Thesis1: Use of signifiers/signs – why they are manipulative and psychologically controlling and the negative effects (dumbing down society etc).

Antithesis1: Concentrate on the positive effects of the use of these signifiers/signs (prompts: economical benefit of advertising?).

Thesis2: Criticisms of manipulations in advertising, in the context of capitalism.

Anthithesis2: Stress the need for a middle ground, rather than fantasizing about a non-capitalist society – apply the theories for reasonable use within the particular western society we live in.

Conclusion: Show how the points have been dealt with and conclude by offering scope for the future of the issues discussed.

Scaled-down version:

• Signifiers are used in very deep ways which penetrate right through society – to the point where people no longer buy the product for what it is or does, but rather for what it means, or what it ‘says about them’.
• Recent legislation is beginning to force out old, dated stereotypes of women in favour of “their real image faithfully reflected in the world in which they lead their daily lives” (The Council Of Europe’s Equal Opportunities Committee Draft Resolution 2007)
• Signs of reflexive film-making are used in order to initiate a relationship and trust with the brand.
• The Economic Downturn, overall, did not affect Ford Motor Co. in an adverse way thanks in part to the economy eliminating rivals and partly it’s advertising tactics.
• Ethically, advertising is quite suspect, due to the manipulative psychological tactics involved in their production.
• For the greater good of capitalism and a comfortable, question-less society, the manipulative psychological tactics involved in advertising must be deemed acceptable. A compromise must be made. (this is something I would’ve liked to have studied further, given more time.)
• Finally, my vision tells me that when a Kinetic design car isn’t moving… it isn’t moving.

Barthel, Diane, 1992, ‘Men, media and the gender order when men put on appearances. Advertising and the social construction of masculinity’. (Sage)

Berger, John, 1972, ‘Ways of Seeing’ (BBC/Penguin)

Femiano, Sam / Nickerson, Mark, 1989, ‘How do Media Images of Men Affect Our Lives?: Re-Imagining the American Dream’  in ‘Media & Values’ Issue #48: Men, Myth and Media.

Ogilvy, David, 1983, ‘Ogilvy on Advertising’ (Pan Books)

Parente, Vanden Bergh, Barban and Marra, 1996 ‘Advertising Campaign Strategy’ (Harcourt Brace)

Williamson, Judith, 1978, ‘Decoding Advertisements’ (Marion Boyars)

Internet Sources

John Camm, BBC Magazine (2005) (accessed 25/10/09)

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly ‘The Image of Women in Advertising (Report)’ (2007) [PDF] (accessed 25/10/09)

The Auto Channel – Ford Kinetic Design stars in new TV advert (accessed 01/11/09)

AdBrands – Ford Motor Company (accessed 01/11/09)

The Making Of Ford Kinetic Design Advertisement (accessed 01/11/09)

Reuters (accessed 09/10/09)

Marketing Week (accessed 09/10/09)

4wheelsnews (accessed 09/10/09)

Car Design News (accessed 09/10/09)

Car Design News : Glossary (accessed 09/10/09)

“The purpose of publicity is to make the spectator marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life. Not with the way of life of society, but with his own within it.
[...] the anxiety on which publicity plays is the fear that having nothing you will be nothing.
[...] Money is life [...] in the sense that money is the token of, and the key to, every human capacity.” (p. 142-143)

These ideas present quite a scary prospect to the masses – that the manipulation through advertising is achieved by playing on fears and dissatisfaction, and that fundamentally their lives are important only because they feed the capitalist system, which in turn controls them. Marx wrote about the “Fetishism of Commodities” and also extensively on criticising capitalism and money. His ideas are seminal and their influence is massive. In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts he wrote:

“Money is the highest good and so it’s possessor is good. Money relieves me of the trouble of being dishonest; so I am presumed to be honest. [...] I who can get with money everything that the human heart longs for, do I not possess all human capacities? [...] What I cannot do as a man, thus what my individual faculties cannot do, this I can do through money. Thus money turns each of these faculties into something that it is not, i.e into it’s opposite.” (p 118)

