Looking at Adverts: 6

It is not uncommon for advertisers to link products to other things, to give them ‘added value’ in the eyes of the consumer. This has been going on since Edward Bernays first came up with the idea of Public Relations (or as it was named in his first book of 1928, Propaganda). He recommended that commodity producers used celebrities to endorse their products. The celebrities were talented and glamorous, and the commodities were attributed with these characteristics due to their close proximity to the stars. Bernays used his uncle Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytical ideas to sell products. Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, suggested that we are unconsciously driven by desires that we have to repress in order to become acceptable members of society. We negotiate between selfish wants and social ideals. If a celebrity is deemed to be a successful and a respected member of society we might identify with them in the hope of improving ourselves. On the other hand, they might be rebellious or sexually provocative, appealing to our selfish wants. Purchasing the right commodities seemed to offer the consumer the chance to be like their idols.
Today, celebrities are still paid to endorse products but this is often done in a humorous and knowing way. We are media-savvy and cynical so we ‘see through’ these appeals to our narcissistic desires, but there are other ways to ‘add value’ to commodities.

Take for example the ‘global warming ready’ campaign by the clothing label Diesel (2007). The target demographic for this advertising campaign is probably from 16 to 36 years old, a group of consumers who have become accustomed to a wide range of marketing methods and are also knowledgeable about environmental concerns and climate change. The adverts are humorous, depicting attractive young men and women in a variety of recognizable locations, with signs of the effects of global warming in the background.
Global warming is contentious issue, with large, vocal groups on either side of the argument. But this campaign cleverly appeals to every possible position. The famous locations such as the Great Wall of China or Mount Rushmore have been transformed due to Global warming, so the adverts seem to be showing us the consequences of the problem. But the glamorous individuals depicted in front of these monuments do not appear concerned.

They are, thanks to the Diesel clothing they are wearing, ‘global warming ready’. Through the consumption of these products they make the most of the increased temperatures and tropical transformations. This is deeply ironic, when we consider the cause of global warming is often attributed to industrialisation and the mass-production of commodities.
In A Rhetoric of Irony (1975) Booth proposes that ‘no other form of human communication does so much with such speed and economy’ going on to say that ironic texts ‘are richer than any translation into non-ironic language.’ This is because irony contains two contradictory messages but they are not singular oppositional messages. The ironic message is vague and allows for a broad range of responses from; the activities of the people in the adverts are frivolous in the face of the impact of global warming to, this careless relationship to consumption is responsible for global warming. Most viewpoints are catered for in this broad interpretation so very few consumers would be alienated by the message. Even if the viewer thinks we should stop worrying and make the most of the rise in temperature, the advert appeals them.

Increasingly, advertisers use irony and other rhetorical devices such as parody and hyperbole to engage the viewer. They are memorable because the viewer has to actively deconstruct the overt message and reconstruct the ironic one out of the clues given to them. This active engagement is pleasurable, it gives the viewer a sense of satisfaction from successfully deciphering the message.
But I am not sure where to stop in my ironic decoding of these adverts. Are they mocking climate change and the grave concerns expressed by environmentalists? Or are they parodying frivolous consumers who think climate change won’t affect them? Perhaps they are tipping a knowing wink towards the over-saturation of ‘cause marketing’ in our visual culture, parodying adverts that use ‘organic’, ‘fair trade’, ‘locally produced’ and ‘carbon neutral’ buzz words to cater to the growing trend in ethical consumption.
Either way my ‘add value’ fatigue is in over-drive and I remain skeptical about the intentions of the advertisers. What do you think?