That’s not very nice calling Compass ‘moralists’.

Will this ban extend to the absurd amount of government advertising on TV and Radio?

This is one of the *dumbest* proposals I’ve ever heard.

Will this also mean an end to the inane,tit-for-tat and asinine posters being put up by both NewCon and NewLab’s witless agencies? Please.

1 – Oh no, Compass like advertising when it’s done by the Government.

It also suggests the industry could be taxed more to fund socially useful advertising on issues such as public health…

Compass’s move is rather reminiscent of something too. Decrying private advertising for pushing consumerism and being a degenerate social influence. Calling for its replacement in the public sphere with state-approved ads designed to uplift public morals – recognising that while advertising “works” it should be directed not for the profits of private companies, but for the greater social good. More pithily, as Zhurnalist wrote in 1924:

While praising the possibilities of the institution of advertising for its ability to educate the population about the new way of life, we have to extract all the stinking bourgeois elements from it.

It’s a horribly slippy slope: no billboards for anything not Govt-sanctioned. No thanks. If you want an end to crappy consumerist ads, the answer is to pursue the advertisers far harder for making egregious false promises and claims, not for the mere fact of advertising.
In other words, attack the message, not the right to free expression. Of course, taking this rights-protective route will lead to umpteen court cases from shyster advertisers, trying to wriggle away from their products being exposed as snake-oil, but better that than blunt,blanket policies that punish everyone.

‘A ban on advertising in all public spaces and limits on shopfront marketing will be proposed tomorrow by the leftwing thinktank Compass in what could be a rare alliance between the left and rightwing moralists.’

This isn’t ‘rare’ at all. The hard-Left may dress up it’s authoritarian instincts in the language of anti-capitalism, feminism, ecology or health but deep-down there’s a fundamental Purital hatred of ‘unearned’ pleasure: consumerism, sex, drugs, alcohol, TV, videogames. Can you spot the difference between, say, Keith Vaz and Ann Widdecombe on any of these issues?

When it comes to censorship, surveillance and control of public ‘excess’ the authoritarian Left is indistinguishable from the authoritarian Right.

Just look at the hysteria over EC Horror comics in the 50s – orchestrated by Sam (father of David) Aaronovitch of the CPGB, only later picked up in the Right-wing press.

Does anyone here oppose the other proposals Compass has made – firstly forcing ad agencies to put their name on their adverts so they can be held accountable, (surely difficult to oppose), and secondly taxing the industry more. (If we accept that advertising works, we might well want to use the receipts to mitigate its effects.)

I’m not opposed in principle to Compass’ ideas here (although let’s face it, it’s not a serious proposal, it’s just positioning), but the proposal banning advertising in public spaces seems to be uncosted. I’d be concerned about the impact on the public purse.

More interesting still might be a proposal to turn many billboards into public spaces, or perhaps create some kind of legal arrangement where defacing/destroying them was not an offence – putting power back into the hands of people and giving them equal freedom of expression to that which the advertisers already enjoy.

You’ll note that Jackie Ashley agrees with the banning of advertising to children on TV. Entirely fails to note that this has also led to the death of original children’s programming being made in the UK by the commercial sector.

Although we have also had the call that the death of children’s original programming being made in the UK by commercial TV means that we should subsidise such.

Now to be honest, I don’t mind any which way around all of that goes, advertise, don’t, subsidise, don’t, original programming or not. No children, I don’t live in the UK and I don’t watch television.

However, I do rather care about something else. That these people never, never, seem to note the effects of what they’re calling for. Refuse, point blank, to recognise that an action over here, in something as complicated as a modern economy, is going to have another effect (whether desired or not) on that thing over there.

Has anyone seen the Coco Pops billboard where that lovable Coco Pops monkey advises his friends “Why not have a bowl of Coco Pops after school”?

I am completely in favour of banning direct advertising aimed at under 12s. They just aren’t old enough to distinguish between advertising and programming, or often to even understand what an advert is. Harnessing “pester power” is one of the most immoral things modern companies do.

The other proposals I’m not so keen on, although I suppose a tax would be acceptable.

@8: Maybe it would end commercial children’s programming on ITV and Five, but Nick etc are subscription channels. The market may have to downscale, but I’m sure there’s still some money available in it.

And why is it such a problem anyway? The BBC has a wide range of children’s programs, and has a mandate to provide media services that the private sector aren’t willing to.

I doubt that anyone refuses to recognise that government intervention has consequences. We just feel the pros outweigh the cons.

Does anyone here oppose the other proposals Compass has made – firstly forcing ad agencies to put their name on their adverts so they can be held accountable, (surely difficult to oppose).

Why though? The party responsible for the advertisement is the company that pays for it, not the agency that draws it. If the ad is misleading, it’s the company that gets it in the neck. Why should the agency (acting, as the name suggests, as the agent of the paying company) be held accountable? I don’t really see what purpose it would serve.

