A Framework for
Understanding Social
Criticism of Advertising
and
SPENCER F. TINKHAM
Meaningful responses to the
social criticism of advertising depend upon the advertiser's awareness of the
critical arguments as well as
upon an objective evaluation
of their validity and the
premises upon which they
were based. The authors present a structure to guide the
design of research which will
provide objective evidence on
social criticisms of advertising.
Journal of Marketing,
1971), pp, 2-7.
Vol, 36
N his book. Confessions of an Advertising Man, David Ogilvy
asserts that advertising should be reformed. He cites a poll
by Hill & Knowlton which found that academicians and other
"thought leaders" held unfavorable attitudes toward advertising,
and concludes that reform is necessar>' for the survival of Madison
Avenue. "The danger to my bread-and-butter," he states, "arises
out of the fact that what thought-leaders think today, the majority
of voters are likely to think tomorrow."'
Ogilvy may not have cause for concern. Certainly, intellectual
arguments are not always legitimized by voter majorities; and
indeed, public opinion does not always determine the nature of
public policy decisions. Nevertheless, whether or not one accepts
the patterns of influence suggested by the Ogilvy statement, the
statement's implicit warning to advertisers definitely merits attention. That warning may be stated as follows: Those "thought
leaders" who criticize the social effects of advertising today may determine future public policy toward advertising either directly by
influencing policy makers or indirectly by influencing public opinion. Therefore, the advertiser must know what the social critics
of advertising are saying. Furthermore, he must evaluate the
critical arguments as well as the premises upon which they are
based; for only by doing this will he be in a position to develop a
meaningful response to criticism.
The advertiser's response to these critical arguments may range
from ignoring the criticism to modifying or eliminating a criticized activity or method. If the criticism is untrue because of
faulty premises or invalid because of illogical arguments, then a
counter-argument can be developed to convince the "thought leader"
that his criticism is unsound. If the advertiser fails, he may use
his superior counter-argument for the purpose of negating the
possible impact of the criticism, thus, becoming a potential "thought
leader" himself. It is clear, however, that a meaningful response
to advertising criticism depends upon the advertiser's willingness
to change his behavior if an objective evaluation of critical arguments supports the critics' claims. Thus, once the critical arguments have been identified, the central issue is whether they are
objectively valid.
In reviewing the critics' arguments, it becomes apparent that
criticism sometimes focuses on the advertiser's methods and activities; while at other times, the object of criticism is the alleged
I
JOHN A. HOWARD
(October.
1 David Ogilvy, Confessions of an Advertising Man (New York: Atheneum, 1963), p. 164.
4 Framework for Understanding Social Criticism of Advertising
effects of advertising itself. Nevertheless, most of
the former criticism of advertisers' methods and
activities is, indeed, motivated by an underlying
assumption of advertising effect. If. for example,
an advertiser is criticized for using "emotional"
appeals, the critic generally assumes that the appeals are perceived as the advertiser intended. Thus,
he assumes an isomorphic relationship between the
method of appeal and the consumer's perception of
it; and his criticism of the advertiser's method can
be interpreted as, in fact, criticism of the effect
his method has on the consumer's perceptual process.
Nevertheless, this type of criticism places the emphasis on the "cause" rather than the assumed
perceptual "effect." On the other hand, criticism
of the power and influence of advertising is directly
concerned with alleged effects after the advertising
itself has been perceived. Therefore, such criticism
may be readily associated with the consumer's cognitive or learning process. On a social or cultural
level, this second type of criticism considers advertising's alleged effects on aggregates of individuals.
A Framework for Analysis
The preceding paragraphs suggest the need for
a systematic way to classify and analyze arguments
against the methods, activities, and influence of
advertisers. Such a classification should give some
order to the plethora of critical arguments, thus
aiding the advertiser in his efforts to understand
them. This systematic structure for classification
should also facilitate the objective analysis of the
arguments against advertising. The authors' intention in this article is to identify the arguments
of advertising's social critics and to discuss them in
the context of such an underlying conceptual
framework. Figure 1 should be helpful for organizing the discussion.
Boxes 1 and 2 can be thought of as "causal"
variables, and Boxes 3 and 4 as "effect" variables.
However, to be consistent with the preceding discussion, the boxes should actually be identified as
processes. In this manner the consumer's perceptual process is represented by Boxes 1 and 2, and
his cognitive or learning process by Boxes 3 and 4.
Of course, processes per se cannot be objectively
validated or tested; only the mechanisms that constitute the processes can be validated.
