Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 36, Number 16. 12th July 1973
Advertising — The Corrupt Art
Advertising — The Corrupt Art
Several weeks ago the University Feminists held an open forum on 'Sexism in Advertising'. Those present expressed their deep resentment at being exploited by the manipulative powers of the 'artistic' pawns of the business world.
Not only are women angry at the dominant theme in advertising that they are to be decorated, painted, shaped, to win the admiration of some male, but they are also angry at being categorized as a pure and simple 'body beautiful', a fine addition to a man's household. The superficial features of women are being exalted far above the more important personal attributes of each woman.
Moreover women are just another gimmick that advertising agencies use. Examples were given at the forum of how the big breast, the provocative pose, the blank face with a cheesy grin are being used to sell almost everything from B.P. Petrol to Kodak films and cameras.
But not only are women made to cavort to play firefly to trap the consumer, but consumers are manipulated as a whole by an approach which is often dishonest.
The good advertiser — according to the Ogilvy and Mather agency — must offer the consumer a 'large promise' and 'go the whole hog in delivering it'. In their four page self-praising spread in the Dominion 16/8/71, Ogilvy and Mather, Construction House, Kent Terrace, gave every indication that the rights of women and artistic creativity would not be allowed to stand in the way of greater selling success and higher profits for their firm.
For instance, creativity very quickly gets booted out their door. About the 'slice of life' — Handy Andy to the rescue — type of ads, Ogilvy and Mather state "These playlets are corny, and most copywriters detest them. But they have sold a lot of goods and are still selling." So they give approval to the continual churning out of this mindless rubbish.
The Consumer Institute has fought blatant dishonesty in advertising since its inception. In its magazine of January/ February of this year the Institute states: "We have become very angry at the continued appearance of highly misleading claims to several worthless and near-worthless products." They cite the examples of bust developers, slimming aids, attachments to car motors, hair restorers, etc.
"To manage advertising with a sense of social responsibility."
Understandably the Consumer Institute demands that advertisers be supervised in their often puerile and tedious methods. Advertisers should be able to prove the claims made about a product.
In the consumer magazine cited above a report is given of a case where the Institute challenged Sunbeam NZ Ltd whose ads claimed that the Victa V.C. 160 is "the finest mowing machine in the world" and that "no mower in the world has beaten the Victa on any kind of grass."
Because these statements were very definite the Sunbeam Company was asked to substantiate its claims. But the Sunbeam Company referred to their advertising agency — Leo Burnett Ltd (unlisted in the telephone book) — for a reply. The agency said: "From world wide authoritative information we can confidently state that the Victa mower is the finest in the world" and "the statement 'No mower in the world has beaten the Victa on any kind of grass' is true." Isn't it sickening to see that the Leo Burnett agency for one, sees no obligation to provide a basis for its statements.
The Consumer Institute tolerantly says "No evidence was given in support of either statement, except to say that over 1,700,000 Victas have been sold in many countries. But sales figures are no proof of superiority."
These are the facts of the case. Many other agencies run ads that are pure hot air and are so vague that they are hard to challenge. Leo Burnett Ltd used the fundamental approach of the advertising fraternity as expressed by Ogilvy and Mather have one simple promise and go all out to have it hit home. Never mind the truth, but make the ads bright and flashy; generate appetite appeal but forget about the lack of substance to claims; never forget that the agency's task is to create advertising that sells, no matter how inane the ad is!
Advertising is, without doubt, an art form. But it is now thoroughly commercialised, with no standards except profits. As is so often the case in Western Society we see the manipulation of uncontrolled business at work disfiguring and distorting its proper purpose. Our awareness of, and reaction to, what it does or tries to do needs to be strong. Advertising could be so colourfully informative, yet it is an art form almost totally corrupted.