Why we should get rid of political advertising

Following the last presidential election, I wrote an article about the debris that resulted from the avalanche of distasteful political ads. Well, I can't say that it helped clear the air very much. But before the next mudball fight, we thought it a good idea to revisit the article. Just to get us all ready for what's coming. Here it is:

Now that I've been hanging around the human race for 50-plus years, I've come to some conclusions, beliefs if you will, which guide me as I head for the office or put out the cat. For instance, I believe that aliens have not yet landed, guns really do kill people and political advertising ought to be eradicated from our existence.

Obviously, there are many intelligent and highly regarded people who take the opposite view -- on all those issues. But that's why life is the rich fabric that it is. What's more, the good part about living here in the United States is that you don't get shot for disagreeing (most of the time).

The reason I feel the way I do about political advertising is that I've been making my living in advertising for nearly 40 years, and I know the damage it can do. There's an old, very old, adage that says, "nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising." You get convinced to stop for a Bonzoburger, you don't like it, so hey, you don't eat there again. Ah, capitalism! But if you elect a candidate that doesn't work, you're stuck with him, pal. And before you get to not vote for him again, he gets to vote to send troops to Iraq, to build fences along the Mexican border and monkey with Medicare.

All this assumes that the only reason you vote for someone is their advertising. And there are those people who would say that they're not influenced by the ads. These, I suspect, are the same people who pay an extra $12,000 for an SUV because it has a first-aid kit. They say that while they may see the ads, they vote because of the issues and the platforms put forth by the candidates. This may well be true for a lot of folks. Or to put it another way, Oh, God, I hope so.

But the fact of the matter is that you get bombarded by a lot of advertising for one simple, proven-in-the-political-arena reason: It works. As Steven Kates wrote, "Political advertising is believed to work under certain conditions for certain types of voters and for certain types of purposes such as image development, agenda setting, or attacking opponents."

Even if you're not a "certain type of voter," ask yourself: Isn't this just a peachy way to elect people? It's image we want, so let's get ourselves a handsome guy -- he's much more qualified than Abe would ever be. And of course, we want the agenda set on TV, not by the needs of the voters, so let's make sure the election is about Dick Cheney's hunting skills, not about where the money is coming from for our schools.

But let's get to the real sirloin of this discussion, what we all know is poking us in the eye and giving us a national migraine: attack ads.

There is nothing wrong with attacking what an incumbent has or has not done. That's what debates are for. But in a debate, there is something called a rebuttal. It's the time when the attacked gets to respond to what's been said. At the same time and place, in front of the same audience. In other words, the attacker has to stand for what he's said. The same is true in a trial. An accusation is made, a defense is given.

But in a 30-second ad, anything can be alleged. By the time the respondent responds, days or even weeks have gone by. And of course, the natural reaction is to mount counter-attacks that are also immune to scrutiny. The net result for the viewer is an endless assault of shrill, demeaning finger-pointing. Congress on "Jerry Springer."

Don't kid yourself. Even as we take great delight in getting rid of suits in the office, there is a feeling that the institutions that make up the steel girders of our society are cracking. We can live with the fact that our politicians are, after all, just human beings. But can we survive if we force them to mud-wrestle to keep their jobs?

(More on this in our next episode, so stay tuned!)

Women Really Do Wear the Pants

The other day, we had the pleasure of speaking to a crowd at the Business and Technology Expo, hosted by the Small Business Times. Our presentation followed Blue Ocean Strategy author Renee Mauborgne's discussion on how to make the competition irrelevant. If you haven't already read her book, please do. It'll get you thinking.

Our topic was “How Advertisers Can Compete in an Era of Exploding Media Options ." Here are some excerpts. We welcome your comments and insights.

Whatever you are selling, be it business-to-business or business to consumer, be it deer rifles, off road vehicles, auto insurance, aluminum siding, beer in cans or industrial power transmission equipment, eventually and most assuredly, a woman is your target market. Well, maybe not for the industrial power transmission equipment. Yet.

In 1950, one-third of American women of working age had a paid job. Today, almost two-thirds do. Service jobs have particularly expanded, creating opportunities for women.

Using these new jobs and the revenue generated from them, women are taking on more importance as consumers, entrepreneurs and managers. And by the way, studies are showing them to be better than men as investors as well.

“Surveys suggest that women make perhaps 80% of consumers’ buying decisions – from health care and homes to furniture and food.” -- The Economist, April 15th, 2006

The future, in terms of productivity, prosperity and yes even in higher fertility rates, the more women work, the better off we are. If you’re an advertiser, best get on the bandwagon. Or, you can prepare for the future in another way, which is what my son chose to do. He’s going to cooking school.

To quote The Economist again, “it used to be said that women must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily that is not so difficult.”

Let me close with this idea.

As I dug into all the articles and books and blogs about “the future of advertising,” I developed a slight case of déjà vu. I saw a disturbing trend, perhaps a fundamental mistake repeating itself albeit in different verbiage:

“The world is awash in advertising clutter. For decades, marketers have been spending more and more to try to get their message out, only to find their pitches drowned in a sea of noise…”

David H. Freedman
Inc. Magazine, August 2005

Well, if you’re like me, you’ve been hearing this since Hank Aaron set a home run record honestly. Woe is us! We have been flooded with noise and no one will listen to our back-to-school specials! We’d better make the logo bigger. We’d better say the name again. We’d better buy the rights to “Sweet Home Alabama.”


As you face your media choices, I would ask you to consider this: Clutter doesn't matter. Content Matters.

I think the issue of too many messages is a non-issue.

This generation has grown up with marketing like Daniel Boone grew up with the sounds of the forest. The problem is not clutter. It doesn’t matter whether you’re videopodcasting or e-mailing. If you don’t have content which is based upon insight into your participant, you won’t make the right media choice. Because they’ll all be wrong.

Understand who you’re talking to. If you know what they need to hear, have no fear…they will hear you.