Advertising and Social Media: New Technology, Same Old Cave
The classical dichotomy between appearance and reality that Plato speaks of in the Allegory of the Cave is ever present (ever-present?) in today’s world of advertising. It is the advertiser’s role to find ways to speak to people’s emotions rather than reason and use flickering images to sway consumers to jettison rational, informed decision-making in the wake of emotional, subtle deception. In an age full of fingertip information and subsequent distraction, marketing companies are always looking for innovative means to vie for attention. Today’s average attention span is eight seconds so advertisers rely on images discreetly placed where viewers would not expect to be assaulted by advertising, that is, within the framework of movies or television shows (not during the commercial breaks where viewers are known to mute the ads) and increasingly on social media sites like Instagram and Snapchat. ← Long sentence, try to split it. This newest frontier in the assault of advertising deception brings up not only the timeless image of Plato’s flickering world of appearance on the cave walls but also timeless questions about the role of the artist in society as the intersection of commerce and creativity comes into play. Ultimately, the questions arise: what impact does such social media advertising have on the not just creativity but also on human relationships and finally, how do people avoid being manipulated by the insidious influences of the social media marketplace.
Exploitation of the social marketplace does not come in just digital form. For years bus stops and subways have been plastered with advertisements to a captive audience. But it is important to note that this phenomenon continuous to grow and at times in the most unlikely and devious ways. In The World Beyond Your Head: Becoming and Individual in the Age of Distraction, philosophy professor and author, Matthew B. Crawford speaks about the ever present advertising assault on the social front. He uses the example of people riding the bus in Seoul, South Korea who are subjected not only to visual advertisements for Dunkin Donuts on their morning bus route, but also are forced to listen to the advertisement over the bus speaker system and then have the airfiltation system on the bus infused with the smell of freshly ground coffee. Crawford comments, “This kind of advertising is especially aggressive and indiscriminate, yet is also exquisitely well targeted to the morning commuters who are primed to want coffee at the time they are exposed to the advertising, and there it is, right next to the bus stop! The advertising agency responsible was rewarded by its peers with a Bronze Lion award for ‘best use of ambient media.’”2 This seems Kafka-esque but the total submersion into an advertising regime is also part of today’s social media advertising campaigns. Just last month, Netflix advertised its upcoming five-part sequel to the Gilmore Girls by offering 200 local coffee shops in cities including Boston and New York to transform their venues into a gathering place central to to the show, Luke’s Diner. The small businesses were given signage and merchandise such as coffee cups emblazoned with “Luke’s Diner” and word was spread via social media that fans of Gilmore Girls should visit these area coffee shops for a morning of nostalgia. Adweek reports that “Snapchat said the one-day marketing stunt reached more than 500,000 people.”3 On the surface, this seems like a fun get-together at least to those in the know, in other words, followers of Gilmore Girls. To the regular patron of the transformed coffee shops that day was possibly not so much fun as the lines were longer, and they had unwittingly fallen into a marketing trap.
Advertisers have realized over the years that television commercials do not have the influence they once had as the impact has been diminished by the increase in viewer options. Viewers have devices that allow them to watch television without being subjected to commercials. They can record shows and fast forward through commercials or they can cut the cable entirely and binge watch shows on streaming providers like Netflix. In response to this loss of potential consumers, advertisers have inserted their advertising into movies and television shows themselves.4 They have made their products and brands part of the narrative itself. This is done in subtle ways such as certain brand of snack a character enjoys or a chain drive-thru restaurant that becomes part of the scene. These seemingly innocuous appearances of products become part of the storyline and can at times have an inadvertently negative impact. There was much uproar over the use of product placement in the James Bond movie Skyfall where there was a Heineken beer. Great Britain's Independent newspaper reported, “A vodka martini to Bond is the free kick to David Beckham; high trousers to Simon Cowell; what the moonwalk was to Michael Jackson. It’s his trademark. Swapping Bond’s lemon twist for a lager is like Shakespeare being paid to write with brio rather than a quill. It just looks wrong.”5 James Bond fans objected to the character known for imbibing in martinis — “shaken, not stirred”– now to be now drinking beer, even imported beer, because it does not have have the same cache nor fit with the character. The same can said of the recent summer blockbuster Batman Versus Superman where in the opening scene multimillionaire Bruce Wayne tools around Manhattan under alien siege in a Jeep Renegade. It takes much suspension of disbelief to view that scene, and it is not because it is hard to imagine an intergalactic war between Superman and his Kryptonite enemies taking place in the air over NYC, but rather because it is unfathomable that Bruce Wayne with his aristocratic lifestyle and millions would drive a Jeep. Such directorial choices appear to be driven not by the storyline or characterization but rather by the dollar and detract from the story. While it is naive and unrealistic to think that art such as Hollywood blockbuster is free from commercial concerns — normally people see that as the realm of the independent film– but when the product placement detracts from the movie, when the commercialization is apparent and also discordant from the characterization, then such advertising can create a negative backlash. In these instances the creative vision of the artist/ director is compromised by the commercial interests; increased revenue trumps creative freedom.
