From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Advertising was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 30, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

Pioneers of Advertising[edit]

I think more could be said of the role advertising gurus played in defining what advertising is. More could be written of the role Ogilvy played on research and the impact the Saatchi brothers and Sorrel have had in defining the big group and holding companies, and how the big four groups impact global advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmas8516 (talkcontribs) 06:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

How many jobs?[edit]

b Do you think it would be good to mention how many jobs advertising creates, worldwide? Stars4change (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In Germany (population: 80m) 350 000 people work in advertisement; Christian Felber, Neue Werte für die Wirtschaft (Vienna 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StefSchweinschwaller (talkcontribs) 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Not without sources it wouldn't. If you can find some then go ahead, I guess, although I'm not personally sure how relevant that is. (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Campaign Ads and Political Advertising[edit]

Seems to me that Campaign Ads and Political Advertising could use its own section. The January 21, 2010 Supreme Court campaign finance ruling is one example, but there are many. Although campaign advertising is explored elsewhere in Wikipedia and in this "Advertising" article, to omit it from this advertising page seems undesirable, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richbrobee (talkcontribs) 14:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 6 April 2010[edit]


== Evolution of advertisement == In the early period,advertisement was no important and used on small scale.Due to Industrial revolution,when goods were produced at large scale in big factories then use of advertisement increased.The producers took help from different means of advertisements to bring the product in the notice of general public.In present era besides business organisations, the govt. and welfare organisations are also using advertising media to convey their message to the community. (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a reliable source for this. Also, please indicate where in the article this should be added. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Will Rogers[edit]

The 1930s performer Will Rogers famously referred to it as "the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need." I don't know if it's worth adding this. Stars4change (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wikiwoman823, 15 April 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} These changes are for the "Children and Adolescents as Targets" section of the article. After the first sentence of the section, this paragraph should be inserted to provide more background information on how advertising's relationship with children began:

Most advertisements used to be targeted towards families, however, in 1955, this changed. The changes came along with the emergence of the Mickey Mouse Club, a variety show that showcases children with talent. In 1955, this show demonstrated the potential of children’s advertisements. Then between the 1960’s and 70’s, children were heavily targeted by advertisers. This lead to the toy-based television programs that became popular in the 1980’s (Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc.). With these shows, it seemed that the children could never escape the advertisements. The toys were advertising the shows, and the shows were advertising the toys. They worked together to generate as much desire for the product as possible. Later, in the 1990’s the children’s television programming market became segmented with the different children’s networks (Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Disney). This evolution of children’s advertising brought us to the children’s advertisements we have today.

Source: Strasburger, V. C., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. (2008). Advertising. In Children, Adolescents, and the Media (pp. 43-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The next change that I think should be made is in regards to why children are good targets for advertisers. This information should be inserted after the first quote(cited with endnote 73):

Children are prime targets for advertisers because they pay much more attention to ads than adults. Every year, children ages 2-7 see about 13,904 television ads, children ages 8-12 see about 30,155 television ads, and children 13-17 see 28,655 television ads. That turns out to be 106 hours of ads (for ages 2-7), 230 hours of ads (for ages 8-12), and 217 hours of ads (for ages 13-17). This is a lot of exposure to advertisements, which could create a problem in a child’s development. Children have specific developmental responses to advertising. For example, children do not distinguish between the ads and the program content, they do recognize the bias associated with advertising, they (especially children under 8) do not understand that advertisements are meant to be persuasive messages, not information ads, and lastly, children also do not understand disclaimers present in all ads. Basically, they lack a general understanding of commercial media which makes it hard to properly interpret the messages in the advertisements.


  • Strasburger, V. C., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. (2008). Advertising.
  • In Children, Adolescents, and the Media (pp. 43-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • A Kaiser Family Foundation Report. (2007). Food for thought: television food advertising to children in the United States. Retrieved April 12, 2010 from

The next addition that I think should be made will add detail to the point that there is a correaltion between TV exposure and childhood obesity. My additions will serve to add more evidence to support this point. These additions should be inserted after the second quote in the second paragraph (cited with endnote 76):

Television advertising has been linked to childhood obesity. Studies have shown that television exposure is correlated with points that would lead to unhealthy food choices. Children’s television viewing is connected to children trying to influence their parents in their purchases, especially when it comes to food. It is also associated with eating more snack, or junk food, and eating less fruits and veggies. Television exposure has also been said to create misconceptions about what is “healthy”, and “unhealthy”. All of these things could easily contribute to the epidemic of childhood obesity. Statistics also support these correlations. The amount of food advertising that children see is incredible. From ages 2-7, children see 12 food ads a day (4,400 ads a year), ages 8-12 see 21 food ads a day (7,600 ads a year), and ages 13-17 see 17 food ads a day (6,000 ads a year). During children’s programming, 50% of all ad time is about food.


  • Strasburger, V. C., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. (2008). Advertising.
  • In Children, Adolescents, and the Media (pp. 43-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • A Kaiser Family Foundation Report. (2007). Food for thought: television food advertising to children in the United States. Retrieved April 12, 2010 from

Wikiwoman823 (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I reformated this request, removing commented lines with spaces -  Chzz  ►  12:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. To be precise, some of the figures and such that you are quoting could be considered "likely to be challenged"; so it's important that your sources apply to specific sentences or even phrases, per WP:CITE. Please read section 4.2 of that page, then reformat your request using <ref> tags, so that the citations will appear in-line. It's taken so long to get to this request because none of the editors who have reviewed it have had the time to put in the effort to convert your references to in-line citations. Your edit request is much more likely to be completed if the citations are already done. Thanks! --Darkwind (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass amount of people?[edit]

