis).
19. Note, Illusion or Deception: The Use of "Props" and "Mock-ups" in Television Advertising, 72, Yale Law Journal, 145, 155 (1962).
20. Amy Aidman, Advertising in the Schools, ERIC Digest, December 1995, at 1.
21. Id. at 2.
22. Id. at 2.
23. Richard W. Pollay, Targeting Tactics in Selling Smoke: Youthful Aspects of 20th Century Cigarette Advertising, Winter, The Journal of Marketing THEORY AND PRACTICE, 1, 1 (1995).
24. Id. at 5.
25. Jef I. Richards and John H. Murphy II, Economic Censorship and Free Speech: The Circle of Communication Between Advertisers, Media, and Consumers, Spring, Journal of Current Issues and Research Advertising, 21, 23 (1996).
26. Id. at 29.
27. Patrick M. Fahey, Advocacy Group Boycotting of Network Television Advertisers and Its Effects on Programming Content, 140, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 647 (1991)(Lexis).
28. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564279/Advertising.html
Although advertising has been around for centuries, explicit "branding" is a product of the late 1800s and came about during the Industrial Revolution.1 Due to the lack of regulation within certain industries and the prevalence of hazardous products, brands were introduced to increase the reputation and value of a particular manufacturer.1 Much like today, brands were synonymous with certain attributes, like quality and safety, that manufacturers wanted to convey.
Despite its many benefits, advertising has been met with an onslaught of debate and criticism. This paper addresses the criticisms and the benefits of advertising so that, hopefully, readers can make their own informed decision on whether advertising is a friend …show more content…
or a foe in our society. However, no matter the controversies surrounding advertising, it's safe to say that it's here to stay.
Everyone's a Critic Advertising is "accused of encouraging materialism and consumption, of stereotyping, of causing us to purchase items for which we have no need, of taking advantage of children, of manipulating our behavior, using sex to sell, and generally contributing to the downfall of our social system."2 Sut Jhally, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, goes as far as to say that advertising will eventually lead to the end of the world. In his article, Advertising at the Edge of the Apocalypse, he claims "20th century advertising is the most powerful and sustained system of propaganda in human history and its cumulative cultural effects, unless quickly checked, will be responsible for destroying the world as we know it."3 He further goes on to argue that advertising isn't about informing consumers but fooling them into believing that consumption of commodities is the only means of attaining true happiness. He poses, "Do we get happier as a society as we get richer, as our standard of living increases, as we have more access to the immense collection of objects?"4 The United States alone spends, on average, $175 billion a year5 on advertising trying to make consumers believe that the answer is yes. However, according to the article in BusinessWeek magazine, Rating Countries for the Happiness Factor, the United States was ranked 23rd.6 In fact, Bhutan, a small South Asian nation between India and China, is ranked 8th and has a GDP per capita of only $1,400.7 One could assume, then, that commodity purchases is not what makes the people of Bhutan happy. Whether you agree with Professor Jhally or not, it is easy to see where he is coming from when you look at the various types of unethical advertising, specifically subliminal, deceptive, advertising to children, and economic censorship.
Subliminal Advertising
Modern day subliminal advertising originated in 1957 by James Vicory.
He claimed to increase concession sales at a movie theater by subliminally directing the audience to buy Coca-Cola and popcorn. His technique was to flash a visual stimulus "eat popcorn" and "drink Coca-Cola" on the screen for 1/3000 of a second.8 His technique is one of three ways in which subliminal advertising can be communicated. The other two are by using sub-audible messages and by using embedded stimuli. Sub-audible messages are auditory stimuli that are played at a low volume and under a "carrier" of music, ocean waves, etc. so that they cannot be heard, …show more content…
whereas embedded stimuli are words or pictures, usually of a sexual nature, hidden within larger illustrations.9
Much of the controversy around subliminal advertising stems from the misuse of the word. In psychological terms, "limen" is the threshold of consciousness. Therefore, a subliminal stimulus, by definition, is below the level of someone's conscious awareness.10 The ethical debate around subliminal advertising is that it controls human behavior through manipulation because people are unconsciously aware that it's happening. For example, much controversy surrounded the Republican National Committee during the 2000 presidential election for allegedly using subliminal messages to attack Al Gore.11 In the ad, the word "rats" flashed onscreen for a split second.
