Underwriting: can you say they're Christian?

[radioelizabeth]

Re: Do you or would you? To everyone

"Ok, here's a big one for you. Do you or would you, put on a spot for a client that DOES NOT represent your stations values? How would you deter them from underwriting with you or being a client? Example: beer commercial on a Christian station (and I have heard them), or lottery info on your newsbreaks, or a business known for it's rotten reputation but pays really well.(car dealer etc,)and would you deal with an unscrupulous business if a Christian employee was involved. Experiences wanted!"

That is a great question!

Maybe we should re-thread it so it doesn't get lost among the others?


<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: Why would you?

jegrant wrote:
"There have been some very valid points raised so far in this thread. I tend to agree that (at least on the type of station I want to run in the future) it would be good to avoid any programming elements that might make the listener feel excluded."



<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: Why would you?

> "I think this is the strangest thread I've seen on *any*
> > board in my entire life!"
>
> I'll second that.
> >
>



Why? Because it challenges a premise that making a client happy is in the best interest of the station and listener? Because it asks a programmer to consider not just tossing a label on something? Because it hopes to eliminate a description that excludes many many listeners? Because it asks a question not many people ask?

It's a very relevant question. And hopefully will spark some thought.

Adding "Christian" to commercial or non commercial copy may not be the best programming decision to make. And it may not make everyone happy, as one post suggests...in fact...it just may be harmful in some instances. Not just to the station, but to the business itself. It may actually prevent the call to the client instead of calling for it.

Maybe a better question to ask a client is why they want it included in the first place? What does being saved have to do with plumbing, financial investments, dining, or real estate?

And what message will it send in the very brief 20 seconds you have with that listener in that moment. If it's "same team"...ok. That is an answer. If it's "a better company"... are you sure? how? If it's "integrity" or "fair"...why not just say integrity or fair?

But odds are...the message it MIGHT be sending the loudest is "exclusive", "niche", "church".


And if it's used as just a loop hole to get "around" some rules because your station can't use other descriptions...well...I'm not too sure integrity is how I would define it.




<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[varedhead]

Re: Why would you?

Some businesses are very proud that they are Christian owned. That title represents who they are in their life and also in their business, they would be the ones who would be the happiest with that description in their spot.
I personally know a business that gives back a percentage of what they do to their customers church. The goal of that business is to do business with Christians and in turn help the church, which goes along with your last comment sort of.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: Why would you?

varedhead wrote:
"Some businesses are very proud that they are Christian owned. That title represents who they are in their life and also in their business, they would be the ones who would be the happiest with that description in their spot. I personally know a business that gives back a percentage of what they do to their customers church. The goal of that business is to do business with Christians and in turn help the church, which goes along with your last comment sort of."


ok. now that is a reason.

I don't know if all that gets communicated in the copy...but certainly could in a station spot that encourages listeners to support their advertisers...which would reinforce why "Christian" is in client announcements that run.

That may not be the case for all advertisers, but that does sound like a better reason than some I've heard.




<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[suncountry]

Re: Why would you?

I think that there is plenty of FCC case law that would point to the fact that a statement such as "Christian Owned" is an attempt to distinguish the underwriter from its competitors and is prohibited.<P ID="signature">______________
Deano</P>

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: Why would you?

> Again, I have no idea what Salem has to do with this. But I
> will say... your post about them here is pretty...
> well...ignorant.

Exactly correct.
(...which will blow the minds of those who don't really understand the word...)

But that assessment *does* come from people very familiar with the company (from both the outside and inside, including a very big name I guarantee you you'd know). I welcome any and all further education, of course!



> I'm not sure why this question is so hard for people to
> grasp? Or why because I'm defending my question, words like
> "passion" etc... are thrown out.

I understand it -- and agree -- in general. However, the original poster is from a non-comm in a lower-population, more blue-collar, lower-middle class area outside of a very cosmopolitan metro area with a whole bunch of big-stick class C's that blanket his area. His format is targeted at what amounts to a niche of a niche in that area. I've got to assume money isn't exactly freely-flowing. Now, along comes an underwriter who just wants to say he's a Christian. If the money would be at risk at all, then why not find a way to do it? Given this situation, does this question not seem simple? That's why the vehement questioning of it seems so odd to me.

