In Defense of Advertising: Arguments from Reason, Ethical Egoism, and Laissez-faire Capitalism (英語) ペーパーバック – 2007/1/31
Kindle 端末は必要ありません。無料 Kindle アプリのいずれかをダウンロードすると、スマートフォン、タブレットPCで Kindle 本をお読みいただけます。
"In Defense of Advertising is a theoretical defense based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand and the economics of Ludwig von Mises. It argues that the proper foundations of advertising are reason, ethical egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism. Its theme is that the social and economic criticisms of advertising are false because they are based on a false philosophic and economic world view. Only an alternative world view can refute the charges and put forth a positive moral evaluation of advertising s role in human life. The author defends advertising because it appeals to the rational self-interest of consumers for the rationally selfish, profit-making gain of the capitalists.""
"This excellent, thought-provoking book thoroughly debunks popular, hostile misconceptions about consumer advertising, all of which boils down to the notion that advertising is a coercive, offensive, monopolistic force which must be heavily regulated by the government. An important advancement in the theory of advertising and its relationship to society."-The Journal of Consumer Affairs --このテキストは、絶版本またはこのタイトルには設定されていない版型に関連付けられています。
Kirkpatrick's arguments are not directed towards those who dislike any particular ad for its low-brow qualities, but rather aimed high to refute those who stand against advertising per se, on principle.
The book addresses important key questions such as:
- What is the nature of advertising?
- Is persuasive advertising wasteful or harmful?
- Does advertising benefit consumer interests or is it anti-consumer?
- Should some people determine which products are beneficial to advertise and which are not?
- Does advertising create unnecessary market instability and unwarranted competitive pressures, or are these attributes inherent benefits of market competition?
- Does advertising unnecessarily increase prices thereby `exploiting' workers and consumers, or does it ultimately lower prices by increasing sales and reducing per unit costs, thereby benefiting workers and consumers?
The arguments presented by Kirkpatrick form a basic and fundamental philosophic and economic defense of advertising aimed at refuting those who argue that advertising per se is wasteful, coercive, and generally pernicious. This book is not directed towards practitioners who seek advice on how to improve their advertising. It doesn't provide advice on how to create more effective marketing communications beyond defining the purpose of advertising.
It is unfortunate that it may be difficult for many practitioners of advertising and marketing to understand Kirkpatrick's devastating critique of the various arguments put forth by advertising's enemies. That's because the refutation of such criticisms requires the application of higher level philosophic and economic concepts that are outside of most people's general context of knowledge. Kirkpatrick does a great job explaining the essence of these concepts, but by their nature, they are not easy for the uninitiated to understand, especially when brevity of presentation is maintained.
Perhaps the most prominent criticism of advertising as a medium is that it is inherently coercive and must be addressed by an opposing coercive intervention of government. As such, the critics of advertising qua salesmanship tend to be critics of free-markets, free-speech, and personal freedom in general. Advertising is an outcome of freedom, and Kirpatrick argues that an attack on one is really an attack on the other.
Another major criticism of advertising is that it promotes individual values as against conformity to so-called `higher' values. At base, this critique of advertising rests upon the dispute in ethics between the virtue of self-interest versus social-interest, or egoism versus altruism. Economically and politically, this translates to issues of free-markets versus command economies, or capitalism versus socialism.
Kirkpatrick succeeds in addressing the philosophic attacks against advertising at all levels of the philosophic hierarchy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. He does so by taking a scientific individualistic approach, appealing primarily to philosopher Ayn Rand and economist Ludwig von Mises as his guideposts, hence the subtitle of the book: Arguments from Reason, Ethical Egoism, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism.
The arguments in this book pose a major challenge to those who attack the benefits of advertising and take a liking to business-bashing in general. Those who are serious about understanding the deeper meaning of these attacks and the fallacies they are based on as a means to defend the nobility of the principle of freedom of trade, i.e., capitalism, should find a lot of ammunition in this important book.
"In Defense of Advertising" by Jerry Kirkpatrick is not a book for the general public. I do not believe that the general public realizes that advertising needs to be defended. I also believe that in order to fully grasp the concepts in "In Defense of Advertising," the reader needs to have a few semesters of economics under their belt.
For those who are interested in economics and advertising, Kirkpatrick does a brilliant job of combining philosophy, ethics, and economics to defend the need for advertising. As Kirkpatrick explained, "The critics who denigrate advertising attack not only advertising but also--by logic necessity--capitalism, ethical egoism, and reason."
Critics of advertising argue that it damages the economy. Critics claim that advertising create monopolies. It creates a barrier to the market and it increases price. Critics claim that it decreases price elasticity. "The brand loyalty, in turn, makes it difficult for competitors to enter the market and, at the same time, enables the advertiser to increase prices." In an era where all business owners want a "brand," critics argue that branding contributes to this monopoly that destroys free enterprise. "Brand loyalty of consumers, then, is the actual barrier that prevents other firms from entering the market."
Kirkpatrick explains the doctrine of determinism. This belief is based upon the idea that man does not have free will. If you follow this belief, people are controlled by forces outside themselves. Kirkpatrick explains that the doctrine of determinism is founded on the assumption that our bodies are always at war with our minds. Picture the cliché devil on one shoulder and angel on the other shoulder.
Kirkpatrick describes the connections between Marxism, Socialism, and advertising. "Again, I must emphasize that not everyone who criticizes advertising on `social' or economic grounds is a Marxist--at least, not explicitly." Outside of academic circles, we would call them Marxists.
A social criticism of advertising is that it "offends the consumer's sense of good taste by insulting and degrading his intelligence." Kirkpatrick points out that "taste" is subjective. Who is elitist enough to appoint them the "good taste" police? Why do critics of advertising think that everyone but them is too uneducated to determine what "good taste" is? "In effect, these critics charge that consumers have no free will and, consequently, helpless pawns of the advertisers."
The Austrian School of Economics does find that advertising is a "legitimate function of business entrepreneurship." I take great offense in the critics' argument that the public, including myself, is not intelligent enough to make informed decisions.
Jerry Kirkpatrick's "In Defense of Advertising" should be required reading for economics and advertising students as it shows the real-world implications of advertising. "In Defense of Advertising" has an index, so it would be a great book to use as a reference for term papers. This is a must read for people studying or working in advertising.
Received book free of charge.