To think that an old soldier should come to this

by John Holbo on April 20, 2004

I trust you agree with me that advertising is a fascinating subject, for it concerns essentially the nature of the beast. Yet reading its entrails is so tricky. Tonight a passage from David Ogilvy‘s Confessions of an Advertising Man, first published in 1963. In a chapter entitled “Should Advertising Be Abolished?”:

Should advertising be used in politics? I think not. In recent years it has become fashionable for political parties to employ advertising agencies. In 1952 my old friend Rosser Reeves advertised General Eisenhower as if he were a tube of toothpaste. He created fifty commercial in which the General was made to read out hand-lettered answers to a series of phony questions from imaginary citizens. Like this:

Citizen: Mr. Eisenhower, what about the high cost of living?

General: My wife Mamie worries about the same thing. I tell her it’s our job to change that on November 4th.

Between takes the General was heard to say, “To think that an old soldier should come to this.”

Whenever my agency is asked to advertise a politician or a political party, we refuse the invitation, for these reasons:

(1) The use of advertising to sell statesmen is the ultimate vulgarity.

(2) If we were to advertise a Democrat, we would be unfair to the Republicans on our staff; and vice versa.

However, I encourage my colleagues to do their political duty by working for one of the parties – as individuals. If a party or candidates requires technical advertising services, such as the buying of network time to broadcast political rallies, he can employ expert volunteers, banded together in an ad hoc consortium.

Now Ogilvy was a cynical man, otherwise he would not have become the giant of the industry he was. But he really was not too cynical, to judge from this and other passages.

Anyway, what is interesting to me here is that, as recently as the 1960’s, an advertising man could seriously maintain that electoral politics should – and by implication can (Ogivly is too practical to use ‘should’ without an implied can) – be advertising-free. Today, of course, we content ourselves with hinting that perhaps some corner of electoral politics should be reserved, if only recreationally, for something besides phony, focus-group tested inanities on cards.

Obviously the ‘old soldier come to this’ problem only arises for Kerry. Whatever Bush was up to in the early 70’s … well, I’ll leave it at that. Seriously, here is my question for you: it is tempting to say that the world has changed a lot, and for the worse, politics becoming supersaturated with advertisement where once that was not the case. On the other hand, it isn’t that Ogilvy’s attitude is really all that different than ours. So you might say: our thoughts on the subject really haven’t changed that much. Everyone agrees that political advertising is pretty vulgar, mostly. And if our thoughts haven’t really changed, how much effect can all the advertising have had? So have things changed a lot, or not so much? Discuss.

{ 32 comments }

1

des 04.20.04 at 6:02 pm

I’d be happy to answer your question, but first: does Mr Ogilvy say whether I can have a pony, too?

2

Nasi Lemak 04.20.04 at 6:05 pm

“Ike for President/Ike for President/Ike for President/Ike for President/You like Ike/I like Ike/Everybody likes Ike (for President)/Hang out the banners/Beat the drum/We’ll send Ike to Washington”

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=10816a

– maybe the ultimate product of American culture.

3

Robert Lyman 04.20.04 at 6:38 pm

1) Bush was a pilot in the early ’70’s, (and Kerry hardly qualifies as an “old soldier,” having left the service long before he came close to Ike–“old guy who was once a sailor for a couple of years” would be more like it.), and

2) is modern TV advertising really any worse than the lapel-worn buttons that have been around longer, but had not more content, and

3) Is not the phenomenon of banal and contentless political advertising one consequence of an expanded franchise? If we limited the franchise to only those with a certain level of education or wealth or whatever, couldn’t we reasonably expect the quality of TV ads to improve (or at least change to suit the new target market)? I’m not suggesting a diminution of the franchise; I think that would be a terrible idea. But if politicians are forced seek the votes of people who eagerly consume worthless products advertised on TV (“send check or money order today!”), we can hardly ask them to forgo that medium and its idioms when attempting to reach them.

4

Nat Whilk 04.20.04 at 6:50 pm

Robert Lyman wrote:

“is modern TV advertising really any worse than the lapel-worn buttons”

Or “Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! [Fill in the blank] has got to go!”

