KIRO ENDORSEMENT SPOTS

[WKomm]

I find the endless Monson/Ron & Don spots to be extremely irritating. At best, they're disingenuous. At worst, they're outright deceitful.

I hear Ron extolling the virtues of a steel roof company. The spot makes it sound as if he did research, called around, received bids and found the best deal for his valued listeners. The truth is most likely that an account exec approached him to do the spots for either a free roof or at least a good deal. His cohort Don seems to have "good friends" everywhere and I'm sure he really spent a great deal of time researching outfits like a blind and window dressing company. It's all bogus. I think there should be an FCC mandate requiring all these spots to tell us exactly what the personality received for the spot and a copy be kept in the station public records. When you hear a spot for a car mfr., you hear a ton of "small print" read a zillion miles an hour. It means nothing to the average listener and even if it did, it's incomprehensible. So why not these spots where radio guys get free stuff to tell us all about their "good friends?"

 

[ajhenderson]

There are already rules for endorsements.

 

[SeattleRadioPro]

Re: ANY ENDORSEMENT SPOTS (but KIRO is the worst!)

There are already rules for endorsements.

That's not what the OP is talking about.

I totally agree that there should be full disclosure on compensated endorsement radio spots. They do that on TV already (albeit with a very small graphic), but they can easily do this on a radio ad with a two second disclosure much like political ads.

However, you'll never see this happen - not under the current FCC structure.

 

[Cumeanary]

I believe Ron and Don research their endorsements as much as I believe Janet W never checks this board

 

[DFWRADIO]

There are already rules for endorsements.

When a client pays a premium for an endorsement they expect the jocks to act like they are friends with everyone there and they enjoy the product. Most companies make their employees sign a payola/plugola form when they are hired. If the PD at KIRO is any good he is listening to the station and is watching for this. The fact is the station and the jocks make a ton of money of "live spots" and if done right they can actually be entertaining.

 

[ajhenderson]

The point is that there are rules about how you can endorse a product. A talent can't make blatant misrepresentations as to their relationship with the client.

 

[WKomm]

KCJB - Your point seems to me, dead on.

I have no problem with endorsement spots. I've done plenty. But I've also worked with guys who happily do glowing endorsement spots for products they've never used and just get a weekly check. What's the difference between that and payola? If a station says "this interview with so-and-so" or "this song by so-and-so" is brought to you by the label, no problem. It's when that relationship is hidden that a problem results.

Printed ads have been busted by the FTC for fake promises and phoney "before" and "after" photos. Lots of advertisers are forced to squeeze lots of motor-mouthing at the end of the spot, especially car ads - all that boiler plate about interest rates, etc. They do it to be legal. Heck, a box of cereal contains a ton of disclaimers on it. It's really no big deal. A simple "Ron has been compensated by Major Blinds for this ad" at the end of the spot would do it. But I'd like to know if a company has given the endorserer money and/or product for voicing the spot.

It's a thing of mine. I wrote one company about their radio ads when they claimed they were playing audio from satisfied customers who magically called in when they were SO obviously voice-over talents. I like the product, have it in my house right now and will continue to buy it. They wrote back to apologize, saying this was an issue they were taking up with their ad agency that week. That may or may not have been true. But I never heard the ads again.

I'm all for creativity, standing out. I detest fakeness and trying to fool the gullible. And KIRO has a bunch of these troublesome spots.

 

[DFWRADIO]

KCJB - Your point seems to me, dead on.

I have no problem with endorsement spots. I've done plenty. But I've also worked with guys who happily do glowing endorsement spots for products they've never used and just get a weekly check. What's the difference between that and payola? If a station says "this interview with so-and-so" or "this song by so-and-so" is brought to you by the label, no problem. It's when that relationship is hidden that a problem results.

Printed ads have been busted by the FTC for fake promises and phoney "before" and "after" photos. Lots of advertisers are forced to squeeze lots of motor-mouthing at the end of the spot, especially car ads - all that boiler plate about interest rates, etc. They do it to be legal. Heck, a box of cereal contains a ton of disclaimers on it. It's really no big deal. A simple "Ron has been compensated by Major Blinds for this ad" at the end of the spot would do it. But I'd like to know if a company has given the endorserer money and/or product for voicing the spot.

