Chapter 9. The Advertiser Advertising has long had a bad press. The case
against it is detailed and seemingly compelling. It is claimed that advertising entices people,
forcing them to buy products they would otherwise not buy. It preys on the fears and psychological
weaknesses of people. It is misleading, with its juxtaposition of a beautiful woman and
and a commercial product implying that she is somehow part of the deal.
It is foolish what with its contests, marching bands and jingles.
It is an insult to our intelligence.
The argument is usually capped with an appeal to our selfish natures.
Advertising is very costly.
A minute of prime television time or a full page advertisement in a popular magazine or
newspaper can run into thousands of dollars.
The advertising industry as a whole is a multi-billion dollar industry.
If we banned advertising, it is alleged, all of this money could be saved.
The money could then be used to improve the product, or lower its price, or both.
The advertising industry could be replaced with a governmental board, which would present
objective descriptions and ratings.
Instead of sexy misleading jingles, we would have product descriptions, perhaps summarized
by a grade level of grade A, grade B, etc.
In any case, the advertisers, who are non-productive and essentially parasitical, would be put
out of business.
There is much that is wrong with this view of advertising, but it is not without its
historical precedence.
In fact, it is only the most recent in a long line of arguments purporting to show that
one or another industry is parasitical and unproductive.
The physiocrats, a school of economic thought in mid-18th century France, thought all industries
except farming, fishing and hunting were wasteful.
They reasoned that anything not connected with the soil was sterile and dependent and
and Parasitical upon the Soil-Based Industries.
Other economists have distinguished between goods which were considered productive and
services which were not.
Still others have held that all goods but only some services were productive.
For example, it has been denied that monetary services such as financial intermediation,
brokerage, banking and speculation have any value.
It is easy nowadays to see the limitations of these theories.
A good need not come directly from the soil to be productive, nor need a service be tangible
such as medical care to be productive.
We know that brokers bring people together at lower costs than they could manage on their
own.
We know that the non-tangible product of the insurance industry provides for the pooling
and consequent lessening of risks.
And even in these sophisticated times, the advertising industry enjoys a widespread reputation
as a parasite.
How strong is the case?
First, it seems clear that advertising does not lure or force people to buy what they
would not otherwise buy.
Advertising attempts to persuade people, perhaps in ways some members of the community find
and objectionable, but it does not and cannot coerce. Fraudulent advertising is logically
equivalent to theft and is not to be confused with advertising per se. If the seller advertises
wheat but delivers rocks, he has actually stolen the money price of wheat. Subliminal
Traditional advertising, if it exists, would be considered coercive.
But it cannot be claimed that ordinary advertising is coercive without completely obliterating
the distinction between coercion and persuasion.
Second, advertising does have an informational content.
This is conceded even by its most fervent detractors, although they think that the government
could do a better job.
But governmental action in the field of advertising is no less advertising just because it is
government advertising.
If anything, there are more problems which are harder to deal with in government-issued
advertisements.
Unencumbered by the usual necessity to make profits by pleasing consumers, when the government
gets out of hand, there is very little that can be done.
Several advertising for United States war bonds or the military draft are but two examples
that come to mind.
Third, the importance of advertising in helping new companies and thus encouraging competition
should not be underestimated.
If advertising were prohibited, the large established companies would have a powerful
advantage in the market.
Even with things as they are, older firms are more likely to monopolize a given industry
than newer ones.
Advertising, by giving a comparative advantage to newcomers, lessens the degree of concentration
in the economy.
Finally, much, if not all, of the advertising that violates community standards of intelligence
and Decency can be traced to and blamed on governmental edicts in other areas.
For example, the government does not allow airlines to compete with one another in non-trivial
areas.
Their advertising campaigns bombard us with news about early bird specials, new decor,
the number of seats in an aisle, airplanes named after stewardesses, etc.
I'm Mary Beth. Fly me to Miami. If airlines were free to compete with respect to price,
the passengers might be spared this constant reiteration about non-essential affectations.
