Corporate Propaganda

Corporate propaganda refers to the deliberate use of communication strategies by corporations, and sometimes government-linked entities, to disseminate specific ideologies, narratives, or viewpoints with the aim of shaping public opinion, influencing perceptions, and advancing organisational interests. It operates through structured persuasive efforts that seek to affect attitudes or behaviours in ways favourable to the propagating entity. While the term propaganda historically carries negative connotations, particularly due to its association with wartime and authoritarian regimes, it remains a significant concept in the study of corporate communication, public relations, and marketing.
At its core, corporate propaganda is concerned with influence. It involves the intentional framing of information by actors who have a vested interest in how that information is received and acted upon by audiences. In contemporary scholarship, corporate propaganda is often discussed alongside related concepts such as public relations, advertising, marketing, and what some scholars collectively describe as organised persuasive communication.

Definition and Conceptual Background

Propaganda in its broadest sense refers to the dissemination of ideas, information, or messages by an individual or organisation seeking to influence the thoughts or actions of others. Corporate propaganda applies this logic to commercial organisations, which may promote particular worldviews, consumption practices, or policy positions that align with their economic or strategic objectives.
Two foundational figures in the modern study of propaganda were Harold Lasswell and Edward Bernays. Lasswell offered one of the earliest systematic definitions, describing propaganda as the management of collective attitudes through the manipulation of significant symbols, often operating at a psychological and sometimes subconscious level. This definition emphasised the inevitability of organised influence in mass societies.
Some contemporary scholars group corporate propaganda together with advertising, marketing, and public relations under the umbrella term organised persuasive communication (OPC). From this perspective, OPC represents a set of techniques used by powerful institutions to strategically target audiences and guide opinion formation in predictable ways.

Historical Development

The term propaganda became widely known in the twentieth century, particularly during the First World War. The emergence of mass-circulation newspapers and radio enabled messages to reach unprecedented audiences, making large-scale persuasion both feasible and effective.
During the First World War, the United States government established the Committee on Public Information to mobilise public support for the war effort. This marked one of the earliest large-scale, coordinated uses of propaganda in the United States and demonstrated how communication could be used to align public sentiment with political objectives.
Harold Lasswell’s theoretical work during this period helped formalise propaganda as a subject of academic inquiry. He viewed propaganda as a necessary feature of modern democratic societies, where elites must communicate persuasively with mass publics in order to govern effectively.

Edward Bernays and Early Corporate Propaganda

Edward Bernays played a pivotal role in transferring propaganda techniques from wartime government use to peacetime corporate and commercial contexts. Having worked for the Committee on Public Information, Bernays initially described himself openly as a propagandist. He later established one of the first public relations consultancies and was instrumental in positioning public relations as a distinct professional field.
Bernays argued that the same methods used to mobilise populations during war could be applied to promote social change, consumer behaviour, and corporate interests during peace. He believed that organised persuasion could be beneficial if applied responsibly, famously remarking that techniques effective in war could also be used for peace.
However, the association of propaganda with authoritarian regimes, particularly Nazi Germany, gave the term a deeply negative connotation. In response, Bernays sought to distance his work from the label propaganda and reframe it as public relations. He argued that corporations required sophisticated communication strategies to engage with the public and that these strategies should be understood as legitimate tools of influence rather than manipulation.

Propaganda in War and the Transition to Commerce

Government use of propaganda during the First World War established a template for later corporate applications. The US government enlisted artists, filmmakers, journalists, and writers to produce pro-war materials, while newspapers and magazines carried advertisements urging citizens to buy war bonds and support the national cause. These campaigns demonstrated the effectiveness of emotionally resonant messaging and symbolic appeals.
After the war, these techniques were adapted for commercial purposes. Corporations recognised that consumer attitudes and behaviours could be shaped using similar persuasive frameworks. As a result, propaganda methods became embedded in advertising and brand communication.

Propaganda for Products and Social Influence

One of the most cited examples of early corporate propaganda involves Edward Bernays’s work for the American Tobacco Company in the 1920s. At the time, cigarette consumption was largely restricted to men, and women represented an untapped market. Bernays designed campaigns that linked smoking to prevailing social values rather than to the product itself.
Initially, cigarettes were promoted as tools for weight control, aligning them with contemporary beauty standards. When social norms still discouraged women from smoking in public, Bernays launched a second campaign that framed cigarettes as symbols of female emancipation. By branding cigarettes as “torches of freedom” and associating them with the feminist movement, he successfully redefined smoking as an act of equality and independence. These campaigns illustrate how corporate propaganda can appropriate social movements and cultural values to legitimise consumption.

Corporate Propaganda and Public Relations

A long-standing debate exists over whether corporate propaganda should be considered synonymous with public relations. Scholars critical of propaganda tend to view it as inherently manipulative, involving deception, coercion, or non-consensual influence. From this perspective, corporate propaganda prioritises organisational interests over informed public choice.
In contrast, many public relations scholars argue that organised persuasive communication in democratic societies can be ethical, consensual, and transparent. They maintain that manipulative propaganda is characteristic of authoritarian regimes, whereas public relations in democratic contexts is based on dialogue, mutual understanding, and voluntary persuasion.
This disagreement reflects deeper philosophical questions about persuasion itself. Some critics argue that all persuasion involves manipulation, while defenders of public relations contend that persuasion is unavoidable in social and economic life and that ethical standards, rather than the act of persuasion, determine legitimacy.

Ethical Issues and Criticism

Ethical concerns have accompanied corporate propaganda since its emergence. In the years following the First World War, many journalists viewed public relations practitioners with suspicion, accusing them of producing biased content that served private interests rather than the public good. This scepticism was intensified by high-profile controversies.
One notable case involved the National Electric Light Association and its parent company, General Electric. In the late 1920s, the organisation ran a campaign discouraging public ownership of electric utilities, presenting it as educational. Subsequent investigations revealed that schools and faculty had been financially influenced and that opposing viewpoints were actively suppressed. This incident reinforced public fears that corporate propaganda could undermine democratic debate.
Bernays himself argued that ethical public relations required transparency and respect for opposing perspectives. He acknowledged that once viewpoints were purchased or dissent was silenced, communication crossed the boundary from persuasion into unethical manipulation.