Advertising and Politics: A Lesson in Critical Thinking

When Clinton Odell needed to hype his new, brushless shaving cream he decided to sink $200 into roadside advertising.  He sponsored a series of folksy, humorous verses that all ended in the name of his product, “Burma Shave.”  Eighty-eight years later, and 43 years after Burma Shave stopped production, we still know the slogan. 

Advertising is an interesting phenomenon.  At its best it informs and educates us.  At its worst it deceives and manipulates.  It can amuse.  It can entertain.  It can also irritate and offend.  But the truth is that whether someone is a politician or a peddler they are selling something.  What is more, whether it is your time, talent, vote or money that you part with, you, my friend, are a purchaser.  Advertising is the means by which producer and consumer come together at a mutually advantageous junction.

The purpose of advertising is to move you to part with your most valued possessions—your money, your vote, your allegiance.  But, there is one thing that advertising can not do, and this is the key to the entire process.  No advertisement can convince you to buy a product a second time.  You can be lured (some of us easier than others) to buy into a product or idea only once.  After that the product must speak for itself.  The same ad that seemed slick, funny or sincere before you buy a product will seem shallow and mean spirited if you have a bad experience with your purchase. This feeling is even more intense if we parted not with our dollars, but with our vote or faith in human nature. 

Unless someone plans on making all of their money from a single sale, they need to make a product that will meet the expectations of the purchaser.  If not, there is no resale, and those suffering buyer’s remorse do not do so silently.  Advertisers have more problems on their hands than just convincing us to buy their product without raising our hopes impossibly high.  They can actually outsmart themselves when an ad campaign turns into theater.  I loved those cavemen and their, “spot on” parody of the, “metro sexual.”  Unfortunately, I can’t remember from one commercial to the next what product they are hyping.  The characterization has superseded the message.  Advertisers must not only play with our minds but also do battle with a host of habitual patterns and prejudices.  Yes, I use the same laundry powder my mother did.  I would never go to a lawyer who advertised on television, and if Eleanor Roosevelt couldn’t get me to buy margarine nothing will. 

All advertising can do is bait the trap.  If you are a reasoning being, you still have to make the choice whether or not to step into it.  You can’t feel too indignant about being manipulated when you know that manipulation is the goal and you step into the situation with your eyes wide open.  Taking a sample of sausage at the store does not mean you have to buy the sausage.  Laughing at a commercial doesn’t commit you to the product.   And you certainly don’t have to vote for a candidate because they tell you what you want to hear.  In each case personal choice is both a right and a responsibility. 

When we accept the increased consumer knowledge that advertising provides, we must also accept the responsibility to evaluate their message.  What techniques are being used?  What are the parameters of veracity?  How do our needs mesh with the product’s aim and intent?  The more we understand advertising, the more it becomes our servant, and the more advertisers will respect us.

Politicians, on the other hand, only learn lessons one way. 

Listen to the message and keep the faith.