Not for Public Consumption

Article Tools

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

A salesman for Universal, which controls the lion's share of billboards in town, thought the idea kosher. Corporate HQ did not. The salesman told By Choice that his superior found the concepts 'offensive' and nixed the account.

The decision didn't make By Choice happy. How, they ask, can a natural function like breast-feeding be construed as obscene? Especially when the industry passing judgment uses breasts to sell nearly everything else? 'When you relegate a woman's breast to a sexual organ, you're missing the fact of what they're primarily there for,' says Jean Douglas Smith, who works with By Choice.

Few media outlets are willing to take a few hundred dollars in ad revenue at the risk of offending other customers. Fox television has become a viable fourth network largely on its skill at taking risks to attract a young audience. But Ted Stephens, vice president and station manager of the local Fox affiliate, would turn down the By Choice campaign as well. 'We would get tons of calls,' says Stephens, whose channel averages 30 calls a day. 'The viewers are very proactive about telling us how smart or how stupid we run our station.'

A Canadian survey, however, suggests that the advertising industry might be the timid one. Health providers displayed the ads at a mall in Saskatoon, not exactly a raving bastion of liberalism. The providers asked 438 passersby for their impressions on the ads, and 83 percent responded positively. Said 62-year-old Murray Cliff, who was quoted in Saskatoon's Star Phoenix newspaper: 'There's nothing wrong with it. It's the beauty of motherhood.'

From Cityview (Des Moines, Iowa), Nov. 29, 1995.

Subscriptions: $52/yr (52 issues) from 100 4th St., Des Moines, IA 50309.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print