The impression you get from reading this book, which covers post-war advertising until the present, is of a chaotic, self-serving, occasionally brilliant, but ultimately shallow business. It is full of accounts of crassness, of overstated promise, of meaningless awards, fly-by-night companies, promotion of the semi-talented and clashing egos. It’s quite comprehensive and at times entertaining, as we hear of the hubris of the ridiculous Saatchis, the naivete of politicians and the endless attempts by ad agencies to carve out a little philosophical niche for themselves, be it the derided USP or the idea of account management. Fletcher also includes a rather dutiful section on advertising in history — Montaigne noted it, Johnson liked it — and a tour d’horizon of early exponents of the dark art.
The one thing you won’t find in this book is any comprehensive or interesting theme: the problem is that Fletcher has for a very long time been an insider and a practitioner. His credo is that creativity is what makes advertising worthwhile, although he cannot find an absolute link between creativity — whatever that is — and sales. But you also get the overwhelming sense that advertising operates mostly for the benefit and fulfilment of the operators, which chimes with my own youthful experience. So the book falls somewhere between a gossipy account of what’s been going on in this world, and an analysis of the imagined benefits of advertising.
My first, and only, proper job was as a copywriter in the Seventies, in what Fletcher, I see, describes as a kind of golden age, when British creativity was at its height, British ads set the standard, and young directors like Alan Parker, the Scott brothers and Hugh Hudson were cutting their teeth on commercials. Almost the first television campaign I wrote, for an agency that thought awards were a sign of frivolity, won a Lion d’Or at Cannes. I was almost trampled in the crush of my colleagues jumping on the stage in Cannes, as the trinket was handed out. It all seemed too easy. Very soon I was promoted and found myself in endless meetings. The male clients were always very interested in what the female actors or models were going to wear. I quickly saw that advertisers were concerned with an alternative universe, where kitchens were tidy, women were cheerful, children were charming, and lots of products washed whiter. The last thing advertising wanted to think about was the state of society. Any benefits that accrued from consumer choice were, I thought, largely accidental. Advertising, the product of capitalism, can only justify itself on the premise that the market is a force for good. That weasel word ‘choice’ looms large.





Comments
David Short
September 1st, 2008 2:37pmNo, Rory, advertising only pays for half the article.
Generally speaking, ad revenue is about half the revenue of a magazine. Cover price and subs pay the rest.
Anyone reading the Spectator purely online (a growing habit over the last couple of years because of poor nature of some of the contributions) gets it free, of course.
Report this comment
David Short
September 1st, 2008 2:35pmI think you mean J R Hartley.
I wrote a column for some years for the ad mag Campaign, and I went to Cannes for the ad awards for six or seven years.
Advertising is great fun to work in when you're young, and ad agencies employ great looking, and very willing young women.
But the sad fact is that it is not a serious business for grown up people to work in.
Which is why the industry has a surplus of rich, unfulfilled and unhappy people, and why so many of them try desperately to have the industry and themselves taken seriously.
Report this comment
Rory Sutherland
August 30th, 2008 10:26amThis gulf you mention - between commercial success and peer-group esteem. You don't think the same thing applies in the film industry? In fiction? In journalism?
Where he is absolutely right is about the curious innocence of the business. All the same, John is right, this is a bit "de haut en bas". No mention that advertising pays for - well, this article, for a start.
Report this comment
David Martin
August 29th, 2008 6:38pmI thought Cartwright's review was middle-of-the-road, in a perhaps predictably SDPish way. Hardly as superior as Orwell's 'Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket.' And many, probably most, ads do aim to play on the greed, envy, insecurity and credulity of the public - maybe not in "The Spectator", but generally so on TV.
Report this comment
john problem
August 28th, 2008 6:09pmOh dear. Another article de haut en bas about business. The public is quite capable of discerning what is rubbish in advertising (and indeed political propaganda) and what
appeals to what they want. Most advertising agencies are not Machiavellian mind-benders but a bunch of guys having fun with words and picures. And, please, the clients are not lechers. What demeaning twaddle is talked as soon as business is mentioned. Here's a piece of didacticism - business pays employees' salaries, salaries pay taxes, taxes pay for hospitals, schools, etc. Advertising helps business. Simple, ain't it?
Report this comment