One of the great privileges I have had during my tenure at the ANA is to work with the esteemed Family Friendly Programming Forum. The Forum is a confederation of volunteer advertising and agency executives that effectively works in partnership with the ANA and with the television network community towards one overarching objective – to assure the existence and growth of a family friendly television environment in prime time.
The Forum is not only the most successful organization working to change television; it is the only one that has focused on creating alternatives.
Unfortunately, Advertising Age somehow glazed over the Forum's numerous accomplishments when they published an editorial last week, entitled "Family Forum Must Show Might." (Unfortunately, the article is not online) AdAge took issue with the way the group handled the change in content on NBC’s "Father of the Pride." I was very troubled by their position and felt compelled to use my blog to counter this one-sided piece.
Here’s what really happened. The Forum withdrew its "Family Friendly" endorsement for “Father of the Pride” when, in the spirit of cooperation, NBC confirmed that the show decided to take a more "adult" positioning. AdAge suggested that the Forum needs to monitor the initial production of programs it endorses. The ANA disagrees. The Forum's historic track record suggests that the current levels of intra-industry communication and collaboration are sufficient to insure consistency with Forum standards. When those standards are not met, the Forum withdraws.
Furthermore, Ad Age had it wrong when it indicated that the Forum provided script development funds for "Father" – funds which were later returned. Ad Age is obviously not aware that the Forum provides no funds to the networks for shows that successfully find their way to prime time.
The Forum was created six years ago from the collective wisdom of founders Andrea Alstrup, Johnson & Johnson, and Bob Wehling, Procter & Gamble. The ANA serves as a "management partner" to facilitate their objectives and advance their respective causes. All advertisers represented on the Forum must be ANA members.
I wish that AdAge had taken note of the Forum's incredible string of accomplishments in their relatively brief existence. The Forum:
* Influenced the introduction of ten prime time family television shows including the much acclaimed Gilmore Girls (WB), American Dreams (NBC) and 8 Simple Rules (ABC). The Forum’s contributions this season include Complete Savages (ABC) and Clubhouse (CBS). These superb programs were responsibly developed through the group’s heralded Script Development Fund.
* Acknowledges the very best in family television entertainment through the annual Family Television Awards program. This year, the program will air on the WB network on December.
* Champions the development of future leaders in family-friendly programming through its scholarship program at the University of Southern California, Carnegie Mellon and Loyola Marymount University.
* Recognizes the need to be vigilant and sensitive to present and future challenges. For the second consecutive year, the Forum will sponsor this important discussion through its joint symposium with The National Council for Families and Television.
The accomplishments of this group reflects the industry’s volunteer efforts to influence and institute positive change – change that has, in fact, been heralded and acknowledged by the US Congress. The Forum’s success and momentum are grounded in the high principles and standards the group has set and the practices they follow. Those standards are the boundaries for the organization’s behavior, core operations and decisions. The net result is an extraordinary success rate and a series of contributions that, we, as an industry, should appreciate and honor.
I respect AdAge's right to disagree with the Family Friendly Programming Forum's decisions and actions. But disagreements should not be the basis for calling these actions “shameful” – particularly when the organization’s honorable history suggests otherwise.
Maybe that’s the reason they decided not to publish their editorial online.