#11

Legally that may well be the case. But why shouldn’t the public have the ability to make ethical judgements on the kind of work ad agencies do (and who their clients are)? It may well be the case that particular ad agencies specialise in particularly nasty ads. Why shouldn’t that information be easily known?

But why shouldn’t the public have the ability to make ethical judgements on the kind of work ad agencies do (and who their clients are)?

Because it’s flip all to do with them? Because the value of those ethical judgements is nil – given that ‘the public’ don’t employ ad agencies, and the people who do employ ad agencies should already know who does what? I’m not particularly violently opposed to the idea, but it just seems a bit pointless. Should politicians have to namecheck their speechwriters every time they make a speech?

Companies tell the ad agencies the sort of impression they want to make, the sort of campaigns they want to run. The admen then provide a series of alternatives, and the companies choose the ones they like. I just don’t see what benefit the public will get from having Bartle Bogan Hegarty written in the corner of a big ad for yoghurt.

The only people who I can see benefiting even slightly from this would be the ad agencies, who might get a small boost from visibility – but as I said above, the people that buy ads already know who does what.

@ tim f

More interesting still might be a proposal to turn many billboards into public spaces, or perhaps create some kind of legal arrangement where defacing/destroying them was not an offence

I have alot of sympathy with those two ideas, but, and it is a big but with the former, billboards are privately owned structures, so that would amount to state appropriation of private property, which is another slippery slope, and with the latter, I can’t see any way of allowing graffiti/defacing which wouldn’t also be giving carte blanche to mindless (or indeed offensive, inc. racist etc) abuse.
I don’t frequently agree much with Tim Worstall, but the law of unintended consequences through ill-thought out ideas (because those proposing them are too often out-of-touch, or blinkered) can wreak terrible damage.

It’s hard to sustain the argument that this type of arrangement is a purely private agreement which doesn’t have anything to do with the public when the whole purpose is to affect the public by placing information in a highly visible public space.

#15 in response to #13

#14 – I shouldn’t worry too much about unintended consequences etc. It’s not as if this idea will ever see the light of day – and I doubt Compass are proposing it seriously. The irony is they’ve probably floated this idea mainly for publicity – ie advertising!

tim f, the fact that something is highly visible in a public space doesn’t affect the fact that it may be privately owned, and not public property. That’s just the way it is.Altering that would mena a wholesale revolution in property rights and the whole of society. There are those silly feckers who festoon their houses with appalling OTT Christmas lights displays which I find tacky and unpleasant, and which are purposely for public consumtion: doesn’t give me the right to take ‘em down.

It’s hard to sustain the argument that this type of arrangement is a purely private agreement which doesn’t have anything to do with the public when the whole purpose is to affect the public by placing information in a highly visible public space.

But what does it matter whether an advert has been designed by BBH or Saatchi & Saatchi? Why should the public give a stuff? If a poster is a really bad one, the public will care more about who the ad is for – and not who drew it.

If Gordon Brown gives a bad speech, the public care that he was saying it, not that some little remf actually wrote it. Would Reagan’s speech on the Normandy beaches have been improved – would the public have benefited – if he’d had to say “First of all, this was written by Peggy Noonan. Ready? We’re here to mark that day in history when the Allied peoples joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty…”?

I for one would be in favour of a wholesale revolution in property rights.

Also, while my ideas weren’t entirely serious, existing laws covering racist abuse/incitement may prevent racist graffiti. And if we were enacting a wholesale revolution in property rights, I’m sure we’d find a way of preventing spaces being used in that way! After all, public noticeboards do exist, and there are rules covering them which prevent such misuse.

#18

Surely it isn’t for you or me to decide whether the public should give a stuff or not? That’s up to the public. But at the moment, the information is effectively hidden. If you don’t have any strong feelings on the subject, surely better to abide by principles of transparency and open-ness?

I’m with tim f on this one, esp. his last sentiment which is that it is better to abide by principles of transparency and openness.

Ad agencies make a pitch and from that idea they get the job, tweaked by the client of course but they are very responsible for the advert and the client hands over a large degree of responsibility to them so a greater sense of transparency and accountability is a good idea as far as I am concerned.

I’m also with TJC in that the Coco Pops ads near schools that say to eat Coco Pops after school make me feel uncomfortable, not sure why but it feels like a line has been crossed. Not that I would advocate a special tax on ads, that seems unfair but a removal of advertising aimed at children would get my support.

‘(If we accept that advertising works, we might well want to use the receipts to mitigate its effects.)’

‘Mitigate’ what effects? At worst advertising increases consumption. Without consumption there’s no production. Without production there’s no fucking jobs.

‘More interesting still might be a proposal to turn many billboards into public spaces, or perhaps create some kind of legal arrangement where defacing/destroying them was not an offence’

Whoop-di-fucking-do. Streets plastered with murals of tractors and poetry extoling the virtues of the next 5 year plan. Can’t wait.

