5 Comments
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 1, 2023Liked by Brian Morrissey

When I used to teach, I would assign this classic in the extinction genre by Randall Rothenberg, which has a lot going for (and against) it.

https://www.wired.com/1998/01/rothenberg/

In the "for" column, it trenchantly observes that almost everything we value in our culture has been subsidized by ads that probably don't work. Also in that column, it accurately predicted a flight to accountable ad spend and consumer supported media, the latter of which has probably been good for quality overall. (How about that Succession finale, huh?)

What it underestimated was how many ways advertising would find to preserve its mystique, including a decade and a half detour into social media "engagement." So what Rothenberg soundly forecasts has taken a loooong time, and may never be entirely completed, for the simple reason that the margins on sizzle always beat those on steak.

Expand full comment
author

Well put. Always bet the sizzle.

Expand full comment

i love the work you are doing. enjoying the content immensely.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, really appreciate that.

Expand full comment
Jun 1, 2023Liked by Brian Morrissey

Advertising had a bad reputation before the internet and certainly before the mania for targeting over message that we currently have. But ask consumers if they like to find out about new goods and services and they say yes. As a culture we just enjoyed beating on things we need, journalists suffer from that too. To me advertising has always been the oil of industry helping people find out about things that will improve their lives just as much as it’s been a pain in the neck with too much repetition and rubbish copy. It is definitely guilty of weird stuff too - 2.4 children, nuclear family what is that about?

Expand full comment