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."

At the time what this meant was, "No Howard Stern, No Rush Limbaugh, No Bob Grant." There were other names from time to time but those 3 were prominent. For extended periods of time, these 3 gentlemen literally killed everyone else in the ratings (the most desirable 25-54) to the point where you almost couldn't believe your eyes. Huge, huge numbers, often along with good education and income. Tops in that group was Howard Stern which many wouldn't guess. He had very, very high income and education and sustained that group over many years. All these guys were foreground--like Imus--and could sell the soap off the shelves for anyone.

• 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).

First of all Rush Limbaugh and others got plenty of other advertisers who did very well with them. Do you think P&G or Bob Costas and his group would ever believe that Rush Limbaugh never discussed the topic of "race" on his radio program, at least up until his ESPN episode? Never, yet certain people had convinced others that it was true. It was 100% false--Rush was written of and spoken about like this was a big deal with him and it was all a lie.

• 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.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon