home

Advertisers Blacklist Air America Radio

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:57:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Media Matters reports that a group of almost 100 advertisers on ABC radio networks have demanded their ads not air on Air America Radio.

Among the advertisers listed are Bank of America, Exxon Mobil, Federal Express, General Electric, McDonald's, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and the U.S. Navy.

The actual memo is here.

< Another Stun Gun Victim -- Teenage Jesus Follower | People of Good Faith: An Acknowledgment >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Advertisers Blacklist Air America Radio | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Anti-trust? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    The prior question, of whether any anti-trust issues are implicated, is best answered by that lawyerly answer:  "it depends".  On a lot of things, probably the most important of which is the intent of the advertisers in telling ABC their ads don't run.

    If they all got together and said, "let's ruin AAR by blocking our ads" - maybe.

    If they each individually said "AAR's programming and demographic isn't the one we're trying to reach, so we won't advertise there" - probably not.

    The question is good for years of litigation and millions of lawyers' fees.  The better way for AAR to deal with it is to put out compelling programming, draw an audience, and then the advertisers will come.  

    Horror of horrors, I used to listen to Rush, a decade and a half or more ago (and then I figured out where he was going and that I didn't want to go there).  Few remember all the ads he did - in his own voice - for this small vacuum cleaner company or that guy making salsa in his kitchen.  Or, for that matter, Howard Stern doing extended (and I mean 10 minutes or more) riffing on Dial-a-Mattress and the people working there, 1-800-Car-Cash, or the joys of Snapple, when it was a local, NYC and Long Island thing.

    Advertisers come like flies to audiences.  If the whole boycott thing is true, when AAR gets compelling programming and audiences, they can screw the fiscal life out of the companies on the blacklist charging them for their ads.  And be loyal to them what brung 'em.

    no (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:35:13 PM EST
      It's not "lawyerly" to say it depends when it doesn't. There is no provision anywhere in the U.S. Code that prohibits advertisers from choosing not to advertise on a particular program or network. It matters not whether it is an organized effort of a group of advertisers or what the "motive" of the advertisers may be.

    Parent
    antitrust (none / 0) (#19)
    by eric on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:35:25 PM EST
    Thank you for the reply.  I did a little looking on this and came to roughly the same conclusion.  Essentially, if there is collusion with the intent to restrain trade, then there may be a problem.

    It just seems a bit odd that such a memo would be generated.  I would think that each advertiser would be treated individually.  In other words, if I was company x, I might say that I don't want my ad played on a particular station.  That certainly happens.  But a comprehensive list almost seems as if there is some organization and/or agenda behind keeping ads off AAR.

    Parent

    Megacorps... (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:11:45 PM EST
    This is just a convenient list of giant companies not to do business with. Buy local.

    Agreed. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by PoliticalTruthWatch on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    again, this bunch is motivated ONLY by the $$$. . .lose enough of us who spend money, and suddenly there'll be this Disney-level magical shift to the left again. . .

    Parent
    Wow. . . (none / 0) (#2)
    by PoliticalTruthWatch on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn,
         Do as I have done and draw a DEEEEEEP breath. . .this will all be over in a week. . .The one thing I've learned in paying attention to entities such as ABC is that as much as we would like to think different, they are, by and large a-political. . .meaning, they're going to support the bunch that has the ability to make them money. . .period. . .

    Air America, regardless of what anybody else says, has a place on the air. I was in radio for over a decade and watched as the reich-wing took it over and then beat people over the head with it. . .we need a mechanism to push back. . .if not Air America, then something similar.

    All the more reason to vote. . .and take somebody with you. . .

    antitrust (none / 0) (#4)
    by eric on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    Are there anti-trust/anti-competive issues triggered with lists like this?

    RE (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:35:50 PM EST
      Yes, of course,  the law requires advertisers to spend money placing ads on programs they don't want to support. you don't actually believe any of that " it's a free country" propaganda do you?

      A similar law that the Congress passed in a super-secret emergency session and which will be signed by Bush next Monday to take effect immediately will require all voters to vote for Republican candidates whether they want to or not.

    It's their Money (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    They and should be able to spend it how they want.  Oh, I get it...No I don't

    Property rights are for fascists (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    Freedom doesn't apply to money.  It should be redirected to wherever the Left thinks it will do the most good, in this case to to subsidize liberal speech.


    Parent
    Air America (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:56:02 PM EST
      The problem with Air America is not that a large enough audience doesn't exist for  good liberal radio programming; the problem is that its programming is terrible. I've tried listening to it and it is simply painfully bad. The audience for boring,  unprofessional programming of any type is limited and very few people will listen to really bad programs just to support a cause.  

     It's not the idea so much as the execution that has been a dismal failure. Starting over with radio professionals who happen to be liberal rather than liberals who have no business on radio would be a good idea.

    Air America (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    I tend to agree with you Decon. I tried listening a couple times and was bored out of my skull.

    The only show I can even remember consisted of some woman "explaining" some Repub conspiracy or another by spending, literally, about a 1/2 hour reading through pages of documents - I mean thousands and thousands of words.

    "So, he said this here...where is it? Oh here it is...and this here..no that wasn't it...Ok, here it is...and that there...but if you tie that in with this...no, with this...and this...and this...and tie that in with this...and this and...wait a minute...no, with this...it's completely obvious that this...and that...and that...are untrue. Proof!"

