# The Influence and Ethics of Advertising **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215 "2010-03-29T14:56:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/41 "2010-04-01T02:04:57Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You’re forgetting that **advertising works**. > > Seriously, try to keep that in mind. In the scenaro you’re describing advertising isn’t having an effect on behavior; it’s purely taste preferences. But if that’s the case, then why do people pour hundreds of millions of dollars into advertising? I’d say that you are _clearly_ overlooking or downplaying an effect that advertising has. Well, look, stick with McDonald’s for a minute: they pour a ton of money into advertising, granted, but some of the products they introduce _ **succeed** _ and some drop like a danged _ **stone,** _ sure as Pepsi did its damnedest to hype Crystal Pepsi, sure as NBC put up all kinds of commercials for Jay Leno’s recent talk-show experiment – er, just like it had for the failed KNIGHT RIDER remake, and so on; I’ll multiply examples to whatever number you like. You say I’m forgetting that **advertising works**. I note that advertising works sometimes, and sometimes it fails miserably, and I often can’t detect a difference in the ads; the ads presumably cause a spike in sales at the outset, which is admittedly pretty impressive – but then it gets followed by a rapid decline when the product fails to live up to the hype, if it fails to live up to the hype. You say advertising works. I guess my hair-splitting reply is that – **marketing works**. > [@](#): > > Strangely, I’d almost\* agree with this, if you weren’t overlooking something - advertising is annoying as hell, and it’s everywhere. It’s _itself_ a social ill that provides no significant societal benefit. Well, commercials prop up free television shows and free radio programs while print ads alleviate the cost of publishing everything from newspapers to comic books; they don’t really need that justification to the extent that they inform, but maybe it suffices for the extent that they persuade. (That said, I’m afraid I _ **don’t** _ find 'em annoying as hell; maybe I’m an outlier.) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/42 "2010-04-01T04:25:11Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Okay, I quit. I’ve repeated it multiple times that ads do influence me to buy things. I have never made the claim otherwise. I will no longer discuss the point. I quoted what you said and responded to it directly. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/43 "2010-04-01T04:55:37Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I quoted what you said and responded to it directly. 😕 Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh. I just feel that a lot of people who responded to me fail to take into account the second part of what you quoted. The second part being > [@Me](#): > > ..something I wasn’t already inclined to purchase to begin with. So when you come along and say > [@Sage Rat](#): > > But even if you haven’t been convinced by an ad to buy something. I feel as though there’s a failure to communicate somewhere as I said no such thing. I have stated (quite clearly I had thought, but, unfortunately, I guess I’m wrong) that I **am** influenced by advertisements. That influence is limited though. ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/44 "2010-04-01T14:19:52Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I feel as though there’s a failure to communicate somewhere as I said no such thing. I have stated (quite clearly I had thought, but, unfortunately, I guess I’m wrong) that I **am** influenced by advertisements. **That influence is limited though**. I don’t know if the bolded statement is true or not. Would you date a woman who didn’t shave her legs? Do you think people are more attractive if their teeth are blindingly white? Do you have a favorite brand of bottled water? Influence doesn’t even have to be that black and white. When someone says, “Pardon me..” do you [automatically finish the phrase](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_pGT8Q_tjk)? When you walk by the toilet paper aisle do you get an urge to pick up a package and [give it a squeeze](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciRry1eCGaE&feature=PlayList&p=05D77DD63D544CBD&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=4)? I don’t know about you, but in my mind every time I hear the song “So Happy Together” I think of this [cereal](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n70kWe6L_6o). [This product](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is3icfcbmbs) made millions of dollars even though it doesn’t actually get rid of or prevent headaches because the ads drill themselves into your cranium and refuse to leave. Were you one of the ones who bought it? Advertising can be effective in many different ways. Take that Golden Grahams commercial I linked to above. If you watch it you automatically become aware of the cereal’s exsistence if you didn’t know about it previously. You see that the people in the commercial seem really happy and that Golden Grahams seems to play a part in that. Then perhaps every time you hear the song “So Happy Together” you immediately think of Golden Grahams. I haven’t seen that particular commercial in 15 years or more and I still associate the cereal with the song, so every time I hear the song on the radio I see the box in my mind and almost always turn to the person I’m with and say, “Hey, the Golden Grahams song!” They produced a commercial that still has an impact on my life years later. While I haven’t eaten Golden Grahams in a long time the odds are good I will probably have kids one day, or if not that I will have nieces and nephews or friends with kids that will spend time at my house and that I will probably purchase some type of foodstuff to feed them. I wonder if that advertisement I saw 15 or 20 years ago will impact whether or not I pick up a box of Golden Grahams for them? