The Eternal Optimism of the 20-Something Mind.

Freud, Don Draper, and the questionable justification of a not-so-ethical career choice.

I recently told a professor that I wanted to go into advertising when I graduate from USC in May.  His response, “you seem like a smart kid, why would you want to go and do that?” 

He went on to explain that advertising was a desirable career for most young men in the early 60s and many of his college buddies went on to become the original Don Drapers.  But, he could not follow suit because he had an ethical issue with the profession. 

This perception of a lack of ethics in advertising bothered me.  I like to think of myself as an ethical person, I’ve never stolen and I can’t lie to save my life – although this is a skill I sometimes wish I had – so why was I so drawn to the life of deceit and manipulation?  These quandaries led me to Edward Bernays, the “Father of PR and Advertising” and the man responsible for making advertising what it is today…for better or worse.  

Edward Bernays, nephew to Sigmund Freud, public relations and advertising genius, and overall badass, saw PR and advertising in a new light that would forever change not only those fields, but American culture as a whole.  Bernays was revolutionary in that he did not advertise objects as being a necessary commodity, but rather he presented objects as an extension of one’s self and created a world that was better with the product.  Essentially, Bernays created consumerism, without which I would be getting a degree in something far less exciting than advertising. 

But was Bernays really a genius or just another Madison Avenue jackass?  While Bernays was revolutionizing advertising and PR, he was simultaneously giving the field a bad rap. 

Bernays was one of the first to exploit human insecurities to turn a commercial profit.  With a single campaign he turned women smoking from taboo to trend and doubled the American Tobacco Company’s market - and he did it without spending millions on a 30 second spot.  All it took was a few women smoking cigarettes at a New York City parade and using the clever term “torches of freedom” to link cigarettes to the ever-growing suffrage movement.

This brilliant campaign was derived from Uncle Freud who believed that humans are generally irrational and are driven by their subconscious desires.  Once Bernays found a way to tap into these subconscious desires the possibilities were endless.  In the late 40s he even wrote a book, The Engineering of Consent, which essentially explains the art of manipulation.  This is when I begin to grapple with ethics in advertising because in reality, it is a profession grounded in manipulation. 

Even if there are institutions whose sole purpose is to establish rules and regulations for ethical advertising, when you are selling people a constructed idea rather than a tangible product is any of it ethical?  

So I suppose I, like Bernays in his final days, became a skeptic of advertising.  Fortunately my skepticism was short lived.  Perhaps this is due to the optimism most twenty-somethings share, or due to the fact I can’t quite accept that the degree I have worked so hard for is completely useless.  But when it really comes down to it, whether you choose to be ethical or otherwise in advertising, it is one of the most interesting professions around. 

And, if I ever really question my moral standing, I just think to myself “hey, at least I’m not a lawyer.”

– Ana Slavin, Dreamentia Intern

Comments

[James]

Great and insightful read. I never really thought of advertising as unethical, because of the illusion of choice. If I see an ad for Coke, I do want to grab a Coke. Although I am influenced by the ad, whether I do or do not buy one is entirely up to me. What it all comes down to is Manipulation vs. Free Will. I guess we could leave it to the lawyers to decide whether it's unethical or not.

[Olivia]

Kudos to a great read, indeed.

While the world of ethics in advertising is definitely a debatable subject, I believe the idea of ethics in advertising is about false advertising, or, in the case of tobacco companies, lies by omissions (hence their products smothered in Surgeon General Warnings). And yes, sometimes the fact that people feel 'manipulated' by persuasive ads.

Of course, the biggest benefactors of ingenious advertising (tobacco companies) have also been, by far, the most scrutinized. Consumers don't want to take responsibility for personal choice (remember the woman who in the multi-million dollar lawsuit against McDonald's for their 'hot' coffee spilling on her?) Instinct is to blame the company advertising (who in turn, blames the advertising agency.) So, I would think it's less about ethics, and more about responsibility and the blame-game. A responsible advertising agency carefully selects its clients, knowing that the repercussions can make or break their brand.