The same is true for banks. Banks are limited in the amount of interest they can pay to
depositors, 0% to demand depositors, 5.5% to 7.5% to time depositors as of this date.
They compete, therefore, with each other as to which can give the best kitchen utensils, radios, etc., as lures for new depositors.
Note that since they can charge as much as the market will bear for loans, they spend far less advertising money to try to convince anyone to borrow money from them.
The true blame for advertisements of this kind belongs not to the advertising industry, but to the government.
These four arguments, when taken together, constitute a valid defense against the critics of advertising.
Yet they do not strike at the heart of the matter, for they ignore the main fallacy of the critics,
The assumption that deep down there is a distinction to be made between motivational advertising and informational advertising.
That motivational advertising is bad in various ways, while informational advertising is good.
The truth is, however, that exposing people to information and motivating them are so inextricably bound up together
For a better perspective, consider several examples where it is not they who are trying to impart information and motivation to us, but we who are trying to impart information and motivation to them.
Most of us, for instance, have had the experience of being interviewed for a new position.
How do we prepare?
We commence by writing an advertising brochure about ourselves.
This document is sometimes called a resume by those anxious to obfuscate and to hide
the fact that each of us is, at almost all times, an advertiser.
In this advertising brochure, we put the facts of our employment life as they pertain to
the prospective job.
And in splendid advertising tradition, we try to make these facts appear as flattering
as possible.
We hire a professional typist to help entice an employer into hiring us.
And we have the brochure printed on fine paper in order to create an impression as a good
advertiser should.
Strictly speaking, we are only providing information on the brochure.
It is merely informational advertising on the face of it, but the attempt to present
the information in a favorable light involves us willy-nilly in motivational advertising.
During the interview we continue to advertise.
We package ourselves as best we can.
Even though we might not do so every day, at the job interview we will give special
attention to grooming effects.
Even when not engaged in job hunting, we advertise by constantly trying to portray ourselves
in a good light.
Even unconsciously we try to package ourselves well.
From the very cradle, parents are busy advertising us or laying the groundwork for future advertising.
How else can we explain those ballet, violin and piano lessons and visits to the orthodontist
or skin doctor?
The Jewish mother, with her constant exhortations about good posture and good eating habits,
eat, eat, children are starving in Europe and you are not eating, is the great unsung
heroine of the advertising business.
And the Jewish mother's bragging about her children?
Just more advertising.
As we grow up, we carry on the fine traditions of advertising.
We wear clothing that flatters our figures.
When we diet, or try to, at least part of our expenditures on education, psychiatry, hair grooming and clothing can only be understood as advertising expenditures.
Later on we purchase cars, houses, recreation, in large part as advertisements for ourselves.
Incidentally, the greater expenditures as a percentage of income on luxury items, such as clothing and cars, made by groups who are discriminated against, such as women and blacks, can be explained by advertising.
They feel they must engage in greater advertising expenses in order to counteract the discrimination.
The rest need not invest so heavily in advertising because we are in.
Even members of the radical left, who are among the bitterest critics of advertising, engage in advertising themselves.
This should not be surprising since we are defining advertising in its proper but broad sense of creative and interesting packaging.
Usually, whenever the radical left has access to a bulletin board, the messages placed on it are at first uniformly small, neat and similarly printed.
After a while, in order to attract attention, some of the messages are printed in different colors and on different size placards.
Eventually in the competition to attract attention, larger and larger placards are used, with
bolder printing, coloring and illustrations.
In their attempt to spread information, they are led, as if by an invisible hand, to engage
in motivational advertising.
The reason radicals write messages such as, off the pig, or fuck the state, on walls or
for Buildings in Big Red Letters is not entirely out of a desire to shock, it is also out of
a desire to impart the revolutionary message by first attracting attention to it.
If it is not read, however informational it may be, it will impart no information.
But as much can be said for the typical soap opera advertisement.
