I posted this ad review to a tv newsgroup and received several replies telling me I was going overboard - including one particularly obnoxious note from someone who works in advertising and claimed ads do nothing but sell products, and repetition is a primary means of achieving this. I realized this was wrong, but if you don't think I'm on to something after reading this review, then go see for yourself that Bob Garfield, ad reviewer for Advertising Age, has made basically the same claims in a recent review: Hello, Sprint PCS? Is anyone there? Hello?. Bastard's stealing my stuff! Hey, Bob Garfield! You reading this, you lousy thief?! Then you might as well read some recent notes I've written about Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco and advertising! Bastard!
Until recently I have taken for granted one conventional idea of the function of ads - branding. Branding is, allegedly, the production of an image or mythology and the association of this image or mythology to the brand name. A simple example is Daimler-Chrysler's "Ram Tough" Dodge brand. The logo, the slogan, the atmospheric imagery, and the ads repeating all this, construct a meaning for the Dodge brand.
Now, this isn't supposed to sell the product, but develop a way of thinking about the product. The more we media-saturated sponges are exposed to this bundle of images, the more it informs our idea of the corporate entity. It's the furthest thing from a subliminal technique: it's a brute, direct force imposed on consciousness by any and every instantiation of the brand in advertisements. It is our consciousnesses, as much or more than the corporate entities, that are branded. Such an interpretation is often criticized (by Henry Jenkins, among many others) for assuming that the audience passively absorbs media images. But it's less a question of audience passivity than it is a matter of there being no alternatives to these images: I have seen or heard "Dodge - Ram Tough" around 250,000 times, but opportunities and occasions for "Dodge - Overpriced Poorly Made Crapola" are more limited.
It is therefore incredibly important for corporate America to control brand meaning and maintain brand integrity. The corporation that tightly controls the brand's meaning thus controls the terms of our thoughts.
In political advertisements, affirmative and negative brand meanings (usually called "spins" to help consumers distinguish between buying products and buying candidates) are used. Everyone claims to hate negative campaigning, yet it succeeds more often than it backfires. When it works, on this theory, it works because the negative brand image placed on a candidate by his opponent supercedes the candidate's own positive brand, not because the accusations are true or even because voters believe they are true. It works just because the negative brand image has come to be repeated so much that it squeezes out the positive image. The main beneficiaries of this fact are consultants.
Laid out like that, this interpretation seems overwhelmingly perspicacious. What else could brands do? Wow, it's impressive.
So how have I come to doubt it? Simply because so many of the advertisement campaigns that brand corporate entities produce incredibly grating, annoying, obnoxious or plain stupid brand meanings. Usually these are by way of failed ad campaigns, like Miller's "Dick" campaign or the current and unbearably dumb 7-Up ads. The phone company that runs the "Lucky Dog" 10-10-345 long distance service now advertises with the idiotic premise that the mnemonic device of the third, fourth and fifth of some series of things will help consumers remember the number to call to use "Lucky Dog." They hired the apparently shameless Fred Willard to be their stupid spokesman, and in my (as the kids say) un-favorite of these ads Fred points to models of Earth, Mars and Saturn as the third, fourth and fifth planets, to help us remember. A voiceover tells Fred (and us) that they've got the wrong fifth planet (it's Jupiter, not Saturn), and Fred says "oops."
Oh yes, I remember that ad. I'll remember that ad in my grave. And what brand meaning does it construct? 10-10-345: The Incompetent Company? The Company That Hires Morons? The Company That Doesn't Give A Crap Whether Its Ads Make Any Sense? You see -- it's perplexing.
Another example is the Wendy's campaign featuring chairman Dave Thomas. The most direct way to interpret any Wendy's ad is to consider Thomas' position as proprietor and taste-maker. Eating at a Wendy's, the ads propose, is affirming Dave Thomas' culinary preferences, to wit: anything that can't be improved with the addition of "cheddar cheese sauce" and bacon just isn't good food. But it's also affirming Dave's cultural prejudices: unfamiliar food (or any other cultural custom) is perverted; hockey is a frightening and silly sport; nothing provides greater satisfaction, peace of mind, joy or delight than hamburgers, except for hamburgers with bacon and "cheddar cheese sauce."
Taking a step beyond Thomas' white middle-class parochialism, some of these ads have honestly struck me as racist, sexist, demeaning to Wendy's customers, or insulting to the audience's intelligence. But every one of them has shared one glaring and hideous defect - Thomas himself. His performances in the ads have remained awful despite his extensive experience. It is clear even in the most recently produced spots that he can't remember lines, doesn't understand them, or both. His comedic timing can be measured in epochs. Then again, little harm can be done to the lifeless, humorless, inane copy he has caused to have churned out by whatever hellish writers' sweatshop he contracted with.
I don't think I'm alone in responding to every Wendy's ad I see with loathing, because I can't imagine the mindset of a person who would emit the barest chuckle or take any other kind of enjoyment or positive message from these commercials. And surely there must be someone somewhere in the Wendy's corporation that notices how consistently rotten and stupid the ads are and in what a poor light they place the company.
The simple explanation for this phenomenon is that the CEOs of these corporations decide on the campaigns themselves and will not take no for an answer. Thomas might be that big of an autocratic narcissist, I don't know. He might be that big of an idiot too, although his rise to power and wealth would be hard to explain in that case. Perhaps he's so rich he can afford to squander his cash on trashing his own company's image. There have been kings that did worse.
If it were only a mistake, some attempt would have been made to put a stop to it or cover the whole thing up (like the pathetically transparent efforts Miller made regarding "Dick").
Since it's hard to believe everyone at these corporations is either that stupid or that oblivious, I have to think these ads are deliberately produced this way. The question is, why? Among the various alternatives, the answer that makes the most sense to me is that the ads are meant to lower consumer expectations. What a reasonable person could gather from the Wendy's ad is that the company is run by a dunderhead. The food can't be very good; in fact, you should be happy to leave a Wendy's with your teeth intact and without food poisoning. The ads also explain the low morale of Wendy's employees. Compare this to the irrationally high expectations established by McDonald's ads, and the point becomes obvious. No McDonald's will ever meet the standard suggested by the "Food, Folks and Fun" presented in the ads. On the other hand, almost every experience of a Wendy's will be a little better than the commercials. The mere fact that Dave Thomas isn't in the Wendy's where you're eating your double bacon-"cheddar-cheese-sauce" burger provides a measure of satisfaction.
Again, compare "Lucky Dog" with the standard AT&T long distance ad. What does AT&T promise you? Not just a connection, but intimacy, freedom, power, limitless joy. At best, the company can provide the phone connection. If, having reached your party, you find you lack intimacy, freedom, power, or limitless joy, this is your problem. Watching the "Lucky Dog" commercials, it's easy to imagine the company to be filled with incompetents and run by subliterate mouth breathers. You'll be lucky to get a dial tone. So when the company provides the actual service advertised -- a long distance connection -- it seems a great boon.
We have begun to see this logic applied to politics as well. Marion Barry was elected Mayor of Washington after having been convicted of possession of cocaine. Obviously, George W. Bush will want to make a licensing deal with Barry to use the campaign slogan "No Mo' Blow." Meanwhile, Al Gore is a walking advertisement lowering voter expectations. He'll be hard to beat.