To relate the criticisms to the specific mechanisms would inordinately complicate the exposition.
The authors prefer, for the sake of simplicity, to
keep the discussion at the "box" or process level.
By considering each of the boxes in turn, the
critics' arguments can be classified in terms of the
two ways the advertiser creates attention, and the
two ways he creates value for the product or brand.
Explicit definitions of each box follow:
1. The term, "nonfunctional attention devices"
1
NonTuncTionQl
Aiterihon Devices
z
FuncTional
Aneni'ion Devices
3
FuncTional
Value Creo+eJ
NonfuncTional
Value Created
FIGURE
1. A framework for analyzing the arguments of
advertising critics.
means advertising stimuli which have nothing
to do with the product's physical or psychological benefits to the buyer.
2. "Functional attention devices," on the other
hand, refer to those advertising stimuli that
directly or clearly suggest physical or psychological benefits of the product.
3. "Functional value created" is the direct benefit of the product as perceived by the consumer, which results from exposure to advertising stimuli. Functional values may be
classified as either physical or psychological,
but often this dichotomy is referred to as the
• ABOUT THE AUTHORS. John A.
Howard is professor of morketing at
the Columbia University Graduate
School of Business. He is chairman of
the Academic Advisory Committee.
Consumer Research Institute, and a
member of the Board of Trustees of
the Marketing Science Institute. Professor Howard also serves as a consultant in consumer affairs to the
United States Department of Commerce.
Spencer F. Tinkham is an associate
in business at Columbia University. He
received a BS in mathematics from the
University of North Carolina. Chapel
Hill, where he was a Morehead
Scholar; and an MS in advertising
from the University of Illinois, where
he held a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship in mathematics and an NDEA
Title IV Fellowship in communications.
The authors wish to thank the Education Foundation of the American Association of Advertising
Agencies for providing funds for this study, and lohanna E.
Alpert for her assistance in library research work.
Journal of Marketing, October, 1971
real vs. the synthetic, or the innate vs. the
learned.
Broadly interpreted, "functional
value created" is an advertising-induced
change in the consumer's belief structure with
respect to the capacity of the product or brand
to serve his needs.
4. "Nonfunctional value created" also refers to
an advertising-induced change in the consumer's belief structure. In this case, however, beliefs are changed with respect to
objects other than the product or brand being
advertised. For example, advertising may
influence the consumer's belief structure with
respect to the following: (1) The self, (2) the
ideal self, (3) others, (4) present possessions
and other physical objects, and ( 5) value-laden
symbolic concepts. Like the product or brand,
these objects may be associated with either
physical or psychological benefits, or both.
Discussion of Critical Arguments
The specific arguments against the methods, activities, and influence of advertisers can now be
considered within this framework.^ Each box will
be discussed separately, and examples of critical
viewTioints as,sociated with it will be noted. In this
way the definitions stated above can also be clarified.
Nonfunctional Attention Devices
The critic generally does not approve of the advertiser's use of nonfunctional attention devices.
Indeed, any activity or method associated with Box
1 is subject to criticism. Advertising stimuli of the
nonfunctional type, such as mood music, do not
relate directly to a product benefit; the critic often
views such devices as irrelevant, irritable, confusing, and distracting. Thus, nonfunctional attention devices are said to limit the consumer's
ability to process useful information.
The criticism that advertising irritates the
aesthetic sensibilities often focuses upon the nonfunctional attention device. For example, Galbraith
states:
To assert aesthetic goals is also to interfere
seriously with the management of the consumer.
2 See, for example, J, K. Galbraith, The New Industrial
State (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967); Ralph Glasser. The New High Priesthood (London: Macmillan,
1967) ; James D. Halloran, Control or Consent? (London: Sheed & Ward, 1963); Jules Henry, Culture
Against Man (New York: Random House, 1963);
James Hulbert, "Advertising: Criticism and Reply,"
Business and Society, Vol. IX (Autumn, 1968) ; Ralph
Ross and Ernest van den Haag, The Fabric of Society (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1957);
Arnold Toynbee, "Is it Immoral to Stimulate Buying?" Printers' Ink. Vol. 279 (May 11, 1962); and
Colston E. Warne, "Advertising—A Critic's View,"
JOURNAL OF MARKETING, Vol. XXVI (October, 1962),
pp. 10-14.
This, in many of its manifestations, requires dissonance—a jarring of the aesthetic sensibilities.
