Advertising is Dead… Long Live Advertising
Contemporary society is a society living with advertising; it exists in nearly every facet of our lives and at nearly every moment. For some, this realization is disturbing, while others have accepted it as a reflection of modern times. Recent events in several French cities, Lille in particular, have been reported through a rhetorical narrative frame, aimed at narrowing the discourse on whether or not advertising has a purpose in public spaces. By uncovering the rhetorical elements used in the reporting of these events, this paper seeks to expand the discourse to other dimensions in the hope of establishing a more nuanced discussion around the idea if advertising has a place in public spaces.
Introduction
As a globalized society we’re becoming increasingly exposed to advertising. Traditional advertising started with the print medium but within the last hundred years we’ve seen advertising expand to radio, television, and various online mediums (Shankar, 1999). The ubiquitous reach of advertising can be witnessed through one’s daily life. We’re exposed to advertisements on our phones through the websites we browse, the apps we use, even though our text messaging applications. We can see advertisements on; connected devices, the occasional television programs some continue to consume, traditional radio and podcasts, pretty much everywhere.
So, it’s no wonder some are asking, are we too exposed to advertising, and if so, has it become decremental to our health? Angelique Chrisafis, correspondent for the Guardian in Paris, frames it another way; by looking through the lens of a series of contemporary civil disobedience acts in Lille, Chrisafis suggests it might be time to remove digital advertising displays in public places and asks if cities could remove advertisements altogether?
However, posing the question in this manner forces the discourse along certain dimensions thus neglecting the border forces at play. This paper will examine Chrisafis’ portrayal of the civil disobedience acts in Lille; specifically how it is rhetorical framed along the dimensions of ethos and pathos (O’Shaughnessy, 1996) along with figurative word play (Bianchi, 2011) to promote the notion that advertising is seen as acting on the consumer (Shankar, 1999) in a detrimental way. Further the paper will argue that this type of framing (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007) closes the door on the discussion of advertising used by the consumers to shape their identity (Grayson, 2018) and in a broader sense how advertising is nudging social behavior (Chriss, 2015) for positive change. Finally, the paper will look at the opportunities digital advertising displays provide to those segments that might have otherwise been disenfranchised (Visconti, 2018) and present a more nuanced discourse on whether digital advertising displays in public places should be removed.
The Contemporary Example and Its Frame
The end of 2019 saw a series of civil disobedience acts in Lille aimed at covering up digital displays throughout the city (Chrisafis, 2019). Lille, seen as a regional art and cultural hub, had several laws that curbed advertising on public places, and was seeking to extend these regulations to public transit, which was not covered by the existing legal regulations (Chrisafis, 2019). To increase the saliency of the issue in an upcoming debate, several groups organized campaigns to essentially cover the digital displays in the public transit system (Chrisafis, 2019). Other cities within France have experienced similar situations leading to the debate about whether or not advertising has a place, and to what degree.
From the start of the article Chrisafis’ portrayal of the events in Lille attempts to invoke certain persuasive purposes similar to the techniques advertisers utilize. Through the use of priori, specifically the mention of an advertising panel and mechanism of “rotated pictures of bargain Aldi prawns and blended scotch whisky” (Chrisafis, 2019), the author attempts to anchor the reader and guide their interpretation promoting the notion that advertising is trivial (Bianchi, 2011). In this sense the reader evaluates the content of cheap prawns and whisky as somewhat meaningless and as a result is more likely to ascribe the notion that advertising in general is also meaningless.
The narrative then begins to invoke the notion of ethos with the statement “suddenly a 31-year-old hospital nurse darted across the street, unrolled a mass of white paper and began to cover the ads” (Chrisafis, 2019). By specifying one of the demonstrators as a nurse, Chrisafis uses the ethos of the nurse to extend the notion of credibility to the demonstrators (O’Shaughnessy, 1996). This tactic is repeated several times with the references to party leaders, deputy mayors, teachers and pediatricians; all attempts to extend credibility to the anti-advertising campaign and frame it along the lines of a political and health debate. This framing coupled with the previous interpretation, that advertising in general is also meaningless, elicits a certain basis from the author and promotes the reader to ask, if advertising is trivial why are we allowing it to have such an effect on our health and consume the political debate?
From this stance it is clear that Chrisafis’ reporting attempts to appeal to the readers emotional response, pathos, playing on a more sympathetic tone for the anti-advertising campaign. This is reflected in the portal of the nurse highlighting advertising as a sickness, breaking your spirit, distracting you from other problems; or the politicians who portray advertising as an infringement on your personal space (Chrisafis, 2019). By framing it this way, along the dimensions of pathos, the reader’s state of mind is guided to a friendlier attitude towards the demonstrators and in some cases potentially pleased by the actions of the demonstrators (O’Shaughnessy, 1996). However, it is worth noting that Chrisafis’ reporting could have still remained in the mode of pathos but gone the other way, framing the demonstrators as vandalizing public property costing taxpayers; this would probably push the reader to feel more hostility to the anti-advertising movement and pained by the wasted tax money (O’Shaughnessy, 1996).
Throughout the article there are various figurative elements at play that continue to narrow the frame of discourse and align the reader towards a bias of supporting the anti-advertising movement. Highlighting campaign phrases like ‘Pee in Peace’, repeating the ‘pe’ mnemonic, and using verbal charged phrases like ‘assaulted’ or ‘colonized’ (Bianchi, 2011), enables Chrisafis to establish a very salient visual representation of how advertising is acting on the individual in a detrimental way (Shankar, 1999). The intention is clearly intended to portray advertising as not only an adversary but an adversary that is everywhere and all times, even your trips to the bathroom, one of the most personal spaces, are not safe. This narrow frame developed by Chrisafis’ reporting follows a more traditional notion that advertising is an action done on individuals, and as such is reflecting the idea that certain meanings are crafted by advertisers and pushed onto the consumer (Shankar, 1999); it leaves out the bi-directional nature of advertising, how it’s used to help shape identities or nudge social behavior.
