KNBR hosts blast Homeland Security ads on the air

[TheBigA]

And even the networks sell via a rep firm in most cases.

Absolutely, but they're not buying individual stations. They're buying the network. So they don't know formats, just demos.

The point is that the FCC and other agencies with jurisdiction won't let you pick and choose which ads to take and which not to accept.

Oh I'm sure this FCC is watching this very carefully. These spots are a big problem. There's a way to do these kinds of ads that are straight and to the point. That's what we used to get from government agencies. These ads begin with praising the president for how great he is. That makes it a political ad, not a homeland security ad. Once corporate realizes this, they will have to respond. These ads, as produced, are completely inappropriate for sports or music radio stations. If I was PD, I'd reject them.

Here's the text of what they say:

“Thank you, President Donald J. Trump, for securing our border and putting America first. President Trump has a clear message: if you are here illegally, we will find you and deport you. You will never return. But if you leave now, you may have an opportunity to return and enjoy our freedom and live the American Dream,” said Secretary Kristi Noem. “If you are a criminal alien considering entering America illegally: Don’t even think about it. If you come here and break our laws, we will hunt you down. Criminals are not welcome in the United States.”

 

[davideduardo]

Mexicans no longer have a path to immigrate to the US unless it’s through family, marriage, employment or money and skill. Mexican citizens no longer qualify for the visa lottery.

There are exceptions, such as qualified college graduates (you mention employment). This is how many of the tech firms have acquired the top foreign students who are then converted to residents or resident-path work visas.

But the acceptance of unemployed persons has been stopped. Every legal immigrant I know agrees with this. You will find that even Spanish language radio stations support this, as undocumented immigrants don't fill in diaries or accept People Meters that they think will track them. What those stations would prefer is that the border be closed and existing undocumented persons be either deported or granted residency; this would stop all the attention drawn to the subject, which negatively affects station and network sales efforts.

But we are getting into a political discussion. And this only affects radio and TV insofar as things like bringing foreign nationals to work in the media and the current subject of the "self-deport yourself" ads being run.

 

[davideduardo]

Absolutely, but they're not buying individual stations. They're buying the network. So they don't know formats, just demos.

All the networks, even independent ones, have ways of selective buying by format, demographics and the like. So if a buy is targeting "Men 25-44" they won't be taking the gold based AC station or the classic hits station.

Oh I'm sure this FCC is watching this very carefully. These spots are a big problem. There's a way to do these kinds of ads that are straight and to the point. That's what we used to get from government agencies. These ads begin with praising the president for how great he is. That makes it a political ad, not a homeland security ad. Once corporate realizes this, they will have to respond. These ads, as produced, are completely inappropriate for sports or music radio stations. If I was PD, I'd reject them.

The FCC does not regulate the content of the ad, other than the regular obscenity rules. There can be FTC, FDA and other agency rules involved, such as the ones selling prescription medications. But there is no regulation of "creative" and if the ad represents government policy, it is no different than a paid ad for military recruitment or to solicit bids for the construction of public housing.

 

[TheBigA]

All the networks, even independent ones, have ways of selective buying by format, demographics and the like. So if a buy is targeting "Men 25-44" they won't be taking the gold based AC station or the classic hits station.

Truthfully, who would you target an ad aiming at illegal immigrants? These ads are totally inappropriate for almost all radio formats. They fit on news/talk. Not sports or alternative rock.

The FCC does not regulate the content of the ad, other than the regular obscenity rules.

You're talking about the old FCC. This FCC is investigating radio companies for DEI. Where is that laid out in the FCC Rules?

This FCC will find a way to deny a license to stations that don't air ads from DHS. I don't know how, but they will.

 

[davideduardo]

Truthfully, who would you target an ad aiming at illegal immigrants? These ads are totally inappropriate for almost all radio formats. They fit on news/talk. Not sports or alternative rock.

The place to put those ads is on stations that target speakers of languages other than English.

