Negativity

I’d like to start the new millennium with a positive note about negativity. Negative is not all bad. In fact, without it, we’d have no positive, would we? You can’t have the one without the other. But it isn’t just the positive that depends on the negative for its existence. Our entire way of life -- the Free World in all its glory could never have happened without negativity. If you doubt me, read on.

For as long as I’ve been in this business, I’ve been scolded by creative directors and clients for creating ads that were “too negative”. Which has always confused me, especially when I’ve been told to create “problem/solution” ads. How do you present a problem without crossing over to the negative? If the problem can be expressed as a positive thing, why does it need a solution? And if the problem is positive, wouldn’t that render the solution negative?

In the above case, I’m talking about “negative” in the form of advertising which refers to a problem -- a bad thing -- your product or service can solve. Advertising can also be “negative” by virtue of a negative word (can’t, never, nobody, etc.) occurring in the ad. Sometimes you get both forms of negativity in the same ad. Ooooooooh. That’s scary.

Noted Chicago author Mike Gebert sagely points out that, “words, even single words, actually do have the power to attract or repel readers.” What’s key here is that it isn’t necessarily the positive words that attract, nor the negative words that repel, as so many people seem to think.

That’s the reason we copywriters gravitate to “negative” words. They simply wield more power. I don’t know why. Perhaps, in this case, as Chairman Jimmy says, “There is no why.” Oops. There’s another dang negative.

The same holds true for ads that characterize or dramatize the problem. They tend to be more powerful communications than those that simply show the solution.

I fear that, for many clients, it is precisely this power that scares them away. But when you sell the solution without reference to the problem it solves, you eliminate the tension, the dissonance, that gives your product a reason for being. It’s blandifying and boring.

I did some work for a client recently who was on one of these anti-negativity jags. They demanded “solution/solution” advertising, whatever that is. So we gave them ads with no reference to a problem being solved. These ads were all about benefits, stated in purely positive terms. But we’d always present them with at least one concept that included some allusion to the negative, the problem. Almost invariably, the client would sense the obviously more powerful communication inherent in these concepts. They would momentarily forget their edict to never say never, and buy the “negative” ad.

Here’s something else that you just want to grab the client by the collar and scream at them. Just because a headline or tagline contains “not”, “never”, “no” or the like, doesn’t mean the thought being expressed is negative. “Hoover. Nobody does it like you.” “No Place Like Service Merchandise.” “You Can’t Shop Smarter Than Wards.” Negative words in these contexts simply amplify a positive statement, making it more positive.

And this negaphobia doesn’t stop with regular old advertising. Advertising in the political arena is also targeted for attack. The very natural, and I would even contend, inevitable, tendency of all politicians to “go negative” in their political advertising is universally condemned. If this criticism were intended only for personal attacks on opposing candidates, I could see the merit. But it seems this condemnation is aimed at all “negative” political advertising, even the kind that criticizes an opposing candidate’s positions on the issues.

Now that’s just nuts. Sure, we should hear from a candidate what his/her own positions on the issues are. That’s nice, “positive” political advertising. But surely, candidates are entitled to attack their opponents’ views as well. That’s what political debate is, by definition. There’s the pro and the con. “I stand for this, and unlike my opponent, I stand against that. And here’s why.” Not only should “negativity” of this kind not be condemned, it should be celebrated. Because without this kind of negativity, also known as political dialogue, democracy positively can’t exist.

And, while I’m at it, I’d like to further suggest that, without the “negative” advertising we’ve discussed earlier, the free enterprise system also could not exist. That’s right. If one of the roles of advertising is the dissemination of information about products and services, that information can only be fully conveyed when the negative, or problem, which is mitigated by the product or service, is made explicit. Our free enterprise system depends for its existence on precisely this dissemination of information. Democracy and capitalism depend for their very existence on a steady diet of wholesome, healthy negativity. Down with anti-negativity! America, si! Castro, no! And just say “no” to drugs.