![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Busting Adbusters
Detourning Detournement
AdBusters is a “culture jammer’s” magazine that paints itself as being an intellectual superhero poised against corporate greed and marketing manipulation of culture. One of their bread and butter tactics they use to prove their status is detournement of ads, in which “elements of well-known media [are used] to create a new work with a different message, often one opposed to the original.” It has been my experience of the magazine, however, that the ads which they claim to be subverting through artistic modification often end up doing quite the opposite. If anything, they seem to be reinforcing the original message of the brands and advertisements, but reformulating it into an intellectual-ironic stance for a more “sophisticated” audience who believe themselves immune to such things.
Here are two adverts I scanned from an old issue of AdBusters which was laying around the house. Hopefully these will serve to illustrate what I mean:
Pictured here is an original Calvin Klein ad with a number of fresh-faced male models laying around languidly. Superimposed over this is what seems to be AdBusters refutation of this sexually loaded advertisement. It is a statement about democratic values by Thomas Merton, which reads:
“Democracy cannot exist when [people] prefer ideas and opinions that are fabricated for them. The actions and statements of the citizen must not be mere automatic ‘reactions’ - mere mechanical salutes, gesticulations signifying passive conformity with the dictates of those in power.”
A person who considers themselves an intellectual and “media-savvy” is supposed to look at this quote laid against this advertisement and believe that the advertisement has been “subverted” because they have been made aware of a manipulative technique used by the fashion industry, symbolized by the brand Calvin Klein. The viewer is rewarded when they are able to make the leap for themselves (always important to allow “sophisticated” audiences to figure things out themselves) that it is corporations who are the ones fabricating ideas and opinions for people. Whoo, what a relief! Democracy is now safe! Right?
Er, hard to say… Especially since the brand being subverted is Calvin Klein, a brand known for its risque advertisements. (remember that debate about its ads being too close to kiddie porn several years back?) A major component of all fashion companies is instilling in their audience that by purchasing and wearing their brand name, they are actually asserting their own individuality. Thus, to lay a quote about protecting democracy and promoting individualism against a fashion advertisement doesn’t subvert anything. It promotes Calvin Klein and helps set them apart in the subconscious mind of the viewer as a company who implicitly “gets” the value system that the viewer believes themselves to be a part of, that which is represented by AdBusters magazine.
So does that mean the good people at AdBusters are actually pioneering a next level experiment in marketing to people who believe they are too smart to be marketed to? Well, you’d have to ask them what they are doing and what they mean by it and then decide whether to take their word for it. I concede that it’s possible the people at AdBusters themselves are being had by the companies who appear to be allowing their ads to be detourned. Any publicity is good publicity, right? Especially if you’re reinforcing people’s ideas that marketing can’t touch them on their intellectual perches. That only pays for advertising companies. Why else would these corporations be allowing their copyrights and trademarks to be violated by an extremely popular national magazine?
Another ad from that same issue, for the good old Army Reserve:
This is a pretty typical Army Reserve ad trying to make soldiers look like heroes and invoke a sense of manliness, etc. Superimposed over this, though, is a bit pulled from some other magazine entitled “The Worst of the Worst” which is essentially a who’s who list of America’s enemies, with a little descriptor explaining how evil their dictatorship is. To the liberal intellectual viewer, the dots which they themselves are going to inevitably connect would have something to do with America’s foreign policy being at fault for creating conditions in which these types of environments can flourish. It is supposed to appear in the minds of the correct target audience to be in conflict with the ad for the Army Reserve.
But wait a minute! We’re presented with an advertisement which promotes the American military. And this is supposed to be subverted by an official informational graphic which proves just how necessary the American military really is in protecting our freedoms from dictators the world over who would steal it from us? The only thing being subverted here is the preconceived notions of the viewer who doesn’t realize that they have been targeted with high level propaganda designed to slip past their filtration mechanisms.