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/45 "2010-04-01T16:22:52Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, look, stick with McDonald’s for a minute: they pour a ton of money into advertising, granted, but some of the products they introduce _ **succeed** _ and some drop like a danged _ **stone,** _ sure as Pepsi did its damnedest to hype Crystal Pepsi, sure as NBC put up all kinds of commercials for Jay Leno’s recent talk-show experiment – er, just like it had for the failed KNIGHT RIDER remake, and so on; I’ll multiply examples to whatever number you like. > > You say I’m forgetting that **advertising works**. I note that advertising works sometimes, and sometimes it fails miserably, and I often can’t detect a difference in the ads; the ads presumably cause a spike in sales at the outset, which is admittedly pretty impressive – but then it gets followed by a rapid decline when the product fails to live up to the hype, if it fails to live up to the hype. > > You say advertising works. I guess my hair-splitting reply is that – **marketing works**. That’s a split hair, all right. I don’t think that the non-advertising elements of marketing need to play a part in this discussion. Do you? I think we already covered ad nauseum that if you’re selling a crap sandwich, then no amount of advertising can save it. There’s only so much I can do to get you to stop excluding the middle between “advertising works” and “I disagree [due to it not working for crap sandwiches]”, other than again pointing out that there’s an entire humungous industry built around the notion that advertising works pretty well _despite_ the crap sandwich examples - no matter how multiplied such examples are. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, commercials prop up free television shows and free radio programs while print ads alleviate the cost of publishing everything from newspapers to comic books; they don’t really need that justification to the extent that they inform, but maybe it suffices for the extent that they persuade. (That said, I’m afraid I _ **don’t** _ find 'em annoying as hell; maybe I’m an outlier.) Like I said, no significant societal benefit. 😛 Admittedly, different people are sensitive to commercials to different degrees, and even I can’t claim I stopped watching broadcast TV _because_ of the commercials. (It was more because it’s _way_ too easy to point your head at the idiot box and _poof_, the rest of the day is gone.) On the other hand, I _did_ stop listening to broadcast radio _only_ because of the commercials. Literally. I was smogged completely off the airwaves! Clearly other people don’t mind the fact that radio is commercial-saturated, but my experience is that commercials _literally_ ruined the medium, completely. I sometimes wonder if I’d feel the same way about broadcast TV if I went back and watched it today. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/46 "2010-04-01T21:46:35Z")
> [@pbbth](#): > > I don’t know if the bolded statement is true or not. Obviously the influence of ads are limited. Or are you arguing that we’re all slaves to Madison avenue? ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/47 "2010-04-02T00:14:14Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Obviously the influence of ads are limited. Or are you arguing that we’re all slaves to Madison avenue? Sort of, yes. Much more than any of us are aware. We are not kill-bots or anything but using negative information about the US the Taliban has convinced plenty of people to give their lives to attempt to destroy us. Hitler convinced a nation to round up and kill Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other minorities. It is certianly possible to convince people to do things they would not otherwise consider with advertising and propaganda. Like I mentioned above all of the women in our nation now shave their legs and armpits when they wouldn’t have 100 years ago because of advertising. Everyone in the country pays $1 or more for something that flows free from the tap in every kitchen and bathroom in the nation. You make decisions based on the impact advertising had on society more than a generation ago the entire time thinking that you’re making your decisions independent of outside influence. Our society has managed to curb littering, smoking, and encourage seat belt use through PSAs that have actually convinced enough people to change so that they put laws into place regarding those issues. You still make your own decisions, of course, but as the advertising industry convinces others to use products or to change the way they do things it creates societal pressue to encourage you to change as well. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/48 "2010-04-02T11:28:57Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > That’s a split hair, all right. I don’t think that the non-advertising elements of marketing need to play a part in this discussion. Do you? Well, only in the sense that I wanted a snappy response-in-kind for your “advertising works” line, which was all bolded and impressive and stuff. I believe that advertising frequently _ **doesn’t** _ work, and full stop, and we both agree that such examples can be multiplied out pretty danged far – and our remaining disagreement is _ **why** _ it often doesn’t work, and if we’d like to dwell on that dispute I figure we need to discuss the non-advertising elements of marketing. As you put it, > [@](#): > > I think we already covered ad nauseum that if you’re selling a crap sandwich, then no amount of advertising can save it. There’s only so much I can do to get you to stop excluding the middle between “advertising works” and “I disagree [due to it not working for crap sandwiches]…” See, this right here is sort of my point: you want me to stop excluding the middle, and I want to do that _ **by** _ dwelling on just how far above “shit sandwich” a product needs to be for advertising to gin up repeat business. You believe it doesn’t need to be especially far above “shit sandwich”; I believe it does; how else can we resolve our disagreement over the efficacy of ads _ **except** _ by pondering just how good a fit advertising needs between product and market? > [@](#): > > other than again pointing out that there’s an entire humungous industry built around the notion that advertising works pretty well _despite_ the crap sandwich examples - no matter how multiplied such examples are. And all I can do is point out that such example multiplication impresses on me that advertising only “works pretty well” in concert with satisfactory products. Again, you say that _“we’re in many cases dealing with products which are either exactly equivalent, or as good as exactly equivalent”_, which