‘Advertising doesn’t sell things; all advertising does is change the way people think or feel’ (Jeremy Bullmore). Evaluate this statement with reference to selected critical theories (past and present).
Wherever we go, we are subject to an onslaught of promises, messages and unattainable desires that we cannot escape. The aforementioned statement by Jeremy Bullmore not only encapsulates this essence of advertisement persuasion but also implies the value of advertising is “doubted by many of those who pay for it”, as suggested by Jeremy Bullmore himself in the 1998 Advertising Association lecture. As a result, activist consumers believe advertisements should be stripped of any sense of "mass-mediated persuasion". Advertisements succeed by influencing us both consciously and subconsciously; changing our outlook on all things around us – not only in relation to the brands themselves but our way of life.
Guy Cook in ‘The Discourse of Advertising’ (p. 17) defines advertisements as ‘…merely the invisible conveyers of undesirable messages’. Advertising is seen as a harmful, social source that is used solely for manipulation, persuasion and to "appeal to feelings of inadequacy". It seeks for us to question our existing materials and as a result perpetuates false needs.
For example, Apple is a multinational corporation specialising in consumer electronics and software. Every year, multiple products are released, whether this be an update to a previous model, such as the iPhone, for example or something entirely new. The first iPhone was released in January 2007 and the iPhone 3G was released just a year and a half later with entirely new features, design and a brand new worldwide advertising campaign.
The 3G in its name showcases its new feature; 3G is a wireless internet access which mobile users can access from their phones. Although this technology was readily available, Apple only released this feature with the second generation of its iPhone giving the impression that Apple has listened to its consumers and provided a service which they didn't have with the previous version. However, this case study fits perfectly with Guy Cook''s perception of advertising - Apple consumers question their existing products, what is deemed as an 'older generation' and as a result, existing consumers upgraded their phone to the new model - a brilliant marketing and advertising scheme which has proved to be extremely successful. Objects, or in this case, Apple products, display social status and are used as symbols we associate with one another. Apple is a brand which aims to exceed its expectations and meet the growing needs of its consumers; although these needs are somewhat artificial and instigated by Apple.
In ‘The Hidden Power of Advertising’ (p.40), Robert Heath states: “The way we reference intuition is through a system of markers generated from past experience and brands are able to influence us by exploiting these”. The advertising industry is forever evolving and these aforementioned social markers are interchangeable. Brands need to adapt to this ever-changing world by seeking new ways to target a specific demographic.
The Coca Cola brand has over 3,300 beverages, 800 of which are low and no-calorie and is a perfect example of how brands change their means of advertisement or in this case, devise new products, depending on altering factors. As not one product appeals to the mass consumer audience, Coca Cola has devised a diverse and wide range of products; all of which appeal to a certain demographic. For example, their sports drinks are advertised to provide 'rapid hydration and terrific taste for fitness-seekers at any level'. This implies that the consumer would not only benefit from the taste of the product, but that the product can aid their athleticism - no matter what 'level' the consumer is in terms of fitness. As a result, consumers believe that by obtaining this product, they would become a better athlete and ultimately become invigorated.
A debate which has arisen from the Coca Cola products has been the difference between Diet Coke and Coke Zero, two diet variations of the original Coca Cola. Diet Coke was introduced by Coca Cola in 1982 and soon afterwards became the number one sugar-free drink due to its suggested beneficial qualities. It is predominantly aimed towards those who are “calorie conscious” and most importantly, women. Jansson-Boyd explains, “On pack messaging has an important role to play, with products clearly marked ‘low calorie’ or ‘healthy’ predominantly aimed at, and bought by, women.”
Conversely, Coke Zero, was introduced in 2006 but is inversely approached in terms of marketing. Despite only a subtle variation between the two products in relation to the proportion of ingredients, the connotations in which they evoke are fields apart. As ultimately, men are reluctant to purchase Diet Coke, Coke Zero has been marketed solely for exploitation, to appeal more towards men as opposed to women. By connoting masculinity through its advertising and fundamentally imposing a belief that it is okay to purchase this product, men will be less reluctant to buy this diet variant of coke as opposed to the more female orientated, Diet Coke.
For example, a television advertisement released soon after the Coke Zero launch featured a man’s bewilderment at discovering that removing sugar out of coca cola does not impair the taste. He then goes onto say, “Why can’t all things in life come without downsides?”.. “like girlfriends without five year plans.” Evidently this is an attempt to relate to the stereotypical man by incorporating everyday ‘pub banter’ - as portrayed later on in the advert. As the advert progresses, more men join his movement, each carrying a bottle of Coke Zero and inputting their own responses to the rhetorical question, “Why can’t all things in life come without downsides?” including, “..bra’s without the fumbling”.
Aforementioned, the subtle difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke is the proportion of ingredients – the latter having half a calorie less. It is interesting to see how two products, although similar, are marketed on two different ends of the spectrum. Although a diet variation of Coca Cola, the majority of advertisements for Coke Zero feature limited aspects of its diet benefit whereas this is the opposite for Diet Coke. It gives the impression it is a more “acceptable” drink for men to have with their friends and in result, provides a diet product that is seen to improve their masculinity, not hinder it. This is supported by their decision to be the primary sponsor of the Coke Zero 400, a NASCAR cup series car race, a sport predominantly targeted towards males. They have also sponsored the latest James Bond film, Quantum of Solace, a suave, sophisticated film which ties in with Coke Zero's red and black corporate colours, connotations of which are power, sophistication and masculinity. All these factors come hand-in-hand. The imagery portrayed not only in Coke Zero adverts but the majority of advertisements for other products, ‘create a false desire to gain the symbolic associations’.
Judith Williamson once stated, “Instead of being identified by what they produce, people identify themselves through what they consume.” The basis of this quote relates directly to how the connotations portrayed through the Coke Zero advertisements affect our social interaction; in this case, how the product can emit masculinity. Advertisers want the consumers to believe that their products will change the way they are perceived by others and as a result, create a false façade. However, some argue that by using the latest product or trend as a social status symbol, our culture will soon be controlled by consumerism and our social markers will be instigated by our commodities. In the Karl Marx Communist Manifesto (1848) and subsequently referenced by Marx cultural theorists, it is stated that commodities control how our society works as we as consumers “begin to define ourselves and each other on the things we buy”. To summarise, they critique our consumer and commodity culture, the detrimental effect of capitalism and how this influences individuals.
Jeremy Bullmore believes advertising changes the way we feel as opposed to its primary focus - to sell. Regardless of this, changing the way consumers feel about themselves will in someway result in sales. Consumers have an ideology they wish to obtain and will go through all means to achieve it; advertisers are able to exploit the consumers’ naivety by targeting their feelings of inadequacy.
