I really don't get socialist views of advertising.

Left outside is speaking ill of the delightful critter on cereal boxes.

Coco Pop damage you can see

It was upon reading the article, which talks of the manipulation of advertising, that I began to ask myself “What damage are we discussing, exactly?” Well:

I don’t notice it, it doesn’t really bother me until I see something that reminds me advertisement is largely manipulation. Adults are grown up enough to be left to it themselves (Yes Compass, you, shut up) but when adverts are aimed at kids it does a little stick in my throat.

So I was quite happy to see the advert opposite advertising “Coco Pops after school” disappear this week.

It was a pretty straightforward example of Capital seeking a new market – a forth meal in the day no less! – and sinking to new lows in doing so.

This is a view held by many, and not just by socialists. Just yesterday, in my Student Union (a horrible place I go as little as possible) I saw, stuck to the wall, a copy of a Guardian article speaking of the evils of “teh kapitolist advurtizin!!!!*

Personally, I just don’t get it myself. I can’t follow the logic.

So, we are being held that advertising is manipulative. Is this because it “tells” us to buy a certain product, for instance? That can’t be it. You try getting people to buy a product they have no idea exists. More to the point, a piece of paper on a wall is not like a law; it doesn’t result in a gun (proverbial or otherwise) against your head making you act in a certain way. Adverts are not the tax man. And so on through various objections I have heard. But I digress.

LO tells us there’s no problem regards adults, since they have this wonderful thing called thought. This is all well and true.

It seems LO’s problem is with advertising aimed at children:

…but when adverts are aimed at kids it does a little stick in my throat.

Ok, so we have the argument that adverts aimed at children are liable to cause them more damage than those aimed at adults.

…No, I don’t get it. Take the Coco pops advert. It speaks to children the horror of this alleged new fourth meal (I used to eat cereal as an after school treat a lot as a kid- it was perfectly normal. In fact, even as a university student Frosted Shreddies remain a major part of my diet), and the objection is that this is a form of manipulation.

Again, I just plain old don’t get it. Parents have this wonderful thing called free thought; children have these wonderful things called parents. The parents, who have a much bigger interest in the well being of their child than Kellogs (or the State, for that matter), are in a much better decision to decide for their children whether or not Coco pops are a good thing for their kids to eat for breakfast, or indeed for this (apparently) new after school meal. This, surely, is the only protection needed? Not some new fangled pathetic regulation saying that all adverts must carry health warnings (“WARNING: This advert may make you inadvertently happy by enticing you to buy a product you enjoy”)?

Again, just one of many examples.

But this is just one example of why I’m not at ease with marxist/socialist etc interpretations of advertising. It begs more basic questions of “When is advertising just free speech?” and “are humans really that manipulative?  For instance, if a picture of a monkey in a jumper is enough to rot the brain of a child, how much damage is being done in schools?  How can that not be manipulation to an at least equal, if not greater degree?

Interestingly, LO goes on to attack the many government nanny state adverts:

Apparently that second glass of Pinot Noir is going to kill me. Fuck Off and bring back that greedy monkey.

Now, that’s something we call both agree with. As an aside, I wonder if LO is horrified by this:

As for myself, well, the logic above really applies here to. I remember much fuss being raised over this advert. I never really understood it.

On a final note, beautiful irony is beautiful.

*Which, by some miracle of logic, did not itself constitute advertisement of the ideas contained within.