KNBR hosts blast Homeland Security ads on the air

[davideduardo]

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

There isn't one.

Yes, there are. I had many memos from our communications attorneys going back to the 70's stating that Federal regulations (not just FCC, but trade regulations as well) prohibit the exclusion of one client if you take ads from others in the same category.

The first case I was involved with had to do with modifying the NAB "Code" prohibition of hard liquor ads. In Puerto Rico, the Broadcaster association moved that we could and should take ads for Puerto Rican rum distillers, but not for any other hard liquor and not, even, for any other rum not made in Puerto Rico.

The result was a finding that if we took Puerto Rican rum ads, we would be legally bound to take ads for any other distilled liquor within the same alcohol content range.

In fact, later, the NAB Code was withdrawn because it was found to be both collusion and a restraint of trade. None of the rulings and informal decisions were done by the FCC. In the "rum case" it was FTC.

There was an initiative among domestic auto manufacturers in the 70's, reported in Advertising Age among other places, to withhold advertising from media that took ads for Japanese cars. That one died when it was seen that it was a restraint of trade and never made it to an edict to media, print or electronic.

 

[Yabadabado1]

Let' point the finger at why we have all these illegal immigrants.....good, old Uncle Sam himself. How many South American countries did we go into back in the 40s/50s/60s and decided that their president/prime minister/legislative people had to go because it seemed like they were leaning towards socialism or communism? So what if their citizens voted for them and THAT'S what they wanted? As long as OUR people were in charge and did what WE said, no problem, no matter how brutal they were to their own citizens. Can't have another Cuba in our backyard. So what if it "inconvenienced" the citizens of said country. Of course it's gonna lead to the rise of narco terrorists and people looking to survive however they can which includes fleeing to another country were they hope they can survive and not worry about being killed just walking out the front door. But things seem to be swinging back to the "bad" old days in some of those countries.

And as a second aside, what if one of their high payin' advertisers decided to come to whatever station is running these Homeland ads and say "You know what? We don't agree with those ads and don't want to be associated with a station that runs them. So we're going to take our high five or six figure advertising budget elsewhere." The stations are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Good luck telling Homeland Insecurity that "we're not running your ads anymore." the only way around it I could see is if the government re-classifies it as a PSA and told them they have to run it. Either way, I bet the FCC is knocking on their door10 minutes after they tell the government to get lost.

 

[radiofan2023]

At KPRS and KPRT there was and probably still is a policy in place that they could reject an ad if they thought it was racist. I only remember it being used once, but they didn’t run the ad.

 

[Weiserguy]

...How many South American countries did we go into back in the 40s/50s/60s and decided that their president/prime minister/legislative people had to go because it seemed like they were leaning towards socialism or communism? So what if their citizens voted for them and THAT'S what they wanted? As long as OUR people were in charge and did what WE said, no problem, no matter how brutal they were to their own citizens. Can't have another Cuba in our backyard. So what if it "inconvenienced" the citizens of said country...

One need not go back that far. Review the year 1972, when Nixon, Kissinger and the CIA decided that they didn't like/trust the democratically elected president of Chile, a country as far away from the USA as a country could be and still be in the western hemisphere. But Salvadore Allende was a socialist, so we conspired and coordinated with Augusto Pinochet and the Chilean military to overthrow the (again) democratically elected Allende, kill him, kill and/or "disappear" many of his supporters, and install Pinochet as a military dictator. His regime was brutal to the Chilean people, but he was our guy, so we supported him in the name of anti-communism.

Hypocrisy eventually comes back around to bite you in the butt. Which is a lesson that will bite the current crop of hypocrites in that very spot very soon.

(Yes, it is relevant to broadcasting.)

 

[fybush]

Yes, there are. I had many memos from our communications attorneys going back to the 70's stating that Federal regulations (not just FCC, but trade regulations as well) prohibit the exclusion of one client if you take ads from others in the same category.

The first case I was involved with had to do with modifying the NAB "Code" prohibition of hard liquor ads. In Puerto Rico, the Broadcaster association moved that we could and should take ads for Puerto Rican rum distillers, but not for any other hard liquor and not, even, for any other rum not made in Puerto Rico.

The result was a finding that if we took Puerto Rican rum ads, we would be legally bound to take ads for any other distilled liquor within the same alcohol content range.

In fact, later, the NAB Code was withdrawn because it was found to be both collusion and a restraint of trade. None of the rulings and informal decisions were done by the FCC. In the "rum case" it was FTC.

