So, for the folks who don’t think the radio station did anything wrong in this case, I have to ask:
If, in 2008, the Powers That Be™ at (picking a network at random) ABC decides that the Republican Party is the source of all evil, and explicitly declines all political advertisement from Republican political candidates, is that acceptable? If not, why not? How about if ABC (or whoever) takes the GOP’s money for the commercials, and plays them all at 3:00am or some other obscure time?
I am scratching my head over why the message of the commercials should matter. As mhendo notes, if we’re to believe that a free market cures all ills, then the only consideration is whether or not Mr. Millman can pay the ad rates requested. The local newspaper AFAIK doesn’t reject classified ads based on the political/social/financial affiliation of the person placing the ad, after all.
Exactly. Now, what if the owners determine that the commercials might bring in standard (or even above standard) revenue, but will lower the oeverall viewership and therefore depress the market price for ALL other commercials? And who can best determine whether that will be the result or not?
In the end, the owners of the licenses are granted the authority to run their businesses. The free market is at work. If there is a market for these commercials, there are many other media outlets to air them. Clearchannel will lose this revenue stream and suffer (or not) accordingly.
No, and no. Because federal campaign law requires FCC licensees to run ads from candidates for office. It further specifices the times which must be made available and even the pricing mechanism[sup]1[/sup]. ABC may, however, refuse to run ads from non-candidates which advocate for issues thought to be associated with Republicans, as WBAY did when it refused to run Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads during the recent presidential campaign[sup]2[/sup].
It doesn’t matter to the law – that’s the point we’re making here. An FCC licensee may refuse to run an ad, subject to the exceptions in federal election law, for any reason or no reason at all. In this particular case, I’m guessing it’s a customer service/hassle thing. The particular station is a conservative news/talk station. Maybe they just want to have a consistent voice – certainly the preogative of any programmer. Maybe the station managers figure the eight billion (adjusted for the population of Schenectady, of course ) phone calls wouldn’t be worth the $700 they’d get. Maybe the guy’s a crank whom the local hosts have been hanging up on for the past several years and they’re tired of hearing from him. The point is that under current law it’s the station’s call.
[sup]1[/sup]: Broadcast companies whine like little babies about this whenever they get an opportunity. In fact, the regulated rate is pretty high compared to what the broadcasters end up receiving from big advertisers, and the scarcity of decent ad times caused by the candidates runs up the price for everyone else. There’s an argument to be made that the mechanism is a bad one or unfair, but the argument wouldn’t lie in the actual functional economics as it affects broadcasters. They do just fine.
[sup]2[/sup]: It’s unclear to me whether a candidate’s party may be excluded from running ads – perhaps someone with a more specific understanding of federal election law as it affects broadcasters will happen along and opine. But it’s absolutely proper for licensees to exclude 527s and whatnot if they choose.
But see, if we had a system whereby stations were required to take any commercial that doesn’t violate FCC regulations, then people would be very unlikely to boycott a station or a network based on its advertising, because they would know that the commercials appearing on the network have no necessary relationship to the network’s editiorial positions. In fact, i can actually see such a system being of economic benefit to media outlets, as it would allow them to accept any and all commercials without regard for political position.
Well, what you say is undoubtedly ture under the current system of laws and regulations. I’m not arguing otherwise. But, in my opinion, when we essentially hand over such huge chunks of the public spectrum to private entities (yeah, sure they pay, but rather token amounts compared to their incomes in most cases) we should require a higher level of responsiveness to public needs. Especially when large networks like Clear Channel are able to buy up so many stations and exert such a huge influlence over what does and does not get played, thus circumventing the ability of many people—even those with the requisite entry fee, like the guy in the OP—to get their message out at all.
To nitpick. There is not conceivable way the FCC or anyone else can prevent someone’s fillings from playing “Frankie and Johnny” given a non-linearity in the fillings, a little looseness so something vibrates mechanically and the presence of a strong radio signal.
To be cynical about it. The airways belong to the people. The peoples’ elected representatives determine how the airways are used. And the elected representatives belong to the broadcasters.
It doesn’t even have to be a boycott that lowers viewship. But surely you are not proposing that a station be required to air ALL commmercials that don’t violate FCC regulations. There is a limitted amount of commercial space available and there needs to be SOME system to allocate that space. This is especially true when we are talking about prime time advertising space. There is simply no way to get around the fact that not all commercials can be aired.
Of course not, John, but they’re working on it. Commercial time/half hour seems to have increased. The broadcasters are squeezing in more and more 15 and 30 second commercials. If you tape a program, rewind and hit “PLAY” at random you have a pretty good chance of winding up in a commercial.
