Embarking on a career in advertising while being a keen believer in communism may seem an odd position to be in, yet it is where I find myself. Political beliefs rarely have a tangible impact on ones professional life for a variety of reasons. Mainly due to the lack of conviction in those beliefs and a the failure for them to relate to the workplace. The realities of having bills to pay and mouths to feed puts principles to one side when considering jobs, that is presuming there is anything wrong with taking a job of questionable societal merit which by and large I don't think there is. Even the much maligned bankers, who face a frenzy of hate, can logically argue their benefit to society.
Anyway back to advertising, often seen as the epitome of what is deemed to be wrong in the western world. Advertising is held as a flagbearer for reckless consumerism that directs money and time away from more worthwhile causes, built on a foundation of credit card debt. Along with reality television, video games and payday loans companies advertising is portrayed as major cause of our societal ills. Advertising can be blamed at times, more should be done to prevent adverts prying on the vulnerable or directed at children. Should Coca-Cola be more restricted for example? The soft drink giants have a huge presence and their recent 'Happiness' campaigns have been very successful, but is this right given the damage regularly drinking sugary drinks has been proven? Further afield the effects of advertising are even more damaging, as seen through tobacco companies growing use of it in developing countries where laws limiting it have not yet been passed.
In spite of this, advertising can be a source of good by enlightening peoples lives in a variety of mediums in numerous ways. The famous Nike 'Just Do It' line has defined their advertising and inspired people to start running, be more active and have a more positive outlook in life. It helped Nike sell a lot of trainers, but it had a much wider impact. [Insert scathing line about sweatshops here]. Nike has also moved into digital space extremely well through products such as the Kintect+ fitness system and the health monitoring Fuelband, both encourage people to be more active and healthy and have developed strong communities. Last year Heinz ran a campaign encouraging people to grow their tomatoes by giving them free seeds, a small but positive step that was embraced by thousands of people around the country. The point is that advertising and benefits to society are not mutually exclusive entities. The increasingly community driven grassroots campaigns we are seeing show the positive effects of brands, and are likely to increase sales as a result.
So what place does advertising have in a communist society? Well not a noticeably different one. It is often considered that socialism would lead to us having one make of shoes, one make of tractors, one type of cat food and one form of form of toothbrush. The shadow of the USSR looms large in the national consciousness, where a brutish authoritarian regime that used state controlled policies to retain power is still seen as definition of what communism is. This is mainly the fault of it being poorly articulated by supporters but also no doubt influenced by scaremongering, just look at what is happening in Cuba right? There is no reason why advertising would be remarkably different, slightly more restricted but still playing a positive role in getting messages from companies to the population at large. This can even be seen today, on the US political spectrum countries such as Norway or France are near enough communists with high taxes, strict regulations and generally progressive policies. Yet they still have advertising across a variety of sectors. Their advertising campaigns may not be as celebrated as those from our friends across the atlantic, but America dominates so many sectors that it is wrong to consider they have great advertising due to having a strong capitalist economy.
Influential thinker Noam Chomsky offers the most practical explanation of how communism would work in a modern society and the implications for brands are not as scary as many would suspect. Chomsky adheres to Libertarian Socialism which in basic terms would abolish authoritarian institutions and return property and means of production to the people whilst giving them freedom to do as they please. Certain companies would be hit hard - especially those who maintain resources. But for most types of industry the relationship that would change is between workers and their companies and not companies and the consumer, which is an important distinction. Companies would still exist, products would still be invented and they would presumably still need to be advertised. In such a scenario of community owned companies, advertising would clearly change and would have to adapt to new scenarios. Grassroots initiatives that engage with consumers such as the Heinz 'Grow Your Own Tomatoes' would likely become more commonplace and that would make for more interesting advertising in my book. Advertising would be less driven towards making money, as companies would not exist to serve the needs of shareholders. Removing the hard sell would allow advertising to be more creative and imaginative, be better received and play a larger and more important role in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment