Article Review

Comment: Advertising Won’t Die, But Defining It Will Continue to be Challenging

Jisu Huh University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

The evolution of the field of advertising has constantly

demanded redefining what advertising is and what topics fit

under the rubric of “advertising research.” In response, both

academic and industry organizations have often developed

definitions resembling a laundry list of new advertising types

added to earlier definitions of advertising. While this might be

useful for temporarily addressing the gap between the estab-

lished concept of advertising and the changing reality of the

phenomenon, more thoughtful and rigorous conceptualization

of advertising has been long overdue.

Thus, I am excited to see Dahlen and Rosengren’s (2016)

article and thank the authors for their contribution to the adver-

tising discipline by reinitiating the important discussion about

how advertising should be defined. This work presents the

compelling need for redefining advertising, a thoughtful over-

view of the historical development of advertising definitions, a

systematic conceptual approach focusing on three specific

dynamics, and well-developed empirical studies testing the

new definition.

While Dahlen and Rosengren (2016) make an excellent

effort, developing a universally accepted definition that delin-

eates the boundaries of the phenomenon that is the central

focus of scholarly inquiry is not easy for any academic disci-

pline. Especially for a field like ours, which is closely linked

to constantly evolving phenomena, it seems impossible to

develop the perfect definition including everything and satisfy-

ing everyone. Thus, an important question preceding “What is

advertising?” would be “What is the purpose and motivation

of (re-)defining advertising?” Is it to include everything prac-

ticed under the name of advertising? To expand the size of the

academic field of advertising? To advance advertising

scholarship and theory building? Or to determine what should

be covered in advertising education?

Some of these questions are present in every call to develop

a better definition of advertising. However, would it be truly

attainable, or even desirable, to try to address all of these ques-

tions in a single definition? In an ideal sense, research, educa-

tion, and practice should be closely connected, but they are not

exactly the same field because of differences in the missions,

objectives, and environmental/structural factors between aca-

demia and industry, and even within the academic community.

Keeping this in mind, I respond here to Dahlen and Rose-

ngren’s (2016) proposed working definition and pose some

questions with the purpose of advancing the academic field of

advertising and advertising theory building. I hope my com-

ments serve as food for thought and help advance the impor-

tant dialogue about the definition of advertising.

TO ADVANCE THE ACADEMIC FIELD OF ADVERTISING AS A UNIQUE AND COHESIVE DISCIPLINE

Is advertising a unique scientific field? This question has

been confronting us for decades, and with our collective

actions we suggest an answer of “yes” to this question (for a

detailed discussion, see Thorson and Rodgers 2012). The aca-

demic discipline of advertising is a unique and cohesive field

that is “formed around advertisements” (Thorson and Rodgers

2012, p. 13) and situated at the intersection of mass communi-

cation, journalism, and marketing.

To establish and advance an academic discipline, it is

essential for its members to share an understanding of the

unique attributes of the phenomenon of the collective schol-

arly interest that distinguish it from related others. Thus, the

definition of advertising is inherently linked to the legitimacy

of the advertising field as a unique scientific discipline and

fundamental to the field’s cohesive identity.

This seemingly straightforward task becomes complicated

due to the complex and accidental nature of the academic ori-

gin of the advertising field and diverse backgrounds of its

Address correspondence to Jisu Huh, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, 206 Church Street SE, Mur- phy Hall 338, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: [email protected]

Jisu Huh (PhD, University of Georgia) is Professor, Raymond O. Mithun Chair in Advertising, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, and 2016 President of the American Academy of Advertising.

356

Journal of Advertising, 45(3), 356–358

Copyright � 2016, American Academy of Advertising ISSN: 0091-3367 print / 1557-7805 online

DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1191391

members (Ross and Richards 2008). Depending on individual

backgrounds and academic affiliations, an attribute that is

important and unique to some might not be so to others. This

perspective-driven difference is noticeable in Dahlen and

Rosengren’s (2016) study. Reviewing the previous advertising

definitions, for example, the authors criticize use of the term

mediated as confusing and suggest it should be dropped from

the definition, and argue paid is too limiting and should be

replaced with brand-initiated.

