The inconsistent ethics of media advertising

Steve Safran September 5th, 2006

BY STEVE SAFRAN
MANAGING EDITOR
LOST REMOTE

There’s a line from an episode of the West Wing I really enjoy. The president has been given a conundrum about assassinating a foreign leader who is a known terrorist. The problem isn’t in the assassination - everyone’s cool with that. It’s about a small legal issue (”The Posse Comitatus Act”) over who is allowed to do it. “The things we choose to worry about,” President Bartlett says, shaking his head at the irony of probably breaking the law to assassinate someone, but trying too to stay within the law about who can fire the gun.

We choose to worry about a lot when it comes to advertising in the media. Newspaper front pages, especially above the fold, are the most prime real estate for advertising. Think about it: the above the fold area is seen in the boxes where you buy the papers. Even if you don’t buy it, you still see it. That’s a branding opportunity. It’s also considered a prime violation of tradition, if not ethics, in newspapers.

Those same papers have no problem with sellings ads – heck, entire wraparounds, on their websites. Forget about whether you like that practice – why is it OK online but not in print? You wouldn’t see the New York Daily News turn its front page green for a day. Turn the website green for an advertiser? No prob.

Newspapers are croaking because of ad bucks. You’d think the front would be the first place they would look for added revenue.

TV’s sponsorship ethics are all over the map. You can’t have an ad for a sponsor in the graphic behind the anchor. Absolutely not. You can, however, buy an ad that sits on top of the bug in the lower right in front of the anchor. Television is a two-dimensional medium, folks. Viewers don’t know from “downstream” Chyron. We sell advertising in the ticker without a problem. You just can’t have that message in a lower-third. You either have a logo on the screen or you don’t.

You also wouldn’t have “The Dunkin’ Donuts Noon News.” But an online newscast? Seen it all the time.

The argument is that you don’t want your advertising to give the appearance of conflicting with the independence of your journalistic choices. Good argument. Advertising and sales should not dictate content. But how we execute that ethical choice is all over the map.

You can’t have a voice-over in the newscast say “this next segment is brought you by Fred’s Discount Widgets.” You can, however, have that same announcement in the 10 second promo before the newscast. “It’s run out of master control in the break, not out of the control room.” Again, we comfort ourselves with that. But TV news is linear. The viewers don’t know – or care – about that distinction.

A newspaper would never, ever mess with its masthead logo for an advertiser. Newspaper websites gladly turn their masthead into an ad. Television news would not have a reporter say “The CVS Science Report,” but we can have it in print in the animation. What are we saying? We won’t dirty ourselves with ads – as long as we see them and don’t say them?

You can have a traffic announcer say “The traffic is brought to you by Ford Trucks: Solid as a Rock.” News people will tell you that’s fine, since you can’t be biased in traffic reports. But wait until the local Ford advertiser pulls his sponsorship because you said it was a Ford Truck that caused the fatal on I-90. Or when Home Depot pulls its weather promos because they didn’t like you saying the guy who had a heart attack using a snow blower had just bought the thing at their store.

I’m not arguing for or against these choices we make. I just feel the same way I do about the designated hitter rule in the American vs National Leagues: pick one and go with it.

The preceding editorial was brought to you by The Safran Media Group, Inc., a consulting tradition since earlier this summer!