Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

When and If to Pull Your Ads

One Way to Deal With Rogue Journalism

April 2007 By Denny Hatch
15

In the News

Imus Mess Makes Arbiters of Advertisers
Proliferation of Options Allows Marketers to Bail Out Fast From Controversy
NEW YORK (AdAge.com)—Procter & Gamble was the first to walk away from Don Imus on April 6—yes, that was the Friday before the media frenzy erupted and almost a full week before the radio host’s corporate bosses realized they had no choice but to pull the plug on the curmudgeon’s show. P&G quickly pulled its ads because top executives found Don Imus’ comments to be ‘offensive to our target audience.’ Ultimately, it was advertisers—rather than network executives—who sealed the controversial radio host’s fate.
—Andrew Hampp, AdAge.com, April 16, 2007
Don Imus—and his producer, Bernard McGuirk—have a long history of using the airwaves for sexism, racism, gay bashing and borderline slander of people and organizations that crossed them or whom they simply found to be irritating.

Management would wince, but always give Imus a pass, because of the gorgeous lucre he brought in annually—a reported $22 million to CBS Radio and $8 million for MSNBC.

When he stepped over the line with his gratuitous slur of the Rutgers women’s championship basketball team, Imus was suspended for two weeks by MSNBC and CBS radio, which carried him on more than 60 stations. The CEOs figured it would be a slap on the wrist and then back to business as usual.

But Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson immediately entered the fray and scared the wits out of Imus advertisers.

Seven out of 10 major advertisers on MSNBC canceled their schedules—General Motors, American Express, Sprint-Nextel, GlaxoSmithKline, Genworth Financial, PetMed Express and the largest advertiser in the country, Procter & Gamble. Facing huge financial losses, NBC gave the Imus simulcast the boot on Wednesday, a bare seven days after his transgression. Seeing the handwriting on the wall—and angry picketers outside his headquarters in New York—Les Moonves of CBS fired Imus the next day.

Under what conditions should you consider pulling your ad schedule in order to register your protest at rogue journalists and rogue media?

Or should you do it at all?

“Dateline” vs. General Motors
In Nov. 1992, a very sanctimonious Stone Phillips hosted a 14-minute segment on NBC’s “Dateline” on the safety of certain General Motors trucks. The piece ended with a fiery, 57-second film clip of a test showing conclusively that when hit broadside, the side-mounted gas tanks on the GM truck tended to catch fire and explode.

The following February, an Atlanta jury awarded $105.2 million to the family of a 17-year-old girl who was killed in such a collision. Two weeks later, William A. Henry III wrote in TIME:

Following a tip, GM hired detectives, searched 22 junkyards for 18 hours, and found evidence to debunk almost every aspect of the crash sequence. Last week, in a devastating press conference, GM showed that the conflagration was rigged, its causes misattributed, its severity overstated and other facts distorted. Two crucial errors: NBC said the truck’s gas tank had ruptured, yet an X ray showed it hadn’t; NBC consultants set off explosive miniature rockets beneath the truck split seconds before the crash— yet no one told the viewers.

Takeaway Points to Consider:

* Marketers have a vast array of media choices (and combinations)—print, broadcast, e-commerce, telephone, point-of-purchase, mail, billboards, skywriting, take-ones, trade shows and so many more.

* No single publication or broadcast outlet has a lock on your prospects and customers.

* You are under no obligation whatsoever to spend money in support of people or organizations that (1) do not reflect your beliefs or (2) dump on you.

* Nothing changes behavior quite like the withholding of money.

* “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.”
—A.J. Liebling, (1904-1963)