Marx here is describing how money can be used to obtain things quickly, and people are able to ‘buy’ things with money that aren’t necessarily material objects. When talking of honesty, I immediately related his ideas to the ‘honesty’ of advertising. Marx writes “Money relieves me of the trouble of being dishonest”, but really, I think it what he is talking about is control. If money is replaced by the word control, it still makes complete sense (and the idea is perhaps even easier to stomach).
Advertisers and corporations have this control. And since they have it, they have the ability not to simply inject ideas into an audience (hypodermic syringe theory), but also when the control is utilised creatively, they have the ability to give an impression, no matter how false, of honesty and sincerity.
One may see the Ford advert (here I’m taking myself as an example) and think to themselves about the way in which it’s been advertised, and point out the signifiers and the signified, but to properly unlock the door of context, you have to use the key of capitalism. One understood, a whole key debate about control is opened.
In general, Marx’s ideas display capitalism in a very negative light. He continues:

“If I long for a meal, or wish to take the mail coach because I am not strong enough to make the journey on foot, then money procures the meal and the mail coach for me. This means that it changes my wishes from being imaginary, and translates them from being in thought, imagination, and will into a sensuous, real being, from imagination to life, from imaginary being to real being.” (p. 118-119)

Taking Marx’s ideas about money, and applying them with my idea of control, you can vaguely say that Money = Control. If you have money you have control (this is implicit in what Marx is saying), but on the other hand, you have the same equation, but the roles are reversed, or to put it in a clearer way, Money = Controller. If you have and use money in the capitalist system, you are in fact a slave to it (money) because:

“It turns real human and natural faculties into mere abstract representations and thus imperfections, while on the other hand it turns the real imperfections and imaginings, the real powerless faculties that exist only in the imagination of the individual, into real faculties and powers. [...] He who can buy courage is courageous though he be a coward. Because money can be exchanged not for a particular quality, for a particular thing or human faculty, but for the whole human and actual objective world.” (p119)

_____________________________________________________

We have established that advertisers play with peoples desires, now I shall focus on one which is significantly tied to the Kinetic Design advert – sexuality. I will try not to refer too much to the relationship between male and female characters – there need not even be a woman character in the advert, there would still remain subconscious undertones and themes of sexuality.

“Publicity increasingly uses sexuality to sell any product or service. [...] To be able to buy is the same thing as being sexually desirable [...] If you are able to buy this product you will be lovable. If you cannot buy it you will be less lovable” (Berger, John, 1972, ‘Ways Of Seeing’ p. 114)

Berger is reiterating the ideas of Marx which I’ve quoted, but within the realm of sexuality in advertising. It also helps reiterate his point which I offered earlier – that one of the aims of advertising is to make the viewer “dissatisfied with his present way of life”.

Does all this manipulation take away from free will? Does increased media awareness and cynicism cancel the effects of manipulation out, to any extent?

Not just awareness and cynicism can account for a cancellation on the effects of advertising. A popular media consumption theory of desensitisation springs to mind – ‘Culmination Theory’:

“According to this, while any one media text does not have too much effect, years and years of watching more violence will make you less sensitive to violence, years and years of watching women being mistreated in soaps will make you less bothered about it in real life.” (Northallerton College)

Applied to advertising – it’s implied the more adverts that people watch, the less they start to notice or care what the adverts are saying.
I do not agree with the application of this theory in the context of advertising, because of where the intent of the media production lies – the purpose of advertising is to make people buy, or make people aware of a product or brand, but the purpose of a film with violence is often not to encourage violence, but is usually simply a plot device or a method of showing characters relationships (and a whole plethora of subjective reasons within each film/media product) and often the purpose is even to discourage violence by showing it’s effects. Advertisers pay professional psychoanalysts high sums in order to tap into our minds and subconscious, it’s fairly safe to say that some sort of effect is imposed on people by exposure to advertising, no matter how small.

For these same reasons I think it’s reasonable to discount ‘increased media awareness’ and ‘cynicism’ as enough to halt the effects of advertising on the masses. From my point of view, it’s certainly not.

Sources

Berger, John, 1972, ‘Ways Of Seeing’ (BBC/Penguin)

Marx, Karl, 1837-1844, ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts’. (From ‘Marx: Selected Writings – The Early Writings’ by David McLellan (Oxford University Press))

http://www.northallertoncoll.org.uk/media/audience.htm

The use of signifiers and signs in advertisement is intrinsic to every advertisement. But the seeming superficiality of Ford’s marketing campaign has made me question advertising in general, and if it’s right to manipulate people in such a way. The use of signs is something which is manipulative – when used correctly by the advertiser, with conventions used en-masse by the majority of adverts is very powerful at constructing ideas about the world into an audience.

