Your Nation May Be Democratic, But Your TV is Not: FOX Refuses to Air 'Subvertisements'

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

The recent efforts by Color of Change to target companies that advertise on Glenn Beck's show was stunning in its apparent success. Some 80 companies have since dropped their ads from the show, and the impact of such checkbook advocacy was inspiring.

True, there are serious questions over how much damage this will do to the network, which has seen ratings soar over the past year or so. And the attention that Beck and FOX have received from the controversy may end up helping their standing more in the long run.

Of course, ad money is ad money. And you would think that, with all the advertisers FOX has lost over this whole Beck fracas, they'd want to get as many new ads as possible. Regardless of presumptive drop in funds, however, the network seems set against accepting money for airing what are being called "subvertisements." It seems that some arenas of modern life are impervious to all kinds of democracy, even the kind that has its own checkbook.

For years, the Canada-based anti-advertising media group known as Adbusters has been trying to buy ad time for their spots opposing consumerism and promoting issues such as the slow food movement, TV Turnoff Week and Buy Nothing Day (which is coming up on Nov. 28, by the way).

Check out this sampling of some of their previous video work:

Watching these spots, I don't think anyone would be surprised that major North American television stations have refused to air them. Networks have a vested interest not only in keeping their specific advertisers happy, but in maintaining the status quo of over- consumption. Where do you think ad revenues come from, anyway?

But thinking about it rationally, one might assume that in the land of the free market, money would speak louder than nearly everything else. If a group or company wants to air an ad (as long as its content does not violate the law) they should be able to pay to have it aired.

Turns out that's not the case. Where's the ACLU when you need them?

I've been a casual follower of and occasional subscriber to Adbusters for a few years, and overall I really like what they do. While I find some of their products and self-promotion is really similar to advertising, I understand the necessity. Also, they sometimes can come off as a little holier-than-thou, but there's a purpose to that too. Regardless of my objections, Adbusters is a relatively small-scale effort before a tidal wave of advertising, and I appreciate their existence.

Anyway, here's the latest spot from Adbusters, a subvertisement rejected outright by FOX and implicitly by MTV, sent out yesterday. The campaign, which Adbusters calls Commercial Breakers, is slightly different from what they've done in the past in that they're specifically targeting the meaning behind the imagery used in advertising. But it still follows their basic method of "culture jamming" by taking the everyday intrusion from corporations and turning it on its head, so that the viewer might critically analyze rather than passively absorb ads.

While I love the sentiment, the ad itself is terrible. It looks like a college student's first attempt at a modern art installment, all the way down to the unreadable text flashed throughout. It tries too hard to be cool, when all it needs is to be real. But I can't argue with the reasoning behind the ad, which ends with the suggestion (thankfully with a more readable font) that we "change the way information flows and how meaning is produced in our society."

Indeed, we should. And while it would be nice to get subvertisements more press via networks such as FOX and MTV, I'm not sure it would do a whole lot of good. The people watching those stations are already half brainwashed, and a confusingly illegible 30-second spot is not going to be enough to rouse them from their materialistic funk.

That's why BuzzFlash started the Turn Off FOX campaign. Many stores and public places choose FOX as their default, legitimizing their radical viewpoints as mainstream. Thankfully, nothing more "activist" than requesting that a company switch the station, or -- gasp -- even turn off the TV altogether, is necessary in most situations. The days of signing petitions are over, as far as this issue goes. Taking control and speaking up in public (a space where the common person still has a voice) is more effective than preaching to the Media Matters choir and  arguing with your neocon uncle over an episode of Hannity's America combined.

But it's also why I love the Adbusters' campaigns that focus on personal responsibility. For example, the media empowerment kit, put together for teachers to help their students understand and analyze the effects of advertising, is awesome (though I wish it were cheaper. Every teacher I know happens to be dirt poor). And their educational efforts to challenge well-established ideas about how economics works are both smart and bravely iconoclastic.

But, as Adbusters' own experience as an ad time purchaser has shown, the network world is not a democratic one and the free market is not devoid of consumerist ideology. No matter how many advertisers drop Glenn Beck, he'll still be on the air, and Adbusters will not.

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Regardless of the media-fueled pessimism expressed above, I highly encourage you to explore Adbusters' many features, especially their thought-provoking spoof ads and their beautiful, ad-free magazine. Also, be sure and take a gander at our Turn Off Fox campaign. You can learn more about it here and you can make the pledge and sign up for e-mail updates here.

Technorati Tags: Analysis media FOX adbuster ad advertising TV activist turn off video watch economics culture jamming subvert network