An interesting topic.John's question seems to presuppose that informative equals productive, whilst persuasive equals unproductive. This may well be the case, although to the purist both could be seen as unproductive in that neither actually physically creates everything. Taken to its logical extreme, it is because of our reluctance to subsidise non-productivity that we no longer have bus conductors, park keepers, a decent health service or many police officers, but I would guess that is for a different discussion. MP and councillors, of course, are unproductive in the same sense!To get back to the subject of advertising, I suppose I would tend to presume that if it didn't work then the producers of the goods and services in question wouldn't pay for it (although I'm aware that in truth it's us who are paying for it anyway). Producers are, after all, in the business of maximising profits and advertising budgets can be substantial.When I get the time, I sometimes join a few friends at a local pub quiz. One of the questions usually involves listening to a piece of music which accompanies a contemporary TV advert and trying to work which product it relates to. Although all of us sometimes watch television, we seldom get the answer right. This would seem to suggest that when we are subjected to an overload of advertising we tend to become immune to it and mentally switch off.However advertising is far too sinister to simply be about instant product recognition. What it actually does is to subliminally place (and retain) in our minds slogans, logos and brand identities which, in the absence of advertising, we might be tempted to forget about over a period of time.Less advertising would certainly create a more level playing field between producers and would probably push prices down too. But are level playing fields and lower prices what the Coca Colas and McDonalds of this world are about?
Phil Andrews ● 7124d