Grace Hall
Aldridge
American Pop Culture
5 Nov 2018
The Conquest of Cool Book Review
The Conquest of Cool is written by Thomas Frank, a well-acclaimed historian. Frank, who is known for his popular book What’s the Matter with Kansas, is a former journalist for the Wall Street Journal and the founder of The Baffler, a cutting-edge journal[1]. The Conquest of Cool starts off with the history of the 1960’s counterculture to give context to his argument. A critic of The Conquest of Cool, David Cochran, remarks on the foundations of the counter culture, as told by Frank, as “fear of conformity and alienation and, ironically, revulsion at the manipulation of consumerism”[2]. Frank claims that the 1960s were years of rebellion against the lack of individuality from the 1950s. Frank ends the first chapter saying that “this study … is [more] concerned with the genesis of counter-culture as an enduring commercial myth … that recurs throughout post-sixties culture”[3]. Frank explains American advertising as a way to look at what society is interested in at the time. He gives examples of before and after the “creative revolution that would turn the placid world of Madison Avenue U.S.A, on its ear” to further his argument for the impact of counterculture[4]. He explains about the traditional ways advertising firms would use basic formulas to produce ads for different companies. Yet, as the 1950s ended it seems that advertising groups didn’t do as well because they were lacking “nonconformists, dissenters, and rebels”[5]. Chapter three introduces the original rebel, Bill Bernbach. Bernbach’s agency was able to “cut through the overblown advertising rhetoric of the 1950s” by speaking to “viewers’ skepticism of advertising”[6]. Bill started the trend of “anti-advertising” that paved the way for more creative types[7]. Frank cited the nuclear war advertisement for the President Johnson campaign as the best example of the “aesthetics and faiths of the consumer revolution”[8]. It was in the mid 1960s when advertising shifted from strict minimalism to merge with counterculture[9]. The agencies are able to project a glorified version of being part of the “youth” to those who are youth and those who consider themselves part of the “‘young-in-spirit’ market”[10]. This was effectively portrayed with the Coca-Cola vs Pepsi advertisement wars. Yet, with this new youthful projection of life, now comes the rise of consumer cynicism. The people were so used to unfulfilled lies and slogans that never rang true, they became critical of what they could believe[11]. As the 1960s became more politically charged, admen took advantage of the controversies to have their ads get more viewers, and therefore make more money for the company. In the fashion industry, menswear advertisements became more radical using a “Mod” look like loud prints or long hair[12]. This new form of advertisement in menswear helped keep men’s fashion from become outdated. This Mod style became part of the 1960s look. Being a rebel became cool and consumerism went against the “corporate status quo”[13]. With this example Frank shows that advertisements have a large influence on public perception of a time period. Frank argues that the defiant rebel is still beloved by the mass media today. One of his examples is the athlete rocking the mohawk, multiple earrings, and sleeve of tattoos[14]. Frank closes his book with the resurgence of the “hip” in the 1990s. He states that “hip is the cultural life-blood of the consumer society”[15].
Frank puts his thesis in the 11th and final chapter, saying that the sixties may have been a time of cultural revolutions; yet, when it comes to advertisements, what really changed were the “strategies of consumerism,” not the behavior of the consumer[16]. When the recession of the 1970s hit America, advertisement companies reverted back to the safe cut-and-dry ways of the 1950s because they could confidently yield a profit. This quick turnaround from cutting edge innovation to safe and square formulas shows how the entire revolution was based on the results from the consumers. All the advertisement agencies wanted to see were financial results and when the money was threatened, the revolution stopped. Frank’s harsh analysis of the 1970s recession contradicts his views of the entire rebellious revolution of the 60s. Frank speaks about cutting edge advertisement agencies with respect and admiration for their bold movements away from the mainstream established in the 1950s; but he chooses to critique the same ad agencies for seeming to sell out to the money when the recession threatens the profits.