There was an initiative among domestic auto manufacturers in the 70's, reported in Advertising Age among other places, to withhold advertising from media that took ads for Japanese cars. That one died when it was seen that it was a restraint of trade and never made it to an edict to media, print or electronic.

 

[101tm]

I’ve heard SummitMedia run this on my local AC, alt, and rhythmic CHR.

 

[davideduardo]

Let' point the finger at why we have all these illegal immigrants.....good, old Uncle Sam himself. How many South American countries did we go into back in the 40s/50s/60s and decided that their president/prime minister/legislative people had to go because it seemed like they were leaning towards socialism or communism? So what if their citizens voted for them and THAT'S what they wanted? As long as OUR people were in charge and did what WE said, no problem, no matter how brutal they were to their own citizens. Can't have another Cuba in our backyard. So what if it "inconvenienced" the citizens of said country. Of course it's gonna lead to the rise of narco terrorists and people looking to survive however they can which includes fleeing to another country were they hope they can survive and not worry about being killed just walking out the front door. But things seem to be swinging back to the "bad" old days in some of those countries.

Have you ever lived in one of those South American countries? I have and ran radio stations in several of them and programmed in almost all of them. And the situation there is nothing like what you describe.

And as a second aside, what if one of their high payin' advertisers decided to come to whatever station is running these Homeland ads and say "You know what? We don't agree with those ads and don't want to be associated with a station that runs them. So we're going to take our high five or six figure advertising budget elsewhere." The stations are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Good luck telling Homeland Insecurity that "we're not running your ads anymore." the only way around it I could see is if the government re-classifies it as a PSA and told them they have to run it. Either way, I bet the FCC is knocking on their door10 minutes after they tell the government to get lost.

Stations are not required to run specific PSAs. For example, at talk and sports KTNQ when I was PD, we only ran local PSAs for very local entities, like church car washes or a school soccer team fund raiser; they were done live by the talk hosts and were not scripted. We never ran government or even Ad Council PSAs.

But, as far as paid advertisements, the FCC only regulates "Lowest Unit Rate" for specific campaigns during a specific campaign period. All the rest are just "ads".

One of the things our communications attorneys send memos regularly about is the fact that stations can not take ads from some advertisers in a category and turn down others. The example I've used several times is the Puerto Rico (U.S.A.) broadcaster association amendment to its bylaws whereby we would take local rum ads but refuse other rums not from the Island and all other hard liquors.

Several of us presented this proposed bylaw to counsel, and we were rewarded with "don't even consider this... and if it is discussed in a meeting with other stations, excuse yourself by saying 'counsel told me it is not legal to discuss this'"

The issue is that you must take any and all ad buys in a category if you accept any individual one.

There are exceptions.

On my Beautiful Music station in San Juan years ago we turned down a few "loud" ads that did not fit the mood of the format; we offered to produce equivalent fitting ads ourselves. As we applied this to all loud ads, it was approved by counsel.

On the #1 and #3 stations in Puerto Rico, we put in quotas for each campaign. In each race, there was a maximum of spots that we'd run so as to not overload the format with all political ads. Ray Kraus of Koteen & Burt even ran this by the Commission informally and got an "appears upon review" to conform with rules pertaining to political advertising. We also excluded all PAC ads entirely, which was legal, too.

But if I had excluded the PNP candidate for Governor but taken the ads from the PPD one, we would have been in violation.

In this case, the "deport yourself" ads are simply commercials for a legislative or law enforcement cause or entity. If a station turned them down, they could not take other "cause" ads. One would have to consult counsel to determine if the causes could be highly specific or whether excluded buyers of time could file suit based on a restraint of trade; this is not an FCC issue but a commerce / trade one and would be an action against us by, for example, one of the agencies that regulates commerce, trade and business.

Examples of how stations are bound by other agencies beyond the FCC is the concern about running cannabis dispensary ads on radio and TV. The FCC does not prohibit such ads, and individual states may have legalized marijuana. But federal laws might put a station in danger. So, other than a station or two in Colorado, I don't believe any are running ads for "your local pot spot".

In the current environment, where the FCC "head" seems to envision regulation far beyond and much deeper than we have ever seen, if I were still managing stations I would definitely not want to provoke a very costly investigation by any of several possible federal agencies.

