Advertising Age reports:
After declining political advertising since its inception in 1981, MTV is reversing course.
The Viacom MTV Networks channel — once known for round-the-clock music videos and now home to a host of reality shows — says it will now take political ads, though only from political candidates and party political committees, not from third parties.
Any connection to Barack Obama’s announced desire to advertise on MTV is purely coincidental:
“Given where we are in the election cycle, and how the youth vote has increasingly engaged and played a crucial role in past presidential elections, we re-evaluated the MTV policy and decided that campaign-approved ads would be a good fit for our audience, and would compliment our ‘Choose or Lose’ campaign efforts,” [MTV exec. Jeannie Kedas] said.
Translation: Obama owns the youth vote and we did not want to annoy Hillary Clinton during the primaries.
Also, any similarity between MTV’s rejection of independent ads and Obama’s desired ad strategy is purely coincidental.
Allahpundit/McLaughlin-esque exit question: What if “feminist hero” and MTV star Heidi Montag wanted to appear in an ad for Maverick? Would MTV let her?
Should Obama apologize for capturing the youth vote unlike the fossile running against him?
The pimp smack is coming in November.
PH,
No — MTV should apologize for insulting our intelligence by trying to pretend that their reversal of a decades-old policy is [anything but] nakedly political.
PH,
Aren’t you the one defending the “Fairness Doctrine” elsewhere on site today?
You mean not political?
Indeed. I’ll fix that.
“The pimp smack is coming in November.”
Da, Comrade.
These are ads Karl not content.
I remember when MTV was nothing but ads — that’s what music videos are. Ads are content. And a progg never complained about Lefty ads being turned down by some TV channel. Never.
I wonder if they will be given the New York Times discount?
Wouldn’t surprise me. Actually there are regs about that, though I don’t remember whether they extend to cable/satellite TV, or just broadcast nets.
Well if they get a discount at the Obama campaign then I would agree with you on this.
Doesn’t this resonate kinda with that other story you linked about Baracky buying some cable data from some person I don’t remember?
I will go look.
It was this one.
hf,
Always good to check the links in the post, m’friend.
Heh. The “youth vote.”
Hey, PH, are you innarested in buying a bridge? It’s marked waaaaaaay down, just for you!
That’s the relevant part of the article I guess. Special access is the key phrase I guess.
Oh. I’m multi-tasking, Karl. Just not very well.
hf,
s’alright — I was flattered that you remembered it independently.
He’s paying for ads on MTV? Seems silly, given that he was going to get their “kids, vote for our guy!” campaign/faux-documentaries for free.
OTOH, his voting records do indicate he likes to waste other people’s money.
Nothing underscores what a truly vile dreck Obama is than him putting so much effort into winning a campaign.
My God, he’s an untamed animal.
Yeah, can’t wait for the Q & A: boxers or briefs?
thor,
The post is critical of MTV, not your mancrush. Your general illiteracy is but one of the many reasons no one here takes you seriously.
Allahpundit/McLaughlin-esque exit question: What if “feminist hero†and MTV star Heidi Montag wanted to appear in an ad for Maverick? Would MTV let her?
That would depend on the contract, and how their ad policy is written. Going against that could get the MTV lawyers all upset and bust their budget for Maalox. A wise executive would run such desires past the lawyers first, as contract violations and FEC and FCC rules are not things to mess with if the bottom line is to be kept. A bad decision resulting in a payout in fines and damages is not good for an executive’s career.
Yes, but policies (and contracts) are made to be re-written, as MTV just demonstrated.
Given where we are in the election cycle, and how the youth vote has increasingly engaged and played a crucial role in past presidential elections
Which is to say “no different than any other election except we really, really want this guy to win.”
They may be, Karl; until the lawyers get in. That is always a sticky point, trying to enforce something the contract does not talk about. Very, very bad to let the lawyers in like that. Hurts the bottom line. Breech of contract is one of those areas of law that is very well delineated. Do not ever go there without good reason – and if you argue equity you must be prepared to do equity, for equity delights in doing justice.
Very, very bad to get a breech of contract suit for a reason the contract does not address. Of course I do not know the terms of the contract, I am just speculating. But MTV in such an instance should be very careful. Not renewing is a better choice than breeching.
Just saying.
Mikey, I’m just saying that MTV and whichever production co (if not MTV) could easily amend the contract(s) to permit it if there was any ambiguity. Bet they wouldn’t, though.