The confusion about the term mediated may stem from the

Dahlen and Rosengren’s (2016) marketing-oriented back-

grounds. The authors state that “brands are increasingly adver-

tising through own channels, ranging from social media to

Web sites and apps, which would not be a mediated

communication,” but all of these examples are actually medi-

ated forms of communication. Mediated communication is a

concept referring to communication performed through media,

not through face-to-face interpersonal communication. From

the marketing scholars’ perspectives, mediated and paid might

not be considered unique attributes that matter for advertising

research. However, from the mass communication perspective,

distinguishing advertising from other forms of communication

is important for the purpose of establishing advertising as a

unique academic field and as a unique academic unit within a

university. Dahlen and Rosengren (2016) are too quick to

identify advertising as a discipline in marketing. However,

given that about two-thirds of the members of the American

Academy of Advertising are from journalism and mass com-

munication programs, and 95% of advertising programs in the

United States are situated in journalism and mass communica-

tion or arts and sciences colleges (Ross and Richards 2008), it

would be important to bring in the mass communication per-

spectives and compare them to those from the marketing

perspectives.

Within the broad field of communication, interpersonal

communication and mediated communication are clearly dis-

tinguished and studied in separate disciplines where unique

theoretical parameters exist, causing different directions in

theory development. In the previous definitions of advertising,

mass communication or mediated form of communication has

served the purpose of distinguishing advertising from interper-

sonal/speech communication. Likewise, paid has distinguished

advertising from public relations and other forms of communi-

cation that are not under the advertiser’s control (Richards and

Curran 2002).

I agree with Dahlen and Rosengren’s (2016) contention that

the terms paid and identifiable sources might be too limiting

given new forms of advertising. However, I still struggle with

the disciplinary distinctions that exist in the academe, espe-

cially in the broad field of communication. It is true that

boundaries in the business practices of advertising and public

relations have been blurring. However, is a changing business

practice sufficient justification for eliminating key components

in the definition of the phenomenon that identifies an academic

discipline? Furthermore, would the convergence trend in mar-

keting communication necessarily make the academic disci-

plinary distinction between advertising and other forms of

communication obsolete and meaningless? These questions

need to be examined thoughtfully to advance our field as a

unique and cohesive academic discipline.

TO DRAW CONCEPTUAL BOUNDARIES FOR ADVERTISING THEORY

Applying the conceptualization of level fields versus vari-

able fields, Faber, Duff, and Nan (2012) elegantly described

the nature of theory building in variable fields: “rather than

desiring theories with broad abstract generalizations, variable

fields should be concerned with identifying the boundary con-

ditions where a broader theory might no longer be true. To do

this, a variable field needs to recognize what makes it unique

and to identify the variables that it can contribute to testing

and qualifying broad theories from level fields” (pp. 19–20).

For advertising theory building, therefore, it is imperative to

identify the unique attributes of advertising and recognize how

they may influence more general theories.

Faber, Duff, and Nan (2012) proposed four unique attrib-

utes that could serve to challenge the boundary conditions for

general theories and thereby advance advertising theory build-

ing: consumer skepticism, repetition, message coordination,

and clutter. If we agree that “persuasive intent by an identifi-

able source” are two essential elements of an advertising defi-

nition, consumer skepticism and persuasion knowledge would

be important variables of interest that would lead to meaning-

ful advertising theory development. However, if such concep-

tual elements are not part of the definition, researchers would

have to qualify their theoretical contributions as confined to

only certain types of advertising but not all.

The issue of boundary conditions for advertising theory is

inherently linked to the issue of ecological and external validity of

advertising research. Advertising theories should be relevant to

practice, and advertising research should be based on real-world

advertising issues. The definition of advertising, therefore, is fun-

damental for determining the ecological validity of research and

identifying true advertising research as such, and disguised mar-

keting, consumer behavior, psychology, and mass communication

research as such. I would encourage the authors to consider the

issues of boundary conditions for advertising theory building,

external and ecological validity, and the implications of their pro-

posed definition for addressing these issues.

