Skip to main content

Badvertising - Andrew Simms and Leo Murray **

In their book, Andrew Simms and Leo Murray tell us that ‘the enabler of [a] great shift in expectations and attitudes has been the advertising and marketing industries. Advertising is selling us an imagined lifestyle – the premise is that we can only we feel we are all living our best lives by flying around the world, driving ever bigger SUVS [sic], eating beef from cattle raised on cleared rainforest, and enjoying a vast array of consumer goods like there was no tomorrow.’

This book covers two of my interests, climate science and influencing the brain, so I thought it would be right up my street, but I found it depressingly bad. It's a polemic by enthusiasts that isn't really science driven. I don't like advertising, I think it can be manipulative - but the whole story was wildly overplayed here. I am certainly not aware, for example, of advertising making me eat beef from cattle raised on cleared rainforest, I have rarely seen advertising for beef per se, and only buy British beef – the UK is not famous for its rainforest (it does have some but it isn’t threatened by cattle so much as invasive species, disease and wild deer). Of course, I have seen advertising for companies that sell beef, such as fast-food chains, though many of those only claim to use British or Irish meat.

A lot of claims made in the book seem to be poorly substantiated.  Some aren't backed up by evidence at all, for example 'what is clear is that [adverts] have an effect whether or not we are consciously aware'. Is it clear? Others rely on dubious data. Like, I suspect, most of us I don't usually check references that back up claims in a book, but several looked dubious - and when I checked there were some real problems. For example, we are told that we are 'estimated to encounter between 6,000 and 10,000 ads every single day' - but the source is a blog that appears to pick the statement out of the air. Worse,  Simms and Murray say this is the figure for 2023, even though the blog was written in 2021, and seems to have been updated simply by changing the year in its title.

One statement had me rolling on the floor laughing: 'As Freud's nephew, Bernays knew all about psychology…' I'm sorry? Freud was not psychologist and very little of his work had a scientific basis. But even if he had been… My uncle was a sailor, so I presume I should know all about life at sea ? I don't. (I'll let them off calling Tony Benn, 'Tony Bevins' - who was a journalist, not a politician - a page or two later.)

It's such a shame, because we need to do more to combat climate change, and to limit inappropriate advertising. But this isn't the way to do it.
Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free hereShort

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...