Column What is left of the myth of advertising as a secret seductress? And what effect do their attempts at legal curtailment have? A plea for a reassessment of cherished prejudices.
Denying or - even better - concealing the fact that you have power or even want to have power is a matter of course in democracies such as Switzerland's, at least in the upper echelons. Those who have to flaunt their power, such as the small village policeman, some schoolmasters in the past and pimps today, are definitely at the bottom of the power pyramid. But where is advertising to be located in this respect? As with the real influence or power of its business partners, the mass media, there is also debate and controversy about its own power. Obviously, it has to do with the opportunity to enforce one's own intentions against those of those affected, be it through brute force, more or less subtly deployed authority or purely symbolic means. Advertising as an art of persuasion is known to operate with the latter, but also likes to borrow from authoritative power, for example when it uses the inevitable medical luminaries to praise pills and powders.
The diversity of her creative means, her omnipresence and, above all, her gift for disguise (the spectre of the "secret seducer") are decisive prerequisites for her work. Like the wolf in the fairy tale, she has to eat chalk in order to be able to devour her consumerist little goats.
It is precisely this hand that must remain invisible if it wants to help steer market developments. Persuasive communication - whether advertising or PR - is not well received if it attempts to directly change people's minds or opinions. Who likes to have their prejudices driven out by public relations professionals, be they pastors, journalists or PR and advertising specialists? And when this strategy becomes visible: Which client would still invest in them? Nevertheless, unadvertised goods are less attractive. This is why advertisers and all other public relations workers in democratic societies have to master another tightrope walk, namely to exert influence in such a way that it is not perceived.
However, the power of manipulation, which concerned communication guardians seek to control, prescribe and otherwise contain as the "omnipotence of advertising", is fundamentally limited - and advertising is therefore an extremely risky business. In terms of behavioral theory, it can neither directly create needs or drives, nor does it have a direct influence on their reward, as this is based on the quality of the promised goods or services. On the other hand, the above-mentioned efforts to curtail advertising are hardly targeted and therefore effective anyway due to the protean mutability of advertising.
So seriously: how powerful is advertising? Empirical research knows: "Although advertising is almost always aimed at influencing behavior, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for the act of purchase itself" (Heinz Bonfadelli). Nevertheless: "One institute has determined that every consumer is bombarded with 4500 advertising messages every day" (Jean-Remy von Matt). And last but not least: "Advertising is always the first place to save money" (Dieter Meier). All this testifies first and foremost to the structural power of advertising in economic life and in modern society in general - albeit susceptible to crises and problematically legitimized. The intertwining of advertising, public relations and journalism as well as the marriage of convenience between the media and the advertising industry actually make the latter an institutional power factor whose weight should by no means be underestimated.
Ulrich Saxer on the relativity of advertising economic power.
> Ulrich Saxer was professor of journalism at the University of Zurich and professor of communication sociology in Lugano.
