Advocacy Of Mass Media Advertising

By Author: Amandda
Total Articles: 59
Comment this article

When the company as good citizen takes a position on a public policy in an ad, the ad becomes an advocacy ad. Many stations refuse advocacy ads out of fear that they will then be bound to air the other side's position as well. Determining what is and is not an advocacy ad is difficult. In 1981, ABC became the first of the networks to agree to air advocacy ads, but the network stipulated that the ads could run only on late-night television, a less than desirable time for most advertisers and a time when advertising space is more difficult to sell. By October 1990, stations owned and operated by NBC, CBS, and ABC were all being permitted Tag Heuer Replica Watches to determine whether or not to accept such ads. The change in policy was prompted by the willingness of the stations' cable competitors to accept advocacy ads and by the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. Airing such an ad no longer carries an obligation to provide free airtime for opposing points of view.

In summer 1990, Anheuser-Busch aired a 30-second advocacy ad that opened by showing ...
... workers at lunch and farmers in their fields. The announcer said that America was built by individuals willing to give their fair share. The ad then said that Congress now wanted Americans (note, not Anheuser-Busch), who already were paying about $3 billion in excise taxes on beer, to pay more than their fair share. As a foaming stein of beer appeared on the screen, the tag said, "Can the Beer Tax. 1-800-33-Taxes." When viewers called, they were asked if they would like to have a letter protesting a proposed hike in the excise tax sent for them to their congressional representative. In the campaign's first month, 110,000 callers asked to have the letters sent.

To magnify the power of the campaign, beer industry officials hinted that if the tax were increased, their companies might reduce sponsorship of sporting events and de-crease spending on television advertising. Increasing the economic impact should have increased the number of groups supporting the beer industry's position. However, critics noted that reduction of advertising was unlikely because that was the industry's major means of sustaining sales and introducing such new products as ice beer.

There have been occasional controversies over advocacy ads. In spring 1986, J. Peter Grace, chairman of W. R. Grace and Co., protested to the press and public that one of his ads had been rejected by the networks. Set in the year 2017, the ad showed an elderly man in a witness cage. The man is being Tag Heuer Replica cross-examined by a child who wants to know how the man could have let federal deficits reach $2 trillion. The networks refused to show the ad. In so doing, they were within their rights. In Democratic National Committee v. CBS, the Supreme Court held that the editorial judgment about what to air and what not to air belongs to the broadcaster.

Maintaining their ban on advocacy ads, in the 1993-94 seasons, the three major broadcast networks all rejected advocacy ads on health care reform. As a result, the only "national" ads that aired for and against the Clinton reform plan appeared on CNN, an outlet available in 1995 in about two out of three homes in the United States. During the health care reform debate of 1993-1994, more money was spent on advocacy ads than had been spent to elect Bill Clinton president in 1992. We will discuss issue advocacy at greater length in the chapter on political ads.