However, most reputable advertisers vehemently deny that they use subliminal advertising as a tool to encourage specific consumer behavior.
"The preparation of every ad or commercial involves many people, and it is difficult to conceive how any advertiser could keep the inclusion of subliminal messages secret. The advertising managers would have to know about it. The copywriters and art directors, the people who plan the ads, would have to work out how the subliminal messages would be hidden. The people who produce the ad would have to be informed, since they put it in final form and need to make certain the hidden messages are properly reproduced. All it would take would be one person to stand up and say, Look at what we did!'"12
Their argument is that subliminal advertising doesn't work. No empirical evidence exists to demonstrate that subliminal advertising has an effect on changing attitudes or an impact on consumers' purchasing behavior. "The point is simply that subliminal directives have not been shown to have the power ascribed to them by advocates of subliminal advertising. In general, the literature on subliminal perception shows that the most clearly documented effects are obtained only in highly contrived and artificial situations."13 However, the underlining ethical question isn't whether subliminal advertising exists, or even works, but whether consumers believe that it does.
According to the article Public Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising, 75-85% of American adults are familiar with subliminal advertising and think advertisers use it at least part of the time to sell their products.14 Therefore, even if consumers' perceptions of subliminal advertising are wrong and inaccurate, it is nevertheless these beliefs that shape consumer reactions toward ads and the advertising industry.
Deceptive Advertising According to the FTC's 1993 policy statement on deceptive advertising, there are three elements in determining whether an advertisement is deceptive:
1) "First, there must be a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer.
2) Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.
3) Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a "material" one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the
deception."15
The clear ethical dilemma is that deceptive advertising, essentially, causes consumers to purchase products based on lies. In order to prove that an ad claim is, in fact, deceptive, the FTC must determine how the message is conveyed to consumers. In general, the FTC is not concerned with what the message says but how it is perceived by consumers. The claim is considered deceptive if it differs from the reality of the product attribute being advertised.16 Several companies have been accused of using deceptive advertising to sell their products. One notable example is the Colgate-Palmolive Co. "sandpaper" case. For a television commercial promoting its "Palmolive Rapid Shave," Colgate-Palmolive used a piece of plexiglass covered in sand instead of real sandpaper. Their argument was that real sandpaper is indistinguishable from smooth colored paper due to the technical difficulties of television photography . An actor then proceeded to shave the prop in one stroke, claiming that the efficacy of "Rapid Shave" is so high that it can shave even the heaviest beards. The Commission found the commercial deceptive because "Rapid Shave" in fact could not shave true sandpaper even after an hour of soaking. The Commission took it one step further by saying that the prop constituted "an illegal deception even if the shaving cream could actually shave real sandpaper as fast as it shaved the mock-up and in every other particular was exactly as depicted in the commercial"17 because in reality, consumers wouldn't be shaving sandpaper. A second example of deceptive advertising occurred with the maker of Wonder Bread, Interstate Bakeries Corp (IBC). IBC aired an ad featuring a fictional spokesperson, Professor Wonder, who made unsubstantiated claims that as a good source of calcium, Wonder Bread helps children's minds work better and helps their memory. The FTC's allegation was that the advertising "implied to consumers that its product was unique through statements speaking explicitly only of nutritional qualities."18 Despite the FTC's best intentions to protect consumers against deceptive advertising, the FTC itself may pose a threat. After the "sandpaper" case, the FTC announced its intention to prohibit the use of any prop or mock-up in a commercial message, except as background material. Therefore, an "advertiser may not use a prop or mock-up to show the actual qualities of a product or its performance, although it might be lawful for him to exploit the distortions of television projection to make a product or its performance appear superior on screen, so long as the real object is used in the studio."19
Advertising to Children Many advertisers view children as a profitable three-in-one market: as buyers themselves, as influencers of their parents' purchases, and as future adult consumers. According to the Education Resources Information Center, elementary school children have an estimated $15 billion of their own money and influence at least $160 billion in parental purchases.20 Therefore, advertisers closely target children as consumers. They have their own TV and radio networks, clothing brands, magazines, video games, etc., all outlets for advertisers to showcase their greatest work.
