My Dear John Moment
Well, I've gone and done it. My local public radio station, KUOW, sent me a nice pre-addressed mailing envelope and a request for a nice donation. Instead, KUOW will get the following letter:
Dear KUOW,
I know you expected money in this envelope, but that I cannot provide. I feel obliged, however, to at least let you know why.
I can afford to contribute; the economic downturn has not hurt me enough to cut back on worthy charitable donations. What I cannot do, though, is give to recipients that have increasingly proved themselves unworthy. Sadly, both your station and your parent Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- supposedly public entities -- have decided to privatize by airing an alarming number of paid spots that can only be described by listeners as commercial advertisements.
No advertisement comes free. History has shown that no advertiser can over time resist the temptation to exert the influence their economic contribution buys. One need only see the examples our prime-time commercial news outlets offer to know how drastic advertiser influences, both overt and tacit, can sever reporting direction from reality. I have noticed a similar skew over the years for NPR and (to a lesser extent) KUOW to avoid reporting on topics that impinge too overtly into economic interests, especially of larger "donors." It's like watching a chopped tree just starting to shimmy and quaver before a few more swings of the ax complete the inevitable crash to the forest floor.
While I find this disheartening -- indeed, distressing -- I also realize I can do almost nothing about it. I am only one listener in a region boasting many. I'm sure someone else will overlook (or fail to see) this conflict-of-interest situation and make up my lost contribution. The only action I can take is inaction, failing to provide support for a service I see not only failing, but continuing to worsen.
I will check back with your station on occasion to see if the situation has improved, to see if commercials decrease or disappear. If so, I will once again happily contribute.
Sadly, but Sincerely,
(Me.)
Essentially, it's a "we're done" letter with a caveat that things could be rosy once again if they shape up.
Advertisers and public radio stations suffer an asymmetry when it comes to their knowing the results of their actions. In the business world, people respond positively to "good" or effective ads that draw in a marked increase in sales. Therefore it can be pretty easy to tell which ad campaigns should be continued or expanded. Bad ads, though, can be attributed to downturns in the economy, a competitor's new product, everyone out drinking the day the ad ran, phases of the moon, whatever. By the same token, NPR stations that run these "enhanced sponsorship" spots see the cash they bring but can write off the cash they lose from now-disgruntled listeners who fail to make their contributions to any number of circumstance, related or not. That's why I felt a letter of explanation necessary. I want them to know why contributions might be down this year.
The Wife used to work in a local college cable television station until very recently as a behind-the-scenes technician. Years ago, they got death threats from someone (who was never discovered). This person used quite a bit of ingenuity and effort to send relatively un-retraceable notes to the station, promising dire circumstances unless they stopped "what they were doing." That vagueness didn't help anyone's moral at all.
Then, one day, the letters stopped, and for years all was quiet. Three years into this silence, the letters started once again. I have a theory why.
As spouses are wont to do, The Wife likes to unload the baggage of her working day. I learn what machines are wonky, which co-workers more or less so, what was on sale for lunch, whatever. During several of these unloads I learned that the station's bug machine had broken and that there was no money in the budget to replace it. Bugs, for folks outside the TV biz, are those translucent or very-light colored station identifiers so very popular today on just about every station. They usually get stuck in the upper or lower right corners of the screen.
One day the new bug machine was installed. Within a month of the bug's return, the letters from the secret hater returned. Just to make sure I was on the right track, The Wife went back and reviewed the maintenance logs to see exactly when the bug machine went awry. The timing fit. As far as I know, I am the only one to make the connection, perhaps because though I cannot justify his actions in any way, I can at least understand his rationale.
Bugs and ads share quite a bit in common. Both attempt to brand media content just as flaming or freezing metal rods with shaped appendages brand cattle. And just as in the cattle analogy, both hurt those on the receiving end. My example and -- to a much greater extent -- the threatening letter writer's both show how some people feel so much more much psychological pain from this branding than others.
Maybe we are too thin-skinned, I don't know. By the same logic, perhaps people suffering from malnutrition can supplement their diets with the same stuff that helps pigs in factory CAFOs get fat with less food, trench liquor. Just dilute their own shit and piss in their drinking water and serve. Most will survive, and those will get fat. Or perhaps, just as I noted in the first Culture of Whores post from over 3 years ago, dates should expect to put out for those buying their dinners rather than just coyly reserving the "option" of sex.
Such speculation is quite beside the point. We can -- indeed we must -- understand that the increasing amount of advertising to which we are all subjected has to have some psychological effect on us. We must become either overtly inured to this bombardment, or suffer from it in ways we may only be beginning to understand.
