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.

Posted by: Mario Burgos at January 6, 2005 3:32 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.

Posted by: Tom Biro at January 6, 2005 3:37 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.

Posted by: Mario Burgos at January 6, 2005 4:22 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.

Posted by: Tom Biro at January 6, 2005 4:39 PM

How camp! That has got to be the worst special effects I've seen since 1982.

Posted by: dabitch at January 6, 2005 6:25 PM

I blogged about this commercial and related issues on 'AdShift', January 6th at www.sunagency.ca/weblog/

Posted by: Ian at January 6, 2005 7:54 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'.

;)

Posted by: dabitch at January 6, 2005 9:20 PM

Oops silly me, Tom even did it on the 5th I see now. .)

Posted by: dabitch at January 6, 2005 9:21 PM

Don't mind me, I probably misunderstood what you meant by that, and I'm overly chatty!

Posted by: dabitch at January 6, 2005 9:34 PM

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.

Posted by: paprgl at January 8, 2005 6:54 AM