Shut Up & Run the Ads

by Brian Reich | 28 Oct 2006, 2:00am

I wrote a post yesterday discussing the marketing efforts behind Shut Up & Sing,  the new documentary about the Dixie Chicks and their criticism of President Bush.   You didn’t see it?   Nobody did.   My  computer froze up and I lost the text before I was able to put it up online.   Too bad — when I wrote it yesterday morning, this was a small story and my analysis looked really solid.   Now its a big story and I am late to the conversation.   Alas.

So what are people talking about?

The documentary tracks the fallout that resulted after lead singer, Natalie Maines, said she was “ashamed” that President Bush was from Texas, the Chicks’ home state.   The comment  prompted a boycott of the Chicks’ music by conservatives and opened up a discussion about freedom of speech among scholars and those in the music industry.   Time passed, things died down.   But now, the documentary has brought the controversy back to the fore — and with a new twist.

A handful of media venues have refused to run advertising promoting the movie.   The LA Times covered it yesterday.   There was a story on NPR’s Weekend Edition this morning.   And the Washington Post summed it up this way:

It all started earlier this week when Weinstein submitted ads for its new Barbara Kopple documentary “Shut Up & Sing” to the broadcast networks for review by their standards and practices departments.

NBC said it “cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.”

CW said it “does not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot.”

Weinstein said: “Eureka!”

And on Thursday evening, it sent out a news release headlined:

“In an Ironic Twist of Events, NBC and the CW Television Networks Refuse to Air Ads for Documentary Focusing on Freedom of Speech.”

“It’s a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America,” bemoaned Weinstein Co. co-chairman Harvey Weinstein.

“The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is sad and profoundly un-American,” he added.

As I see it, this hubub was not only anticipated by Harvey Weinstein and his team,  it was a key part of their promotional strategy.   How else would you get coverage for a small-budget documentary film in today’s big-budget Hollywood movie promotion craziness?    We have a very  tense election cycle coming to an end just two weeks from now, and a national media that is feasting on  any criticism of the war, or the President, they can find.    All you had to do was light the fire.  

Of course, now the networks are in a no-win situation now — if they don’t run the ads, the press continues to cover the story (helping the movie gain traction, and the stations look selectively moral), and if they do run the ads, they look like they caved.   I think they should run the ads - networks would benefit greatly by becoming a part of the political dialogue and  letting the population decide on its own.   Be fair, show ads promoting and criticizing the movie if that opportunity exists, but don’t limit one perspective from being heard because you are afraid of your audience.

Give credit to Weinstein and Co. for recognizing the opportunity to use the news cycle to promote their movie.   It is not a new strategy — MoveOn got into a similar fight with CBS around the Super Bowl a couple of years ago, and I have had clients whose online ads that venues have refused to run because of an arbitrary content standard.   In both cases  press coverage resulted and the message ultimately got to the target audience.  I don’t think it will work  for any movie or event, but its a strategy that more organizations should understand and pursue.

TAGS : Clips and Tips Free Advice Journalism Marketing Movies News politics PR TAGS: Advertising
leave a comment