Violence is a much debated concern-how much violence is too much? Violence is displayed in numerous advertisements and quite often it is entirely unconnected with the subject. It is appalling the number of video games that are created based on killing other people, and the advertisements display this. These games and the advertisements shown can influence children’s subconscious, confusing reality and fantasy. Excessive viewing can start to sway children’s perception of right and wrong. In extreme cases children start to believe that it is acceptable to hurt someone when they are angry.
Other advertisements that are of doubtful countenance are ones that exploit the innocent; advertisers generally aim for the people they can influence the most but that should not extend to manipulation of the naïve. The choice of material goods available is increasing; there seems to be a product for nearly everything and there are few niches of the market not covered. This vast amount of choice is making it harder for children to decide what they want; they always want the best product yet with every product claiming to be the best, how they can they choose? Can it really be a surprise that children are becoming more spoilt?
The advertisement for Accurist watches featuring a skeletal model provokes controversy. The model, whose ribs can be seen clearly protruding from under her vest, was paid to do this promotion. The advertisement in question has the model wearing the watch around her arm since she is so thin and the caption reads “Put some weight on.” The weight is that of the solid silver watch. Having such a thin model is distasteful for several reasons – partly the commercial exploitation of her extreme thinness, sending out destructive messages to young women about the possible condoning of anorexia but mainly because the model and the watch are totally unrelated. The advertisement is trying to sell watches through a startling image. There is no connection between the model and the watch (she is merely used to attract attention) however the viewer will remember the brand and buy its product, for all the wrong reasons. These advertisements, and there are many of them, should be forbidden. This includes advertisements such as those for perfume that are promoting more than just perfume - boys, sex, love, irresistibility and beauty. It is the all the false advertising and manipulation of impressionable youths that exacerbate such problems as anorexia, bulimia, bullying; abolish the stereotypes and the problem is half way resolved.
This is not to say that shocking images should not be used in the right circumstances to provoke a positive reaction. Charities such as Oxfam need to show the devastation and destruction wrought in war-torn or poverty stricken countries to encourage people to donate. These images have to be used; an image of beautiful prairies and grasslands would draw in far less money than an image of the grass burning and small children running away in fear; as heart wrenching and distressing as it is. This is reality. An RSPCA advertisement showed a horse hanging from a hook impaled in its neck as part of a campaign to expose the suffering caused by transporting live animals to the continent for slaughter. This advertisement was banned by the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) for exceeding the bounds of what is acceptable. On the other hand that same year the ASA did not ban an Amnesty International advertisement of a Kurdish father and son being poisoned by cyanide vapour. The ASA said the RSPCA advertisement was distressing, however, just like the Amnesty International advertisement, it was the intention of the advertisement: to shock people into action. Two thousand five hundred people rang up in support; there would have hardly been the same response for horses in a field with a caption “Don’t let me be killed.”
The advertisements for the Road Safety campaign have the level of violence just right, enough to shock people into wearing seatbelts or to stop drink driving. Though one of the advertisements portrays a small child with a severe head injury, it is used as a shock tactic so that people will think about the consequences of their driving. Sometimes it is necessary to make the statistics not just a number but a picture of reality.
Similarly the advertisements made in 1998 to campaign for the banning of .22 calibre handguns in Ireland picture firstly a dead man, with the caption, “If a .22 handgun is less deadly, why isn’t he less dead?” The second advertisement reads “A .22 handgun makes the same size hole as a magnum.” These advertisements roused 94 complaints – the most that any single campaign had before - but the ASA threw the complaints out as they deemed the violence necessary and justifiable in the context. As long as the level of violence is a reflection of reality rather than an attempt to glamorise the product, then it can be argued that it is acceptable.