5

Jeremy Osner 04.20.04 at 6:51 pm

I don’t see any comparison between TV ads and lapel pins; the two seem to have nothing in common besides both being avenues for executing a political campaign.

Lapel pins are useful because (if enough people wear them) they communicate to voters that a large portion of the voters’ peers support the candidate. If not enough people wear them, they do nothing — they are an intrinsically democratic form of advertising. Same goes for lawn signs.

TV commercials tell the viewer nothing about what proportion of his/her peers support the candidate, or even usually about what groups among his/her peers support the candidate. All they do is repeat the candidates name over happy images until the voter comes to associate the name with the images. Where is the similarity?

6

Jeremy Osner 04.20.04 at 6:53 pm

Nat — see paragraph 2 of my previous post — public demonstrations play the same role.

7

coglethorpe 04.20.04 at 6:55 pm

“Obviously the ‘old soldier come to this’ problem only arises for Kerry.”

Don’t you mean old anti-war protester? What Bush was up to, well, who knows? I’ll give you that, but Kerry followed his service with a lifetime of anti-military speeches and votes. Ike he isn’t. Clark or McCain might have been able to ask the question, but not Kerry or Bush.

The only way to change political ads is to better enlighten the voters. Advertisers are smart enough to know what works, that’s how they stay in business. And canditates are smart enought to know that one poorly timed primal scream after a primary can cost them any chance at a comeback. If voters weren’t so responsive to the negative ads and staged questions, we wouldn’t see what we have now. The question then is, what ad campaign will turn the voters around on attack ads, photo-ops and sound bites?

8

coglethorpe 04.20.04 at 6:56 pm

“Obviously the ‘old soldier come to this’ problem only arises for Kerry.”

Don’t you mean old anti-war protester? What Bush was up to, well, who knows? I’ll give you that, but Kerry followed his service with a lifetime of anti-military speeches and votes. Ike he isn’t. Clark or McCain might have been able to ask the question, but not Kerry or Bush.

The only way to change political ads is to better enlighten the voters. Advertisers are smart enough to know what works, that’s how they stay in business. And canditates are smart enought to know that one poorly timed primal scream after a primary can cost them any chance at a comeback. If voters weren’t so responsive to the negative ads and staged questions, we wouldn’t see what we have now. The question then is, what ad campaign will turn the voters around on attack ads, photo-ops and sound bites?

9

Robert Lyman 04.20.04 at 7:06 pm

Jeremy,

Why should I think “the number of a voter’s peers who support a candidate”–whether communicated by law signs, protests, or lapel pins–is a superior basis for decision-making than “happy images”? Both seem pretty vacuous to me.

And, come to that, the number of and length of TV ads does say something about the amount of money a candidate has, and thus, indirectly, how many committed supports he has.

10

dsquared 04.20.04 at 7:19 pm

is modern TV advertising really any worse than the lapel-worn buttons”

Or “Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! [Fill in the blank] has got to go!”

You’d have to buy a hell of a lot of lapel pins to get $100m in hock to Archer-Daniels Midland …

11

Jeremy Osner 04.20.04 at 7:27 pm

Knowing how my peers feel about a candidate seems like a pretty essentially democratic factor for informing my own opinions in the race. You think not? It is not an absolute thing — I’m not going to say “Gosh, everyone on my block supports John Kerry, so I will vote for him” based on lapel pins anymore than I would say “Gosh, George Bush is the man who will save me from terrorism, so I will vote for him” based on a commercial to that effect.* But, the pins strike me as worthwhile in a way that the commercials do not. I can associate pins, or signs, or bodies in the street, with actual people in my community — advertisements I cannot.

*Note that all of my political ruminations are prefaced by “Gosh”.

12

John Isbell 04.20.04 at 7:44 pm

Maybe George Bush has no actual physical supporters. Maybe he just has money for ad buys and polling numbers churned out by computers. Has anyone actually met a George Bush supporter? Maybe he’s just a lonely man at a machine behind a curtain.
There’s a story here, but it looks a bit like “Simone.”