No, I certainly don't want hokey underwriting announcements that all say and sound the same. But, in a case like this, why not figure out a way?




> So far....here are the reasons it's done based on this trail
> of the thread:
>
> 2. Show listeners client is on "same team" (which if not
> "us/them", what?)

Just "us!"

Just like small-town businesses say they're supporters of the team every football season. Just like every downtown business talks about having plenty of specials during the "We Love Downtown...You Come Downtown, Too!" days. And just like every minority-owned business does on ethnic radio stations.

It may not be the *best* idea in every situation, but it's a *good* or very reasonable idea in many select situations and *does* "work" to a degree that satisfies both listeners and clients.

Just that it's of "us!"



> Those just don't strike me as compelling enough reasons to
> put the label "Christian" on something that isn't an
> individual.

*In general,* me, neither.


> The word is being used in copy as an adjective,
> yet...it isn't really describing anything?
> ...
> I'm simply challenging a mindset that
> slaps on this label under the premise it somehow "sets them
> apart".

*In general,* I would, too.

 

[varedhead]

Re: Why would you?

> I think that there is plenty of FCC case law that would
> point to the fact that a statement such as "Christian Owned"
> is an attempt to distinguish the underwriter from its
> competitors and is prohibited.

Lets hear one.
>

 

[suncountry]

Re: Why would you?

> > I think that there is plenty of FCC case law that would
> > point to the fact that a statement such as "Christian
> Owned"
> > is an attempt to distinguish the underwriter from its
> > competitors and is prohibited.
>
> Lets hear one.

Here is just one example. Our legal counsel believes that the FCC would have no problem inserting "Christian owned" in place of "member of the Professional Photographers of America."

We next find that the announcement made on behalf
of Burrow Photography appears to be impermissibly
promotional because it represents that its proprietor is a
member of the Professional Photographers of America, which
suggests a favorable professional qualification or
comparative distinction. See Tri-State Inspirational
Broadcasting Corporation, 16 FCC Rcd 16800 (EB 2001) citing
Letter from the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,
Enforcement Bureau, to Station KOUZ(FM) (July 12,
2000)(where use of the phrase ``ICAR gold-class
certification'' to describe underwriter's service
qualifications was found impermissible).

Read the whole document at http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2477A1.html

Read many more at http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/enhund.html

Your own explaination below makes the FCC's case for why it would be a violation of FCC rules.


> My question still isn't answered...
>
> WHY would this description be included in copy?
>
> What benefit does it bring the advertiser, listener, or
> station?
>
> What is the adjective saying and why?

I thought it was pretty clear what I said. The client wants "Christian owned" somewhere in the spot to separate their business from a secular owned business. That is why we are on this subject, another wanted to know if he could do it on his underwriting spot.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: Why would you?

neutral observer wrote:
"But that assessment *does* come from people very familiar with the company (from both the outside and inside, including a very big name I guarantee you you'd know). I welcome any and all further education, of course!"

Obviously, you have read my posts often enough to know this type of statement just irks me.

It eludes to a fact, when in reality it is blind hearsay.

It also paints a very blurry picture of what would be clear to someone if they had all the relevant information.

I'm sure you understand these kind of statements do more harm than good. And only serve to lend a false credibility to a claim.


"However, the original poster"

Which is why the trail was started. And the subject of that tangent renamed. I was not only addressing non commercials in my question and was not referencing that specific station...it was a launching pad to a continued discussion.


"Just "us!" "


No. In this case...When you add "Christian" with the "same team" mentality...the presumption is there is another team playing...so, "us/them"...and when applied to the word "Christian" (especially if the goal is to set this business apart) it creates a box around those with the label and excludes those without it.

"It may not be the *best* idea in every situation, but it's a *good* or very reasonable idea in many select situations and *does* "work" to a degree that satisfies both listeners and clients."

