Advertisements: How Do They Persuade Us Essay

Advertisements are part and parcel of our lives. Perhaps, they are one of the most decisive and, at the same time, imperceptible factors moulding and channelling our â€Å"purchasing habits,† so to speak. On the face of it, advertisements promote products and services; they create demand by dint of inducing and increasing consumption. Yet, the ways in which they convey their messages have a profound effect on all aspects of our lives: our happiness, our culture, family and interpersonal relations, business, stereotypes, wealth and status, individuality, and so forth. According to Leiss et al. (1990: 1), advertising is ‘a â€Å"privileged form of discourse†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢, in that it can attract our attention, insinuating itself into our thought processes and carving out a niche in our lives. As we shall see, advertisements succeed in selling us a lot more than merely products; in fact, they contrive to reconstruct our relations to things and other people—in short, they interfere with our sense of identity, they equate us with things, and manipulate us. Williamson’s observation succinctly encapsulates their power: ‘Advertisements are selling us something else besides consumer goods: in providing us with a structure in which we, and those goods, are interchangeable, they are selling us ourselves’ (Williamson, 1978: 13). In the present study we are concerned with how advertisements, or rather ‘ad men’, to quote Packard (1957), persuade us to buy their products, and exploit our â€Å"hidden† needs—both processes taking place beneath our level of awareness. See more:  First Poem for You Essay In searching for more effective ways of persuading people to buy goods, a great many merchandisers or ‘probers’ (Packard, 1957) turned to psychologists in order to gain insights into the deepest recesses of the psyche and the factors that motivate people, and then to capitalise on their expectations and fears. Equipped with this knowledge, ad men nowadays exert a remarkable influence on people’s habits and conceptualisation of the world and themselves in relation to values—values which are, in great measure, determined by the marketplace. Packard (1957: 14), perhaps one of the most vehement critics of â€Å"the hidden persuaders† who have ensnared us by appealing to our unconscious or subconscious needs, eloquently captures the â€Å"state of the art†: The symbol manipulators and their research advisers have developed their depth view of us by sitting at the feet of psychiatrists and social scientists (particularly psychologists and sociologists) who have been hiring themselves out as ‘practical’ consultants or setting up their own research firms. These ‘motivation analysts’ have definitely become our shamans who, ‘having helped to inspire the fear of the devil [in us], [they offer] redemption’ (Bolinger, 1980: 2) by means of the products they sell. They are not only interested in moving their merchandise off the shelves; they are actually seeking out powerful communicative cues, ‘a discourse through and about objects’ (Leiss et al. , 1990), which will weld together people, products, and cultural models. In view of this, ‘we no longer buy oranges, we buy vitality. We do not buy just an auto, we buy prestige’ (Packard, 1957: 15). The sale of ‘self-images’ (ibid. ) is now the norm. Advertisements barely focus on products alone; it is the prospective buyers that they make â€Å"overtures† to—which is mirrored in the language used and in such features as the colours in the ad, its layout, and so on (we will consider some of these aspects in due course). As Ewen (1976, cited in Leiss et al. 1990: 23) notes, advertisers have effected a ‘self-conscious change in the psychic economy’ by inundating the marketplace with suggestions that consumers should buy goods in order to enter realms of experience previously unfamiliar to them. Gradually then, advertising has become a ‘highly organized and professional system of magical inducements and satisfactions’ (Williams, 1980 [1962], cited in Leiss et al. , 1990: 25) which can sell us emotional security, reassurance of wealth, ego-gratification, creative outlets, love objects, a sense of power and roots, and immortality (see Packard, 1957: 66-74 for further details). Many people would, at this juncture, hasten to defend advertising on the grounds that the consumer is a rational decision maker who avails herself of technology; advertising cannot create new needs but can only help increase or speed up consumption (Schudson, 1984, cited in Leiss et al. , 1990: 36); and without the help of advertising, consumers would have limited information about the products circulating around them. What they lose sight of, though, is the fact that ‘[w]e never relate to goods only for their plain utility; there is always a ymbolic aspect to our interactions with them’ (Leiss et al. , 1990: 45). Now that we have briefly outlined the â€Å"state of the art,† we move on to the actual study of advertisements and the ways in which they persuade us. There are many approaches to this end, but we will draw upon two: semiology, or the study of signs, and content analysis. Semiology, on the one hand, is concerned with the emergence and â€Å"movement† of meaning within the text and between the text and the world surrounding it. Content analysis, on the other, focuses on the surface meaning of an ad, detecting similarities and differences. Indisputably, the growing predominance of visuals in ads has resulted in a kind of ambiguity of meaning, which renders the interpretation of the message more complex and challenging. Earlier advertisements explicitly stated the message by describing the product and adducing arguments in its favour. In the 1920s, however, visuals were more frequently used, and these two, text and visual, became complementary. Still, in the 1960s, the text shifted away from describing the visual toward a more elaborate and mystic form, whereby it functioned as a â€Å"key† to the visual (Leiss et al. 1990: 199). Against this background of radical changes in the form and content of advertisements, the abovementioned approaches, semiology and content analysis, offer us an insight into the structures of ads and help throw light on the subtle elements, expectations and assumptions, with which they are imbued. Roland Barthes (1973, cited in Leiss et al. , 1990: 200-201), following Ferdinand De Saussure’s tradition, divides a sign into two components: the signifier and the signified. The signifier is the material object; the signified is its abstract meaning. Let us illustrate this with Barthe’s own example: Roses signify passion or love. If we analyse their â€Å"meaning,† we have three elements: the signifier—the roses; the signified—passion or love; and the sign—the â€Å"passionified roses† as a whole. Of course, there is