insight not hindsight

I nearly spit out my coffee when I saw this front page ad in the Financial Times today.

It’s reasons like this that we love to immerse ourselves in the foreign press! A few weeks ago, I was waxing nostalgic about our NY Times subscription. But now, this takes the cake.  Needless to say, this would never be seen in the American press.

Yes, that is Richard Nixon, on the White House lawn, caught red-handed with his briefcase full of Watergate tapes. Oh, the glory!

The ad is for a UK based M&A intelligence service. Click the image for a larger view, but in case it is too difficult to read the copy, here’s what it says:

Insight Not Hindsight
mergermarket provides you with more than just news – our origination intelligence keeps you ahead of the news and your competitors… Call today to enquire about a trial…

I can’t wait to give them a ring and find out who worked with them on their advertising.  Though, admittedly, the first things which come to mind are not who, but what. What other ads come to mind which are this blatant – either exploiting historical events (in this case), current events or simply using the medium as a platform for explicit political messaging?

A couple other recent political ads immediately came to mind:

Johnny Walker: Keep Walking
A riff on the traditional campaign, displays the figure walking across a broken (presumably bombed out) bridge. The image/ad was promoted throughout Lebanon, immediately following the war last summer.

Manhattan Mini-Storage: Your closet is shrinking as fast as her right to choose
More recently, Manhattan Mini-Storage has been in the throes of controversy for their adamant pro-choice advertising on billboards and via the MTA through NYC.

What are the similarities and differences of politics in advertising?
How does it differ across cultures? When is it “going to far”, there
even such a concept, or is “going to far” just a subjective perspective
of a viewer?  On the spectrum of High and Low art — is this still
considered “Low”?  Or does the mere depth of concept and provocation enable it to
crossover into “High” art?

Overall, the “High and Low” debate really strikes a chord for me. I saw the exhibit “High and Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture” around 1990 at the Art Institute. I recall the show was favorably received but also had its share of controversy, as critiqued by Robert Hughes, for Time Magazine.  Back then, many in the art community still had difficulty allowing the crossover of “High” and “Low”  forms to be viewed together.

It would be interesting to rethink this exhibit 17 years later and curate a whole new event around similar subject matter. Especially, given the multiplicity of media, tools and publishing platforms which have flourished since 1990.