« After Imus, Advertisers Should Step Up | Main | Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Bid »
May 01, 2007
More on "After Imus"
Bruce Braun writes:
Great insight on your "After Imus" post.
It reminded me of a similar time in the early-mid 1990's with all of the shock TV shows like Springer, Lake, Montiel, Sally Jesse et. al.
These shows had berths on O&O TV stations and were generating significant audiences and the attendant revenues. For the most part, even though they were on the air 60 minutes a day, five days a
week...the advertisers rarely if ever watched those slime merchants.
Think about it...the agencies and clients spending money in those shows (as with Imus et. al) are at work when the shows air. It wasn't until some crossed the "line" that the ratings and advertisers departed.
Why do these types of TV and radio shows seemingly fly under the sponsor radar? In my experience it gets down to a number of factors:
1. Media buyers 90 percent of the time make the primary buying criteria based on cost-per-thousand or cost-per-rating point. If it's efficient and fits into a predetermined CPM criteria, they will buy the show. Editorial content is way down the list.
2. Most media planners and buyers are within the target demo of the objectionable shows. To these folks it is still a frat boy/girl, college humor mentality. Many buyersI dealt with thought these shows were great theater!
3. Very few clients scrutinize a media buy beyond CPM-type criteria. If the agency can get the CPM way down, then client thinks the buy is a good one.
4. "Doing the right thing" is not part of the decision process with the aforementioned folks. If doing the right thing was a criteria, the shows we are talking about would either never get on the air or would be gone in a month due to lack of advertiser support.
The only time advertisers flee a crappy show is if there is an Imus- type scandal or the ratings fall apart. At the end of the day, most advertisers would rather not know what is going on with the morons on
these programs. Think Rosie and her rantings about 9/11 being a US
government plot! Is that the sort of editorial environment any reasonable or rational brand manager wants to associate his product with?
Posted by Charles Warner at May 1, 2007 01:47 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)Printer-Friendly