Targett Media

Pontificate March 17, 2008

pon·tif·i·cate    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 
[n. pon-tif-i-kit, -keyt; v. pon-tif-i-keyt]
noun, verb, -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
–noun 1. the office or term of office of a pontiff.
–verb (used without object) 2. to perform the office or duties of a pontiff.
3. to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner.

Now we have all pontificated on one matter or another. Blogs by their nature are vehicles for pontificating.  I just want to point out that we are all in glass houses. However, the actual Pontif, the Pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, did his share of pontificating last week in such a way that still leaves me shaking my head and feeling disturbed.

Pope Benedict XVI released a statement last week that Catholics are supposed to take very seriously. These statements don’t happen often but when they do they need special attention so they are given an historic Latin term to add more gravity – “ex cathedra” or from the chair. This is meant in no uncertain terms that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra he is infallible. We know this to be inaccurate since other Popes (John Paul, etc.) have mentioned that previous ex cathedras were, uh, less than accurate. Some that come to mind are those dealing with astronomy (Copernicus’ whole issue with the order of rotation in the solar system) and simple geography (spherical earth vs. flat). I think you get where I am going here.

 Anyway, our 16th Benedict decided that the mortal sins (sins that stain your soul and can only be eradicated through confession, penance, etc.) needed to be updated. The first seven weren’t shocking any longer. Now we have the new and improved list of mortal sins for the 21st century and beyond. Here they are:

1. “Bioethical’ violations such as birth control

2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research

3. Drug abuse

4. Polluting the environment

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

This isn’t exactly what I had in mind when looking for guidance from Rome and the seat of moral infallibility. There is always somewhat of a letdown with sequels…but how do these compare to sloth, greed gluttony, anger or pride or envy? I’m not even going to deride lust by comparing it to the whole polluting the environment edict. Lust shouldn’t even have to share the marquee with these B-movie sins. “Social” sins just don’t grab me like the big 7 did. I’m not saying each isn’t important in their own way but to elevate them to legendary status with the big guys is like trying to add Davy Jones or Mike Nesmith to the Beatles. They aren’t even in the same universe.

What does any of this have to do with the state of advertising? Simply, it is that effective, award-winning, eye-catching, legendary ads have sinned in one of these new ways. Aren’t we trying to entice consumers with much of the same avarice, gluttony, greed, abuse and class divisions that are now considered sinful? The association with one brand over another, at its most base element, is promoting the division between rich and poor, haves and have-nots.

Why do we advertise this way? We do it because it usually works. Aspiration is not in itself wrong, it is what moves our species forward. But we all know when our campaigns are moving beyond aspirational to full-on class division. Let’s not forget that we have a role and responsibility to provide a positive influence and imbue social ethics when the time is right. I will think more clearly about the opportunity to protect the environment and the poor because it is the right thing to do. Not because Benny from Rome posted a comment in my life’s blog.