From The Editor

The idea of using the V-chip to screen out advertising might turn out to be a swift idea. For those who missed it last week, the Federal Communications Commission floated a provocative balloon in Washington. Short of getting alcohol ads banned from broadcast, the FCC mulled a proposition whereby the blocking technology could be used to keep alcohol ads from homes where children could see them.Predictably, and properly, the advertising industry lobby went into warp spin. The 'slippery slope' was invoked. Lobbyists have suggested outrageous responses: What will stop consumers from applying the V-chip beyond alcohol advertising? What if consumers could shut out TV advertising? Zapping would be obsolete!As scary a proposition as this is for ad agencies, it's more frightening to wonder whether consumers would block commercials if given the chance. I fear many would take the V-chip option, though now it's just part of the industry's defensive strategy to prevent the technology from possibly being applied to alcohol. The number of compelling reasons to watch TV commercials (i.e. good spots) is effectively drowned in a vicious sameness.Here is the worst case scenario: The widespread use of the V-chip to block commercials results in catastrophy--and not just for the agency and media worlds. The engine of the market economy--the ability to create a compelling reason to buy--shatters. New products would need to be presented to consumers in radically new ways because of the torpor created by commercials in the past. Ironically, the programs consumers love could be threatened by decreased ad support.But be honest. You can find a commercial category you would block from your television if you could. We all could. Don't worry about whether ads are good or bad for society. If they stink and annoy you, block them. Think how such power in the hands of consumers would cripple the agency business. Or, conversely, it could cleanse it.In a V-chip world, the client would be left with two options. They could abandon television (tough to fathom given the $6 billion spent in this year's upfront alone), or make sure their agency put something on TV that people wanted to see.In such a world, many campaigns, and the agencies that create them, could not compete. The agencies could do other things, but clients could not afford to tolerate bad broadcast work. Since only the best would survive, the quality of the spots would by definition improve. This does not presume that only the current crop of creative shops would make it. Clients deserve the ads they get. Motivated by desperation, the talent in the agency would shine. The hacks would be exposed.In reality, outgoing FCC chairman Reed Hundt's modest proposal probably won't take this form. Let's hope it doesn't. Traditional media is under enough pressure to deliver the goods in the face of fracturing audiences and the slow but steady evolution of interactive media. If people could turn off the revenue stream, the impact could be deadly. Delivering ads that consumers welcome would hurt the business, but it would also help the work.--Kevin McCormackCopyright ASM Communications, Inc. (1997) ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSCROLL National

Brand Marketing

From The Editor

Adweek Staff

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Adweek Staff