Campaign

As it happens Rory, the COI is the nation’s third biggest advertiser. In global rankings, over the last 10 years the UK government is regularly the only government to feature among a country’s top ten advertisers. (Canada did beat us one year and several years later those involved were put in jail over it). We don’t need more government-financed advertising because consider the client: politicians. Media spend typically goes up dramatically in the lead up to a general election. This is because the ad campaigns are aimed at changing a voter’s behaviour, not at getting a individual to modify his or her lifestyle. Out of curiosity, did this idea come to you when you were outside of adland, after say a weekend in some bucolic retreat, maybe an arable farm, where the only sounds to wake you of the morning were lorry load of EU subsidies on their morning rounds?

I would be surprised if Government was not a top 10 advertiser in Singapore (or North Korea, for that matter - where I understand the Kim Jong Il account is very highly prized). But this UK figure is still far too small. The government exists to solve those problems which can only be solved collectively - as opposed to individually. Large scale behavioural change plainly falls into that category. How can we possibly find it more acceptable for the government to effect behavioural change through legislation (compulsion) rather than through persuasion? You could even use this approach on immigration.Does this seem bizarre? The state of Oregon, overrun by emigres from Northern California did exactly this - running TVCs on Calif channels pointing out Oregon's high rate of rainfall, etc. The endline? "Don't move to Oregon." Now I am not suggesting this is the only sollution to any problem. But is it not wrong that this approach is never even discussed? It's not just advertising, mind. Let's not forget branded content. I would also create goverment funded reality TV shows where we all get to watch Incapacity Benefit Recipients and other welfare recipients 24 hours a day to check they are quite as incapacitated as they say. "Is your neighbour all that he claims" debuts on Channel 4 in the Autumn.

There are already massive misconceptions amongst consumers about the costs and the benefits (or otherwise!) of advertising. If they see the Government spending it, you just know what the reaction will be. The last thing the government needs is a Daily Mail-led campaign suggesting the treasury is lavishing money on 'intangible' activities such as advertising, which could otherwise be spent on 5000 doctors/nurses/teachers etc. Mind you - they could put out an advertisement during the Corrie ad break "Have you seen our two missing CD Roms?"

On the subject of advertising for the missing Inland Revenue data, the Brown government is clearly showing its Campbell-deficit. The positive spin should have gone something like this: "Two beautiful silver disks containing a million secrets lie hidden in the heart of England. Find them and we'll restore child benefits to the entire Kingdom. As a special thank you, we'll even throw in a peerage."

Government makes policy, advertising tries to sell the policy. Like a lot of stuff it is usually a policy you don't want.

Okay, let's try this argument again. This time, climate change. One way you could halve the country's carbon footprint is to impose enormous taxes on energy. Another approach might be to spend billions on technological solutions - burying power station emissions, say. A third approach is to use the threat of legislation to force car makers to adopt biofuels - again at a cost of billions to consumers. Yet you could obtain the same effect by encouraging the UK population to halve their meat consumption. A quarter of a billion quid spent showing footage of slaughterhouses should do that easily.....* Why would you not adopt the last course? It is entirely voluntary and costs perhaps 5% of the alternatives. This seems to me to be evidence of a massive legislative/technical bias in goverment thinking. And what on earth is wrong with spending money on intangibles? Why is it a good use of my money to fund some fuckwitted stadium for the entertainment of the nation's cretins, while effecting lasting behavioral change is bad? I don't get it. _____________________________ * Heather McCartney is almost certainly right in what she says about livestock being worse for the environment than transportation. Indeed it is saddening to me that, while her tight-fisted husband can spend two decades spouting drug-induced nonsense of the worst kind only to end up a national treasure, Lady McC makes one sensible remark and is roundly declared to be mad.

Or, put another way, she may be asymmetrical but she's not unbalanced.

Great gag Rory - was all this diatribe just an excuse for that gag? It's pure genius if it was - and knowing you as I do it probably was. Rory Sutherland - one of Monmouth's finest ;-)

It was esprit d'escalier. Thought of it a moment too late. There is a better gag, actually. "Britain's best loved entertainer gets divorced and all we can do is make jokes about his wife's artificial leg. Personally I think it's prosthetic." High hat, rimshot!

Spending a quarter of a billion on showing the insides of slaughterhouses would not halve meat consumption. Why? Because people like meat. Surely advertising is only really effective when encouraging people to do something they already want to do (whether or not they know it)

I can disprove that. The film Babe had, for a few months at least, a pronounced downward effect on America's pork consumption.

But I'll wager beef and chicken consumption rose.

Some might argue that it is not the government's responsibility to lecture its citizens on the best way to lead their lives.

People might argue it, but the government will do it anyway! What about the recent talk about the ads promoting sensible drinking actually making things worse? One of the problems is that people don't trust the government, so they are unlikely to trust its ads. Also, as Andrew said; you would get a backlash from certain groups at the extra spending.

I still don't think anyone has satisfactorily answered the question which is why are we happier being subjected to legislation and taxation than persuasion?

We're not happier. Nobody likes being taxed, Rory - but I think you're making a naive assumption to suggest this government's spiraling taxation has got anything to do with public health and wellbeing whatsoever! It's much easier for the Labour spin doctors to tax alcohol, smoking, cars, congestion, air travel, on-the-spot fines etc. and then claim it is to encourage us to live more wholesome lives... rather than tell us truth about the £billions overspend deficit that they're desperately trying to plug by any means possible. If the Labour government's motivation really WAS about getting us to live healthier happier lives I'm sure we all would prefer persuasion to taxation. It's just that we know it's not. Instead we've learned to accept that we're going to get our arses taxed to high heaven.