Ah, Crapadoodle, I Wrote a Manifesto
The other day, a friend forwarded me this link. It opens:
Ira Glass, the man who captivates countless National Public Radio (NPR) listeners with his quirky accounts of daily life around the country, recently asserted that NPR should be supported by free market capitalism and advertising.
Glass came under fire for this presentation, essentially a pitch to advertisers. He later wrote:
Numbers like that mean that companies will come on our shows and pay lots of money for what the rest of the world calls “advertising” and what we call “underwriting.”
I’m talking about the 10- to 15-second announcements during public radio shows that say “Support for this program comes from . . . .” Public radio and TV have always had them.
Yes, they have noted "underwriters," but for the record these were most often charitable foundations, not pitches for car companies and breweries as Glass pitches every week on This American Life. Sorry, Ira, those are ads, not underwriting spots. Suck it up.
I got pretty bummed about the whole thing, including the slickster hip webpage that touted the event. A lot of energy was going into wooing advertisers to public media.
And then I realized I shouldn't be bummed. This has been building for quite some time. Why? Public media in the United States lacks definition as to what public media is.
What follows is my attempt to clarify.
An Outline for Defining the Problem Advertising Presents to Society and for Crafting Policies that both Recognize this Problem and Seek to Correct it.
You cram these words into mine ears
against the stomach of my sense.
-Shakespeare, The Tempest.
Overview
Since the advent of broadcasting, how to fund broadcasts has been a thorny issue for society to tackle. There is a rich history of dissent when it comes to resisting advertising and the content it sponsors, a history that is largely ignored by the history of the industry written and promulgated by the present-day winners of that debate, the sponsored content producers. There have likewise historically been a rich mix of funding models used, many of which elevated the needs of the society over the needs of businesses and political interests to forward their short-term ambitions and sales goals.
Though it was said in private conversations and occasionally in public testimony, what advertising is, what it constitutes as a force in our lives, is seldom explored. That, I believe, is to our detriment. We must recognize that advertising is far from a neutral and context-free message delivery system: were neutral, it would not be effective in delivering any message of importance; were it context-free, no topical, time-sensitive, or critical message could be delivered.
Advertising is far from being a neutral funding mechanism for media content. To the media it sponsors, it is an active force that shapes the content, its message, and the perimeters within which media is allowed to function. To the public it addresses, it is a message and memetic bombardment mechanism that cares less for the negative mental and physical effects this bombardment has on the viewing or listening audience, either long- or short-term, and far more for the immediate goal of changing minds toward the message delivered.
Furthermore, since the detrimental effects of advertising are seldom if ever explored by the media it sponsors, any feedback mechanism the public might be able to contribute to the advertisements they endure-either positive or negative-is lacking. The only existing feedback mechanism is financial. The media producers and disseminators are rewarded with money, and the sponsors with greater financial activity and/or political positions. (Though this last effect can be debated case-by-case, if it were not true in the overall, no ads would be placed. The effect is great enough to foster future advertising.)
For these reasons, I hereby declare that advertising should be considered a memetic pollutant, and regulated thusly.
What is a Memetic Pollutant?
In our country's history, industry has used the immediate environment as a dumping ground for the industry's byproducts, often in ways that led to disastrous consequences. We as a society empowered our elected representatives and executives to regulate pollution, identifying what substances presented problems when released into the environment and subsequently, if necessary, regulating that release.
Our city's rivers no longer catch fire from the flammable effluent drifting on their surfaces. Our skies can more easily be seen on days free from clouds of mere condensation. Most critically, our water, our homes, our foods are freer from substances that can have short and long term consequences for our health. Importantly, the regulatory agencies continue to identify and regulate substances to continue this important work.
"Memetic" pollution here refers to media depictions of ideas that can have a detrimental effect on the populace. Sometimes these detrimental effects are recognizable; mostly they are merely objectionable on their surface by those that suffer the effects.
