High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
[ Gossage Goes to College ]
How
to
Want
To Do Better
At
Adverti$ing
By
HOWARD
L.
GOSS
A
GE
T
HE
OTHER
eveningwe
had
aprofessor
and
his
wife
in
fordinner. Besides his teaching he hadbeenthe
uniVel"
sitychaplain for many years.He
is
a delightful, inteUigent,
witty
man,
with
a broadperceptiveviewofthe world. Dur
ing theconversationhesaidthegreatestobstaclehe met
in
talking topeoplewas the label ofclergyman.
As
soon
as
it
wasknown
he
was a maoofthe cloth,people stopped talkingor
becamedefensive orinsome cases, offensive.So,
if
hewishedto discussanythinghaving to do
with
religion he often had tomention the things he
dido't
standforbeforegetting around
to the things he didstand
fo
r.
J
thought to myself,
"Why
,that's what advertising men do.tool"Imentioned
this
to
him,
andheimmediately
started
talking about advertising
in
lenns
of
the things he
didn't
like.
Ithought,
"Ob
hell,herewe
go
again.
~
In
mylectur
in
gIalso SndImustspend abouthalf my time
clearingawaythedeadwoodbefore'
J
can
begin to talkconstructively aboutadvertisingand whatitcando andoccasion
allydoesdo.Iamsickand tiredof
it.
I
am
notprimarily a
cri
tic,
Iaman advertisingman.And
J
l
ong
for the daywhen itwill become a businessfora
grown
man. But before tho
seof
usinadvertisingcanfindoutwhetherthis
is
po~ible
wemustremovethe
ob~acles
thatconfine
it
to
being a multibillion dollarsledgehammerto drive a 49-centeconomy-size-thumbtack.
And
I'
mafraidwe'retheoneswho must do it. Before adver
tising canbecome better, we must want to do better
at
it.Everyone today
has
somethingto do withadvertising,even
if
it
is
onlypaying out the money for it. Everyone
is
part
of
its audience.Now,the word "audience"
is
widely
used
in advertising, andinve
ry
strangeways -waysthat donot corres
pondto whattherest ofhumanity understandsby the word.
We
advertising peopleuse"audience"to mean prospectivecon
sumerswhohave been gathered together bysomeone else-a
813
?fiO
January
1963
magazine, newspaper
or
radio
or
TVstation.Then,whenthey
ar
ecomfortably seated, we get
in
thereandmake
our
pitch.Usually, wethink it better toget onand
off
fastbeforetheycanbudge.
This
getsharderandharder, particularly
in
television.A new,speedierrace
is
developing -eventually peoplemay
be
bornwearing tennisshoes.rdsay the re
co
rd
fo
rbetween-commercialactivity
is
held bymy12-year-old nephew,
whoon
May
10thlast,duringaprogram break,visitedthe
bathroom,went to the kitchen where he prepareda peanutbutterandjelly
undwich
anddranl:
haH
a pintof milkdirectly
from thebottle,listened toa scoldingfrom
his
motherfor
this,
promised hewouldn't do it againand got
in
afightwith
his
l4-year-old brother when hefellover
his
feetonre-entering
the darkenedroom-a
ll
in
52
and three-tenths
5eC'Onds
although arriving in time tojoinin thelast eight bars of the
jinglewhichconcludedthe fourthspot.Amemorable
feal
Whenadvertisingtalksabouttheaudience,it doesn't mean
Its
audience;
it
meanssomebody else'saudiencegatheredto
watchorreadsomething
else.
AdVertising hopes tosnag
this
audieoce
as
it
flipsi
ts
way through the pagesorwatchesi
ts
way throu
gh
ashow. Thisseemsreasonable,docso't it?No
bodylooks atadvertising on purpose, dothey?
Yes
theydo. Mostwomenfind thedepartmentstoreadsmore
interestingthan the frontpage.
J
daresaymany peopleread the
NewYorker'.
advertisingonpurpo
se,
often before gettingintotheeditorialmatter.Ithinka greatdeal more advertising
wouJd
be
read
on
purpose
if
it
weremoreinteresting.Iknow
ofinstancesof extraordinarilyinteresting
or
entertaining advertising commandingI
ts
own audienceand sellingwell,too.
The real factofthe matter, however,
is
thatnobodyreads
ads
per
.te.
