Advertising Council, movement & ad industry public relations

Selling Advertising

The Ad Industry's Battle Against the Consumer Movement of the 1930s: An Interview with Inger Stole

Carrie McLaren | Issue #18

I was pretty psyched to come across Inger Stole’s dissertation, Selling Advertising. For the last couple of years, I’ve been obsessed with the history of advertising–specifically, advertising’s relationship to its critics. A large part of this history deals with the industry’s long-standing efforts to better its rep, through the Advertising Council and other efforts, to shape what the public thinks when they think of "advertising." In retrospect, sixty-plus years later, these efforts sound straight out of Public Relations 101: lobbying groups, fake grassroots groups, campaigns to advertise advertising, and "charitable" efforts. Unfortunately, the history of the ad industry’s PR machine is largely unwritten–which is what makes Inger Stole’s work so important. Selling Advertising is one of the first in-depth studies of the ad industry’s fight against critics. Although not intended for mass consumption, it is rich with detail on the 1930s and 1940s, a period that in many ways set the stage for what has followed. Inger Stole teaches at the University of Illinois, where she is working on a book about the 1930s consumer movement. —Carrie McLaren

Stay Free: How did you become interested in the consumer movement? What was your point of entry?

Inger Stole: For my master’s thesis, I researched the role that advertising played in setting up 1950s television, and I started thinking, "Why didn’t anyone say this stinks?" Television was set up to be purely commercial and that was never questioned. I thought there must have been a time when people debated these issues, so I started going back until I arrived at the movement in the late 1920s and 30s. It sought federal regulation of advertising as well as the grading and labeling of food.

Stay Free: How was advertising regulated before then?

Inger: There was the FTC Act of 1914, which regulated advertising in a business context. If company A’s advertising hurt its competitor, the FTC could step in. But if a person was hurt by an ad, that was out of its jurisdiction.

Stay Free: So if you tried an advertised shampoo and it burned off your scalp, you’d be out of luck.

Inger: Right.

Stay Free: When did this change? When did the government make it illegal for advertised products to, say, kill people?

Inger: There was a case in the late 1920s involving a diet cure called Marmola. It turned out that Marmola contained a chemical that burned human tissue. But by the time the government could do anything about it, about 70 people had died. The FTC issued a "desist and refrain" order against Marmola ads but the Supreme Court ruled that the FTC acted outside its jurisdiction. Under existing laws, Marmola ads were fully legal.

Stay Free: When does the consumer movement enter the picture?

Inger: Well, the National Consumers League was formed around 1899. They were concerned with , labor conditions, things like that. They were the muckrakers. , The Jungle. Around the 1920s, consumer leaders started recognizing the impact of advertising. People were no longer making their own soap or clothes at home–they were relying on advertising as the link between the producer and consumer. But advertising wasn’t telling people much. So in the 1930s, consumer groups started demanding that advertisers provide more product information. Not only did they want to end false and misleading advertising, they wanted to outlaw advertisements that were ambiguous or made inferences.

Stay Free: But what counts as an inference? Wouldn’t that outlaw just about all ads?

Inger: Exactly. The industry jumped all over these people because, as you say, who’s to say what makes an inference? If a soap ad has a picture of a beautiful women, is that inferring that the soap makes you lovely? So the critics backed down pretty fast on this point. But they still wanted advertisers to provide more information.

Stay Free: Were they thinking there should be some sort of standardized format for ads?

Inger: They didn’t get far enough to even consider that. Really, just the idea that advertisers would have to state basic, hard facts would defeat all kinds of product advertising. If you look at ten different soaps, they’re all pretty much the same, so people would go for the lowest price. It was a big threat to brand- building.

Stay Free: So what did the consumer groups lobby for?

Inger: They managed to get the Tugwell Bill introduced in the Senate in 1933. But it was rewritten several times and each rewrite had the industry’s fingerprints all over it. Tugwell was shot down and it ended up as the Wheeler-Lea Act, which advertisers loved. The Tugwell bill held advertisers responsible for ads that created false and misleading impressions; advertisers would have had to defend themselves if any of their ads were challenged. The Wheeler-Lea bill placed the burden of proof with the government. It gave the FTC the power to issue "cease and desist" orders or fines, but it did little to prevent misleading ads from appearing in the first place. Under Wheeler-Lea, by the time the FTC ever got around to stopping an ad, it could already have hurt consumers or their pocketbooks. This is actually still the case today. The Wheeler- Lea act remains the major advertising regulatory law in the country.

Stay Free: Was Congress back then any more or less probusiness than it is now?

Inger: That’s hard to say, but business clearly ran the House and Senate hearings. Consumers’ Research and Consumers Union were very rarely called upon. And Royal Copeland, the senator who preceded over the Tugwell hearings, was simultaneously doing testimonial ads for Fleischmann’s Yeast. The man calling for federal regulation of false advertising was at the same time telling them that clogged-up intestines were the source of all their troubles.