While I recognize that any number of ideas could fall into this overly broad definition, for the purposes of this Overview I am limiting the memetic pollution to be here considered to paid advertising; while the public may choose whether or not to view various media, they cannot with enough ease escape the messages that fund most media today. Advertising funding has become so ubiquitous that, should an individual choose to avoid it completely (for whatever reason), that individual would be hard-pressed to find media without paid-for content inserted within it or framing it. Often this leaves these individuals alienated from a rich content source that would otherwise inform, entertain, and enrich their lives, not to mention educating them in ways that make them more productive members of the society at large.
I am not here to endorse that any pollution-be it physical or memetic-is necessarily bad. Without the byproducts of industry, there would be no industry. The goal of this Overview is not, therefore, to eliminate advertising as some would eliminate pollution by shutting down all polluters: I believe this to be neither possible nor feasible. Rather, by recognizing that advertising carries consequences beyond the simple funding of media, and that these consequences are in the interest of many who watch and listen to media to avoid or at least reduce, I am endorsing simple rules covering advertising that, though on a micro scale, would emergently affect the macro scale of where, when, and how advertising is presented.
Definitions
Since 1967, this country has had a recognized public broadcasting agency, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that has been responsible for programming in the public interest. Sadly, steady erosion of the funding and structure of the CPB has rendered it far less public than is optimal, even as opponents of the CPB consider it far too public to be tolerated. Constant attacks and micro-management from individuals without the best interests of the CPB in mind have reduced it and introduced into it too much advertising for it to be considered "public" any longer.
To avoid confusion, broadcasting will be defined not by what it calls itself, but by what it does. To wit:
One must also recognized that a broadcasting outlet does not produce all of its own material. Therefore, a further designation must be defined, that of producing entity.
A production organization that produces content funded in no part at all by paid sponsorships may call itself "public."
For example, should a public production entity supply content for a public broadcaster, that entity must not in any way display advertising on its website.
It must be recognized that the technology for collecting donations has not kept pace with the need and scope of donations. For that reason alone, an exception must be crafted for advertising placed within self-published content (downloaded podcasting and online streaming, for example).
No public production entity will provide such self-published content without providing a separate feed without advertising but otherwise with completely identical content. For this separate feed, a fee may be charged that does not exceed four times the cost of paying for the individual download plus transaction costs.
For example, Ira Glass of PRI's This American Life revealed to the show's podcast listeners one year that:
Therefore, the average cost of providing an individual subscription to TAL is about 50¢; therefore, the maximum TAL would be able to charge for a yearly subscription to its podcast feed would be $2 plus applicable transaction fees.
Since removing all sponsorships from today's public media will force a reduction of revenues to said media, alternate ways to fund our public media must be considered. I do not support the blanket raising of federal support, nor do I wish donors to increase in numbers. Rather, I support other means to fund necessary broadcast media that exists without the taint of sponsorship.
Taxation
As mentioned in Robert McChesney and John Nichols' book The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution That Will Begin the World Again:
Most people do not realize that businesses can deduct the cost of advertising from their taxable income. Merely changing the ability of businesses to "write off" their advertising as a business expense in one year, and extending to it to a five-year write-off, could generate another $2 billion per year. This makes sense because much of advertising is about brand building and having influence beyond a single year. It should be treated accordingly by the IRS.
They therefore advocate a 2% tax on advertising, which should generate $5 to $6 billion annually. I would go further with the percentage, personally; but given that this is a thought experiment, I am willing to stick to defined boundaries from experts in the field until better information is presented, and actual empirical data can be collected where the experiments have been implemented.
