Advertiser power can be a double-edged sword
MANILA, Philippines—For years now, some members of the advertising industry have pledged to place their ads and commercials only in publications and programs that are responsible, cognizant and protective of the rights and welfare of minors.
In actual practice, however, that vow has generally remained just a pledge—until the recent “Willing Willie” controversy over the glaring mistreatment of a child talent, which elicited widespread criticism and even outrage, and which has thus prompted some advertisers to cease spot placements on all game and variety shows involving minors.
This move has pleased the viewing and buying public, but it has generated pro and con reactions from TV people and other advertisers.
Those who favor the move observe that it’s a proactive sign that advertisers are cognizant of the effects of their commercials beyond the economic factor, and see the wisdom in supporting only those shows that are beneficial to the public, particularly to young and thus vulnerable and impressionable viewers.
Those who question it point out that, some years ago, “advertiser power” was used as a political tool to attempt to shut up and shut down publications deemed “inimical” to the government.
As for those who seek to reconcile those opposing views, they conclude that, being a potentially double-edged sword, advertiser power can be used to the advantage of social redress and reform, but never as a ploy against freedom of speech and dissent.
The questions is, who will determine that key difference? It stands to reason that the Ad Board and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, as well as the courts, should have a big say on the matter.
The P64,000 question is, now that advertiser power has been exercised and unleashed, will it persuade the rest of the TV industry to toe the line and behave in a more responsible manner for here on in?
On the affirmative side, our TV system is financially fueled by commercials, unlike the British system, which is less dependent on advertiser support because it is financed by the annual license fees that viewers pay. So, money means power, it “talks,” and the potential loss of it is therefore a powerful persuasive argument for errant TV stations and workers to toe the line and do their job responsibly.
On the other hand, some TV people think they’re so popular, influential and powerful that they can’t be told what to do by anybody, even by their bosses, some of whom are cowed by the uber-luminaries’ own vaunted Star Power.
When push comes to shove, however, and erring programs’ economic health and very survival may be at stake, it’s likely that TV stations will be persuaded or compelled to listen, if not to the voice of reason, then to the clash and clangor of financial bottom lines being reached
—and breached.