13

sacha 04.20.04 at 9:09 pm

What I find interesting all of this is the spotlight it puts on democracy.

After all, what do you get when you cross republican democracy – which in the very least assumes an ability of a citizen to understand what he/she find desirable and conducive to his/her style of life – and an industry with effectively unlimited resources who have refined psychological manipulation into a science with the subtlety of neurosurgery?

14

Nat Whilk 04.20.04 at 9:09 pm

A large portion of my peers don’t shout “Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho!” about anything. Assuming that they did, how would that be useful information to me? I’m going to vote for the person I want to be elected, not the person a large portion of my peers want to be elected.

15

robbo 04.20.04 at 9:18 pm

Robert Lyman wrote: “Bush was a pilot in the early ‘70’s…”

Let’s not forget that he went on to become an oil tycoon, a baseball tycoon, and governor of one of the biggest states in the union — and that he was fabulously successful in all these impressive roles. This American Hero was so obviously born to be our President that I do believe he’d easily win re-election even without a $200+ million campaign.

16

Jeremy Osner 04.20.04 at 9:19 pm

I’m going to vote for the person I want to be elected, not the person a large portion of my peers want to be elected.

This is why I pointed out that the pins will not be the decisive factor but an influencing factor. I for one think it is totally appropriate to be influenced by my community in making decisions about governance. You may feel differently; indeed I gather you do. What I cannot see is how you would think that the opinions and manipulations of advertising copy writers are a more appropriate influencing factor.

17

taj 04.20.04 at 9:29 pm

This is not precisely on topic, but I thought it might be interesting.

My father and brother are both advertising guys (one servicing, one creative) so we’ve always had a lot of ad books lying around our Delhi home. I was talking to my brother while I was reading one of Ogilvy’s older books. He said, “Remember that an ad guy can rarely stop selling something, especially someone like Ogilvy. Make sure to treat every sentence you read as a carefully crafted ad for something – himself, his company, or some other agenda.” Surprisingly, I enjoyed the book a lot more once I took that into account and tried to read between the lines.

18

Ed Zeppelin 04.20.04 at 9:38 pm

What I cannot see is how you would think that the opinions and manipulations of advertising copy writers are a more appropriate influencing factor.

You cannot resist the influence of our opinions and manipulations.

You are being pulled in by the gravitational pull of our opinions and manipulations.

Bow down and worship them before they destroy you!

19

Robin Green 04.20.04 at 10:15 pm

Robbo – do the words “Born with a silver spoon in his mouth” mean anything to you?

20

gavin 04.20.04 at 10:23 pm

At last! An opportunity to praise the UK! After all, who could disagree with a country that effectively bans tv/radio advertising by both political parties and religious groups? During an election campaign, a number of short slots are allocated to the parties for ‘party election broadcasts’. Other than that, there’s just the usual tv station news/editorial on the election, but nothing paid for by the parties. What bliss!

21

Nat Whilk 04.20.04 at 10:36 pm

“What I cannot see is how you would think that the opinions and manipulations of advertising copy writers are a more appropriate influencing factor.”

Neither more nor less appropriate.

22

gavin 04.20.04 at 10:38 pm

At last! An opportunity to praise the UK! After all, who could disagree with a country that effectively bans tv/radio advertising by both political parties and religious groups? During an election campaign, a number of short slots are allocated to the parties for ‘party election broadcasts’. Other than that, there’s just the usual tv station news/editorial on the election, but nothing paid for by the parties. What bliss!

23

Nat Whilk 04.20.04 at 10:42 pm

“do the words “Born with a silver spoon in his mouth” mean anything to you?”

Is it just me, or is it hard to hear those words without thinking of the 1988 Democratic National Convention?

24

robbo 04.20.04 at 11:47 pm

do the words “Born with a silver spoon in his mouth” mean anything to you?