Native Advertising, aka Sponsored Content
We must recognize that quite a bit of advertising is shifting from those separated from the content they sponsor and into that content. This must be disclosed as well as taxed. Media producers-be they television or radio producers, magazine or newspapers publishers-must disclose all funds exchanged with all the entities that went into the support of each edition or program, with granular information as to which individual article or segment (if applicable) was considered and supported. For a practical overview: the broadcaster of a baseball game must mention every sponsor of their broadcast that appears or is mentioned within the broadcast itself; the game show must disclose every product placed on their stage for financial consideration; the talk show must disclose every mention by a presenter that was mentioned for financial consideration; newspapers must disclosed which businesses were mentioned for a price within the articles in their editions, and specify the exact articles so sponsored (if applicable).
Furthermore, the re-broadcast market must be considered. Similar to the way a yellow line now helps delineate the down marker on a football broadcast even though no such line can be seen by the fans at the stadium, technology has enabled producers to infuse advertising into previously advertising-free media. Street scenes that provided a background for characters, for example, might have been empty storefronts; with digital manipulations, those storefronts are being filled with branded outlets peopled by paying customers, both of which exist in pixels alone. Like the simple fact that in Episode IV of Star Wars Han Shot First, though, the public needs a place to go to confirm what of the original is the original, and what was added later . . . and for how much.
And yes, I do believe that the amount of the contribution must be disclosed as well as the presence.
These disclosures must accompany the broadcasts, though perhaps in small print or rapidly enunciated; it will be sufficient to have a show notes page on the internet with such granular information available in a more readable form, provided the address to such a page is included with the broadcast. Print editions must disclose their native content in the same edition.
I have no idea how much taxing such native advertising would generate, since there is no disclosure on how much this is happening, let alone how much money it generates. Given that departments coordinating and encouraging such advertising is often the only department growing in size in most newspapers, the contribution could be significant.
Yes, it's a biggun. Still, I could use some feedback. And it ain't done yet.
Ira Glass, the man who captivates countless National Public Radio (NPR) listeners with his quirky accounts of daily life around the country, recently asserted that NPR should be supported by free market capitalism and advertising.
Glass came under fire for this presentation, essentially a pitch to advertisers. He later wrote:
Numbers like that mean that companies will come on our shows and pay lots of money for what the rest of the world calls “advertising” and what we call “underwriting.”
I’m talking about the 10- to 15-second announcements during public radio shows that say “Support for this program comes from . . . .” Public radio and TV have always had them.
Yes, they have noted "underwriters," but for the record these were most often charitable foundations, not pitches for car companies and breweries as Glass pitches every week on This American Life. Sorry, Ira, those are ads, not underwriting spots. Suck it up.
I got pretty bummed about the whole thing, including the slickster hip webpage that touted the event. A lot of energy was going into wooing advertisers to public media.
And then I realized I shouldn't be bummed. This has been building for quite some time. Why? Public media in the United States lacks definition as to what public media is.
What follows is my attempt to clarify.
An Outline for Defining the Problem Advertising Presents to Society and for Crafting Policies that both Recognize this Problem and Seek to Correct it.
You cram these words into mine ears
against the stomach of my sense.
-Shakespeare, The Tempest.
Overview
Since the advent of broadcasting, how to fund broadcasts has been a thorny issue for society to tackle. There is a rich history of dissent when it comes to resisting advertising and the content it sponsors, a history that is largely ignored by the history of the industry written and promulgated by the present-day winners of that debate, the sponsored content producers. There have likewise historically been a rich mix of funding models used, many of which elevated the needs of the society over the needs of businesses and political interests to forward their short-term ambitions and sales goals.
Though it was said in private conversations and occasionally in public testimony, what advertising is, what it constitutes as a force in our lives, is seldom explored. That, I believe, is to our detriment. We must recognize that advertising is far from a neutral and context-free message delivery system: were neutral, it would not be effective in delivering any message of importance; were it context-free, no topical, time-sensitive, or critical message could be delivered.
Advertising is far from being a neutral funding mechanism for media content. To the media it sponsors, it is an active force that shapes the content, its message, and the perimeters within which media is allowed to function. To the public it addresses, it is a message and memetic bombardment mechanism that cares less for the negative mental and physical effects this bombardment has on the viewing or listening audience, either long- or short-term, and far more for the immediate goal of changing minds toward the message delivered.