nothing inherently â€Å"passionate† or â€Å"amorous† about roses; they are viewed as such within the context of western culture. In another culture, roses could signify something different, even the opposite of passion or love. Thus, any interpretation of advertisements from a semiotic perspective is bound up with cultural norms and values which may be at odds with those operating in different cultures or different systems of meaning. After all, the power of advertisements lies in, and appropriates, these very norms and values, with a view to reconstituting reality, while â€Å"tinging† it with an arcane suggestiveness and elusiveness. Drawing upon several advertisements, we will endeavour to probe into the ‘probers’’ minds, weaving the two approaches together. More specifically, we will focus on the rhetorical devices employed (e. . , metaphors, metonymy, jingles, etc. ), as well as the ways in which the text and the visual element prevail upon us to react, i. e. , to buy the product (e. g. , their proclivity for creating a problem, only to consign it to the â€Å"omnipotence† of the product, their spatial arrangement, etc. ). Unfortunately, an in-depth analysis is outside the remit of this study. Let us consider the following ad: A black Ford Zetec covers two pages in the magazine, while the text reads: â€Å"When the lorry in front loses its load, most drivers would find themselves losing control. Not if you’re driving the new 2. 0 litre Ford Focus Zetec ESP. One of the first cars in its class available with an Electronic Stability Program. ESP constantly assesses the angle you are steering against information received from sensors on the behaviour and direction of the car. By reducing engine power and braking individual wheels it helps you to maintain control and stability, allowing you to stay on track. It’s almost like it knows what to do before you do. So sit back, enjoy the ride and expect more. † And the motto just above the car is: â€Å"just steer. This common, albeit â€Å"catchy,† ad addresses the prospective buyer directly through the use of the pronoun you. What is more, the strategy it employs is that of creating a problem—or rather setting a scene familiar to many a driver (â€Å"When the lorry in front loses its load, most drivers would find themselves losing control. †) Only in the first sentence is there any mention of â€Å"most drivers†Ã¢â‚¬â€apparently in order to juxtapose them to you, the prospective buyer. â€Å"You† are not like â€Å"most drivers† because â€Å"you† are driving â€Å"the new 2. 0 litre Ford Focus Zetec ESP. Another device employed in the ad is the use of personification, as in â€Å"ESP constantly assesses†¦it helps you†¦It’s almost like it knows†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The new Ford Focus is more of a jinee in a bottle waiting for you to rub it than merely a car. All â€Å"you† have to do is â€Å"sit back, enjoy the ride and expect more,† revelling in the security its omnipotence affords. Finally, the pun in â€Å"just steer,† referring to the actual steering of the vehicle and, only obliquely, to the idiom â€Å"to steer clear of,† consciously or unconsciously, dares us to pop into the car and drive, reminding us of our inability to resist the temptation vs. he omnipotence of the vehicle. As Williamson observes, ‘puns perform the correlating function seen in all ads, but in a way that begs to be deciphered†¦condensation draws together both the denoted and connoted meanings of the ad, therefore making a deterministic connection between them’ (Williamson, 1978: 87). Yet, not all ads are so straightforward and direct. Let us examine the following ad (found in Williamson, 1978: 25). The ad shows Catherine Deneuve’s face and a Chanel No 5 bottle. There is no text linking these two; they are simply juxtaposed. But are they really linked, in the first place? One could say that they are supposed to be linked, in terms of an assumption that they are inextricably related. This link, though, is arbitrary, drawing upon our knowledge of a glamorous world of films and magazines, which Deneuve has come to be associated with. Thus, in juxtaposing her face, which signifies beauty and glamour, with Chanel No 5, there is a â€Å"latent† transference of meaning from Deneuve’s face to the product, and back again. Not only is her face rendered an object that is summoned to â€Å"argue† in favour of the product, but it also depends on that product for the beauty and glamour ascribed to it. Here, the use of language is irrelevant, as the ad appropriates the relationship obtaining between signifier (Catherine Deneuve) and signified (glamour and beauty). In other ads, the visual, not only complements, but virtually transcends, the text, to convey a meaning which is not always easy to decipher. Consider the Gordon’s Gin ad, where there are two different photographs of a famous actor of the 1950s, the second one being obviously altered to the point where the actor is barely recognisable. On the left side of the first photo, there is a text in italics, reading: Gordon’s is made with the pick of the Tuscan Juniper. On the right side of the second photo, the text written in a regular typeface reads: â€Å"Other gins are made with what’s left. † Finally, at the bottom of the page, there is a Gordon’s Special Dry London Gin bottle in the middle of the sentence: â€Å"If you’re not drinking (bottle of Gin) what are you drinking? † Apparently, the significance of the ad resides in assumptions and values outside its ‘grammar’ (Williamson, 1978). First of all, the juxtaposition of the two photographs appropriates the general belief that a good photograph means good quality, which then invites the reader to make the connection between he quality of the first photograph with that of the product through the association of the text in italics with the first picture, and the regular text with the second. Furthermore, the thin typeface (i. e. , italics) stands in stark contrast to the regular text, as it is associated with glamour and prestige and arouses â€Å"elegant† feelings. So, the last sentence â€Å"If you’re not drinking (bottle of Gin) what are you drinking? † could easily be rephrased as: â€Å"If you’re not one of those who prefer our gin, then who are you? Once again, the product is â€Å"put on a pedestal,† while tinkering with our desire for approval, that is, suggesting to us that we will find our identity only if we indulge in it. In addition, the use of the calligram, i. e. , the picture of the bottle, instead of the words naming it, establishes the product as something that has a substance all its own, which is beyond words. As Williamson (1978: 91) has noted, the calligram playfully seeks to erase the oldest oppositions of our alphabetical civilisation: to show and to name; to figure and to speak; to reproduce and articulate; to look and to read†¦[It is a] double trap, an inevitable snare.