Advertising
and
Virginia H. Knauer was appointed by President Nixon as his
Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs on April 9. 1969. She
also serves as Director of the Office of Consumer Affairs.
In addition. Mrs. Knauer is Executive Secretary of the
Consumer Advisory Council, a member of the Cost of Living
Council, and the National Commission on Productivity. Prior
to her present position. Mrs. Knauer was Director of the
Pennsylvania Bureau of Consumer Protection for 14 months,
Mrs. Knauer is the United States Representative to the
Consumer Policy Committee of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, an international organization
consisting of 22 member nations which seeks to coordinate
economic policies.
Born and educated in Philadelphia. Mrs. Knauer won a
Board of Education scholarship to the Pennsylvania Academy
of Fine Arts. She is a graduate of the University of
Pennsylvania and did postgraduate work at the Royal
Academy of Fine Arts in Florence. Italy. Mrs. Knauer has
received an Honorary Doctor of Law Degree from the
University of Pennsylvania and an Honorary Doctor of Letters
Degree from Drexel University. She has also been awarded
Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters Degrees from Russell
Sage College and the Pennsylvania College of Podiairic
Medicine and Honorary Doctor of Law Degrees from the
Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science. AUentown
College of Saint Francis de Sales and Widener College,
Chester. Pennsylvania.
ABSTRACT
According to the author, the publics attitude toward ad-
vertising is very low. Virginia H. Knauer, Special Assistant
to the President for Consunner Affairs, discusses some of the
reasons for this consurrier outlook and how some advertisers
have overcome consumer objections.
JOURNAL of ADVERTISING. 1973.2(1). Pp. 6-3.
Consumerism
S everal weeks ago in his regular column for
Advertising Age. E. B. Weiss asked the follow-
ing: "Did you know that on campus right now
a popular pastime is to ridicule TV commercials? It
has become a hilarious game played by both sexes.
That hilarity cloaks deep resentments."
While it may be the " i n " thing on campus to
laugh at ads, others find the subject not so amusing.
Take the American public for instance. In a re-
cent Harris poll based on interviews with 1,648
households, the public gave advertising a 12 percent
confidence rating, the lowest among 16 major
institutions.
The attitude of many women toward advertising is
particularly critical- In a recent survey, the New York
Chapter of the National Organization for Women
found that a very large proportion of 1,200 ads de-
picted women as "domestic adjuncts", "demeaned
housekeepers", "dependent on men", "submissive",
"sex objects", and "household functionaries".
A study by Good Housekeeping of the attitudes
of 1,000 women towards advertising showed that
40 percent believed that "the modern woman is in-
sulted by women-directed commercials, and it's time
broadcasters realized the days of talking down to
her were over."
Similarly, a survey of advertising by the YWCA
of Buffalo and Erie County in New York in conjunc-
tion with the State University College of Buffalo
gave heavy adverse ratings to ads for Confidents,
Feminique, Mitchum, Wonderbread, Gladbags, Play-
tex. Colgate, and Geritol.
Men have had their say about advertising, also.
The Committee for the Rejection of Obnoxious Com-
mercials (CROC) handed out "Lemmy" awards to
ads showing a child with only one cavity, the girl
whose boyfriend didn't recognize her because of her
new bra, the father who wore a crown on his head
after using a certain margarine, and the barrel-chested
actor who brags from his bed that he hasn't used
his deodorant all day.
Serious criticism has come from such organiza-
tions as the Institute for Public Interest Representation,
a public interest law group at the Georgetown Uni-
versity Law Center. The Institute analyzed the docu-
mentation for 59 television ads and found that 41
were not substantiated by data submitted to the
Federal Trade Commission.
Even businessmen are critical. In 1971, a poll
taken of 2,700 subscribers to the Harvard Business
Review showed that only 30 percent of the respond-
ents believed that advertisements presented a true
picture of the product advertised. That 30 percent
represented a drop of 24 percent since a similar poll
taken in 1962.
