By Charles R. Day, Jr., Editor-in-Chief, , Reprinted with permission from Industry Week, February 7, 1994
April 1994 – Arlo Smith is never going to be enshrined in any advertising hall of fame. For one thing, he wasn’t an ad man; he was a banker, the president of a savings and loan, in the days when savings and loans behaved themselves. And about 25 years ago he made an advertising decision worth saluting.
What Arlo Smith did was pull his firm’s commercials off a radio station whose programming had become an assortment of embarrassments. “Our institution is not going to be associated with that trash,” he told his colleagues after listening to what his ad dollars were bankrolling. “We’ll honor our financial obligations, but I don’t want any of our commercials airing on that station.”
Arlo Smith didn’t care about ratings or audience segments, and he wasn’t trying to censor anything. He simply cared about decency, good taste, and ideas that would strengthen his community so that it, in turn, could strengthen his savings and loan.
Today, I suppose, many of my sophisticated media brethren would call his action a kneejerk demonstration of foolishness by someone unwilling to face the real world. I’ll call it an act of integrity.
You see, I’m still enough of a dreamer to think that captains of industry can follow Mr. Smith’s obscure example: determine carefully what they want their organizations to stand for – and against – and then direct their marketing colleagues to use those beliefs to help guide their advertising decisions. If captains of industry did that, I think we’d begin to rid ourselves of the smutty entertainment that unquestionably fuels the violence and treachery that is slowly rotting life in our grand land.
If nothing else, this might be a timely exercise. A few weeks ago, if you’ll recall, Attorney General Janet Reno dressed down some mass-media moguls and urged them to clean up their acts. Predictably, she drew lots of media attention, plus pious “Don’t blame us!” replies from the media bigwigs.
Frankly, the moguls are right, sort of. By themselves, they’re not responsible for what we read, hear, and watch. Equally account- able are those whose advertising dollars put TV and radio programs on the air. In fact, given the government’s passion for taking corporate America to task for all of its ills, it’s a wonder Ms. Reno didn’t dress down soap sultans, beer barons, and other corporate advertisers along with the mass-media moguls.
Then again, she shouldn’t have, because managements themselves should address this problem.
By now, it ought to be pretty clear to them (and us) that the programs their advertising supports do have an impact—from the looks of things a dreadful impact. Or have we totally forgotten the days when teenagers could go on dates and not be concerned about date rape or condoms and such?
Sure, I know all about life’s sordid side. Yet the more attention we focus on it, the worse it seems to get and the more it seems to grow. So, all things considered, I’d rather support and promote entertainment and ideas which depict something better. As long as we’re busy benchmarking the best practices in industry to better our organizations, why not adopt that same idea and benchmark the best practices for everyday living, as well?
Advertising – or the lack thereof – can be a powerful weapon in our marketplace of ideas. If you doubt that, try to recall the last time you heard, “Lucky Strike means fine tobacco.” Or, “Outstanding ... And they are mild....” Anyone seen the Marlboro Man lately?... Fifteen years ago, could you imagine that in 1994 Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Corp. et al. would tout the virtues of airbags in their ad campaigns?
Times change because individuals and organizations want them to, and act on their desires. It’s 11 o’clock. Do you know what your ad dollars are promoting? 
