How Culture

Affects
Advertising
Expression and
Communication
Style
A

J.

dvertising can be considered a medium on its

own because its function and format set it
apart from the other vehicles of communication
in which it appears. Advertisements are unique
composites of words and pictures, sounds and movement, and symbols and slogans. Advertising is more
overtly persuasive, more goal-oriented and more
frequently repeated than other media. The articulate
persuasion and insistent exhortation of advertising
represent a heightened form of human expression.
In the words of McLuhan, "the ads of our time are
the richest and most faithful daily reflections that
any society ever made of its entire range of activities" (1) Advertisements are the folklore of the
twentieth century.
This reflective quality of advertising is most evident in the content of advertisements. Social standards, situations and lifestyles are reproduced in
idealized form so that the audience will want to
identify with the subject of the advertisement. But
there is another, more subtle and often more revealing way in which advertising manifests the cultural
values of the society in which it circulates. This is
the manner in which the advertising man communicates; the mode of expression or creative style he
employs to put across his advertising concept or
idea. This "language of advertising," although less
apparent to communicator and audience alike, is
firmly anchored to cultural norms and often says
more about a society's psyche than the more obvious
stereotypes of content.

Stephen Unwin is an Assistant Professor of Advertising at the

University of Illinois He isan MA and B.A of Oxford University
where he took an honors degree in modern history with American
history his special subject. He was formerly an Associate Director
of the London Press Exchange, now Leo Burnett International.
HIS 18 years in account management included responsibility for
the Beecham and Cutty Sark accounts. He is a member of Worcester
College. Oxford and the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising.
His current interests are advertising theory and intercultural
communication.

ABSTRACT
What is the relationship between society and the communication
media? How do the media influence society'* How does society
influence the media? These questions sitmulate much debate.
There are some who hold that the influence of the media predominates, and that the media mold and control tfie patterns of society.
Others believe that the media simply reflect what is already happening in society. This argument usually centers around media content
McLuhan. however, has asserted that the characteristics of the
media themselves, rather than the messages and communications
they carry, are the media's chief influence on society. This article,
which examines how society affects the media, also relegates the
importance of media content, and explores the way in which society
influences the expression of its communication media. Two media
are considered television (particularly television news) and advertising (particularly advertising in magazines)

We take for granted our own modes of expression

until we see them compared with those of another
culture communicating in the same medium. A
comparison reveals not only differences in social
behavior and customs, such as dress, eating habits
and everyday situations, all of which will be clearly
visible in the content of the advertisements, but it
also draws attention to differences in advertising

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING. 1974. 3(2). 24 27.

24

not jump off the page at the reader like the American visual. It is closely cropped and unlike the
American illustration seems to bleed into the page
rather than off it. In McLuhanese, British ads are
not as hot as American ads. British typographers
a creative force in the British agency sometimes
have to be restrained from showing too many
shapely faces in a single ad. American typography
is more typically the servant of the word and imparts
little accent or tone.
The Americans tend to write advertisements
rather than to visualize them. Large American
agencies pay their copy chiefs more than twice
as much as their art directors (3). In London, art
and copy receive equal pay. This American tradition
"in which a copywriter first determined what should
be said and then handed his words to a low-paid
artist . . ." was reversed for a time at Doyle Dane
Bernbach. "Bernbach gave an art director equal
status with the writer . . ." but there are signs
that even the Bernbach revolution against the
omnipotence of the word may now have run its
course (4).
British creative people have more trouble than
American in isolating and articulating the consumer
proposition. They are less single-minded in defining
the basic selling message. This is why in British
agencies, particularly those owned by American
parents, they have to impose on themselves a strict
discipline of concept development in the preparation
of new advertising campaigns. Such an elaborate
procedure is unknown and probably unnecessary
in American agencies, where what Americans describe as the advertising "idea" comes into being
more spontaneously. In this context it is hardly
surprising that the author of this statement
"what we want to do for our clients is to say their
bottles are washed in live steam" (5), was an American called Rosser Reeves, and the author of this
statement "it is almost always the total personality of a brand rather than any trivial product
difference which decides its ultimate position in
the market" (6). a British ex-patriate called David
Ogilvy. The British want to convey the total experience of using a product; the Americans want to
recognize, appreciate and dramatize only a part.