An advertising billboard that blends gracefully
into the landscape is of little value; it must be
in sharp contrast with surroundings. . . . The
same principles of planned dissonance are even
more spectacularly in evidence in the radio and
television commercial.^
Another example of the nonfunctional attention
device is a direct appeal or statement about objects
other than the advertiser's product or brand. The
advertiser may make statements about the consumer, about how others perceive the consumer or
relate to the consumer, or about a particular life
style that contrasts with that of the consumer. The
critic generally regards this type of nonfunctional
attention device with disdain; for. he asserts, that
it is often intended to produce dissatisfaction with
self, envy of others, arousal of emotions, and artificially unrealistic levels of material aspiration.
A third nonfunctional attention device was noted
by television producer. Eliot Daley: "Sex is just
another marketing tool. Use it to tease a would-be
buyer of cat food or razor blades or something.
Sex: use as needed to grease the Gross National
Product."*
Warne suggests that the advertiser freely and
eagerly makes use of nonfunctional attention devices ; and this behavior is deplorable to him: "Practitioners of advertising have eaten the fruit of a
new tree of knowledge. Many today openly proclaim their objective to be appeals to the irrational
or the irrelevant."5
Functional Attention Devices
It appears that the critics generally acknowledge
the need for functional attention devices, but on a
limited basis. For instance, they would eliminate
the methods and strategies designed to affect the individual's beliefs about the psychological benefits
of the product. Although the critics recognize a
need for those functional attention devices related
to physical product benefits, they often perceive
even this tjT)e of functional appeal to be deceptive.
Thus, functional attention devices, if they relate the
product to a psychological benefit, are viewed as
innately deceptive, since the benefit they promise is
not viewed as being "real." Functional attention
devices of the physical type are viewed as deceptive,
however, only when they promise a physical benefit
that the critic does not recognize. An example
would be a promise of physical security in an advertisement for a car that the critic regards as
unsafe.
•^ Galbraith, same reference as footnote 2. p. 348.
* Eliot Daley, "What Produced Those Pot-Smoking,
Rebellious, Demonstrating Kids?—Television!" TV
Guide, Vol. XVIII (November 7-13, 1970), p. 10.
•"'Warne, same reference as footnote 2, p. 11.
A Framework for Understanding Social Criticism of Advertising
Value Creation
While criticism of the advertiser's methods and
actions is quite common, it seem.s that Boxes 3 and
4, repre.senting "effects" of advertising on the consumer's cognitive or learning process are subject to
a more severe form of criticism. It is true that the
linkage between advertising and objectionable consequences is often assumed; and the critic, instead
of discussing the processes linking "cau.se" and
"effect," focuses on dismal phenomena which he
observes or predicts. Since the "effects" that the
critic describes are often considered to be residual,
not necessarily intended by the advertiser or even
under his control, the arguments associated with
Boxes 3 and 4 often do not blame the advertiser for
the phenomena he supposedly "causes." Indeed, by
hypothesizing residual effect.s, the critic may actually add to the impact of his argument; for these
"effects," not being readily controllable, seem particularly damaging to the individual, to society,
and to culture.
It should be noted that the "effects" associated
with Box 3 are considered to be more directly under
the advertiser's control than those associated with
Box 4 because the former relate specifically to the
product or brand. This does not mean, of course,
that the advertiser does not always try to infiuence
nonfunctional values. In fact, the advertiser generally believes in the power of Box 4 for many product appeals. However, the critic would suggest that
money spent on Box 4 is positively detrimental to
the consumer's welfare, particularly in ways that
may not be intended by the advertiser.
Functional Value Created
As previously mentioned, one of the major criticisms of the advertiser is his alleged use of deceptive functional attention de%'ices. Associated with
this criticism is the belief that, indeed, the consumer can be quite .seriously deceived. Thus in examining Box 3, "effects," the critic concludes that
advertising creates beliefs about psychological
product benefits which are, by their very nature,
not "real"; or it produces beliefs about physical
product benefits which are not "true." Furthermore,
the critic asserts that the structure of the consumer's functional belief system is often distorted
by advertising, so that even if all the product benefits in his belief system are true, he may give some
of them undue importance. Thus, it is claimed that
advertising changes the relative importance of perceived product benefits." The critic may assert, for
example, that advertising causes many consumers to
believe that automobile styling is a more important
product benefit than automobile safety.
