Imitation as the sincerest form of ignorance
Purpose – This paper aims to note the imitation of apparently successful advertising as a replacement for thought by too many advertisers, misapplying the tactics of what seem to be past successes by other companies to current situations, sometimes not even attempting to find insight relevant to the current advertising situation. Imitation of what may be lucky accidents has become a tool for improper applications of old tactics to new problems.Design/methodology/approach – Noting the frequent pronouncements by business journalists that many businesses do things because they know they “work,” the reality is that even among marketing professionals, conventional wisdom is often, at best, an oxymoron.Findings – The pragmatic business need is to analyze new situations and consumer interests.Originality/value – The paper shows that, since advertising decisions are often the recommendations from outside suppliers, business managers who pay for this advice must realize that past success by others does not mean th...
Marketing experts' misplaced expertise in the courtroom
Unfair and deceptive marketing claims are becoming a mainstay of product liability litigation in the United States, and therefore, marketing experts will continue to play a significant role in these cases. Too often, judges permit individuals with no legitimate expertise in marketing to offer expert opinions about the intent and effect of a defendant company's advertisements. Many times, these opinions are premised on unscientific research or even no research at all. To protect the legitimacy of the marketing discipline, not to mention the litigation process, judges, lawyers, and marketing professionals should apply more stringent standards when determining who qualifies as a marketing expert and when assessing whether that expert's opinions have a legitimate basis.
Unmasking Hidden Commercials in Broadcasting: Origins of the Sponsorship Identification Regulations, 1927-1963
I. INTRODUCTION 330 II. THE UNCERTAIN PLACE OF SPONSOR IDENTIFICATION IN EARLY RADIO REGULATION 333 A. The Statutory Origins of the Sponsorship Identification Requirement 334 B. The Requirement's Initial Irrelevance for Regulators 336 III. SPONSORSHIP IDENTIFICATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMS, 1943-58 338 A. Sponsorship Disclosure in Disputes Between Labor and Business 339 B. NAM and TV Coverage of the Kohler Hearings 344 C. Adapting the Rules to 1950s' Technologies and Situations 346 IV. THE 1959-60 PAYOLA AND QUIZ SHOW SCANDALS 347 A. Discovering and Publicizing Sponsors' Hidden Influence 347 B. Covert Sponsorship Commonplace in 1950s' Radio and TV 349 1. Payola in Music Programming 349 2. Props and Hidden Commercials in TV 352 C. The FCC's Tardy Attention to the Problem 354 V. THE INTERPLAY OF CONGRESS, INDUSTRY, AND THE FCC IN REVISING THE RULES 355 A. No Disclosure for Routine Use of Props and Free Records 356 1. Consideration 360 2. Identification 361 B. Disclosure in the Chain of Production 362 C. Disclosure for Political and Public Affairs Programs 366 D. Latitude to Waive Disclosure Rules 369 VII. THE FAILED EFFORT TO UNMASK BROADCASTERS' PROMOTION OF THEIR OWN INTERESTS 369 VIII. CONCLUSION 374 I. INTRODUCTION Anyone watching American Idol on the Fox Network during the spring of 2003 would recognize it, and most television, as commercial programming supported by advertisements that periodically interrupted the show. But unbeknown to the audience and even the program's producers was the hidden commercial: the winning contestant had been paid by a clothing manufacturer to wear its jerseys on the air as he survived elimination from the talent contest week after week. (1) The contestant and his corporate sponsor were engaged in one of broadcasting's enduring practices--inserting covert promotions in programming. Similar incidents came to light during the quiz show and payola (2) scandals of 1959-60, which revived interest in a statutory provision enacted in 1927 requiring disclosure of commercial sponsors. In the wake of the scandals, Congress amended the statute, (3) and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") crafted regulations that still govern sponsorship identification today. (4) The sponsorship identification requirement remains the oldest--and for a long time was the sole--statutory provision dealing directly with broadcast advertising. (5) Although regulators could examine stations' advertising practices on a case-by-case basis as they applied the amorphous public interest standard in issuing and renewing licenses, for the most part policymakers trusted the marketplace. In this line of reasoning adopted by Congress and regulators, stations relying too heavily on advertising or ceding too much control to sponsors would drive their listeners to competing stations more attuned to the public interest. (6) Such regulation by the marketplace, however, worked best when the audience could distinguish a sponsored message from the surrounding programming or recognize programming itself as sponsored content. …