And, on the off chance some undocumented immigrants do listen to English language radio, they would likely listen to CHR, AC and rock formats... not talk ones. English language pop music is widely played in much of the world, but generally appeals to people who are not likely to be illegal immigrants.

You're talking about the old FCC. This FCC is investigating radio companies for DEI. Where is that laid out in the FCC Rules?

No where. We agree that they are overstepping, and that the current president has apointed a bunch of the wrong people here.

 

[TheBigA]

The place to put those ads is on stations that target speakers of languages other than English.

Here's my question to you: If a client like the US government goes to an agency with a multi-million dollar buy, does the client go in knowing who they want to reach? Does the agency make that decision? Or does the agency just take the money and place it everywhere rather than targeting specific formats? Because this looks like a mass buy, not targeted. Which is often how they place ads for NHTSA. It's probably the same agency.

 

[davideduardo]

Here's my question to you: If a client like the US government goes to an agency with a multi-million dollar buy, does the client go in knowing who they want to reach? Does the agency make that decision? Or does the agency just take the money and place it everywhere rather than targeting specific formats? Because this looks like a mass buy, not targeted. Which is often how they place ads for NHTSA. It's probably the same agency.

An ad agency will meet with a client and determine who the client's target audience is. The client usually has statistics on the demographics of the most profitable consumers, based on deep research.

In the case of this particular campaign, I would imagine that the objective of the English language TV spots is to please the portion of the electorate that wants illegal immigrants deported; that statistic, irrespective of what survey is used, is a large majority of Americans.

An agency might ask, "why are you not doing ads in Spanish, Tagalog, Kreyol and the like?" In this case, I suspect the "client" which is the government agenecy behind this, would say that they want to reassure the electorate that they are doing their job.

Why there are not intensive campaigns on foreign language stations is a different question.

However, we can see this indication that there is advertising in other languages and even outside the U.S.A.:

"This series of ads will run on radio, broadcast, and digital, in multiple countries and regions in various dialects. Ads will be hyper-targeted, including through social media, text message and digital to reach illegal immigrants in the interior of the United States, as well as internationally."
I wasted about a half hour looking for the ad agency for this account. I could not find it. I did find a detail about the outside entities that created the campaign:

Homeland Security budgets $200m for new border ad campaign

In the ads, Kristi Noem praises President Trump and warns migrants in the US illegally that “we will find you.”

www.semafor.com

It is possible that the creators of the campaign went directly to buying services, and did not use an agency. In any case, they would determine with that entity the target and other specifications of the ad buys.

It is interesting that the government source says "dialects" and not "languages".

 

[Miss Tuned]

An ad agency will meet with a client and determine who the client's target audience is. The client usually has statistics on the demographics of the most profitable consumers, based on deep research.

In the case of this particular campaign, I would imagine that the objective of the English language TV spots is to please the portion of the electorate that wants illegal immigrants deported; that statistic, irrespective of what survey is used, is a large majority of Americans.

An agency might ask, "why are you not doing ads in Spanish, Tagalog, Kreyol and the like?" In this case, I suspect the "client" which is the government agenecy behind this, would say that they want to reassure the electorate that they are doing their job.

Why there are not intensive campaigns on foreign language stations is a different question.

However, we can see this indication that there is advertising in other languages and even outside the U.S.A.:

"This series of ads will run on radio, broadcast, and digital, in multiple countries and regions in various dialects. Ads will be hyper-targeted, including through social media, text message and digital to reach illegal immigrants in the interior of the United States, as well as internationally."
I wasted about a half hour looking for the ad agency for this account. I could not find it. I did find a detail about the outside entities that created the campaign:

Homeland Security budgets $200m for new border ad campaign

In the ads, Kristi Noem praises President Trump and warns migrants in the US illegally that “we will find you.”

www.semafor.com

It is possible that the creators of the campaign went directly to buying services, and did not use an agency. In any case, they would determine with that entity the target and other specifications of the ad buys.