A slightly different critical argument maintains
6 Edward L. Brink and William T. Kelley, The Management of Promotion (Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall, 1963), p. 322.
that advertising accentuates the importance of the
product or brand to the e.xtent that perceived product benefits become dominant in the consumer's
overall system of values. If this is the case for a
number of products, then the individual's orientation may be labeled "materialistic." On a societal
level, then, the critic claims that the aggregate
effect of advertising is to distort the value system
in the direction of materialism and hedonism. Some
critics, such as Potter, deplore the materialism they
view as resulting from advertising;
Certainly it marks a profound social change that
this new institution for shaping human standards
should be directed, not, as are the school and the
church, to the inculcation of beliefs or attitudes
that are held to be of social value, but rather to
the stimulation or even the exploitation of materialistic drives and emulative anxieties and
then to the validation, the sanctioning and the
standardization of these drives and anxieties as
accepted social values.'
Nonfunctional Value Created
It will be recalled that Box 4, "nonfunctional
value created," relates to the individual's valuation
of objects other than the product or brand of the
advertiser. As mentioned above, the critic judges
almost all "effects" in this box as detrimental to
the consumer. Regardless of his actual intentions,
the advertiser changes the consumer's evaluative
beliefs about objects other than his product. For
example, the critics claim the advertiser may change
the consumer's beliefs about himself, thus fostering
dissatisfaction with self or distortion of the selfconcept.*
Dissatisfaction with self may occur in at least two
ways. If dissatisfaction is regarded as a function
of the perceived difference between the individual's
self-concept and his ideal self-concept (the type of
person he would most like to be), then dissatisfaction may increase if the individual's self-evaluation
becomes more unfavorable. Dissatisfaction may
also increase if the individual evaluates his ideal
self-concept. If advertising causes the individual
to feel unfavorable toward himself in some sense,
then the first type of dissatisfaction may be produced; and if advertising presents the individual
with stimuli that increase his self-aspirations, then
the second type of dissatisfaction may be produced.
In one sense, of course, dissatisfaction may be
viewed as beneficial to the individual, for it may
provide a motivation for self-improvement. In the
critical sense, however, the absolute or relative
devaluation of self is said to produce anxieties and
frustrations.
David M. Potter, People of Plenty: Economic Abundance and the American Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), p. 188.
Marquis W. Childs and Douglass Cater, Ethics in a
Business Society (New York: Harper & Brothers,
1954), pp. 168-170.
6
A recent article by Levitt contains a comment
made by Charles Revson of Revlon. Inc. Mr. Revson stated, "In the factory we make cosmetics; in
the store we sell hope."" The critic of advertising
would say that the hope stimulated by Revlon advertising may increase the consumer's evaluation
of her ideal self, resulting in a relative devaluation
of the actual self. Indeed, he may assert that the
consumer experiences anxiety and frustration in her
attempts to close the gap between the actual and
the ideal self.
Advertising is said to produce not only dissatisfaction with self, and accompanying anxiety and
frustration, but also a distortion of self, which may
be interpreted as the valuing of self for the
"wrong" reasons. The critics suggest that the
mechanism for this distortion could be direct statements by the advertiser about the individual consumer, statements about the way the individual
views others and the way they view him, or statements about the relationship between the individual
and physical objects. For example. Action for
Children's Television (ACT) asserted that children's television commercials strain the parentchild relationship. This assertion was supported by
a survey which found that mothers have unfavorable attitudes toward children's television commercials.*° ACT quoted a television columnist and
critic who stated:
The makers of 115 toys know that Junior must
be worked up to fever pitch if he is to have
sufficient fanatical gleam in his eye to wrest that
much cash from Dad. So they pour on the juice.
The deafening, super-souped ads for a Johnny
Shriek Racer or a Kill-Krush Robot are designed
to fill Junior with powei'-lust. Some ads teach
him how to hit Dad for the loot.**
The individaal, of course, defines and evaluates
himself at least partially in response to his perceptions of others and how they relate to him. If he
believes that others value him because of his possessions, for example, then this may determine his
evaluation of self, his evaluation of the importance
of possessions, as well as his evaluation of others.
The critic views advertising as a stimulus that acts
to define for the individual the nature of this selfother-object system. This system, as defined by
advertising, produces or fosters a value system that
is "harmful," either because it results in anxiety
and frustration or because it is not consistent with
the value system that the critic considers desirable
for the individual, society, or culture. Many critics
9 Theodore Levitt, "The Morality (?) of Advertising,"
Harvard Business Review, Vol. XLVIII (July-August, 1970), p. 85.
