Controversy on radio--nothing new for the Bland Police
Renewed pontificating about the Imus issue, latest supposed examples of fallout therefrom, etc. Let me explain something about the latest angle on tap--the "consumer/advertiser" making their voice heard. I sold radio advertising for 20 years and for the later portion of that time the term "controversy" was mentioned in some ad agency media buying criteria. If for example Proctor and Gamble wanted to sell some soap via radio ads, they'd give you their requirements: age, income, occupation, leisure activities, children in household, education, etc. You might think "great!" my station has some hours where we're number 1 or 2 in the market in all those areas, have lots of success stories selling things like soap, etc. THEN, P&G would in all seriousness say the following:
- "NO HOWARD, NO RUSH, NO BOB GRANT."
- Everyone took this seriously except me. If an ad agency person told me the requirement, I'd discuss it with them rather than just accepting it. Other sales reps and sales managers always mentioned it like it was a dead serious thing--"NOOOOO Controversy for that client..." I always thought they were nuts.
- Somehow some weirdos got into the cubicles of other weirdos at places like P&G and convinced them it was a good idea to have no opinion on anything (why they'd want this "no opinion" environment to prevail is what you should be asking today, because this is what they wanted).
- So, this latest pitch is as phony as the others--the "consumer" and "advertisers" having their say--advertisers were scared out of anything "controversial" years ago before ever hearing a word of the alleged speech. The answer here is the same as in baseball and most other things today: mobs rule, they have all the rights to speak and the individual has none. Result: a bland, cowardly, deathly life.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home