It is interesting that the government source says "dialects" and not "languages".

See also, the UK "Go Home" vans from a previous government, which were driven around areas of London with high immigrant populations, but were entirely in English:

'Go home' vans resulted in 11 people leaving Britain, says report

Evaluation of widely criticised illegal immigration campaign shows more than two-thirds of texts received were fake

www.theguardian.com

It seems like the U.S. administration has pretty much used this idea wholesale, but updated the tech (the 2013 UK version asked migrants to text a number for "free help to return home") and expanded the campaign to broadcast media. The UK campaign eventually got canceled due to public unpopularity. A total of 11 people actually "went home" through this campaign.

As for people moving without a job, I just don't see how anyone can do it. I'm currently in a process to migrate from the UK to a new country (not the U.S.) for quality-of-life reasons, and the very first thing I'm doing is finding a job in my new country in my professional field. If I don't find one, I ain't going. For one thing, I wouldn't have enough "points" to just move there with no job offer, and secondly, who moves to a new place with all the associated expenses without a job offer in hand?

 

[TheBigA]

It is possible that the creators of the campaign went directly to buying services, and did not use an agency. In any case, they would determine with that entity the target and other specifications of the ad buys.

Interesting. So the ad runs on a sports station in San Francisco and an alternative station in Seattle, two very blue cities and infuriates listeners in those cities. If future ads from government agencies follow this pattern (and they likely will) we will see this happen again. They are a source of revenue for commercial stations (their version of government funded media), but bad programming for their listeners. The response from listeners in blue cities may also be part of the goal. It was in the book 1984.

 

[radiofan2023]

I have not heard any radio commercials, in English or Spanish. Has anyone else?

I haven't, but I don't listen to Cumulus stations around here or on streaming.

As for people moving without a job, I just don't see how anyone can do it. I'm currently in a process to migrate from the UK to a new country (not the U.S.) for quality-of-life reasons, and the very first thing I'm doing is finding a job in my new country in my professional field. If I don't find one, I ain't going. For one thing, I wouldn't have enough "points" to just move there with no job offer, and secondly, who moves to a new place with all the associated expenses without a job offer in hand?

I've done it when I moved to the Bay Area, but I had lived there before, had connections, slept in a friend's spare room and had savings. I wouldn't move countries without a job.

 

[Lester_the_NightFly]

So if this is looking more of a political ad, is it legal to use government funds?

 

[b-turner]

First, any jock slamming a paying client needs to grow up even if it makes your blood boil.

Is this an ordinary commercial or a political spot. I know political commercials are specifically for elections but should the regulations apply?

Does it seem the administration that is cutting costs is spending a large amount on this campaign. I'd like to know the languages and stations in the USA and elsewhere in the world where time buys have been made. I can see reaching those in their first language and outside the country. It appears, any I might be wrong, the English spots are targeting areas where Republicans have little pull.

I refer to these people here without the proper documentation or none whatsoever as illegals simply because they broke the law. Should you want to know what happens elsewhere, take a little trip to Mexico without the proper documents. You'll wind up in prison where you have to buy your food and get in the right social circles to have a cell and a bed. If your family has money, that can all be avoided. I'm not trying to be any other way but just saying in other countries you simply don't want to be caught without proper documentation. Some 'illegals' are he kind of folks you want for a neighbor. Some are a drain on our resources. Some are the criminal aspect. If we could choose, that would be perfect. I base this from living on the Mexican border for years and in quick trips across saw how he cops wanted some folding money simply because they found you. I kid you not. I was buying a case of beer mere feet from the border when two vehicles pull up full of men in uniform and pointing guns at us yelling in perfect English to put our hands on the hood. The head guy said 'Boys this is really going to cost you'. I knew the secretary to the mayor of the city (and the mayor was a powerful guy) and Sergio told me to ask them to call him if they had any 'business' with me. Once I said that about calling Sergio, they say, 'wrong guys', dash back to their vehicle and spray gravel everywhere. As for us we're looking at each other as it sinks in and say 'what just happened'.

