IMGpapers 1976–79

Newspapers of the International Marxist Group and its forerunners, 1976–79

Saatchiand Saatchi The selling of Thatcher

Socialist Challenge No. 93, 16 April 1979 · p. 15 of the scan · 543 words

The scan: sc-n93-apr-16-1979.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 1-3 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 15 of the scan

to mastermind their election campaign.

If ever there was a perfect example of the Conservatives ideology in practice, Saatchi and Saatchi is it.

The agency has enjoyed a IT-fold increase in prc-tux profits since 1970, and last year it had a 69 per cont relurn on capital. Although it is ranked only fourth in the advertising agencies" "top ten", , there is no doubt that Saatchi and Saatchi & the most famous In the countryThe agency's contract with the Tories cornerstone of its succen. Not merely has the company beer alocated a rumoured E3m promote Thatcher and friends, through that campaign Saachi and Saatchi itsell has become a household name By advertising sandards the company deserves both money and the fame Their campaign for the Tories — with posters such as the dole queue with the slogan 'Tabour En't working" -has been just about the shckest piece of political propaganda for a long time.

How many VOTES produce is a different matter. But оПе study voting behaviour in the American state of linois in 1972 showed CIBLESE without television advertising, paper ads alone swayed 3 per cent of voters from one party to the other. Brain, we transfered to Britain, with the thrown in, it just could be that Saaichi and Saatchi will win the clection for the Tories. And if such an interpretation was *THE TRUTH is that people succumb to simple arguments*, says the 1978 annual report of Saatchi and Saatchi, the advertising agency hired by the Tories If the selling of the Tories is based on that philosophy then Thatcher and Saatchi is more than a business arrangement; it is a meeting of like minds.

placed on a Tory victory, then the agency would reap yet more A recent article in the that the Tory campaign has done nothing to alienate the roster of bive chip clients who can be expected to be pleased if InE agency's work helps Mrs Thatcher win the election' Saatchi's clients come in all shapes and sizes. One of the most faithful is United Biscuits, wha gained against secondary picketing during the lorry drivers strike the and have Tory unions spokesperson Jame Prior director.

Not that Saatchi is only prepared to serve the guardians. of free enterprise. Nationalised industries such as British Rail companies Tike Leyland, government bodies such as the Manpower Services the Commission have all used the That's on top of the big private clients: 10sh. Sainspurys, Rowntree tosh, Jeans, and so on. will The money involved in such custom meant that last year Saatchi had a turnover of E59 million.

Because there are only 20,000 employed industry as a whole, the profits involved — twice the industrial aVerage 1asI V0ar the pockets of the directors, the snarenolacrs. ana, to alcasci extent, the smart-alecks who spend their working thinking up ways to persuade commented as 4 SchBrutus without Saatchi and Suatchi.

advertising spend more, and vote the right was.

The means used in such end up in pastimes are well illustrated by the Tory ads. As little is said or argued as possible, as much as possible is implied. day"

Thus Labour isn't working' 'the consumer" to buy more, is in itself a fair cough | can't hang on forever, with

← Waste not, want notMalice in Wonderland →

Something wrong on this page?