Product placement and sponsorship has been a part of television forever. On early television talk shows, the hosts often paused to promote a product from a sponsor. Today, however, such commercial sponsorship of talk shows has become discreet and perhaps deceptive. James Corden the host of the Late, Late Show is known for his for spontaneous wit and his signature segments including “Carpool Karaoke” where he and a famous guest share in a roadtrip singalong and “Take-a-Break” where he randomly offers to take an employee's shift. Both segments rely on the charm and wit and apparent spontaneity of the host as Corden drives through Mcdonald's with his guest or as he walks into a local business to let an employee take a break. This appearance of an impromptu drive-thru is called into question when the final credits for the show roll and the McDonald's trademark appears. The same happens when Cordon visits Lens Crafters in another apparent spur-of-the-moment act and where once again the final credits include a Lens Crafters acknowledgement. Clearly, commercial television requires just that, commercials, so it is not the fact that these two businesses are sponsors on the show that is problematic, but it is the lack of full disclosure — where audience members are informed upfront that there are commercial influences at work– that calls this advertising technique into question.6 Furthermore, it raises the question about the comedic host’s authenticity and wit, something he greatly values on a talk show who prizes the format of the unrehearsed, supposedly unrestrained witty conversation. Once again, the age old dilemma of commerce intruding on art, in this case, comedy, appears although only to the eye trained to watch until the very end of the show; otherwise, viewers do not give it a second thought, just what the sponsoring advertisers were intending to have happen.
While the movie and television industry are using increasingly stealth tactics in order to capture viewers’ attention, advertisers are focusing their attention on the world of social media, specifically trying to capitalize on the potential consumers inherent in the number of followers and using terms such as macro influencers; “Brands have long tapped social media "influencers" such as fashion bloggers, athletes or the Kardashians… Macro-influencers are defined as social-media users with 10,000 or more followers on their accounts… according to Kosuke Sogo, chief executive officer and co-founder of advertising firm AdAsia Holdings.”7 While bloggers on social media are the micro-influencers, the celebrities and the athletes are the macros-influencers. Advertisers pay celebrities and athletes to endorse products on their Instagram accounts. These Instagram accounts are perfect for the advertiser because they appeal to the eight-second attention span of the average viewer. These glossy images with little to no reading involved are ideal. By having celebrities and athletes photographed with the product advertisers have access to millions of followers, and they also have a cultivated “authenticity” — the followers believe they are getting a peek inside the life of the celebrity or athlete because it is assumed that the images are posted by the celebrity or athlete. These are not managed fan websites but rather the personal accounts or at least that is what followers are led to believe. Advertisers benefit from the numbers of followers and also from being able to use the image of the celebrity or athlete as part of an advertising campaign in other places. For example, a photo posted by Kendall Jenner with an Landrover in the background not only influences her followers but also if that same image is now a focal point in a magazine or television ad campaign, the advertising agency has even greater influence. The advertising agency also saves money by not having to produce other advertising images. The company can just repost in the magazine and on billboard the original Instagram image again suggesting authenticity when in reality the whole guise of authentic and genuine have been manufactured.
Celebrities like the Kardashians have made a living by this manufactured authenticity with their reality television show and while this exploitation and distortion of reality is not new, their use of social media as an advertising tool is only now being noticed and even investigated. The Kardashians have social media Instagram accounts, and they use them to hawk products ranging from weight loss supplements and makeup to clothes, jewelry and automobiles. Shamelessly exploiting their connection to their often pre- and teenage followers, they post pictures of their shining hair with captions about how they take their gummy bear hair supplements or drink their Fit-tea daily. Until recently after FTC complaints, they did not disclosed that such posts were really just advertisements for the products. By not disclosing this upfront, they fool their young followers into thinking that these products are “favorites” of the Kardashians rather than products being sold for financial reimbursement to the Family K. While their posts on such products now include “#ad” or “#spon” at the beginning of the caption, this happened only after the FTC complaints. The FTC is focusing their attention not on the off-market supplements but instead on the luxury items where designers like Calvin Klein and Estee Lauder seem intentionally to skirt the disclosure requirements as they have the resources to exploit this new frontier of marketing in social media like Instagram.8 The same is true for athletes who are sponsored by iconic corporations from Nike to Coca Cola. An athlete may post a photo to Instagram that features a Nike swoosh on his or her athletic gear and argue that such a picture is not an advertisement endorsing the Nike product but merely a shot capturing a moment in the game. However, there are other sponsorships that athletes are not always acknowledging on their Instagram accounts. When David Ortiz announced his retirement “marketers looking to grab some equity from Ortiz’ farewell include Coca-Cola, the Red Sox’s longest-tenured sponsor.”9 After his final game, Ortiz posted a picture with his son as he walked out of Fenway down the tunnel. The faint image of the Coca-Cola sign appeared in the background as he spoke to enjoying the years ahead but did not include the required “#ad” until it was spotted by a watchdog group, and he was required to acknowledge that this heartfelt moment was brought you by Coca Cola.10 Such advertising sponsorships are commonplace in the world of professional athletes and now the Olympics have devolved to an advertising bonanza. It has become increasingly obvious that these so called amature athletes participate in the Olympic games with the design of courting sponsors. This is not new — athletes have been on the Wheaties box for years– but what is new is how Instagram is used to promote undisclosed sponsorships. Missy Franklin posted photos of her training in the pool before the Rio olympics, using her Gopro camera to record her final practice before heading to Brazil.11 The fact that she and many of the other Olympic athletes at the most recent games did not disclose sponsorships is coming under increasing scrutiny and increasing the cynicism towards the Olympics.