It's a thing of mine. I wrote one company about their radio ads when they claimed they were playing audio from satisfied customers who magically called in when they were SO obviously voice-over talents. I like the product, have it in my house right now and will continue to buy it. They wrote back to apologize, saying this was an issue they were taking up with their ad agency that week. That may or may not have been true. But I never heard the ads again.

I'm all for creativity, standing out. I detest fakeness and trying to fool the gullible. And KIRO has a bunch of these troublesome spots.

Sometimes stations will offer lower salaries with the promise of endorsements and appearances. In this case I think it's fine for a jock/host to talk about a product. Are we supposed to protect consumers from themselves??? If someone really goes and buys a product just because someone said it was good! As in purchasing anything at the end of the day it's the consumer that has to whip out the Mastercard so they should research a product for it's use as opposed to what some jock is getting paid to talk about it. I am tired of people thinking that we have to "police" everything in this country. Here's a novel concept "Research it and make an educated decision"!!!

 

[Kelly]

Just taking some spokesperson's word on the quality of a product is like believing everything you read on this board.. You get what you deserve.

 

[WKomm]

I don't disagree with anything the last two posters have stated. However - and there's always a "however" ---

Radio stations are supposedly regulated by the government through the FCC. I know this a quaint notion that is rarely enforced but it's different than putting up a flyer in a store stating "Joe's is a terrific appliance store!" or even a newspaper columnist extolling the virtues of anything. Radio is supposed to be regulated so that payola/plugola doesn't run rampant.

I'd like to think everyone in America is pretty intelligent but we know that's not the case. Statistics of drivers texting while driving are off the charts. My wife and son were rear-ended by a young lady chatting on her phone; our car was totalled and while both my family members were alright, it was pretty stressful. Therefor, we start passing laws. I find it difficult to understand why a society would need a law suggesting that writing to someone while going 50 mph in two tons of steel isn't a good idea, but it appears needed.

Not every listener is a deductive listener, media savvy or maybe they just trust what the person on the air says. If you hear someone impersonating Jay Leno say "Hi! This is Jay Leno and I like listening to Ron & Don" do you believe it's Leno? Doesn't matter. Court cases have proven that they need to add "celebrity voice impersonated" and there have been plenty of lawsuits from public figures that result in big awards. Are you following the Naked Cowboy in NYC and M&M's lawsuit?

How would you feel if you listened to Dave Ross broadcasting from Baghdad only to find out he was doing the show from a cottage at Long Beach? What would you think if Monson touted that dog food for his mutt Star and you saw him buy a competing brand? Would you believe him the next time he pimped siding or lawn care or a mortgage company? When you see a print ad that shows a doctor promoting a weight-loss product, do you try to find out if it's a real doctor? BTW - the FTC regulates that whole actors-portraying-doctors thing.

It's not a big deal. Stations merely have to make the information available. Maybe in the public file (which NO ONE ever checks) or on the web site: "Dori Monson was compensated in cash and/or product for endorsing the XYZ company". It's not nanny government, it's not intrusive. It's the truth.

And I would bet a BIG bunch of cash that if one of you saw a car dealership ad featuring(for example) Mike Holmgren and that influenced you to buy a car there and it was a costly lemon with horrible customer service, not only would that color your feelings toward Holmgren but it might change the "do we need to protect consumers from themselves" mentality.

Yes, we do need protection. Because I can't research every ad, check out the quality of every glass of water, inspect every piece of meat, trust every single sales person, make sure every kid's toy is safe - I like the idea of being super-informed so maybe I can protect myself a bit more.

 

[lankypup]

Listeners hate too many endorsements. They bitch about Dori all the time.

 

[SeattleRadioPro]

Listeners hate too many endorsements. They bitch about Dori all the time.

But most listeners actually believe all those endorsements are genuine. Otherwise why else would KIRO and other stations allow their air talent to do them?

 

[monkeygirl]

Payola has nothing to do with product endorsement, it's about record companies paying radio people to spin or promote and artist at a higher level than they normally would. The FCC couldn't be more of a nanny group if they opened a daycare and you're advcating more regulation?

For most of my career in radio, 30+ years now, the jocks did all the voicing of commercials and when they were paid to endorse a product, the spot would include their name, so it was obvious they were paid to speak about that product. Sometimes the pay was cash, sometimes services or merchandise, sometimes a combination. Since deregulation and the shift from having a full production staff to having one person handle several stations, that's changed. Most all the voices now are from people in production and sometimes, sales.

