The Reveals of Commodification in American Advertising

    The Frankfurt school argues that Popular Culture is a tool for reinforcing cultural and social authority. Through control of the Culture Industry, “elites” can manipulate the “masses” by standardizing cultural outputs. The Frankfurt school puts little faith in the abilities of the working class to overcome the elite’s control of the Culture Industry. The Birmingham School, by contrast, gives more confidence to the masses. Raymond Williams identifies that the masses can be a positive social force, a challenge to commodification. Hall goes on to claim that popular culture actually emanates from the working class, giving authenticity to popular culture. The elites often commercialize popular culture but do not always do so successfully.

    In 2017, Pepsi attempted to commodify the Black Lives Matter movement by creating an advertisement that borrowed imagery from the anti-police brutality marches. The commercial starred Kendall Jenner who walks through a group of social protestors and offers a Pepsi to an officer. The officer takes the drink and smiles, leading the protestors to rejoice. The masses quickly rejected this commercial, seeing it as a tasteless attempt to mimic and profit from a serious social movement of the masses. It was insulting to insist a simple soft drink could cause protestors and law enforcement to put aside their conflicts and unify. The widespread rejection of this commercial led Pepsi to pull it from use and write a formal apology. The masses rejected this example of commodification and rallied as a positive social force.

    The history of tobacco advertisements also provides insight into the social force of the masses. The advertising of cigarettes on television was banned in 1971, with smokeless tobacco seeing the same restrictions in 1986. Resistance continued in 1992 when the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act of 1992 banned tobacco advertising and sponsorships at sporting events. Advertising tobacco products at sporting events would be a means for the elites to sell their products at events that are representative of popular culture, promoting the existence and purpose of the Culture Industry. Laws that prohibited the advertising of tobacco put an end to this action of the elites.

    These legal changes benefit the health of the working class, even when at the financial cost of elites, evidence that the working class can actively resist the efforts of the Culture Industry. However, as an alternative, one could argue that the decision to end tobacco advertising at sporting events was an action promoted by elites because they have an interest in having a healthy working class.

    This leads me to my question. Is the long campaign to prohibit tobacco advertising at sporting events a representation of the Frankfurt School, where the elites constructed and managed the change; or, is it a representation of the Birmingham school, where the masses challenged the Culture Industry and championed a win?