Cable TV isn’t public airways, of course, but look at the record there. Originally cable TV was promoted as a commercial-free source because fees would cover the costs and provide a reasonable profit. Hah!
Sure, but as i’ve already said, let them use something like a bidding system, or a “first in, first served” system.
All i’m arguing is that advertising should not be blocked due to arbitrary political or editorial positions of those who happen to hold the licenses to use our airwaves.
Then the next question is, is the law wrong? After all, just because something’s legal doesn’t necessarily make it right.
The notion that a broadcaster can restrict or deny access to the airwaves merely on a personal whim/bias still seems worrysome to me – what assurances do we have that messages and commercials from minority-owned businesses, or Jewish charities, or anti-abortion groups, won’t get barred for arbitrary reasons? How does this blind trust in the goodwill of the broadcasters serve the greater good?
Heh. GQ aside. Your impression is accurate – they have been increasing commercial time. This has been a commercial (hah!) disaster for them, as people increasingly turn off the radio for alternatives such as satellite radio, CDs and (ghod fobid) silence in their cars. Advertisers are also less willing to pay as their ads get lost in the clutter. Last summer Clear Channel committed to cut back on the number of commercials in an attempt to win back listeners (cite). Clear Channel is powerful, but they ain’t got nuthin’ on consumers and their customers.
Excellent point, which I comment further on solely for the purpose of including a geeky GQ. The FCC is responsible for preventing a radio station from making everyone’s fillings play Frankie and Johnny. Your dentist is responsible for making it not play in your individual fillings.
OK, now the fun part. The reason I chose Frankie and Johnny was because of a sci-fi short story I read once in which a guy’s head was playing Franky and Johnny. ISTR that it was in advance of when the local radio station was playing it, or maybe on a delay – I don’t think it was at exactly the same time. I don’t remember anything else about the short story. It was in an anthology I think I read in the mid to late 70’s but the story itself may have been older – perhaps much older. Anyone have a clue what I’m talking about?
But I still think you are oversimplifying the cost (ie, total cost) of any given ad. You can’t just look at the immediate revenue generated. Who is going to be responsible to the shareholders when management has absolutely no control over commercials? Your proposal would also allow one large corporation to monopolize commercial time by outbidding all of its competition. Additionally, you are asking businessmen to make investment risks without the ability to control the key revenue raising feature of the business.
This is precisely the problem with these ideas that sound good on paper, but fall apart when confronted with reality.
How is that any worse than a situation in which divergent political viewpoints have no chance of being aired? And why does someone who apparently supports a free market approach to the media have a problem with a single company buying up all the airtime? Theoretically, that could just as easily happen now, if that’s what the network executives decide they want to do.
How would they be adversely affected? My scheme is not asking them to take fewer commercials than they do under the current system, nor is it asking them to take less money per commercial spot. And, as i pointed out, my scheme might even help to insulate the networks from the ire of people who don’t like particular ads, because it’s likely that such ads would be distributed among the networks, and the owners could claim (correctly) that they had no choice but to take them.
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion of course, but i thtink that the way the system works now is bad enough to warrant a little tinkering.
Is there any evidence that divergent political viewpoint have “no chance” of getting aired? As for my support of a free market, the problem I have with your proposal is that it’s NOT a free market. It’s a government enforced edict that would give a huge advantage to companies with lots of money to spend-- ie, they could flood the market and broadcasters couldn’t refuse to air their ads.
Maybe I didn’t understand your proposal, but I took it to mean that no commercial could be turned down as long as it didn’t violate the FCC guidlines. If that’s not what you were proposing, can you clarify the details and where I was mistaken?
I realise that, but you also seemed somewhat perturbed that my system might “allow one large corporation to monopolize commercial time by outbidding all of its competition,” and i’m asking why this would be a problem for someone like you who supports a free market system. After all, if that corporation’s demand for advertising space is such that it can outbid everyone else, isn’t that just the free market at work?
Bolding mine.
What do you think the current media system is? It’s a “government enforced edict that [gives] a huge advantage to companies with lots of money to spend.”
You are basically correct, although i also made clear that issues of space meant that not every single commercial could be accepted. Essentially, what i want is a system whereby commercials cannot be refused for political or editorial reasons, and must be accepted as long as there is space to air them, and the person wanting to air them can pay the requisite cost, and they don’t violate FCC regs. I realise that there will be competition for space, and that not everyone’s commercial will be able to get on the air, which is why i suggested a system of competitive bidding, and/or a “first in, first served” system.
) phone calls wouldn’t be worth the $700 they’d get. Maybe the guy’s a crank whom the local hosts have been hanging up on for the past several years and they’re tired of hearing from him. The point is that under current law it’s the station’s call.