Want Less Government? Then You Might Get Less Advertising

Last week, I posted about the New York Times article on government subsidies of cheese marketing.
Well, the government funds quite a bit of marketing and advertising. So if we need to get government out of our lives, as many people believe (and our recent elections reflected), what would happen to the advertising industry?

Here’s the conundrum: By subsidizing industries to market their products, the money our government supports jobs in advertising — writers, art directors account people, directors, Web designers, photographers, the whole gang. All these folks then stay employed, pay taxes, and continue the cycle. Same with the employees of Domino’s, the dairy farmers, the shrimpers, etc.

So are we better off without government money? Let’s say, to follow election trends, that we need to stop this spending, or drastically curtail it. What would you eliminate? The cheese marketing? The shrimp marketing? Anti-smoking and other health-related initiatives? And since states are having financial troubles too, would you cut a state tourism budget? A state lottery budget?

It’s the subject of my new column on Talent Zoo, which will be on the home page tomorrow — and is the 150th I’ve written for them since 2002.



About Dan Goldgeier

Dan Goldgeier is a Seattle-based freelance copywriter with experience at advertising agencies across the U.S. He is a graduate of the Creative Circus ad school, and currently teaches at Seattle's School of Visual Concepts. Dan is also a columnist for TalentZoo.com and the author of View From The Cheap Seats and Killer Executions and Scrubbed Decks.