 

[radiofan2023]

Examples of how stations are bound by other agencies beyond the FCC is the concern about running cannabis dispensary ads on radio and TV. The FCC does not prohibit such ads, and individual states may have legalized marijuana. But federal laws might put a station in danger. So, other than a station or two in Colorado, I don't believe any are running ads for "your local pot spot".

I’ve heard ads on KMXV for a store with cannabis, CBD, etc. They also did remotes at it a few months ago.

 

[davideduardo]

I’ve heard ads on KMXV for a store with cannabis, CBD, etc. They also did remotes at it a few months ago.

I have heard stores advertise locally, but they don't mention "cannabis" or "marijuana" specifically. They speak of the "Smoke Room Dispensary" and mention CBD, papers, bongs and the like but not grass itself.

What have you heard?

 

[davideduardo]

One need not go back that far. Review the year 1972, when Nixon, Kissinger and the CIA decided that they didn't like/trust the democratically elected president of Chile, a country as far away from the USA as a country could be and still be in the western hemisphere. But Salvadore (sic) Allende was a socialist, so we conspired and coordinated with Augusto Pinochet and the Chilean military to overthrow the (again) democratically elected Allende, kill him, kill and/or "disappear" many of his supporters, and install Pinochet as a military dictator. His regime was brutal to the Chilean people, but he was our guy, so we supported him in the name of anti-communism.

The enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, introduced about 200 years ago, has been less than fair in each nation where it was applied. Intended to prevent European powers from dominating the Western Hemisphere, it was written before socialism and communism were even thought up and long before the United States was a so-called superpower.

The Chilean experience was brutal, but the interventions in Panama created the Canal and threw out "Cara de Piña". The assistance in removing Arosemena Monroy in Ecuador benefited the nation dramatically, and I lived that one so close up that I knew the protagonists.

To make this about radio, one thing is very clear which is that when there was American intervention, media... print and electronic... became far less controlled and much more free.

An example of the totalitarian Noriega regime in Panamá involved the licensee of an FM that I programmed along with several AMs, one of which was a news and commentary station. That news station was outspoken against Noriega. On day, tanks and military surrounded the station building and the staff was told to evacuate "or die". As soon as they were out, the tanks opened fire and flame throwers burnt up everything.

Among the very first things that Fidel Castro did in Cuba was nationalize all radio stations. Quite a few station owners and news commentators were imprisoned or killed. Others got boats and fled. In one example, Goar Mestre, the owner of CMQ and several other radio and TV stations, loaded up a yacht with the recordings of many radio and TV series and soap operas and fled to Miami. With the income from syndication, he built TV operations in Venezuela and Argentina.

We are seeing a total suppression of radio and TV in Venezuela today. All TV is government owned or controlled, and there are less than half the number of commercial radio stations that there were in 1995 (And this is not the death of AM being reflected... it affects FM just as much).

 

[radiofan2023]

I have heard stores advertise locally, but they don't mention "cannabis" or "marijuana" specifically. They speak of the "Smoke Room Dispensary" and mention CBD, papers, bongs and the like but not grass itself.

What have you heard?

Similar to the ad you mentioned, other than I think the ad I heard said “smoking accessories” rather than specifically mentioning which ones. I know cannabis is also mentioned alongside everything else because it stuck out to me when I first heard the ad. I think it’s the only store like that advertising on KMXV but I haven’t listened a lot lately. The ad I heard and remote was in the fall.

 

[RoddyFreeman]

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.

Every buy done by a major agency has a target audience, which is determined in the planning stage and given to the buyer. In this case, the ad, based on the opinions expressed here, is not really targeted to illegal immigrants; it's target to voters. If that was the case, the target audience could be broad but would be the demographics/psychographics of people most likely to vote.

You stated earlier that every Cumulus station must carry network spots. That's true if the station is a member of that particular Cumulus network's lineup. We don't know, however, if this was a network buy.

We know it aired in California, and someone mentioned hearing it in New York. As David mentioned, it could have been a national buy in specific markets purchased through the station's national rep firm. I'm not sure the on-air hosts know the difference between that and something bought through corporate.

 

[TheBigA]

You stated earlier that every Cumulus station must carry network spots. That's true if the station is a member of that particular Cumulus network's lineup. We don't know, however, if this was a network buy.

What we know is that KNBR is part of the Infinity Sports Net, which is sold and distributed by Cumulus. It also carries some ESPN network programming, which is sold by Good Karma.

