If Advertising Didn’t Suck It Would Be Better

I don’t hate advertising.

It’s bad advertising that either has me laughing or crying, depending on whether it’s interrupting me or filling some dead time in my otherwise busy life.

If advertising didn’t exist (see Life without Advertising: Quiet, Too Quiet?), I would have to do more research to find what I need or want. Clerks in stores would need to be well informed about the products they sell. Their status would soar, as we looked to them for help.

Without advertising, expert advisers would be more in demand than they are. We might make more use of interior designers, professional shoppers and  consumer advocacy groups. We would probably more often buy things for rational, rather than emotional reasons.

Instead of free TV, we’d pay subscriptions, or get our entertainment and information from government channels, or volunteer channels.

Maybe TV would serve more of an educational purpose, as envisioned when the technology first came into popular use.

The problem with advertising isn’t that it intrudes on our lives. It’s the persistence and brute force of advertising that grinds me down.

If I hear another ad agency rep spout something about repetition being the key to top-of-mind awareness, I think I’ll barf.

The problem with ads, as with spam, is that a lot of the worst, least useful advertising is effective enough to keep companies polluting our cityscapes, information sources and entertainment vehicles with more and more of it.

I can’t go to a movie any more without sitting through from three to 20 minutes of advertising. And that’s after I pay for a babysitter, pay for a ticket, and buy some overpriced treats.

I tolerate the high quality ads that provide entertainment value. The mediocre ads make me want to launch an RPG through the screen before beating the theatre manager to a bloody pulp.

The quantity and frequency of ad images isn’t the problem. It’s the low quality and intrusiveness of many ads that drag us down, 30 seconds at a time.