AS WELL AS a louche mystique, there has always been something murky about advertising. From P.T. Barnum’s “Mammoth Fat Infant: only three years old and weighing 196 POUNDS” to three-martini lunches at the dawn of the TV era, it was never quite clear whether the adman was artist, scientist, strong-livered schmoozer or con man. For all the wit and wiliness on Madison Avenue, the economic cycle had a much more direct impact on ad spending. And it was a wonder companies embraced the medium at all. As far back as 1904, the Atlantic, an American magazine, wrote that an estimated 75% of advertisements did not
→ Continue reading at The Economist