are presumably well above “at least it’s not a shit sandwich”. And, again, you then discuss situations where _“sometimes there are real differences, so ads attempt to play up other comparable angles to level the playing field … As long as the superiority of one product isn’t clear across the board”_, which is, presumably, likewise a competition between two well-above-shit-sandwich alternatives. I don’t want to exclude that middle; I want to come to grips with it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/49 "2010-04-02T15:41:28Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, only in the sense that I wanted a snappy response-in-kind for your “advertising works” line, which was all bolded and impressive and stuff. I believe that advertising frequently _ **doesn’t** _ work, and full stop, and we both agree that such examples can be multiplied out pretty danged far – and our remaining disagreement is _ **why** _ it often doesn’t work, and if we’d like to dwell on that dispute I figure we need to discuss the non-advertising elements of marketing. As you put it, > > See, this right here is sort of my point: you want me to stop excluding the middle, and I want to do that _ **by** _ dwelling on just how far above “shit sandwich” a product needs to be for advertising to gin up repeat business. You believe it doesn’t need to be especially far above “shit sandwich”; I believe it does; how else can we resolve our disagreement over the efficacy of ads _ **except** _ by pondering just how good a fit advertising needs between product and market? > > And all I can do is point out that such example multiplication impresses on me that advertising only “works pretty well” in concert with satisfactory products. > > Again, you say that _“we’re in many cases dealing with products which are either exactly equivalent, or as good as exactly equivalent”_, which are presumably well above “at least it’s not a shit sandwich”. And, again, you then discuss situations where _“sometimes there are real differences, so ads attempt to play up other comparable angles to level the playing field … As long as the superiority of one product isn’t clear across the board”_, which is, presumably, likewise a competition between two well-above-shit-sandwich alternatives. > > I don’t want to exclude that middle; I want to come to grips with it. Strict quantification is going to be a slippery target, because obviously there are a lot of factors - not the least of which being the inherent quality of the ad program. I think we can agree they’re not all created equal, right? Some couldn’t get you to buy water in a desert, and some could get you to buy a refridgerator for your igloo, or pretty dang close. Plus, I think that some of these long-running culture changing ads show that in specific extreme cases, ads have had _stunning_ power. I mean, shaving your legs is about as big a shit sandwich as I can imagine. And yet virtually the entire female half of american (western?) culture is buying that sandwich, choking it down, and asking for seconds. How did _that_ happen? It ain’t like high heels which are a crime against humanity that we inherited from our idiot ancestors; it was advertising, selling shit to humanity since… er, when did advertising _start_, anyway? Originally I mean. Anybody? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/50 "2010-04-02T15:44:56Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Personally, I have never been convinced by any advertisement I have seen to purchase a product or service that I was not already inclined to purchase. Never ever ever? You are a rare bird indeed. Although if we had a poll here on this question, I suspect at least half of respondents would say the same thing. We are _much too intelligent_ on the Dope to ever fall for any sort of advertising. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/51 "2010-04-02T15:54:36Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh. I just feel that a lot of people who responded to me fail to take into account the second part of what you quoted. The second part being > > So when you come along and say > > I feel as though there’s a failure to communicate somewhere as I said no such thing. No, I did understand. But the whole raison d’etre of the thread is the question of whether there exists an effect where you go out and buy something you wouldn’t naturally be inclined to purchase. That’s still a question of influence and hence I used that word. But, what constitutes “buying something you wouldn’t **naturally** be inclined to purchase” is very much a matter of definition. There are varying levels of influence that each make it more probable for you to go out and buy something. What you personally consider to be natural or unnatural, I can’t say. All I could say, in my post, is that there are those two examples where you wouldn’t have gone to purchase the item without the ad–which can be called unnatural–but you are still buying them out of logic–which can be called natural. So if you don’t consider those two examples to count as the _level of influence_ that you intend as being for discussion for this thread, the question of whether higher levels of influence exist or don’t is dependent on other people, not yourself, since probably you haven’t experienced them. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/52 "2010-04-02T16:16:29Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > We are _much too intelligent_ on the Dope to ever fall for any sort of advertising. :dubious: As I have repeatedly multiple times, advertising influences me. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215/53 "2010-04-02T16:30:04Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > No, I did understand. But the whole raison d’etre of the thread is the question of whether there exists an effect where you go out and buy something you wouldn’t naturally be inclined to purchase. That’s still a question of influence and hence I used that word. I don’t believe I’ve ever used the word “natural” when talking about my inclination to purchase something. If I have, it was an error. As such, I can’t really address the rest of your post because I don’t know how to separate natural from cultural inclinations when it comes to purchasing items and services. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-influence-and-ethics-of-advertising/534215.md?page=2)