Look at it! The expression "a mass amount of people" is terrible English, and not indeed English, because "mass" is not a pronoun, that is a word which qualifies the noun it is attached. Used once, I can assume the expression is accidental, but it is there twice, early in the page! The word "large" would be suitable, if "a large number of people" is what is meant - it is better English - but maybe the definition can be refined to "the highest possible proportion of the number of people who are potential users of the product" or whatever expression is intended. This section looks like it was written by an 11-year-old. Incidentally I forgive society for mis-using the word "mass" which means in its original scientific sense, a "quantity of matter" (measurable in pounds or grams), since the expression "mass advertising" has been taken into current usage; but please, not the horrible extension to "mass people". P0mbal (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

While you are right that a mass amount of people is not good english, pronouns are not qualifiers. Pronouns are words such as I, me, you, etc. What you are thinking of are adjectives, words which qualify and describe nouns. Yes, mass is not an adjective, and should not have been used as such. However, usage like mass advertising is correct, where mass is being used as a noun adjunct. By the way, the original meaning of mass was a lump or a collection; the scientific definition came second and was formed by analogy from the original meaning. Still, mass people is not correct, and your alternatives are more grammatical. Please, refrain from indignant rants on Wikipedia; your comments would have been much more appreciated if you had just presented the grammatical argument of why a mass amount of people is wrong, and proposed your amelioration. Also, don't insult writers by likening them to fifth-graders. Besides, if an 11-year-old really did write the page, he did a great job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Some mention also should be made of measuring success. For example the terms "width/breadth of appeal" (how wide an audience it appeals to) and depth of appeal (how deeply it appeals to them). Nearest citation to a definition is "Some marketers may want only ads with the greatest breadth of appeal: the executions that, when combined, provide the greatest number of attention-getting, branded, and motivational moments. Others may only want ads with the greatest depth of appeal: the ads with the greatest number of attention-getting, branded, and motivational points Integrated marketing communications within each.". Don't have time to set up as at work. Will come back at weekend & do more research to find better definition & research structure. MaryEFreeman (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Messed up table of contents[edit]

This article appears to have a messed up table of contents/structure, where sections such as "See also" and "References" all appear to be sub-sections of "Sales Promotions". (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Advertising structures[edit]

I am unaware of whereelse to post this, but perhaps it would be a good idea to make a category for advertising sculptures that have articles (for example billboards). I can think of more, individual examples of billboards too. (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Advertising[edit]

Do any of you believe that this is an important aspect of advertisement? I am studying a lot of "subvertizements" in my Humanities(popular culture) class so I have learned a lot about advertisements and the true meaning behind them. It seems like many companies are using this specific form of advertising to catch the attention of consumers in a negative and positive manner. Have any of you seen the ads that Nike put out that had a lot of people thinking they were bashing on gays? Mjaykicks (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)mjaykicks

Diff Thank you, Jamie, if I may call you that. When I saw that section, my first thought was, "New to the twenty-first century? I don't think so."
I also remembered a mid-twentieth century advertising notion, that annoying ads are effective ads. I think the person who formulated this "groundbreaking" idea may have studied Pepsi ads... Web search hasn't found it yet for me, although I found at least one disingenuous ad exec claiming that designing annoying ads is "certainly not intentional," or words to that effect. I will continue to keep an eye out for it, since it seems to be absent from the article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


When advertising to different genders it is important to remember how men and women process information. Females process information comprehensively.

Males process information through heuristic devices such as procedures, methods or strategies for solving problems. ref cite book|last=Statt|first=David|title=Understanding the Consumer - A Psychological Approach|year=1977|publisher=Macmillan Press|location=London Men prefer to have available and apparent cues to interpret the message where females engage in more creative, associative, imagery-laced interpretation.

This idea according to the ref came before 1977, so why is there the Meyers-Levy's theory of "selectivity hypothesis, first published in “Gender Differences in Information Processing: A Selectivity Interpretation,” Joan Meyers-Levy in Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising, P. Cafferata and A. Tybout (eds.), Lexington Books, 1988, p. 219-260. see also QuentinUK (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Too much original research[edit]

This article contains too much original research. An article of this size should have twice the number of citations currently used. Many sections contain few to no references. For people who are adding in the info, try to add citations for existing content or for the content that is being added. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The content may be referenced, but the number of in-line citations is insufficient. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising and Self Image[edit]

Advertising can be very harmful to women. It can ve very damaging to their self-esteem, by conveying the message that a woman is only beautiful if she is skinny flawless and surrounded by men. Being beautiful and attracting a man is the only thing deemed as important in many of these advertisements. The emphasis on physical perfection and focus on attractiveness to men causes women to be prone to having a low self-esteem, because most women do not look like the ones portrayed in advertisements. Many of these advertisements have men taking a more powerful role and dominating a woman. Reality TV and magazines are very well known for creating sexist streotypes by portraying girls as weak, unintelligent, subservient to men, and only valued for their beauty. "Reality shows may provide innaccurate or unhealthy information to viewers. . ." Many young girls are very sensative to these advertisements and live under the impression that is acceptable to be exploited by a man. This can lead to the feelings of low self worth and self-esteem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Including Influence of Early Psychology Section[edit]

This article was extremely beneficial in my research, however I noticed a lacking in reference to the contributions made by psychologists to the field of advertising throughout the years. Therefore, I thought it would be best if I included at least the introduction of psychology to the field and how it helped shape the advertising industry from the early 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPineiro (talkcontribs) 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Merging Advertising management here[edit]

Advertising management can be merged here, if there are no objections. It's an unreferenced description of what some managers do in the advertising industry. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


A note should be included about how the spelling advertizing is considered correct by very few dictionaries and it is rare, even in the US, where it is commonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meemo16 (talkcontribs) 00:06, 1 February 2015 UTC