Do you honestly feel the need to legislate this, too, to protect stupid people from purchasing goods and services that don't live up to what they thought they heard from some jock? We're already at the point where radio has to produce entire spots to run on air broadcasting every single eventuality of contesting and some of hem are longer than :60!

I'm all for protecting people who need it, such as the elderly in investment scams, but if we really have reached the time in which most people are so daft as to need protection from product endorsements, then, well, the terrorists truly have won. (SARCASM, couldn't think of a good analogy)

 

[WKomm]

Monkeygirl - I've been in radio as long as you and your question >> Do you honestly feel the need to legislate this, too, to protect stupid people from purchasing goods and services that don't live up to what they thought they heard from some jock?<< bolster my point. Yes, I do honestly feel this way.

If you read a newspaper flyer for a grocery store featuring Al Roker endorsing a meat product and because you like and trust Roker you bought it, only to get sick because it was improperly produced - where would you place the blame? Would you merely say "Oh, stupid me! I should have inspected the slaughterhouse myself so I guess the eboli I contacted is all my fault!" Would you blame the store? Roker? My point is -

We trust that these products really do work as endorsed. I've worked for chains that absolutely would not let us endorse anything, for fear of being connected with a lawsuit. If the advertiser buys time and the public buys it, it's buyer beware. No media outlet can possibly be expected to personally inspect every single product from every single advertiser. But if YOU tell me it's good, that's different. I've listened to you for years and I trust you. If you tell me that roofing company is terrific and I spend $10k on a roof from them and it falls in during the first rain, you'll be one of the folks named in a law suit. I worked at a station where one of the jocks beat up his girlfriend. The family sued us, saying we should have done a bg check and we would have discovered his violent past. They were correct. A little due diligence would have prevented the lawsuit and a hospital stay for the woman involved.

I'm not talking payola and you know it.

The FCC needs to be MORE of a nanny group. All regulation except blatant cases are history. No more public service. No one cares about eeo anymore. The public file is a joke. FCC inspections are a joke. Airwaves are public resources like beaches and mountains and water sources. The FCC has abdicated their authority, allowing groups like CC to run roughshod over them and that results in major markets having so few "live" personalities on the air that emergency situations like tornadoes are now another joke - radio is done as something listeners can rely on.

I want to know if the personality was compensated and what with. Period. It's not a big deal. It's like the parental guidance stickers on CDs that sent so many were up in arms years ago. It didn't dent CD sales and it served its purpose - to alert parents to objectionable lyrics. Now everything is rated and that system works for me. Print ads often have fine print that say "Ryan Seacrest was compensated for his appearance" and radio ads say "celebrity voice impersonated". So what's the big deal?

I do think we need protection and I'm not daft - I'm very media savvy. My guess is the first time you buy something that a station or personality endorses that harms you, you'll change your way of thinking. I can still recall how I felt the day I got a call from a doctor telling me about a patient he was treating who used the weight-loss product I was endorsing.

>> For most of my career in radio, 30+ years now, the jocks did all the voicing of commercials and when they were paid to endorse a product, the spot would include their name, so it was obvious they were paid to speak about that product. <<

It's obvious to you and me - not to listeners. And now that you bring it up, I also think that any spots using voice actors playing "customers" needs to have that disclaimer aired as well.

Look, as I said, I'm in radio. Radio has been and still is a license to print money. I'm not crying for the group owners who pull off multi-million dollar deals like you and I going down an aisle at Fred Meyer's. This is just asking for truth in advertising.

 

[monkeygirl]

If you read a newspaper flyer for a grocery store featuring Al Roker endorsing a meat product and because you like and trust Roker you bought it, only to get sick because it was improperly produced - where would you place the blame? Would you merely say "Oh, stupid me! I should have inspected the slaughterhouse myself so I guess the eboli I contacted is all my fault!" Would you blame the store? Roker? My point is ...

You couldn't have chosen a better analogy for my point. I may watch and like, think I know and trust Al Roker...but not about meat! Good lord, he'd be the last person I'd blame, honestly! He's not the head of the FDA or Consumer Affairs. You have to take these things for what they're worth, consider the source.

