Blog X

Advertising is...

Is Advertising Ethical? (Shortest Post Ever)

Brands seem honest & socially conscious to appeal to consumers, but in the end it’s all about SELLING. To make consumers buy a product, a certain level of falsity works.

Short Attention Spans and… what was that?

The “onslaught” of advertising we face is not the cause of our short attention spans, but the result of it. It’s the chicken or the egg all over again: which came first, the ads or the dwindling, distracted mind? Our attention spans are too short because of the society we live in (and its technology), where everything is fast paced and competitive. We are used to accessing millions of different pieces of information with a single click of a button; we are used to tv programs, video games, and movies that are full of action, explosions and gore without much substance in terms of a plot. We take express buses to get to work or school faster, we have deadlines to meet, we eat “fast food” because its easier than cooking a real meal…We rarely have time to breath and actually look around us.

We have become impatient, we want everything NOW. And with this type of mentality (although it doesn’t apply to everyone), its easy to see why we can’t engage in long conversations or endure tedious advertisements. The ad army is poised to attack us because of this change in human behaviour; because ads are made to sell things to consumers, they need to cater to the consumer’s attention, so in order to keep up with their limited attention spans the ads have to be louder, bolder, or more prevalent in order to get their point across in as little time as possible. If not, then then ads are ignored and shelved away with all those other images and jingles the mind cannot retain and eventually throws out.

The way I see it, there could afford to be less advertising. However because we can only retain so many messages, it’s crucial that ads try even harder to stand out and connect with their consumers. The vast quantity of ads is like throwing darts at a dart board: If I throw only three, I have three chances of hitting the target, but if I launch a whole pile, then there is a greater possibility some of them will be accurate. However there’s also a greater possibility of making mores holes in the wall and not the dartboard. So it’s the same with advertising, the brands figure the more quantity of ads there are, the likelier it is that some of them will actually stick.

But… with all these ads assaulting us everywhere we go, the more they increase the more we will ignore them. Because, if each ad has a voice, then suddenly there are all these voices screaming different slogans at me at once, I don’t hear ANY of them, just a migraine-inducing cacophony. It’s a vicious cycle. The more ads, the more we tune out the majority of them, the more ads the agencies figure there have to be so we are forced to look at some of them because we can’t escape. 

If brands reduced their advertising costs by 10 percent, they would see an appropriate drop in profits. With less ads, the consumer is less likely to remember the product, and if the ads continue to decrease over time, he/she will have less triggers to want to engage with that product, forgetting it all together. With bigger, well-established brands the effect would be less, but still noticeable. 

Yes, it is a positive that there is such a sea of ads because the brands that try something different really do stand out, and are even more effective because they can attract attention despite the millions of competitors they have. So cracking the difficult ad market can be more rewarding: it means your brand has triumphed over so many other ads that are out there. And yes, I think you’re rambling, but not as much as I have done in this blog post. 

Shock-vertizing

Shock-vertising. Living in our media-centric world means that we are bombarded by millions of ads on a weekly basis, so to make an ad with impact, brands need to go outside the box to deliver a really strong, powerful message. Studies have proven that shocking ads are more memorable and attract more attention than regular ads, or even ads with different –but still less than typical—approaches, such as the “fear” approach or the “humour” approach. In this case, the “shock” factor of an ad can be very valuable because it makes the consumer more likely to want to react to the message, either by buying the product, taking the proper preventative measures, or researching about or donating to the cause that’s raising awareness through the ad.

Shockvertising is good for a brand when the ad is so controversial or grabs so much attention that people start to recognize the brand itself more as a result. Benetton is a classic example of this, with its shocking ads that show everything from same-sex political figures kissing to a bunch of brightly coloured condoms. Also, if the brand is raising awareness about a certain issue, such as the World Wildlife Fund ads, it is necessary every once and a while to produce a really disturbing and/or thought provoking ad in order for the message to stand out and be recognized. For example, their “imagine this is yours” campaign which shows young children and infants in the place of endangered animals. This effective use of shock-vertizing not only sets WWF apart from other brands but spreads their message in a powerful way.

Shocking ads do harm to the brand only when the consumers are so offended and/or traumatized by the ads that they choose not to engage with that brand. The message may have been delivered, but the brand’s consumer base is damaged as a result of the harsh treatment of the product or issue.(http://www.buzzle.com/articles/is-shock-advertising-really-effective.html) Also if the brand uses the shock approach over and over, the consumers becomes desensitized to it  and the effectiveness lessens dramatically.

It sends a bad message if the ad is displaying an immoral behaviour to sell a product. Better messages involve raising awareness for things like the dangers of smoking, unsafe sex, etc. So the message being sent depends on the brand, their values, and what effect they’re going for. The message being received depends on the consumer and how they interpret the ad. For example if the consumer is overly sensitive, then they may get an overall negative impact from shocking ads and not pay attention to the message behind them. Generally shocking ads and their messages are more effective when received by younger adults/youth, because they are more used to this type of treatment and are not as easily offended as older demographics. 