10 Earle K. Moore and Edward A. Bernstein, "Reply
Comments of Action for Children's Television," paper
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission, April 29, 1970, p. 9.
1* Same reference as footnote 10, p. 8.
Journal of Marketing, October, 1971
have described the value system which they believe
is fostered by advertising. Two examples which
may be regarded as typical are noted below.
In a chapter entitled "Advertising," Whitehead
considers the consequences of the advertiser's use of
functional attention devices of the psychological
type:
Even more insidious may be the advertiser's
growing ingenuity in linking his product with
ideas and images which are in themselves innocuous, pleasurable, even commendable. In consequence of this the concepts of sexual love, manliness, femininity, maternal feeling are steadily
devalued for us by their mercenary association
with a brand-name. . . .'Halloran describes the society he sees resulting
from an advertising value system:
To consume becomes the main principle of life
and there is a tendency for emotions and feelings
to become more involved with things (goods)
than with people. There is little room for altruism, idealism or unselfishness, and it seems
highly probable that this concentration on consumption of material goods will produce attitudes
unfavorable to responsibility for others and their
needs, a mode of thinking which will habitually
suppress large areas of our real relationships (including our dependence on others and a sense of
community), and inward-turning on the self,
away from matters of dispute and social concern,
away from responsibility.*^
Conclusion
The charges against advertising that have been
reviewed and analyzed in this article are largely
unsupported. This condition is generally recognized by both advertiser and critic. While the advertiser usually acknowledges the possibility of
negative effects, he seems too busy with his professional functions to supply the critics with objective evidence regarding these issues. The critic,
on the other hand, tends to assume the worst and,
on that basis, hastens to recommend a "responsible"
course of action against advertising. The critic's
position is aptly stated in the Moore and Bernstein
report to the Federal Communications Commission.
Noting that the Surgeon General's research is not
likely to produce conclusive evidence concerning the
effects of television violence on children, these critics
assert that the Surgeon General's studies are even
less likely to produce conclusive evidence concerning
the effects of children's television commercials:
Certainly they will not tell us with assurance the
*2 Frank Whitehead, "Advertising," in Discriminatiov
and Popular Culture, Denys Thompson, ed. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964), p. 31.
13 Halloran, same reference as footnote 2, pp. 70-71.
A Framework for Understanding Social Criticism of Advertising
consequences of the shabby materialism and deception which is the television commercial's contribution to the American child.
The effects of these practices must be weighed
and action must be taken in the light of traditional American principles and the ethical attitudes which parents have sought to impart to
children for generations.'*
Significantly, in this information vacuum the
charges against advertising increasingly seem to be
regarded as authoritative. Galbraith, for example,
is now being cited as an authority on advertising
in the most respected scientific circles, Morison
uses The Affluent Society as evidence when he states,
"Indeed, it can be shown that the modern affluent
consumer is, in a sense, a victim of synthetic de-
sires which are created rather than satisfied by increased production."'^
Clearly, it is appropriate to reassert the need for
objective evidence as a basis for sound public policy
decisions. The authors believe that the structure
presented here and its constituent constructs are
operational enough to guide the design of research
that can provide needed objective evidence. It is
an accepted axiom in research that posing the
question properly is a major step toward an.swering
it. Certainly, the framework for analyzing the
arguments of advertising critics does ask the appropriate questions to the extent that it states with
precision those issues implied by the popular social
criticisims of advertising but seldom, if ever, made
explicit.
1* Same reference as footnote 10, p. 10.
I""' Robert S. Morison, "Science and Social Attitudes,"
Scievce, Vol. CLXV (July-September, 1969), p. 152.
MARKETING MEMO
The key to success in business . . .
Do the corporate high achievers have any "secrets" that other companies can
benefit from knowing? The answer is a definite yes. . . .
All the companies in the study are in different internal and external postures. It
was therefore surprising that among the various success factors we identified there
is one that is present in every single company. It is this: All of the companies place
great emphasis on their people. Some of the presidents limit their focus primarily
to executives, while others speak in terms of all company employees. Nevertheless,
all the presidents clearly realize that everything the company accomplishes is through
people. . . .
The late Vince Lombardi once said that winning football games was a matter of
getting inside the players. The chief executives have said, in essence, the same thing.
In order to make a company successful, management must enlist wholehearted employee support for company objectives.
—Henry 0. Golightly. "What Makes a
Company Successful?" Business Horizons, Vol. XIV (June, 1971), pp. 11-18,
at pp. 11, 17, and 18.