In Defense of Advertising: Arguments from Reason, Ethical Egoism, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Jerry Kirkpatrick
TLJ Books (2007)
ISBN 0978780302
Reviewed by Stephanie Rollins for Reader Views (3/07)

“In Defense of Advertising” by Jerry Kirkpatrick is not a book for the general public. I do not believe that the general public realizes that advertising needs to be defended. I also believe that in order to fully grasp the concepts in “In Defense of Advertising,” the reader needs to have a few semesters of economics under their belt.

For those who are interested in economics and advertising, Kirkpatrick does a brilliant job of combining philosophy, ethics, and economics to defend the need for advertising. As Kirkpatrick explained, “The critics who denigrate advertising attack not only advertising but also—by logic necessity—capitalism, ethical egoism, and reason.”

Critics of advertising argue that it damages the economy. Critics claim that advertising create monopolies. It creates a barrier to the market and it increases price. Critics claim that it decreases price elasticity. “The brand loyalty, in turn, makes it difficult for competitors to enter the market and, at the same time, enables the advertiser to increase prices.” In an era where all business owners want a “brand,” critics argue that branding contributes to this monopoly that destroys free enterprise. “Brand loyalty of consumers, then, is the actual barrier that prevents other firms from entering the market.”

Kirkpatrick explains the doctrine of determinism. This belief is based upon the idea that man does not have free will. If you follow this belief, people are controlled by forces outside themselves. Kirkpatrick explains that the doctrine of determinism is founded on the assumption that our bodies are always at war with our minds. Picture the cliché devil on one shoulder and angel on the other shoulder.

Kirkpatrick describes the connections between Marxism, Socialism, and advertising. “Again, I must emphasize that not everyone who criticizes advertising on ‘social’ or economic grounds is a Marxist—at least, not explicitly.” Outside of academic circles, we would call them Marxists.

A social criticism of advertising is that it “offends the consumer’s sense of good taste by insulting and degrading his intelligence.” Kirkpatrick points out that “taste” is subjective. Who is elitist enough to appoint them the “good taste” police? Why do critics of advertising think that everyone but them is too uneducated to determine what “good taste” is? “In effect, these critics charge that consumers have no free will and, consequently, helpless pawns of the advertisers.”

The Austrian School of Economics does find that advertising is a “legitimate function of business entrepreneurship.” I take great offense in the critics’ argument that the public, including myself, is not intelligent enough to make informed decisions.

Jerry Kirkpatrick’s “In Defense of Advertising” should be required reading for economics and advertising students as it shows the real-world implications of advertising. “In Defense of Advertising” has an index, so it would be a great book to use as a reference for term papers. This is a must read for people studying or working in advertising.

Make comment on weblog