As an avid National Public Radio listener, until this week I had only a very passing awareness of Don Imus. But when the radio and TV presenter managed to insult both women and blacks in just one uncalled-for sentence, the story was picked up by every media outlet going, and I couldn’t miss it. The story appeared to reach its conclusion yesterday when CBS, faced with both public outrage and the defection of major advertisers, chose to fire Imus. But Imus has been known for his outrageous comments for years. So for me, the question is, why did advertisers choose to desert the foul-mouthed presenter over this particular incident?
Of course there is never any justification for the type of epithet used by Imus, but what has been ignored or forgotten in the ensuing furor is the fact that when Imus referred to the women on the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos,” he was actually responding to an equally derogatory comment made by WFAN-AM producer Bernard McGuirk. In chatting with McGuirk, Imus commented on the tattoos sported by some of the “rough girls from Rutgers.” McGuirk responded with the observation that they were “some hardcore hos,” thus setting the stage for Imus to make his unfortunate remark.
It may seem odd that McGuirk has not been taken to task, when he was clearly the instigator. But apparently the public profile and previous track record of Don Imus set him up to take the fall alone.
Among the things I learned about Imus this week is that, according to an article in the New York Times on Wednesday, an estimated 2 million people tuned into “Imus in the Morning” every day. The Times went on to say, “When advertising revenue for affiliates and MSNBC, which simulcasts the program, is included [in estimates of annual revenue for CBS radio], the figure exceeds $50 million.” So, while I might wonder what motivated his audience to listen, Imus clearly represented big money to his primary employer, CBS Radio. Before last week, advertisers such as General Motors, Staples, Proctor & Gamble and Sprint were all happy to use Imus to reach their target audience, in spite of his known proclivity to insult. Interestingly, these advertisers might never have heard of the remark had Rutgers not held a press conference to respond. But when millions of viewers saw the sad but dignified young women, and heard them describe the way the insult made them feel, advertisers could not keep their heads in the sand. At that point, the fate of Imus was sealed.
I think Francine Hardaway sums up the real issue behind all this furor best when she says “I believe the controversy isn’t about Don Imus, it’s about our own failure as a nation to come to grips with the tension between diversity and economics. We get the culture the advertisers pay for.” (Read her full post here.)
Advertisers were happy to use Imus so long as they were not brought face to face with his content and its implications. But when confronted with the fallout from Imus’s gaffe, they began to distance themselves. Staples and Miralus Healthcare (the company that makes headache medication HeadOn), pulled their advertising from MSNBC’s television simulcast. Procter & Gamble withdrew all of its advertising from MSNBC’s daytime schedule, on the grounds that their advertising should not appear anywhere that is offensive to its consumers.
But if a company really wants to support a culture that is respectful of all individuals, black or white, male or female, shouldn’t it define its ethics ahead of time and stick to them? In some ways, those advertisers who ditched Imus were like the farmer who locked the barn door after the horse had bolted. But maybe we can’t expect a major mainstream media company to take such a principled stand. After all, they are in business to make money, and bigotry (not to mention incivility) is still pervasive in U.S. society. I believe that Imus thought he could get away with making a racist, sexist comment not because he enjoyed the right of free speech, but because he thought his audience would find it not only acceptable but amusing.
I am sure this sad saga is not over yet. Money talks louder than ever. Ultimately, Imus had to go, because the money left. The question is, if and when he reappears on satellite radio (like his alter ego Howard Stern) will the same advertisers that just deserted him steer their media money his way? I hope not. Instead, I hope we see a real shift in U.S. marketing ethics, not just a superficial bow to political correctness.
Tags: Nigel Hollis, Millward Brown, Imus, ethics, PR, publicity
(29 votes, average: 3.62 out of 5)
Loading ...