When an ad rouses us to laughter or to some other emotional response, we are appreciative that we have been given something to remember. But most of us do not know where the ad came from and we usually are not interested enough to ask. Inured as we are to the idea of advertising as persuasion, we do not find most advertising particularly remarkable, even when an individual ad or campaign delights us. In fact, we expect ads to attempt to stand out from all the others because advertising clutter makes individual ads seem invisible. Nor is it typical for us to examine how the commercial message has created common ground between us and an unknown speaker, and a ground that is substantial enough to exert an emotional pull. That advertising’s creators work anonymously, for the most part, naturalizes commercial discourse because there is no one individual whom we can hold responsible for it. It becomes the common social capital of our culture even as we each have an individual relationship with it. This anonymity helps us internalize some of its persuasive objectives. On the other hand, when a politician, for example,
21
stands up to speak, we see her and believe she is responsible for the words coming out of her mouth, even when we know she has not written her own speech. The anonymity of the creators of advertising helps to naturalize this commercial discourse in a way that no other form of public communication is naturalized. It seems to grow naturally out of our midst as a culture, the offspring of the marriage of entertainment and technology. Since we do need some of the products we buy for subsistence and utilitarian purposes, we consequently may be less critical of what else we are buying when we pay for an object or a service.
The ad writers and producers tell us stories, but they do not claim their place as authors and creators. In the relationship between audience and advertiser, we tend to see ourselves in relation to the messages and products in advertising, but not in relation with advertising’s creators because we do not pay attention to the authors, only the artefacts. When the ad is a testimonial, whether it is from a celebrity or an “actual” client, we build a relationship with the character in the ad, but the relationship is mediated through the product. This process of relation is similar to the process of becoming caught up in a story: we become involved with the plot arc or the characters, but not usually and not explicitly, the author. Like authors of fiction, ad creators do not invite us explicitly to see ourselves in a relationship with them. The men and women who conceive of, write, and produce these ads are a blend of creative artist and astute business person. They function as a conduit between mass culture and popular culture but, paradoxically, in a culture that thrives on fame and celebrity, ad makers are mostly anonymous and never mentioned in on-screen credits or by-lines.
Because the ad creations are unsigned and unclaimed, they are thrust more fully into the spotlight as naturalized artefacts that grow out of the context in which they appear. We welcome them into our private lives because they seem to be a natural part of our environment. That this
22
should be so seems absolutely natural to us because it has been this way since the birth of modern advertising12. While we are inundated by ads, we are also mostly de-sensitized to their pervasiveness and, mostly, incurious about their makers. It may seem that ads are not important enough to be publicly and proudly claimed by their creators except within the industry’s circle of professionals. It may seem that ads are disposable: print advertising ends up in the recycle or garbage bin, while ads on electronic media such as TV, radio, and the Internet seem ephemeral, with a fleeting life. It may also seem that the ads produce themselves. We do not admire the creative teams who write, produce, storyboard, or illustrate ads, nor do we ask about their unconscious intentions or look for patterns and motifs in their work, even though we do so with other modes of discourse; for example, movies have audience ratings, TV shows often come with advisories and warnings, and political commentators take on politicians. Advertising goes mostly unnoticed13.
Because the ad makers are mostly anonymous, a significant aspect of their situational context is hidden. One of the naturalized assumptions is that the people involved in creating the ad are not as important as the ad itself. This assumption is based, in part, on the anonymity of the ad’s creators. Since the product, brand, or company is more important than who actually produces the messages, advertising is not visibly attributable to people, making it seem a kind of organic outgrowth of the relationship between economic systems and communication technology.
12 Daniel Pope, a business historian claims, “institutionally and ideologically, modern advertising had taken shape by 1920” (7). He also asserts, “By 1920, American advertising had more in common with its counterpart today than with the advertising of a generation earlier” (6). See The Making of Modern Advertising (New York: Basic Books, 1983).
13 The advertising industry does recognize its own creativity with a variety of awards, and there are ethical standards and limits put on commercial content by various bodies; however, for the most part, advertising does not experience the same public critique that other forms of public discourse do. For example, political rhetoric is examined on shows such as NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and CTV’s “Question Period” to name just two.
23
These powerful and influential commercial messages are a part of the landscape and may even appear to be endorsed by the groups who own or manage the public spaces in which they appear. For example, when public transit buses are splattered with ads, audiences may believe that the transit company believes in or supports the use of the product being advertised. The association between the medium and the messages it carries may suggest that it approves those messages14.