Anyone who has ever been called upon to give a speech where there was a distinct possibility
of putting the audience to sleep will understand the difficulty of distinguishing between imparting
information and packaging a speech.
Surely, no more boring a speech can be imagined than a lecture on economics.
The public speaker or teacher will engage in certain practices, such as maintaining
and Eye Contact, Telling Jokes or Posing Rhetorical Questions.
These are sometimes known as public speaking techniques.
A more appropriate term would be advertising techniques, packaging the product well, making
it appear interesting, highlighting the talk, bringing points into focus and capturing the
attention of the audience.
These advertising techniques have about as much to do with the subject of the talk as
As bicycling has to do with Coca-Cola, as deep, throaty, sexy female voices have to
do with shaving cream, or as the sporting events of the more than one beer men have
to do with beer.
That is not the point.
The point is that if one hopes to get information across, even to people who are well motivated,
such as the student in the economics class who has to stay awake to receive a good grade,
One must engage in advertising techniques. If this is important when dealing with people
who are well motivated, imagine how much more important it is to advertise information when
your audience is not well motivated. Television advertising should be interpreted at least
as favorably, if not more so, than the advertising engaged in by public speakers. They are both
Both attempts to impart information by making that information interesting and attractive.
But the television ad faces the additional burden of keeping the viewer away from his
refrigerator.
If all content which was not strictly informational was banned, we would have to prevent speakers
and teachers from even attempting to be interesting.
They would not be allowed to tell jokes, maintain eye contact, or discuss questions with the
audience.
These techniques are above and beyond the strict imparting of information.
Like television advertising gimmicks, they are attempts to waylay the audience.
Is it possible to ban motivational advertising while allowing informational advertising?
No.
Information can be presented well or badly, that is, in such a way as to bore and alienate
the audience or charm and amuse it, but it must be packaged or presented in some way.
For example, imagine that a magic carpet was invented and it was decided that information
about it was to be given out, the flying speed, cruising range, upkeep costs, how to roll
It might seem inspirational. The carpet certainly could not be shown in action, that is, with an attractive woman on it.
We could not risk fooling people into believing that if they bought the carpet, they would get a copy of the inspirational music, or of the inspirational woman.
If we could not use a professional announcer, could we use a non-professional one, or just an ordinary man off the street? We could not.
Some advertising companies with their low cunning are already using testimonials from the man in the street with great success, proving that this procedure has a motivational content.
If the information cannot be read, can it be printed?
But what kind of typeface should be used?
Certainly not a style that would induce someone to horrors, buy the flying carpet.
It would have to be an almost indecipherable typeface so that people could hardly read
it.
Otherwise, at a low enough price, many people would be led down the garden path into making
a purchase.
The whole message would have to be presented in a purposely inferior manner so as not to
attract any attention to itself.
Clearly there is no way to separate the package from what it contains.
There is no way to present pure information.
To believe in the presentation of information without motivation is foolishness of the highest
degree.
The objection that advertising adds to the cost of the product is an objection that has
not been clearly thought out.
Would the critics object because wrapping a product adds to the cost?
Or transporting it?
They would not.
It is understood that these additional costs are necessarily incurred if the product is
to be made available to the consumer.
But the same is true of advertising.
As the magic carpet previously mentioned costs $950 to manufacture, $10 to wrap it and $40
for transportation.
If customers want to take advantage of the wrapping and delivery services, they must
pay the full $1,000.
But they have the choice of picking up a wrapped carpet at $960, an unwrapped one for $950,
or an unwrapped one delivered to their homes for $990.
So it is with advertising costs.
If it costs $100 to advertise the carpet, the customers have a choice between the advertised
brand for $1100 and an unadvertised brand, which presumably they could find if they searched
long enough, for $1000.
If a substantial number of consumers were willing to find unadvertised brands or outlets, manufacturers
would be foolish to advertise. However, some consumers may not be so enterprising or energetic
in shopping for unadvertised brands at cheaper prices. This would give the manufacturer the
incentive to advertise, and the costs of the advertisements would be added to the purchase
This Price.