 

[davideduardo]

Every buy done by a major agency has a target audience, which is determined in the planning stage and given to the buyer. In this case, the ad, based on the opinions expressed here, is not really targeted to illegal immigrants; it's target to voters. If that was the case, the target audience could be broad but would be the demographics/psychographics of people most likely to vote.

You stated earlier that every Cumulus station must carry network spots. That's true if the station is a member of that particular Cumulus network's lineup. We don't know, however, if this was a network buy.

We know it aired in California, and someone mentioned hearing it in New York. As David mentioned, it could have been a national buy in specific markets purchased through the station's national rep firm. I'm not sure the on-air hosts know the difference between that and something bought through corporate.

For those who are unaware, Roddy is an experienced media buying professional, having worked in media centers like Atlanta and New York. He is also very familiar with how the radio industry works; he's corrected me on several occasions showing the depth of his knowledge.

The good point here is that we do not know whether the spots people have heard were part of a network buy or a market-by-market local station buy. It appears that the spots have also been heard on non-Cumulus stations, so it's likely this was a spot buy, not a network one. Or it could be a combination of both, not an uncommon way to buy radio.

A spot buy will generally specify what the desired reach and frequency of a buy should be in each market. This might be expressed as an average of 3 impressions against 60% of the market. Or, in today's more simplified buys, just the desired number of gross impressions. To reach the goal, a buy might be as few as a couple of stations or as many as 8 to 10. A lot depends on the average listening audience (AQH persons) of the leading stations; in a very fragmented market it may take more individual stations to achieve the goal.

 

[TheBigA]

The good point here is that we do not know whether the spots people have heard were part of a network buy or a market-by-market local station buy. It appears that the spots have also been heard on non-Cumulus stations, so it's likely this was a spot buy, not a network one.

I have never known the federal government to buy specific local stations. They also usually buy ALL nets, not just one. Having said that, this current administration is hard to predict. But I see no reason why they would target a medium rated SF sports talk station. Especially if the purpose is to reach electors.

 

[davideduardo]

I have never known the federal government to buy specific local stations. They also usually buy ALL nets, not just one. Having said that, this current administration is hard to predict. But I see no reason why they would target a medium rated SF sports talk station. Especially if the purpose is to reach electors.

It's likely they used a different ad agency or buying service than the Federal Government has used in the past; we seem to be in an era of "clean slates" (whether that is good or bad).

Remember, clusters often sell to agencies as a "single buy" and combine the AQH/Share/Rating numbers for all of the cluster stations. So to an agency, it is "one station". Agencies tend to like that because it is less paperwork. Some of the stations in a cluster may be lower rated, but they are wrapped up in a package.

 

[TheBigA]

It's likely they used a different ad agency or buying service than the Federal Government has used in the past; we seem to be in an era of "clean slates" (whether that is good or bad).

I'm not ready to make that assumption. The press release I linked said it was "nationwide and international." That means network, not local.

Today, Secretary Kristi Noem announced a nationwide and international multimillion-dollar ad campaign

 

[davideduardo]

I'm not ready to make that assumption. The press release I linked said it was "nationwide and international." That means network, not local.

No, it does not mean that at all. There are many agencies that are part of international groups, and can do market by market buys both in the US and other countries.

There is no U.S. radio network that has any significant presence anywhere else. Media in each country generally has to be bought by a local agency or a local branch of a multi-national one.

Example: even in Puerto Rico, USA, over 95% of agency buys were local. And there was no mainland network that had (or has) any presence there. Working with stations in Mexico, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Argentina and others I never ever saw any buy coming from the U.S.

The reason Costello's WRNO in New Orleans could not make money with an international Top 40 short wave station is that even international brands buy media locally in each nation with a local agency and use different creative in each one.

 

[TheBigA]

There is no U.S. radio network that has any significant presence anywhere else.

But the Cumulus and iHeart sales networks can reach 98% of the US. Nationwide to me means 50 states. Not just San Francisco

I don't care about international. That's not my gig.

 

[davideduardo]

But the Cumulus and iHeart sales networks can reach 98% of the US. Nationwide to me means 50 states. Not just San Francisco

But the "reach" is just coverage. In many areas, there is nearly no listening or the "station" is a far suburban one that has no presence. Agencies know this and that is why network is often a supplement to local spot on high rated, central city full market stations. Network costs are cheaper than local spot, and they can add a bit more reach to a campaign... but very spotty national coverage.

I don't care about international. That's not my gig.

Well, they state the campaign is national and international, so that means station buys, not network buys.