NEWS
& VIEWS ARCHIVES
2000 May
Archives
Winner of the "We Couldn't Have Said It Better" Award.
May 2000
Paul Taylor is a champ. Writing in the May/June issue of Mother
Jones, Taylor enlightens us about the ad campaign windfall that
commercial networks receive during election years. Here's what
he writes:
"Let's follow the vicious cycle here. We the public give the broadcast
industry our airwaves for free, in return for their commitment
to serve the public interest. At election time, the industry turns
around and sells airtime to candidates, fueling a money chase
that saps public confidence in the political process and restricts
the field of candidates to the wealthy and their friends. The
money pays for ads that reduce political discourse to its least
attractive elements: The spots tend to be synthetic, deceptive,
inflammatory, and grating. As campaigns choke on money and ads,
the public drifts away from politics in boredom or disgust. Ratings-sensitive
broadcasters then scale back on substantive political coverage
- forcing candidates to rely even more on paid ads as their sole
means of getting a message out on television. And so the cycle
keeps spinning."
Thanks, Paul. We Couldn't Have Said It Better!
(Full text available on the Mojowire
from Mother Jones.)
LESS AUDIENCE = MORE TV AD $$
May 2000
Looks like next season, the public has to look forward to
not only more Regis but more ads. Despite a season of declining
ratings for most programs, the six commercial networks enjoyed
a furious frenzy of advertising spending this week. Combined,
they raked in over $8 billion in "upfront" advertising
sales for their prime-time shows next season. ABC received $400-500
million new ad bucks, a 30% increase from last year thanks to
the hit "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" This increase
means ABC's totals now equal rival those of NBC around $2.4 billion
each. Why all this spending after a season where ratings for CBS
were down slightly, and those for NBC, Fox and WB were down significantly?
NBC president, Randy Falco, boasted the spending spree proved
"advertisers still have to come to network television to
establish and maintain brands."
Is that your final answer Randy? Not if advertisers have their
way on PBS as the next two articles reveal.
(Full text available at the NYTimes.)
THIS EPISODE
BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LETTER C AS IN COMMERCIAL May
2000
PBS is now using ads to sell toys, drugs and junk
food to kids. The 15-second announcements that bracket PBS children's
programming are becoming increasingly commercial. Though PBS claims
these aren't commercials, instead using the term "enhanced
underwriter ackknowledgements." Is it legal? Many of these
ads seem to contradict communications law, FCC regulations and
even PBS's own guidelines. The Communications Act of 1934 bans
outright all ads, defined as messages that "promote any service,
facility or product" for profit. But through an FCC loophole,
donor acknowledgements are allowabe if they contain "value
neutral descriptions of a product line or service" without
"qualitative or comparative language." PBS guidelines
further water down these weak rules allowing, "Ideally, announcements
should contain a value-neutral identification and a message of
support for PBS, public television, or education."
Still,
after a Sesame Street episode you might actually hear, "Pfizer
brings parents the letter Z—as in Zithromax. More information
about Zithromax is just a click away." Zithromax is a prescription-only
antibiotic promoted by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to treat ear
infections. Doesn't have much to do with education, so why is
PBS peddling this drug to preschoolers? Public broadcasters have
been scrambling for funding in the wake of reduced government
support. Corporations are happy to offer ads as a solution to
these financial woes. CIPB suggests a public
trust instead.
(Full text available at EXTRA!
from FAIR.)
AND
THE SCHMIO GOES TO...PBS?!
May 2000
The 4th Annual Schmio mock awards ceremony for the years worst
advertising had some surprising recepients this year. Instead
of the usual suspects (crass, manipulative, sexist, racist ads),
the laurels of infamy were bestowed upon examples of rank commercialization
in the media. Most notably, PBS received a Schmio "For the Commercialization
of the Public Trust" due to its galloping commercializing. Specifically
noted were marketing back-ends with Teletubbies and MacDonalds
on children's programming and avoidance of controversy in documentary
films. Particularly poignant was the presenter to PBS: "the
most non-commercial person you'll ever meet"—Amy Goodman,
host of Pacifica Radio show Democracy Now.
Compiled from The Nation, UTNE Reader, and Alternet
.
Back
to top of page
