Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Column Archive |  On Twitter: J Huget and MisFits  |  Fitness & Nutrition News  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Do you care who advertises where?

Should we judge companies by, well, the company they keep?

The Parents Television Council thinks we should. The PTC has issued its annual list of companies that advertise the most on TV shows it deems family-unfriendly and those that place ads on more family-appropriate programs. The organization notes that advertising keeps TV shows afloat, and companies that choose to underwrite shows that expose kids and teens to graphic sex and violence should be held accountable. It wants consumers to pay attention and shop accordingly.

Yum! Brands, which owns KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, topped this year's bad-guy list, while General Mills led the list of advertisers that support wholesome programming. The PTC praised Payless for moving from the top of 2007's "worst" list to number 6 on this year's "best" list.

You can check both lists here.

By Jennifer LaRue Huget  |  December 28, 2009; 7:00 AM ET
Categories:  Family Health , General Health  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Give the gift of quiet music
Next: Resolve to watch out for health fraud

Comments

No, I do not

Posted by: cordobes17 | December 29, 2009 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Like it or not, advertisements reflect on the programming, and programming reflects on the advertisements. Do I really care who advertises where? No, because those are their own choices.

However, advertisers and those selling slots alike need to be aware respectively that where they place ads and whose ads they place will affect their image. I see this most blatantly on the internet right now where automatically served ad banners sometimes undercut the credibility of an otherwise respectable website. The Washington Post's articles on health care, for example, often have a big drug company ad running on the side, so am I supposed to take that into account when weighing how objective or slanted the article is?

And what about when the advertisements are for something that is probably a scam, or that is downright offensive? Some legitimate, respectable websites will accept ads from just about anyone--the ads are served by a third party, and sites often don't pay attention to what the ads are.

Likewise, does a respectable advertiser showing up on a trashy website really help out with the company's or product's image or sales?

I think the same goes for television, radio, and print media, but I see some of the most glaring examples on the internet.

Posted by: blert | December 29, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company