What is Left Out of the Frame
Chrisafis’ reporting of Lille and the broader anti-advertising movement in France essentially asks if there is a place for advertising, however through the framing of the discussion it is clear the message is advertising is dead (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). The room for debate and further discussions is essentially killed off by basically placing the discussion between a dichotomy of good and evil, where one of the choices would never really be entertained (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Yet, there is much more to advertising that could be presented in the article to give the space for a more nuanced discussion.
Simply put, the objects we consume are complex; they have multiple meanings, some of which shape the cultural identity of the society we live in, and others shaping our very own identity. Beyond the utilitarian aspects of accomplishing certain tasks, or jobs, the products we consume represent us; brands are specifically created with the intent of resonating certain ideals, they are imputed with certain qualities meant to represent intangible characteristics of class, virtue, etc. (Grayson, 2018). This representation becomes tangible through the product and becomes an extension of our self-image. Advertising in this sense becomes a necessary medium to convey the values a product represents.
Advertising, through its use of rhetorical messages, shapes the behavioral responses of consumers; in turn these individuals craft a new sense of identity by negotiating the different forms of meaning and representation of their products and of themselves (Grayson, 2018). Over time we see the new form of identity layered through new rhetorical messaging, by the advertiser, establishing a sense of legitimacy that begins to resonate on a broader level developing a new cultural representation (Grayson, 2018).
Chrisafis’ account of the demonstrations in Lille uses the notion of the digital advertising displays as a symbolic representation of advertising in general and the discourse in the article attempts to suggest that these symbols only enable the identity of capitalism. This is further reflected by the attempts of adjusting cultural representation away from consumption; in the article we see how 1,600 advertising signs were removed due to a contract renewal, eventually when they were gradually returned the local citizens “complained of an advertising onslaught” (Chrisafis, 2019).
This nudging of behavior is actually one utilized by advertising to gradually shift certain attitudes to illicit desired behaviors that are more socially acceptable (Chriss, 2015). Looking back, the non-smoking campaigns, many of which were found on billboards and digital displays in public spaces, played a part in helping many communities by facilitating messages for residents to refrain from the activities of smoking as it was detrimental to not only their health but those around them. Similarly, we now see advertising campaigns on public displays promoting sustainability through purchasing second hand products, or more ecologically friendly products. And while the anti-advertisement movement might be nudging certain communities towards banning public advertising, the discourse on what benefits these public advertising places provided is missing (Chriss, 2015).
Where the Debate Should Actually Head
In one sense public advertising places further democratize the field of advertising and brings in additional revenue streams that can be aimed at improving various social programs offered by the local municipality. Various advertising mediums are typically allocated through an auction system and are able to command higher pricing based on the combination of the audience size and a profile representation that aligns with the advertiser. As such many established mediums are inaccessible to smaller advertisers, primarily because they lack enough resources to engage on those mediums. Having a public advertising place, especially those that support digital display advertisements, can significantly lower the barrier of entry by reducing the costs associated with displaying advertisements. In this sense the public advertising places can be thought of as signifiers enabling the signified, and by democratizing access it is reenabling the signified who might have otherwise been disenfranchised (Visconti, 2018). With greater participation of smaller advertisers and greater reach of consumers through the public advertising places new forms of expression can manifest, ultimately shaping new forms of identity.
Returning back to the debate on whether or not advertising has a purpose in public spaces we see there is a greater impact beyond the health and political dimensions, there is also an impact on the social and financial dimensions. In a sense little seems to be gained through the removal of advertisements in public spaces, in fact it seems the issue only becomes apparent though the removal of advertisements as reported by Chrisafis. Further, this debate becomes a moot point as technology advancements have enabled virtually everyone to carry around a digital billboard with their smartphones, the removal of advertisements in public spaces will not accomplish much. Thus, it seems like the anti-advertisement movement is something more than a push for removing advertisements from public spaces; in some sense it appears to be a movement aimed at taking back control, from advertisers, in how cultural identity is shaped, and an attempt to preserve certain identities that have been reflected through the more traditional mediums of art and philosophy.
References
Bianchi, C. (2011). Semiotic Approaches To Advertising Texts And Strategies: Narrative, Passion, Marketing. Semiotica, 243–271.
Chrisafis, A. (2019, 12 23). the Guardian. Retrieved from ‘Advertising breaks your spirit’: the French cities trying to ban public adverts: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/dec/23/advertising-breaks-your-spirit-the-french-cities-trying-to-ban-public-adverts
Chriss, J. (2015). Nudging and Social Marketing. Social Science and Public Policy, 54–61.
Grayson, K. (2018). Shopping with Charles Pierce: From Sign Meaning To Sign Degeneracy In The Marketplace. In S. Askegaard, & B. Heilbrunn, Canonical Authors in Consumption Theory (pp. 167–176). London, UK: Routledge.
O’Shaughnessy, N. (1996). Social Propaganda and Social Marketing: a Critical Difference? European Journal of Marketing, 54–67.
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication, 9–20.
Shankar, A. (1999). Advertising’s Imbroglio. Journal Of Marketing Communications, 1–15.
Visconti, L. (2018). Roland Barthes: The (Anti-)structuralist. In S. Askegaard, & B. Heilbrunn, Canonical Authors in Consumption Theory (pp. 177–184). London, UK: Routledge.
