The Opinion-Giver's Dilemma. The Opinion-Giver's Dilemma, of course, is,
How could anyone stupid enough to express an opinion about anything so
explosive as ads on the net be considered smart enough to have an
opinion worth hearing?
But of course I join thousands of opinion-givers in having no answer to
that great question.
And so instead of trying to solve the Opinion-Giver's Dilemma, I'll
simply try to finesse it by making one small point and then fleeing the
scene.
The small point I'd like to make is that advertising (in all its forms,
including unsolicited or junk mail) is essentially an aesthetic issue,
one that should be decided in terms of beauty, taste, and manners. All
other issues (such as moral or economic ones) are secondary, to the
extent that they exist at all; they are not at the heart of the
question.
As a matter of fact, the ads-on-the-net war often reminds me of the
Academy awards--an affair that demonstrates how many different ways
different people can look at the very same thing. For example, actors
think that movies are about acting, whereas producers think they're
about money, technology types think they're about computer graphics, and
hairdressers think they're about hair. Who's to say who's right? It's a
matter of opinion.
You want my own opinion? I haven't seen all the movies out there now,
but I think I'm with the hairdressers: judging from the ones I've seen,
movies are about hair.
And my opinion about ads on the net?
(Watch carefully now.)
I think that ads on the net are acceptable if people accept them
(because the ads are enjoyable and/or are informative and/or "pay the
freight") but unacceptable if people won't tolerate them. Thus, our
best, desperate hope for a better world is for people to stop condoning
ugliness and rude behavior.
In other words, I am firmly in favor of advertising--without approving
many actual advertising tactics.
By analogy, I am in favor of sports, without endorsing what used to be
called unsportsmanlike behavior (an expression that now seems quaint in
the age of John McEnroe and hundreds like him).
Surely there is nothing ethically or morally wrong with advertising
on the net, or with advertising in general, or with commerce in general;
advertising and commerce are quintessentially human activities.
Squirrels, bless their hearts, did not invent the stock market. Greed is
bad but commerce is good--and advertising is a natural part of commerce.
I hope I don't sound too cynical by speaking out for advertising on
the net, because in fact I'm not cynical at all. Oscar Wilde said that a
cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing. That's not me; nor is it anybody in the crowd I hang out with.
We're not cynics, we're idealists. An idealist is a person who knows the
value of everything and the price of nothing. My friends and I are
better at Eternal Values than we are at Prices, and our favorite word is
"free."
Well, look. In spite of the famous quip by Lenny Bruce (that great
comedian and moral philosopher who said, "It's time to grow up and sell
out"), selling is not the same as selling out. Commerce in general and
advertising in particular are as natural and human as philosophy or
teaching (whose practitioners in fact usually like to get paid for their
services), and so commerce and advertising have every right to a place
on the net.
The question is merely, How should commerce and advertising behave on
the net?
And the answer is, They should behave better than many of us behave most
of the time. They should behave with civility, courtesy, and
graciousness and should demonstrate good taste and a refined
sensibility.
A high standard, rarely met, in commerce or advertising or anywhere
else.
But why are we arguing about advertising on the Internet? Why aren't we
arguing about life? I can't help thinking of that old joke about
academia that says the reason academic politics are so vicious is that
the stakes are so small. Well, the stakes of the Internet are hardly
small, but the Internet (in spite of what some netniks think) is not all
of life, it's just part of life, and if we're really serious about life
on the net, we should be leading a much larger crusade on behalf of
civility and good taste--one that would most certainly include a crusade
against network flaming.
Of course, "flaming" is a word that has no precise definition and is
sometimes used to absurdly malign any strong criticism; in fact, the
word is used variously to describe anything from good-natured bantering
to vicious personal assault. But when it is the latter, flaming has no
place on the net or anywhere else and is as ugly as the ugliest
unsolicited mail.
There are appealing ads and healthy debates. There are ugly intrusions
and malicious flames. The answer is not to prohibit ads but to insist
that they be artful and good mannered; the answer is not to discourage
arguments but to expect them to be conducted with civility.
Junk mail, and flaming about junk mail, are two sides of the same ugly
coin.
But you'll have to excuse me now. I've still got this terrible headache.
Maybe I'll try some Anacin. Or some Tylenol. Or some Ecotrin. Please
understand, however, that I'm not endorsing any product at this time.
There are a number of companies I haven't heard from, so I'm not yet
ready to sell out.
John Gehl is editor and publisher of Educom Review. [email protected]