[lit-ideas] Rules of advertising and journalism

  • From: "Torgeir Fjeld" <torgfje2@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:39:32 +0100

Concerning the discussion of the aesthetic and communicative economy of 
advertising, I'd just like to add that it's kinda difficult to 
define the borders of advertising, and that this may have some impact of how we 
relate to the issue. I'm thinking particularly of 
advertising's relation to journalism.

On 11 Apr 2004 at 11:17, John McCreery wrote:

> [A] simple scheme proposed by Ohnuki Takuya, one of 
> Japan's most famous and famously successful art directors. Ohnuki's 
> "five hurdles" are
> 
> 1) Eye-catching
>       We live in a world saturated with advertising and other messages.
>       If an ad doesn't grab our attention, it doesn't work at all.
> 2) News
>       The ad must show us something new. Otherwise its message will
>       be quickly forgotten.
> 5) Move the product
>       This is the holy grail. Most ads have far more modest effects: 
> increasing
>       awareness or product understanding or enhancing an image, for example.

This point is about the visual economy of advertising, but it also alludes to 
the visual spectacle that's been available in other fields 
for a far longer period, such as punishment, warfare and other forms of 
governance, in the theatre and at the carnival. I'm not sure if 
journalism incorporated a visual economy of the spectacular as a response to or 
in anticipation of "shock-effects" in advertising. And, 
indeed it IS sometimes difficult to distinguish the two genres. Is a story in a 
car magazine featuring the newest release of a certain 
automobile manufacturer, lavishing the car with generous adjectives, and 
featuring a flattering image of the car to be considered 
journalism or advertising. What if the picture was supplied by the 
automanufacturer? In fact, isn't the whole point of the PR industry to 
"sell in" stories to newsrooms and particular journalists in order to 
accomplish editorial coverage for their clients? 

This is where the mainstream print media, but, and perhaps to a particular 
extent in the networked newschannels and their cronies in USA, 
has become increasingly embattled by some very skilled advertising people. On 
television news, live coverage ("news extraordinaire") is 
peppered with references to the channel the viewer is watching ("pushing the 
product"), both auditively and visually (the identity tag in 
the corner of the screen. In the print media, the picture has become a dominant 
feature, as has the size and face of headlines, as well as 
other design elements. USA Today serves as exhibit A. Norwegian mainstream 
media is today very close in their visual appearance to 
precisely USA Today. British mainstream media shows a similar obsession with 
visual spectacle. 

But isn't there a more urgent question, though? Where does this obsession with 
novelty come from?

t

-- 
Torgeir Fjeld
torgfje2@xxxxxxxxxx
http://home.no.net/torgfje/
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: