The BadAds Weblog: March 2003

Article or Ad?

Magazines typically don't qualify as intrusive advertising because the ads support the cost of the content and you can avoid seeing the ads by closing the magazine.

But what if you can't tell which pages are ads and which are content? Those who buy Abercrombie & Fitch's A&F Quarterly or the Spiegel Catalog know they're throwing good money after ad. That's their choice.

Other magazines don't announce their marketing tendencies so clearly -- which means readers are swallowing ads in the form of articles without realizing they're being pitched to. Fitness magazines use this technique all the time, running six page ads for weight loss supplements like Hydroxycut and Mesotech as if they were magazine articles. All that distinguishes these ads from real articles are the numerous pictures of product and a small label on the first page which tags the ad as a "special report."

Even more deceptive is a magazine owner that has a financial interest in the material covered. Muscle Media and Energy for Women, for example, are two fitness magazines owned by EAS, a vendor of nutritional supplements that also owns the Body-for-LIFE line of fitness products.

While these magazines do contain useful information about nutrition and exercise, they also run ads disguised as news and advice. In the March 2003 issue of Energy for Women, Brett Hall, R.D., spends two-thirds of a page answering a reader's question about ephedra-free fat-burning supplements by describing Lean DynamX, "a new non-stimulant fat-burning product that combines solid science, tried and true techniques and a fresh perspective on fat loss.... Take at least three servings of this stuff per day. Two simply won't give you a sufficient amount of the active ingredients to optimize your results." The manufacturer of Lean DynamX? EAS.

Scott Puckett offers another example of hidden ownership in his fantastic article for Clamor Magazine titled "How Much Did You Pay for Your Identity?". As Puckett explains, in addition to covering cool, socially conscious topics such as Zapatistas, AIDS in Africa, and environmental racism, The Fader magazine has feature d b ands such as The Strokes, Outkast, Finley Quaye, and Roni Size – musical groups who all happen to be represented by Cornerstone Promotion, publisher of The Fader.

Says Puckett, "It's really quite a brilliant strategy. Cornerstone bills its clients for publicity. It sells ad space in what amounts to a catalog for its clients and then sells the product to consumers who think they're buying a magazine. Unless you poke around Cornerstone's site and start reading The Fader's masthead, it's unlikely that you'll ever learn otherwise. And it's really quite simple: people who read The Fader are reading content that can't even pretend to be objective. Frankly, The Fader's readers would find more objectivity in a press release. At least you know where a press release comes from."

March 30, 2003

A Bill to Stop the Boards

Of all the forms of intrusive advertising, billboards might be the worst because they're the most pervasive. Day after day, they tower overhead, lit far into the night so that you cannot escape their feeble messages. Even worse, the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 allows billboard owners to enter the public right of way and clearcut publicly owned trees to make their dank ads more visible, a practice one wouldn't normally associate with "h ighway beautification."

Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, and Alaska have all banned billboards, both to preserve the beauty of their lands and to encourage tourism by those who care more about enjoying that beauty than learning the location of the next Waffle House.

Now another state might step up its efforts against billboards, thanks to the efforts of Texas State Senator Jane Nelson and Representative Joe Nixon, who introduced bills into their respective branches in mid-February to prohibit the construction of new billboards throughout the state. The bills would also prohibit the reconstruction or repair of billboards that are substantially destroyed, instead forcing those signs to be removed.

Texas residents are encouraged to contact their senators and representatives and urge that these bills be moved out of committees and onto the floor for votes.

Those outside the Lone Star State who feel the urge to purge their state of billboards can view the text of the introduced Senate bill online and pass it along to their own representatives.

For more information about anti-billboard activities, visit Scenic America or one of many smaller organizations, such as Scenic Texas, Citizens for a Scenic Wisconsin, which distributes billboard-banning ordinances to state officials, and Conserve and Protect Florida's Scenic Beauty, which is gathering signatures in an effort to amend the state constitution. Says Mark Goldstein, Scenic Beauty organizer and former Gainesville Mayor, "We know where the pub lic stands on this issue, but we also know the legislature is indifferent to the public since the billboard companies fund their election campaigns."

Of course a legislature is indifferent only so long as citizens sit on their hands and grumble only to themselves. Make yourself heard in the halls of government though, and then you might see action.

Senator Jane Nelson
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: 512-463-0112
Fax: 512-463-0923
Online contact form

Representative Joe Nixon
Room CAP GN.09
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Phone: 512-463-0514
Fax: 512-479-1330
Online contact form

March 20, 2003

Outlawing Spam: Now Is the Time

California state senator Debra Bowen has had enough. "There was twice as much spam last year as the year before, and the amount is spam is increasingly geometrically. It's really turning the Internet into a tool of questionable value," she said in an article on ZDNet UK. "It's estimated U.S. businesses are spending $9 billion a year to deal with spam, and a quarter to a third of the e-mail being transmitted is spam."

Whereas you and I can only wearily hit "delete" again and again, Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) is in a position to do something about the flood of intrusive advertising washing over mailboxes nationwide. And rather than pass the usual legislation about requiring an "opt-out" address or labeling spam with "ADV:" in the subject line – legislation that Bowen herself passed to little effect in 1998 – thi s time she's gunning for the whole biscuit: outlawing spam altogether.

Twenty-six other states have anti-spam laws, but only California Senate Bill 12, introduced in December 2002, would outl aw the practice entirely, allowing spam recipients in the Golden State to sue senders for at least $500 per violation.

From property tax reduction to clean air measures, California has a history of leading the other 49 states (and the federal government itself) to match its legislative efforts. Could this bill prompt a nationwide movement to ban spam? Possibly, especially since the problem will only grow worse in the years ahead and the only way to discourage spammers is to punish them financially, to eliminate their ability to shift the cost of marketing onto those who receive the ads against their will.

Even the Direct Marketing Association has changed its tune – sort of. Says Jerry Cerasale, the DMA's senior vice president of government affairs, "The volume is so great that we have to have some sort of government intervention." Yes, the DMA is proposing fines of $11,000 per e-mail violation, but only against marketers who decline to include an opt-out method in their spam. Since smart Netizens have learned to avoid su ch opt-out e-mail addresses (as they only confirm that your e-mail address is valid, thus insuring even more spam directed your way), the DMA "solution" can be seen only as an effort to fend off an outright ban on spam.

And why shouldn't spam be outlawed? Faxed advertising messages have been illegal for more than a decade precisely because they shift the cost of advertising to the recipient and tie up the recipient's equipment with unrequested messages. Spam burdens recipients in exactly the same manner and should likewise be banished.

Yes, enforcement of such measures would be tough. Most spammers forge e-mail headers to hide their origins, and many are located overseas, which puts them outside the reach of U.S. federal law. But this is hardly a reason to avoid passing such legislation.

If you're sick of spam (and we think you are), write your representatives and tell them so. News articles constantly refer to the "strong lobbying power" of the DMA; don't let a bunch of spam lovers have more pull than the citizenry as a whole. Push for a spam ban and accept nothing less.

Write your senators by visiting http://www.senate.gov and choosing your state from the pulldown list for contact information.

Write your federal representative by visiting http://www.house.gov and entering your nine digit ZIP code, or choosing your rep's name on a pulldown list.

California residents are also encouraged to contact Senator Brown and thank her for pushing t his topic onto the national stage.

Senator Debra Bowen
State Capitol, Room 4040
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-5953
Fax: 916-323-6056
senator.bowen@sen.ca.gov

March 5, 2003

Back to the Main Page

Get the BadAds Weblog updates via e-mail! We'll keep you up-to-date on news in intrusive advertising, changes to BadAds.org, and new ways you can fight "ad creep."

You are the
[an error occurred while processing this directive] visitor
to draw the line on
intrusive advertising.

sunny-clams knoll Feel free to reprint
any of the text on
this site - just
include a link to
www.BadAds.org.

- - - - - - - - -
Web design
by NewsJobs.Net
Perl CGI & HTML Code
by LServ