ED ads suffer a belated retreat

THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT'S advertising team pushed into uncharted territory about three months ago and recently discovered its judgments are out of sync with community sentiments. Perhaps we should have known better than to run ads for erectile dysfunction remedies but, alas, we had to be told.

All the pre-game hoopla that surrounded Super Bowl Sunday also apparently brought heightened attention to ads in the Sports section. On Jan. 30, at least a dozen telephone calls and e-mail s to several editors and advertising managers raised objections to the performance-enhancing promises touted in those ads.

Colleen McDaniel, the sports editor, likened the chorus of outrage to "the perfect storm."

"My child was assaulted today by your newspaper," complained one reader, who said that ED ads in the Sports section were more appropriate to an "adults-only" publication. "Please reconsider your decision to lower the high standards of our local newspaper," implored another.

Kelly Warren, The Pilot's advertising director, made the change. In less than 24 hours, she banished the ads from the newspaper. The speed of that decision begs two critical questions: How did these ads, with their decidedly titillating messages, meet Pilot standards? And why, when the revenues they promised were minimal, was the decision made to take these ads,

Charmel Shock Peters, ad operations manager, was one of the players in the decision to accept the ads in October. As she does with all ads, Peters asked several associates whether they were suitable. They reached a general agreement that "they're not that offensive."

Warren explained that increasing public tolerance of ED advertising, as evidenced by their frequency on both television and in mainstream magazines, led to the conclusion that such ads had become "more socially acceptable."

The Pilot has well-defined policies about advertising that are enumerated in its "Standards of Acceptability." That document spells out guidelines for more than 100 goods and services commonly advertised on these pages. There is no specific category for erectile dysfunction remedies. However, in its general policy statement, the document defines as unacceptable ads containing material that "in our opinion contain obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material."

While the ads were neither obscene nor pornographic, the language certainly crossed a boundary. Tell me, please, what's not sexually explicit about the message: "Works like 'High Octane Rocket Fuel' to Ignite Your Sexual Power"?

There is a decided difference between the eight ads that ran a total of 18 times in The Pilot and those that viewers are likely to see during nightly newscasts or on the pages of Time magazine. Ads for prime time audiences and readers of mass-circulation magazines feature coy smiles and ample innuendo. They are suggestive.

The Pilot ads, in contrast, went further. In several of them, a stark, black-and-gray presentation lent a slightly sleazy film noir quality. Add the blond babe with her come-hither look, and text that left nothing to the imagination, and you have a bit of soft porn. The ads were salacious. The complaints, however, were slow in coming.

After the first ad ran in the A section on Oct. 12, in response to a single reader complaint, the category of ads was consigned to the Sports section, because, as Peters observed, "a different kind of reader reads the Sports section."

McDaniel, who didn't notice the ads in her section for more than a month, thought "Ugh," at first glance. But because ED ads are commonplace in the sports sections of other newspapers, she let it go.

Editor Denis Finley, who had received intermittent complaints during the months the ads ran and had urged a reconsideration about accepting them, was less sanguine. "I don't like them," he said. "They are beneath our dignity."

In the advertising department, however, where a new set of ads was submitted by the advertiser in January, approval was given to continue. "I guess we were looking at them from the perspective that this was an herbal product," Peters explained. "We decided let's keep running them because we weren't getting that many calls."

That absence of complaints, in Peters' logic, was a sign that the decision was a correct reading of the community's evolving standards. The advertising department, she explained, takes seriously its responsibility to interact with readers, respond to their signals and reflect their needs.

The tipping point came in the days preceding the Super Bowl. "I am appalled," one reader wrote. "I am truly shocked," said another.

And at least one reader who noticed the ads perceived them as evidence of the newspaper's weakened economic straits. In reality, the revenue from this advertising is minuscule.

It appears that the nagging discomfort and misgivings these ads caused a variety of Pilot staffers were inappropriately ignored. The "not-that-offensive" judgment by leaders in advertising; McDaniel's "ugh" response; and the idea that advertising considered something offensive in one section is somehow appropriate for another were all warning signals. But absent a public outcry, they were ignored.

John Ford, a professor of marketing at Old Dominion University, said this kind of delayed reaction to offensive ads is hardly surprising. A certain level of community interaction had to build to trigger reader response, he explained. The level of passion that accompanied the complaints when the ads finally were noticed is no surprise either, Ford said.

"We look to The Virginian-Pilot as a benchmark for good taste," he added.

I hesitate to suggest that all advertising related to erectile dysfunction be banished from these pages because it is, in fact, a medical condition. The issue here, it seems to me, is one of taste and standards.

I agree with our readers who think that The Pilot erred in accepting those ads. The objections should have been heeded. Ad director Warren made the appropriate move in deciding to look for sources of revenue from advertisers who meet a higher standard.

Joyce Hoffmann is the public editor. Reach her at (757) 446-2475 or public.editor@pilotonline.com.