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

Imus Ranch Foods
http://www.imusranchfoods.com/

Rev. Al Sharpton
http://www.sharptontalk.net/

Rev. Jesse Jackson
http://www.rainbowpush.org/

CBS Radio
http://cbsradio.com/index.html
 
15

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Jillian - Posted on April 18, 2007
I've never looked at the paper one Sunday and said "gasp! BP isn't advertising today! I'm never buying their gas again, nu-uh, no way!"_____have you?_____ The mistake these huge businesses make is thinking that top of mind = eyeball presence 24/7. It doesn't in today's world. To a customer who is truly brand loyal (this is both rare & constant depending on which age group you "survey") a whole week without ads in one of 5 mediums, in one of 1000 TV, Radio, and Publication outlets makes nary a difference. The threat of pulling advertisement in retaliation of objective reporting is only immediate, not lasting in a financial sense. Free will is still free on all 3 sides of the triangle, in my opinion. Consumers can buy or not buy, Reporters can be truthful or not truthful, Businesses can advertise or not advertise. All three sides need a backup plan regardless.
David - Posted on April 18, 2007
Denny, I will add to my previous comment that if a newspaper is writing a negative story that directly impacts an advertiser, if the reporter has integrity, he will call that advertiser for comment, which gives a heads up. But I still wouldn't sign a clause requiring advance notice. The tail doesn't wag the dog. It might cost me money, but editors don't concern themselves with money.
Max Bendel - Posted on April 17, 2007
I'm confused. Did Brasserie Perrier and Le Bec-Fin end ad-buy negotiations by Cashman & Associates because they were supporting the women or because they were a collection of ditzy ladies? I knew I should have finished college.
David - Posted on April 17, 2007
Thanks, dejah, for your comments. As a newspaper person, I would never let the ad department agree to advance notice of news stories. I would not accept that contract no matter how lucrative it was. A lot of what was said in this article is true and fair. Advertisers should pull out of media that lacks integrity. But using their ad budgets to intimidate also lacks integrity.
John Friesen - Posted on April 17, 2007
I think any organization has the right to pull its ads from any media, for any reason. But to announce an explicit policy regarding coverage of their company or industry is bullying. Any good journalist or editor, convinced of their story, should have the guts of General McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge if threatened by an advertiser. When asked by the Germans to surrender he sent them a note that simply read: "NUTS!"

But this is no excuse for yellow journalism.
Sid Bursten - Posted on April 17, 2007
Though I'm a computer consultant now, I have also been a journalist and newspaper publisher, and spent many years in PR and ad agencies, so I think I represent a fair balance of interests. Any company that puts an advance-notification clause in an advertising contract is a bully, and any publication, station or network that accepts such a clause is a sycophant unworthy of any esteem. Secondly, you quote statistics showing parents are worried about the effect of "the media" on their children without noting that "media" in this sense is far broader than "news media," including among other things gangsta rappers on radio, sex and violence on TV and porn on the Internet. Some good points in your piece were badly compromised by mushy thinking about points like these.
Doug Greener - Posted on April 17, 2007
Dear Denny,
Apropos of your examples of "careless and dishonest coverage," I believe that we in Israel suffer from that malady more than most others. An organization appropriately named Honest Reporting periodically blows the whistle on such bloopers, frauds and outright lies. You, and others, can surf over to their website (http://www.honestreporting.com/) for a few examples and even subscribe to their very informative newsletter.
Keep up the excellent work,
Doug Greener
MediawiSe Advertising
Jerusalem
Hobbes - Posted on April 17, 2007
You write >>> In Rathergate, CBS anchorman Dan Rather used forged documents to sully President Bush?s record of service in the Air National Guard.>>> That's not accurate. What Rather did was use documents that, in the end, could not be verified as being the real thing. That doesn't mean they were "forged." It means their origin is disputable. Your comment repeats the oft-used misconception that the documents were indeed "forged." Maybe the were, but, then again, maybe they were authentic. The disservice was that CBS News and Dan Rather never verified that for us. If they couldn't, they shouldn't have used them. But saying flatly that they were "forged" is a bit of yellow journalism in itself, don't you think?
meryl - Posted on April 17, 2007
Yes, Denny, A good story. A cautionary note: with the immense clout of big biz, we must be wary of decisions to pull ads that the public dislikes merely because of political orientation (ie: NBC not allowing "Shut Up & Sing" ad about the Dixie Chicks because they said something about GW. What Imus did, was a mean spirited attack on innocent people...naturally, one would not want their brand supporting such things. As for Dan Rather--he may have been misled by a phony doc, but, unlike the GM debacle, the facts supporting GW's less- than-exemplary national guard service is on the record as accurate.
Roger Craver - Posted on April 17, 2007
Denny: Your unswerving allegiance to great research coupled with out-of-the-box insight is a winning combo. If only those who are paid to also do this --reporters, editors, producers--would do the same.

