Hey Guys,
Just wanted to update you on the Seattle Times case that I went over in class..
Just in case you forgot the details, here's a little refresher.
On October 17th, 2012, the Seattle Times ran and paid for a $75,000 political ad for gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna and also one ad promoting Washington Referendum 74 which gave gay couples the right to marry.
The decision to run the ad was made completely by the Advertorial Department without informing any of the Editorial people of their decision. Their justification was that they wanted to show the effectiveness of the Seattle Times as an advertising tool, specifically in King and Snohomish counties. They claimed that they chose to support McKenna and Referendum 74 because of they were consistent with the Times' editorial position.
Jay Inslee ended up beating Rob McKenna by around 42,000 votes. Interestingly enough, before the Times' rand their ad, McKenna had been ahead by two points. He ended up losing by four. In King county, McKenna lost by a 62-38 margin. In Snohomish county he lost by a narrower 51-49 margin. Which is ironic considering those were the counties in which the Times was primarily basing their experiment on.
On the other hand, Referendum 74 was approved and went up two points after the Times ran the ad supporting it.
McKenna refused to comment on the ad. However a circulation report released November 1st, 2012 showed that the Seattle Times had a 6.63% decline in readers. This decline made them drop off the list of 25 best newspapers in the nation. Before the ads had run the Times was at number 23 which means they must have lost around 12,000 readers.
Whether this can be directly attributed to the ads is impossible to determine, however a spokesman for the Times told NPR that they would not be paying for any more ads in the future.
What do you guys think? Did the ads have a negative effect on the paper's readership? Is it ethical for the Advertisement Department to pay for ads without consulting the rest of the paper's staff?
And finally how much communication should there be between Advertisement and Editorial? Who gets to decide?
What do you do if an advertiser threatens to cut funding if you don't bend your editorial to their desires?
Kinda tricky but thanks for your input!
-Rachel
I think people really were turned off by the ads. While most people are aware that newspapers tend to have a political bias, they don't want to see it. The news is supposed to be balanced and fair. So for a newspaper to put an ad for a political candidate was not right. I think readers read the newspaper for the news, not the ads. So the advertisement department needs to work on ads that will promote a fair perspective. They needed to communicate with the newspapers other staff members. I think in the end the editorial people need to decide in the end whether or not to run an ad. But they should definitely talk to and consult the advertisement department. I think if an advertiser threatens to cut funding, you should find a new advertiser. But I know that's not always an easy thing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Allison. People aren't stupid and seeing ads like this would most likely give people the message of bias. I bet that the ads did have some affect on the outcome of the election.
ReplyDeleteI think it's fascinating that the ads weren't as effective as the Times had hoped. Sure ref. 74 ended up winning by a narrow margin, but the fact that McKenna's support actually went down is interesting. I would like to know more about other events surrounding the ad that may have affected his status. I wonder if this points to the idea that newspaper advertising is dead. Obviously ad revenue has been declining, but do people even care about ads in papers any more? Do they have any affect?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that McKenna was running as a Republican in a very liberal state certainly didn't help his chances for sure. He ran on a platform opposed abortion, gay marriage, and federal healthcare. I think it was probably a combination of these things that led to his loss.
DeleteI think it was definitely a bad call to run the ad. I can see how the newspaper would lose readers if they think the paper favors someone they do not. The paper backed a candidate who did not have the popular vote, it makes perfect sense that this would negatively affect their readership. I do not think it was ethical for the advertisers to place the ad without consulting the rest of the staff. By placing the ad, they were speaking for the paper and its employees without their consent. I think if your advertiser threatens to cut funding unless you change your editorial, it is time to find a new advertiser. If our papers are easily bought out by advertisers, we will quickly lose readership altogether.
ReplyDelete