People read whatinterests them,andsometimesit's
an
ad.WhatI'mgetting
at
Is
this:
weshouldDotthink the
audience
is
our audience -people
we
mustcollarsimplybe
causewe havesome sortofconcessionwehavebought.
J
was
9[ Gossage Goes to College ]
going
to
liken
our
roleto
that
of abot
dog hawker
at
• sports event, but
that's
notBattering totheweeniesalesman;
after
all,
he
.dds
to the enjoymentoftheproceedingsand weusuallydon't.We
rarelyhavea.nyth.ingwhatsoever todo
withtheproeeedings.
So,
all
we
can
do
if
we
fed
anyduty
to
the
audience-
or
to
oursel
ves
_
is
to
fabricate
our
own proceedings, a sortofminiature program,within thetime
or
space
limits
wehave.And do
it
asinterestillglyand entertaininglyas possible.
But before we
can
do
this
wemust
Ket
it
into
our
heads that buying time or
space
is
potgetting a hunting license onsomeone'sprivatepreserve
but
rentingastage
on
whichwe mayperform.Adver
tising
is
not a right,
it
is
aprivilege.
Our
first duty
is
not to theold sales curve,
it
is
to the audience.
Until
weconceive ofthis clearly,our advertising
will
be
nobetter
thanit
is,
nor
will
the results
im-
prove.
As
it
is,
each year advertisina; be
comes
leu
eHective because people simply
pay
less
attention to
it.
IP
consequence,the advert1sin, hill
,oes
up
and
upeveryyear,quiteaside frominflationary factors.
An
immunity
setsin.
As
with
narcotics,
it
take.!
mote
and
moretoachievethesame
droot
A
DVERTISING menoften findhercd
ea1
the
thoupt
that anythin,
shouldcome beforedutytotheproduct.
Stnnge-
ly,
most
clients
don't.
once
it
is
explained
to
them. Salesmltrl
will
get
it
right
of[
the
bat. They
are
used
to
regarding theiraudie.cce Sr5t,
because
if
they don't pleasethem they won't
a;et
the
order.
I'm
surethat salesmenforcompanies that put
out
boring, offen.tive or repetitiow advertis
mg
wouldnot
let
their
sale.!
talks
totheircustomers
be
thesame-
unless
theywere
m.asoclrlstJ
whosimply loved
being
tossed bodily
outof
places,mcludingtheir
jobs
.
Then why the doublestandard aboutadvertising?
Because
we think
'o
fadvertising
as something
diHerent-somethingbeyond
the
rulesof ordinary behaviortowardaudiences.
Well,
there
is
00
arguing that evenawfuladvertising
is
efiective
if
craftily
doneandyouhaveenough of
it.
But
so
is
a
knock
aD
the head with a baseball
bat
orshooting
fish
in
abarrel. But neither
I.s
very sporty.
And
there issome evidence
that
the
fish
don'thold still as well asthey
used
toand are developing armorplate.
What
is
moreimportaotthanthese
practiea1
objections, however,
is
that
it
is
simply not
ript
totreat an audiencelike this. U wecan'tlookatitfroma
broad,
ethlcal
pomt ofview thenweoughttolook
at
it
persooally
...,...
fromthepoint
of
view
of
pleasing ounelves.
We
are
all
members
of
theaudiencetoo,and
are
bored
or
initated
right
along
witheverybody
else.
It
is
'Dot
anunU5ualthought,
this
matter
of
respon.sibllity
to
one
's audience.
It
is
the
first
principle
of
the theatre,news-
2
papers.
maguines.
political
speeches
OJ'
mdced
any otherfonn
of
communicationexceptadvertising-
and
those
media.
dominated entirely,or m
part,
by
advertising.
I
can thInk of only onemajor
medium entirely dominatedbyadvertisers,and that
is
outdoor advertising. Consideration of the audience
has
Dever
been
afactorin outdoor advertising.
except
forsome primitive attempts
at
public servicemessagesagainst forest
fires
or for
lomg
to church.
ADd
,
oh yes,foradvertiUngjyou
\aJ.ow
the
sort
of
thing
I
mean-that
plugadvertising
as
II.
bulwark of democracy, and
so
00
.