Stay Free: What were some of the other ways, other than legislation, that the industry undermined the consumer movement?

Inger: One thing business people did was start their own consumer groups to confuse the public. The names of these groups were very similar to the grassroots efforts. One called the Consumers’ Advertising Council, for example, was funded by advertisers and publishers to counter antiadvertising sentiments. The Foundation for was another. It attacked Consumers’ Research and accused it of trying to destroy free enterprise. The Crowell Publishing Company’s Consumer Division surveyed consumer activities to develop a program that would derail "left-leaning" groups. These business groups not only confused the public but scared the media: "Hey, if we go with any of these suggestions, advertising will be crippled and then we won’t have any revenue."

Stay Free: What about the initiative for teaching in schools? Was that a business thing as well?

Inger: Not at first. Many educators were genuinely interested in consumer issues. Advertisers didn’t like that too much, so this is where you see the first wave of business-sponsored school materials. Companies like Heinz, Hershey, and General Motors would design booklets and materials for use in schools, free of charge. These had educational-sounding titles like Transportation Progress or The Romance of Rubber– but were often vaguely concealed commercials. Pall Mall, for example, designed a contest for college students that offered cash prizes for the best Pall Mall ads.

Stay Free: It’s always amazed me how sucessful business has been in co-opting opposition. But I wonder whether this wasn’t just a case of co-option because, to some extent, the consumer movement actually fed the business agenda themselves. I have an old consumer education textbook from 1938 and it states that the consumer movement actually tried to sell schools on the idea that consumer education was good for business. In other words, consumer advocates argued that it made sense for business to have educated consumers because then consumers could make more rational purchases. It sort’ve played into that libertarian idea of the free market, that the market works best when people are perfectly informed.

Inger: Well, the consumer movement was made of up various factions. You had moderates, like the National League of Women Voters, and various home economics associations. And then you had more radical critics who were less comfortable with capitalism per se. Arthur Kallet of Consumers Union, for example; and Robert Lynd, who wrote the books about Middletown with his wife Helen.

Stay Free: But even Consumers Union, and lefties like , argued for making people more rational buyers. That’s in a lot of their literature. I mean, think of where that’s led them today. My parents talk a lot about getting good deals and subscribe to . But they’re also very free market. It seems to me that there’s an assumption that and free-market ideas are inconsistent, where in fact they’re quite complementary.

Inger: Consumers’ Research was a radical group before 1935, when the guy who ran things, F. J. Schlink, refused to recognize the rights of workers to unionize. He had gone through some sort of transformation and became completely paranoid about . So two of the leaders, Arthur Kallet and , split off and formed Consumers Union in 1936. In the early days, they published the magazine, Consumer Reports [which remains to this day], but they also covered labor conditions, safety issues, things like that. Schlink became jealous because people started supporting Consumers Union; so he teamed up with his old foes in business and they cooked up allegations and accused them of being communists. This was another way that business interests fought their critics: they called them communists and attacked them personally. For thirteen years, Consumers’ Research dragged Consumers Union through the mud, which eventually wore them out.

Stay Free: Consumers Union isn’t particularly oppositional now.

Inger: I think they got tired of being attacked. It happens to even the most courageous. To focus on and Consumer Reports was politically safe and made economic sense.

Stay Free: I wonder if advertising critics in the 1930s had a problem similar to what we face now. I recently participated in a protest against marketing to kids. Everyone was critical of advertising, but when they got in front of the camera, they only talked about advertising leading to too much violence and sex and junk food.

Inger: I had the same experience this summer when the school district was considering a Coca-Cola contract. My stance is the principle: We don’t want corporations in the classrooms. But many people just want to talk about what it does to children’s teeth. One person even said, "Well maybe the issue will be solved if we put in a Pepsi machine." Stay Free: So I wonder if the consumer movement lost some sympathy with the public because they came across as Puritanical. At the time there were all these attacks on the movies. Prohibition was still a memory. And here are people coming out saying advertising is bad.

Inger: Puritanism is the industry’s favorite attack on consumer advocates.

Stay Free: Yeah, but there is something to that don’t you think? Anyway, why do you think we haven’t seen as harsh an attack on advertising since the 1930s?

Inger: Back then advertising was still relatively new, and there wasn’t this assumption that it was here to stay. Criticism of advertisements didn’t end in the 1930s, but World War II changed things dramatically. We had a situation where most of our raw materials were needed for the war effort. There was less material to go for consumer products, so there were less consumer products available. But advertisers were still going at it, and the critics said, "Hey, if you advertise, isn’t there going to be a shortage? Aren’t we going to have a black market?" So they cooked up the Advertising Council [called the War Advertising Council for parts of the war] to do "public service" advertising. The Ad Council still exists, although I just read that it has outplayed its purpose. There are plenty of other corporate public relations campaigns now.

