Social class tensions, habitus and the advertising of Guinness

Abstract

Drawing from an Eliasian perspective we examine how an 'advertising subjectivity' became more firmly embedded within the bourgeois habitus. We explain how and why advertising slowly developed and expanded within a commercial organization despite initial opposition, ambivalence and even hostility from some of its bourgeois senior management towards the practice -the very social class sometimes identified with advertising's origins and advance. Our empirical case is based on Arthur Guinness & Sons Ltd, the Irish company which came to be renowned for the alcohol beverage which carried its name -Guinness stout. We explain how the development of advertising was impelled by a series of processes that increasingly interlocked; a widening and intensification of competitive commercial interdependencies; a shift in the power balance between the bourgeoisie and aristocracy in favour of the former in Britain; and by a changing consumer habitus in several different nation-states. Central though, as we illustrate, was a process involving the changing power relation between various social classes in Britain -principally the increasing power chances of the bourgeoisie in relation to the aristocracy -a process that had advanced considerably by the turn of the twentieth century.

Sensuality Representation Of Guinness Dark Beer Advertising

“…Cultural consumption theory recognizes that goods not only have a utilitarian character but are also capable of carrying and communicating cultural meaning. Sometimes this is intentional and today we see many examples of brands consciously adopting positions in social issues to demonstrate "brand purpose" (Connolly, 2016). Advertisements deliberately contain various cultural messages through both verbal and visual symbols.…”

Habitus, social elevation, and the channel of shame‐fear: The decision to expand Guinness advertising

“…As noted above the most fervent opposition to the direct advertising of Guinness products emanated from Edward Cecil Guinness. Central in understanding his feelings and behaviour in respect of advertising is the structure of dynamic class relations in Britain over the course of the nineteenth century (see Connolly & Dolan, ). By the 1850s increasing industrialisation in Britain, and trade and commerce connected with this, had facilitated an advance in the power chances of the bourgeoisie relative to the established aristocracy and gentry (Dunning & Sheard, ).…”

“…We contend that a further manifestation of this insecurity was his reluctance to permit a more expansive and direct approach to advertising by the company that bore his name (see also Connolly & Dolan, ). Even by the early twentieth century, on the back of commercial pressures, when others comprising the board and the company more generally were advocating for more extensive promotional activity he sought to moderate it.…”

“…We focus on two of the key individuals involved: Edward Cecil Guinness who is viewed as the main barrier to direct advertising; and, Charles Joseph (CJ) Newbold, a managing director and a member of the board at the time of the decision, regularly identified as leading the push for a more extensive approach to advertising (Dennison & MacDonagh, ). In a previous paper (Connolly & Dolan, ) we explained how the change in policy was interconnected with the changing power balance between the landed classes (the aristocracy and gentry) and the bourgeoisie in Britain. We argued that a shift in the power balance between these social groups facilitated a change in the social habitus of those comprising both the bourgeoisie and landed classes in which advertising gradually lost much of the stigma previously attached to it.…”