Thursday, November 12, 2009

Reporting on advertising.

Last weekend, uncharacteristically, I watched a bit of football. While watching it occurred to me if we covered either of the two wars we are fight as well as we covered sports, public sentiment would be aware we are fighting them and would be aware of their horror and would likely be against those wars. Likewise, if any of the 35,000 maimed American boys received anything like the coverage we are getting out of Fort Hood, there would be outrage about "Mission Accomplished" and the dupefication we allowed ourselves to be subject to.

It seems to me that the advertising press (such as it is) is similarly feckless and pusillanimous. I have read articles--small ones--about layoffs, but I've yet to read anything about the seismic changes going on in our industry. Usually ad columns talk about "The Hartford's" advertising and the return of antlers on TV. Or some such.

As scions of Madison Avenue have become Detroit-ized, their number of employees dropping by 1/3 or 1/2 (unlike Parker, I won't name names) as the very efficacy of holding companies becomes more and more dubious, our trade press talks about Twitter or a new Christmas campaign from Sofa City.

I know advertising is a pimple on the ass of the news but the larger issue here is the absence of investigation. Truth is to be avoided at all costs. Reporting is something we can't afford.

No comments: