'We're watching very closely': Advertisers are reviewing how consumers react to Sinclair
- Sinclair Broadcast Group is facing heat from journalists, commentators and its own staffers over a viral video of its anchors reading scripted comments about the news industry. But thus far advertisers have been quiet.
- Business Insider reached out to several TV ad buyers, at least half a dozen of whom said that their clients had not pulled ad budgets from Sinclair stations.
- This stands in sharp contrast to marketers promptly pulling their ads from a range of politically-charged websites and shows in the recent past including Breitbart, Sean Hannity and most recently Laura Ingraham.
- Part of the silence can be attributed to Sinclair's structure, which makes it much more difficult to rally a boycott against than a national program like Laura Ingraham's "The Ingraham Angle."
- But it's not as though advertisers are not paying attention at all. According to at least two media buyers, some advertisers are reviewing whether to continue to run ads on Sinclair, particularly in more liberal markets.
Sinclair Broadcast Group is facing heat from journalists, commentators and its own staffers alike for using its channels to push what critics are calling a biased agenda.
The nation's biggest owner of local broadcast TV stations came under fire last weekend after Deadspin published a video montage of its anchors across the country being forced to record a segment about "the troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories plaguing our country."
But advertisers, who have promptly pulled their ads from a range of politically-charged websites and TV shows in the recent past (including Breitbart, Sean Hannity and most recently Fox News host Laura Ingraham) - have yet to distance themselves from the company or its stations.
Business Insider reached out to several TV ad buyers, at least half a dozen of whom said that their clients had yet to pull any ad budgets from Sinclair channels. For the most part, the Sinclair video has not become a rallying cry among offended consumer or advocacy groups like other recent political firestorms.
"This is not Brietbart in that the advertiser reaction to it has not been strong," said one media buyer, on the condition of anonymity. "For better or for worse, the political landscape has become a lot less shocking to advertisers today than two years ago. We're all trying to figure out the new normal for political news."
"We haven't heard a peep from our clients," said Brad Brinegar, chairman & CEO of Durham, N.C.-based ad agency McKinney. "You have to take away from the politics of it and see who the aggrieved party here is - and that party is journalists. It's not an advertiser issue that is going to gain much traction."
Part of the silence can be attributed to Sinclair's fragmented, inherently local structure, which makes it much more difficult to rally a boycott against than a national program like Laura Ingraham's "The Ingraham Angle," for instance.
Sinclair operates hundreds of local TV stations across the country - many of which are affiliates of other networks like ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and are run through local marketing or shared service agreements.
So it is a lot harder for someone like David Hogg to call brands out and issue calls for a boyott on Twitter, because the list of brands will be far more extensive, will differ across the country, and a company may advertise in market A but not necessarily market B.
This is also evident on the website boycottsinclairbroadcasting.com, which provides a broader template for people to make a list of advertisers on Sinclair TV or radio stations in their respective areas instead of listing brands directly.
"There is a difference between advertisers pulling ads from a show and pulling ads from a whole media vehicle," said Brinegar. "It's not as easy as pulling spend from one controversial show and putting it elsewhere on another time slot on the network, Sinclair is a more complicated entity than that."
Companies typically work with media buyers to set up "brand safety" guidelines in advance of issues where they may pull their spends, including potential negative content, images, context and situations in which it's best to shut down advertising to avoid contextual dissonance.
While such guidelines were originally established for extreme situations (like how the airline industry would react to a plane crash), they has more recently been applied to the politically-charged environment we live in today.
Still, while marketers want to protect themselves from potential damage, they also don't like to make political statements if they don't have to.
When consumers are already upset about an issue, a brand's silence is often the best way to transition through the scandal, according to Ben Kunz, executive vice president of marketing and content at Mediassociates.
"Sinclair feels different from the Hannity-type scandal is that it is more diffuse," he said. "If an entire organization appears to do something at odds with your values, it's harder to boycott it without looking like you are overly political."
To be sure, it's not as though advertisers are not paying attention. According to at least two media buyers, some advertisers are reviewing whether to continue to run ads on Sinclair.
"We have not had any pull the plug, but I can say several have it under review," said one buyer.
Specifically, advertisers are paying close attention to channels in more liberal markets such as KOMO-TV in Seattle (whose reporters too have been more critical of the Sinclair mandate), according to another local TV buyer. They are watching ratings closely in these markets to see if these mandated right-leaning scripts at all have an impact on the number of people that tune in. If the numbers take a hit, advertisers may take the plunge.
"We have never had this kind of a situation before as far as local news is concerned," said the buyer. "We're watching very closely to how this impacts ratings."
