A serious question about advertising on DU.

[CanuckAmok]

This is in no way intended to fan any flames, not is it a criticism of DU policy...

Since there's no longer an ATA forum, I'm throwing this out for the DU "rank & file".

As I understand it, there are over 70,000 members of this site.

With so many people, there are nearly 70,000 opinions on what is "tasteful", "appropriate", "objectionable", and so-forth.

Where does one draw the line, as far as accepting advertising? The recent t-shirt debackle is a good example. I support the Administrators' decision to remove the advertisment, but only because apparently the advertisers completely redesigned their content without consulting DU, and obviously misrepresented their wares when making the deal with DU.

But where does DU, or any Progressive medium, say "no"? Is it when an advertiser offers a product that offends everyone in the venue, or is there a specific "threshold of offense"? Would Hormel Meats be welcome as an advertiser? They sell a legal product that a vast majority of people don't think twice about consuming. But many DUers are vegetarian or vegan, and many more are militantly opposed to supporting any company that actively tries to suppress Unionism.

How about Gillette? Again, harmless products used by millions. But their record of animal abuse is reprehensible.

Chevron? Shell?

IBM?

Kraft Foods (a division of Philip Morris)?

Nike?

FHM?

Rockwell?

Of course this is all hypothetical, as most corporate advertisers appear to avoid partisan Progressive venues, but it bears consideration.

I suggest that anyone who uses DU be prepared to help cover all the costs of its existence (as many of us who donate hope we can), or accept advertising in all its forms with a spoonful of sugar.

In fact, advertisers can and have successfully sued media for being prohibitive and exclusionary in their sponsorship criteria.

So, really, maybe we should put our money where our mouths are.

[HEyHEY]

1. You're about to submit a personal to the Home page aren't you?

[VelmaD]

2. Dammittohell...

you make it hard to stay irritated at you when you pull out that stealth humor. :)

[HEyHEY]

4. Well, hey that rapier like wit is a charming

[VelmaD]

6. Any time someone can make me yell at them and crack up laughing...

in the span of a half hour...they're having a really good night.

[Blue-Jay]

19. You just propositioned him, didn't you?

:D

[efhmc]

3. It seems to me that women are always fair game in ads and in the selling

of products and I think that is now and should always be WRONG on a progressive site.

[CanuckAmok]

9. And a vast, vast majority of people here would agree...

...which makes the removal of that ad even more justified and reasonable. As I said, I fully support the removal, but my reason is because the advertiser misrepresented themselves (intentionally or not).

But it seems to me that either all money is equal, or it's not.

Most of DU was pissed, justifiably, when major networks refused to air paid advertisements critical of WH policy (eg invading Iraq).

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but why is that unacceptable, and this is not?

[VelmaD]

10. Well, for one thing those were public airwaves

theoretically obligated under law to be even-handed (though we all know with the death of the Fairness Doctrine that that's no longer the case).

DU on the other hand is a private forum. Not only that, it's a private forum dedicated to progressive ideals. It isn't obligated to take advertising from anyone. And as a matter of good business practice it shouldn't take ads that are offensive to it's members or that run counter to it's stated goals.

[CanuckAmok]

13. I agree, but the "public airwaves" argument is flawed.

Because the position of MSNBC and CBS was that they were private corporations, and had the final say in their content, and the courts agreed.

[VelmaD]

16. The argument isn't flawed so much as the court decision was...

especially in the case of CBS since it's a broadcast station rather than cable.

I miss the Fairness Doctrine, not to mention a judiciary that actually cared about democracy.

[CanuckAmok]

17. But the court decision trumps theoretical "right".

When I stated the argument was wrong, I wasn;t speaking from a moral position, I was speaking from a practically-applied in the real world position.

You might try that sometime ;)

(You know I'm teasing, right?)

[VelmaD]

20. Oh hell, if we're talking about the real world...

then we might as well pack it in. Neither the courts, the Congress, nor the media is going to do a damn thing to stop the bullet train to hell we're all on.

[spacelady]

22. I like Rush. n/t

[tuvor]

5. Thanks, CA.

Well put.

[Tom Kitten]

7. how about porn sites?

they make a ton of money after all...how about advertising them here on DU...would that go over well? :)

[CanuckAmok]

8. what kind of porn?

Like, what kind of porn?

[Canuckistanian]

11. Egg-Zactly

What kinda porn we be talkin' about?

[Tom Kitten]

15. why tasteful non exploitive porn with a left wing message

of course!

[CanuckAmok]

21. So no Mary Carey features. Got it.

[Tom Kitten]

23. thus you infer

by what I say all non Mary Carey pornography leans left? I say thee nay, my friend to the north, that is not what I implied...

I thought the original intent of your post was where do we draw the line in re DU accepting advertising from non-pc sources that could add a whopping tally to this website's coffers because it is heavily trafficked...

[crispini]

12. What was the t-shirt debacle?

I miss all the fun around here!

[CanuckAmok]

14. Don't worry, you can set your watch to that kind of fun...

...

[alarcojon]

18. How about this for a start?

The DU rules state:

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

The t-shirt mess, as we all agree, was bigoted and grossly insensitive towards women. Now, following your line of devil's advocacy, when would an ad be considered, say, sexist? Surely we'll never get everyone to agree on anything, but we have to start by listening to the complaints from women. If many women find it offensive, we must consider it sexist and get rid of it. If many people of color should find an ad racist, it should be removed. etc.