Short Response 10/21/10

Whom should be blamed?

When asked about the more subtle way to control the press, Gloria Steinem wittily answered “Advertising”. Before reading “Sex, Lies & Advertising”, I have already known that ads are omnipresent nowadays, but it is after reading this article by Gloria Steinem that I start to realize how powerful the influence of advertising can be. Within 10 pages, Gloria selectedly tells some of her experiences of asking companies to put their ads on Ms.. Although these experiences exposed Gloria “the seamy underside of publishing”, they are enlightening as well. I have been quite used with gendered ads: ads for car, consumer electronics, cigars, wines and liquors, to male, while ads for hair dyes, makeups, food, and clothes, to female; I even regard ads for airlines and insurance as ads for male. Try to make a break-even, to let most women can afford it, and to create a new forum for both advertisers and readers to exchange ideas about advertising, Ms. seeks companies to put their ads on Ms. but in a new way that “exclude no one”. Ms. did a good job in providing their clients with research data to make them give up their programming about their female customers and persuading many companies to take a new stand in advertising; for example, carmakers started taking female customers seriously. Ms. also impressed me by its persistent feminist’s stand that it refused the ads of Clairol, a brand of hair dyes, which may be harmful to human body. However, companies who put ads on Ms. also partly take control over its editorial because Ms. had to make a break-even. Just as Ms., so many magazines also under control of ads. Therefore, many women are influenced by the ads-oriented culture. And if “”archaeologists of the future dug up women’s magazines and used them to judge American women”, they would think that American women were extremely materialized.

However, are these companies that try to take control of the content of magazines should be blamed for messaging tremendous insignificant information to the society? I do not think so. I think it is these magazines that are weak in content are responsible. As Gloria herself has pointed out, while food companies and cosmetics companies require some fashion and feminists’ magazines to add recipes and regular beauty columns in the editorial with their ads, they do not apply the same rule to magazines like People and The New Yorker. Why? Because magazines like People and The New Yorker are famous for their contents, they have their stands, and people know that they can gain some useful information from it. But people are suspicious about these fashion and feminists’ magazines. If these feminists’ magazines can be more appealing by their contents and people can be sure about what they have paid for, I am sure these magazines can live without excessive ads. Make progress on the contents can be a satisfaction to all. As Gloria has said: “the greatest factor in determining an ad’s effectiveness is the credibility of its surroundings”. If magazines like Ms. can be more influential on their contents, ads can be effective without much distribution in the contents, editors can be free to take full use of its magazines to send information that they think revolutionary, and readers can enjoy challenging ideas and useful information without being disturbed by too many ads.