"Fight the Propaganda" - Dissection

DEBATE MODERATOR
What you are about to read is a debate between Brand Autopsy’s marketing coroners Paul Williams and John Moore. Today’s topic is the recent Rich Silverstein editorial that appeared in the Feb 2nd edition of ADWEEK. John Moore will begin with the opening blog, Paul Williams will respond with his opening blog, and then the two will each have 200 words for rebuttal blogs.

Click on it to get a the PDF of the entire article.

John Moore, you have one blog entry to address the topic.

Hello readers of the Brand Autopsy blog, it is my pleasure to address you today on a topic that is not only timely, but a topic that is sure to have lasting implications for marketers and advertisers alike. In the Feb. 2nd issue of ADWEEK, advertising living legend Rich Silverstein (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners) penned a column in which he argues that advertising agencies should have nothing to do with political advertising. Here are exact quotes from the article...

"With the elections so close, it's time for me to suggest that our industry stay away from political advertising. It's too easy for politicians to hide behind a 30-second commercial. This format does not allow for any depth or insight into our country's problems. It allows candidates to simplify complicated solutions into a cliché."

"Political advertising is a form of propaganda, and we should have nothing to do with it."

"Political advertising offers sound bites with no real substance. First-level slogans that appeal to the lowest common denominator."

"Shouldn't we elect people who can communicate on their own, who can think on their feet and aren't a creation of their handler's?"

"I have enormous respect for our industry and its power to define our culture and persuade minds. That is why I believe so strongly that political advertising should not be used to determine our country's future."

I find these quotes from Rich Silverstein to be incredulous. Why do I find the quotes so incredulous? Because by simply replacing the word “politician” with “product” along with a few other minor tweaks in order to make the quotes flow properly, Rich's editorial takes on a whole new meaning -- one that I am sure he had no intention of making. Read the following and my point should become blatantly apparent…

"With purchasing cycles so short, it's time for me to suggest that our industry stay away from product advertising. It's too easy for products to hide behind a 30-second commercial. This format does not allow for any depth or insight into solving for consumer's problems. It allows brands to simplify complicated solutions into a cliché."

"Product advertising is a form of propaganda, and we should have nothing to do with it."

"Product advertising offers sound bites with no real substance. First-level slogans that appeal to the lowest common denominator."

"Shouldn't we buy products that can stand on their own, products that can solve consumer problems on their own and aren't a creation of their handler's?"

"I have enormous respect for our industry and its power to define our culture and persuade minds. That is why I believe so strongly that product advertising should not be used to determine a consumer's future."

I don’t know about you, but I choose products much the same way I choose political candidates. I look for certain qualities/attributes in products just as I do in politicians. I look to products to “solve” for problems I have as I look to political candidates to “solve” for problems our country has. I need to be educated on the uniqueness of products just as I need to be educated on the uniqueness of politicians. I associate myself with certain products just as I associate myself with certain politicians. The similarities are endless.

That is why I cannot understand how Rich Silverstein can draw such a bold line separating product advertising from political advertising. If he cannot stomach the thought of advertising agencies defining the culture and persuading minds by creating political advertisements then how has he been stomaching advertising agencies defining the culture and persuading minds by creating product advertisements?

DEBATE MODERATOR
Thank you Mr. Moore.
{Mr. Williams' entry follows below.}

Comments

[John Moore (United Kingdom)]

I think John's reworking of Silverstein's article bangs the nail on the head. I think that advertising is very often maninpulative; it may shift minds but it seems it is rarely about creating value and more often focuses on trivia and ephemera. So I interpret John's interpretation (stay with me here!) not as a defence of political ads but as a legitimate attack on the excesses of advertising of all kinds.

Likewise I agree with Paul that "Mr. Silverstein is making an admission about the manipulation that takes place by marketers through advertising. The ways we make claims and persuade consumers with regard to products and services."

I think Silverstein seems to imply it's ok to manipulate us to sell toothpaste but not politics. I don't buy that. I am weary of the trivia of advertising agencies; I think they often collude with companies in making superficial change instead of focussing on real innovation and cheapen the quality of public discourse. Apart from that, I'm sure they're lovely people...