On that note, I'm saying No More! with a note. Maybe someone will take heed. I doubt it, but a guy adverse to adverts can hope. Even so, at least it doesn't threaten grievous bodily harm.
Dear KUOW,
I know you expected money in this envelope, but that I cannot provide. I feel obliged, however, to at least let you know why.
I can afford to contribute; the economic downturn has not hurt me enough to cut back on worthy charitable donations. What I cannot do, though, is give to recipients that have increasingly proved themselves unworthy. Sadly, both your station and your parent Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- supposedly public entities -- have decided to privatize by airing an alarming number of paid spots that can only be described by listeners as commercial advertisements.
No advertisement comes free. History has shown that no advertiser can over time resist the temptation to exert the influence their economic contribution buys. One need only see the examples our prime-time commercial news outlets offer to know how drastic advertiser influences, both overt and tacit, can sever reporting direction from reality. I have noticed a similar skew over the years for NPR and (to a lesser extent) KUOW to avoid reporting on topics that impinge too overtly into economic interests, especially of larger "donors." It's like watching a chopped tree just starting to shimmy and quaver before a few more swings of the ax complete the inevitable crash to the forest floor.
While I find this disheartening -- indeed, distressing -- I also realize I can do almost nothing about it. I am only one listener in a region boasting many. I'm sure someone else will overlook (or fail to see) this conflict-of-interest situation and make up my lost contribution. The only action I can take is inaction, failing to provide support for a service I see not only failing, but continuing to worsen.
I will check back with your station on occasion to see if the situation has improved, to see if commercials decrease or disappear. If so, I will once again happily contribute.
Sadly, but Sincerely,
(Me.)
Essentially, it's a "we're done" letter with a caveat that things could be rosy once again if they shape up.
Advertisers and public radio stations suffer an asymmetry when it comes to their knowing the results of their actions. In the business world, people respond positively to "good" or effective ads that draw in a marked increase in sales. Therefore it can be pretty easy to tell which ad campaigns should be continued or expanded. Bad ads, though, can be attributed to downturns in the economy, a competitor's new product, everyone out drinking the day the ad ran, phases of the moon, whatever. By the same token, NPR stations that run these "enhanced sponsorship" spots see the cash they bring but can write off the cash they lose from now-disgruntled listeners who fail to make their contributions to any number of circumstance, related or not. That's why I felt a letter of explanation necessary. I want them to know why contributions might be down this year.
The Wife used to work in a local college cable television station until very recently as a behind-the-scenes technician. Years ago, they got death threats from someone (who was never discovered). This person used quite a bit of ingenuity and effort to send relatively un-retraceable notes to the station, promising dire circumstances unless they stopped "what they were doing." That vagueness didn't help anyone's moral at all.
Then, one day, the letters stopped, and for years all was quiet. Three years into this silence, the letters started once again. I have a theory why.
As spouses are wont to do, The Wife likes to unload the baggage of her working day. I learn what machines are wonky, which co-workers more or less so, what was on sale for lunch, whatever. During several of these unloads I learned that the station's bug machine had broken and that there was no money in the budget to replace it. Bugs, for folks outside the TV biz, are those translucent or very-light colored station identifiers so very popular today on just about every station. They usually get stuck in the upper or lower right corners of the screen.
One day the new bug machine was installed. Within a month of the bug's return, the letters from the secret hater returned. Just to make sure I was on the right track, The Wife went back and reviewed the maintenance logs to see exactly when the bug machine went awry. The timing fit. As far as I know, I am the only one to make the connection, perhaps because though I cannot justify his actions in any way, I can at least understand his rationale.
Bugs and ads share quite a bit in common. Both attempt to brand media content just as flaming or freezing metal rods with shaped appendages brand cattle. And just as in the cattle analogy, both hurt those on the receiving end. My example and -- to a much greater extent -- the threatening letter writer's both show how some people feel so much more much psychological pain from this branding than others.
Maybe we are too thin-skinned, I don't know. By the same logic, perhaps people suffering from malnutrition can supplement their diets with the same stuff that helps pigs in factory CAFOs get fat with less food, trench liquor. Just dilute their own shit and piss in their drinking water and serve. Most will survive, and those will get fat. Or perhaps, just as I noted in the first Culture of Whores post from over 3 years ago, dates should expect to put out for those buying their dinners rather than just coyly reserving the "option" of sex.
Such speculation is quite beside the point. We can -- indeed we must -- understand that the increasing amount of advertising to which we are all subjected has to have some psychological effect on us. We must become either overtly inured to this bombardment, or suffer from it in ways we may only be beginning to understand.
On that note, I'm saying No More! with a note. Maybe someone will take heed. I doubt it, but a guy adverse to adverts can hope. Even so, at least it doesn't threaten grievous bodily harm.