And what the hell is the deal with their Blackspot sneaker campaign? It is supposed to be some kind of anti-corporate campaign, but every mention I see of it on their website talks about “Kicking Nike’s Ass.” They even have a page entitled “How to uncool a megacorporation” which has instructions on how you can take your existing Nike sneakers and cover up their logo with a stupid black spot to subvert their logo/brand image. But guess what, if you bought Nike shoes and covered up their logo, you still bought Nike shoes. They don’t give a crap if you only bought them to subvert them. They know that you’re the only one who has been subverted. Is Nike paying for this campaign? Even if they are not, the method being used is such an ill-conceived one that it can only promote that which it claims to fight against.
And what is it that they’re even fighting against anyway? Bad branding techniques? Poor marketing strategies? Sure looks that way. There are a million and one more important things in our world to stand against - and to stand for. It’s time we start figuring out what those are. Because this ain’t it. It’s just another diversion in an endless hall of smoke and marketing mirrors.
- CanadiaBusters
- B-adBusters
- Buy Nothing Day
- Guiltier And Guiltier
- Israel Plans Strike on Iran Nuclear Plant
- Prev: Cultivation
- Next: Posthuman Spiritual Existence
August 21st, 2006 at 10:37 am
Back in the mid-to-late 90s, Adbusters was a terrific magazine that did a great job “subverting” traditional advertising…but something changed in the time between then and now. Back then, the articles and fake ads had an all-important SENSE OF HUMOR, and the reader got the sense that the guys at Adbusters were having a lot of fun poking fun at advertising and waking people up. The satire was razor-sharp, and it was nasty enough that Absolut Vodka sent them a bunch of legal threats over their poking fun.
But if you pick up an issue of the magazine now, it seems as though the sense of fun and humor has somehow been drained out. All they do now is whine and moan about how awful the world is and how people are being oppressed by evil corporations. All of the illustrations and fake ads in the magazine now are shown in a washed-out, drab color that may contain “philosophical” quotes such as the one you mentioned above. It may look high-minded and “intellectual” — but it’s not FUN anymore. I don’t just mean not “funny” - it’s not entertaining and FUN anymore. Adbusters used to be a must-read for me, but even though I leaf through the occasional issue, I’m just not inspired by it anymore.
However, their “Buy Nothing Day” campaign is still a worthy cause.
August 21st, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Like you said, any publicity is good publicity. Looking at what purports to be a subversion of an AD is still looking at an AD, which acccomplishes one of the primary goals of advertising: familiarizing the brand with the potential customer. It’s enough that we know they exist.
August 21st, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I’m with you on this, Tim & indeed Modemac. However it seems to me that a more radical critique is necessary of the kind of democracy & corporate manipulation and failure to think freely that plagues America or if you prefer advanced Western industrial societies.
Let me try to explain. Reading Adbusters - not a magazine I am familiar with, because I am in England - is evidence of being within the very goldfish bowl one is trying to escape. Who is it intended for? I’m putting myself putatively in your place and thinking I would not be reading Adbusters, I’d be emigrating, or going up to the hills to live in a shack where there are no ads, no TV, no magazines, no billboards: only the sky and the earth. And if I could not do that physically, I would do it spiritually.
In any event I would be establishing by the way I live my life that though the advertisers and politicians and corporations need me, I don’t need them, not even the magazines which purport to subvert the established order. And by living in this way, which more or less I do, I act as role model to anyone else who’s ready to follow suit.
August 21st, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Your argument about the Calvin Klein advertisment makes sense when the “subvertisement” is removed from the context of an issue of Adbusters Magazine. Within such a context it’s meaning is easily ascertained by the reader (who PROBABLY understands Adbusters overarching statement) and can therefore be interpeted as a subversive statement on the original advertisement. If you wanted to you could also remove it from the Adbusters context and it could easily be interpeted as a Jeans ad, regardless of the quote about Democracy. Also those examples you used aren’t really indicative of the kind of detournment work that Adbusters is known for, which are often parodies of advertisements that mimic the err…style of well known advertising campaigns.
