Opinion: On the Campaign Couch ... with JB.

John Dodds writes: Jeremy, A simple question for someone so worldly. Can you puncture the urban myths and give the true derivation of the term 'below the line'? Regards, John.

Dear John, many thanks for this enquiry. I wonder if you're familiar with Advertising Today by Frank Jefkins? It was published in 1971 and is dedicated to Croydon Technical College. In it, Frank offers the following definition of above and below the line: 'This artificial distinction will be seen to distinguish those (media) which pay the agency a commission from those which do not.' When drawing up a client's media plan, it was apparently the custom of agencies to list the commissionable media first, under which a line would be drawn; and only then to add direct mail, merchandising, point-of-sale and so on. There are other theories and definitions around, but most of the reliable sources seem to agree with Frank.

What's interesting is that, even back in 1971, when the commission system still prospered, Frank Jefkins labelled the distinction artificial. So it was; and so it is; and with the commission system under water, it's now meaningless. But the phrase has proved as impossible to eradicate as ground elder. It continues to distort all rational discussion about advertising media just as perniciously as the artificial distinction between left and right continues to distort all rational discussion about politics.

Lodged at the back of admen's minds is a fuzzy family of phrases to which below the line belongs. Other family members include beyond the pale, below the salt and below the belt. All imply social inferiority and/or skullduggery. Generations of advertising agencies have therefore been able to delude themselves - and, more often than not, their clients - that above-the-line media are purer, more sophisticated, better at brand-building and of higher social standing than (need I say more?) shelf wobblers, public relations, plastic daffodils and BOGOFs. Surely it stands to reason, as Just William would have argued, that Above is superior to Below?

Nobody now gets 17.65 per cent on the net. Only 12 other people even know what that means. The ugly introduction of through th line has given undeserved new life to a ridiculous concept that should have been dead and decomposed long before 1971.

Dear JB, just over a year ago, I was made redundant from one of the best-known ad agencies, cruelly separated from my ...