And when they don't your advice is first rate: Smite The Bastards. Cut off the bucks.
Audri - Posted on April 17, 2007
When advertising where shock is employed, be prepared to be shocked. Right or wrong, it's the nature of the beast and why you chose to be there in the first place.
Sean Woodruff - Posted on April 17, 2007
While I don't have a problem with any of this I think that most of these companies have made the mistake of "cutting off their nose to spite their face." This is just the flip side of the coin of mass advertisers not knowing what media works for them and what doesn't.

The true ad professional would wait to see how the controversy affected the audience and how it affected the numbers. In these instances the companies are admitting that the delivery vehicle is more important than their message or their propective customer. I don't believe that would hold true if these companies knew anything about how advertising works.

Where's the campaign that talks about the values of the company and how they don't match with the ignorance of Imus? Why not take advantage of all the controversy and attention?
Ed Zuckerman - Posted on April 17, 2007
You put Procter & Gamble as the last in your list but I think P&G was among the first--if not THE first--to pull ads from MSNBC. Was it really acting in the consumers' interest? Or, was it taking its own vengeance out against Dierdre Imus whose book "Green This" was set for publication by Simon & Schuster (which is owned by CBS) the following week. Mrs. Imus's book is part of her growing campaign against toxic housecleaning products, and all of the profits from the book and the sale of a line of non-toxic housecleaning products go to charity. I surely don't need to point out P&G's interest here.
dejah - Posted on April 17, 2007
Dan Rather resigned--justifiably--he lost credibility because he did not do his homework in a rush to get "the scoop," but he was not fired. The Sago mine incident was based on bad information--unverifiable information--from a good source, a company official. Getting the scoop is a financial necessity in the modern news age. Rather screwed up, no doubt. He should have had the documents verified. But the Sago scoop was an accident, not the product of malice or bad journalism. Portraying these incidents inaccurately as "rogue journalism" is irresponsible. Scream "black" at the kettle until you turn yellow, but we can all see the pot-lid on your head.

As a journalist, I have a HUGE problem with companies holding their advertising hostage to real, honest, negative news coverage. If you say there is no chilling effect, you're wrong. I've seen it happen and had it happen to me. I wrote an honest, negative review of a software product that advertised certain features and delivered them badly (when at all). The review was eviscerated, made positive, and the advertiser keeps paying for ads. The reader was not served, nor was truth or good journalism. The press' credibility (or lack of the same) with the public depends on the courage to tell the truth to power... money is power. The chilling effect of policies like these undermine the free press, our liberty, and public safety... not to mention the ability of the consumer to buy software that actually does what it says it does.

