1.1 Advertising Critique: Themes, Actors and Challenges in a Digital Age

Ever since advertising emerged, both its functions and threats have been debated. The themes of advertising ethics and critique are multifaceted; the majority relate to the depiction of violence, hypersexualization and various “-isms” (e.g. ageism). The digital environment has added new aspects to the topic; respondents primarily worry about their loss of control, transparency and privacy. At the same time, the Internet provides a platform for critical voices – from keeping informed via the signing of petitions against certain advertising practices, to becoming an advertising activist heror himself. This chapter addresses the current state of advertising critique in this digital environment. It will give an overview of the dominant themes and important actors and drivers of advertising critique. Furthermore, obstacles and stumbling stones for both research and practice are discussed and challenges identified. The critique of advertising is as old as advertising itself; its pros and cons have been debated ever since advertising emerged. From its economic impact (e.g. Albion, Farris 1981 via the controversy about its effects on excessive materialism (e.g. Drumwright 2007), to its role in protecting the existing social order by promoting inequality, particularly in terms of race and gender (O’Guinn 2007) – the themes are multifaceted and driven by different actors with specific, often opposing interests. Without doubt, we are surrounded by advertising in its different forms, and sometimes advertising placements take grotesque shapes which affect and change our familiar patterns of reception in formerly advertising free areas, such as sports (everyone is used to it nowadays) and even religion, as the photograph in Figure 1 shows. Thereby, the importance of advertising for individuals and the society is undoubted. Potter even ascribed to advertising the role of an “instrument of social control” (2009, p. 175) and suggested that “advertising now compares with such long-standing institutions as the school and the church in the magnitude of its social influence” (2009, p. 167). In fact, scholars and professionals alike have highlighted advertisers’ responsibility in promoting societal wellbeing (e.g. Baker, Martinson 2001; Cunningham, P. 1999; Waller 2012). However, since the beginning of advertising, the debates surrounding ethical standards for advertising revolve around the same, enduring themes and thus seem to be at a “dead end”. DOI 10.1515/9783110416794-002, © 2017 Kati Förster, Ulrike Weish, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. Unauthenticated Download Date | 7/5/19 2:46 AM As an example, in his seminal work on the role of advertising Pollay (1986) sets out the question as to whether advertising is a mirror of society, or whether it acts as an agent of change. Since then, this question has been asked repeatedly. Nevertheless the basic premise behind this question is: who is to blame for the harm advertising can cause? In other words, if advertising is a mirror of society, Figure 1: Votive Church, Vienna, in March 2016 (own photograph) 16 Kati Förster and Ulrike Weish Unauthenticated Download Date | 7/5/19 2:46 AM then the industry is not to blame, but we all are. If we do not like the ads, we should stop watching the program they are in and we should certainly stop buying the products. But if we respond (as the advertisers intend), then we have no one to blame but ourselves. On the other hand, if advertising is the agent of change, then – according to Pardun – “It’s advertising’s fault we’re the way we are. ” (2014, p. 3). Of course, it is not that simple and in many cases both situations apply. Staying within this duty-based1 perspective on advertising critique, one has to ask: who sets the moral and ethical principles advertising should be based on? To lay this duty on the advertising industry alone is questionable. Murphy (1998) argues with the “unholy trinity”. He states: “[a]dvertisers, agencies, and the media represent the three main parties in any advertising campaign. Among these three parties, it appears no one is willing to accept primary responsibility for raising ethical standards. Consequently, ethics in advertising is perceived to be rather low. ” (1998, p. 318). On top of that, the digital environment nowadays adds a new aspect and complexity to the topic. Based on interviews with industry leaders, Drumwright and Murphy (2009) found that the ethical issues presented by new digital media are different. To put it simply, the respondents are largely concerned with the advertiser’s loss of control, and issues of transparency and privacy. The ethical arena arising in the Internet and blogosphere was characterized as the “Wild West” – “a rough and tough, no-holds-barred context in which the regulations, guidelines and controls of traditional media are absent. ” (2009, p. 87). In response, a number