The Dallas Morning News‘ Tom Maurstad writes about a television commercial for a Dallas/Fort Worth radio station, KLIF 570AM, that the station claims that local broadcasters won’t take because of its content.
The ad focuses on terrorism - and goes well beyond being suggestive about it. It appears that the station was more interested in getting buzz about the ad, and probably should have taken a cue from viral marketers and just put it out online, rather than even shopping the ad.
You can view the ad here at klif.com.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Mario Burgos // Jan 6, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Sorry, I have to disagree. Having it rejected by the television stations and then putting it online is a much better way to jump start the viral buzz. It gives them the added benefit of a lot more PR attention in the mainstream media (i.e. Dallas Morning News) than they would have ever otherwise received. Plus, it reinforces the image of being a “cutting edge” talk radio station.
2 Tom Biro // Jan 6, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Mario - normally I would agree with you, except for the fact that they’re blowing out of proportion the fact that Comcast merely said they needed to remove a small section of the ad and that they would run it then.
They also didn’t talk to ANY local stations other than the cable provider, therefore they’ve generated the buzz by overstating what has actually happened. If it had been “banned” then we’d have a different situation here. The DMN would never have looked into the story had the station not been telling people it was “banned” - which isn’t what happened.
3 Mario Burgos // Jan 6, 2005 at 4:22 pm
I think the shortcoming lies with the sloppy fact checking done by the newspaper reporter (hmm, seems to be an ongoing trend), not the by the seemingly successful campaign launched by KLIF. Although switching the word “Banned” with “Censored” might have worked even better, it would have allowed them tie into the FCC buzz.
4 Tom Biro // Jan 6, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Sloppy fact checking? I’d say a quote from KLIF’s general manager who said “We haven’t broached the subject with any of the local network affiliates, but we plan to” is probably a pretty good example of fact checking.
“Censored” would have been the way to go. No one ever said it wasn’t a successful campaign - I believe it is. It’s that they misstated the situation, plain as day.
5 adland // Jan 6, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Overstating buzz for cheesy \
Tom Biro at The Media Drop has spotted an ad from the Dallas/Fort Worth radio station KLIF 570AM, which was \’banned\’ or rather not broadcast due to it\’s content according to the Dallas Morning News.
6 dabitch // Jan 6, 2005 at 6:25 pm
How camp! That has got to be the worst special effects I’ve seen since 1982.
7 Ian // Jan 6, 2005 at 7:54 pm
I blogged about this commercial and related issues on ‘AdShift’, January 6th at http://www.sunagency.ca/weblog/
8 dabitch // Jan 6, 2005 at 9:20 pm
It’s still January 6th no? And since you blogged it at 12:14 pm.. you’re not exactly ahead of Tom.. Jus’ sayin’.
9 dabitch // Jan 6, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Oops silly me, Tom even did it on the 5th I see now. .)
10 dabitch // Jan 6, 2005 at 9:34 pm
Don’t mind me, I probably misunderstood what you meant by that, and I’m overly chatty!
11 paprgl // Jan 8, 2005 at 6:54 am
Shocks ads are not new in Dallas. A number of the radio stations have done them. They’re not tied by ownership… but who wouldn’t try to break out of the death-lock that is the Clear Channel ownership issue?
Some of these stations are still on the air. Others, like KEGL, are not. Or not as they used to be … KEGL — the hard-rocking Eagle — sent out racy ads with semi-clad women suggestively talking about a Harley giveway… Now the station is Sunny 97.1.
That fate is probably sentence enough.