Full disclosure: I work for an alt-weekly, and I occasionally write for the Phoenix New Times, so I’m generally predisposed to root for my independent media brethren. However, I feel relatively safe saying that I would have thought Russell Pearce’s attempt to hurt the New Times by boycotting their advertisers will go nowhere fast, especially since I imagine most of the movie-going public filling Harkins Theaters every weekend aren’t all that concerned about a squabble between a former legislator and a weekly newspaper. However, that didn’t stop blogger-turned-Regent Greg Patterson from speculating:
First, New Times itself has changed. We think of New Times as liberal, but it’s really more anti-authoritarian. The paper was certainly a pain in Napolitano’s backside. Now that the state has a Conservative Governor and Legislature, New Times’ anti-authoritarian outlook is also a hard left outlook. The paper has also become a one note tune that’s anti Arpaio all the time.
These changes will not be lost on advertisers. After all, Arpaio/Pearce supporters can go to, say, Dan Harkins and rightly say that New Times is trying to destroy them personally. We can debate how much popular support Arpaio/Pearce enjoy, but the number is not small. If Arpaio/Pearce supporters simply stop attending Harkins theaters, that would be noticed. If they start demonstrating in front of Harkins Theaters that would be huge. Harkins would be foolish to risk even one protest for whatever benefit he gets from New Times ads.
Which leads to the second point. New Times has picked up some “respectable” advertisers. Nothing against car alarms, breast augmentation and tatoo removal but those industries are unlikely to care about Russell Pearce’s views on anything. Car dealers, restaurants, movie theaters and yes, breast augmentation surgeons however, will be sensitive to large pro-Arpaio crowds in their parking lots. Pearce is smart enough to use the Alinsky rules and will target, freeze personalize and polarize individual advertisers—and not just in Mesa. Shutting down the Harkins megaplex at Scottsdale and the 101 on the opening night of each summer Blockbuster would be a powerful message.
I’m pretty sure that if advertisers are OK with what’s in the back of the book each week in the New Times, they’ll be OK with swipes at Arpaio and Pearce, but I suppose time will tell. I wasn’t really too much into the Limbaugh boycott (who really cares what that guy says anymore or who tries to make money advertising to his listeners?) and I imagine this attempt at action will be far less impactful, even on a regional level.
This article appears in Mar 29 – Apr 4, 2012.
Two Fat Guys.
This will never work. Boycotts almost never do. Harkins is not going to pull its ads, and right-wing people are not going to stop going to their theaters, because, frankly, few of them — mostly elderly people — go to the movies anyway. You think they’re among the millions who’ve come to theaters to see “The Hunger Games”? The NT advertisers are not, generally, patronized by Arpaio/Pearce supporters (morons)? Like, do you think they go to the concerts and bars and restaurants advertised in there or any alt-weekly? Look through your own ads and you’ll see the demographic they appeal to, and they have nothing to do with the kind of people being urged to boycott here.
Now Backpage is the real issue with Village Voice Media, of course. And as far as I know, people like New York Times columnist Nick Kristof haven’t called for a boycott. What they’re doing is getting Goldman Sachs and other financiers to drop their stakes in the company. And believe me, the people at Village Voice Media are much more concerned about that than they are this blip. VV Media may be centered in the Valley –sadly, from the perspective of someone who grew up on the Voice in the late 60s and early 70s and worked there in ’74-’75 (it was a cool place even if you were a messenger in display advertising; I once lost a $10,000 check from the nightclub Reno Sweeney’s and didn’t get fired or even reprimanded) — but, really, the action, as always, is in Manhattan and not in backwater Arizona with laughingstocks (in non-backwater America) like Arpaio and Pearce.
Full disclosure: members of my family are managers at a company that advertises in Phoenix New Times. (And news of a Pearce-led boycott will only encourage them to take out more ads.)
Which one is the Cholesterol Candidate? I can’t tell.
Why does anyone even listen to Pearce? I know, he is a Mormon Bishop. The kool-aid drinkers of that cult follow lock step every inch of the way. Every one of these clowns I have come in contact with are the same way; obese, bullies, opioninated, and believe everyone is supposed to follow them blindly. To the few intelligent Mormons out there, I apologize if you are offended, but look around.