At one point in this exhaustive, 500-page, 31-chapter exploration of the sundry strands of academic advertising theory, one of the researchers wonders why those who practice advertising don't ever bother to read those who humorlessly study advertising.* It's a good question, and the only satisfying answer I can come up with is, "Because it's not cool." Five stars.

*"The problems advertising works to solve—of communication for commercial and social purposes—are important to the national culture, but often advertising professionals themselves aren’t clear or convinced of this. How then can they advocate for the value or their own work? Thinking about advertising as a societal institution fills the gap between understanding what the central issues of our academic advertising research are on one hand, and the experiences of practitioners as they apply that knowledge to businesses and social-cultural processes on the other.

The utility of advertising's institutional contributions are much more than communications for commerce. Advertising’s work consists of the symbol-making activities central to cultural processes (Sherry, 2005). Symbols and symbolism in communications are forces in processes of power sharing, conflict resolution, and evolution of traditions in modern societies. These activities are supported not only by business enterprises but also by a wide range of social, cultural, and political organizations, to name only a few.

In addition, conceptualizing advertising as a societal institution encourages us to think about ourselves as a community united by a work specialty and to focus on how non-ad-professionals like clients, regulators, watchdog groups, and others influence the valuation of our work. This may lead us to think differently about why practitioners and scholars have so few regular interactions, why practitioners do not read academic journals, and how to create richer connections than just trying to place students in ad agencies after they graduate (Wright-Isak and Faber, 1996)."