the three c's

Advertising, it is written, "emphasises and reinforces the structures and ideologies of conservatism, capitalism and consumerism" and as such is "a reluctant and largely ineffective initiator of social change beyond the trivia of fashion" and is "powerful in defining and preserving the status quo" (Qualter, "The Social Role of Advertising" 155)

What then to make of this recent Nissan Leaf ad?

One hallmark of American conservatism is its ongoing attack on global warming, an attack rooted in status quo economics rather than science. Billionaire coal barons have astroturfed "Energy Citizens" rallies, using oil-industry lobbyists to secretly organize supposedly grass roots rallies. (Astroturf, originally a fake (oil-based) substitute for grass, now means a "grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.") In short, the elite secretly place their message in a different context, the medium most definitely being the message.

That Nissan, which has contributed mightily to global warming by manufacturing millions and millions of internal combustion engines, has embraced global warming is either hypocritical or revolutionary, or possibly both. One could argue that selling gas-powered cars simply reflected consumer demand; I'd argue that its use of imagery of the melting polar caps seeks to not only embrace a market segment but to also broaden this segment by leading, rather than just following, public opinion.

While its mission - to sell more cars, whether gas-powered or electric - is most definitely capitalist and consumerist, I'd say this this campaign is an exception to Qualter's observation of advertising's inherent conservatism. Of course, it is just an exception, not a reversal.

However, Qualter's observations seem dated in other respects. He writes in the same essay that "Advertisers try to steer clear of the controversial, to defuse tensions ... to avoid association with programmes dealing with contentious matters... Bland is safer than controversy and is more conducive to maximum sales" (163). While this might be true for a lot of advertising, it is increasingly less true.

One only need look at Fox News, which revels in controversy and increasing tensions with the Obama administration and nonconservatives, to see that contentiousness pays. Fox News' audiences were larger than CNN and MSNBC combined and its ad revenues and profits exceeded those of CNN. Even the ideologically more liberal MSNBC (with the liberally contentious Keith Olbermann) overtook CNN in key primetime demographics, "a prospect unthinkable even two years earlier." Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, the embodiment of controversy, is two years into his epic $400 million radio deal.

Of course, this advertising disconnect can be understood if Qualter's theories are realigned - advertising is indeed largely conservative, the Leaf ad being the exception that proves the rule, and avoids controversy - unless that controversy is conservative in nature. This controversy isn't really threatening any more than WWE wrestlers threaten real people outside of the coliseum. These conservative pundits are really just part of "the personality system crucially embedded within television's cyclical rituals" and as such "readily facilitate a sense of familiarity and accessability" conducive to ad sales (Langer, "Television's 'Personality System' 169). What could be more conservative, capitalist and consumerist than that?