TO EXPAND THE FIELD OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

The expansion of advertising practice and research has been

happening in multiple dimensions, including expansion beyond

traditional mass media advertising, advertising agency work,

effect outcomes, and branding/marketing communication. I agree

with Dahlen and Rosengren’s (2016) suggestion that a revised

COMMENT: ADVERTISING WON’T DIE, BUT DEFINING IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE CHALLENGING 357

definition of advertising should update the term receiver to reflect

the more active roles of consumers and broaden the scope of

advertising effects.

However, the fourth expansion area and the growing trend

in grant-oriented research in the mass communication field

call the brand-initiated component in the proposed definition

into question. What would be the implications of the term

brand-initiated for the growing subareas of advertising that

are not branding or marketing communication? If we are to

embrace or even foster research about communication cam-

paigns promoting ideas, issues, or health for the benefits of

general public, brand-initiated might not be the best word

choice, even with a qualifying explanation of the term. Per-

haps a less marketing-oriented phrase, for example,

“communication initiated by an organization or person,”

would make the definition more open to the growing research

areas focusing on nonmarketing, nonbranding communication

campaigns.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Advertising will be alive and well, constantly transformed,

and continue to be understood differently by different stake-

holders. Some aspects of the conceptualization of advertising

can and should cover the common denominator agreed by

everyone (e.g., “communication”), but other aspects will likely

be debated continuously and disagreed upon regularly. How-

ever, such disagreement should be considered not a sign of a

discipline in crisis but a sign of a vigorously growing field

with many new avenues for future research.

The advertising academic field has been dealing with the

criticism of lagging behind real-world practice and its seeming

unwillingness to broaden the definition of advertising. Dahlen

and Rosengren’s (2016) proposed working definition is defi-

nitely less narrow than the previous ones. As acknowledged

by the authors, however, the trade-off between the overinclu-

siveness and underinclusiveness of a definition is an important

issue. Depending on the motivation of an author, different defi-

nitions would likely err on different sides. The current working

definition errs on the overinclusive side in an attempt to “stay

relevant,” which brings up another important balancing issue:

dealing with the different motivations of practitioners and

academics.

Many verbatim comments quoted in Richards and Curran

(2002) indicate significantly different viewpoints of the two

groups. The mean scores reported in the current study about

practitioners’ and academics’ ratings of different definitions

also showed that academics rated the previous definition as

more proper than the new definition, but professionals rated

the new definition as more proper. Unfortunately, this very

interesting result did not get adequate attention from the

authors, who focused more on a general discussion arguing

that the new definition was improvement over the previous

one.

The missions and motivations driving advertising practice and

academic research and education, and challenges and opportuni-

ties affecting them, are intertwined but not the same across the dif-

ferent sectors. Our different backgrounds would likely have

significant impact on what each of us would consider an accept-

able or perfect definition of advertising. Finding a definition that

satisfies everyone might be impossible, but the chance of doing so

would improve if additional studies and open discussion continue.

In doing so, more thoughtful consideration of purpose-driven defi-

nitions and cross-fertilization across scholars with different back-

grounds is strongly recommended.

REFERENCES Dahlen, Micael, and Sara Rosengren (2016), “If Advertising Won’t Die, What

Will It Be? Toward a Working Definition of Advertising,” Journal of

Advertising, 45 (3), 334–345.

Faber, Ronald J., Brittany R.L. Duff, and Xiaoli Nan (2012), “Coloring Out-

side the Lines: Suggestions for Making Advertising Theory More Mean-

ingful,” in Advertising Theory, Shelly Rodgers and Esther Thorson, eds.,

New York: Routledge, 18–32.

Richards, Jef I., and Catherine M. Curran (2002), “Oracles on ‘Advertising’:

Searching for a Definition,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (2), 63–77.

Ross, Billy I., and Jef I. Richards (2008), A Century of Advertising Education,

American Academy of Advertising.

Thorson, Esther, and Shelly Rodgers (2012), “What Does ‘Theories of

Advertising’ Mean?” in Advertising Theory, Shelly Rodgers and Esther

Thorson, eds., New York: Routledge, 3–17.

358 J. HUH

Copyright of Journal of Advertising is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.