• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

AJC story about radio ads flying under the radar

R

rho01

Radio DJs have been endorsing products for decades. A local company helps facilitate such endorsements, rewarding mentions that blend into regular programming, the subtler the merrier. Steve & Vikki are in the lead shilling for Swiffer WetJet and is the only local jocks referenced in the story.

Here's a story my colleague Mike Tierney did for the business section today:

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0705/17varnson.html
 
The Paul Harvey approach

This is very similar to the Paul Harvey way of doing things. Although, his ads are separated from the content. They're delivered in the same way as the rest of his program. It helps keep people from putting up their defense mechanisms, and it lends credibility.

You should always talk to someone and not at them. That's the problem with 99% of the ads on the radio today. They're client focused not customer focused. This type of advertising allows the person to insert themselves into the storyline either by saying "I've had this happen or I can see this happening"
 
I must be missing something. Don't they have to disclose to the audience that they have been paid? I don't think the plugola laws have been changed...
 
> I must be missing something. Don't they have to disclose to
> the audience that they have been paid? I don't think the
> plugola laws have been changed...
>

I feel a national headline coming on...
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> I must be missing something. Don't they have to disclose to
> the audience that they have been paid? I don't think the
> plugola laws have been changed...
>

?

As long as you write it on the commerical log and it goes through traffic it's legal.

Who said you had to declare that you were being paid? What law is that?
 
You never hear Boortz or Scott Slade say they're being paid. And Scott Slade's transition into paid advertising is very hard to distinguish. Boortz's is fairly noticable.

However, the name of the person/product paying for the ad must be mentioned though. So in other words, if Car Dealer A wants to advertise Car Wash B they've started, and they pay for it with a check that says Car Dealer A, somewhere in that ad, Car Dealer A's name must be menioned. ie: Car Wash B, a division of Car Dealer A.



That's why > I must be missing something. Don't they have to disclose to
> the audience that they have been paid? I don't think the
> plugola laws have been changed...
>
 
> I must be missing something. Don't they have to disclose to
> the audience that they have been paid? I don't think the
> plugola laws have been changed...
>

I think it's called section 73.1212 of the FCC rules about sponsorship identification. Look it up on fcc.gov
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom