After reading Bettig and Hall's chapter, I found myself wondering what they would think of Jarvis' approach to advertising. What I mean is, in some ways, Jarvis is advocating an overhaul of the current advertising system -- he wants something smaller, more open, more led by the people who are using products than the giant advertising agencies.
Several of those changes would seem to correspond well with the criticisms leveled at the industry by Bettig and Hall: It dictates public values and structures power in the hands of a few, all in the name of making more money.
So would Bettig and Hall see Jarvis' vision of advertising innovation as something that would incorporate the types of changes they're calling for? I don't think so. I think they'd see it as an incremental improvement over the current advertising ideology, but still one that was fatally flawed in its subservience to the basic principles of that ideology.
Jarvis' ends are just as capitalistic as the traditional advertising ideology Bettig and Hall described - his whole purpose is telling people to more money by getting other people to consume more goods. That's exactly what Bettig and Hall found as the problem in their chapter. And even if Jarvis is letting the people lead his advertising campaigns, he's still co-opting them -- he only wants them to help tell others to buy his clients' products, not to actually empower themselves or to operate out of any paradigm that's outside of consumer capitalism.
So Jarvis' philosophy would probably be more effective and more open than the current advertising system, but there's a limit to its innovation -- it still works from within the system, and it's the system itself that Bettig and Hall have a problem with.
Several of those changes would seem to correspond well with the criticisms leveled at the industry by Bettig and Hall: It dictates public values and structures power in the hands of a few, all in the name of making more money.
So would Bettig and Hall see Jarvis' vision of advertising innovation as something that would incorporate the types of changes they're calling for? I don't think so. I think they'd see it as an incremental improvement over the current advertising ideology, but still one that was fatally flawed in its subservience to the basic principles of that ideology.
Jarvis' ends are just as capitalistic as the traditional advertising ideology Bettig and Hall described - his whole purpose is telling people to more money by getting other people to consume more goods. That's exactly what Bettig and Hall found as the problem in their chapter. And even if Jarvis is letting the people lead his advertising campaigns, he's still co-opting them -- he only wants them to help tell others to buy his clients' products, not to actually empower themselves or to operate out of any paradigm that's outside of consumer capitalism.
So Jarvis' philosophy would probably be more effective and more open than the current advertising system, but there's a limit to its innovation -- it still works from within the system, and it's the system itself that Bettig and Hall have a problem with.
No comments:
Post a Comment