I'd like to see how it has been shown to work. I'm going to assume (ah!) that it works in some cases, and doesn't in others...perhaps it is reasonable...and might even be an expectation, but does that mean it is a successful strategy?

<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: Why would you?

> neutral observer wrote:
> "But that assessment *does* come from people very familiar
> with the company (from both the outside and inside,
> including a very big name I guarantee you you'd know). I
> welcome any and all further education, of course!"
>
> Obviously, you have read my posts often enough to know this
> type of statement just irks me.

Obviously...which is why I say all further education is welcome. So far, I hear only the objection.



> It eludes to a fact, when in reality it is blind hearsay.

Yes, it absolutely is hearsay, but it is hearsay directly from one of the absolute biggest names in the company. Again, all further education is welcome, but finding someone of greater...whatever...to flat out refute it will be awfully tough. It is literally 99+% not possible that this person would have a...misunderstanding.



> It also paints a very blurry picture of what would be clear
> to someone if they had all the relevant information.

At your leisure, please feel completely free to help me understand more if it's your desire.



> I'm sure you understand these kind of statements do more
> harm than good. And only serve to lend a false credibility
> to a claim.

In general, absolutely yes. However, as I strongly implied, it is virtually impossible for my source on what I said to have any kind of misunderstanding. However, once again, *all* information is absolutely welcome!



> "Just "us!" "
>
>
> No. In this case...When you add "Christian" with the "same
> team" mentality...the presumption is there is another team
> playing...so, "us/them"...and when applied to the word
> "Christian" (especially if the goal is to set this business
> apart) it creates a box around those with the label and
> excludes those without it.
>
> "It may not be the *best* idea in every situation, but it's
> a *good* or very reasonable idea in many select situations
> and *does* "work" to a degree that satisfies both listeners
> and clients."
>
> I'd like to see how it has been shown to work. I'm going to
> assume (ah!) that it works in some cases, and doesn't in
> others...perhaps it is reasonable...and might even be an
> expectation, but does that mean it is a successful strategy?

Yes...because not all advertising is intended to create a sale at that specific moment. General institutional and image-building ads based on lifestyle, belief, hometown, and/or ethnicity -- just "us," no "them" -- are used and "work" all the time.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re:

neutral observer wrote:
"Obviously...which is why I say all further education is welcome. So far, I hear only the objection. Yes, it absolutely is hearsay, but it is hearsay directly from one of the absolute biggest names in the company. Again, all further education is welcome, but finding someone of greater...whatever...to flat out refute it will be awfully tough. It is literally 99+% not possible that this person would have a...misunderstanding. At your leisure, please feel completely free to help me understand more if it's your desire. In general, absolutely yes. However, as I strongly implied, it is virtually impossible for my source on what I said to have any kind of misunderstanding. However, once again, *all* information is absolutely welcome!"


You miss the point.

I'm not about to get into a discussion about a company's policy or philosophy on this board. And what is irksome is when a poster uses "folks I know at the top" verbage to add credibility to an opinion. Making general statements (negative statements I might add) about how a company operates or why and citing "unnamed sources within" on a message board as this...come on. I can certainly understand if you're working on an investigate article on the industry...but it's a board.

Those scanning this board are not privy to whatever conversations you may or may not have had with whomever.

I'm very much under an opinion that it's usually best to just speak for one's self. Because when one doesn't...THAT is what leads to misunderstandings.




"Yes...because not all advertising is intended to create a sale at that specific moment. General institutional and image-building ads based on lifestyle, belief, hometown, and/or ethnicity -- just "us," no "them" -- are used and "work" all the time."

Obviously. That isn't debated. But in this thread...and in the situation I referenced it is us/them....because the reason cited for saying it was to set them apart from other companies that were not tied to the church...etc.


<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[neutral_observer]

Re:

> I'm not about to get into a discussion about a company's
> policy or philosophy on this board.

But you *do.* You *do* discuss *much* about it -- what it is *not.* For some
reason, you'll feel free to do that time and again, but you won't say what it
*is.* You *are* discussing it!


