I posted this video on YouTube this morning:
In case the link does not work for you, it can be found here.
The transcript is as follows:
Advertising is meant to make you unhappy. That is its single sole objective.
The whole of the advertising industry exists to make you feel inadequate. Isn't that obvious? What it's trying to tell you all the time is that whatever you have, however well off you feel, you could feel better off if only you had whatever it is they're trying to flog to you.
You need the latest iPhone.
You need to go on holiday, wherever they're saying.
You need to buy this financial product.
You will be insecure unless you buy their insurance. Whatever it might be, they are trying to make you feel as though there's a better world over there, which you didn't even know existed until they blasted it in front of your screen, onto your radio, or wherever else you might see it.
And the fact is that most of the time you don't need any of that stuff because you were already feeling okay before this happened. And they have tried to undermine your well-being by creating a sense of dissatisfaction with where you were. Now, that's really important because this process of making you feel inadequate does of course drive our material growth.
When we look at the whole of the fashion industry, it is of course effectively driven by advertising, continually presenting us with different images of how we want to look. But the consequence is we have vast quantities of clothing now being sent to landfill sites, clogging up not just this country but because we export a lot of that waste to many developing countries as well.
We have waste in the form of excess energy because we're trying to buy all these new products and throwing away perfectly workable ones.
And perhaps worst of all, we're all - well, not all of us, but a lot of us - are getting into debt to actually buy these products because there is a form of pernicious agreement between the advertisers, the producers and the finance industry that whenever you buy something, you will be offered credit to make payment for it - keeping you in debt and therefore in hock to the finance companies, the banks, and so on of this country and elsewhere.
You are therefore not only meant to be miserable because you haven't got what you want, but you're also meant to be in debt, forcing you to stay on the treadmill to buy more of the product, the service, whatever it is they're trying to sell.
Is that a wise way to run an economy? Personally, I don't think so. I believe we have to change if we're going to become sustainable. And the quickest and easiest way to achieve that goal is to say that advertising is not a universally good thing. Most of it isn't. In fact, except for the small ads in newspapers, I can't think of anything that is.
So, we should stop tax relief being provided on expenditure by large companies on advertising and we should stop them being able to reclaim VAT on the advertising costs charged to them by those who broadcast these things.
Are there consequences? Yes. It will change the way that we see and consume media. I have no doubt about that. We have to, therefore, rethink that issue.
But the world will be a better place because there'll be less waste, we'll be more sustainable, and, ultimately, we will be happier because we won't be told all the time by everything we see and hear that we are inadequate.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Ban adverts for gambling.
The reason it has not happened? Corruption.
God you a a miserable old man..
You might say so
But what I’d really like is a sustainable planet where people are not forced to live lives in debt. Is that so miserable an aim?
“james” Why do you attack Richard at a personal level, rather than debating the issue he has raised? You may not agree … however it is brainlessly easy to label the messenger rather that take on the argument. Maybe you have a credible counterpoint to make? But I personally doubt it because you are reduced to name calling. Pathetic.
It happens all the time
Trolls think this is clever
And let’s be honest, unless you were pretty thick skinned it could get to you – as could the death threats to me and my family (yes, they happen)
But I’d rather just show them up
Well James, it ’twas ever thus – try reading Vance Packard’s seminal “The Hidden Persuaders” from the 1950s.
The real problem with the well meaning advertising industry is its Panglossian nature..
And you really have missed the crucial point.
Ever growing consumption is just not possible on a finite planet, and the processes that merely feed excess consumption have to be reformed.
I hadnt realised or forgotten they get tax relief for advertising.
When my wife relaxes watching her favourite old TV series am always amazed at the extent at the ad breaks – and again makes me realise there should be proper public service announcements , reminding about vaccinations, or latest numbers of viru infections and how to avoid etc.
But that would be asking for the moon – our system of government is to promote ignorance as well as misery.
I don’t think Richard is saying that there are any tax reliefs for advertising.
I think he’s saying the expenditure shouldn’t be treated as an allowable expense when calculating taxable profit.
I can’t think of any other expense that is treated this way, maybe interest paid by sole trader landlords, which is why so many have either incorporated or taken their rental property off the market.
Then you really do not much about tax. Just start with entertaining expenditure, many legal fees and quite a lot more. .
