Is a picture really worth a thousand words?

I wonder who first said, "A picture is worth a thousand words"? A Photographer? An Art Director? A Copywriter with particularly poor spelling ability?

Whoever it was, these words seem to have been taken as law in the world of advertising. These days it's all visual, visual, visual. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against visual advertising, but does it have to be to the exclusion of all else? Where have all the long copy ads gone? And, more importantly, who's to blame? Copywriters? Clients? Consumers?

Could it be that consumers are so used to tabloid sound bites and 60 second news bulletins (you can see this alarming, but convenient, trend on ITV 1 and BBC 3) that they can no longer focus their attention on anything more than a snappy visual and a witty headline? Today's average Joe claims he simply doesn't have the time to read. (In fact, most of you will probably stop reading about now.) But sadly, it may be less about time and more about ability. If a recent article in the Guardian is to be believed, Britain now boasts one of the lowest literacy levels in the industrialised world. More frightening still is that the same article went on to claim that as many as one in three school leavers have inadequate basic literacy skills. No wonder there are no long copy ads. Where do you think our future Copywriters are coming from?

It's those same pesky literacy levels that have resulted in a generation of Copywriters (well, one in three at the very least) who no longer have the skills to write 500, 800 or, god forbid, 1000 words of copy? Of course, it's unfair to place all the blame on Copywriters. After all, clients are limping through the same education system. Last week I had a young Advertising Manager reject an entire campaign on the basis that he doesn't like long copy. Forget the fact that there was a substantial story to tell. Or that we were trying to convince consumers to purchase a product they could buy from a competitor for around 50% less. He doesn't like long copy. Although in damning long copy, he damned the entire nation to yet another campaign of "Ad-Lite" advertising; more snappy visuals and witty headlines.

It does make you wonder, will we ever again read "At 60 miles an hour the loudest noise in this new Rolls-Royce comes from the electric clock" or "We stole their land, their buffalo and their women. Then we went back for their shoes."

But what worries me even more is that in eliminating long copy, we're eliminating one of the most effective sales tools we have. David Ogilvy's view was rather more blunt. "Long copy sells more than short copy, particularly when you are asking the reader to spend a lot of money. Only amateurs use short copy." And he could cite case study after case study to prove his theory. To him it was clear, "The more facts you tell, the more you sell." Yet, despite the evidence in its favour, long copy still seems done for.

Perhaps its demise is due to something far more basic. Ego. Ask yourself, when was the last time the Cannes Advertising Festival awarded the Grand Prix to a long copy ad? Indeed, has the Grand Prix ever been awarded to a long copy ad? (And need I remind you what D&AD actually stands for - Design and Art Direction.) It's hardly an encouragement to award-hungry young creatives. I'm all for the international juries at Cannes, but surely the associated language barrier has only resulted in recognition of one genre of advertising. Add to that the universal belief that "no one reads copy" and we're fighting an uphill battle.

Perhaps the only argument with any validity in this visually led culture is that whether people read it or not, long copy still conveys the impression that you have something important to say. Hell, even those who didn't make it through the 673 words to here believe that I must have had a worthy point to make.