Stay Free: I’m glad you brought up the war because you always read the cliché that "war is good for business," and here’s a tangible example. For the ad industry, Pearl Harbor was a blessing!

Inger: Absolutely. And it was especially ironic given the circumstances. Advertising had always claimed that by introducing people to new products, it increased demand for those items. But if that was the case then advertising would have actually undermined the war effort by creating demand for products that were in scarce supply. Obviously, the ad industry wanted to stay in business, but it was afraid of being seen as unpatriotic. So it formed the Advertising Council to improve public relations. The Ad Council promoted government campaigns: military recruitment, War Bonds, and various salvage programs. It made advertising essential to the war effort. At the same time, it promoted advertising’s "selfless" sacrifice to the war. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too! The success of the Ad Council put industry in such good shape with the federal administration that advertisers were allowed to continuously promote their products. Here we were, in the middle of a major paper shortage, and publications were filled with ads.

Not only that, but government allowed advertising to remain tax-deductible. Ever since the first World War, businesses had been allowed to deduct most of their ad-related expenses from their taxes. But since there appeared to be a much lesser need for advertising during the war period, consumer advocates argued that industry should forego this deduction. After all, businesses had less need for advertising and the government needed the money. Plus, the tax rate for individuals increased substantially during the war, so they felt that industry should pay its fair share. Stay Free: I loved that Ad Council quote that you dug up, bragging about how effective the ad industry was: "We’re going to out-Goebbels Goebbels!" That’s sort of astonishing, it’s so bald. Weren’t advertisers scared about being connected to propaganda?

Inger: In the 1930s, America advertisers felt the Germans were doing a very good job. Clearly these ad people weren’t examining the purposes of propaganda, they just looked at the skill, the craft. But when they realized the war wasn’t very popular, then all of a sudden they had to come up with a way to differentiate themselves from the Germans. Some of the people behind Hitler’s propaganda apparatus developed their skills through studying American advertising and public relations. Advertisers would refer to their wartime efforts as "persuasion," whereas what the Germans did was "propaganda."

Stay Free: How did the content of ads change during the war?

Inger: Only one-third of advertisements even touched the war. And among that third, only 2% were full- page war ads. There would be a little note at the bottom: "Buy War Bonds." That qualified as a patriotic contribution. And, of course, all ads, regardless of whether they included a government message or not, were tax-deductible.

Stay Free: In your dissertation, you mentioned that after War Bond ads started showing Japanese killing Americans, they sold a ton of bonds.

Inger: Yes, around 1943, the war was dragging on and civilians were getting complacent. So the Office of War Information started releasing pictures that were really graphic. Wounded soldiers and dead bodies. These pictures helped civilians realize that this war really was serious. They never touched the concentration camps, though. That was off-limits.

Stay Free: Yeah, it was OK to show Japanese killing people, but not Nazis.

Inger: There’s a good book about this, if you’re interested. The Censored War, by George H. Roeder. The images in advertising were not censored during the war. But images in news media were.

Stay Free: You wrote that, after the war, advertising was off-limits to debate. How so?

Inger: This was due in part to the Ad Council’s work. We went from a period where advertising was seen as a great patriotic player to a period of very high prosperity. There were other things to worry about than advertising. For example, the Cold War.

Stay Free: I am curious how the role for consumer education has evolved. Early critics of advertising argued for legislative reform and consumer education. But when you reach the 1950s and critics like Vance Packard, the legislative part is missing. They’re just arguing for increased awareness. We’re seeing this in the media literacy movement now.

Inger: It harkens back to what we just talked about: the idea that we’re not going to change anything fundamentally. Although many attempts at fostering advertising criticism and media literacy are well intended, they do little to change the system responsible for the problem.

Stay Free: What do you think of the possibilities of advertising reform today? Is there anything you would like to see done that could be done?

Inger: Yes. Something that I’d love to see wouldn’t be hard to do. Advertising is 100% tax deductible and in 2000 alone, $230 billion was spent on advertising. What if advertisers were only allowed to deduct 80% of these expenses from their taxes, which is how it was during WWII? That would mean an extra $46 billion a year that could be taxed. And let’s say that the tax rate is 25%. That would give us more than $11 billion which could be earmarked for independent media, community radio, and media literacy programs. Advertisers would claim higher taxes would mean less money for ad-supported media, but that doesn’t sound too bad to me! We might see skinnier versions of The New York Times or In Style but the billions going to alternative outlets would more than make up for the loss.

Stay Free: During the World Wars, companies had a strong incentive for advertising: "Our profits are going to be taxed so we might as well spend them on advertising and avoid the taxes." Does that sort of thing happen now?

Inger: I don’t know. There have been many efforts to do something about the tax-deductibility and whenever that happens, advertisers flip out.

Stay Free: You Communist! Go back to Norway!

See also: Advertising During WWI