I think on this one you are only partially correct. Some advertising is simply informative: I sell this thing that will make your life easier, and that you didn’t know is available — stair lifts, solid shampoo bars, refills for washing up liquid, electric cargo bikes, and so on. I think your aim is misdirected; it’s not advertising per se, it’s advertising to produce excessive consumption that is the problem. And that is just late-stage capitalism’s insatiable demand for higher profits.
And how to we differentiate what is useful and what creates excessive consumption?
I agree, that’s an impossible judgement, which is why I think the proposal could be dangerous. The most likely effect would be to penalise organisations trying to improve the world while operating on slim margins, whilst letting scammy companies with dubious, high-margin products continue to deluge us with their adverts.
For once I am going to have to disagree
But I would be clear – advertising is not the same as public information
Very good; thank you. It’s time to end the “Landfill Economy” and force standards of quality, robustness and efficiency on product manufacturers/distributors. A simple example being that 30 years ago my father bought us an AEG tumble dryer, which was very helpful when the children were tiny. It broke down 2 years ago – unfortunately no spare part (electronics) was available. The replacement is fundamentally flimsy and I’m sure will not last 28 years.
Agreed
I agree that much advertising is malign, particularly that which is designed to work in a psychological rather than an informative way.
But as a non-accountant, I am curious about how there is tax relief on advertising. Clearly in a company’s accounts advertising costs will be entered as an expenditure, off-setting income when calculating taxable profits, but it is hard to see how it could be anything else. Is there some specific tax relief of which the general public (assuming I am typical) is unaware?
(And the same with VAT, I thought the whole design of the tax was so that it was charged on the final product not on the component costs. In fact if it wasn’t done that way VAT wouldn’t be charged on the fraction of the sale price attributable to in-house salaries of the advertising department).
There is a general relief now
But there can be specific disallowances
For example, spending on entertaining is disallowed
The same could be done for advertising – a carve out for public information being a possible exception, tightly defined, maybe…
This reminds me of a passage from a book called “Braiding Sweetgrass”.
In the chapter “Allegiance to Gratitude” Robin Wall Kimmerer explains that in the Onondaga (First) Nation School, instead of starting the day with the Pledge of Allegiance, would start with the Thanksgiving Address where thanks is given for the earth, the water, the plants, the fish, the rain, the sun, and many other things. It acknowledges that basically we have enough, all that we need to sustain life….there are many versions of this.
She goes on to say:
“You can’t listen to the Thanksgiving Address without feeling wealthy. And, while expeessing gratitude seems innocent enough, it is a revolutionary idea. In a consumer society contentment is a radical proposition. Recognising abundance rather than scarcity undermines an economy that thrives by creating unmet desires. Gratitude cultivates an ethic of fullness, but the economy needs emptiness. The Thanksgiving Address reminds you that you have everything you need. Gratitude doesn’t send you out shopping to find satisfaction; it comes as a gift rather than a commodity, subverting the foundation of the whole economy. That’s good medicine for land and people alike.”
When I see the ads on television in particular, I often think of this.
There are certainly a lot of products and services that you should NOT be allowed to advertise.
Gambling and Alcohol being the obvious ones.
Clearly if it was not allowable as an expense for tax, or at least restricted that would also help.
ads are evil.
Stopped watching telly years ago. If I need a film or series there are plenty of ad-free ways of getting it. I have ad strippers on the browser – so apart from hoardings I live an ad free life. I don’t buy magazines, nowt in em. But.
I have observed the pernicous & evil effect of ads on others. Specifically, how the car industry, using ad-men, have groomed people to believe that they need SUVs (fuelled or batteried). This more than anything else has contributed to CO2 emissions from road transport remaining stable. The ONLY way that the car mfus persuaded people to buy a vehcile that uses more fuel, is unstable, is dangerous to cyclists & pedestrians, costs more to insure – is through ads. In the same way that smoking ads were banned – so should ads for SUVs. Furthermore, those that want to buy one (not farmers forresters etc) should be obliged to see a psychologist – because there is clearly something mentally wrong with them (well of course there is – they have been groomed by the ad industry).