Furthermore, since the detrimental effects of advertising are seldom if ever explored by the media it sponsors, any feedback mechanism the public might be able to contribute to the advertisements they endure-either positive or negative-is lacking. The only existing feedback mechanism is financial. The media producers and disseminators are rewarded with money, and the sponsors with greater financial activity and/or political positions. (Though this last effect can be debated case-by-case, if it were not true in the overall, no ads would be placed. The effect is great enough to foster future advertising.)
For these reasons, I hereby declare that advertising should be considered a memetic pollutant, and regulated thusly.
What is a Memetic Pollutant?
In our country's history, industry has used the immediate environment as a dumping ground for the industry's byproducts, often in ways that led to disastrous consequences. We as a society empowered our elected representatives and executives to regulate pollution, identifying what substances presented problems when released into the environment and subsequently, if necessary, regulating that release.
Our city's rivers no longer catch fire from the flammable effluent drifting on their surfaces. Our skies can more easily be seen on days free from clouds of mere condensation. Most critically, our water, our homes, our foods are freer from substances that can have short and long term consequences for our health. Importantly, the regulatory agencies continue to identify and regulate substances to continue this important work.
"Memetic" pollution here refers to media depictions of ideas that can have a detrimental effect on the populace. Sometimes these detrimental effects are recognizable; mostly they are merely objectionable on their surface by those that suffer the effects.
While I recognize that any number of ideas could fall into this overly broad definition, for the purposes of this Overview I am limiting the memetic pollution to be here considered to paid advertising; while the public may choose whether or not to view various media, they cannot with enough ease escape the messages that fund most media today. Advertising funding has become so ubiquitous that, should an individual choose to avoid it completely (for whatever reason), that individual would be hard-pressed to find media without paid-for content inserted within it or framing it. Often this leaves these individuals alienated from a rich content source that would otherwise inform, entertain, and enrich their lives, not to mention educating them in ways that make them more productive members of the society at large.
I am not here to endorse that any pollution-be it physical or memetic-is necessarily bad. Without the byproducts of industry, there would be no industry. The goal of this Overview is not, therefore, to eliminate advertising as some would eliminate pollution by shutting down all polluters: I believe this to be neither possible nor feasible. Rather, by recognizing that advertising carries consequences beyond the simple funding of media, and that these consequences are in the interest of many who watch and listen to media to avoid or at least reduce, I am endorsing simple rules covering advertising that, though on a micro scale, would emergently affect the macro scale of where, when, and how advertising is presented.
Definitions
Since 1967, this country has had a recognized public broadcasting agency, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that has been responsible for programming in the public interest. Sadly, steady erosion of the funding and structure of the CPB has rendered it far less public than is optimal, even as opponents of the CPB consider it far too public to be tolerated. Constant attacks and micro-management from individuals without the best interests of the CPB in mind have reduced it and introduced into it too much advertising for it to be considered "public" any longer.
To avoid confusion, broadcasting will be defined not by what it calls itself, but by what it does. To wit:
- An outlet will be deemed "commercial" if it plays any messages or includes any content for financial consideration.
- An outlet may call itself "public" if it eschews all sponsorship, either of messages or content. Such an outlet must only display content produced by public production entities (more on that below); exceptions can be made for content made by for-profit entities but considered too old to matter (ie. older movie or television rebroadcasts).
- If there is a demand for such, a further designation of "charitable" might be considered for those outlets that present content sponsored wholly by charitable non-governmental organizations as defined by the Internal Revenue Service and other applicable agencies.
One must also recognized that a broadcasting outlet does not produce all of its own material. Therefore, a further designation must be defined, that of producing entity.
A production organization that produces content funded in no part at all by paid sponsorships may call itself "public."