of different groups who question advertising practices in general and who debate their individual and social consequences have been formed. Ranging from individual net activists who denounce sexisms by mocking advertisements to NGOs engaging in a critique of general consumerism, to the self-regulatory institutions of the advertising industry itself – the list of the various agents in advertising critique is long and diverse. In this chapter we will discuss the current state of advertising critique in the digital environment, both from a research and a practical perspective. We will sketch its historical roots and the consequent dominant themes within this interdisciplinary field of interest. In doing so we will (1) identify important actors and 1 Duty-based ethics, also referred to as deontological ethics, is based on the assumption that some acts are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of the good or bad consequences that may be produced. Under this form of ethics and ethical questioning one cannot justify an action by showing that it produced good consequences. Accordingly, the theory of deontology would state that advertisers and individuals are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of the outcome. Advertising Critique: Themes, Actors and Challenges in a Digital Age 17 Unauthenticated Download Date | 7/5/19 2:46 AM drivers of advertising critique, (2) discuss extant barriers and incompatibilities within the discipline, and (3) propose future directions, especially with regard to the digital and mobile environment of which advertising is a part. 1 The Roots of Research on Advertising Critique Advertising critique and advertising ethics is an area of research that is driven by manifold interests and disciplines – rooted in philosophy, advertising ethics has branched into many fields. This is also due to the fact that advertising has various shapes depending on the point of view. First, advertising can be viewed as part of product promotion and thus as a vital ingredient of a marketing and branding strategy. According to Bohrmann (1997) advertising is primarily a planned attempt to influence individuals’ opinions, attitudes and behavior about products, services, brands and companies with communication activities in order to reach economic goals. In this marketing context advertising ethics is therefore only a single aspect of a (much wider) research area investigating advertising’s effects on aspects of image, brand attitudes or buying intentions. Second, and closely related to this, advertising is viewed as a form of persuasive communication and as such is a subject of communication research. Here advertising research does not only focus on economic advertising, but also includes social and political advertising.Willems (1999) referred here to a strategic rationality that is implied by advertising. However, Bohrmann (2010) highlights that the attempt to influence, to persuade, to sway may not be bad or ethically illegitimate per se. Both the economic and the communication science perspective on advertising are primarily settled in the micro perspective and focus chiefly on the short-term effects of specific stimuli by drawing on psychology and experimental paradigms (Drumwright 2007). In contrast, the third view understands advertising as public communication. This macro perspective concentrates on the aggregate effects of advertising, including advertising to vulnerable segments (Bonifield, Cole 2007) and advertising’s role in consumption and collective welfare (O’Guinn 2007). A common criticism of advertising from the macro level is that it protects the existing social order and promotes inequality, particularly in terms of race, class and gender (O’Guinn 2007). Drumwright (2007) has categorized social criticism of advertising on the macro level according to its three primary critiques: advertising encourages excessive materialism, advertising engenders and/or reinforces problematic stereotypes, and advertising cultivates false values and thus problematic behavior. In this context philosophy with its question of individual and collective ethical 18 Kati Förster and Ulrike Weish Unauthenticated Download Date | 7/5/19 2:46 AM guidelines plays a vital role. Advertising ethics can thereby be discussed within different philosophical perspectives (Förster, Brantner 2016). As an example, the utilitarian perspective builds on principles by asking what is best for all, or the greatest number of people possible (Mill 2003). For Mill moral reasoning “was equivalent to calculating consequences for human happiness” (Christians 2007, p. 118), that is, utilitarianism requires advertisers to maximize happiness for all (Cunningham, A. 1999). Another position is social contract theory, which highlights that a person’s moral obligations depend on a contract among them to form the society in which they live (Friend 2004). Rawls (1971) here argues that the best society would be formed