[Rhodes22-list] On Don Imus

[David Bradley]

Here is an interesting point of view on Imusgate.  The debate on morality,
racism and social responsibility notwithstanding...   maybe it's just about
money.


*Published:* April 16, 2007 NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Procter & Gamble was the
first to walk away from Don Imus on April 6 -- yes, that was the Friday
before the media frenzy erupted and almost a full week before the radio
host's corporate bosses realized they had no choice but to pull the plug on
the curmudgeon's show.  [image: Image]  Photo: Newscom

P&G quickly pulled its ads because top executives found Don Imus' comments
to be 'offensive to our target audience.' Ultimately, it was advertisers --
rather than network executives -- who sealed the controversial radio host's
fate. | *ALSO*: Comment on this article in the 'Your Opinion' box below.

*Companion Commentary:*
No Love Lost: Imus Ouster Heralds End of 'Hate
Media'<http://adage.com/article?article_id=116101>
Donny Deutsch Viewpoint: 'Nice Is the New Black,' and CEOs Will Insist on
Positivity

*Related Stories:*
Advertisers Avoiding
Trouble:<http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=116102#timeline>
A Timeline
If You Play With Shock Jocks, You're Bound to Get
Burned<http://adage.com/article?article_id=116078>
An Editorial
CBS Radio Drops Imus <http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=116076>
Longtime Shock Jock Ousted Over Racist Remarks
MSNBC Drops 'Imus in the
Morning'<http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=116041>
Decision Was Driven by 'Integrity,' Not 'Dollars'
Imus Too Hot for
Marketers<http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=116033>
P&G, AmEx, GM, Staples All Back Away From Controversial Talk-Show Host
How Will Advertisers React to Imus'
Comments?<http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=116010>
Radio Personality's Controversial Remarks Could Cost Him Sponsors


If the whole Imus debacle tells us anything, it is that today the marketers
are truly the reigning power in the fragmented media world. The week's
events underscored what many pressure groups had proved in similar content
controversies -- that the best way to effect change in media is to go after
the ad dollars. There are so many media options today that it is easier for
a marketer to pull out of a media outlet than put up with the negative
publicity and the risk of a fall-off in sales.

What's more, marketers have grown accustomed to those who have grievances
about media content clogging up their inboxes and switchboards. Hence, P&G
getting out of "Imus" two days after he first made his "idiot comment meant
to be amusing" about the Rutgers women's basketball team; well before Al
Sharpton arrived on the scene; and at a time when only a small handful of
media outlets had even reported the incident.

*Opening salvo*
The first response from a P&G spokeswoman summed up why: "We think we're
accountable first to our consumers. This particular venue where our ad
appeared was offensive to our target audience. And so that's not acceptable
to us."

P&G was soon in good company. American Express, General Motors and
GlaxoSmithKline pulled their advertising -- not only from Mr. Imus' show but
from MSNBC altogether. A GlaxoSmithKline spokesman said the company would
return "as soon as we can be sure MSNBC can meet our own advertising
standards." Geico and Staples followed suit.

Other marketers were quick to note they weren't really Imus supporters.
Spokespeople for both Sprint and 1-800-Pet-Meds said their companies had
bought MSNBC's daypart that included Imus but not his show specifically.
Both asked MSNBC to guarantee their ads would not appear during "Imus in the
Morning," even in reruns, if that was what would air during the host's
two-week suspension (the initial response from CBS to the outcry about the
shock jock's remarks).

*Fast friends*
A Sprint spokesman echoed P&G: "We do not want our advertising associated
with content which we, our customers and the public find offensive."

In all, the marketers leaving MSNBC represented an estimated $2.5 million in
ad revenue, and that, combined with the public outcry, was more than enough
force him off the air.

"In any kind of entertainment situation, for whatever reasons, advertisers
or listeners who become disgruntled with a product are certainly well within
their rights to choose where they put their dollars or spend their time,"
said Fred Jacobs, president of Detroit radio-consulting firm Jacobs Media.

Some believe the incident will put more pressure on the morning-drive-time
hosts who have happily followed in the controversial footsteps of Mr. Imus
and Howard Stern to tread lightly. Chat-show host and adman Donny Deutsch,
among others, has gone public with his belief that this will, in fact,
presage a bigger movement by advertisers to steer clear of what he calls
"hate TV" -- namely the chat shows on both TV and radio that center on angry
debate and name-calling (see story on P. 1).

*'Kinder, gentler jabs'*
Is this really the end of the shock-jock era? Probably not. Those who can
aggregate sizable audiences will remain in demand for some time to come, and
there are plenty of desirable demographics -- say, 16- to 34-year-old men --
who likely would eschew a diet of nice-only media. But it may usher in a
short period of kindler, gentler jabs and less outrageous stunts, and it
will certainly ensure more marketers will be as quick to press the eject
button as P&G was on this occasion.