Healthy lifestyles are a worthy promotion, as are educational advertisements and help lines. If people are to achieve a better lifestyle or education then they need information and there is no better way to mass inform than through the power of advertising. The NHS advertisements to encourage people to give up smoking were particularly efficacious; the television advertisements had a short film of a person dying of cancer or a smoking related disease saying how they wished they had given up. The film then says that they died and gives the number to call to quit smoking. One of these advertisements was especially moving. A middle aged man is shown lying in a hospital with an oxygen supply and a drip and he says that he hopes he will live long enough for his daughter’s visit from Australia; the screen goes black and the captions reads “Nicholas died 4 days after this film was made; he never got to see his daughter.” These are the type of advertisements to be encouraged, to let the public know the devastation that smoking can bring.
Barnardos displays some of the most controversial advertisements but they are all for a good cause; if attention was not brought to the real suffering of abused children in a vigorously shocking way then donations and public concern would not be raised. The campaign of 1999/2000 really summed up what the charity wanted. The first advertisements released were of children in horrible situations. One was a baby injecting itself with heroin, whilst the legend read “John Donaldson Age 23”; another was a little girl sitting on a sleeping bag since she was homeless - her tagline read “Rena Mahal Age 24”; another was a small boy at the top of a building about to jump, it read “Martin Ward Age 29,” and there were several more. These advertisements were designed to show the effects that childhood damage had on later life. For example, the baby was meant to show that John became a heroin addict because of childhood problems. Then Barnardos released an advertisement with a happy, smiling baby and a caption saying “The ad we wish we could have run.” The campaign was extremely powerful and affecting, it provoked emotion for the right reasons, and if the world guaranteed a bright future for all children they would not have run these advertisements. The response was enormous and the charity was turned around. This type of advertising is for the benefit of the less fortunate and should be encouraged.
Informing the public is massive part of advertising. If a person wants a job, one of the most likely places to look is in a newspaper, where the advertisement will describe what the job is and the qualifications needed so that suitable people can apply. Without these advertisements, time would be wasted applying to many agencies, whereas through them it is quick and easy to apply for a job. Advertising also provides work for millions of people and if you ban all advertising then there would be millions of people out of employment, not just in the industry, but also in the companies they promoted due to drop in demand. Advertising makes the world go around, destroy it and the economy would stop, the world would be plunged back hundreds of years. The freedom of the press gives everyone the right to express his or her view. Television or newspaper, billboard or magazine, knowledge and understanding will spread the world over. One cannot simply abolish advertising because the world would become ignorant and that is possibly the greatest evil of all. Every business has the right to advertise, they have the freedom to choose the content and how they will inform the public. This creates equality, though it is normally only the larger businesses that can afford big campaigns. Anyone can advertise hence there is no discrimination.
Imagine a world where there was no advertising; people would be uninformed, companies would not be able to sell their goods effectively, the economy would suffer, and if the economy suffered, there would be no money to pay for such things as health and education. If, in a world of no advertising you could conjure up the image of a peaceful village high up on an Austrian mountain then it would be wrong, for even in the remotest village there is still advertising for the local shops even if by word of mouth, signposts or a map. Advertising has existed since the world was created – one could argue that animals use it to attract a mate or show they own a territory! This sounds obscure and it maybe a rather unconnected form of advertising to the norm - nevertheless it is advertising. To ban all the media advertising would not prevent advertising by word of mouth, although this method means the truth becomes distorted and nobody is sure what is right or wrong. It would be total chaos if there were a ban.
To ban all controversial advertisements would guarantee a safe but boring risk-free life and what is life if there is no risk? Sexist or racist advertisements should be banned but the problem is where to draw the line; is it allowed if the sexist remark or racist comment was meant as a joke? The ASA should make sure their policy has strict guidelines and that the advertisements designed to shock should only be for charities or in the interest of the public. The advertisements that stir up controversy should be for a good reason; these advertisements will stay in a person’s mind for an extraordinary length of time hence they should benefit the public in some way. Everyone has the right to know about the world and what is going on in it; advertising does just this. In conclusion advertising should not be banned, only monitored to ensure that the truth prevails and the public are not misled.