In the last five years, we have worked to radicalise environmental debate in the UK, giving others the space to push for deeper change in policy, attitudes and values. This has ranged from highlighting the urgency of the problems we face (in Climate Safety and The Green Investment Gap) to producing pioneering research into the potential for transforming our energy system (in Zero Carbon Britain and The Offshore Valuation) to advocating radical policy solutions (in Energy Bonds and Carbon Omissions).
PIRC has produced a briefing paper – Outsourced emissions and global trade in the green economy – for the Global Transition Dialogues, a set of high-level debates being organised in the run-up to the Rio+20 Earth Summit. The paper was commissioned by Stakeholder Forum and can be downloaded as a PDF here.
This piece originally appeared on openDemocracy.
“The truth is that marketing raises enormous ethical questions every day – at least it does if you’re doing it right.” So wrote Rory Sutherland, former President of the British Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, in a provocative article last year entitled We can’t run away from the ethical debates in marketing.
We certainly can’t – and that’s why the Welsh-based Public Interest Research Centre (the organisation I work for) and WWF-UK this week published a new report examining some of these crucial ethical questions. Think Of Me As Evil? Opening the ethical debates in advertising scrutinises the impacts of advertising on consumption, on freedom of choice, and on cultural values.
In each case, we find there is much cause for concern. There is compelling evidence that advertising is exacerbating the ecological crisis by boosting consumption of energy and resources; that it influences our values and identities in ways that undermine social and environmental concern; and that it is eroding wellbeing and freedom of choice.
“As a society becomes increasingly affluent, wants are increasingly created by the process by which they are satisfied… producers may proceed actively to create wants through advertising and salesmanship.”
If advertising is artificially inflating consumption, then it is not only contributing to climate change and resource depletion – it is doing so needlessly, creating dissatisfaction that it then aims to salve through retail therapy.
Advertisers generally tend to dismiss such arguments: advertising simply redistributes consumption between brands, they claim, rather than growing the market. But others are more candid. Guy Murphy, Global Strategy Director at agency JWT, has written that “… it is simply not true to say that advertising does not influence market size.” A spread of statistical studies agree with him – finding that, in many cases, an economy’s aggregate consumption has risen in response to an increase in advertising expenditure. Other studies suggest advertising encourages people to save less, borrow more, and work longer hours to satisfy the increased material aspirations instilled in them. It would be more honest, Murphy states, for advertisers to regard themselves “as trying to manipulate culture: being social engineers, not brand managers.”
Indeed, advertising’s powers of manipulation are now formidable. We might like to consider ourselves immune, too savvy to get hooked. But the sheer pervasiveness of modern advertising – and its increasingly subtle nature – militate strongly against that. Over fifty years ago, the journalist Vance Packard blew the whistle on this in his classic work The Hidden Persuaders, in which he wrote:
“Large-scale efforts are being made, often with impressive success, to channel our unthinking habits, our purchasing decisions, and our thought processes by the use of insights gleaned from psychiatry and the social sciences…”
At the time, Madison Avenue‘s ‘mad men’ violently rejected Packard’s arguments. But today, they are increasingly embraced by brand consultants themselves. The founders of ad agency Acacia Avenue, Wendy Gordon and Peter Langmaid, argue that “there is irrefutable proof of the presence in the consumer’s mind of advertising messages… that are inaccessible to conscious recall.” Smart agencies, seeking to attain greater ‘cut-through’ for their clients’ products in ever-more competitive marketplaces, are always looking for new ways to influence consumers. Examples abound: for example, Robin Wight, President of communications company Engine, recently launched an initiative calling for the standard adoption of brain scanning in development research. (The website detailing his initiative has since been taken down, following industry concerns that it would damage reputations.) RealEyes, a data collection company, specialises in eye-scanning technology that allows advertisers to gauge what parts of an advert is most looked at by passers-by.
Meanwhile, advertising proliferates: on billboards, on TV screens, online. One marketing textbook estimates the average American is exposed to 500-1000 ads a day; Britons are unlikely to be far behind. Advertisers claim their work helps promote freedom of choice, but we are no longer free to choose not to be advertised at. Yet this appears to be an issue overlooked by civil liberties organisations to date.
Most fundamentally of all is the impact advertising may be having on our values. Extensive research by social psychologists has shown that a particular set of ‘intrinsic’ values – such as concern for community, equality and unity with nature – underpin people’s support for tackling social and environmental challenges. Opposing, ‘extrinsic’ values – concern for social status, wealth, personal achievement – serve to undermine such responses. Emphasising one set of values strengthens the degree to which a person holds them and de-emphasises opposing values. The great majority of adverts, in their appeals to social status, conspicuous consumption and the importance of material possessions, appeal to extrinsic values – hence eroding those cultural values that will drive a transition to a sustainable society. Appeals to intrinsic values simply for the purposes of selling products may also generate problems of their own.
Think Of Me As Evil? is not categorical in its claims about these problems and recognises that in some areas more research is needed. But there is sufficient evidence to put the ball firmly in the advertising industry’s court and require them to prove their impact is in fact benign. Civil society organisations, meanwhile – from environmental groups to civil liberties campaigners – should make common cause in holding the industry to account. It’s to Sutherland’s credit that he appears to be up for such a debate. As he wrote in his article: “[A]s marketers, we should once again engage in ethical discussion – and be ready to lose the argument to the public once in a while.”
George Monbiot on Think Of Me As Evil? – The Guardian, 24th October 2011.
MPs have stepped up the pressure on government Ministers to take responsibility for the UK’s outsourced carbon emissions, in a series of developments today.
This morning, the parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) published its report on carbon budgets, calling on government to review its current method of reporting emissions, and instead report on the total emissions resulting from our consumption.
With this in mind, PIRC was particularly interested in examining the ways in which renewable energy was covered during periods of particular focus over 2009. While the – predominantly contrived – debate over climate science has since taken centre stage in the denial lobby’s efforts to impede effective action, during important policy debates in 2009 and since, media attention to renewable energy has arguably played an equally significant role.
To illuminate what kind of role this was, PIRC examined coverage of renewables across four major British newspapers in July 2009 – the month that saw the release of the Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy.
Download: Supporting Data
What people are saying about Variable Outlook:
You almost certainly won’t have spotted the publication of Defra’s new set of statistics on agriculture and climate change yesterday. But before you nod off, check out this clever piece of spin by the statisticians.