Ads and Myths

A professor recently explained to me that the study of advertising and its effects on the populace is not looked highly upon in academia. The professor went as far to say that "if you don't want to get tenure, study advertising."

I'm not sure how to begin expressing my disappointment with this sentiment.

I've mentioned before that the average American sees somewhere around 5,000 ads a day. There is no doubt that Ads effect us in significant ways. An argument could be put forward to assert that ads control the majority of our lives. I think this dramatic, but I have heard it done.

Even if we see ads as ridiculous and silly, which we often do, their power over the public is undeniable. Zizek theorized that even though we might make fun of an ad or television show, we still pay attention to it. He believed that we were still truly effected. You may make fun as you watch and look, but you still watch and look. You are still listening to the messages of the hegemonic structure.

The question is how do these proclamations of the material effect us? Perhaps more pointedly, how do the ads present meaning.

Little recent work of merit has been done on this question. As aforementioned in different words, academics won't study something that will detract from or ruin their career.

What we are left with is the somewhat dated work of Judith Williamson ("Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising").

Through William’s take on advertisements we look for and are shown a second, latent and hidden, but also unconscious, meaning.

We are lead to rationalize the signified by means of the signifier.

Through this idea Williamson presented the idea that ads are not simply transparent vehicles of their messages. Although Williamson believes that ads present information which is frequently untrue and attempt to persuade people to buy useless or unnecessary products: she believes this criticism to be the greatest obstacle in understanding the role of ads in society. This take on ads only looks at the overt content rather then the ads form. In other words, ignoring the content of the form.

Here Williamson drops words content and form because, when used as a pair, they already assume that conveyors of messages are significant things in themselves and that it is messages which exist in the realm of the ideal. Replaces content and form with signifier (the object) and signified (the meanings attached to said object).

This move is perhaps a jab at Theodor Adorno, who spoke in terms of signifier and signified.

Williamson gives an example of a tire advertisement in order to show HOW ads mean rather then WHAT they mean. Herein we can begin to see how they affect us.

This ad shows a car stopped on a line at the very end of a pier. The ad celebrates good year tires for being able to still stop on a dime (or line) after doing 36,000 miles. With all that wear and they still stop!

According to Williamson:

The rational message here describes actual tests and results and gives a logical argument to show that the tires are safe and durable. Here the jetty equals risk.

The significance of the jetty is, HOWEVER, the opposite of danger and works in a way that is not part of the rational narrative of the ad.

The Jetty itself resembles a tire (it is rounded and black) and has some tires attached around its outside, it is a picture of strength against water and erosion. The strength of the jetty equals the strength of the tire.

It turns out that the Jetty is merely part of the apparatus for conveying a message about tire durability.

It works on almost an unconscious level, it is not overt or clear at first glance. There is a irrational leap on the basis of the correlation between the two objects (tire and jetty) made on the basis of appearance and juxtaposition.

The signifier of the overt meaning in the ad has its own function, a place in creating an additional and less obvious meaning.

Williamson's argument presents three crucial points here:

1) The meaning of the signifier involves a correlation of two things: the significance of the jetty is transferred to the tire. This is non-sequential: they are not aligned by in a narrative or through argument but by their place in the picture.

2) This transference requires US to make the connection. The transference of the strength of the jetty to the tire does not happen until we make it.

3) The transference itself is based on the fact that the first object, the jetty, has significance to be transferred. We are invited to make meaning, the ad does not initially do this for us.

Here we can see that the way in which we are effected by ads is more in the realm of the unconscious.

I find this extremely interesting. This suggests that ads role as "hidden persuaders" (a long argued theory before Williamson's article) is more nuanced.

Williamson's theories are enlightening and, for me, life changing. I am now slightly more educated about how advertising works. Although I have not completely answered the trophy question of how ads effect us and HOW they mean, I believe Williamson's argument takes us on the right path.