The tyipcal look on Bush’s face, and his attitude toward the rest of humanity, suggest that he was born with that spoon somewhere else…

25

Martha Bridegam 04.21.04 at 12:07 am

There’s a funny affinity between Ogilvy and George Orwell. They both survived the same awful boarding school, St. Cyprian’s, though likely they didn’t know each other as Ogilvy was 8 years younger. (It’s tempting to wonder if he could have inspired the “Comrade Ogilvy” of *1984* but the age difference makes it unlikely.) Both were late bloomers after several false starts in early adulthood. And it seems, now, that both saw their professions similarly.

This is Orwell in “Writers and Leviathan”:

“…When a writer engages in politics he should do so as a citizen, as a human being, but not AS A WRITER. I do not think that he has the right, merely on the score of his sensibilities, to shirk the ordinary dirty work of politics. Just as much as anyone else, he should be prepared to deliver lectures in draughty halls, to chalk pavements, to canvass voters, to distribute leaflets, even to fight in civil wars if it seems necessary. But whatever else he does in the service of his party, he should never write for it. He should make it clear that his writing is a thing apart. And he should be able to act co-operatively while, if he chooses, completely rejecting the official ideology….”

26

Martha Bridegam 04.21.04 at 12:09 am

There’s a funny affinity between Ogilvy and George Orwell. They both survived the same awful boarding school, St. Cyprian’s, though likely they didn’t know each other as Ogilvy was 8 years younger. (It’s tempting to wonder if he could have inspired the “Comrade Ogilvy” of *1984* but the age difference makes it unlikely.) Both were late bloomers after several false starts in early adulthood. And it seems, now, that both saw their professions similarly.

This is Orwell in “Writers and Leviathan”:

“…When a writer engages in politics he should do so as a citizen, as a human being, but not AS A WRITER. I do not think that he has the right, merely on the score of his sensibilities, to shirk the ordinary dirty work of politics. Just as much as anyone else, he should be prepared to deliver lectures in draughty halls, to chalk pavements, to canvass voters, to distribute leaflets, even to fight in civil wars if it seems necessary. But whatever else he does in the service of his party, he should never write for it. He should make it clear that his writing is a thing apart. And he should be able to act co-operatively while, if he chooses, completely rejecting the official ideology….”

27

John 04.21.04 at 12:57 am

Texas happens to have what is probably the weakest Governorship in the 50 states. So, it’s really hard to be either successful or otherwise in that post.

28

DJW 04.21.04 at 5:59 am

great post. I brought this up to my democratic theory course today (we’re doing communitarian critiques of liberal democratic theory–Sandel and Barber). This story–and the gap between then and now–really helped drive hope an important part of the Barber/Sandel critique.

I swear, the amount of teaching synergy I find on this site is just erie. I can recall the number of times someone here has posted something on the subject I’m teaching that day, or in the next few days.

29

Doug 04.21.04 at 11:11 am

Yes, but what about the pony?

30

Robert Lyman 04.21.04 at 3:16 pm

Having had our fill of bickering about Bush’s CV and lapel pins, does anyone want to comment on my initial comment #3, regarding the relationship of the expanded franchise to the (low) quality poltical ads? I thought that point was a lot more interesting than the other two, and was interested in what Timberites had to say.

31

Ophelia Benson 04.21.04 at 8:18 pm

Lapel pins versus tv advertising. Er – not a good analogy? On account of how tv ads cost a little more than lapel pins do, thus making both parties ever more beholden to the moneyed parties that fund them in exchange for influence over legislation? Even if tv advertising were a great way to persuade voters to vote for X instead of Y – which I couldn’t be farther from thinking is the case – they would still be a massive portal for corruption.

How I envy the UK rules. Not to mention the minuscule election season.

32

Neel Krishnaswami 04.21.04 at 8:34 pm

Actually, I’m planning on trying to break the law this November. I’m going to start up a small political nonprofit and then use it to try and buy a couple of newspaper ads that do “issue advocacy” — in particular, I’m planning on trying to explain that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law bans issue advocacy ads, and I’m going to add that simply observing that John Kerry voted for it makes my ad illegal.

Comments on this entry are closed.