Corporate Image

Sometimes we see ads that are difficult to analyze because there are no consumer products involved: for example, ads from Altria, Cargil, Dow, ADM, Union Carbide, United Technologies, TRW, and General Dynamics.

Corporate image-building ads are sometimes difficult to understand. You can usually find out the purpose of such ads by searching google.com --- using the company name, plus a few keywords, such as regulations, litigation, advertising, taxes.

Such feel good ads are usually designed to develop favorable public opinion to be on their side for their corporate policies, such as less government regulations, less corporate taxes, offshore oil drilling, "multiple use" forest management, or specific weapons systems.

Just as individuals seek to project a good image, so also corporations seek to project a good "corporate image," stressing their benevolence, as being "on our side."

Dozens of corporations spend more than $10 million dollars a year on such advertising designed to make the public feel good about them. See also: Spin & Lip Service

Several terms ("publicity," "public relations," "good will advertising," "corporate image building," and "institutional advertising") all relate to this kind of "conditioning propaganda" which seeks to mold public opinions, assumptions, attitudes, beliefs, myths, and world views, on a long-term basis as the necessary climate or atmosphere for a future response.

Once in while, some corporate ads (called "issue ads" and "advocacy ads") can be very blunt and obvious when a specific bill is being debated in Congress. For example, the Tobacco Industry spent $50 million in a hard core ad blitz in 1998 trying to defeat unfavorable regulation of cigarette ads. Although some regulations were enacted, in the final process, some loopholes were left and the smoking controversy is not over. For example, Philip Morris Company has changed its name to Altria (Sounds altruistic, doesn't it?) in a major effort to change its corporate image.

Eight "magic" words: the verbs used in American political campaigns are extremely important because a "loophole" in the law was created when the Supreme Court ruled that "issue ads"* run by political parties, corporations, and unions are not subject to federal election campaign spending limits if they did not use words of express advocacy (i.e., use words such as "vote for," "elect," "cast your ballot for," "Smith for Congress," "vote against," "defeat," or "reject' - -or, intensify the others' "bad") and then ask the public for a specific response: "Vote, Write, Call your Senator...." For more about this important controversy, see: Issue Ads.

*In the 2000 campaign, $500 million was spent on such issue ads. On December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court closed that legal loophole, but said they were "under no illusion" that politicians would stop seeking another way: "Money, like water, always finds an outlet." Within weeks, the loophole was exploited by both parties with unregulated "soft money" called 527s in the 2004 election campaign.

Corporate advocacy ads often use ad hominem attacks against government regulators (as "bureaucrats" and "red-tape") and against volunteer reformers (as "sourpusses," "spoilsports," or "national nannies").

People who live in the Washington DC area are likely to see many advocacy ads on their television stations as lobbyists and special interest groups target lawmakers and other influentials. A slight change in the wording of regulation may save a corporation millions in expenses or tax breaks. For example, when FTC regulators were about to vote in 2003, AT&T, SBC, and WorldCom used TV ads as part of their lobbying blitz with advocacy ads.

But, most of the time, corporate ads simply use the association technique to link the corporation with "good things" ("warm fuzzies") which the audience already likes. In the glow of pleasant associations (images of family and friends, home and country, patriotic appeals), such ads make us feel good, distracting us from any problems. In 2005, for example, after a huge fraud scandal, Tyco spent millions in ads repairing its image. So, also the pharmaceutical industry (e.g. Merck, Pfizer, Abbott, Lilly, Johnson & Johnson) has hugely increased its spending on corporate image advertising in 2005 due to the "deep distrust of drug companies by ordinary Americans." (Wall Street Journal, 8/26/05) Surveys show that Big Business has PR problems.

Consider the environmental issue, however as the prime example. No one wants to be the "bad guy" here, the villain, the polluter. Thus, the major oil and chemical companies -- the basic sources of pollution -- publicize their "care" for the environment, or that their policies are the best solution to the problem.

How could you get mad at Mobil Oil, which long sponsored the elegant "Mobil Masterpiece Theater" on PBS? How could you get mad at Archer Daniel Midlands (ADM) which calls itself "Supermarket to the World" and sponsors the nightly news and so many good talk shows on PBS? How can you get mad at Dow Chemical (the maker of napalm during the Viet Nam war) which shows us their company's nurturing of young talent and tells us "Dow let's you do great things"?

Do corporations have the right to make such one-sided presentations?

Yes, in a free country, everyone has this right. However, everyone does not have the same ability. The rich and powerful, for example, have the ability to present their views on TV, or hire the best persuaders, while the poor and weak can not. The Tobacco Industry, for example, could afford to spend millions in their ad blitz, while the non-profits (health associations, parents groups) didn't have the TV ad money or media access to counter it.

Such increasing imbalance is a relatively new problem. When the Founding Fathers created the country, the available technology of the printing press was cheap and common, equally available to all.

Today, even if you write something in your own personal blog about a corporation, you may get a note -- or a warning -- from a corporate lawyer using online electronic surveillance technology to monitor your opinions: Is Big Brother watching you?