SUVs have burned all the fuel saved by better engines. The weight grew to compensate
Earlier today I read an interesting article on Substack from an American journalist who is quitting the USA for Italy. The motivation for her decision was that life in the US was no longer ‘normal’. The pleasures in life available to most and for free have been replaced by the treadmill of work and the joint obsession of possessions and achievements. Her view was that perhaps the biggest cost of the US way was an erosion of normal human relationships. Her argument was eloquently expressed and certainly struck a chord with me. Live to work in place of work to live is a trend that can be recognised the world over.
Advertising certainly plays a part in this trend, but it is only one part of the incredibly complex modern ecosystem.
Modern advertising can partially trace it’s roots to the growth of adverts for modern domestic appliances that were created, not to satisfy customer demand, but to make the production and supply of electricity commercially viable.
This small example highlights the complicated relationship between the evolution of goods and services that have made modern life so fulfilling and the need for the production systems to keep turning. We may not require the modern SUV that so ruffles environmentalist feathers but advertising is in some way responsible for the modern comfortable and safe family saloon. Without it we would still be driving something akin to a Model T.
Nobody needed a home computer when they hit the market but the result, the SmartPhone is changing society in a way that rivals the impact of the wheel. Advertising played it’s part.
Persuading consumers to buy what they don’t need is inextricably linked to providing folks with goods and services that most would not vote to relinquish. Personal credit is advertising’s necessary partner in crime.
Choking either may bring some immediate relief from the pressure of conspicuous consumption but be very wary of the results of reduced demand in a world so dependent on Capitalism.
Thanks
Thank you. The postwar sophisticated dark arts of advertising, much of which draws upon the psychological ‘researches’ of Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays, are responsible for so much unnecessary suffering and fatal planetary exploitation. Social media’s entire raison d’étre is advertising. I remember that long ago one a politician in the States called all advertising pornography, going on to define pornography as a form of words that is designed to make you do something you had not wanted to do before. A well known seduction technique. It is not simply coincidental that by far the largest users of social media and the dark web are global criminal sex trafficking rings or that so many children targeted by the subliminal advertising of social media are now suffering from emotional and mental breakdowns. No matter how ‘sexy’ the grooming, all sensate beings eventually rebel against covert control and abuse. Either through embodying symptoms of self harming despair or seemingly irrational rage. I agree wholeheartedly, advertising in its present Svengali aping form, must end.
Noted
But although serious I doubt the biggest users of social media are those you describe – although they undoubtedly exploit its existence.
‘The whole of the advertising industry exists to make you feel inadequate. Isn’t that obvious?’
Your opening line is a bit of a generalisation. Maybe it’s needed to preface the rest of your position, but it does come over as a little lop sided, not particular well considered.
Genuine question. Where does personal responsibility feature in the debate?
I see adverts and I see options and ideas, not must have at all costs. I don’t get a sense of inadequacy, made miserable or feel compelled to buy the item offered. I may be looking to buy something; a holiday, phone or something else, the advert may feature in my decision making, but the decision is mine.
If you really think that you are deluding yourself. Sorry, but the only people I have ever met who make such claims are those who have completely surrendered themselves to the whims of fashion, having suspended all discretion in the process.
I am that person and I can honestly say I haven’t surrendered to fashion, but do exercise personal control over my purchases, whether informed by an advert or some other reason. I imagine most others do as well. I can’t believe advertising has such a powerful effect that it drives people to debt without the individual making a conscious and considered decision to purchase i.e. taking some responsibility for the purchase and the liability that goes with it.
I am sorry – but I have to call your claims naive, because they are so obviously so. Even if you are right about yourself, your extrapolation is wrong.
Both our positions are not based on data, more based on belief. Therefore we aren’t wrong, we just disagree and that’s fine. Challenge and debate is healthy. All discussion would benefit from challenge.
No, mine is based on data and the abusive history of marketing,m plus the evidence of straightforward observation.
Do you really think billions would be spent for no impact, let alone the idea that it might be persuasive?
Politely, don’t waste your time by claiming credibility for your delusional claims. You are even conning yourself.
“Where does personal responsibility feature in the debate? ”
Over the years I have met quite a number of ‘advertising executives’. I don’t believe that any of them had the faintest concept of personal responsibility, so we can’t rely on that, can we?
Agreed
Their aim is to remove autonomy