"Other recent advertising tactics include kids' clubs, store displays directed at children, direct mailing to children and their parents, and marketer-sponsored school activities. Linking their products to educational goals, advertisers have reached into the schools by sponsoring such activities as literacy programs, reading projects, anti-drug campaigns, and communication skills training, while rewarding students for good performance with coupons for products and free meals. This spread of advertising in the schools can be seen as part of a historical pattern toward the commercialization of youth."21
The concern around advertising to youths in an academic environment is the integrity of education in our democracy. Increased time and pressure is put on teachers and administrators as they sort through offers from businesses hoping to advertise in their schools. Additionally, many educators do not want to participate in offering their students as bait to the many sharks of advertising. However, some educators believe that commercially produced materials supplement their curriculum. For example, Channel One is a 12-minute daily news program shown in over 350,000 classrooms.22 Its contents include environmental, domestic, and global issues that children may not have known otherwise and provide a means for further class discussion. Perhaps a greater overall concern with advertising to children is the influence advertisers have on children's ability to make good judgments concerning products and brands, one of the largest outcries being the targeting of youths in cigarette ads.
"The ethical reservations about cigarette advertising stem from two unique and devastating aspects of tobacco products: their addictive and too often lethal consequences. From the industry's perspective, the lethal consequences of smoking create a chronic and substantial need to replace those dying off, while the addictive nature of nicotine leads to phenomenally high rates of brand loyalty among smokers. This combination of factors leads naturally to a strategic interest in replacement starters, since brands able to attract starters will enjoy the profitability of heir brand loyalties for many years. It is not surprising, therefore, that cigarette advertising has long been suspected of intentionally appealing to the young, for it is among the young that virtually all starting occurs."23
Earlier targeting tactics, post-WWI, included heavy network broadcasting. For example, a single hour of television programming could easily contain seventy promotional references to cigarettes. Companies then moved to advertising their products in magazines and billboards, often using a character to appeal to consumers. In fact, no other character is more infamous than R.J. Reynolds' "Smooth Move" camel, as it was found to be better recognized by the very young than by the claimed older target audience.
Other targeting tactics that advertisers used to bring in more starters included collegiate programs, sporting event sponsorships or athletic endorsements, and "sexier" packaging, all of which exposed youths to the "benefits" and "coolness" of smoking. When Philip Morris redesigned their package, the President said, "We wanted a new, bright package that would appeal to a younger market."24 The criticisms became particularly vocal when, back in the 1960's, cigarette sales among teens grew despite the growing cancer concern. Back then, smoking was more of a social norm than a social stigma and teenagers were not impressed by anti-smoking campaigns. Although youth cigarette smoking remains a concern today, it is much less so than in the past. More of the ads on television now focus on anti-smoking campaigns than on advertising. Also, society, in general, is much more aware of the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke. However, does that mean that advertisers have suddenly grown a conscience or is it the market forcing them to be more socially responsible? I fear that advertisers will be the first to jump on the next youth craze and it won't be in the best interest of children.
Economic Censorship Adding to the numerous complaints around advertising is the notion that the ad industry threatens our "free press," using its financial leverage to dictate media content and censor the information received by the populace. Because advertising is the source of income for most media outlets, it's important that radio stations, TV networks, magazines, etc. keep their advertisers happy. The argument, then, is that advertisers are able to unofficially censor the press, barring the media from publishing or broadcasting certain material. "Anything preventing the press from effectively providing information and commentary that the public would want or that an "independent" press would conclude the public needs, is a serious threat to sound social policy and a properly functioning democracy."25 However, the alleged victim, the consumer, has greater power over advertising content than some would expect. The problem is that consumers (albeit not all) remain silent.
"In reality, if they were to take a more active role and collectively demand that media address controversial issues, both advertisers and media would readily comply. Alternatively, if these "victims" are sufficiently upset about the lack of information caused by EC (economic censorship), they can send a message to those media that accept no advertising. If they neither protest nor switch to alternative media, we can assume that most consumers are willing to accept the limitations of their current media."26
Again, not all consumers remain silent. There are several advocacy groups that actively strive to alter the content of the medium, e.g. Conservative and religious groups, antiviolence groups, social-activists, etc. Additionally, these groups are protected constitutional protection. In the case, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court declared a "new consumer right to engage in concerted refusals to patronize even if such refusals are economically disruptive."27 The case arose from an African-American consumer boycott of Caucasian merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, aimed at compelling elected officials to support demands by civic and business leaders for racial equality and integration. The Court found the nonviolent elements of the NAACP's activities entitled to First Amendment protection.