If you tell me that roofing company is terrific and I spend $10k on a roof from them and it falls in during the first rain, you'll be one of the folks named in a law suit.

Well, then, all due respect, I'd say you're just a litigious individual.

I worked at a station where one of the jocks beat up his girlfriend. The family sued us, saying we should have done a bg check and we would have discovered his violent past. They were correct. A little due diligence would have prevented the lawsuit and a hospital stay for the woman involved.

I'm not sure what this has to do with product endorsement...?

I'm not talking payola and you know it.

I'm sorry if you weren't the one who brought it up and thought I was directing that at you. Someone here used the word. I was only saying it's not payola.

The FCC needs to be MORE of a nanny group.

I can't take much more regulation. FCC interference is part of what's ruined radio. All of a sudden, after 30 years of airplay, classic rock stations can't play "Who Are You" anymore because it contains the dreaded F word. I guess there may be some kids out there who haven't heard it yet whose heads may explode if they do. And you want more of this?

radio is done as something listeners can rely on.

A large part of that is because it's no longer a cutting edge medium. Listeners don't have to rely on radio only for tornado warnings any longer.

I want to know if the personality was compensated and what with. Period. It's not a big deal.

It is to me. I don't think it's any of your business, really. That's part of my pay and that's private information. If you can't discern I'm endorsing a product rather than just reading script, that's a problem that can't be effectively legislated.

I do think we need protection and I'm not daft - I'm very media savvy. My guess is the first time you buy something that a station or personality endorses that harms you, you'll change your way of thinking. I can still recall how I felt the day I got a call from a doctor telling me about a patient he was treating who used the weight-loss product I was endorsing.

And what happened?

It's obvious to you and me - not to listeners. And now that you bring it up, I also think that any spots using voice actors playing "customers" needs to have that disclaimer aired as well....This is just asking for truth in advertising.

To me, that's way too much hand-holding. There is truth in advertising. Each time I do endorsements, I never say anything that isn't true and I don't play word games. All we can do is relay our experiences. I've always liked the products I've been paid to sell, though. I don't lie. But I wouldn't trust any jock's opinion on anything he or she wasn't somewhat knowledgable on, or anyone for that matter. I think anyone who does so blindly may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I'm just about to a full tank on all the disclaimers we have to deal with as it is. I'm tired of dumb people getting awarded money in courts for being dumb. I'm still amazed listeners complain about prizes. What ever happened to personal responsibilty?

 

[WKomm]

Well, Monkeygirl - we'll have to disagree.

IMO, the laxness of the FCC is a big thing that's harmed radio. They rolled over and went from allowing chains to own 14 stations to owning thousands. They stop all the local content requirements, PSA requirements, have been very lax on EEO, haven't said a word as VT'ing took away hundreds of radio gigs. They have been asleep at the switch and the wolves rushed in. I'm not crazy about EITHER big business or big govt. but when it comes down to it, I'll always choose govt. regulation over businesses with no boundaries. To me, govt interference is benign and the multi-nationals are cancerous.
____________

I don't want to see a take-home stub - I just want to know if you were compensated for saying how great something is. If you're worried about your privacy, you're a few decades too late. If you (or Roker) tell me how great a window company is, I'd like to know if you received free windows. That's all. Then I can make an informed decision because I know more of the facts. Pls keep in mind that I'll bet I've done waaaay more endorsement spots than you and I would enjoy telling listeners the truth.
________________________

I've yet to sue anyone. But I've BEEN sued a number of times.
____________________________

Maybe the jock arrested story was a bit off point but the point is - stations must have responsibility for what their personalities do - on air, off air, during live reads.
_____________________________

If you think that radio is dying because the FCC won't let you play a song by the Who, well ... there's nothing to discuss because that's just waaaay out there. Please don't tell me that airing the 7 words will get ratings and that by being edgy you mean we get vulgar. Nuh-uh - not a chance. The FCC has nothing to do with any of that. There are plenty of entertaining, hip air talents who have never been vulgar.
________________________________

Listeners DO rely on radio for the weather. Kind of hard to watch that 52" flat screen with water up to the 2nd floor. In disasters, it's always been radio that has linked people. Always.
_____________________________________

I am 100% with you on your final comments and I feel the same way. But I would rather be open and avoid potential "well, you never said" stuff because I have been involved in multi-million lawsuits and one of them was the family of the girl that the DJ beat up. They arrested him during a live nightclub broadcast on our our, btw - it was an interesting night.
But you and I are exceptions. I know for a FACT that there are jocks who will endorse casinos, tobacco products, anything for the cash. It's really not a big deal - just a few words would do it. Just a record in the public file of what the jock was given. Remember, payola was a scandal because it was HIDDEN, not because money changed hands.