It is true, therefore, that advertising would add to the cost of the product.
But then, it is true that advertising is necessary in order to bring the product to the people.
If some refused to buy unwrapped, undelivered magic carpets, but would buy wrapped, delivered
ones, could it be said that wrapping costs and delivery costs were added to the total
Governmental costs unnecessarily? Decidedly not. In the same manner, advertising does
not add unnecessarily to the costs of the product.
What of a governmental ratings board for advertising? Before giving the government still another
task because of alleged imperfections in the market, consider the dismal record of
and the Government to date.
The graft and corruption unearthed by Ralph Nader and his associates should give pause
for thought.
Regulation agency after regulation agency, from ICC and CAB to FTC, FPC and others, have
been shown to be regulating industry not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit
of the industry as against the consumer.
This is not just an accident, there is a reason for it.
Each of us is a purchaser of literally thousands of items, but producers of only one.
Our ability to influence regulatory legislation passed by the state is, therefore, much more
concentrated as producers than as consumers.
Government agencies, accordingly, tend to regulate in favor of the producing industry,
rather than the mass of consumers.
In fact, government regulatory agencies tend to be set up by the very industries they are
to regulate.
Milton Friedman, in the chapter entitled Occupational Licensure in Capitalism and Freedom, brilliantly
demonstrates the dismal record of governmental rating agencies in the medical field.
There is no reason to assume that a rating agency in advertising would be any different.
Rather, it would not be surprising if the calls for governmentally regulated objective
informational advertising were begun by the larger established advertising firms as a
way of slowing down the rising competition from smaller firms and newcomers.
But the strongest argument against governmental regulation of advertising is not the empirical
one showing its dismal record to date, strong though that may be.
The strongest argument is the logical one.
The reasoning employed by those who want governmental regulation contains a self-contradiction.
On the one hand, they assert that the American people are unalterably gullible.
They must be protected because, left to their own devices, they become victims.
They can be made to think, for example, that if they use a certain brand of aftershave lotion,
they will end up with the girl in the ad.
On the other hand, the argument assumes that the boobs are smart enough to pick political
leaders capable of regulating these sirens.
This is impossible.
In any case, if the public is sufficiently enamored of objective information on consumer
products, it can avail itself of the services of firms and organizations such as Consumer
Reports, Good Housekeeping, the Better Business Bureau, commercial testing laboratories and
other private enterprise certification agencies.
The free market is flexible.
It can provide this kind of service, too.
But the inability to separate motivational and informational advertising still holds.
When Consumer Reports states that zilch flakes are the best flakes to buy, it is necessarily
motivating people to buy zilch over and above other flakes.
It cannot provide information without providing any motivation to do anything.
Advertising can be defended only when it occurs on the free market.
In the case of government or government-aided big business advertising, none of the free
market defenses hold.
Here, people are forced to pay for the advertising, whether they choose to buy the product or
not.
When the government advertises, it is with tax money, collected on an involuntary basis.
The advertising in which the government engages is highly motivational, Uncle Sam wants you,
and not infrequently fraudulent.
It is strange that government advertising has been so completely ignored, even by the
most vociferous critics of advertising.
Imagine what would ensue if a private businessman were to engage in fraudulent advertising on
on even 1% of the scale committed by Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon,
who campaigned on advertised peace planks and yet involved the country in foreign wars.
How can we entrust punishment of fraudulent advertising to the worst fraudulent advertisers
of all time, the government?
Finally, advertising must be defended by those who believe in freedom of speech, for that
is all advertising is.
It is all too easy to defend the right to speak of those whose speech we favor in any
case.
But if the rights of free speech are to mean anything at all, those who are not in public
favor must be defended.
Students anxiously await a defense by the American Civil Liberties Union of the free
speech rights of advertisers.
This organization was ominously quiet during the banning of cigarette commercials from television.