‘I for one would be in favour of a wholesale revolution in property rights.’

Then why not campaign on that platform rather than pretending capitalism will simply go away if you censor it?

This is the usual 21st Century pseudo-politics. Forget economics or reorganisation of the workplace, lets sieze hold of the media and voodoo in the revolution through sympathetic magic.

You’ll note that Jackie Ashley agrees with the banning of advertising to children on TV. Entirely fails to note that this has also led to the death of original children’s programming being made in the UK by the commercial sector.

More to do with the popularity of CBeebies and CBBC I think.

You know the old truage that ‘knowledge is power’. I for one would prefer that knowledge about available products can easily be found, rather than controlled by government. After all, what I or my child (hypothetical I rush to assure you) might want is down to us, and regardless of what my child wants (e.g. coco-pops for tea) I can always say no. And would do in that case. After all, I not only know the product exists and now know it can be eaten for tea, but I also know it is not the healthy or nutrious option.

So would not a better answer to be, rather than damaging another industry, reducing tax revenues and generally irritating more people with regulations (I notice no great outcry for this outside of Compass), to try to ensure people are better educated and more capable of making informed choices for them and their children. I know it seems wrong assuming people can make the right decision without banning things, especially on behalf of children, but the principle actually passes one of the key tests of right thinking in the world: is this the course of action the Daily Mail would oppose?

Sunny,

“More to do with the popularity of CBeebies and CBBC I think.”

Well, I’ll happily watch In the Nightgarden for hours, so you could be on to something there.

“‘Mitigate’ what effects? At worst advertising increases consumption. Without consumption there’s no production. Without production there’s no fucking jobs.”

You don’t seem to get it Shatterface, the proles are too stupid to resist advertising or say no to their children, therefore we need to look after them by introducing socially responsible advertising, perhaps informing them of the latest organic produce from Waitrose?

In general, I’m not in favour of banning adverts, I would rather that people took action from below to effectively nullify them. For example, on the internet you can use Firefox and AdBlock to never see an advert again. For TV, you ought to be able to buy a device/download a bit of software that automatically blocks the adverts (this should be relatively easy to design I’d guess). Perhaps rather than banning adverts to children, they could require that there be an option to switch them off. In effect, by only watching TV programmes downloaded on bittorrent, I get to avoid the adverts. And yes, of course if everyone did this the sources of revenue would dry up and an alternative means of funding programmes would have to be found. This is surely a good thing, it would mean that consumers were paying directly for what they wanted rather than indirectly (because of course they’re paying either way). It’s happening anyway, isn’t it, just because of saturation by and adaption to advertising?

For adverts in public spaces, this is more tricky. But precisely because they are public rather than private spaces, I don’t see that there’s any objection in principle to society deciding democratically to limit certain sorts of commercial activity in them.

#26 Why do you think advertising is any less effective for middle-class and upper-class people than working-class people? Let’s not waste time disputing whether advertising works – broadly it does work, or no-one would pay for it.

Shatterface – I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that redistribution and industrial democracy are more important than questions like these. Your argument that advertising increases consumption therefore it’s all good is asinine, though.

btw, did anyone else watch the BBC4 programme on Soviet art over Christmas? It suggested that the Soviets basically invented the concept of modern advertising – it was the state that innovated & private companies copied it because they recognised its effect.

‘Shatterface – I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that redistribution and industrial democracy are more important than questions like these. Your argument that advertising increases consumption therefore it’s all good is asinine, though.’

I take it you don’t work in any business which depends on advertising it’s products or services, or are you willing to sit out the whole ‘working’ business until after the revolution like the rest of those who will find themselves unemployed as a result of this crackpot scheme?

‘It suggested that the Soviets basically invented the concept of modern advertising – it was the state that innovated & private companies copied it because they recognised its effect.’

And where’s the Soviet Union now? For all their control of the media people were still craving Levis and Jack Daniels.

I object to advertising that insults my intelligence by putting forward claims or statements which are so vacuous that they are capable neither of being substantiated nor of being shown to be false.

“It’s all you are” we are told of some newspaper or other. “Because you deserve it” crows some product whose makers and promoters have actually no idea, and clearly don’t care, whether I deserve it or not; but to avoid the charge of telling downright lies they rely on the circumstance that deserving is entirely a matter of opinion.

No doubt people who are less practised than I am in automatically tuning out irritatingly mindless ads could offer plenty of more examples.

I suggest placing a heavy tax on advertising that relies on this kind of vacuity, so as to drive them out of the public (and private) spaces they infest and pollute. I also like the idea of giving the public carte blanche to add their own comments to billboards. If we live in a democratic society, we should have the right of reply to professional manipulators; why should we give anyone the right to trumpet their messages without opposition in public places?

Let’s by all means also insist that the advertising companies responsible for promoting the mental, visual and aural pollution described above have to identify themselves as the guilty parties – because they certainly deserve it.