For example, should a public production entity supply content for a public broadcaster, that entity must not in any way display advertising on its website.
It must be recognized that the technology for collecting donations has not kept pace with the need and scope of donations. For that reason alone, an exception must be crafted for advertising placed within self-published content (downloaded podcasting and online streaming, for example).
No public production entity will provide such self-published content without providing a separate feed without advertising but otherwise with completely identical content. For this separate feed, a fee may be charged that does not exceed four times the cost of paying for the individual download plus transaction costs.
For example, Ira Glass of PRI's This American Life revealed to the show's podcast listeners one year that:
- WBEZ in Chicago (TAL's production home) paid approximately $150,000 for bandwidth and hosting charges necessary to provide the podcast; and
- Podcast subscribers totaled approximately 300,000 in number.
Therefore, the average cost of providing an individual subscription to TAL is about 50¢; therefore, the maximum TAL would be able to charge for a yearly subscription to its podcast feed would be $2 plus applicable transaction fees.
Since removing all sponsorships from today's public media will force a reduction of revenues to said media, alternate ways to fund our public media must be considered. I do not support the blanket raising of federal support, nor do I wish donors to increase in numbers. Rather, I support other means to fund necessary broadcast media that exists without the taint of sponsorship.
Taxation
As mentioned in Robert McChesney and John Nichols' book The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution That Will Begin the World Again:
Most people do not realize that businesses can deduct the cost of advertising from their taxable income. Merely changing the ability of businesses to "write off" their advertising as a business expense in one year, and extending to it to a five-year write-off, could generate another $2 billion per year. This makes sense because much of advertising is about brand building and having influence beyond a single year. It should be treated accordingly by the IRS.
They therefore advocate a 2% tax on advertising, which should generate $5 to $6 billion annually. I would go further with the percentage, personally; but given that this is a thought experiment, I am willing to stick to defined boundaries from experts in the field until better information is presented, and actual empirical data can be collected where the experiments have been implemented.
Native Advertising, aka Sponsored Content
We must recognize that quite a bit of advertising is shifting from those separated from the content they sponsor and into that content. This must be disclosed as well as taxed. Media producers-be they television or radio producers, magazine or newspapers publishers-must disclose all funds exchanged with all the entities that went into the support of each edition or program, with granular information as to which individual article or segment (if applicable) was considered and supported. For a practical overview: the broadcaster of a baseball game must mention every sponsor of their broadcast that appears or is mentioned within the broadcast itself; the game show must disclose every product placed on their stage for financial consideration; the talk show must disclose every mention by a presenter that was mentioned for financial consideration; newspapers must disclosed which businesses were mentioned for a price within the articles in their editions, and specify the exact articles so sponsored (if applicable).
Furthermore, the re-broadcast market must be considered. Similar to the way a yellow line now helps delineate the down marker on a football broadcast even though no such line can be seen by the fans at the stadium, technology has enabled producers to infuse advertising into previously advertising-free media. Street scenes that provided a background for characters, for example, might have been empty storefronts; with digital manipulations, those storefronts are being filled with branded outlets peopled by paying customers, both of which exist in pixels alone. Like the simple fact that in Episode IV of Star Wars Han Shot First, though, the public needs a place to go to confirm what of the original is the original, and what was added later . . . and for how much.
And yes, I do believe that the amount of the contribution must be disclosed as well as the presence.
These disclosures must accompany the broadcasts, though perhaps in small print or rapidly enunciated; it will be sufficient to have a show notes page on the internet with such granular information available in a more readable form, provided the address to such a page is included with the broadcast. Print editions must disclose their native content in the same edition.
I have no idea how much taxing such native advertising would generate, since there is no disclosure on how much this is happening, let alone how much money it generates. Given that departments coordinating and encouraging such advertising is often the only department growing in size in most newspapers, the contribution could be significant.
Yes, it's a biggun. Still, I could use some feedback. And it ain't done yet.