Throughout the book, Frank uses two angles to argue that advertisements only care about fueling America’s capitalist economy. He believes that advertisement agencies are able to fuel consumerism by harnessing the revolt against conformity[17], and by using the counterculture to project a “hip versus square” concept. First, the entire concept of the 1960s cultural revolution was based on revolting against the stiff culture from the 1950s. Bill Bernbach and George Louis were revolutionaries among the advertising world in different ways. Instead of using the classic cut-and-paste ad formula, Bernbach went for shock value and cultural significance. Louis chose to use creativity and his own artistic abilities in his advertisements; considering advertisement as an art is something rare to see in the early 1960s[18]. The bold new politically charged and culturally taboo advertisements played into breaking down the social barriers set forth by the 1950s. Yet, keeping with his thesis, Frank points out that these advertisements may have helped give a voice to underrepresented groups, but they sometimes did so “superficially”[19]. These admen understood society’s need to break free from the constrains of the 1950s; but, they were more concerned about making a profit than changing societal norms[20]. Frank argues that by using the counterculture, advertisement agencies projected a “hip versus square” concept where the 1950s advertisements represented the square lifestyle and to be considered hip, one must follow the new ads from the 1960s. For example, the rise of Pepsi came from advertisements created in the 1960s. To fight the soda superpower, Coca-Cola, Pepsi made Coke look outdated. Coca-Cola was so well established in the 1950s, Pepsi was able to make a comeback during a time where the public craved newness. All of the sudden there was “The Pepsi Generation” directed at young people, Coke was for square Mom and Dad, Pepsi was the drink of “young America”[21]. Cochran argues that in the instance of the Pepsi Generation, actually anyone was welcome to join if they were “willing to ‘think young’”[22]. Frank says that admen used “youth” as a “consumer fantasy” that was made “available to older Americans” too[23]. The admen exploited the adult obsession with staying youthful; and the wishful adults played into the American capitalist system by believes the advertisements. Pepsi became Coca-Cola’s number one competitor because the admen were able to convince the public that if they spent their money on Pepsi instead of Coke they would be cooler in society.
I feel Thomas Frank did a good job using evidence-based arguments to prove that the public is manipulated by advertisements. Critic David Cochran disagrees with Frank, believing that counter culture was in fact “already firmly within the value system of consumer capitalism” before the 1960s[24]. I had not considered of Cochran’s argument until I read his review, but I do appreciate where he is coming from. Since Frank talks about the resurgence of the counterculture in the 1990s at the end of the book, who is to say that the counterculture of the 1960s was the first society saw of rebellious youth avoiding conformity. Frank calls on many other experts and uses block quotes that enhanced his argument. I wish he had given his thesis earlier in the book. I felt I had knowledge on multiple arguments that were well fleshed out but had no overarching theme to connect them back to at the end of each major point or chapter. To conclude I agree with Cochran who feels “Frank not only restores a needed emphasis on the role of power in cultural discourse, but provides a fascinating look at ‘the creators of mass culture’”[25]. Frank provides an interesting and honestly scary view of how advertising in the media can affect how the public perceives people, ideas, and beliefs. Especially with society today, it seems The Conquest of the Cool has managed to stay relevant over twenty years.
[1] “Thomas Frank | Authors | Macmillan,” US Macmillan, accessed November 6, 2018, https://us.macmillan.com/author/.
[2] David Cochran, “Review of Frank, Thomas, The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism” (H-Business, H-Review, February 1998), https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=1683.
[3] Thomas Frank, The Conquest of Cool (The University of Chicago Press, 1997). 33.
[4] Frank, 49.
[5] Frank, 50.
[6] Frank, 55.
[7] Frank, 55.
[8] Frank, 73.
[9] Frank, 105.
[10] Frank, 120.
[11] Frank, 126.
[12] Frank, 190.
[13] Frank, 209.
[14] Frank, 228.
[15] Frank, 234.
[16] Frank, 229.
[17] Frank, 118.
[18] Frank, 80.
[19] Frank, 152.
[20] Frank, 227.
[21] Frank, 172.
[22] Cochran.
[23] Frank, 119.
[24] Cochran.
[25] Cochran.
