Media Curmudgeon

« ESPN’s Ombudsman | Main | Jeff Jarvis’ Buzz Machine »

September 17, 2007

MoveoOn.org’s Petraeus Ad

On Monday. September 10, MoveOn.org ran a now notorious full-page ad in the New York Times which suggested that General Petraeus, a respected four-star general, should be called “General Betray Us.” Republicans were furious and denounced the group as “an extreme left-wing organization.” Even some Democrats were not pleased with the “Betray Us” headline. Senator Joe Biden said, "I don’t buy into that. This is an honorable guy. He’s telling the truth" about the suggestion that the general had betrayed the country. And Senator John Kerry called the MoveOn.org ad “over the top.”

There were also reports in blogs that Times went off rate card in selling the ad to MoveOn.org—that the Times sold the ad for $65,000 when its rate card indicated a price of $180,000 for a full page. The implication seems to be that the Times cut its rates because it was sympathetic to the left-wing organization’s anti-Bush, anti-Petraeus message. The flames of this accusation were probably fanned by a Times article by Katherine Seeley that ran on Saturday, September 15, titled “Anti-War Ad Prompts Dispute,” in which Seeley makes a fairly typical he-said, he-said attempt to balance the first part of the story with quotes from Republicans and Democrats, from presidential candidates from both sides, and from Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org. However, the last part of Seeley’s article reiterates three of MoveOn.org’s assertions in its ad, thus reinforcing MoveOn.org’s claims and with no balancing information from General Petraeus’s testimony to Congress, which was available to Seeley when she wrote the article.

The Times did not enhance its reputation for fairness, balance, and good taste by accepting the ad and for running stories that seem to reinforce an anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Petraeus bias. MoveOn.org did not enhance its reputation either.

As for the Times’ alleged rate cut, in this Reuters piece, Jeff Jarvis, author of the blog, Buzz Machine, suggests: "The quandary the Times gets stuck in is they don't want to admit you can buy an ad for that rate, no matter who you are," and he noted that with print advertising revenues in decline newspapers generally did offer big discounts.

Jon Fine in his reliable and smart blog “On Media,” for BuinessWeek Online wrote, “I should note here that Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis confirmed to me what MoveOn.org already said about said ad--that it cost $65,000, and that it was in keeping with the going rate for 'open' political advocacy ads--that is, ads for which the Times has discretion on when to run them.”

I don’t believe that the Times broke its rate card for MoveOn.org, that Mathis is being candid, and that Jeff Jarvis is wrong. The rate is legit and has nothing to do with newspapers offering big discounts because of ad declines. The Times, which has a pretty good sales organization, understands that lowering prices doesn’t create demand. Where else but the Times would an advocacy ad like this have such a huge impact? There is still large demand for ads in the Times by many advertisers, especially those who want to try to influence the political discussion agenda. The reason overall demand for newspaper advertising is down is because major advertisers such as automotive and financial services are cutting back, not those who want to influence the national debate. In fact, the MoveOn.org ad created demand—the Giuliani campaign bought an ad in response a couple of days later.

Had I been publisher of the NY Times (and I’m thankful I’m not), I would have charged MoveOn.org the regular earned rate for ads in that category (the Times has a labyrinth of a rate card that has dozens of categories—see for yourself, if you’re interested, and you’ll see—if you can find it—that the rate is on the card somewhere). But I would have asked MoveOn.org to change the line “General Betray Us” because I think it was in bad taste. The Times doesn’t carry ads for X rated-movies or for penis enlargement operations because it feels they are in bad taste, not appropriate for its readers.

I would have made the argument to MoveOn.org that the ad would backfire on them (and it has) and that a more reasoned, less incendiary approach would appeal to Times readers. I would say that the Times knows its readers better than MoveOn.org and that it knows what appeals work with them. I would have done my best to persuade them to change that line and told them that unless they changed it, the Times would not run the ad. I believe in this situation, the New York Times had the leverage—MoveOn.og needed the Times more than the Times needed the $65,000. I believe that if the Times had held its ground, MoveOn.org would have hollered but would have run a less offensive ad.

I’m sorry the Times did not take this approach. I know MoveOn.org and other far-left, anti-war groups would cry “freedom of the press,” the same squeal you hear from penis-enlargement advertisers, but I would say, like Nathan Detroit, “So, sue me, sue me, what can you do me.” I think the Times was wrong and a little gutless to run the ad.

If I were the head of MoveOn.org (and I’m thankful I’m not), when the copywriters brought the ad mock up to me I would have said that I loved the message in the ad, but not the execution. I’d tell them to take out the “Betray Us” line because it was bad strategy, for many reasons. First, even though the line would be attention getting, it would not appeal to the readers of the NY Times, who tend to be relatively reasonable. It would piss off conservatives, who, in spite of popular perceptions, read the Times, just as many liberals read the Wall Street Journal. The ad would mobilize conservatives and the execution of the ad—the “Betray Us” line—would become an issue, not the facts, which has happened.

Second, I would tell them that several studies on advertising, including one form Harvard on anti-drug advertising, indicate that negative advertising doesn’t work. It tends to work in political advertising, one candidate versus another, because it creates doubts about a candidate, especially among undecideds. However, virtually no one is undecided about the war in Iraq--people either love or hate it (the vast majority). Bush as no credibility and polls show that the military now has more credibility than the White House or any of the presidential candidates on what’s going on in Iraq. So, inferring that the highly respected Petraeus is a traitor is really stupid strategy because it will only appeal to the far-left fringe and piss off the reasonable middle as well as the conservatives.

I would have advised the copywriters to take a Marc Anthony approach and, as Marc Anthony did in his “Friends, Romans, countrymen...” speech, say that Petraeus is an honorable man. The best strategic approach would have been to praise Petraeus for being the hero and leader he is, to honor our troops in Iraq, but hammer home the point that the war in Iraq is a failed war, a morally wrong war, and that we should bring the valiant soldiers (Patraeus included) home and honor them while they are alive rather than mourn for them when they are dead.

So, to the Times, I say, “bad call,” and to MoveOn.org, I say, “move on and away from me.”

Posted by Charles Warner at September 17, 2007 03:27 PM

Comments

Media Curmudgeon at September 27, 2007 04:30 PM writes:

Media Curmudgeon at September 18, 2007 11:11 PM writes:

Media Curmudgeon at September 18, 2007 06:05 PM writes:

Media Curmudgeon at September 18, 2007 11:05 AM writes:

Media Curmudgeon at September 18, 2007 11:02 AM writes:

Post a comment