Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS
Features & Commentary
XChange

Scott Gurvey's Public Offering - Imus was Bad Business

posted by Scott Gurvey, New York Bureau Chief at 3:22 PM on 04/18/07

Photo of Scott GurveyI can’t remember when there was a firestorm to rival the one which consumed radio host Don Imus. You would think something really important had occurred. In spite of all the hand wringing over the “sorry” moral state of American society, it was business that did Imus in and, most likely, it will be business that will make his return to the airwaves possible.

There was something hypocritical in much of the outrage over Imus’s racist and sexist words, coming as it did from many critics whose own credibility in the area of tolerance left much to be desired… but also in the surprise expressed. Hadn’t they listened before? Didn’t they know Imus frequently used sexist and racist, not to mention homophobic and anti-Semitic, language?

What was apparently different this time was the target. Not the usual public figure for whom any publicity is good publicity, but innocents -- the young women of the Rutgers University basketball team whose only push for fame was to be outstanding performers on the court. That made it different, at least to some.

And first among the some was Procter & Gamble, one of the world’s leading advertisers. P&G pulled its ads from the Imus show immediately -- several days before Imus’ remarks became fodder for the media gaggle and sustenance for political activists. American Express, General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline, Geico and Staples followed as the cacophony grew.

What made a difference for the advertisers, who certainly knew what they were buying when they bought Imus? Gwen Ifill, moderator of PBS’s Wall Street Week, says it is because there are now people of diverse color and gender at levels of power in corporate America where they can make a difference. Advertising Age, in an analysis written by Andrew Hampp, says it is because today there are so many outlets for advertising that the ad buyer can quickly abandon a channel that offends without running the risk of missing his target audience.

Whatever the reason, it is a hopeful sign. But I am doubtful that this is the start of a trend which will transform the mass media. As Hampp points out, Imus is 66 years old, didn’t have much in the way of ratings, and wasn’t bringing in a great deal of revenue at any of the stations which broadcast his program.

With the “narrow casting” made possible by today’s technology, I suspect Imus will be back on a satellite radio channel or a webcast just as soon as the dust settles and some advertiser decides it wants the Imus demographic (over 50, white, male) badly enough to put up some money and take the heat.

As for the moral state of American society, “sorry” or not, it will not change until the hypocrites look to their own houses and decide the time has come. Some of the best selling music today is loaded with words and images which were strictly forbidden in my house when I was a kid. The same can be seen in movies and television shows.

It wasn’t always that way. I remember the controversy in 1965 when Captain Kirk, having saved the universe as we know it by making a great personal sacrifice in an episode of Star Trek titled, “The City on the Edge of Forever”, exclaimed, “Let’s get the hell out of here!” as he returned to the ship. There were TV stations which refused to broadcast that episode and others which “beeped” out the line of dialog.

On more than one occasion, I earned a bar of soap in the mouth for using language my father didn’t condone. Today, I hear kids using those words as terms of endearment on the subway and the streets.

Business can make a difference in this regard, if it follows up on the stand taken in the Imus case and refuses to support activity it finds offensive. It will be interesting to see if P&G and the others hold all the outlets they support with their advertising to the “Imus” standard.

No, I am not advocating censorship, just responsibility. That is something else the new technologies promote. With cable television, satellite radio and Internet broadcasting, there is no shortage of non-commercial, limited access channels for the kind of speech some may desire but others wish to avoid.

I avoid a lot these days by just tuning it out.

3 Comments.
Post A Comment

Comments

You have great experience..

Just knowing that Imus was out there using derogatory language aimed at American kids was enough for me to write to CBS demanding Imus' removal. I wasn't an Imus fan and didn't see the show that led to his ultimate downfall; but I did feel strongly that no one should be allowed to earn a living taking pot shots at students. More to the point, corporations should not be helping him to earn that living. If they do, they are perhaps even more responsible for the messages Imus tries to impart. As Scott points out, they should know by now what Imus is all about. Andrew Hampp is correct in his analysis that advertisers have many outlets by which to get the word out about their products - but that door swings both ways. Americans have many options on the shelves. We can always find alternate companies to supply us with personal hygiene, pet food, vehicles, insurance, pharmaceuticals and office supplies. At 66 years old, Imus should know better. P&G, at over 150 years old, should have been wise long before this.

I guess, the advertisers just happened to be listening in on that particular day.
Maybe a new ad run or something.
As for me, I had never heard of Imus until then.
Now my curiosity is peaked.

Post A Comment




Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

Back To Top
Get RSS Feed
Recent Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives

Comment Policy

This discussion forum is a place for constructive dialogue. Make sure your comments are appropriate before submitting them.

Inappropriate comments include content that:

  • Attempts to influence the price of a stock or other investment
  • Is defamatory or libelous
  • Is abusive, harassing, or threatening
  • Is obscene, vulgar, or profane
  • Is racially, ethnically or religiously offensive
  • Is illegal or encourages criminal acts
  • Is known to be inaccurate or contains a false attribution
  • Infringes copyrights, trademarks, publicity or any other rights of others
  • Impersonates anyone (actual or fictitious)
  • Is off-topic or spam
  • Solicits funds, goods or services, or advertises

Nightly Business Report does not edit posts but reserves the right to delete comments that violate our policy.