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.