Perhaps the biggest irony in all of this is that while the Imus debacle may
-- having hit the front page of The New York Times three days running, for
example -- be remembered as the most notable demonstration of audience and
advertiser pressure bringing down a broadcaster who had offended, the
broadcaster wasn't really the media behemoth he was painted as last week.

"Imus in the Morning" represented a small slice of revenue for both networks
that simulcast his three-hour morning show. Estimates of the show's worth
ranged from $15 million to $22 million annually for home station WFAN-AM in
New York. The show was carried by 61 stations outside New York, but his
audience was just 1.6 million people -- and Arbitron gets to that number
only by counting all the people who said they heard his show for at least
five minutes at some point throughout the week.

For those who buy radio, reaction to his departure could be summed up as:
"Don't let the door hit you on the way out." Rich Russo, director-broadcast
at JL Media, said Mr. Imus was a "nonentity. He has no ratings. He has
nothing on radio. Sixty percent of his audience is over 50. He's ranked 29th
in New York. He's also 66 years old."

*Small potatoes*
On MSNBC, the show was an easy way to not have to fill the morning news
slot. While it performed respectably, Imus consistently came in behind CNN
in the same daypart, attracting 271,000 households compared to CNN's
374,000. Top spender General Motors accounted for only $691,000 for 2006 --
chump change when you consider the same company dropped more than $2 million
on a single spot during the Super Bowl this year.

What Mr. Imus represented and attracted was an upscale audience -- mostly
Wall Streeters and literate, liberal East Coast types -- that was hardly
typical of the "shock label" attached to contemporaries Howard Stern and
Opie & Anthony. His show was a favorite stomping ground of politicians and
media pundits and, as such, was viewed as highly influential in those
insular circles. Politicians announced candidacies, and reporters were eager
to flog their books or scoops.

But that all came to end last week when CBS Chairman-CEO Les Moonves
followed NBC's lead and fired the 30-year veteran of the airwaves. "Imus in
the Morning" first aired in September 1979, became nationally syndicated in
1993 and began simulcasting on MSNBC in 1996. Though both CBS and MSNBC
brass cited "integrity" and "goodwill" among their reasons for pulling the
plug, the fact that they had lost ad dollars played a role too.

