by Adonis Hoffman
Advertising is under attack. It is becoming accepted orthodoxy to blame advertising and media for the many ills afflicting our society today, from childhood obesity to rising rates of violence. American kids getting fatter—must be all those cereal and food commercials. Higher prescription drug prices--surely the result of those expensive commercials. Crime getting worse--must be the video games.
The ensuing public policy fiction is that society’s problems can be fixed quite simply by ceasing all commercials. This is a chimera of the worst order.The rationale runs the risk of becoming dogma for groups who want nothing more than to stop any advertising for any products, anytime.
By positioning advertising as the problem, the anti-commercial lobby has been able to concoct a convenient panacea—muzzle the messengers and all will be well. This rationale is behind the various campaigns to stifle or seriously curtail advertising for products people do not like or agree with.
What about some of the proximate causes for our problems. In the area of childhood obesity, for example, shouldn't we consider the fact that parents themselves are more overweight than ever before, so kids stand to be more obese too.Or with both parents working outside the home, fast food has become a larger and more convenient portion of the family diet.Or that budget cuts for physical education programs in public schools leave children less active.Or that our kids spend more hours in front of a computer screen, video game or television set than playing ball in the back yard.
Maybe, just maybe, these things have as much—if not more—to do with growing rates of obesity among America’s children as does advertising. And not to be overlooked is the role of parents in designing the family regimen for diet and exercise.
In the area of rising prescription drug prices, a few influential voices have pointed the finger at advertising as one of the key contributing factors. This thinking has guided (or misguided) efforts to do away with the direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs, or to disallow the tax deductibility of advertising as a legitimate business expense.
Let’s be real.Advertising is not always the beacon of public enlightenment that its advocates earnestly contend.Most of the time, it is little more than tolerable infotainment—lingering somewhere between information and entertainment. But neither is it the bete noir that critics claim either.As Dick Sittig once noted, “If advertising was that powerful, then people would believe there’s talking fruit in their underwear.”
The value of advertising lies in the fact that it drives commerce, employs millions of people in one form or another and pays for the newspapers, magazines and yes, television programs, we all love to rail against for having—you guessed it—too much advertising.
In fact, as advertising executive Bruce Barton aptly put it: "Advertising is of the very essence of democracy. An election goes on every minute of the business day across the counters of hundreds of thousands of stores and shops where the customers state their preferences and determine which manufacturer and which product shall be the leader today, and which shall lead tomorrow."
Perhaps, most importantly, advertising undergirds competition. And competition spurs the technological innovation that makes appliances, cars, computers, personal services, and much of what we need to live, quite affordable indeed.
The handwriting is on the wall. Cultural critics and activist interest groups have learned how easy it is to serve up a bogeyman big enough to blame for just about anything wrong in America today.With over $141 billion spent on advertising last year, Madison Avenue conveniently fits the bill.
Seeking responsible solutions to society's problems can be a daunting challenge for our policymakers. In their earnest efforts to solve societal ills, scapegoating advertising would be neither good nor enlightened public policy.
© 2005, Adonis Hoffman
No comments:
Post a Comment