Who Pays For National Advertising

uo,,tr,r!"irH;I6,J'.it'r'i;ff ""iS3;,'it"-n"",

Who pays for National Advertising anyway? This is Here is an actual, tangible saving that national maga question that comes up quite frequently and is one that azine advertising has helped, and is helping, to effect. And is answered many different ways by people who don't this illustration taken from the automobile industry is l:rrow. Some maintain that the public pays for advertis- typical of conditions in scores of other industries which ing*others insist that the dealer pays-while others say manufacture the products that enter into the daily lives of that the manufacturer pays for the advertising-and all of us. because he foots the bills it must come out of his profits. Now the growth of national rnagazine advertising these But the correct answer is that nobody pays for national past years has been prodigious. advertising-it is self-supporting' It pays for itself'

Do you realize that thirteen years ago American manu-

For it is an investment-not an expense. You, for ex- facturers were spending only $26,000,000 for advertising ample, put your money into bonds or stocks in order that it may make more money for you-and pay you an in- in national magazines ? come.

By 1924 the nation's budget for magazine advertising

Manufacturers invest their money in national advertising had jumped from $26'000'000 to $98'000'000-and in the irr order that their business may be increased-their cost last three years it has climbed nearly $41'000'000 more' of doing business decreased, and the income from their This means that manufacturers invested the terrific total business-in which perhaps you are a stockholder-en- of $139'449'188 in national magazine advertising during larged. National advertising cuts costs by increasing the 1926' numDer or people who can be turned lnto customers.

And the reason for all this is that practical business

As a concrete lnstance ot how natlonar aovertrsrng men see' in national ad'ertising' not waste but economyrvorks this way-helps to cut costs-just consider the not spending but saving-not expense but investment and business insurance. rouowlng case:

In 1914 there were 543,679 passenger cars produced in And with the result that today products like phonothis country and $2,332,239 was spent in magazine ad- graphs, radio, tasteful r,vell made clothes, automobiles, vertising to move them from the factory to the customer's high grade candies and the like, which 15 ot 2O years ago garage. Thus the average advertising cost per car tvas were scarcely available outside the large cities, are norv $4.n. within the reach of everyone, everylhere.

In1926 the magazine advertising expenditure had grown

But let me emphasize the conclusion that whatever else to $ll;432.191 and the production figure had climbed to it aceomplishes, advertising must always be self-support3,936,933. itrg. It must always pay its own way-by cutting costs

In thirteen years the advertising cost per car had fallenby speeding up distributionby stimulating human to $2.X). wants-and thus working hand in hand with the salesmen.

But hou' about production costs? Have they been cut, The prosperity of each one of us personally and the outtoo? standing prosperity existing in this country today is the

No one can deny that the 1927 car is an infinitely all- result of the active exchange of goods and service5-1ef around better product than its 1914 ancestor. Yet the the resulb of hoarding wealth. average wholesale value of the 1914 car was $761 and Advertising and personal salesmanship, working hand in that of 1927 is ffi93-a difference of $68 in favor of the hand, have been great contributors to this prosperity. And rnodern produqt. this will always be so.