Networks and Advertisers Battle over Tasteful Advertising

Before any commercial airs on network television, it is reviewed by the standards and practices departments of the major networks. There are approximately 30 censors working for the four major broadcast networks who dictate to advertising agencies and their clients what they can and cannot show on national television. The censors review ads often as early as in the storyboard stage and comment on about half of the ads they see, most often with questions about accuracy. However, along with ensuring that product claims are accurate, the censors also concern themselves with the tastefulness of the ads they review. Ads containing sex, violence, adult language, morbid humor, unsafe or antisocial behavior, and controversial political reviews receive very careful scrutiny.

The network clearance departments argue that advertisers and agencies welcome their feedback and that the system is not an adversarial one. However, frustrated marketers and ad agencies often argue that the clearance process is arbitrary and unfair, with an abundance of double standards and unwritten rules. For example, Rich Silverstein, co-chairman of Goodby Silverstein & Partners in San Francisco, notes: "The networks don't play fair about blood, guts and sex. Judgments about the ads depend on who is judging that day. And their standards are a moving target." His agency has been involved in squabbles with the networks over commercials for clients such as E*Trade and the California Milk Advisory Board. The agency has pushed the envelope with censors several times with humorous ads created for the long-running "Got milk?" campaign. For example,one of the spots in the campaign showed a frustrated priest kicking a vending machine when it failed to dispense a carton of milk. Censors cried foul—not because it portrayed the priest in an unflattering light but because it is a mis

demeanor to vandalize a vending machine and ads cannot depict criminal actions.

Another issue that is often raised with the networks is whether they have a double standard, holding commercials to a higher standard than they do their own programs. For example, a few years ago the agency for Converse created a commercial featuring "Lupo the Butcher," who gets whacked by his own cleaver as, cursing in Italian, he tries to turn a high-top shoe into a low-cut. ABC deemed the cartoon butcher too bloody, vulgar, and ethnic for mass audiences. The agency tried unsuccessfully to run the ad after making changes that included toning down some of the ad's colorful language. However, ABC later asked the agency and client to feature the spot in its show The World's Funniest Commercials. The creative director who worked on the spot notes: "There is definitely a double standard, and it has frustrated me as a creative person that I am limited in what I can use to communicate an idea."

Those who work in the standards and practices departments for the networks do not agree with their critics, arguing that they give agencies ample leeway to communicate their advertising messages. A CBS clearance editor states: "We do not act as censors. We work in a constructive way with advertisers to make sure that we, as carriers of the public trust, present things in the best possible light to viewers." Roland McFarland, who runs the standards and practices department at Fox, argues that his department tries to assist both agencies and television viewers: "We help agencies tailor and craft their ads for the broad-spectrum audience. We are part of the creative process. We know what plays with our audience and what will have more impact."

Advertisers also become frustrated by the lack of consistency in the decisions across the major networks, as commercials accepted by reviewers at one network are not always accepted by other networks. For example, while Fox is known for its irreverent programming, the network has a reputation as "family friendly" and is considered more cautious and conservative than the Big Three. However,the networks argue that inconsistency among standards and practices departments is uncommon and that if one network has problems with a commercial, the others usually will as well.

Advertisers that feel they have been treated unfairly by a network can appeal the decision to the network's sales department, which has the authority to overrule the censors. However, because clearance editors tend to stay in their jobs for years and have

Belch: Advertising and I VII. Special Topics and I 22. Evaluating the Social, I I © The McGraw-Hill

Promotion, Sixth Edition Perspectives Ethical, & Economic Companies, 2003

Aspects of Advtising & Promotion long memories, agencies and clients are leery of this option. Thus, they prefer to negotiate with the clearance editors and often will make changes and modifications in their ads to satisfy the editors' concerns. In some cases, the networks are persuaded to allow an ad to run to gauge the public's reactions. Ads often run subject to viewer complaint—if the network receives negative reactions from viewers,the ad is pulled.

In some cases advertisers give up trying to please the networks and instead seek approval from the network affiliates, which have their own standards and practices departments and usually are easier to please than the network censors. Advertisers also will take their ads to independent broadcasters as well as cable stations, which may be even less stringent in their reviews. The advertising recession that has plagued the industry in recent years has resulted in a decline in demand for TV commercial time, particularly on syndicated programs and cable. Thus it is often easier to get ads accepted on their programs than by the major networks.

The clearance editors at the networks review 50 to 150 commercials a day, sometimes examining revisions of a spot three and four times. While they acknowledge that the process is subjective, they argue that they do their best to serve the sometimes competing interests of advertisers, the viewing audience, and the network affiliates. They argue that they have to please a large number of viewers with very different values and opinions as to what is tasteful and responsible advertising. While they do not feel they are censors, they do think of themselves as protectors of social values.

Sources: Joan Voight and Wendy Melillo, "Rough Cut," Adweek, March 11,2002, pp.27-29; Joan Voight and Wendy Melillo,"To See or Not to See?" Adweek, March 11,2002, p. 30; Vanessa O'Connell, "Invasion of the Tacky Advertisers," The Wall Street Journal, February 20,2002, pp. Bl,4.

Continue reading here: Social and Cultural Consequences

Was this article helpful?