"The Entire Journey": How Advertising Pays into Polarization

 In chapter four of I'm Right and You're an Idiot, Hoggan reasons that advertising pays into polarization. Depending on just how controversial of topics an ad covers, I believe this claim is true, to varying degrees. 

Just look at ads like this one:

Whether coffee is your style or not (certainly not mine), a simple visual advert such as Nescafe's uses a clever visual metaphor to convey its message: coffee is like your alarm clock, and once you drink it, you'll be awake, similar to one of these loud little clocks. This ad is clever in another sense as well: it's not polarizing, which makes it pleasant to look at and admirably clever, even to non-coffee lovers such as myself. It doesn't claim to be the best band of coffee with any medals or satire; it simply exists as a suggestion that "hey, our brand will wake up up if you need it." 

This ad is easy to perceive the brand and product with respect and friendliness (something Hoggan says we all should do when considering an argument). It's simple, gentle, and honestly refreshing compared to ads full of claims that are completely annulled by phrases such as "UP TO _(50% better)__". 

But, now let's look at the type of polarizing ads Hoggan was really talking about. Here's a very polarizing ad from 84 Lumber for the Super Bowl:

This ad was so polarizing that the second half was cut from broadcast, so their site went down due to traffic (people wanting to see the conclusion) for about 15 minutes after its airing. It depicts the emotional journey of a family to cross the border into America for a better life, only to come face-to-face with a border wall. They are very distraught until they see a big wooden gate built into the wall which allows them to enter America.

According to the moral foundations common to all, this ad's polarization makes sense. Leftists loved it, while those on the right despised it. Conservatives are typically resistant to change, and the alt-right (white supremacists who call themselves by that name), especially argue that white culture must be preserved, so seeing non-whites enter "our land" was particularly upsetting for these people, especially considering that this movement has made massive strides in recent years, and even more once Trump took presidency.

According to the Ted Talk we watched, this ad's polarization can also be explained by the valuation of the six dichotomies by liberals and by conservatives. They are: Care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. 

American and international liberals highly value harm and fairness, so they received the ad very well, wanting to see the family out of harm's way in the poor hometown and receiving a fair chance at life. 

However, conservatives also value authority, ingroup, and purity very highly, and thus they were very disturbed by the visual of an impure outgroup member circumventing American authority and entering their land.

This ad, then, is polarizing simply because of the human rights issue it covers. Coffee is a small matter, but the impurification of culture vs. a new beginning was more polarizing than ever during Trump's term. Therefore, advertisements that push a lifestyle or set of values are far more dangerous and polarizing than the old, simple product advertisements we see so few of these days.

My questions to you are:

1. Do you prefer simple product advertisements or the modern lifestyle-pushing advertisements? 

2. Which style do you think is more effective these days?

3. What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of 84 Lumber's ad?