Ford try to make their designs seem like the most important part of the car, as if the designs hold a sophisticated kind of artistic merit. John Berger talks about these types of aesthetics in ‘Ways Of Seeing’:

“art ‘quoted’ by publicity serves two purposes. Art is a sign of affluence [...] art also suggests a cultural authority, a form of dignity, even of wisdom which is superior to any vulgar material interest” (p. 135)

In relation to Ford’s entire campaign, you could say that by focusing on their designs and presenting them in the grandiose way they do, Ford are instilling idea of high culture and cultural importance. Detracting from the function of the car and getting caught up with brand image semantics. It could also be said by focusing on the masculine, sporty way the car is ‘dressed’, Ford are attempting to join or to create a kind of ‘fashion’ in car design.

Does this manipulation take away from free will? Does increased media awareness and cynicism cancel the effects of manipulation out, to any extent?

Highlighted below are some benefits and harms of advertising, in bold are parts which are relevant to the advertisement in some way. (List from http://web.carroll.edu/~msmillie/busethics/ethadvertising.htm)

Benefits of Advertising

• Economic: useful tool for sustaining honest and ethically responsible competition by informing people of the availability of rationally desirable new products and services and improvements in existing ones
• Political: helps counteract tendencies toward the monopolization of power by informing people of the ideas and policy proposals of parties and candidates
• Cultural: can exert a positive influence on decisions about media content; contribute the betterment of society by uplifting and inspiring people and motivating them to act in ways that benefit themselves and others. Importance of witty, tasteful and entertaining advertising, even to the point of becoming art.
• Moral and Religious: communicate messages of faith, patriotism, tolerance, compassion and neighborly service, charity, health, education

Harms of Advertising

• Economic: misrepresent and without relevant facts; subvert the media by pressure not to treat of questions that are embarrassing and inconvenient; tout harmful or useless goods; move people based on non-rational decisions; become a tool of “consumerism”; particularly harmful in economically less developed countries
• Political: costs of advertising can limit political competition to wealthy candidates or to those willing to compromise their integrity; distorts the views and records of opponents
• Cultural: corrupt culture and cultural values by contradicting sound traditional values; can create superficiality, tawdriness, and moral squalor; ignore educational and social needs of certain segments of the audience; contributes to stereotyping of particular groups
• Moral and religious harms: deliberate appeals to motives of envy, status seeking, and lust creates vulgar and morally degrading advertising; treat of religion in obnoxious and offensive manners; can promote morally suspect or perverse products and practices

“That which exists for me through the medium of money, that which I can pay for, i.e. which money can buy, that am I, the possessor of the money.” (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, 1844)

There is a distinct tie with Marx’s criticism of capitalism and the issues raised in this blog about free will and manipulation – perhaps advertising and capitalism can be morally/ethically linked as well as economically necessary.

Towards the end of ‘Ways Of Seeing’, Berger says

“without publicity capitalism could not survive – [...] Capitalism survives by forcing the majority [...] to define their own interests as narrowly as possible. Today [...] it is being achieved by imposing a false standard of what is and what is not desirable“ (p. 154)

From this quotation you can clearly understand why the system of signs in adverts, imposed by capitalism for it’s need to survive, could be considered immoral, or unethical. They subvert free thinking and free will, and plant ideas into the viewers about desire and how the masses should ‘define their own interests’. Granted, there is a need to sell products and make money in today’s world of the west – so a criticism of the ethics of advertising is essentially a criticism of capitalism as a whole. If you defend capitalism on the whole, you by proxy defend the use of subversive psychological manipulation of desires.

Sources
Ethics of Advertising (accessed 09/10/09)
Berger, John, 1972, ‘Ways of Seeing’ (BBC/Penguin)
Marx, Karl, 1844, ‘Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts’

“Visualising dynamic driving characteristics through external and internal design elements.” (ford)
“putting lines and shapes into the car to make it look athletic… dynamic” (youtube)

(Taking into consideration ideas discussed in my previous blog on the subject) Essentially it’s not about the car. It’s about how you see the car.
‘Kinetic Design’ is simply only a marketing term used to describe a design language. There is a certain degree of superficiality at work here. Ford are placing value in the way the car looks by exaggerating the reality that the car has a certain fashionable design, to the extent where the advert shows the car (or it’s [potential!] drivers) to be heroic and brave.