~ ~ ~




On 4/16/07, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dave, I mentioned that Imus made a hateful racist remark to successful
> educated women. I made  no comment of the Rutger's News Conference good
> bad
> or indifferent. I didn't dwell on this because I think we agree it was the
> wrong thing to say. I have said so several times. That being said this
> does
> not preclude one for making additional comments that really go at the
> deeper
> issues.
>
> Fair Winds,
>
> Wally
>
>
> >From: DCLewis1 at aol.com
> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] On Don Imus
> >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:11:10 EDT
> >
> >
> >Brad,
> >
> >Thanks for your post, I enjoy your ducking and weaving.  I'm part of  the
> >problem, huh?  Neither I nor you are remotely a factor in this Imus
> >problem.
> >The Imus issue is going to be played out in the media and  possibly the
> >courts -
> >and trust me, nobody will give a tinkers damn what you and  I think about
> >it.
> >  We are not part of the problem and we are not part of  the solution.
> >
> >You claim Sharpton and Jackson are racist demagogues.  Could be, I'm  not
> >defending Sharpton and Jackson, although I will say that I think Sharpton
> >did
> >the right thing in this specific matter.  I really haven't followed
> >Sharpton,
> >and I'm probably as skeptical re Jackson as you are.
> >
> >You say no one on the list is defending Imus - yeah, right.  Every  other
> >poster on this list has been trying to shift the subject from Imus back
> to
> >the
> >black community by changing the subject. They've claimed:
> >- Oh no, the  real problem isn't Imus the real problem is rap lyrics
> >- Oh no, the real  problem isn't Imus the real problem is Sharpton
> >- Oh no, the real problem  isn't Imus, its just entertainment
> >- Oh no, real the problem isn't  Imus, the real problem is ......
> >
> >News flash: The problem is Imus.  Stop trying to change the subject  and
> >take
> >the heat off your boy.  There are a lot of problems in the black
> >community,
> >there is no one "real" problem, all of the above are real problems,
> >and
> >there is a long list of other real problems but the topical timely
> problem
> >on the
> >table in this thread is Imus's gratuitous insult to a group of
> >accomplished
> >young women who are doing all the right things to lead an  upstanding
> >productive life.  Read the subject of the thread.  Stop  trying to
> >rationalize what
> >Imus has done.
> >
> >Your comment that black people don't have to march at Selma to have an
> >opinion is completely off the wall.  Of course they don't.  I  explicitly
> >acknowledged Whitelock couldn't have marched in the early civil  rights
> >movement.  I
> >explicitly acknowledged that he was entitled to his  opinion.
> Nevertheless,
> >there are a whole lot of civil rights related things  he could have done
> >over the
> >past 40 years (his age as I recall),  but  read his vitae, there's
> >nothin,
> >absolutely nothin related to civil  rights. It's remarkable.  Seems to me
> >this
> >should cause reasonable  people to question who his column represents -
> >himself,
> >or the black  community.  I don't see any compelling reason to believe
> >his
> >opinions  represent anyone but himself - and frankly, while he's entitled
> >to his
> >opinion,  I don't care what his opinion is if it's not  representative.
> >I
> >would be very interested to know what leaders in the  black community and
> >the
> >black middle class think, but I see no reason to think  that he's tied
> >into them
> >at all.
> >
> >Re your rising opinion of Whitelock: Why am I not surprised?  I'm sure
> >his
> >publisher likes his opinions to.  I expect the WSJ will pick him up
> >because
> >they like his message.  But the key factor is not what the white  and
> >business
> >communities thinks, it's what the black community thinks - and I  have no
> >idea
> >what his standing is with them.  I suspect it's not very high,  but I'm
> >not
> >part of the black community.  When it comes to civil rights I'd  feel it
> >was a
> >lot more likely that he represented someone other than himself, or  the
> >white
> >business establishment,  if I saw he was active in black civil  rights
> >programs and organizations, or if he were citing persons from those
> >organizations.
> >
> >As to the women from Rutgers that you admire - that's the first time
> >anyone
> >on this board has said anything positive about the young women involved
> >with
> >this fiasco.  Read the posts,  everyone, absolutely everyone,
> has  ignored
> >the
> >impact of the event on the young women and has instead focused on  trying
> >to
> >move the focus off Imus and back on to the black community.  I  admire
> >those
> >young ladies to, I don't think they deserve all the crap that's  been
> >dropped
> >on them.
> >
> >Your comment that Imus is an ass is exactly on target, keep that thought.
> >Don
> >'t get distracted with your opinions re Jackson or Sharpton, Kings
> >womanizing, the role of entitlements, jihad, global warming, ....., read
> >the  title of
> >the thread, the focus is sharply on Imus.  We are in total  agreement.
> >
> >The advice you say you give to every community is exemplary.   Incredible
> >as
> >it sounds I completely support your advice.  But I would add  one
> important
> >thing to your advice: they should treat each person and  community with
> >dignity
> >and respect.  The dignity and respect issues are the  key issues lacking
> in
> >this Imus affair.
> >
> >As for your advice that the ladies at Rutgers toughen up and face life  -
> >you
> >may be surprised, they may do just that.  My guess is that
> great  American
> >institution called The American Trial Bar is circling - vultures on the
> >wing,
> >standby.  If at least one of the young ladies, or their parents, goes
> >along
> >with them you might expect a slander/libel suit on their behalf.   File
> >that
> >suit in DC, Gary Ind, wherever, and watch what happens - people on  this
> >list may
> >not understand the difference between rappers calling women in  general
> >whores and someone calling the child of Mr & Mrs xxxx, of Princeton  NJ a
> >whore,
> >but trust me, the courts will.  And Imus, CBS, and NBC will  hear the two
> >happiest words that all businesses love to hear - punitive damages.  You
> >may recall
> >that a jury in Illinois hit Altria with $10B (yes B) punitive  award, I
> >think
> >in 03; let's see if that record stands if the Rutgers ladies  toughen up
> >(your
> >recommendation) and take the matter to a jury.  Seriously,  I would not
> >expect a $10B award, but it could be a very large number.
> >
> >You want to understand the worried look on Imus's face this past week and
> >why he traveled to meet with the team?  I think the corporate
> lawyers  have
> >explained the above to him and the network CEOs.  Imus et al's only  hope
> >is that
> >the young ladies and the parents will drop the issue - if  they file
> >charges,
> >the ladies and their families are rich for life.  Let's  see what
> happens.
> >
> >Actually, it may have already happened.  I recall, Sharpton  brought Imus
> >to
> >his knees in less than 4 hours and Imus spent nearly a week  groveling
> >apologies.  But I don't think for a minute that happened because  of the
> >incredible
> >respect Imus et al have for Sharpton, the NAACP etc, I  think it was
> their
> >certain knowledge re what the American Trial Bar can do and  have
> done.  I
> >would
> >not be surprised if the networks haven't already  offered the ladies
> >compensation for their pain and suffering in exchange for  their
> signatures
> >on
> >hold-harmless documents and no more public  outcries.  I could be wrong.
> >
> >And I wouldn't mind the girls and their parents taking Imus et al to the
> >cleaners.  The financial damage would begin to set clear limits, and
> >identify
> >the risks, for shock-jocks and the networks that sponsor them.   Clearly,
> >the
> >FCC has failed in this area for a long time.
> >
> >Finally, I say again, from my perspective the core issue in the Imus
> matter
> >is not civil rights, it's decency.  You have no right to slander the
> >women,
> >children, or anyone, in my life, and I have no right to slander the
> women,
> >children, or anyone,  in your life - people have been killed over this
> >issue.  I'
> >m surprised there are adult men on this board that just don't get  it.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >************************************** See what's free at
> >http://www.aol.com.
> >__________________________________________________
> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
>
> http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>



-- 
David Bradley
+1.206.225.7793
dwbrad at gmail.com