Also the point of the black spot campaign is meant to disrupt the perpetuation of the image of corperate products. The idea (which I think has a lot of merit) is that the corperate logos are fetishized and consumed and the black spot campaign is an effort to resist that in some way. I think they’re only using nike as an example but it’s something that can be done with any kind of shoes or other item bearing a prominant corperate logo (obviously). And also the use of Nike as an example shows an understanding that there doesn’t have to be some expectation of purity among participants who choose to resist this ‘branding’
Also it’s stupid to criticize Adbusters for not going after the most important issues in the world. There are other social issues (which ones are most important is a matter of personal perspective) there are also other magazines, and it’s the perogative of each publication to choose their subject matter. Why don’t you call out Sports Illustrated for not going after the issues that are more important than sports??
August 21st, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Wilson Bryan Key, who wrote books about subliminals in advertising, also touched on exactly the concept you have, mainly: that the people who think they are too smart to be conned, are the ones that are the easiest marks. If you haven’t read any of books, please do, highly recommended.
What is going on the Calvin Kline ad anyway? Two guys and a girl? A rather taboo subject, and Key pointed out that by suggesting through the pictures something that is a repressed desire is a way of opening the viewer to accept other subliminals in the ad. Consciously, one may feel disgusted by what it covertly suggests, and so, one denies what one perceives. (defense mechanism)
Anyway, is this text laid over the still existing subliminal going to have any effect other than to reinforce the denial mechanism?
Of course Key’s books were met by VERY angry denials by the ad industry, along with accusations of a dirty mind, blah blah…
August 21st, 2006 at 8:21 pm
So is there any more slight-proof out there that Adbusters might have some evil intentions?
Im still struck by the copywrite infringement deal. how could they get away with that?
August 21st, 2006 at 8:31 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 8:49 pm
big bissness and corporations mush be stoped in america i agree with ad busters its time to end there error of globle dommonation by big bisness and time to make thing simple
August 21st, 2006 at 10:53 pm
adbusters is selling adbusters………………….
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:55 am
The thing that makes that argument fall flat is that the black spot merely serves as a new idol to fetishize. For chrissake, these people are SELLING shoes with a black dot on them!! The intention here is clearly less about subverting accepted symbols but co-opting them.
While the “overarching goal” that is stated on the site is really neat n’ all, the problem is — they are still trying to make sneakers cool. They are *just* trying to make black dots the new swoosh, and they know full well that they’ll fail. Nobody’s perceptions about footwear and identity will change with this approach. I’m as big a fan of hemp made, fair trade, branded vegan shitkickers as you are… but I just can’t buy this. Don’t try to sell me a fake DIY product or I’ll hate you more than Nike.
As Tim said: Any press is good press. Remember when that “Supersize Me” movie came out? It was perfectly coordinated with McDonalds new healthy meal campaign. Problem? Solution! All this Adbusters crap is just a way to stroke people who think they are above marketing and then marketing to them. It’s brilliant… Problem? Solution!
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:09 am
This is exactly the right response, and the only response. Most readers of PopOcculture are probably already on board with it, but the vast American public — in particular the left/liberal wing of it — are ignorant or hostile to any kind of spiritual solution. Unfortunately, there is nowhere to emigrate physically, and the “simple life” of living in the hills is an option only if you already have a lot of cash on hand. For the middle and lower classes, we can only escape spiritually. This requires work and difficult choices, neither of which Americans are used to or like. And it requires a kind of faith, which has been bled out of the American left.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Everything I read, everything I think, makes me feel guiltier and guiltier and less and less sure of what the fuck I should be doing with my life. I feel like no matter what I do, I will be living wrong. How dare I not do whatever it is this or that person thinks I ought to? How do I live with myself, knowing that I continue in sin, forsaking the one obvious solution that everybody knows but nobody can agree on. Can’t helpt thinking that God is gonna throw me in hell for at least a couple millennia no matter what I do.
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:39 pm
I don’t understand how Adbusters can keep churning out magazines based on the same old tired one-liner of throwing in some cutsey wordplay to make you feel like your better than everybody else becuase you’re smart enought to see right through the evil marketing machine. Big F-in’ deal.