A
SIDE
from
th
ese,
o,Itdoor advertisingdoesn'tbotherwith
the
audience
u-
cept
tocountitasit.goes
by.
I
don'treallyknow whatmore they
cou1d
do
to
pleasetheaudienceexceptlear the billboarw
down.
1
don'tknow anyonewho reallylikes billboards exceptpresumably
those
m
the
business.
I
doubt
whether
theyeven constituteaproper advertising
medi-
um. A medium
to
me
is
ooe that communicatessomething
eI.se.
and
also com
municates advertismg.Outdoor'smedium
is
the
out
of
doors,
I
suppose, andthat
is
nottheirs
to
sell.
To
be
5Ule,
the.
bill
boardsstand
00
privateproperty,
but
they are broadcastinginto thePublicroad, proje«iog
their
message.!
to cithen5
without
theiJ
penniuion.There
is
no
free.
dom
of choice at all.
I
thinlc
this
is
quitewrong,
because
it
is not
theoutdoorad
verti.ser's street orhighway;
it
is
the
people's.Mindyou,
1
am
notcoocemedwithaesthetics.
1
have seenlots
of
locationswhere
the
billboardwasthe nicest
loole
ing
tbina
around.
AI
amatter
of
fact,
I
like outdoor advertising;
I
just
don't
thinlc
it
ought to
be
outdoors.
It
is
a
damned
iroposition,
and
I
flave a huncha
law
suit could
be
s
uccessfu
ll
y instituted.againstbillboardsonthe ground
Of
invasion ofprivacy.Now,
this
sort
of talkalways
throws
roy
advert:ising: colleaa;uesfotoa
Hap,
because,
they say,
if
youencouragethepub)jcto
act
againstone
part
of
advertising, wby,
what's
to
keep
them
from
actinJ:against
the
rest
of advertisingabout
things
theydon't like?
Whatindeed?
And
whyshouldn'tthey?
It's
their communicationsmedia we areusing
or
abusing.
As
far
u
that
goes,
whyshould
I,
an
advertisingman,
feel
compelledtoidentify myself
with -
much
leu
protect-every ragtag,
bob-tafIed
creatureor
practice
that
crawls
outof
the woodwork
of
our far
from-perfect
house?We havetwo other media thatarc
dominated byadvert:lsmg:
televio;lon
andradio.
I'
ts not a conditionthat worla wellforanyone:notforthe audience, the
sta-
tions
or
theadvertisers.
Our
programing
has
gone
to
hell and-
disaster
of
dis
asters-spot announcements are crammedone
00
top
ofanother so they aren'tverygoodbuys.Now,all
this
started
with
radio.BeforeTV, thebig programsweremostly
p;"o
duced
by
the agencies.When
televis.ioo
came along,
the networb
announced
that
all
this
was going
to
be
chana;ed. They,the networks,wouldproducethe
shows
or
ordain what
wu
to
go mthetime slot,
andthenmakeitavailabletoadvertisers.
Of
course,
despiteavaliant
try,
it
dkln't
worle
out
that
way.
It
couldn't
possibly
work outany
other
way thanfor adver
tisers
to continue
to
dominate
program
ingwhetherthey wanted
to
or not.
You
see
,
anytimeyou buy a
specilied
blockoftime
on
astation it immediately
USWIlC$
a market value
in
comparison
with
acompetitive
bloc1:
on
another
sta
tion.The value
is
DOt
based
oncostso
much as
on
audienceratings.
To
keepthese
times
commercially desirable it
is
necessaryto keeptheratings desirable,
too.
So,
thestationdoes whatever It
can
or
must to
keep the ratingscompetitive.This
mea.os
,
in
effect,
that
its prnilaming
is
deten:nined,notbywhat it
thinks
it
should
be,
but
by
what
the
advertiser
will
buy.Thepredictahle result
u
blllh
medi
ocrity
for
the
most
part competiting witheverybody else's
bWi
mediocrity.
This
ac
cords
with
an
advertising Gresham'slaw:
just
15
bad moneydrives
out
good,
so
had
programing drive.!out
good
programing.
'T"HE
only possiblewayaround
it
is
to
1.
dowhat
the
English
have
dOGe
with
theiJ"
commercial
television:
sell
rotati.nj;
spots
only. Now
thismakes
JeIUe
for
everyone,
I
think.
