During this last spring we have been literally bombarded by a TV commercial edited by UPA (which stands for Associated Advertising Users) showing a chap who thanked everyone or was thanked by everyone, as long as he “consumed”, that is as long as he spent money to get our economy started again.
We need to make and ethic/aesthetic consideration, though: the commercial was prepared according to the so-called pubblicità-progresso style, such as that of ads against smoke or against AIDS, whereas, as far as its spirit is concerned, I do not think it can be put on the same level as the themes which in fact motivate this type of advertising activity, which are usually funded by the state (and hence it may be interpreted as deceitful). And we also need to make a consideration of an economic nature: according to the Istat data released at the end of June, there is slackness in wage spending power, which in the Istat data is broken down by category. The cost of living is growing more than salaries are, there is less money around, and hence (please refer to the so-called Ford’s Law, according to which the mythical Henry claimed that workers should be paid well or more in order for them to buy more motorcars) there is less money to spend.

We are spending less, despite the advertising stimulus to do so. Here again the emerging debate could follow different directions, or lead to various queries: for instance, did those who produced the above commercial know about Italian people’s reduced or weakening spending power? If they didn’t, were they thinking that the advertising drive could be worked on regardless of the economic data relating to the possibility for Italians to increase their “consumptions”? And if they did, were they thinking of influencing the masses’ psychology despite their being (almost) out of pocket? Was the commercial therefore cheating these unfortunate people? And also, since consumptions do not seem to have increased - a result that the government and our whole economy very much regrets - should this mean that the commercial in question has drawn a blank? In which case, at least in extremities, reality itself would appear stronger than the advertising reality? Etc, etc.
I thought I’d deliver this speech about Italian advertising in our days, because in my opinion it represents one of the crucial issues in everyday life, that is to use our head and our heart, besides also taking into account our stomach and our pocket, although, as we very well know, life and standard of living are now two totally entangled concepts. And personally – or rather professionally – I get involved with this issue every single day (almost), that is during my radio programme “La radio a colori”, a space (which is even too concentrated) that is daily devoted by Radio Uno Rai to citizens’ services.
My last ‘anti-advertising campaign’, according to the practical rather than theoretical meaning I ascribe to this formula (as you will soon get to realise), which I conducted with great energy depletion and not trifling setbacks, was the one about “false Internet connections”.
These are the connections that switched on the poor victims’ computers, when fraudulent “diallers” surreptitiously hooked in, disguised as ringers, logos, etc., with Telecom wisely carrying out its management and collection duties, and charging through its bills staggering amounts, 20% of which on average ended up in the coffers of our former monopolist telephone company.

All this took place with no “visible” type of information being supplied to customers, who in fact where silently caused to put their head in the noose. You might have heard about all this from the various TV news, radio news, daily papers or weekly papers and magazines (and you can refer to the June issue of the weekly magazine “Espresso”, whose cover refers to the subject); of course they make no mention of the source of the campaign, that is us, from “radioacolori”, a campaign that has enabled a terrific number of Italians to be informed about the fraud, after which, following further pressures, Telecom was “obliged” to disable free of charge the ill-famed diallers of the number 709.
Why do they not mention the source? Because they are a bad lot, with bad habits and an even more questionable upbringing. Why didn’t they do this campaign to start with? Because (and I am coming back to the advertising issue here again) a campaign like this requires an effort, and it is uneven compared to the advertising investments that Telecom or other companies afford through the mass media. A “bad news” concerning these investors endangers investments.
Conclusion: information is more and more held as a hostage by advertising; it is like a lamb that is obliged to share the communication cage – where the cage may be viewed as being the same newspaper or magazine, a TV or radio programme and, even though now still at an infinitesimal level, a website home-page – with the advertising lion. And everyone pretends not to know what has become of the lamb in this cage … Save for making a loud noise about Berlusconi or whoever else endangering the freedom of the press. But have our colleagues ever visited the zoo (apologies, I meant the BioPark)?

Translated by interpres sas