Advertising: Communication of information or devious manipulation?

Advertisements these days sell a whole lot more than products . When it comes to this multibillion a year industry, companies are selling values, images, concepts of success and worth, love and sexuality, popularity, social standards. Today's ads sell lifestyles. On billboards and buildings, flyers, television and radio commercials, and magazines whose content is at least half ads. And oftentimes, the content that doesn't come in ad form (tv and radios shows, magazine articles, etc.) in these types of media is edited, censored, and manipulated in order to please the advertisers who pay these media outlets to push their products. On average , teens are exposed to over 3,000 ads...in a single day. And certainly when it comes to advertising ethics and morals are often so subliminally portrayed that people are hugely unaware of the communication, or better stated, manipulation, that is taking place. Is this art form a good/successful means of communication between creator and audience? Certainly, it is successful in Tolstoy's opinion as it communicates the emotion the creator sought to share with the audience. So under this definition, all advertising would be considered art. But is it still successful if this communication is manipulative?

When it comes to one of the most clever ad campaigns of all time, Nike has it down. With such a simple slogan as "Just Do It," and through the implementation of athletic idols, these advertisers communicate a message that says if you wear our products, you'll be just as successful as all of these professionals. And surely enough, last fall the company begin to experience an increase in quarterly dividends. So, undoubtedly, this manipulative art form communicates a message between creator and consumer; whether this is a good or bad thing is up to each individual I suppose.

When it comes to ads like the new Dove campaign, however, is the communication and attitude manipulation of this art form necessarily a bad thing? Typically in the past, ads for these type of products have been critiqued for portraying unhealthy body images which people unrealistically try to achieve. With the Dove ad campaign, though, a new standard has been set--showing realistic healthy women who are proud of their figures and unashamed to share them with society. In my opinion this is a good form of product manipulation, a healthy communication between creator and consumer. Does it make consumers want to support Dove over a competitor who's ad shows a tall thin model getting all of the men? For a more sophisticated, intelligent, and aware consumer, probably. For the majority of consumers, however, not necessarily.

Advertisements, as an art form, certainly appeal to the emotions. Advertisers for all sorts of products attempt to get consumers to purchase their product because it is better than the competitor's--maybe it makes you appear more attractive to the opposite sex, or makes you more successful, or will make your life easier/better in some way. The creator of the ad may have not felt happy/excited/attractive when they made the ad, but certainly they have communicated that emotion to the consumer (if they are successful in their execution).

So is all advertising bad in its manipulation? Are their any campaigns whose consumer control is actually a valuable employment of artistic communication?