Ethics in Advertising

No, no, no. That's not a contradiction in terms!
Although I'll be the first to admit that ethics are a tad less than obligatory in political advertising, in fact, the most successful political ad campaigns avoid them altogether. But what works in political advertising, doesn't work so well with any products or services that people can touch, judge and experience immediately for themselves.
Lying in politics, however, is such a time-honored tradition that Plato spoke of it as necessary to diplomacy. Today, lying politicians are the bread and butter of comedy. Stand-up comics could not exist without them. 
Why do politicians envy ventriloquists?
    They can lie without moving their lips.
What do you call a politician who swears to tell the truth?
    A liar.
How can you tell when a politician is lying?
    His lips are moving.
The list goes on.
But something remarkable happened Tuesday, June 8, 2010. Two remarkably well marketed bundles of bamboozlery bombed at the polling booths.  Propositions 16 & 17, two corporate exercises in corporate greed, deception, half-truths, mistruths and home-spun charm, crashed and burned on impact.

Or as Greg Pruett, senior vice president of corporate affairs for PG&E reportedly explained in an article on baycitizen.org "While the election outcome hasn’t diminished our steadfast belief that citizens should have a vote in local government efforts to enter the electric utility business, we respect the decision voters made on this initiative." He failed to add that this initiative would have taken the right to majority rule away from those voters.  Ironically, if PG&E had been able to play by the rules they were pushing, their 47.5 percent of the vote would have been enough to stifle the majority’s will. Too bad.  So sad.
Surprisingly the effort that brought the $46 million PG&E juggernaut to its knees accomplished that miracle with a budget of barely $100,000. Similarly, the Mercury Insurance $16 million, attempt to reverse a 1988 consumer protection law, and allow them to manipulate premiums, was defeated with a tiny fraction of their bloated budget. So where did the corporations go wrong, or more importantly, where did the opposition go right?
First it seems the corporate troops went about a lie too far. They each used fake names, tried to hide behind populist rhetoric that they didn’t really understand, spent money like water or Meg Whitman (but I repeat myself). Then inexplicably, they defended their true goals openly in corporate stockholder documents accessible on the web. The opposition only had to point that out and make the truth even easier to find… not all that difficult in the digital “click-here” age. So even though voters (consumers) couldn’t actually touch, judge or experience products (arguments) with their own two hands, the bare facts were all-too-easy to find.
Lying is advertising is always a bad idea. That’s especially true if you have a product, and people are using it. There’s probably a reason they like it.  Which means there’s enough good to say about it, that you don’t have to lie. If you don’t believe me, ask your happier customers. And if you still feel like you have to lie, be sure to give some friends or family a box or two of crayons and construction paper to make your “Going Out of Business Sale” signs. Your competition, their customers and their lawyers will be only too happy to help.
Ethics is advertising is just good business. And... sometimes, not a bad idea in politics either.

FINALLY! Voters Will Have to Pay for their Own Laziness!

I love it when election marketers devise a whole new way to bamboozle the public, and California voters, no slouches in the overall bamboozle market, finally have a chance to actually pay for their ignorance and sloth personally, out of their own wallets. If successful, PG and E’s campaign to stifle competition could be an unparalleled accomplishment. That is truly saying something, because this has been a year of unprecedented babmoozlery, from the Birthers “victory” in Arizona (Damn You Hawaii) to California’s own multimillion campaign to pass Proposition 8 which defeated homosexuals right to marry because it would inexplicably destroy the fabric of the American family.  Perhaps Lewis Black was right, and it would have unleashed attacks of Gay Banditos. But I digress.

Who is it that could possibly surpass these dizzying heights in inveiglery and babmoozlery?  None other than Pacific Gas and Electric.  Pardon me, I meant the “Taxpayers Right To Vote, Yes on 16.”  You’ve seen their ads daily on the TV, and don’t they have a sexy website?

But take a look at that tiny type at the bottom.  You know in all my time in advertising, I have NEVER had a client say to me, “can you make my name smaller, bordering on invisible? And while you’re at it, hide my logo altogether. The logo is forbidden!” Especially when they’re forking over $28.5 million (as of March 26). Nope.  Never happened.  Not once.  If I were a cynical person (and I most assuredly am), I might presume that Pacific Gas and Electric had something to hide. Although in fairness, they are not hiding it from their shareholders for whom they defended their multimillion dollar campaign: “this is a good use of PG and E funds because otherwise, the company would have to spend ‘millions and millions of shareholder dollars to defend it repeatedly’ every time a municipality is thinking about going the CCA route. PG and E fights against municipalities forming CCAs because when local government agencies form their own local utility districts, PG and E loses customers, thus cutting into the corporation's long-term profitability.*” 

While I applaud any company that feels that $1.22 billion profit in 2009 must be surpassed, I am amused that they are going to voters to vote against the very competition that would save the voters money.  Of course they’re not really doing that.  Competition is the American way, and voting against competition could be construed as UNAmerican.  No, the good patriots of Pacific Gas and Electric are merely arguing that before their 1.22 billion dollar dominance of the market can be subject to competition, that an election must be held at taxpayer expense and an almost unheard of two thirds majority must approve it.  But I repeat myself.

The fact that the right to vote is protected in the Constitution notwithstanding, there is nothing in this act that protects anyone but Pacific Gas and Electric, and they’re willing to spend up to $35 million dollars to do it. But who will really pay for this competition busting sham election… the very same voters who don’t ask questions, don’t research the PG and E connection and actually fall for the flimsy “personal freedom” argument. Not all of the voters will fall for it, just the lazy ones.  In other words, if history is any guide, the majority.  So get ready for less competition and higher rates from fewer providers. 

Of course, if voters are unwilling to find out what they're voting about, maybe this will become the new American way.