When the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services
launched its "Stop the Sores" campaign in June 2002--designed to
combat a surge of syphilis cases in the area--the centerpiece of
the campaign was a paid ad for broadcast distribution.
The cable outlets ran the ad intermittently for two years.
During that period, the health department was able to determine
that people who were exposed to the ad were three times more likely
to get tested for syphilis as compared to those who had not seen
the ad.
In 2004, hoping for a bigger bang for its buck, the health
department approached the networks' local affiliates to see if the
affiliates would run the ad. While ABC and Fox
agreed, the CBS and NBC affiliates chose not to air
it.
A statement released by KCBS-TV in Los Angeles said the station
"considers the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases to be a
serious matter and will continue to [address the issue] through
fair, accurate and balanced news reporting and the broadcast of
public service announcements. With that said, we do not believe
that the spot we received is appropriate for our broadcast
television audience." A CBS spokesperson could not be reached for
comment.
So what happened between 2002 and the start of 2004 that spooked
the networks about running the ad? Two words: Janet Jackson
"It's a bit of a rough patch," says Dr. Robert Kim-Farley,
director of communicable disease control and prevention at the L.A.
County Dept. of Health Services, referring to the heightened
sensitivity within the media nearly a year after Jackson's
so-called "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl broadcast.
"But we still need to partner with media that can help get our
message out."
Of course, the decision by the nets not to air said ad resulted
in more media coverage about the campaign than the L.A. health
agency could have ever dreamed. Nevertheless, the episode points to
the increasing challenges companies, PR agencies and government
organizations now face nearly a year after the Jackson fiasco.
Confronted with a renewed sense of mission at the Federal
Communications Commission --which imposed more than $7.7
million in indecency fines last year--some media outlets are
choosing the path of least resistance or, depending on who you ask,
self-censorship when faced with running messages they may deem a
risk.
The trend has been unnerving for the PR profession. PR pros are
"weary and more concerned" about cases of self-censorship within
the media, says Judy Phair, president of the Public Relations
Society of America (and president of Laurel, Md.-based Phair
Advantage Communications), which represents nearly 20,000 PR
execs.
An in-house survey conduced by the PRSA's Advocacy Committee
found that freedom-of-speech issues are the biggest concern for
2005. "PR people need to be more cognizant of the First Amendment
and how relatively easy it is to stifle," Phair says, adding that
the PRSA will be speaking out this year on First Amendment issues.
"We can no longer just be reactive on issues that affect our
profession."
Ken Greenberg, president of Edge Communications Inc.
(Calabasas, Calif.), whose clients include Broadspire and
Kaiser Permanente, says potential threats to the First
Amendment "are real and worrisome. It comes down to whom is
controlling the images. If clients sense that the news media isn't
trustworthy, our reason for being comes into question."
The worst thing a company or agency can do when their campaigns
face such obstacles is to cave in.
"You have to inculcate observers with images of concern and
maturity, and not go into a temper tantrum like a child," says
Matthew T. Felling, media director of the Center for Media and
Public Affairs (Washington, D.C.). "You lose the moral high
ground as soon as you become bellicose and obstinate. The tone of
publicity is foremost, and the concern should be for getting an
important message to the public."
Although Felling feels the clampdown on free speech will be
short-lived, he stresses that, in the current climate, both
companies and their PR agencies have to brace for the unknown.
"When mapping a media strategy, you need to create on your flow
chart a scenario where censorship can rear its ugly head and then
plan for that," he says. "It costs time and resources but it also
boosts your creativity."
The United Church of Christ (UCC) took an aggressive
stance in late 2004 when CBS and NBC rejected as too controversial
an ad that referred to the UCC's heralding the openness of its
6,000 congregations to gay couples, says Rev. Robert Chase,
director of communications for Cleveland-based UCC. (ABC has a
long-standing policy of not running ads affiliated with any
religious organization.)
"If we had just accepted their decision [not to run the ads], it
would be very detrimental to our target audiences," he says. "But
we decided to notify other media about the rejection, which, in a
sense, became a PR bonanza for us."
PR pros have to, now more than ever, consider the
"mechanizations" of the media, adds Rev. Chase. "They keep moving
the goal posts," he says. "What was considered moderate 20 years
ago is now the radical extreme." At the same time, the situation
presents an opportunity for PR directors to "raise their voices in
a rational and calm way about the importance of their messages," he
adds.
Still, no matter how neatly an ad (or PSA) is packaged or
presented, there are just some subject matters broadcast stations
won't touch, sensitized climate or not. You first have to preach to
the choir in order to get the converts. "Cultivate your
relationships with reporters who understand the science and are
interested in educating consumers," says Norman Booth, vice
president of Keating & Co. (Florham Park, N.J.), who has
several clients in the genetic- engineering and bioresearch fields.
"PR has a responsibility to provide accurate information to the
people who need it. It's critical for a literate society."
Contacts: Norman Booth, 973.400.5412, [email protected]; Rev. Robert
Chase, 216.736.2173, [email protected]; Dr. Robert Kim-Farley,
213.215.2332, [email protected]; Matthew T.
Felling, 202.223.2942, [email protected]; Ken Greenberg,
818.719.9292, [email protected]; Judy Phair,
301.317.8243, [email protected]