Conclusion
Despite the many social criticisms of advertising, there are also several economic benefits. "Most economists believe that advertising has a positive impact on the economy because it stimulates demand for products and services, strengthening the economy by promoting the sale of goods and services. Manufacturers know that advertising can help sell a new product quickly, enabling them to recoup the costs of developing new products. By stimulating the development of new products, advertising helps increase competition. Many economists believe that increased competition leads to lower prices, thereby benefiting consumers and the economy as a whole. These economists also argue that by interesting consumers in purchasing goods, advertising enables manufacturers and others to sell their products in larger quantities. The increased volume of sales enables companies to produce individual units at lower costs and therefore, sell them at a lower price. Advertising thus benefits consumers by helping lower prices."28
No matter which side of the fence you're on, advertising isn't going anywhere. However, many of the concerns mentioned above are being addressed through government regulation, like the FTC and FCC. Consumer advocacy groups also play a significant role in monitoring the activities of advertisers. Like everything else, the marketplace and society will determine what is appropriate and what's not, and advertising will (have to) react accordingly.
Endnotes
1. www.wikipedia.com
2. www.advertising.utexas.edu/research/law
3. www.sutjhally.com/onlinepubs/apocalypse.html
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Marina Kamenev, Rating Countries for the Happiness Factor, BusinessWeek Online, October 11, 2006.
7. Id.
8. Martha Rogers and Kirk Smith, Public Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising: Why Practictioners Shouldn't Ignore this Issue, Journal of Advertising Research, March/April, 1993, at 10.
9. Geoffrey P. Lantos, Ice Cube Sex: The Truth about Subliminal Advertising, 13, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 62, 62 (1996).
10. Sheri J. Broyles, Subliminal Advertising and the Perpetual Popularity of Playing to People's Paranoia, 40, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 392, 393 (2006).
11. Eleftheria Parpis, Hide and Seek, AdWeek, March 31, 2003, at 27.
12. Sheri J. Broyles, Subliminal Advertising and the Perpetual Popularity of Playing to People's Paranoia, 40, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 392, 401 (2006).
13. Id. at 396.
14. Martha Rogers and Kirk Smith, Public Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising: Why Practictioners Shouldn't Ignore this Issue, Journal of Advertising Research, March/April, 1993, at 16.
15. Gary T. Ford and John E. Calfee, Recent Developments in FTC Policy on Deception, 50, Journal of Marketing, 82, 86 (1986).
16. www.advertising.utexas.edu/research/law
17. Note, Illusion or Deception: The Use of "Props" and "Mock-ups" in Television Advertising, 72, Yale Law Journal, 145, 145 (1962).
18. Ivan L. Preston, The Federal Trade Commission's Identification of Implications as Constituting Deceptive Advertising, 57, The University of Cincinnati Law Review, (1989)(Lexis).
19. Note, Illusion or Deception: The Use of "Props" and "Mock-ups" in Television Advertising, 72, Yale Law Journal, 145, 155 (1962).
20. Amy Aidman, Advertising in the Schools, ERIC Digest, December 1995, at 1.
21. Id. at 2.
22. Id. at 2.
23. Richard W. Pollay, Targeting Tactics in Selling Smoke: Youthful Aspects of 20th Century Cigarette Advertising, Winter, The Journal of Marketing THEORY AND PRACTICE, 1, 1 (1995).
24. Id. at 5.
25. Jef I. Richards and John H. Murphy II, Economic Censorship and Free Speech: The Circle of Communication Between Advertisers, Media, and Consumers, Spring, Journal of Current Issues and Research Advertising, 21, 23 (1996).
26. Id. at 29.
27. Patrick M. Fahey, Advocacy Group Boycotting of Network Television Advertisers and Its Effects on Programming Content, 140, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 647 (1991)(Lexis).
28. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564279/Advertising.html