Write Nice Things Or Else
It seems BP (more accurately BP's agency MindShare who crafted BP's stringent "zero-tolerance policy") and Morgan Stanley have everybody's panties in a bunch over their recently publicized ad policies stipulating their right to pull ad schedules based on disagreeable editorial content. Ad Age has skewered the announcements, writing, "Shame on BP. And shame on Morgan Stanley and General Motors and any other advertisers involved in assaults on editorial integrity and independence. By wielding their ad budgets as weapons to beat down newsrooms, these companies threaten the bond that media properties have with their audiences, the very thing that gives media their value to advertisers to begin with."
We're none too pleased either. But, for all the reaction these announcements have received, there's nothing all that new. Policies such as these have been around forever. They've just never brazenly been made public. And that's the issue.
Upon seeing a new Dialog Communications Inc ad campaign running in Western Kentucky claiming they take the BS out of phone service, Bell South has issued a cease and desist order.To avoid the cost of litigation, Dialog has decided not to contest the order, and has begun pulling the advertising.
The newspaper, TV, direct mail and outdoor campaign, created by advertising agency BOONE/OAKLEY, Charlotte, features the large headline. "ell outh," and below that, "We take the BS out of phone service. Dialog Telecommunications." It goes on to state that Dialog phone service has "no hidden fees, no extra charges, no BS."
Advertising industry recruitment and career firm TalentZoo has filed suit against WorkZoo for trademark infringement. Both are job site. While TalentZoo focuses specifically on the advertising industry, WorkZoo covers many industries. The suit centers around the word, "Zoo." TalentZoo claims it is the only and first recruitment and job search firm to have incorporated the word into its trademark.
Gary Ruskin's Commercial Alert cause group has, petitioned (pdf) the USDA to better enforce its prohibition on the sale of junk food, described by the USDA as "foods of minimal nutritional value," in school cafeterias. The USDA has admitted to not knowing whether or not school are complying with the guidelines stating in a report last month, "it is unclear to what extent federal and state regulations [against the sale of foods of minimum nutritional value] are enforced at the local level."
"We're asking the USDA to side with parents who want their kids to grow up healthy, not with the junk food companies that want to stuff our children with sugar and caffeine," said Gary Ruskin, executive director of Commercial Alert. "The USDA should strengthen existing rules against the sale of junk food in school – before the childhood obesity epidemic gets any worse."
The public seems to agree with the USDA guidelines according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll in which 83 percent of Americans believe school need to do a better job limiting access to junk food.
Writing on his blog, ANA Marketing Musings, ANA CEO and President Bob Liodice takes issue with recent political attempts to blame advertisers for society's ills, namely, childhood obesity. Liodice thinks government regulation of advertising would be bad. Not that it really supports the point, but Liodice lists a litany of great things the ad industry has done for society, in general, from Ad Council work to Partnership for a Drug Free America to the self-regulatory work of the Children's Advertising Review Unit.
While forcing crap down people's throats via advertising might not be a good thing, perhaps advertising isn't completely to blame. If there was no crap to force in the first place, there'd be no crap pushed to the public via advertising. In a capitalistic society, companies will do whatever is best for their financial bottom line - even if it makes American's bottom line obese.
There may be no solution to this problem but Liodice's commentary brings to light to notion of "don't shoot the messenger." While advertising may be a much easier and more visible target to complain about, if 750 calorie mega-burgers weren't manufactured in the first place, there's be no ad selling that crap. Perhaps the gun barrel needs to be aimed elsewhere.