What has gone wrong?
In the first place, not everything is wrong. There
are a number of ads which are not on!y great examples
of creativity but which are also informative and com-
municate on a level which is respectful to the viewing
audience.
BP Oil Corporation found that its ads created an
enormous demand for its "BP Miser" booklets: 1.5
million were given cut in the first three months of
the campaign, and BP ordered a new booklet with a
two million printing for the next phase of the cam-
paign. BP executives based this ad program on re-
search which showed that the buying public wanted
something more than puffery. And the campaign re-
sulted in a substantial increase in " t r i a l " purchases.
American Motors Corporation attributes its big
spurt in sales to its new "Buyer Protection Program"
which relies heavily on tasteful, informative ads. And
according to Advertising Age, Ford's "Listening
Program" broke all records in terms of viewer and
reader response. Hunt-Wesson's sales increased 25
percent in two months after introduction of its "We'll
Help You Make It" program.
Family Health Magazine recently gave a number
of awards to advertisers who gave nutrition informa-
tion and education to the consumer in their ads. Re-
cipients included Giant Food, Inc., the Florida Citrus
Commission, Borden, Kellogg, and PVO International.
Sears, Roebuck and Co. proudly announces the data
for its claims are available for anyone who wishes
to examine these records. Volkswagen and Alka-
Seltzer ads are known for their entertaining, good
humor, and Kraft consistently produces agreeable ads.
There are, of course, many other ads beyond these
which consumers find tasteful, informative and
appealing.
With so many advertisers doing so well in sales
by those approaches, why is it that there still remains
a glut of garbage advertising? What factor or factors
separate those who consistently communicate on a
dignified, informative level from those advertisers
who believe in low level appeals.
To get at the answers to these questions, I have
talked with advertising experts in and out of govern-
ment—officials from the Federal Trade Commission,
advertising associations, advertising agencies, clients,
and private lawyers representing clients in trouble.
All these experts made the same central observa-
tion: The final say on the advertising message be-
longs to the client's management. To say this is not
to negate the responsibility or the role of the agency.
To the contrary, judging from some of the outstand-
ing examples I have seen, an agency can often per-
suade a skeptical client to accept the high road
rather than the low one. However, as a vice presi-
dent of one advertising agency told me, "the agency
does not lead the client, the agency follows the
client."
To my way of thinking, there are more than
enough convincing arguments in favor of "high road"
ads. In an Advertising Age article, Kenneth Mason,
group vice president for Quaker Oats, is quoted as
saying, "By pitching their sales messages continually
below the level of intelligence of the best audiences,
ad people are finding that they have largely lost those
audiences and that advertising is, in many cases, be-
ginning to prove enormously inefficient."
Besides the question of efficiency and effective-
ness, there is the real danger of receiving a tar-
nished corporate image due to adverse consumer re-
sponse. As I have mentioned, we have already seen
several examples of organized opposition to tasteless
ads, and we are very likely to see increased opposi-
tion in the future. Why take such risks when they
are not necessary?
Of course, I recognize that there are some clients
and some agencies who are convinced that garbage
ads sell better. In the December 25 issue of
Advertising Age. the executive vice president of a
major advertising firm literally brags about all the
adverse criticism he received over a toilet paper ad.
All the adverse criticism from Time Magazine, from
consumer groups, from Variety, and other important
sectors didn't bother the client either. It is this basic
Babbit-type philosophy which is doing so much harm
to the advertising profession, a point made by Edward
G. Gallagher, Executive Vice President of N. W.
Ayer and Son in the same issue. Too many in the
advertising profession, Mr. Gallagher maintains, are
"looking, sounding, and selling in a outmoded man-
ner, out of step with the new attitude of today and
tomorrow, a new attitude of a growing majority of
American consumers who will increasingly look on
him and his works with annoyance and some con-
tempt, or, worse, with amusement."