Martin Smith, the creator of Kinetic Design is quoted on Ford’s dedicated Kinetic Design sub-site:

“Once again, Martin Smith perfectly summarises the vision for Ford kinetic Design, “We want to build cars that evoke an instant emotional response of ‘I want one’.” This vision has gone from concept to a stunning reality.” (ford.co.uk)

Car Design News gives a little more detail about how auto companies use design languages:

“Usually, the way the principle surfaces of any car’s exterior – and interior – are treated will help to confirm its nature or purpose. A small city car, intended to be non-threatening and friendly, may have soft curves, generous radii, a happy face and ‘playful’ interior detailing. Sportscars’ surfaces should help make them look athletic and powerful“

Ford have decided with Kinetic Design to go for a more sporty, ‘powerful’ design language. The advert’s characters and settings (both previously discussed) in tandem with the design language present an ‘image’ of the product to the viewer of the advert. The idea of a car is gone, and replaced with the idea of what the car could mean for the buyer. Psychology trumps actuality for the good of capitalism.

“Deployed corporately, surface language is a form of brand or marque identity, referring to the manner in which designers from different companies will treat the sculptural journey from broadly similar points ‘A’ to points ‘B’. Audi designs [...] have highly disciplined ‘geometric’ surfaces and detailing: perfect radii, incised shutlines and precise surfacing. This ‘cerebral’ designing characterizes the whole range and creates a unified family identity.” (Car Design News)

Some critics (…and I agree…) even see the concept Ford’s Kinetic Design a tad pretentious or overblown.

“Some form language is even afforded the significance of being named: Ford’s graphic ‘New Edge’ of the 1990s and less convincing moving-when-standing-still ‘Kinetic Design’.” (Car Design News)

I certainly don’t at all see or think that a new Ford, when parked, looks at all like it’s moving. It looks decidedly still to me. The reason why in the advert the ‘still’ cars look like they are moving ISN’T because of the design. It’s the computer generated images, the camera movements, and the ability to play with filmmaking techniques to trick the viewers eye.
No feature films are marketed on their ability to make the audience think the footage is really what happened. Marketing a car on it’s ability to do something that it can’t even do is parallel to this. Saying it doesn’t make it real.

Some points for further research: Is this* ethical? How is any type of advertising ethical? [Other interesting questions: Is capitalism ethical and why? Who loses out?]
*using signifiers to create an image/a desire, as opposed to explaining the product and what it is and does.

Sources

Ford’s Kinetic Design site (accessed 09/10/09)
The Making Of Ford’s Kinetic Design Advertisement: YouTube video. (accessed 09/10/09)
Car Design News : Glossary (accessed 09/10/09)

‘Advertising Campaign Strategy’ by Parente, Vanden Bergh, Barban and Marra (1996, Harcourt Brace) addresses this question:

“Knowledgeable advertisers know that a product’s image can have a significant effect on sales.” (p. 16)

Judith Williamson’s ‘Decoding Advertisements’ (1978, Marion Boyars) states

“it is the first function of an advertisement to create a different product and the others in the same category. It does this by providing the product with an ‘image’.”(p.24)

The two quotes above when using the word ‘image’ are not exactly referring to the dimensions and shape of the product, but more to an ideological image created in the viewers head about what the product MEANS rather than what the product actually is. This tactic means that advertisers can associate their products with moods or lifestyles, so the consumer isn’t in fact buying the product at face value. They are buying it first and foremost because they believe (thanks to the advertisements) that the product has some sort of ‘power’ to change the way the consumer already is, their lifestyle. That’s what is really being sold, primarily this idea, not the actual product.

In my opinion this approach breeds the idea of superficiality into society, and subconsciously encourages people to regard things and people by what they are portrayed to signify, rather than their actual function. People regard Ferrari as a dream car, which if they had the money, they’d buy immediately. You don’t need a Ferrari to drive around. Buying a second hand Skoda has the same end – a vehicle you can drive. It’s the image that people are concerned with.