> And what is irksome is when a poster uses "folks I know at the top"
> verbage to add credibility to an opinion.

In general, I would agree 100%. People just say that...they lie. In this case,
though, it actually happened and, thus, removes my statement from the realm of
mere "opinion." Please don't try to position it as such.



> Making general statements (negative statements I might add) about
> how a company operates...

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Here's what I said:

"My understanding is that Salem is of the belief that they will maximize cume
and tsl on their music stations by never identifying them as 'Christian' and
possibly excluding people. (Hence the generic 'The Fish' and the dozens of
remakes that, other than being semi-familiar to the general population,
absolutely suck.)"

Uh, so where's a negative statement about how the company operates? I find that
to be an absolutely neutral statement. If you *believe* it to be negative, then
you're attaching meaning that isn't there.




> But in this thread...and in
> the situation I referenced it is us/them....because the
> reason cited for saying it was to set them apart from other
> companies that were not tied to the church...etc.

No, it was just to say what *he* is...not what *they* are *not.* It's about
identifying with the desired group while saying *nothing at all* about anybody
else.

Just take out "Christian" and put in "women" or "overweight people" or
"basketball fans" or "book readers" or "audiophiles" or whatever...in this
case, "Christian" is simply another affinity group.

By your framing of this, every "Women's Conference" would be anti-male.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re:

neutral observer wrote:
"But you *do.* You *do* discuss *much* about it -- what it is *not.*"

I have never stated on this board any specific company policy. I have defended those who toss out negative claims who really haven't any experience. And I do that not exclusively for Salem.



"For some reason, you'll feel free to do that time and again, but you won't say what it *is.* You *are* discussing it!"

What on earth? This makes no sense.



"Here's what I said: "My understanding is that Salem is of the belief that they will maximize cume and tsl on their music stations by never identifying them as 'Christian' and possibly excluding people. (Hence the generic 'The Fish' and the dozens of remakes that, other than being semi-familiar to the general population, absolutely suck.)" Uh, so where's a negative statement about how the company operates? I find that to be an absolutely neutral statement. If you *believe* it to be negative, then you're attaching meaning that isn't there."

I kept my post neutral, not specific to you. And yes, you did make a negative statement. "absolutely suck" is pretty negative...but again...please don't misread or misinterpret general statements with personal specifics. If I had meant to discredit your post, I would have quoted it as reference.

What I do discredit is doing in a post what yours did...you dropped "no name" so to speak. "I have heard..." "people I know"...etc...referencing individuals but not by name. That is irksome. Especially when it's being used as a validation of a statement. But I digress....



"it was just to say what *he* is...not what *they* are *not.* It's about identifying with the desired group while saying *nothing at all* about anybody else."

You did it again.

The "us/them" I referenced absolutely applied. Whether or not YOU meant it when you said same team, I don't know...but certainly throughout the thread my point was valid. "What they are not" is most definitely applied in the instances cited.

Remember...some of the reasons to add it were to distinquish it from other advertisers, represent support for the church, and let listeners know they were dealing with Christians...[as opposed to]...


"in this case, "Christian" is simply another affinity group."

In some cases, not all...and certainly not by the reasons that were cited by some for why the word is chosen.

but you did say "another". That implies saying there is a "them".



"By your framing of this, every "Women's Conference" would be anti-male."

I didn't use the word "anti". That is an important destinction.

But let's go there with your example....

A women's conference BY DESIGN excludes men. And that is because there is a premise that there is a difference between the two. Again... "us/them" (I'll be "us"... you can be "them").

If I frame my programming that way (which we do, of course), we program with the assumption that there are TWO groups. Men. And Women.

Now...barring a theological discussion on a radio board...my stating that the "Christian"/"Non Christian" philosophy is "us/them" is no different...

But again, it lends itself to exclusivity, much like a women's conference would to a man.


And whether "us/them" is a good philosophy for Christians to have...is another discussion.



<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re:

distinction.

ugh!

i need to just stop until my typo trend is over...

or run a contest to see who can find the most!<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>