• 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

Katie's Radio "Commentary" and Erectile Dysfunction

  • Thread starter fred flintstone
  • Start date

F

fred flintstone

Guest
RadioDailyNews.com:
A while back I signed up for the CBS News Katie Couric podcast. Called at various times "Katie's Notebook," then "Couric's Notebook," now "CBSNews.com Notebook," the segment is 60 seconds of Katie on one topic or another. At least it was, until they tagged it with a 30 second pharma ad for erectile dysfunction (read more - Mark Ramsey-Hear 2.0)
Click to expand...

On the radio, where Katie doesn't have the chance to distract anyone by flashing her famous legs, it's all in the voice. And Katie has a voice made for silent movies. In fact, she might have done OK in Hollywood in the 20s as an innocent ingenue Mary Pickford type. But she'd been out of work once talkies took over.

This sounds like classic scam marketing: Create a problem and offer a solution (as in The Music Man). In this case, Katie's voice turns off the male listener but the advertiser has an impotence cure. It also shows how far "the Tiffany Network" and Murrow's news division have fallen if they are accepting the same kind of advertising that keeps filling bulk mail folders.
 
I'm not going to defend Katie's voice. Although I have not "heard" her as much as I've "seen" her, I'm sure your critique is fair. My question is, how is the sponsorship from a company promoting a product to deal with erectile dysfunction an indictment of the whole radio network?

The people developing and producing the content most certainly are not the same people soliciting sponsorships. Have the journalistic standards declined since Katie's move? Or are you just upset with the subject matter being addressed by the sponsor?

Wasn't Mr. Murrow sponsored by a cigarette company at some point? I'd rather have as a sponsor a company offering a remedy to a health issue instead of causing a health problem. No?
 
Part of the tragedy is Murrow used - and help sell - a product which ended up killing him. To his credit, he also narrated a CBS Reports documentary on cigarettes, one of the earliest critical reports on the hazards of smoking.

The cigarette product category was the largest advertiser in network radio and in early television. What is unacceptable practice now was acceptable then. Camels once sponsored the NBC Nightly News with John Cameron Swayze, then called "The Camel News Caravan." Camels controlled the content. No pictures could be shown of anyone smoking a cigar or pipe (except for Winston Churchill). When cigarette advertising was still legal ads for impotency cures would not have been allowed - even the subject could not be mentioned. NAB standards did not even allow ads for Preparation H (a treatment for hemorrhoids).

Impotency cures - today - are commonly appear in infomercials and SPAM. The Evening News was once a prestige broadcast, not a vehicle for advertising bottom-feeders.

The association of Viagra with Katie Couric suggests one major advertiser (Pfizer) and its ad agency think Katie will reach the demos likely to buy this product (incidence of erectile dysfunction increases with age), and Katie was hired to bring in younger demos! Right!
 
Impotency cures - today - are commonly appear in infomercials and SPAM. The Evening News was once a prestige broadcast, not a vehicle for advertising bottom-feeders.
Click to expand...

The cheap knock-offs and so-called natural remedies are the subject of infomercials and spam emails. The marketing of legitimate products like Viagra is a billion dollar industry.

I agree, standards have changed...society has changed (and I'm not necessarily saying for the better either). When Lucy was expecting (one of the first and most famous births in tv history) they could not use the word pregnant. And tv couples always slept in separate beds.

But if billions of dollars are being spent to promote a legal product with no real harmful side effects, as long as the adds are tastefully and respectfully done, why shouldn't broadcast outlets be allowed to capture their share of the revenue?

As for the contrast between Katie and CBS news shooting for a younger demo while Viagra is aimed towards on older demographic, I think CBS going for a younger demo doesn't mean the 20-something crowd. They're hoping to attract more of the 40 & 50 year old viewers and that demographic actually makes up a significant percentage of the consumers seeking help with ED.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom