This article was downloaded by: [Universiteit Twente]On: 30 November 2014, At: 13:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Political MarketingPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplm20

Corporate Advertising asPolitical AdvertisingColleen Connolly-Ahern a & Lynda Lee Kaid aa The University of Florida , USAPublished online: 13 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Colleen Connolly-Ahern & Lynda Lee Kaid (2002) CorporateAdvertising as Political Advertising, Journal of Political Marketing, 1:4, 95-99, DOI:10.1300/J199v01n04_06

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J199v01n04_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

13:

14 3

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Corporate Advertisingas Political Advertising:

Patriotic Messagesin the Aftermath of 9-11

Colleen Connolly-AhernLynda Lee Kaid

Political advertising has long been conceptualized as an advertising format thatencompasses far more than just usage by political candidates for elections. Notonly has political advertising been used by political action committees and interestgroups in elections (Shaw, Hurd, & Bader, 1984), but also by corporations and in-dividuals seeking to influence candidates, ballot issues, or specific policy out-comes (Garrison, 1989; Kaid, Tedesco, & Spiker, 1996; Rosenthal, 1988).

Beyond elections and specific public ballot issues, corporations have at-tempted in the past several decades to influence public opinion about their ownimages in relation to particular national concerns. This use of advertising,sometimes called “corporate advocacy advertising,” became particularly sa-lient during the energy crisis of the mid-1970s when the oil industry attempted

Colleen Connolly-Ahern and Lynda Lee Kaid are affiliated with the University ofFlorida, USA.

Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 1(4) 2002http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J199

2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 95

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

13:

14 3

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

to correct what it thought were misleading accusations about windfall profitsand artificial shortfalls. Since then major corporations such as Mobil Oil,AT&T, Phillips Petroleum, Union Carbide, and Weyhauser have spent mil-lions in advertising on various causes, although many print and broadcast me-dia outlets refuse to accept such advertising (Sethi, 1977). Some observersbelieve that such ads have been used by corporations to convey false informa-tion to the public, as Dionisopoulos (1986) argues in his analysis of the falla-cies and interpretive problems in the ads run by Commonwealth Edisonconcerning the Three Mile Island nuclear plant incident.

However, the terrorist attacks of 9-11 gave rise to a new and rarely seen typeof political advertising, the attempt by corporations to take advantage of thepatriotic mood of the country to associate their own corporate interests withthe United States government and its people.

ADVERTISING IN THE POST 9-11 PERIOD

Many newspaper advertisers pulled their advertisements in the days immedi-ately following the attacks. Many of those who did not pull their ads replaced theirnormal insertions with messages of grief for the victims and support for those in-volved in the ongoing rescue efforts at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The ongoing coverage of the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks on network tele-vision was commercial free. By Sept. 15, commercial advertisements had re-turned to the network airwaves. However, by that time many of thoseadvertisements had changed, with a number of advertisers choosing to addressthe tragedy in their spots, and others opting to pull campaigns that appeared“frivolous” (“Judging the mood,” 2001).

Both corporations directly affected by the crises–notably, United Airlinesand the United States Postal Service–and those seemingly untouched byit–Anheuser-Busch, the National Football League and General Motors–choseto respond to the events in advertising during the months following Sept. 11.Like any political advocacy advertising, the post 9-11 ads exposed the adver-tisers to a certain amount of risk. And while identifying with the government ata time of great crisis may have appeared an almost patriotic act at the time, re-sponse to the post 9-11 advertisements was decidedly mixed.

BRANDING A CRISIS

The ads of corporations directly affected by the events were generallyviewed more sympathetically than those who did not suffer directly from thecrises. By mid-October, United Airlines, which lost two airplanes during the

96 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

13:

14 3

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sept. 11 hijackings, had returned to the airwaves with a campaign entitled“United” (Foss, 2001). Produced by Fallon Worldwide of Minneapolis, the adsfeatured interviews with UAL personnel referring obliquely to the attacks andspeaking about their commitment to the company’s recovery: “We’re Ameri-cans, and this is not gonna beat us,” vowed one female UAL executive.

Steven Geyser, a professor of consumer marketing at Harvard BusinessSchool, thought the campaign was a good move. “Normally, an airline wouldn’twant to be out there advertising after a major accident. But in this instance, theimpact of Sept. 11 is so massive in terms of the traveling public’s minds, youcan’t hide” (Foss, 2001).

Similarly, in the wake of the destruction of a major mail facility at the WTCand the subsequent anthrax attacks, the USPS offered a morale-boosting com-mercial with an amended version of the postal creed that read “neither snow,nor rain, nor a nation challenged, will stay us from the swift completion of ourappointed rounds. Ever,” while Carly Simon’s voice sang inspirationally in thebackground. Dante Chinni of The Christian Science Monitor said, “There’s nomissing the ad’s power, or its point: In paying tribute to everyday heroes afterSept. 11, don’t forget your letter carriers . . . they lost people to terrorism too,and they continue to work” (Chinni, 2002).

These companies may have received high marks for dealing with their cor-porate crises head-on through advertising. However, unaffected companiesdid not receive as much deference from some critics. Former U.S. Labor Sec-retary Robert B. Reich quickly labeled the advocacy ads and the accompany-ing governmental exhortations to maintain economic activity at pre-Sept. 11levels “market patriotism.” According to Reich, “The theory is that we demon-strate our resolve to the rest of the world by investing and consuming at least asmuch as we did before, preferably more” (Reich, 2001).

The National Football League sought to extend its brand through a direct linkwith U.S. military might. When the NFL schedule resumed after the attacks, theleague featured a spot that combined footage of hard-hitting football and footageof U.S. military action, including aircraft flying off a carrier flight deck.

Both General Motors and Ford brought out the red, white and blue with ad-vertisements that combined an advocacy message–bolstering the post 9-11economy–with specific product promotions, such as special financing deals.

Negative reaction to these ads came swiftly. Bob Garfield of AdvertisingAge said, “It’s just gross to sell your products on the graves of these victimsand their families” (Gerhart, 2001).

Discussing a “self-congratulatory” advertisement from Anheuser-Buschhighlighting its charitable donations in the wake of the tragedy, Garfield ob-served that industry efforts had “mutated to heinous marketing programs builtaround the nation’s emotions in this tragedy” (Gerhart, 2001).

Political Advertising 97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

13:

14 3

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Regarding another A-B ad, in which the Clydesdales seem to bow in tributeto the WTC-less skyline of New York City, Don Pettit of the Sterling Group, aNew York-based branding group, said, “I’ve heard of some people who lovedthe Clydesdales, but I thought it was completely inappropriate. If you’re goingto do something like that, it has to be a public service, not a promotion of yourcorporate icon” (Pasick, 2002).

Not everyone saw these combination advocacy/product promotion ads asself-serving, however. As Jane Weaver of MSNBC put it, “What might havebeen seen as crassly opportunistic instead seems to have been embraced by theAmerican shoppers as part of a necessary return to normalcy” (Weaver, 2001).

A NEW APPROACH

If these ads signaled a return to normalcy for consumers, they certainlywere a departure for most advertisers. Advocacy advertising experts suggestthat for such advertising to be effective, a tight fit between corporation andcause is necessary (Haley, 1996; Munson, 2001). However, with their post9-11 advertising, corporations sought to associate with the American govern-ment and the American people, whether or not there was a logical relationshipbetween the corporation and the events of 9-11.

The post attack political advertisements may be an example of whatBurgoon and Pfau (1995) call “inoculation,” a process by which corporationsuse advocacy advertising to enhance their credibility with audiences that al-ready agree with a company’s position. The advertisements serve to “inocu-late” consumers against persuasive messages from competitors later on, ratherthan to persuade consumers of any particular point of view themselves.

In the case of the post 9-11 advertisements, the enormous tragedy of the9-11 attacks, the terror of the subsequent anthrax scare, and the ensuing patri-otic fervor that swept the country as it struggled to recover from the twin crisesprovided a virtually unassailable position with which corporations could allythemselves: namely, the preservation of the American way of life. Thenear-universal appeal of this “cause” in the United States led a wide array ofdiverse corporations to align themselves with it.

This political advertising phenomenon certainly merits further study. Issuesinclude the long-term effects of this advertising for the corporations that en-gaged in it. American Airlines, which like United Airlines lost two planes onSept. 11, did not address the crisis in advertising. It may be possible to seewhether or not the ads made a difference to consumer perceptions of thosecompanies in the wake of the tragedies.

98 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

13:

14 3

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Research may be able to track the lifestyle of the marketing patriotism phe-nomenon and to see whether or not the themes from the post 9-11 advertisingpersist in more traditional political campaign advertising. It may also indicatewhether or not such advertising is likely to be seen again in the wake of a dif-ferent sort of crisis.

REFERENCES

Burgoon, M. & Pfau, M. (1995). An inoculation theory explanation for the effects ofcorporate issue/advocacy advertising campaigns. Communication Research, 22,485-505.

Chinni, D. (2002, January 25). Postal Service tries to rebound from 9/11. The ChristianScience Monitor. Retrieved April 16, 2002 from (www.csmonitor.com/2002/0125/p02s01-usec.htm).

Dionisopoulos, G. (1986). Corporate advocacy advertising. In L. L. Kaid, D. Nimmo &K. R. Sanders (Eds.), New perspectives on political advertising (pp. 82-106). Car-bondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Foss, B. (2001, October 18). United Airlines addresses terrorist attacks in new ads. TheNando Times. Retrieved April 16, 2002 from (www.nando.net/special_reports/terrorism/economics/v-text/story/14659p-1430457c.html).

Garrison, M. J. (1989). Corporate political speech, campaign spending, and FirstAmendment doctrine. American Business Law Journal, 27, 163-213. GreenwoodPublishing Co.

Gerhart, A. (2001, October 11). The patriotic pitch: Buy, America, buy. The Washing-ton Post, p. C1.

Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the construct of organization as source: Consumer’s un-derstandings of organizational sponsorship of advocacy advertising. Journal of Ad-vertising, 25, 19-35.

Judging the mood of a nation. (2001, October 24). Online NewsHour. Retrieved April16, 2002 from (www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec01/culture.html).

Kaid, L. L., Tedesco, J. C., & Spiker, J. (1996). Media conflicts over Clinton policies:Political advertising and the battle for public opinion. In R. Denton & R. Holloway(Eds.), The emerging Clinton presidency (pp. 103-121). Westport, CT.

Munson, M. (2001, April). Corporate sponsorships: Increasing your slice of the pie.Fund Raising Management, 32, 28.

Pasnick, A. (2002, February 4). Onfield thriller overshadows Super Bowl ads. Yahoo!Finance. Retrieved April 16, 2002 from (http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020204/n04360267_2.html).

Reich, R. B. (2001, September 23). How did spending become our patriotic duty? TheWashington Post, p. B1.

Sethi, S. P. (1977). Advocacy advertising and large corporations. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Shaw, B., Hurd, S. N., & Bader, M. B. (1984). Corporate political speech and the FirstAmendment. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 9, 271-290.

Political Advertising 99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

13:

14 3

0 N

ovem

ber

2014