Advertising has a very clear purpose that also has terrible environmental consequences: to make people feel dissatisfied with their lives and with what they have. Left, right and centre conventional political and economic models are rooted in materialism and have a vested interest in more growth and consumption. Unless and until we have a new model based on nature, nurture and replenishment it's hard to see how any western government will have the guts to tackle the advertisers and put a stop to the ads that are a blight on our lives.

Nick Reeves
Executive Director
Chartered Institution of water and Environmental Management

This is very good. What more can we do now?

I read with great interest the piece in the Guardian; I think there is quite a bit of overlap with some of what Seth Godin talks about in his seminal work, Tribes. I agree that the top down approach of advertising still has a pervasive influence over us but I think over time it will weaken in its influence.

In relation to the report, Jackie Ashley (guardian) is slightly critical (for appearances sake?) in noting that:

"People aren't putty: if advertisers are endlessly adaptable, so are their targets."

Is she forgetting, or has she not seen, the significance, of the massive and hysterical crowds, waiting for hours, to see a book signing by Kate Price (Jordan) or some other celebrity. Just listen to the frantic and hysterical emotive responses of such mesmerised people.

I suppose though, that you could suggest that these and other publicly induced behavioural responses amount to more than "advertising" and are indeed the outcome of quite more powerful and more underlying forms of mental management and manipulation.

Len Burch

If it was just advertising, why would the message be endlessly and relentlessly and ubiquitously repeated ? It speaks not of a single product, but of a whole lifestyle.

Is capitalism a totalitarian system, attempting to distort human nature for profit ?

If advertising was as effective as this report suggests then advertising agencies should receive much higher fees for their work. They don't and it isn't.

Nick Reeves' spot on. I think the effectiveness or otherwise of advertising is a red herring some people like to dangle from their hook, possibly as a demonstration of critical acumen. If people are humming ad ditties or joking with ad slogans it must mean the stuff is in their head. Ads are in my face, ears and eyes every waking hour inside and outside my home. The government will most likely cave in to the product placing lobby who can hardly wait to get us stuffed in our most relaxed state. As collective nouns go, the ad industry is a punter whilst consumers, aka persons, are Linda Lovelace. I can sometimes feel myself gag.

If you would like to read our response to this thesis on our industry, please visit our website and click on 'Newsroom'.

The comment form won't let us enter in a link, but a quick Google search should do it.

Best wishes,

Advertising Association

An excellently argued paper. The idea of levying taxes to encourage effective use of advertising spend is a good one - as well as regulating locations/targets etc in the ways proposed. But there may be a better or complementary way of doing this.

Some advertising does serve a public purpose - to inform people about existing and especially genuinely new products, features and services.

To encourage companies to focus their spend more on real consumer communication, rather than creating wants, building brands and raising high advertising cost barriers to competitors, should we not simply make all advertising/marketing/promotional spend not tax deductible above a certain proportion of turnover ? Further analysis and research would be needed to set the right level - and it might exempt small companies altogether as the paper proposes. 5% of turnover might be right for most companies.

One obvious objection to this - and even more to the tax proposal in the paper - is that taxing advertising might unfairly penalise highly innovative companies who need to promote a flow of new and improving products/services. This would need to be looked at carefully. So would the impact of discouraging advertising on our already fragile Press. Other difficulties would lie in the definition of advertising spend and how to avoid abuse of the small company exemption.

But none of these are insuperable and this is the right time politically to push for regulation and taxation of advertising. It can be justified in so many ways - to protect the vulnerable, improve consumer information, reduce waste/improve profits, stimulate real competition/cut prices, and of course to raise tax revenues.

Colin Quinney - Warwickshire