Most science suggests that advertising is bad and the science that doesn’t is usually paid for by big advertisers. So an advertising tax is probably a good way to curb it.
Everyone accepts it’s unhealthy living where advertising is mined and it’s hard to find anyone who wants to live within coo-ee of a billboard or commercial radio, or the cruellest pollutant, a Harvey Norman ad, yet to a great big new tax on advertising, people, oddly, still say "no".
We must accept that there are many opposing views, and the anti-advertising-tax lobby should have the opportunity, and they do. For instance why should we curb our advertising when China is increasing it’s by 500%, Tony Abbott asks?
Clearly that’s advertising hyperbole, and okay, China’s rates may rise in the short term but they are reducing their dependence on advertising incredibly rapidly and could be completely advertising neutral by 2025.
So would Australia be mad to leap into a five per cent reduction in advertising, when apparently we simply can’t afford it? Apparently. Even if it’s actually the 500 biggest (and richest) advertisers who can’t afford it...according to their advertising.
However where are the millions coming from to spend on advertising to tell us that an advertising tax is the death knell for advertisers? And, as Ms L, advertising-change sceptic asks, "is this latest campaign tax deductible?"
So the Australian public pays for advertising to maintain advertisers’ incomes.
That’s about as ironic as a coal miner advertising it’s product with clear blue skies and rolling green hills.
Advertising executives are laughing all the way to the bank and lining up the champagne already.
Personally I prefer my bubbles a little closer to home. Would it hurt ad’ execs so much to do the same?
Rosedale Wines Chook Shed Barossa Shiraz 2009, $12. I’m off to sharpen the mower blades...and fix the chook shed. Simple stuff with a rooster on the label, perfect for Friday night footy soirees. 8.3/10.
Tulloch Semillon 2011, $16. Fresh out of the vats, or should that be ground, and into our mouths within weeks of picking. You can still taste the sweat of the pickers. 8.5/10.
Cumulus Shiraz 2008, $30. The fabulous front label font is tres modern, although it could be art deco, such is my limited understanding of these things, and advertising. Best left to experts that. Another good thing is the lighter body of the wine, despite the 14 per cent. 8.5/10.
Swinging Bridge Orange Merlot 2010, $16. Merlot suffered after the movie Sideways and probably deserved a small tap on the shoulder. However one of the world’s great grapes deserves a second chance which I’m prepared to explore. 8.4/10.
Mount Avoca Shiraz 2009, $27. You can almost taste the clean air swirling around the nearby wind turbines and if you listen carefully you can hear them too...but that might just be the coal miners crying foul. But what about their foul air? You don’t see that in advertising much. 8.6/10.
Sally’s Paddock 2008, $31. Is this the simplest label ever or what? Great advertising and great wine too, a mix of the best of the famed Bordeaux varieties in perfect quantities. 9.1/10.