Peter Oborne: advertising is consumerist sewage

Former Daily Telegraph political commentator Peter Oborne has launched a scathing attack on the advertising industry, calling it “objectionably consumerist sewage”.

Oborne resigned from the Telegraph last month claiming that the newspaper’s lack of coverage about the HSBC tax story was a strategy to protect its valuable advertising account.

“Advertising is not just the sewer – it is the sewage as well,” he said, speaking on a panel at the Advertising Week Europe event on Tuesday. “Advertising is objectionably consumerist, selfish, driven by commercial considerations which conflict with wider society considerations like family and decency. Advertising is about nakedly libertarian capitalist as you can get.”

Oborne argued that the advertising industry is full of “snake-oil salesmen”, and argued that it is “essential politicians intervene” to protect society.

“I think certainly it is completely legitimate that politicians should comment on advertising and how it works, that’s their job,” he said. “It is not a political football [to discuss the role of advertising in society] politicians are there to articulate moral concerns about how society works. Any decent politician with an ounce of morality should comment on it.”

Lord Bell, Margaret Thatcher’s favourite PR man and the co-founder of ad and marketing group Chime, jokingly suggested that Oborne had “got up on the wrong side of the bed”

“I’ve never heard so much drivel in my life,” he said. “Politicians should never intervene.”

Oborne cited Labour using Trevor Beattie, the ad man behind work including French Connection’s FCUK, as an example of an uncomfortable pact in political advertising.

“One reason you knew from the start that New Labour was fishy was Trevor Beattie, responsible for FCUK, now FCUK clever ad slogan that degraded our high streets. There are massive moral issues.”

At the end of the one-hour session, hosted by ITV’s Tom Bradby, Oborne softened his stance, admitting to a questioner from the audience that advertising has its place in funding media.

“Advertising for hundreds of years has been part of a package which funds newspapers, and now television,” he said. “I’m not against advertising as such, I’m strongly in favour of it. I’m just asking questions about the wider social questions. Politicians need to look at the way advertisers conduct their business.”

Oborne also said that the media was stacked against Labour leader Ed Miliband, with Rupert Murdoch’s titles out “for revenge”, and the Tories in a stronger financial position.

“The other thing Miliband did which is so splendid is to attack the rich,” he said. “No wonder the Tories have so much money to spend on vicious attack ads. It is the most one-sided election, the most uneven playing field we’ve had since 1992, much worse actually.”

Bell rejected this assertion arguing that there are various parliamentary laws that stop a spending mismatch in the official election period ahead of polling day.

“There are rules about what can be spent,” he said. “The suggestion that the Conservative party is much better funded than Labour party is just not true. It is better funded in the pre-election period. But there is a restriction on what you can spend and what you can’t spend [in the election period].

“So the idea that the Tories are spending lots and lots of money and Labour is spending very little, if that is the case, that is their choice. The amount is capped by Parliament. Let’s leave the myth out that all these rich advertising men pour money into the Tory party coffers.

“They should spend everything they possibly can on it, as much as they can on it because the most important thing people will do is make a decision on an election campaign.”

post from sitemap