Is Advertising to blame for the current recession?

According to a new study from Harris Interactive, 66% of consumers believe advertising agencies bear at least some responsibility for the recession because they “caused people to buy things they couldn’t afford.”

Segue to AAAA's chieftain, Nancy Hill, who had this to say in our AAAA's leadership conference address in response to the above findings:

"Now imagine that: Advertising agencies causing the crippling of the economy because we stimulate consumer desire and consumer demand. Who says advertising doesn't work?"

She then grins and chuckles (perhaps a little nervously)

Now whilst I appreciate the tongue-in-check humor, mixed in with a little bit of sarcasm and dry wit, I was deeply troubled by her comments for 2 reasons:

1. We're not talking about Charmin toilet paper here. We're talking about trusting REEE-AL-TORS, Stockard Channing on behalf of A.I.G.'s promises about confidence, assurance and our future's security and the likes of Citi with their "Live Richly" poppycock.

2. We need to concede - or at least allow for the concession - that heavy T.V. viewers or at least T.V. viewers that rely on the medium as their primary media consumption channel are ARGUABLY a little more gullible, malleable and vulnerable than those that - for example - have full and high-speed access to the Web on an ongoing basis. Yes, perhaps this is about a digital or information divide between the socioeconomic haves and have-nots. Or perhaps it's just about trusting the wrong people.

I don't know about you, but if I was Nancy Hill, I'd focus on figuring out how to stop the rot and stem the one-way tidal wave of negative sentiment towards the ad industry, as opposed to slagging "adverbloggers" who are negative because they're given apt cause to be. Present company excluded. I love everyone - especially @oprah.