 

[TheBigA]

First, any jock slamming a paying client needs to grow up even if it makes your blood boil.

He's not a jock, he's a talk radio host. That's what talk hosts do. If it was a local client, you might have a point. But it's the federal government.

Any spot that begins "Thank you president trump" is asking to be slammed. Especially in San Francisco.

Do you think a conservative talk station would air a spot that began "Thank you hillary clinton?

 

[davideduardo]

So if this is looking more of a political ad, is it legal to use government funds?

The content is a notice to illegal immigrants. As such, it's a legitimate (albeit highly criticized) government expenditure.

 

[davideduardo]

Do you think a conservative talk station would air a spot that began "Thank you hillary clinton?

Yes, they legally would have to run it. You can not selectively turn down ads if you accept others in the same category.

 

[TheBigA]

The content is a notice to illegal immigrants. As such, it's a legitimate (albeit highly criticized) government expenditure.

In another thread, you said that because NPR accepts taxpayer funds, they must do news that appeals to everyone. So now we have an ad campaign that uses taxpayer funds that angers half of the country. And it seems obvious that was the intent. Where's the consistency? There's a way to warn illegal immigrants without pissing off half the country.

Yes, they legally would have to run it. You can not selectively turn down ads if you accept others in the same category.

This wasn't presented as a political ad. The president isn't running for office. This should have been no different from a NHTSA ad that tells people not to drink & drive. But that's not how it was done. Stations were blindsided with political content.

 

[davideduardo]

I haven't, but I don't listen to Cumulus stations around here or on streaming.

They are not just on Cumulus stations. It's a national buy on all kinds of stations with different owners as far as I can discern.

 

[radiofan2023]

They are not just on Cumulus stations. It's a national buy on all kinds of stations with different owners as far as I can discern.

Maybe they aren’t running around here, I haven’t heard it on any stations or seen the ad on tv.

 

[davideduardo]

First, any jock slamming a paying client needs to grow up even if it makes your blood boil.

However, if the commentator was in a decidedly blue city, the content is certainly topical. Saying that the station should not have accepted the campaign, though, is just ignorance of regulations.

Is this an ordinary commercial or a political spot. I know political commercials are specifically for elections but should the regulations apply?

"Political" in radio is a category that defines one thing: lowest unit rate. Only certain campaigns and during a certain period prior to elections qualify for that.

Every thing else, such as out-of-campaing-period ads and PAC ads got whatever rate the station can get from them.

Does it seem the administration that is cutting costs is spending a large amount on this campaign. I'd like to know the languages and stations in the USA and elsewhere in the world where time buys have been made. I can see reaching those in their first language and outside the country. It appears, any I might be wrong, the English spots are targeting areas where Republicans have little pull.

I have yet to hear about spots in any other language. Most illegal immigrants do not speak any English, or at best enough English to understand those spots.

I refer to these people here without the proper documentation or none whatsoever as illegals simply because they broke the law. Should you want to know what happens elsewhere, take a little trip to Mexico without the proper documents. You'll wind up in prison where you have to buy your food and get in the right social circles to have a cell and a bed. If your family has money, that can all be avoided. I'm not trying to be any other way but just saying in other countries you simply don't want to be caught without proper documentation.

I've lived and worked in other countries, and, if anything, they are stricter than the U.S. in allowing immigrants in. In particular, the so-called "Third World" or underdeveloped nations have trouble sustaining their government and their people without an influx of unwanted immigrants..

For example, to get my residency in Ecuador I had to show enough resources or income to live at least a year as well as a guarantee of a place to live. When I applied for citizenship, not only did I have to take an extensive exam on government and history, I had to show "permanent" ability to be self sustaining. Since I owned a group of radio stations, I qualified but that is a hard bar to jump over for most.

 

[fybush]

Cite the "regulation" that you claim prohibits a station owner from rejecting this ad buy, David.

There isn't one.