    It was the aural equivalent to watching paint dry.

    Parent

    Bravo (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:02:36 PM EST
    That memo looks similar to the national guard memo.

    Why did ABC even get it?

    Re (none / 0) (#14)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:23:13 PM EST
      ABC didn't GET that memo; ABC SENT that memo to its affilliates advising them that those advertisers did not want their ads played during any AA programming that those affilliates might carry.

    Parent
    Blacklist? (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    "Blacklist" has picked up a wimpy definition somewhere.  The Hollywood Ten wre blacklisted.  AAR is just failing to attract customers.

    The would-be advertisers are just not giving money to AAR.  It might not even be ideological -- AAR is bankrupt and has low audience share.   And, if I use a broad brush like marketing people do, their listeners are disproportionately anti-big-business anyway, so advertising to them would be bad money management.

    Re: (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:12:50 PM EST
      "Boycott" would be a better choice of a term than "blacklist" but it is naive to think the advertisers are motivated solely by low ratings. The low ratings surely make it "painless" for them to keep their advertising off AA programs but unless they are also simultaneously pulling their ads from all low-rated programs of all types on all networks, I think the political motivation is undeniable.

      That said, there is not only nothing wrong with that, it's an example of economic democracy in action and an exercise of  freedom of speech. The person above who suggested that he will now boycott the boycotters is similarly motivated and similarly justified. We all have the right to make choices as to how we spend our money and political rationales for those choices is a healthy way of influencing politics.

     

    Not a boycott (none / 0) (#13)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:23:09 PM EST
    "Boycott" carries with it the idea of disapproval of the target. I doubt very much that all these companies disapprove of Air America. Rather, they simply want their ads to played for the most listeners.

    The "blacklist" is just their attempt to prevent their ad money from getting wasted on programming that doesn't have any listeners.

    Parent

    Re (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:31:34 PM EST
      As I said you are very naive if you think disapproval of the content on AA is not the primary reason. The low ratings just make it easy for the advertisers to express their disapproval. As others have suggested, if AA had good ratings it would have no trouble attracting advertisers --even those who disapproved of much of the content because love of money outweighs all else.

      Many of those same advertisers buy miilions of dollars of Cable TV advertising and have their ads rotated among a huge number of programs on various cable systems -- many of which are very low rated. If these advertisiers were  also telling cable companies that they won't allow their ads on the Closet Remodeling Network because the ratings are low you might have a point, but they don't do that-- they buy a cable package with an understanding some of the ads will run during barely watched programs on obscure networks. They swallow that because they think the overall package is a good deal.

    Parent

    Ratings (none / 0) (#16)
    by jarober on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    Yeah, the anemic ratings have nothing to do with this.  Better get out the tinfoil, in order to block the government's mind control rays.

    Re: Ratings (none / 0) (#20)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 04:05:41 PM EST
    jarober, according to Decon, things are more nuanced than that. Y'see, the low ratings are just the excuse which allows these companies to hide their disapproval of the content.

    Parent
    Are you kidding on the demograqphic thing? (none / 0) (#21)
    by cblack on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 10:06:15 AM EST
    You that think AAR does not have a demographic for 90 advertisers are kidding, right?  You mean the United States Post Office, McDonald's, Bayer, Denny's, Kraft Foods, Sherwin Williams, SONY, et al think their products have no buyers on a radio network reaching millions of people?  And does it also make sense to you that Exxon and Walmart--companies selling the cheapest Chinese made products and Saudi oil--are among them?  Hmmmmm... what is the rest of the ABC advertiser list?  Who is choosing to be on the AAR affiliates?  Think any of them sell gas, clothing, delivery services?  GET A FREAKIN' CLUE and turn off Hannity for five minutes!  And yes, to me this is very personal.  I'm a talk host on an AAR affiliate, KPHX 1480 Phoenix (the new competitor to AAR, Nova M) and for those of you who want talent first and liberals second, you are telling me you want entertainment first and liberal politics second.  Like anything else, passion makes talent, not vice versa.  You want form over substance?  Listen to Rush (please).

    It's radio, son (none / 0) (#22)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 08:12:11 AM EST
      I want substance over style in my government. I want substance over style in research. I want substance over style in scholarly publications....

      Radio, however, is something I sometimes listen to in brief snatches while driving from one place to another. By necessity, the audience requires that it be a concise format win which  broad points are made in an intersting manner and the dialogue of a nature that it can have some value if one is unwilling or unable to devote extended time and attention to it. Style and substance are not mutually exclusive  but you won't have anyone listening to your substance if you have no style.

     If you are in the business and haven't figured that out for yourself, lots of luck. You'll need it.

    Just because its radio, what? (none / 0) (#23)
    by cblack on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 10:53:38 PM EST
    I didn't say I had no style, I was suggestiong that Randi Rhodes (who does read from pages of content she is referencing to make a point from time to time) has more to offer then just style, so much so in fact, that her concern for sustantive conetent supercedes her interest in entertaining.  For my money, I can sit in the car and listen to her get to her point because in the end, it will be worth it...  

    Advertisers Blacklist Air America Radio | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment