Sexism and stereotyping are now rife in advertising, and the whole thing becomes more than visual pollution, but becomes psychological or emotional pollution as well.

Complaining to the Advertising Standards Bureau can be done, although that organisation is probably the greatest toothless tiger “watch dog” organisation in Australia. In 2003, there were 2620 complaints made, and only 23 upheld. 1770 complaints were dismissed and others were withdrawn, or deemed outside of charter etc. Other years are similar http://www.advertisingstandardsbureau.com.au/facts_figures.html So if complaints are made to that organisation, then there is almost a 100 to 1 chance of having the complaint dismissed.

Even if someone has the money to buy all the products being advertised, then there becomes the problem of where they are going to put all those products. Eventually they will run out of room, which means that the consumer has to become selective eventually on what products they buy and take home.

So we have ads that have become pollution, (in one form or another), and no one can simply purchase the products being advertised unless they throw out something else.

But it is noticed that advertisements normally do not display the name of the advertising company. If there is a movie, a documentary etc then the producer or director will have their name displayed as part of the credits, but this does not occur within advertising. The public knows what the product is, but not who actually produced the often abysmal ad. That to me seems to be a place to start.

Having the advertising company display their name as a credit on the advertisement, would help the public know more about who was behind that ad.

Timkins, love your idea about identification of the advertising company behind adds.

Elspeth great article. The issues are not simple and it is nice to see them treated with an acknowledgement of the complexities involved.

I recall in the early eighties sitting next to an advertising "creative" person on a long flight, back in the days when I used to talk to my neighbouring fellow-traveller. As we chatted, it became clear that he had been closely involved in what I considered to be some of the most egregious examples of tacky advertising of the period, an opinion that I ventured after several beers.

He looked puzzled for a moment, then turned to me and said crossly "For heaven's sake, they weren't aimed at you."

I think there's something in that for all of us, don't you?

I am an advertising "creative" person, have been for 20 odd years, written some good ads and some bad ads, some that some people have loved, some that some people have hated. It is a tough business and getting tougher. The number of ads created in Australia is shrinking, many of the ads are made overseas and revoiced and run here. Almost every ad on TV has been extensively researched with its "target" audience, and doesn't get to air unless the people they expect might buy the product respond positively to the ad. The ad industry has long employed and trained Aussie writers (Peter Carey, Bryce Courtenay, Derek Hansen), art directors and artists (Ken Done, Dennis Marchant, Adrian Lockhart), film directors (Ray Lawrence, Cherie Nowlan, Shirley Barrett, the director of Somersault) DOP's (every last one of them), producers, film crews, designers, make-up artists, stylists etc. The current decline of the Aussie film industry is directly related to the decline of the ad industry. I am a trenchant critic of bad, lazy, sexist ads, but good ads; funny ones, moving ones, clever ones, relevant ones are rare and hard to get through the increasingly control-freak universe we live in, and worth celebrating. It's a shame we are seeing less and less Aussie ones.
Love the article, by the way. Spot on in its analysis. Ads are really mirrors that reflect us back to ourselves, and just like real mirrors, we don't always like what we see. But the ads change, when we do, more than the other way around.

I do not think that ads are simply mirrors that reflect what we are. I think that there are too many adds that deliberately seek to change our values and attitudes and appeal to the worst aspects of human nature in the interests of creating a market and selling products.

At the risk of being labelled a ‘control-freak’ I deplore ads that use very sophisticated psychological research to market products to children and would like to see this practice regulated.

Interesting posts, especially from Enjay, how do you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? and great article too. I suppose it all comes down about how much we, as a consumer allows it to suck us all in. I worked with a girl in her twenties who just had to have the Estee Lauder makeup, the Bolle sunnies et al and god she was boring. I accused her once of living her life through brand names without the "lifestyle" they promised and did i get a BOSE earful! She didn't care about the content of the ads (ie: sexism) where as I certainly wouldn't buy my partner a pair of Windsor Smith shoes on principle of their billboards a couple of years ago. Advertising does stereotype and suck people in however, my sister bought a "Toorak Tractor" and she lives in Sydney! Justify's it by her lifestyle of trekking the kids around and the "need" to be safe on the road. (though you wouldn't want to meet her in a supermarket carspace or a roundabout) One (or several) ads must have sucked her in but I suspect it's a domino effect with what all her girlfriends are buying. All their last names are Jones'.