Advertising: Strong Force or Weak Force? Two Views an Ocean Apart

Abstract

This article reviews the conventional view of advertising—the Strong Theory—which is all but universally believed in the United States and which sees advertising as a dynamic force operating as an engine for brand innovation and other types of change in the market-place. In contrast, there is the theory developed over the years with increasing persuasiveness by Andrew Ehrenberg of the London Business School, that sees advertising as a weak force, one that cannot act as a prime mover in the capitalist system, but which is used defensively by most advertisers as a means of protecting the status quo. This essay argues that a good deal of mischief has been caused by an uncritical belief that the Strong Theory operates in all circumstances. As a result, advertising has been associated too much with over-promise and under-delivery. The article's focus is then directed to education for advertising as it is carried out in American universities. It is argued that much of the research carried out in these universities is not concerned in any rigorous fashion with the measurement of advertising's effects. Partly because of this, universities have adhered unquestioningly to the Strong Theory, and the exclusive teaching of this theory has led to grave deficiencies in the education of graduates from advertising programmes.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 65 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.