expression. Insights into American modes of advertising expression, and the more fundamental cultural values by which they are influenced, can be
obtained by comparing American advertising with
that of any other culture. But it is probably more
enlightening to compare British and American
advertising expression because the apparent absence of the variable of spoken language makes
differences in "advertising language" easier to
identify.
Although there are numerous exceptions on both
sides, transatlantic observers of advertising will
notice that in general British advertising expression
differs from American advertising expression in two
respects. Intentionally or not, British advertising
expression has the effect of leaving an audience with
rather a general impression of a product's values and
benefits, while American advertisements are rarely
deterred from focussing on a specific feature or
attribute. Secondly, British advertisements sometimes seem to revel in ambiguity; whereas, American advertisements take great pains to be exact
and definite. A British ad often appears to want each
individual member of its audience to participate in
the communication process and each make his own
interpretation of its message. An American ad usually
likes to leave no uncertainties in the minds of its
audience and to get the message across loud and
clear. British ads are implicit; American ads are
explicit. A top British copywriter recently wrote
"you can communicate more accurately, more effectively to slightly different groups if you let them
decide the responses you want them to have"
(2). The British approach has its risks as too many
people may reach the wrong interpretation, and the
American approach alsoif the wrong point is stressed.
These comparisons apply to differences in advertising expression, and not to creative content or
even the basic selling idea. They are concerned with
the "how" of advertising and not the "what". These
differences cannot be explained away in terms of
each country's receptivity to hard and soft sell, or
the cliches of British understatement and American
competitiveness. Nor do they have much to do with
different levels of professional competence. They
reflect other more subtle yet more profound cultural
influences on modes of advertising expression.

Such intercultural distinctions in advertising expression make the pretesting of finished advertising
treatments, as opposed to concepts, an important
step in international campaign planning procedure.
Even if all other marketing factors favor the use
of the same advertising campaign across all international markets, it may prove more effective to
allow each market to translate the basic idea into
its own "advertising language."

For example, they reflect the supreme status of

the word in American advertising. More American
advertisements than British advertisements have
big, bold, clear headlines set at the top of the ad.
More British than American advertisements use
headlines like captions to the visual set beneath
the illustration. British headlines are sometimes
quotations and frequently puns. American headlines are customarily messages which forge a direct
connection between the consumer and the product.
The British advertising illustration gives a feeling
of depth. It pulls the reader into the page and does

The same distinctions in communicative expression

between the two countries can be observed in their
use of the television medium. The British perceive
TV as essentially a visual medium; whereas, the

25

JOURNAL of ADVERTISING

exactitude of the spoken word still plays a prominent

role in American television. The British TV camera
surrounds and embraces a subject; whereas, the
American camera prefers to stand still, and look
on. There always seem to be more cameras in use on
a British TV show. They appear to be more mobile,
and the viewer gets to see the subject at long and
close range and from many angles and aspects.
Whereas, American cameras are there to faithfully
record the scene, the British cameras seem to want
to swallow it whole. They zoom up to, peer into,
swarm round and glance behind the subject, sometimes reproducing several images of it at once.
They behave very much as extensions of our visual
sense. But as McLuhan observed most of the interpretation of this visual information is left to the
eye of the viewer. In comparison the video on American TV is typically a visual accompaniment to the
words; radio with pictures. The picture is not
allowed to interfere with what is being communicated
verbally. The American viewer spectates; the British
viewer participates.
Taking televised news as an example, British
TV newsreaders spend less time on screen than
their American counterparts, and their main function
is to act as commentators to the video-taped news
material being portrayed. Their commentaries are
not "running" or continuous as in the days of
radio but are keyed tightly to the video. In an interview the British TV camera cuts away as often as
possible from the interviewer to the interviewee,
while the American TV interviewer usually stays on
screen and passes a large microphone to and fro
between his lips and those of his subject. Microphones are rarely visible on British TV. The American
microphone probes like the British camera. On
American TV the image is supplementary to the word.
British TV news coverage of national and international events is more all-encompassing and continuous than the American. It leaves the viewer
with the feeling that he is plugged into a world
grapevine. He is a permanent witness of what is
going on everywhere all the time. The London
viewer feels closer to events in Washington than
the viewer in Chicago. Satellite relays, jet-freighted
film and direct telephone contact maintain the
illusion that the world is a small self-contained
place. Commenting on the impact of television on
modern society a British historian recently observed, "in this sort of international city (TV-induced)
frontiers become irrelevant and national governments dwindle to operate as public utilities" (7).
British culture has adapted more readily to the
totality of McLuhan's tribal village than has the
American. The natural tendency of the British to
prefer an ill-defined whole to a well-defined part
gave the electronic revolution a headstart in Britain.