AD
ad
oertaioly
bas
morevalue
when
it
is
not fighting
another
ad. Advertisingclearly can
aHord
to
be
moreingenious aod, yes, thouahtful
of
the
audience,when
it
is
not struggling
to
make
itse1E
heard.
If
this
sounds
outrageous
to
you,
ask
yourselIwh
ether
thebest printmediawould
be
nearly
U
good
as
they are, orgive youtheplatfollll
they
do,
if
adver·
PENN
STATE JOURNALIST
VolulM5
NumMr
1
Janu
ary,
1963
Publishedsemi-annuallyby theSchool
of
10wnalism
ofThe PennsylvaniaState University,University Pule.,
Pa
'lfor
alumnJ
and
leaders
in
the communicationsmdustry
in
PennsylVania.Colltributions of articles and
letten
tothe
editor
are
welcomed.
I-
Editor
.
CHARLES
H.
BROWN
Auociate
Editor
H.
EUGENE
GOODWINAlumni
Editor
ROBERT
M.
POC
IC
RAS
S
penn
state
journalist
0[ Gossage Goes to College ]
rum
could sponsoreditorial
matter
or,as
in
broadcasting,control editorial mat
ter.
There
are
papers thatdo
permit
advertisers
to
inBuence editorial matter,
aDd
you Imow how welook
OD
them: theyarepreciselytheleast valuable papers on the
1m.
It
is
allthe more·surprising
that
advertis
er
dominationshould
occur
in
broad
casting,
becausebroadcasting
is
woredemonstrablyapublic utility.
It
is
piped
in
just
as
is
electricity,
glUi
or
wateron aflow
basis.
Moreover, itschannelsare·
so
much a part of generalpublicownership
thatnoone would ever
think
of
challeng
ing
a government'sright tooonuolthem.
Andyet thebroadcasters' concept
of
publicinterest
bas
never beendevelopedmuchbeyonddoingdull programs or
making recruitingannouncements
ill
suchpeak hours
as
8:
30
SWldaymoming.It
is
only recentlythattheFederal
Communi
cations
Commission
in
the
person of its
cbainnan
Newton Minow bas
bestirred
it-
seH
at
all.AndI'mafraid
his
just
accusation that
TV
is
awasteland has
faileD
ondeaf public ears.
It
bas heeo
so
long,and people don't really know
that
theyhave
a
choice.
T
ET'Ssee
if
I
can give youaparallel.
L
Supposethe water
supp
ly wereprivately owned
by
a virtue
of
a franchisegranted
it
long ago. And
that
it
werepro6tableforthewater company to
sell-
as
in
selling
broadcast
time -segments
of
its
Bow
toadvertisers
in
hou:r,
half
bourand15-minuteperiods.And
that
adver
tisers
wouldthenhavethe
right
duringthese periods to color
the
water
green,purple,red
or
whatever hue they wished.
Once
this practice was establishedI'm
quite
sure
it
would
be
accepted asnormaland even
be
deIeoded againstwild-eyedradicalsas an example
of
free
en
terpriseworking for the publicweal.After
all,
they wouldpoint out,
we
are
gettiogthe
WlIter
free.Therewould,
of
course,
be
aFederalWater
Commission
to
control
pumping
facilities
and
ensu:re
that
awatercompany
did
not
use
anyone else'spipes.
So
thewaterwould come
out
pink,orange
or
chartreuse
intenpelsed
with
20
-
secondpucepumping stationbreaks
or
eight-second scarlet signals. And, sincepeoplewould
naturally
develop colorpreferences, wewould
see
the
mOr
epop
ular
decoratorcolors duriDgthepeak
drinldng
or
Hushingperiods.
I
imagiaecompetitionwouldarise
as
other
watercompaniel! enteredthe 6eld. They,natu
.rally, wouldnot wishtobuck the trend
-I
SUppose
there wouldberating
serv-
ices -
so
thattheircolors
at
any given
how:
wouldhe variaDts
of
whatever
hue
..
theleaderinthetime slotwaspiping
:
.o
ut
I
don't mean
the,
e'dbe anything off
,color;
no,whichever channel you switched.thevalve controlto
it
would
allhe
pure
o:.
enough.'.
"
However,
to
fight the competition
it
e
might
be
necessary
to
do
other
things.
