Rhetoric & Semiotics

The overall discussion is centered around the notion of rhetorical language (written or spoken) and images (signs, symbols) to promote an advertiser’s actions. Initially the goal was to use rhetoric in an attempt to persuade the consumer into completing their purchasing journey. Eventually this goal shifted towards promoting more of a behavioral response that is favorable to the brand; rhetoric became one of many tools to foster a message that would resonate with a group of consumers.

According to Bianchi’s overview, one of the popular uses of rhetoric was to function as a tool that would promote a shortcut for the consumer to recognize a pre communicated message, meaning, or intent; much like a brand’s symbol. The early forms focused on the use of text as the primary way to communicate a certain rhetorical message in an advert, later this was shifted towards the actual image[1]. This is quite similar to the evolution of advertising as presented by Dyer in her 1982 book Advertising as Communication, where the initial emphasis was on the written word[2].

There appears to be an interesting correlation between the shifts of rhetorical messages based through images and the movement of advertising towards behavioral responses to establish identity forming relationships with consumers[3]. Images tend to capture greater cultural trends with multiple interpretations and thus become a more effective medium that reflects a snapshot of society. Layering a rhetorical message over this enables the advertiser to dictate new meaning, one that fosters a positive image for the brand in relation to the cultural representation. The final layer is then the focus of tailoring the rhetorical message, by facilitating a way to construct additional meanings, so that it can resonate with a broader community of consumers.

This layered use of rhetorical messages in advertising has highlighted the effectiveness of marketing communications and as a result there has been multiple debates on how this should be managed. One debate is concerned about the ethical ramifications: whether it is a form of manipulation or simply a tool for conveying values that address consumer needs[4]. Another debate is centered around the organizational structures, where marketing should have a greater reach within the organization to align messaging through the notions of an Integrated Marketing Communications framework[5].

Regardless of these debates the effectiveness of rhetorical messages has created shifts within society that are not completely understood. Modernity cemented the notions of individualism, stripping away tribal, political, etc. identity. Postmodernism promoted the notion of multiple meanings, a type of alethic relativism that re-established pluralist identities and embraced moral relativism[6]. The use of rhetorical messages has certainly embraced Postmodernism giving a space to those that were disenfranchised by Modernity[7], however the use by advertisers to tap into this dynamic definitely raises concerns about where society might be heading.

[1] Bianchi, C. (2011), Semiotic Approaches to Advertising Texts and Strategies: Narrative, Passion, Marketing, Semiotica, 183–1/4: 243–271.

[2] Dyer, G. (1982). Advertising as Communication. New York: Routledge.

[3] Grayson, Kent (2018),” Shopping with Charles Pierce: From Sign Meaning to Sign Degeneracy in The Marketplace”, chapter 21 in Askegaard, S., & Heilbrunn, B. (eds.) Canonical Authors in Consumption Theory. London, UK: Routledge, p. 167–176

[4] Torp, S. M., & Andersen, L. P. (2018). Marketing Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of Marketing. in Health and Ihlen: The Handbook of Organizational Rhetoric and Communication, 67

[5] Christensen, L T, Simon T & A. Fuat Firat, (2005), ‘Integrated Marketing Communication and Postmodernity: An Odd Couple?’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10 (2): 156–167.

[6] Nuyen, A. (1992). ‘The Role of Rhetorical Devices in Postmodernist Discourse’, Philosophy & Rhetoric, 25 (2): 183–194.

[7] Visconti, L. (2018), “Roland Barthes: The (Anti-)structuralist”, chapter 22 in Askegaard, S., & Heilbrunn, B. (eds.) Canonical Authors in Consumption Theory. London, UK: Routledge, p. 177–184