I’ve just read another outraged article about advertising.
This article is shocked about how advertising lies.
Advertising that pretends not to be advertising: native advertising.
Where a journalist pretends to be writing an article, but it’s actually sponsored by a brand or product.
The article says “The fact is that an inherently manipulative industry tries to present itself as honest and trustworthy”.
Well, advertising that pretends not be advertising is the result of people who are ashamed to be in advertising.
People who worry it may compromise their artistic integrity.
People who would rather be making art.
So they disguise what they’re doing.
They avoid naming the product, they avoid catchy slogans, above all they avoid looking like they are selling anything.
Subtlety and stealth are all important.
These people have forgotten (or maybe they never learned) the most important difference between advertising and art.
Art is for the artist.
Advertising isn’t.
Advertising, unlike art, is all about communication.
“If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one around to hear it, is there a sound?”
In the case of art (as argued by Duchamp) the answer is yes.
In the case of advertising, the answer is no.
A communication isn’t a communication until it’s been received.
And it won’t be received unless people want to receive it.
Howard Gossage said “People don’t read ads. They read what interests them, and sometimes it’s an ad”.
That’s the truth.
Ordinary people aren’t annoyed by advertising.
They’re annoyed by anything boring whether it’s adverts, films, music, programmes, speeches, poetry, the news, or graffiti.
People aren’t stupid.
They know the little films between the programmes are adverts.
The only sin advertising commits for ordinary people is boredom.
If it makes them laugh, if it’s interesting, if it’s worth passing on, then it’s okay.
If it’s not any of those things it’s an irritation.
If it’s ashamed about what it is and tries to pretend it’s something else then it’s a lie, manipulation.
No one likes that.
That was the lesson we should have learned from Bernbach.
People like advertising that’s honest.
Not just a piece of pretend-art.
The article said “An ad that pretends to be art is like someone who smiles warmly at you because they want something from you”.
Consumers know that; they’re not dopes.
The article ends like this:
“Perhaps capitalism that makes no attempt to conceal its intentions is the best we can hope for”.
The article meant that as a bad thing, but I think it’s a good thing.
Stop lying, stop being ashamed of what we do, stop pretending it’s something else.
Admit we’re selling stuff and make it enjoyable.
Halle-f***ing-lujah
Dave in yer face Trott on the money!! Whisper it but SELLING YOUR PRODUCT IS OK. People should spend more time being proud of the work then tv ads can regain their place as being ‘better than most programmes’
Dave,
I’ve always felt Advertising is Art for the Common Man.
Not sure if i committed any category errors there let alone grammatical ones and any implied sexism or classism, is that a word?
Anyway, how about ‘Ads are for the everyday’, OK?
“Art for the common man” works for me.
Just like: Brian Clough, Steve Jobs, Mohammed Ali, Steven Spielberg, Banksy, George Best, many more.
IMHO art is quality in what you do that elevates it above the ordinary.
It’s not just something that goes in galleries for art critics.
Yup.
Don’t try and be esoteric.
I didn’t read the original article so this might all be bollocks, but isn’t the complaint about feature writers or journalists writing pieces that are basically ads without the acknowledgement? Puffery, in other words?
I go along with that. That’s why I take mainstream travel writing with a piece of salt, along with all those ‘Ten Best Headphones’ page-fillers. PR is a far more insidious activity than advertising.
The writers of these pieces don’t worry they may compromise their artistic integrity. Journalistic integrity, yes. They might worry about that, but they cash the cheque regardless.
Where does the art bit come from, exactly? It feels like it belongs in a different blog post.
Kevin,
I’ve probably conflated the two things.
But my position is that disguising advertising is done by people who are ashamed of advertising, and trying to pretend it’s something else.
They think they can slide advertising past the punters as long as they don’t realise it’s advertising.
So they pretend it’s journalism, art, news, opinion, whatever.
It isn’t good advertising and it isn’t good journalism (or art, or whatever).
It’s a bad version of everything.
And worse, it’s boring.
Your post reminds me of the Joyce Kilmer poem – I think that I shall never seea poem lovely as a tree.Beautiful photography and important message – not just in the U.S. but world-wide.
Dave, what’s your opinion on celebrity endorsement ads? If the “idea” is the celebrity I find that boring too but also insulting. It assumes people are lemmings that will buy the product because that famous person uses this product. Apart from Clooney in Nespresso I can’t recall any commercial that made sense using a celebrity.
My understanding is that everything we do is about selling and buying.
Dave Trott shows me his interesting post and I pay attention to it.
I give my daughter a smile and she replied it back with hers.
I help my company by doing some jobs and they pay me.
So yes, being ashamed of selling is odd.
Parvez,
If the celebrity is part of the idea then it works, if they’re just decoration then it’s what the Americans call ‘video vampire’: you remember the celebrity not the brand or product.
IMHO, Beckham for whiskey (can’t remember which one) is the video vampire effect.
Haig Dave,
Haig just got Bex appeal (but of course I agree).