~
"
..
.....
·.jenlJlIry·1963
Can you imagine the edge you wouldhave
if
youwere first toputa faint lemon
flavor inyour yellow wateror raspberry
in
yourred?
Of
courseyourcompetitonwould 6ghtbackwithother
Havors,
and
then stronger Bavors. Eventually
all
water-except for public service programing,which would
be
dullgray-would
be
flavored
as
well
as
colored.At
this
pointapublic reactionwould
set
in,
first
lUi
criticism
fromtheinteUec
tuals
and the do-gooders, and then
as
abroaderthough
by
no
means universaldlsconterlt.
Mter
all,
most
people would·not realizethey
had
any choice in thematter. Rather,
let
us
say, they wouldhave
so
manydazzliDg choicesthat thereal issue would
be
quite obscured.
So,
do you know
what
the ensuing strugglewould center on? Somered-hotswould
protest that they
didn't
want
to
takebaths
in
lemonade.
And
then the industrythrough its spokesmen would say
they
hadfreedomofchoice; theycould
switch
the valve to another channel
if
theywished-toraspbeny soda orroot beer.
And
the dissidents
would
say that wasn'ttheissue: theissue
was
such strongflavors
dwing
peak
bathing hours. RigbtPAndtheo someonewould
call
formorerigorous policing
by
the
FWC.
And
AdAge
would
be
full
of
statementsfrom the National.Association ofWatercastersand ad
vertising industryleaders. And
Rosser
Reeves
would say
his research
showed
that
people
dldn't
reallycare. And
he'd
probablybe rigbt.They wouldn'tbeaware
that theyhada choice of caring or notcaring.
You
see,
lo.st
intheshufBe would
be
the
real
heart
of
the matter: not whetherthe water oughtto
be
Bavored
so
stronglyorevenwhether it oughtto
be
flavoredat allor even whether
it
ought to
be
colored
at
all.
No,
the real
issue
is
thatthe water doesnotbelongto theadver
tiser orevento the water company;
it
be-
longs to
us.
Now,
I
havenothing againstcolored, flavoredwater,
but
I
don't
think
it
shoulddominate
our
water supply.
Water
is
a public utility. And
so
is
broadcastiDg.Until thisconcept
is
widelyunderstoodIdon't
think
things
will
getmuchbetterfor thepublic, forthesta
tions
or
forthe advertisers.
I
THINKthis
is
a matterthat we
as
advertising people
can
do somethingabout-
if
weareenlightened enough.
Wecould agitate.for industry-wide
COn
version
to
the magazine concept
of
broad
casting
azul
for the controls and policingtomake
it
possible.
It
would requireagood deal of adjustment in our
thinking
about availabilities,
rates
and sponsorship,
hut
it
is
nne ofthethings wemust face
if
we want
to
dobetter
at
advertising.
I
have meotioned thedreadword
"po-
licing."
I
think
we ought
to
have-andought towant -agood dealmorepolic
ing
than
wehave.No other indusby or
profession
is
50
anarchic
as
advertising.
One
of my srodents asked mehow
cUents
'Qh hell, here
we
go
again!'
This quote
hom
Howard
L.Gossage's speech Nov.1before
300.
ofCanada's top advertisingexecutivesmightaptlydes
cribethereaction
of
hisconfreres tohiscomments on the
business.
As
a matteroffact.
Advertising
Age
in
reportingthespeeCh,
with
candidbias,used
this
lead:"Howard Gossagecame
to
Canadalast weektosound off."
Forseveral years,
in
magazine, articlesand speeches,
Gos-
age
has
aroused the ire of the profession becauseofhisstric
turesagainst advertising.
Partly
because
he
is
such a controversialfigure. he was invited toserve
in
the
fall term
as
adistinguishedvisitingprofessor
in
the
School of
J
umalism.He lived
up
to his hilling
as
one whocould
not
only stirupstrife
but
stimulatethinkingGossage
is
co-presidentof
the
Weiner
&:
Gossage agency
in
San
Francisco.'His previous experience waswith Cunningham
&-
Walsh
in
NewYorkand
with
the
ColumbiaBroadcastingSystem.
The
accomp8.nying speechwas made
at
a meeting
in
Toronto sponsoredbySaladaFoods,
Ltd
,
Add a Comment