Should brands use this approach? Its up to them whether they want to take the risk. Sometimes the payoff is worth it—generating all of the attention (whether positive or negative) makes the brand popular again and pushes it’s selling point or cause to the forefront. However there is a line to be drawn here, there is still such a thing as too much of a shock factor when controversial subjects are glorified or displayed in an indecent way. If the brand is smart, they will use the “shock” weapon only if its necessary, and very carefully. 

Yes shocking ads can contribute to the desensitization of issues that are important. Take smoking for example. There are hundreds of campaigns to get people to quit, or to not start, showing a myriad of negative results of this destructive habit. Although some can be very effective, the fact that there are so many of them means the shocking impact becomes lost, such as the graphic pictures on cigarette boxes. Youth are still smoking, despite being presented with these images to the point they have become acclimatized to the ads’ presence. 

Negative publicity is only good for so much. It certainly elevates the brand in terms of popularity, which would cause a surge in brand-awareness among the general public, but in the end once the buzz fades, the brand’s reputation is still damaged. So in the long run, I’d say it’s not worth it. A brand would have to be pretty desperate and willing to lose the public’s respect in order to “embrace” this way of delivering it’s message.

It’s not wrong to confront people’s sensibilities if the message is worth communicating. For example, if the cause is towards a greater good or a healthier society. At the same time, shocking ads can be very personal when they challenge people’s morals, or the morals of their culture, crossing the line from selling something to hurting some else’s values or beliefs. So in this sense, particularly when material brands are being advertised, confronting people’s sensibilities is effective, but not the right thing to do. Being daring is what makes brands stand out, and can gain them a lot of respect from the public for trying something risky and different. However, when that leap of faith turns into a plunge of doom, the “daring” approach is more of a mistake for the brand. 

I’d say that “the line” is there for a reason. It has to be crossed every once and a while, otherwise ads will all become staid and complacent, void of their “punch” and effectiveness. Messages will become lost and less memorable. But crossing the line too much, like anything, can have negative results, especially when the ad is offensive and taken the wrong way by the public.

Infidelity in Advertising.

From an advertising standpoint, it makes sense that brands would want you to abandon your former mass-produced lover for a product that’s new, fresh, and…should I even say, seductive…It’s really the way the ad is presented that makes it the most effective. Without the metaphor of infidelity towards your old brand, the ad is simply saying “buy this because it’s better.” Pretty much your cut-and-dried, average blasé advertisement. However, when the concept of cheating on the current brand is used, a new element of thrill and risk is added, which spices up the message and makes the consumer more emotionally charged to try the new product. It’s not just about switching brands, its about trading up, about having something that satisfies your needs as a consumer even more. But don’t tell the other brand, it may get jealous…

That being said, I don’t see a problem with brands using the metaphor of infidelity to get more people to leave their old product in favour of the brand being advertised. I don’t think it’s the most wholesome message that should come out of an advertisement, but it can be an effective alternative approach to the standard selling strategy.  However, does that mean that the brand is encouraging infidelity?

Well, there are several ways to think about this. One is that though advertising can be evil, its main intention is not to break up your relationship with your significant other. Ads are made to sell, so they will use any concept, no matter how edgy, in order to get their point across. The ad wants you to switch brands, or at least sample their brand in hopes you will find it more appealing and leave your old product behind in the dust. Just because someone sees an ad saying they should cheat on their old toothpaste with a new, more-whitening tube doesn’t mean he/she will become motivated to go out and have an affair with a coworker, or think that it’s OK to do so because Crest condoned it. If that is the case, then he/she has more serious issues that have nothing to do with advertising.

But when there is a human element to an ad, that’s when the metaphor becomes more risky and can be seen as offensive, such as this ad for a dental clinic that ran in Russia, causing the clinic to receive a fine. Although the subject doesn’t deal with choosing one brand over another, this example illustrates the negative side of using the adultery theme to sell your product or get people’s attention, however humorous it was intended to be. In the case of the Ashley Madison ads, they are literally endorsing infidelity, so I consider them in a different category, and less acceptable than if the same strategy were used with inanimate brands.

Because a lot of modern advertisements have no limitations on their content, and often allude to sexual things, I’m not surprised that infidelity would be a popular topic for ads, nor am I extremely offended by it. I believe that, like this article from the Hindustan Times says: “such ads are reflection of our society and should not be taken too seriously.” The brand and its agency are acknowledging the fact that adultery exists, using it solely as a concept to sell their product, and maybe relate to the audience by displaying a known human behaviour to create an emotional response in the consumer, whether it be shock or laughter. In this sense the use of the theme is acceptable, and whether someone actually follows the example is more based on the person themselves and not what the ad seems to encourage.