Focte, Cone, and Belding made the same point
a little differently in a recent Wall Street Journal ad:
"Some of the Pavlovian techniques of television ad-
vertising made sales, but at the expense of credibility,
that acceptance which is the soil in which advertising
flourishes. It was a kind of strip-mining for which
we are beginning to pay the price now."
What about the progressive firms? What special
characteristics do they generally share? In my dis-
cussions with advertising experts, these traits were
paramount:
1. A finely tuned social sensitivity.
2. Solid communications with their national
associations.
3. Tne knowledge that mature ads sell and sell
very well.
4. A carefully spelled out policy on what con-
 JOURNAL of ADVERTISING

stitutes honest and tasteful advertising. to communicate on the level the public desires, if
This latter point, to my mind, is most important. business doesn't want its advertising to be laughed
The National Business Council for Consumer Affairs* at, not only in the college dorms, but in American
Sub-Council on Advertising and Promotion recom- homes.
mend such a policy in an advertising report issued Businessmen and advertisers should be horrified
this past September. The Council said: at the 12 percent confidence rating given to adver-
" 1 . The chief executive officer of the corpora- tising in the recent Harris poll. This poll shows that
tion should be involved in the development of the advertising is being judged today by the public on
statements of advertising and promotion policy and more than the criteria of "does it sell?"
procedures. Commenting on the poll and the adverse criticism
" 2 . The statements should be reduced to writing. of advertising by consumers, Foote, Cone, and Belding
" 3 . The statements should be disseminated to all has said, "Anyone who still sees the consumer as a
individuals involved in the organization's advertising passive boob is reading these events the way Custer
and promotion functions. read his intelligence reports."
" 4 , The statements should be made available to Those firms which base their arguments for poor
interested individuals outside of the organization. taste ads purely on the "selling" yardstick are dis-
" 5 . The statements should be subject to con- playing their insensitivity to the public.
tinuing review and revision." They are saying, in essence, that they will give
The Council's recommendations were indirectly the public not what the public wants, but what the
endorsed in a "Truth in Advertising" report in 1972 corporation wants the public to have.
by the American Management Association. Said the They are saying, in essence, that they believe in
AMA, "Companies that desire a high degree of the "sucker born every minute" pitch.
honesty, that have clear-cut and definite objectives, Fortunately, there are others who have a different
that have communicated to their agency exactly what point of view. There are a number of businesses and
they expect will no doubt have fewer problems, if advertisers who know that the public wants a different
any, with the FTC, consumers, and its sales message, a message which says, in effect, that busi-
objectives." ness thinks well of people.
Why more companies do not have their adver- The future is not with the Babbitts or the P. T.
tising policy clearly written out is rather puzzling. Barnums. It's with those businessmen and adver-
Data presented by the AMA indicates that only about tisers who present their products to consumers in
20 percent of the companies have set forth their a manner which clearly demonstrates respect for
policies in writing. them as individuals and appreciation for their con-
With a well thought out advertising policy, busi- tinued business.
nesses can demonstrate their commitment to respon-
sible advertising communications. A written policy
can keep a firm from getting into trouble with gov-
ernment and consumer groups while at the same time
help accomplish sales objectives.
I have examined the policies of several firms
mentioned in the National Business Council's adver-
tising report. Here are excerpts from some outstand-
ing policies:
"Advertising should avoid the use of claims whose
validity depends upon fine interpretation of meaning."
"It is the basic principle of the company and of
the law that advertising shall be honest in fact and
in spirit."
"Advertising shall not claim nor promise by im-
plication any product performance or characteristic
which is not fully supported by test or research data
or other similar factual information."
"The test of whether anything is permissible in
advertising under our policy is to ask: 'Is it the truth?
Is it believable? Is It in good taste?' "
A written policy, of course, isn't a sure guarantee
of consumer or government satisfaction with the final
product. But it is an Important first step.
It's a step which must be taken if business wants