Advertising has been universally praised and condemned. It has been cheered by those who view it as emblematic of the American Dream - the notion that anyone with money and moxie can promote a product to masses of consumers, along with the promise, cherished by immigrants, that an escape from brutal poverty can be found through purchase of products and services not available in more oppressive economies. Advertising has been roundly condemned by those who despise its attack on our senses, its appropriation of language for use in a misty world located somewhere between truth and falsehood, and its relentless, shameless exploitation of cultural icons and values to sell goods and services (Cross, 1996, p. 2; Schudson, 1986). 

It is a lot easier to document advertising effects than to arrive at universally accepted conclusions about its ethics. Long before the arrival of Old Joe Camel and the Budweiser frogs, critics debated the ethics of advertising. Adopting a deontological approach, critics have argued that the test of ethical communication is whether it treats people as an end, not a means—or, more practically, whether the communicators' motives are honorable or decent. Viewed in this way, advertising can fall drastically short of an ethical ideal. Advertisers develop ads that make promises they know products can't deliver. Cigarettes don't offer hedonistic pleasure; cars don't make you rich or famous; and making pancakes for your kids on Saturday won't assuage your guilt about neglecting them all week, despite the plaintive plea of a Bisquik pancake commercial. 

Advertisers want consumers to project fantasies onto products in order to hook individuals on the image of the brand. Viewed from a deontological perspective, advertising is not ethical because advertisers are not truthful. If the decency of the communicators' motives is the criterion for ethical communication, advertising fails. Advertisers deliberately construct fantasies to serve their clients' needs, not to aid the customer in living a healthier, happier life. 

Responding to these criticisms, defenders of advertising note that consumers recognize that advertising creates untruths. They do not expect ads to tell them “the way things really are in society, ” Messaris (1997) notes. “Almost by definition, ” he says, “the portrayals of the good life presented in ads carry with them the implicit understanding that they are idealizations, not documentary reports” (p. 268). In effect, advertising defenders say, “Don't worry; be happy. ” Advertising is capitalism's playful communication, an effort to give people an outlet for universal human fantasies. 

In the end, the verdict on advertising depends on the criteria we use to judge it. Judged in terms of consequences on society, advertising's effects are ambiguous. Exposure to beautiful people or unimaginable wealth may cause dissatisfaction in some consumers (Richins, 1991), but can lead others to reach for loftier goals. Judged strictly on truth-telling criteria, advertising rarely makes product claims that are demonstrably false. 

However, it almost always exaggerates, puffs up products, and links products with intangible rewards. “All advertising tells lies, ” Leslie Savan (1994) says. However, she notes that “there are little lies and there are big lies. Little lie: This beer tastes great. Big lie: This beer makes you great” (p. 7). 

In the final analysis, advertising will remain an ethically problematic, but necessary, part of capitalist society. Needed to differentiate and promote products that (truth be told) differ only trivially from one another, advertising keeps the engines of the free market economy rolling. It increases demand and allows companies to sell products, prosper, and employ managers and workers. On the macroeconomic level, advertising plays an essential, critical role in contemporary capitalism. From an ethical perspective, advertising remains, as Schudson (1986) put it, an “uneasy persuasion.” 

Advertising is such a pervasive part of American culture that is difficult to conjure up images of products that are not influenced by what we have seen in commercials. If you were asked to free-associate about Coca-Cola, Budweiser, Nike, Herbal Essence, or cars running the gamut from Mustangs to minivans, your mental images would undoubtedly contain ideas and pictures gleaned from commercials. It is physically difficult, if not impossible, to call to mind an advertising-free image of products. This is because advertising plays a critical role in shaping, reinforcing, even changing attitudes toward products. 

Little wonder that critics have charged that advertising's power comes from subliminally embedded messages that elude conscious awareness. Research finds that subliminal communications exert virtually no impact on attitudes. However, the conscious belief that a message contains a subliminal message can influence attitudes. The subliminal notion is more hoax than reality, but it persists because people cling to simplistic ideas about how advertising works. 

Advertising works through different pathways under low and high involvement. When viewing ads for low-involvement products, consumers process information peripherally. Repetition, associational appeals, and celebrity source endorsements are influential. Association, whose theoretical foundations run the gamut from classical conditioning to accessibility, is a potent weapon in advertising campaigns. 

When thinking about more personally consequential purchases, consumers process ads centrally, taking into account the benefits products offer and the psychological functions that products serve. When directing ads at highly involved consumers, advertisers use factual messages and symbolic appeals targeted to particular attitude functions. 

Although advertising is pervasive, it does not magically alter attitudes. As social judgment theory reminds us, advertising will not mold deep-seated attitudes toward products. It is not apt to change attitudes on the spot. Instead, it works gradually, influencing cognitions, enhancing positive affect, and meshing with consumers' values, lifestyles, and even fantasies about products.

Ever controversial, advertising has been condemned by those who see in it a ready way to manipulate Americans into buying products they don't need. Critics argue that advertising inculcates a strange philosophy of life that puts great faith in the ability of products to satisfy universal human desires. Yet even those who criticize advertising ethics acknowledge that people seem to have a need for the “things” advertisers promote. Whether due to human nature, contemporary capitalism, or a complex combination of both, “things are in the saddle, ” critic Twitchell (1999) notes. But he adds, “we put them there. If some of us want to think that things are riding us, that's fine. The rest of us know better” (p. 19).