Class and advertising

        As I listen, to the extent that I can stomach it, to current  political discussions’ ebb and flow, it remains obvious that we have a huge gap between the haves and have nots in our society, not to mention the widely varying ways proposed to address (or ignore) these issues.

        American beliefs about social class, especially as portrayed by commercial advertising, are not always reflective of reality. Up to half of Americans claim to belong to the middle class, and many believe in an egalitarian society where social mobility is possible. These misperceptions, I feel, are attributable, in part, to the mass media.

       There are, today, to a greater extent than ever before, very visible examples thrown at minimum wage or even middle-class workers which serve to accentuate and exacerbate this sense of class difference. Many of these are media driven and intended for commercial purposes without any consideration of the message as it reaches less fortunate Americans.

       Examples: Every Christmas we are bombarded with automobile ads featuring couples buying not just one automobile, but one for each other. This represents, at a minimum, $70,000 in spending. I can only imagine how the average driver of a six- or seven-year-old car views this. Certainly, it must instill a sense of, “What have we done wrong?” or “How have we failed?”

        What actually triggered this essay is the current ad for Peloton, which shows the fit, young woman fitting 20 miles on the exercise bike and accompanying subscription electronic programming into her hectic daily routine. The commercial ends with the assertion that, at $58 per month it’s “for everyone.”  The $58 per month is a 3½ year commitment totaling over $2200 for the bike and access to the app. While this may seem reasonable to many of us, it’s a stretch for lower income families who have other concerns like, say, food, clothing and gas for their car.  

       Many automobile ads target perhaps a tenth of a viewing audience as potential buyers. The same is true ads for “wealth management” companies, which feature couples simply “adjusting” assets to afford college, vacation homes etc.

        So, from a historical perspective, how has this developed?  Immediately following WWII, the United States experienced an economic expansion, spurred in part by the GI Bill which (brilliantly) allowed avoidance of a post war recession.

        Additionally, with many world industrial economies in ruin, the US, untouched, was exporting worldwide. This was a boom in which in which all social classes participated. Yet, by the 1970s, this growth had stalled and began to reverse in what has been termed by some economists as “the Great U-turn.”  Beginning in the late 1970s, American society began to transition from roughly equal (on a percentage basis) real-income growth across socio-economic strata to current historic inequality in wages, earnings, and consumption.

       Real middle-class incomes declined and both inflation and recessions battered the middle class.  However, during this same stretch, the top fifth of income earners, and particularly the very top, took a greater share of income. 

       As a point of interest, this was facilitated by significant decreases in highest marginal income tax rates, from 90% (1953-1962), to 70% (1966-1980), to less than 30% (1987) and back up only slightly to around 37%. It is worthy of note that regardless of these reductions in tax rates on upper income earners, there were still recessions which, predictably, adversely affected lower income Americans far more than the top “10 percenters.”  In fact, the vaunted “Reagan tax cut” actually resulted in the “Reagan recession.”

       Perhaps the most concise and cogent statement describing the current effects and mindset of mess media advertisers comes from Gregory Mantsios’ 2007 book, “Media Magic, making Class Invisible.” His thesis: “The United States is the most highly stratified society in the industrialized world. Class distinctions operate in virtually every aspect of our lives, yet remarkably, we, as a nation, retain illusions about living in an egalitarian society. We maintain these illusions, in large part, because the media hides gross inequalities from public view. In those instances when inequalities are revealed, we are provided with messages that obscure the nature of class realities and blame the victim.”

        Analysis is of all that is inherent in that statement is the stuff for a doctoral thesis, not just this essay. Suffice it to say that, as briefly as I can manage: Advertising tends to portray upper class individuals as benevolent and sharing in most cases, and working class individuals, if they are “hard” workers as having a folksy, aw shucks “we’re here to help” attitude.

       Remember “Madge,” the manicurist, her working class status evident through her occupation and her name embroidered on her uniform, telling her client a secret: you don’t need a fancy, high priced product to soften your hands: Palmolive dishwashing soap is perfect for the job, and it just costs pennies? Madge provides valuable knowledge that the client supposedly does not and would not possess. The common sense, authenticity, and folksy wisdom of the working class is leveraged. (Of course, today, “Madge” would most likely be Asian.)

       By contrast, we almost never see non-working, “working class” persons in  commercials, reserving that coverage, instead, for Public Service spots or the nightly news. This isn’t new; even in Elizabethan times the term 'deserving' poor was used to societally segregate those in need who were unable to work because they are too old, disabled, or too sick. The 'undeserving poor' were people who don't want to work and often it is assumed that all able-bodied unemployed people fit into that category. Little has changed in the world as relates to this dilemma.

        This is compounded in the here and now by political efforts of the current administration to “brand” Republicans and Republicanism as inclusive and representing (and “protecting”) the welfare of the middle class, and working class as long as they are white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. The truly devious part of this tactic is that hard work matters a lot less if you’re Brown, Muslim, and/or undocumented. All this, of course, is driven by the ultimate elitist and top 1 percenter in the White House.

       Mass media in the form of Twitter and other means of mass communication have enabled the conveyance of this most deceitful of messages. Political advertising has stolen a page from commercial adverts in several ways. First, by cheap hats, tee shirts and slogans, Donald Trump’s machine has allowed lower middle and downright poor folks to feel as if they “belong” to a movement which favors them, headed by a leader who “likes” them when the inverse is true.

       The media magic here is the lack of any apparent Republican rank and file outrage, even in the face of Trump’s pardons of several devious felons, one of which was Michael Milken who invented the junk bond market and promoted its use in hostile corporate takeovers that destroyed businesses, labor unions, and working class job security while enriching a tiny corporate elite.  No matter, the Red Hat middle class and middle-class wannabees swallow it hook line and sinker.

        Isn’t advertising truly the great American invention?