The Issue in Advertising

Advertising is discriminatory. I’d argue that it has to be to a degree, in order to reach its desired demographic. However, when it comes to marginalized groups (with the focus here being on that of women), the message may innocuous at its core (buy this product!) – yet the method by which it is delivered is often demeaning, demoralizing, and ultimately harmful. The delivery is how the advertiser goes about targeting the psyche of the potential consumer in the way that will resonate most deeply.

For women, we’re typically offered a paradoxical identity. This dichotomy presented to us, the one that we’re told to seek as to fit a set standard for women as a whole, is impossible to achieve. While women are taught that they should want and seek an unattainable way of being, they’re not the only ones impacted – just as well, (heterosexual) men are taught to desire this wholly unrealistic image of woman. And yet, these images are perpetuated throughout the medium in such an aggressive way because they’re effective. Advertising can chip away at one’s self-esteem and self-worth. Their overabundance make them exceptionally difficult to avoid (Kilbourne, "Beauty and the Beast of Advertising," p. 121). Unfortunately, the impact these negatively-charged images have on women, as well as other marginalized people, is viewed as nothing more than collateral damage when there’s money to be made.

I feel that there’s an easily digestible (albeit relatively simplified) explanation to be had, broken down into two parts: 1) prevailing cultural attitudes/norms that were established hundreds of years ago, still maintained to this day (see: the patriarchy), and 2) the male dominion of money as the ultimate form of power. Let’s start with the former. The male gaze and the objectification of women plays a crucial role in advertising, of course. It’s not dissimilar to how we’ve been represented in all forms of media for a long, long time. (This regressive view of gender roles and stereotyping in advertising is just as common in other parts of the world.)

For centuries, women have had limited domain over the realm of media as a whole. Patriarchal ideals and norms are still a powerful force within our culture despite the growth of feminism, and especially so when it comes to advertising. The way that the status quo is upheld, the ultimate form of power and validation, is money. Large companies shape and shift the social narrative in accordance with how much they’re willing to spend, ans everything’s an investment. I don’t have the research nor statistics re: ad campaign revenue to back up this claim, but I genuinely believe that the proof of profit is there. If it weren’t, this tactic likely wouldn’t be as common as it is.

Advertising certainly helps define culture. As Jean Kilbourne states: "It is not only the girls themselves who see these images, of course. Their parents and teachers and doctors see them and they influence their sense of how girls should be (Kilbourne, "Cutting Girls Down to Size," p. 139)." We're all unfortunately highly susceptible to the message. Some people choose to critique this history of humiliation and turn it into something empowering:

Sooth your soul and check out this artist recreating old sexist ads with the roles reversed.

I came across an interesting quote regarding a study conducted in 2002 about the effectiveness (or rather, supposed ineffectiveness) of sex-based marketing:

"The reason why people don't remember the ads in violent material is because they are thinking about the violence, not the Tide advertisement," Bushman says. Similarly, he says, after viewing sexual content, viewers are thinking about sex instead of the commercials.

In context, the study is referring to advertisements shown during programs that contain sexual and/or violent imagery. The argument of the study this quote was referencing is that the popular phrase “sex sells” isn’t really true – which is only accurate if you look at it from the rather limited and somewhat dishonest perspective they provide. It’s clear that these sorts of images linger within one’s subconscious for a while post-viewing, since it’s retained long enough for more mundane advertising to be rendered ineffective. The logical conclusion here is that especially graphic and/or shocking imagery to make the audience feel vulnerable tends to have the strongest visceral impact. (Here’s an interesting article if you want to know a little bit about the neuroscience behind why sex affects our spending habits.) 

It’s of no surprise that negative messages that are presented in a tactless way affect people deeply. I mean, I don’t really need a study to know that, as I’ve struggled with body image issues and the feeling that I’m not desirably feminine enough for the majority of my life because of the way media propagates the idea of the standard woman. Wykes and Gunter sum this feeling up succinctly in “Body Messages and Body Meanings”: “A further reason for the focus on women was that it is women’s bodies, rather than any other attributes, which appear to make them worthy of being represented. […] The female body is spectacle, both something to be looked at, whether real or mediated, and to be looked through in search for feminine identity (Wykes & Gunter, p. 206).” Berger’s point in “Ways of Seeing” is a common thread throughout all critique, because it’s the undeniable truth. And no matter how bullshit you might think it is, or how much you try to steel yourself against the message, it still very much resonates (see this study).

When it comes to the media I consume, I tend to avoid a good majority of the advertising I’d otherwise be confronted with if it weren’t for browser add-ons like uBlock. Of course, most websites have caught on and now inundate you with pop-ups when they’ve detected that you have an ad blocker turned on, begging you to turn it off. The only time I ever do turn it off is when I’d be totally unable to access the content, and that’s typically only to read an article. I only listen to two podcasts – one doesn’t feature any advertisements, while the other has both free (w/ ads) and premium (ad-free) versions; needless to say, I always listen to the premium one. I also use ad-free streaming services (and occasionally torrents) when I want to watch a show. Social media is somewhat of a different story, however. Platforms like Instagram and Twitter have promoted advertisements that anyone can pay for, not just businesses. There’s also the more controversial sponsored ads (paid endorsements) which may or may not seem like ads at first, often disguised in the form of real content, which the only real clue being a hashtag at the end. That’s not to say that I’m impervious to ads, but that I often don’t have to think about or even see them much outside of social media, and the ones I see on social media are often quite as regressive as those in print or on television. Perhaps I’m just lucky enough to be blind to a lot of the more distasteful ads now, but the damage has certainly already been done.