Alfred Malmros

When people that used to preach a rather contradicting idealism suddenly turns to work in advertising he or she (or me) is very often confronted and questioned due to this sudden “hypocrite” turn. Usually the argument when defending the morally justifiable (if it in any way is) with advertising (the same that has defended rhetoric for the last 3000 years) concerns making a charity’s voice heard or informing consumers of a truly superior choice. It’s true, how would WWF or Amnesty get ca$h money if no one knew they existed. But then the argument usually falls when they ask you what charities you actually work for and you’re fucked.

I think Obama’s victory will be the topic of the next defense speech for advertisers, the thing people who sees capitalism (or just urban spamming and bad TV ads about toilet paper) as problematic will get stuffed down their throats. If it wasn’t for advertising Obama wouldn’t have won, the world would’ve been a worse place etc. “Change is only possible with the help of advertising.” Once again this is similiar to the discussions about rhetoric for the last milleniums and again it’s problematic. Advertising and rhetoric is a weapon as well as a shield, it’s a tool one must learn to handle both to persuade people about your opinion but also to deconstruct someone elses and not be deceived.