On the other hand, companies saying, "Don Imus' racism is not the image we want to portray to our customers," is their right. It is one thing to say, "do not tell the truth or we shall pull our ads. We don't support telling the truth when it's about us," and quite another to say, "do not attack the defenseless, make appalling racist, sexist comments, it offends our customers and we don't support that."
David Garfinkel - Posted on April 17, 2007
Denny, great story. The media, which once had the semblance of fairness and dignity, is as you point out sleazy, which wouldn't be nearly as big a problem if they didn't own the presses and control the flow of ink (and sound waves, and pictures, etc.) and weren't constantly drumming into readers'/listeners'/viewers' heads their respective versions of the somber, intimidating byword of the The New York Times: "Without Fear of Favor." Plenty of fear these days - that they'll lose ratings and go out of business; and don't get me started on the "favor" part. That said, I'm not comfortable, from a logistical and creative point of view, with advertisers who put advance notification clauses in their contracts. I feel you pays your money and you takes your chances. There's no way in hell a publication can truly offer that kind of advance warning if they're in the news game. If they're playing unfairly, what with the (justifiable) aggressiveness of advertisers these days, their peccadilloes will catch up with them financially soon enough.
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Jillian - Posted on April 18, 2007
I've never looked at the paper one Sunday and said "gasp! BP isn't advertising today! I'm never buying their gas again, nu-uh, no way!"_____have you?_____ The mistake these huge businesses make is thinking that top of mind = eyeball presence 24/7. It doesn't in today's world. To a customer who is truly brand loyal (this is both rare & constant depending on which age group you "survey") a whole week without ads in one of 5 mediums, in one of 1000 TV, Radio, and Publication outlets makes nary a difference. The threat of pulling advertisement in retaliation of objective reporting is only immediate, not lasting in a financial sense. Free will is still free on all 3 sides of the triangle, in my opinion. Consumers can buy or not buy, Reporters can be truthful or not truthful, Businesses can advertise or not advertise. All three sides need a backup plan regardless.
David - Posted on April 18, 2007
Denny, I will add to my previous comment that if a newspaper is writing a negative story that directly impacts an advertiser, if the reporter has integrity, he will call that advertiser for comment, which gives a heads up. But I still wouldn't sign a clause requiring advance notice. The tail doesn't wag the dog. It might cost me money, but editors don't concern themselves with money.
Max Bendel - Posted on April 17, 2007
I'm confused. Did Brasserie Perrier and Le Bec-Fin end ad-buy negotiations by Cashman & Associates because they were supporting the women or because they were a collection of ditzy ladies? I knew I should have finished college.
David - Posted on April 17, 2007
Thanks, dejah, for your comments. As a newspaper person, I would never let the ad department agree to advance notice of news stories. I would not accept that contract no matter how lucrative it was. A lot of what was said in this article is true and fair. Advertisers should pull out of media that lacks integrity. But using their ad budgets to intimidate also lacks integrity.
John Friesen - Posted on April 17, 2007
I think any organization has the right to pull its ads from any media, for any reason. But to announce an explicit policy regarding coverage of their company or industry is bullying. Any good journalist or editor, convinced of their story, should have the guts of General McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge if threatened by an advertiser. When asked by the Germans to surrender he sent them a note that simply read: "NUTS!"

But this is no excuse for yellow journalism.
Sid Bursten - Posted on April 17, 2007
Though I'm a computer consultant now, I have also been a journalist and newspaper publisher, and spent many years in PR and ad agencies, so I think I represent a fair balance of interests. Any company that puts an advance-notification clause in an advertising contract is a bully, and any publication, station or network that accepts such a clause is a sycophant unworthy of any esteem. Secondly, you quote statistics showing parents are worried about the effect of "the media" on their children without noting that "media" in this sense is far broader than "news media," including among other things gangsta rappers on radio, sex and violence on TV and porn on the Internet. Some good points in your piece were badly compromised by mushy thinking about points like these.
Doug Greener - Posted on April 17, 2007
Dear Denny,
Apropos of your examples of "careless and dishonest coverage," I believe that we in Israel suffer from that malady more than most others. An organization appropriately named Honest Reporting periodically blows the whistle on such bloopers, frauds and outright lies. You, and others, can surf over to their website (http://www.honestreporting.com/) for a few examples and even subscribe to their very informative newsletter.
Keep up the excellent work,
Doug Greener
MediawiSe Advertising
Jerusalem
Hobbes - Posted on April 17, 2007
You write >>> In Rathergate, CBS anchorman Dan Rather used forged documents to sully President Bush?s record of service in the Air National Guard.>>> That's not accurate. What Rather did was use documents that, in the end, could not be verified as being the real thing. That doesn't mean they were "forged." It means their origin is disputable. Your comment repeats the oft-used misconception that the documents were indeed "forged." Maybe the were, but, then again, maybe they were authentic. The disservice was that CBS News and Dan Rather never verified that for us. If they couldn't, they shouldn't have used them. But saying flatly that they were "forged" is a bit of yellow journalism in itself, don't you think?
meryl - Posted on April 17, 2007
Yes, Denny, A good story. A cautionary note: with the immense clout of big biz, we must be wary of decisions to pull ads that the public dislikes merely because of political orientation (ie: NBC not allowing "Shut Up & Sing" ad about the Dixie Chicks because they said something about GW. What Imus did, was a mean spirited attack on innocent people...naturally, one would not want their brand supporting such things. As for Dan Rather--he may have been misled by a phony doc, but, unlike the GM debacle, the facts supporting GW's less- than-exemplary national guard service is on the record as accurate.
Roger Craver - Posted on April 17, 2007
Denny: Your unswerving allegiance to great research coupled with out-of-the-box insight is a winning combo. If only those who are paid to also do this --reporters, editors, producers--would do the same.

