It is often said that advertising
makes people want more things. Sure, advertising can do that. But it very
rarely does. In fact, it is more likely to have the opposite effect: make
people happier with less; which is the more lucrative use of advertising
itself.
Why spend $1000 or $10000 on a
watch that does nothing more than a $100 watch? The answer, of course, is
status, figured
Thorstein Veblen, an eccentric economist known for his satirical portrayal of
the upper class in the 1899 classic, The Theory of the Leisure Class.
Turns out, people “conspicuously”
spend on certain types of items, such as silverware or oversized houses, just
to show their place in society. These items, called “Veblen goods”, are desired
because they’re expensive (pleases the rich) or exclusive (pleases the snobs).
A “Veblen effect” exists
when people reject a perfectly good solution, like a $100 watch, simply because
it is “too common” or “not costly enough.” Rory Sutherland of Ogilvy points to
Stella Artois’ slogan that tries to create a Veblen good with two words,
“Reassuringly expensive.”
Advertising is basically
criticised for amplifying Veblen effects: prompt people to want things they
“don’t need” or “can’t afford”.
Except this age-old belief isn’t
entirely true.
Firstly, Veblen effects don’t
depend on advertising. People have used lavish items to show status since
before ancient days: tribal elite held women and slaves as trophies; the Romans
threw gladiatorial spectacles; Cleopatra dissolved pearls in her drinks etc.
Secondly, Veblen goods don’t
depend on advertising. Rolex watches, Rolls Royce cars and Reinast toothbrushes
sell not because of advertising, but for their rarity
and price. Veblen goods, for the most part, are not promoted through ad
agencies at all, but PR.
Thirdly, almost all advertising
that ad agencies produce is for things people need, or would be very reluctant
to lose: insurance, detergents, food, broadband, washing machines, travel,
beverages etc. And given the choice, which ultimately benefits
people, it is advertising that helps them pick
the wheat from the chaff.
Quite fittingly, ad agency Young
& Rubicam ran an ad that read: “Yes, advertising does sell things that
people don’t need…TV sets, radios, cars, ketchup, mattresses, and so on. People
don’t really need these things. They don’t really need art or music or
cathedrals…They don’t absolutely need literature, newspapers and historians.
All people really need is a cave, a piece of meat, and possibly a fire.”
Put simply, advertising rarely
adds to Veblen effects. In fact, as Sutherland explains,
it is far more likely to have an anti-Veblen effect: create products that
become “social levellers”.
Coca-Cola is the world’s best
selling soft drink that is accepted by everyone when it should be rejected for
being so common. Nike focuses on individual glory whilst stimulating the desire
to belong to an egalitarian “Nike community”. Apple’s democratic values began
with the slogan, “The computer for the rest of us;” whose products, except the
gold watch (still not
purely Veblen), are affordable to most people. And anyone can wear the working
man’s fabric, Levi’s denim; a benefit reserved for mass advertised brands.
So advertising often works not by
persuading people to trade up, but to retain their mass tastes instead. It
favours an egalitarian society in which the rich people essentially buy the
same things as the rest. “The President can’t get a better Coke than the bum on
the street,” said Andy Warhol, the American artist who saw advertising as
anti-elitist.
Brands that depend on mass
advertising, like Coca-Cola, Nike, Apple, Levi’s, McDonald’s, Google, Sony,
IKEA, Vodafone, Dove, Colgate, Volkswagen, Philips, Heinz, Apple, Virgin, ING,
Marlboro, Kellogg’s, Heineken, Nestle etc., have it in their interests to be commercial
and democratic. It’s the things that aren’t advertised that create social
inequality.
Therefore, to bash advertising
for dividing society or persuading people to want expensive options is unfair
and wrong.
Likewise, advertising is
conveniently blamed for peddling the desire that new is better.
It might seem like our upgrade
culture is the result of “planned obsolescence”: a strategy to make products
with shortened life spans deliberately. But only brands with no competition
benefit from such inefficiencies. For categories in which switching is an
option – Apple to Samsung or vice versa – brands that peddle new upgrades
unnecessarily lose
consumers.
Instead, advertising mocks
planned obsolescence; it redefines
status; conditions us to resist
Veblen effects; makes things palatable to the masses;
and instils pride
in our position as the middle class, which is discerning of price versus
quality.
Advertising presents a sensible
lack of pretense; a no-nonsense practicality that respects the intellect of its
audience, whilst seeing the likes of Volkswagen’s “Think Small” and “Live Below
Your Means” as the epitome of great advertising.
Besides, advertising can act as a
psychological primer for important social change. Which means, we can tell
people it’s cool to wear
recycled clothes; save
energy; eat
food waste; stay
comfortable; or even resist
consumerism.
So, don’t apologise, adland.
Thanks for persuading people to
be happy with less, rather than making them want more. We need more
advertising, and far more categories of spending where mass advertising creates
brands that become socially acceptable to all, destroying price discrimination
and pretentiousness.
Stick to your guns.
Praveen Vaidyanathan is Associate Planning Director at Khanna \ Reidinga Amsterdam