Moral-aesthetic added value
It is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of advertising. So it's high time to create talking value here. But the shrewd moralist immediately asks: "What morals?" And: "Who enforces them?"
Column The fact that advertising also has a moral is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of advertising. So it's high time to create talking value here. But the shrewd moralist immediately asks: "What morals?" And: "Who enforces them?" The answers are simple: advertising has an advertising (r)moral, and it is enforced by itself. Morality, because it is merely moral, is as incapable of taming advertising as it is of taming the arms industry if the latter does not keep up with it. Advertising does indeed do this. It is kind to animals, children and recently even senior citizens. It helps everyone to do something good for themselves and others by encouraging everyone to do something good for themselves and thus for the economic cycle and therefore for us all. The moral of the advertisers, the cheeky, creative craftsmen and women, is therefore also that of all of us. It would not only be highly counter-productive to seriously protest against this with posters and commercials, but also lack solidarity, as it would be to the detriment of the industry, which sticks together "like a big family" (Andreas Prokesch).
In contrast to our everyday morals, which are usually inconspicuous and simply come across as decency, reliability and - well - honesty in a reasonably calculable way, advertising morals are always full of pleasant surprises. Even public relations - if it adheres to the popular maxim "Do good and talk about it!" - has no comparable surprise value. Unless, of course, it wraps up the events it organizes, such as charity bazaars of all kinds, with some additional moral splendour. Advertising morality, on the other hand, especially today's postmodern morality, adheres to aesthetics, even creates them: aesthetic added value for the benefit of the general public. No more advertising, no much too loud blaring for any obscure products as in the early days of advertising. Rather a consistent and - why not? - daring marriage of the good and the true with the beautiful. Only spitters consider such a marriage inadmissible.
To ensure that any black sheep are also kept in check, a body with the rather old-fashioned title of "Fairness Commission" also acts as an authority for advertising self-regulation in Switzerland. Its thoroughly commendable set of rules not only promotes goodness in this (commodity) world, but also chivalry towards the fairer sex. One entrepreneur advertised his slimming treatment with the - appropriately illustrated - unspeakable before and after scene of a couple dancing: "Her husband used to be ashamed of her, but today he is so proud!" Hence the pillory of fairness principle no. 3.11: "Gender-discriminatory advertising exists in particular if it portrays the person embodying a gender as an object of subjugation, subservience, exploitation, etc."
And for those who, despite the threat of ostracism, are still not spitting with the publication of their offence, a new initiative by the Brussels EU Commission, which also standardizes the shape of European cucumbers, now makes sense. It condemns "stereotypical representations of men and women". Is someone talking about "hypocrisy"? Which other industry will cast the first stone?
> Ulrich Saxer was a professor of journalism at the University of Zurich and
Professor of Sociology of Communication in Lugano.
In contrast to our everyday morals, which are usually inconspicuous and simply come across as decency, reliability and - well - honesty in a reasonably calculable way, advertising morals are always full of pleasant surprises. Even public relations - if it adheres to the popular maxim "Do good and talk about it!" - has no comparable surprise value. Unless, of course, it wraps up the events it organizes, such as charity bazaars of all kinds, with some additional moral splendour. Advertising morality, on the other hand, especially today's postmodern morality, adheres to aesthetics, even creates them: aesthetic added value for the benefit of the general public. No more advertising, no much too loud blaring for any obscure products as in the early days of advertising. Rather a consistent and - why not? - daring marriage of the good and the true with the beautiful. Only spitters consider such a marriage inadmissible.
To ensure that any black sheep are also kept in check, a body with the rather old-fashioned title of "Fairness Commission" also acts as an authority for advertising self-regulation in Switzerland. Its thoroughly commendable set of rules not only promotes goodness in this (commodity) world, but also chivalry towards the fairer sex. One entrepreneur advertised his slimming treatment with the - appropriately illustrated - unspeakable before and after scene of a couple dancing: "Her husband used to be ashamed of her, but today he is so proud!" Hence the pillory of fairness principle no. 3.11: "Gender-discriminatory advertising exists in particular if it portrays the person embodying a gender as an object of subjugation, subservience, exploitation, etc."
And for those who, despite the threat of ostracism, are still not spitting with the publication of their offence, a new initiative by the Brussels EU Commission, which also standardizes the shape of European cucumbers, now makes sense. It condemns "stereotypical representations of men and women". Is someone talking about "hypocrisy"? Which other industry will cast the first stone?
> Ulrich Saxer was a professor of journalism at the University of Zurich and
Professor of Sociology of Communication in Lugano.