What is Kinetic Design and WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? What kind of image does the advert display, and is it superficial?

Sources:
Advertising Campaign Strategy by Parente, Vanden Bergh, Barban and Marra (1996, Harcourt Brace)
Decoding Advertisements by Judith Williamson (1978, Marion Boyars)

Ford UK marketing director Mark Simpson says:

“Over the past few months, we have been launching a series of new models and focusing our marketing efforts on these. We are now looking to shift our ad approach to focus more on the brand name, in an effort to make the brand interesting.”

“Ford UK has had to cut its advertising spend, as its ailing US parent company seeks to make $9bn (£6bn) worth of  cost savings this year (MW November 19, 2008).
However, Simpson says the brand-focused campaign had been planned before the car industry slipped into crisis.
Ford aims to create “a more consistent and compelling connection with customers worldwide, while better leveraging the company’s global assets and capabilities”, following the appointment of Elena Ford as director of global marketing, sales and service operations.” (Marketing Week)

With the economic downturn over the past few years massively affecting the automobile industry, and other factors such as increased environmental awareness (due to climate change) amongst the masses (especially important when it comes to fossil fuel-burning cars!), why is ford’s message “buy our cars because they look like this”? To me it seems very superficial. Mark Simpson says the rebranding campaign was planned prior to the downturn.

“Statistics show that one in four adults in the U.S. are living more sustainable lifestyles; interested in companies that are more socially responsible and buying products that are healthier for people and the planet. [...]Although consumers are more cost-conscious during these stressed economic times, many remain committed to more sustainable lifestyles and products, evident by the growing demand for items such as organic foods, clothing, personal-care and cleaning products. In fact, goods and services focused on health, the environment, social justice and sustainable living represent a $209 billion marketplace in the U.S.” (Reuters)

“Ford announced … that it would increase the price of all its models within the UK from the start of April 2009, by an average of 3.75%.” – (Marketing Week)

Although Ford have decided to increase prices, it seemed to be perhaps only because their prices were dramatically lowered (this is the reason my own parents bought a brand new Ford which has ‘Kinetic Design’, during the recession) in the months beforehand. Many of Ford’s rivals went into administration and bankruptcy. The implications of this on Ford are that although they too suffered in the downturn, they have survived and now have more of a share in the market. People who exclusively drove other types of car may now turn to Ford.

“Ford Motor Co. plans to allot more money for its advertising and marketing in the next six months compared with current levels, according to marketing chief Jim Farley. He declined to give exact amounts however. Farley emphasized that Ford isn’t raising its marketing budget in response to announcements by General Motors Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. of their own budget increases. He said that Ford has decided on the higher level of spending during this period since last year. He explained that while its rivals actually need to do this because they lost their share of the market, Ford is in a “completely different place” since people are interested in Ford. He added that the purpose of its marketing is to “educate them more.” Ford is the only U.S. automaker to survive outside bankruptcy while Chrysler Group emerged from bankruptcy in June and GM exited in July. Ford intends to augment advertising on vehicles launched in the past year.” (4wheelsnews – 29th October)

In ‘Ogilvy on Advertising’(1983, Pan Books), David Ogilvy (who founded Ogilvy, the company that produced the Ford Kinetic advertisement) talked about advertising in a recession.

“If you stop advertising a brand which is still in it’s introductory phase, you will probably kill it – for ever. [...] In a Morril survey of 40,000 men and women involved in the purchase of 23 industrial products over five years, it was found that share-of-market went up in bad times – when advertising was continued.” (p. 170)

This idea applies to what has happened to Ford in this particular case.

“Ford Motors Co. claims that in September 2009, it exceeded expectations. Ford’s new-car sales in its main 19 European markets rose 12.3% to 152,600 last month compared with the year before. Ford achieved a 10.1% market share in September in its 19 European main markets, the best share for any month since September 2001 and a 0.8 percentage point increase on the same month last year.”
(4wheelsnews – 12 Oct)

Sources:
Reuters (accessed 06/11/09)
Marketing Week (accessed 06/11/09)
Ogilvy on Advertising (David Ogilvy, 1983, Pan Books)
4wheelsnews (acccessed 06/11/09)