And when they don't your advice is first rate: Smite The Bastards. Cut off the bucks.
Audri - Posted on April 17, 2007
When advertising where shock is employed, be prepared to be shocked. Right or wrong, it's the nature of the beast and why you chose to be there in the first place.
Sean Woodruff - Posted on April 17, 2007
While I don't have a problem with any of this I think that most of these companies have made the mistake of "cutting off their nose to spite their face." This is just the flip side of the coin of mass advertisers not knowing what media works for them and what doesn't.

The true ad professional would wait to see how the controversy affected the audience and how it affected the numbers. In these instances the companies are admitting that the delivery vehicle is more important than their message or their propective customer. I don't believe that would hold true if these companies knew anything about how advertising works.

Where's the campaign that talks about the values of the company and how they don't match with the ignorance of Imus? Why not take advantage of all the controversy and attention?
Ed Zuckerman - Posted on April 17, 2007
You put Procter & Gamble as the last in your list but I think P&G was among the first--if not THE first--to pull ads from MSNBC. Was it really acting in the consumers' interest? Or, was it taking its own vengeance out against Dierdre Imus whose book "Green This" was set for publication by Simon & Schuster (which is owned by CBS) the following week. Mrs. Imus's book is part of her growing campaign against toxic housecleaning products, and all of the profits from the book and the sale of a line of non-toxic housecleaning products go to charity. I surely don't need to point out P&G's interest here.
dejah - Posted on April 17, 2007
Dan Rather resigned--justifiably--he lost credibility because he did not do his homework in a rush to get "the scoop," but he was not fired. The Sago mine incident was based on bad information--unverifiable information--from a good source, a company official. Getting the scoop is a financial necessity in the modern news age. Rather screwed up, no doubt. He should have had the documents verified. But the Sago scoop was an accident, not the product of malice or bad journalism. Portraying these incidents inaccurately as "rogue journalism" is irresponsible. Scream "black" at the kettle until you turn yellow, but we can all see the pot-lid on your head.

As a journalist, I have a HUGE problem with companies holding their advertising hostage to real, honest, negative news coverage. If you say there is no chilling effect, you're wrong. I've seen it happen and had it happen to me. I wrote an honest, negative review of a software product that advertised certain features and delivered them badly (when at all). The review was eviscerated, made positive, and the advertiser keeps paying for ads. The reader was not served, nor was truth or good journalism. The press' credibility (or lack of the same) with the public depends on the courage to tell the truth to power... money is power. The chilling effect of policies like these undermine the free press, our liberty, and public safety... not to mention the ability of the consumer to buy software that actually does what it says it does.

On the other hand, companies saying, "Don Imus' racism is not the image we want to portray to our customers," is their right. It is one thing to say, "do not tell the truth or we shall pull our ads. We don't support telling the truth when it's about us," and quite another to say, "do not attack the defenseless, make appalling racist, sexist comments, it offends our customers and we don't support that."
David Garfinkel - Posted on April 17, 2007
Denny, great story. The media, which once had the semblance of fairness and dignity, is as you point out sleazy, which wouldn't be nearly as big a problem if they didn't own the presses and control the flow of ink (and sound waves, and pictures, etc.) and weren't constantly drumming into readers'/listeners'/viewers' heads their respective versions of the somber, intimidating byword of the The New York Times: "Without Fear of Favor." Plenty of fear these days - that they'll lose ratings and go out of business; and don't get me started on the "favor" part. That said, I'm not comfortable, from a logistical and creative point of view, with advertisers who put advance notification clauses in their contracts. I feel you pays your money and you takes your chances. There's no way in hell a publication can truly offer that kind of advance warning if they're in the news game. If they're playing unfairly, what with the (justifiable) aggressiveness of advertisers these days, their peccadilloes will catch up with them financially soon enough.