British, although enjoying the literary pleasures of

the word have never assigned to the word the same
sanctity of meaning as have the Americans. As
McLuhan has pointed out, the oral traditions of
parliament and the common law softened the impact
of the print culture on British society. The precise
shape and hard face of movable type was absorbed
into the tradition of oral expression. Hence, states
McLuhan, "the discontinuity and unpredictable
quality of English culture" (8). In Britain the word
has remained a qualitative rather than a quantitative
symbol as it has become in advanced typographical
societies such as France and America. Words still
radiate an aura of diffuse meanings depending on
the context in which they are used and, if spoken,
the vocal intonation they are given. British words
have composite not single meanings. To Americans
the word is a more functional device. Things have
to be described clearly and accurately for efficient
communication to take place. Words serve as
predictable dependable labels. If a word does not
exist Americans do not hesitate in coining a new
one. America is where things are written down. The
word in its printed form provides a measurable
currency of meaning. American words are denotive;
British words are connotive. Bernard Shaw's mischievous observation that the American and British
people are separated by the barrier of a common
language can cause regret but surely no surprise.
It is not for purely economic reasons that the
British were the first to establish a university of
the air (as distinct from the page). It was entirely
in keeping with an oral culture for an eminent British
historian to illustrate his latest book because
"pictures make it possible to emphasize abstract
points with special strength" (9). Televised histories
of Western Civilization and more recently of America
were not surprisingly the products of British and
not American television.
In Britain, students learn English; in America,
they study Rhetoric and Speech. Rhetoric is the art
of the word and Speech the science of the word.
In Britain no such distinction is made. In America
speeches are often read, lectures are organized
from careful notes and handwriting is clear, legible
and unambiguous. British speeches are less articulate, less prepared and less coherent and their
handwriting is often indecipherable.
In America, segmentation,specificity and particularization are a creed. They represent human adaptation to technology and were born from the need to
build a superstructured, efficient society to develop
and organize an unexplored continent. States, street
names, organization charts and football fields are alt
laid out on the grid system. Segments are the bricks of
the American monolith. Segmentation is alien to the
British because they have always feared disintegration caused by the discovery of huge new lands,
the sudden acquisition of new territories, the passing

Signs of these communicative tendencies can be

found embedded deep in each nation's culture. The

26

How Culture Affects Advertising Expression and Communication Style

of new laws and the invention of new industries and

sciences. The British have always striven to hold
the pieces together to keep things whole, as the
alternative, they thought, was to burst or fall apart.
It is not surprising that the Americans are sometimes accused of being narrow and the British of
being superficial.
Thus, a society's influence on how it communicates
are more profound and enduring than on what it
communicates. What It communicates is a direct
reflection of today's problems, behavior and trends,
but how it communicates has its origins in its cultural
past. McLuhan's dictum that "the medium is the
message," that the medium itself is the predominant
factor in the communication process, is too sweeping
as it does not allow for the effects of culture on the
manner in which a medium is used. As we have
seen in the case of advertising and television this
can result in different versions of the same medium.
On the other hand. Hall has stated that culture itself
in all its manifestations is in effect communication
(10). The way we eat, dress, make love are all forms
of communication. This too may be an oversimplification because it does not allow for the constraints imposed on communication by the characteristics of the media. A nation's culture as well
as moulding the medium must also adapt to the
medium. After all, no matter who uses them, TV
screens rarely come larger than 2 4 . " It would
perhaps be nearer the truth to say that each society
produces its own distinctive culture-media blend.
The appropriateness of such a blend finds support
in quite a different field. When told that his product
always tasted much better in New York than in
London the blender of a well-known scotch whisky
said he was not surprised because he had "specially
blended it to suit the water, palate and pace of
Manhattan." Which also shows that the "receiver
of the message" can sometimes be as susceptible
to the influence of the environment as the sender
(or blender).
REFERENCES
I.Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media (New York: McGrawHill Book Company. 1964). p. 232
2, Jeremy Bullmore, "Creativity and the Media of Communications,"
in Robert Adams, e d . Creativity in Communications (Greenwich,
Connecticut New York Graphic Society. Ltd.. 1971), p 39
3, Marie Hessberger, "Agency Salaries Up," Advertising Age. Vol.
43 (August 7, 1972). p. 39
4. "A New Image for Doyle Dane Bernbach." Business Week. Number 2257. p 49.
5. Martin Mayer, Madison Avenue. U.SA (New York: Pocket
Books. 1967). p 53
6 Martin Mayer. Madison Avenue. USA. (New York Pocket Bocks,
1967). p 58
7 Arnold Toynbee, "Illustrating History". The Illustrated London
News. Vol 260 (October 1972). p 53,
8 Marshall McLuhan, op cit. p 1 5.
9 Toynbee. op cit., p 53,
10 Edward T. Hall. The Silent Language (Greenwich. Connecticut:
Fawcett Publications, Inc.. 1 969).

27