truthiness in advertising.
welcome to the table.
as the first of the watsons to offer what amounts to our version of the op ed, i am humbled, if not a wee tad burdened by the responsibility. we are, after all, a business, and therefore beholden to the clients and would-be’s who pay our light bill. so, i will tread respectfully and forewarn you that serious feather ruffling, sadly, is out of the question.
instead, i will focus my gaze on an area devoid of polarized opinion. where harmony and universality walk hand in hand. and where businesses are more than happy to publicly foist their hard-earned reputations.
i’m going to talk about politics.
it’s estimated that $20 per vote will be spent on political advertising in this year’s presidential campaign. relative to the enormity of the purchase decision, that’s not as high as it seems. especially when you consider that only 20% of americans are actively engaged in the political process and a mere 55% of us voted in 2004 - that in the wartime wake of september 11th.
but at a time when our economy is in a crisis so profound that a presidential candidate actually pulled his advertising lest he create the appearance of impropriety - and when that same economic calamity is just one among a daunting list, you can’t help but wonder...
why aren’t our candidates held accountable for truth in advertising?
we in the ad biz can tell you that in the free market, false advertising doesn’t pay. and not just because our mothers taught us better. the reality is that in the era of youtube, blogs and advocacy sites, it’s a virtual inevitability that if you fib, you will be caught. and that can cost you and your brand plenty.
take listerine, the first over-the counter mouthwash sold in the u.s. in 1921, the brand declared itself a cure-all for common cold ailments like sore throats and coughs; a dandruff preventative; an anti-shave tonic; a safe way to protect yourself from cuts, bruises, wounds, and stings; and a treatment for gonorrhea. the result? listerine was slapped with oodles of false advertisement lawsuits and in 1975, the federal trade commission ordered the company to spend $10 million in corrective advertising featuring the line, “contrary to prior advertising, listerine will not help prevent colds or sore throats or lessen their severity."
in 2005, listerine was at it again with false claims that the product was as effective as dental floss in fighting plaque. this time, not only was the brand on the losing end of pricey lawsuit, their advertising practices were scrutinized on hundreds of sites and blogs from nytimes.com and dentist.net to adfreak.com and consumeraffairs.com.
this is how today’s free market penalizes fraud and encourages truth in advertising. so, why doesn’t this principal extend to politics?
both independent fact-checkers and analysts say that since 1952 when tv spots first entered presidential politics, the number of outright falsehoods in candidates' ads has greatly escalated, especially in close contests. it should come as no surprise then that the 2008 presidential race is reaching an all-time high in this sorry statistic - an all-time low for both brands and consumers.
brooks jackson, director of the nonpartisan factcheck.org at the university of pennsylvania's annenberg public policy center recently said, "we saw something that fascinated me. several political reporters noted that sarah palin and john mccain continued to repeat the fable that she was a big opponent of the so-called bridge to nowhere. everybody wrote about it, yet they kept saying it anyway. it’s as if they drank the kool aid and believed their own deceptions."
scary, right? it gets worse.
“whatever the intent or term, false political ads often work very well,” says dr. carolyn lin, a communications professor at the university of connecticut. "when it works, it works like a charm, and historically it has worked and the liars never receive any penalties. that's why they do it. mccain's campaign thinks the public is less likely to listen to reporters. in fact, studies have shown that debunking falsehoods can have the backfire effect of reinforcing falsehoods by repeating them.”
and worse.
“people screen out facts that run counter to broad narratives they accept, and they perceive reality in a way that conforms to their long-held beliefs,” says science writer farhad manjoo, author of true enough: learning to live in a post-fact society."
"you can go so far as to say we're now fighting over competing versions of reality. and it is more convenient than ever before for some of us to live in a world built out of our own facts," he adds.
but wait. what about truth-in-advertising laws? they’ve protected consumers from false claims for decades. just ask listerine.
the sad truth, and yes, this is the truth, is that candidates have a legal right to lie to voters.
not only are political ads considered “political speech” and therefore protected by the first amendment, the few states that have enacted laws against false political ads have been less than effective. in fact, the federal communications act, designed to ensure americans the unfettered truth they deserve, actually requires broadcasters to show political ads uncensored, even if they deem their content to be offensive or false.
so why aren’t consumers more discerning? because the standards for commercial advertising have worked too well, instilling in many viewers the belief that what they hear on television is mostly true. jackson says, “you hear people say, 'the ads must have some truth to them, or they wouldn't let them on television’.”
so, that leaves us with efficacy. just how well are these ads working for obama and mccain?
a panel of political consultants assembled by adweek had this to say. "obama is being pretty negative in some of his ads, but the overall impression is that mccain is playing fast and loose with the truth," says democratic consultant and strategist bob shrum, who worked on the failed presidential bids of al gore and john kerry. "the biggest effect of the mccain advertising right now has been sullying the mccain brand. and as anyone in this room knows, if your ad is hurting your brand, it doesn't matter what else you are getting out of it. obama's ads have also been negative, but such efforts -- like the spot depicting mccain as out of step and computer illiterate -- were driven by strategy, while mccain relies on tactics and misdirection. whatever has occurred to them at a given moment (he cites the false claim that obama advocated teaching sex ed to kindergartners) becomes an instant ad."
the guys on the other side agree. ed rollins, republican consultant and strategist and political director for reagan in 1984, and this year’s campaign manager for mike huckabee, says “both of these campaigns have diminished whatever their message might be.”
as for me, in the time i started writing this, a mere couple of weeks, both the obama and mccain camps have become more flagrant in their attacks. and the game of tit for tat is playing out like a ping-pong match on crack.
our necks, not to mention our brains, are tired. we’ve been given brand promises of freedom from muck, yet we’re mired in the stuff. and what really gets us is that, no matter which camp we’re pitched in, we still believe our guy is better than that. maybe we’re the ones drinking the kool aid.
but despite everything, i still believe that advertising is really good at heart.
i trust that consumers will weed out the brand thorns from the roses. and i know, thanks to what’s been called “the currency of the young,” online video will increasingly “inspire” politicians to strive for the one thing that’s becoming more prized than a good media buy: authenticity (think what the bosnian fire attack video did for hillary clinton).
in the end, when the last commercial has aired, and the polls have closed, may the best candidate win.
and may that candidate be barack hussein obama.
our clients are way too cool to get their feathers ruffled. besides i hardly mentioned palin.