There was a certain talk guy in a big market - I worked for one of the music stations in the cluster - who regularly had as "guests" lawncare experts, dentists, etc. His landscaping was impeccable, his family's teeth were white and straight. To me, that was deceitful and much more bothersome than a simple disclaimer. We hear it all the time when an ABC news show does an expose - "to be fair, our parent company ABC, owns the firm being sued in this story." It would be the right thing to do.

You and I need to worry about Internet radio much more than a cuss word or an endorsement disclaimer.

BTW - I did Metabolife for years. I looked into some of the stories and none could be substantiated. I used the product daily. One problem were the dim bulbs who thought the label warning "CAUTION: Take no more than 12 a day" was a friendly suggestion and they ate it like candy for the energy boost. They would then be shocked by arrythmias (pretty much harmless) panic attacks, etc. It was like mainlining caffeine! As you say - personal responsibility ...

Metabolife was - IMO - hounded out of business by the very people I'd rather work with than mega corporations - the government.

 

[dunno]

Good subject.

Most places I've worked give you the choice of endorsements. When I run across live tags or promo reads that are in the first person, I change them to second.

If I'm doing a endorsement, I want to know as much as possible about that product and use it myself. I'm sure Dori and others do this too. I don't want to burn a p-1 listner whose trust I'm hoping to earn.

Look at all the actors doing so many info-mecials, most seem to just be looking for the pay. Alot of the stuff is pure crap!!

But what do I know??

 

[WKomm]

dunno - I'm sure that you, monkeygirl and I are all thinking the same thing: we only do endorsements for stuff we use and believe in. I can honestly say that. And over the years, I'm certain listeners have come to rely on my word. BUT ... I've had account execs literally beg me to do something I didn't want to do in order to get the account. I think I've had a half dozen offers for free Lasik for me, my family, the dog - anything in order to get me to talk about the client. I might be strange but i like wearing glasses for several reasons and I just don't want a laser in my eye, thanks. On the other hand, the current gig I have could use more revenue (and I get a small cut) and that cash would look good on the bottom line ... could I ask a friend to have Lasik and I could talk anout it that way?

Of course the answer is no.

I don't see my proposal as imposing much at all on b'casters or air talents. It's not prying and I'm not asking for numbers - just for a disclaimer. BTW - I can only imagine what listeners would think if they heard the truth.

"Hi, I'm Joe DJ and for doing this ad I received $10,000 worth of replacement windows free plus I get $400 a week for telling you about them." Might not sit real well.

A few years back I did a series of spots for a beer-of-the month club. I received two cases of free beer for a year and got $600 a month to do a few spots. I love America!

 

[DangerousDan]

I think what's most annoying is that KIRO doesn't put a limit on the number of these spots. I've heard as many as 5 "testimonial" spots in an hour including from air personalities who haven't worked there in forever (Tony Ventrella?).

So these shows don't sound like "huckster alley", I would put a limit of TWO of these live or live-on-tape "testimonial" spots per hour, regardless of the advertiser or who is voicing the spot. That way you don't hear Swartz, Burbank, R&D, Dori, etc. all hyping their products in such close proximity. Another good way to do that? Raise the price (or talent fee) for each time those spots air.

I used to do live spots for the Nutrisystem diet. In additional to giving me free enrollment and free food, they paid me a talent fee. Of course after their 6 week buy was over, it was back to Krispy Kreme for me!

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

I used to do live spots for the Nutrisystem diet. In additional to giving me free enrollment and free food, they paid me a talent fee. Of course after their 6 week buy was over, it was back to Krispy Kreme for me!

We had a gut who lost 125lbs on NutriSystem -- he wound up being one of their "all-stars". Not long before LARGE buckets of ice cream began to appear in the freezer ... and I was teasing Sales Mgr that "you should do a buy with Safeway and get testimonials as he GAINS the full 125 lbs back!"