In response to the latest story about general aviation that appeared on the front page of the Dec. 14 edition of USA Today (FAA low priorities get $3.5 billion in grants), the National Business Aviation Association has discontinued “indefinitely” its advertising for its “No Plane No Gain” campaign in the national newspaper.
“We’ve been running ads in USA Today and elsewhere to highlight for Washington policymakers and opinion leaders the essential role business aviation plays for citizens, companies and communities across the country,” said Ed Bolen, president and CEO. “However, we’ve decided it’s time to stop spending advertising dollars with a newspaper that has demonstrated such an anti-general aviation bias in recent months.”
The Dec. 14 USA Today story is the third in recent weeks to mischaracterize general aviation and small community airports, NBAA officials note.
To see the latest print and video ads produced by the No Plane No Gain campaign, click here.
In business it is not uncommon to have to deal with unfriendly newspaper press, radio and TV. Direct person to person communication is the first requirement in solving crisis matters. I understand that letters and email responses have been sent. Has anyone had face to face conversation with USA Today editors? Has anyone communicated a simple, understandable message that resonates with USA Today editors and the newspaper readers? Today, for example, I was getting off the McPherson, KS (pop. 15,000) airport runway just as a medical pickup aircraft was landing to meet a waiting ambulance.
If you have done all of the above communicating I agree it is time to pull all advertising. But not without first talking directly with high level individuals.
Good luck. We are all counting on strong support for and understanding of the need for our small GA airports.
NBAA did the right thing pulling their advertising from USA Today. If some entity or organization does not support you and your interests, then why would you support them, in this case with your advertising? It’s just that simple. If those you advertise with are so “ignorant” as to NOT KNOW which side their bread is buttered on, then one way to educate them, to the “realities of life”, is to demonstrate it to them in “terms they can understand”! Regardless of what others have commented on here, USA Today “will” get the message NBAA is sending, by pulling their advertising dollars! GA has to “stick together” or perish! “Unity” is what this country was founded on…nothing else…regardless of what others may say!
The only danger of suspending the advertising is that readers of USA Today now will only see the paper’s “news” stories. At least with NBAA’s paid advertising, readers could see an ad that supports general aviation and perhaps see an opposing viewpoint. Editorials are also good avenues to express opinions.
I get nervous whenever anyone tries to influence journalism through commercial tactics. Ads should be bought based solely on whether the advertiser will derive a benefit from placing the ad in the publication. If NBAA’s audience reads USA Today, then they should continue advertising. If not, there is not use in advertising with them. But this can also lead to a tit-for-tat battle with Gannett who could retaliate and cancel their membership with NBAA. Who wins then?
I can see both sides of the argument- being an advertising/marketing excec myself. You vote with your $ and that is exactly that NBAA is doing. On the other hand, perhaps you would want to practice the moddo “keep your friends close and your enimies closer” by ratcheting up advertising in the very rag that is trying to beat you down- It’s a tough balance- the risk is that other friendlier media we choose is just sending a pro-GA message to fellow pilots- which is a waste- we are not the ones who need to receive that message- It’s the general, uninformed public that reads an article and accepts it as truth-that’s who we need to reach.
I used to read the USA Today when I wanted current,accurate and interesting stories on national and world news. However the recent slanted and biased reporting on general aviation makes me question the accuracy of any of their reporting and the intergrity of the writers themselves.
I want to see a webcast panel debate. On one side, four anti-GA media representatives. On the other side, a rep from from each of NBAA, GAMA, AOPA, & FAA. Get a list of points to debate, plus a grab-bag from Harrison Ford & Donald Trump who each get to respond to both sides’ answers.
That’s right. It’s a massive commercial airline plot to not only take away your rights to government funded GA infrastructure. Next year the cabal plans to take away your leaded fuel as a secret strike to take more of your God-given right to flight. See, that’s part of the plot, too. The following year only ATP pilots will be licensed so that we can take away your 3rd and 2nd class medicals, and we plan to shut down the sport pilot industry.
I hear, btw, that AOPA is going to require tin hats be worn to future “summits.”
I live in a small town with about 1800 people, we have a small airport, we do get money from the FAA for its operation, more money than what the airport takes in. I think we should shut it down, that way, those two EMS life flights a month that we get there can land on the highway or we can just cancel them and let the people die (HealthCare Reform).
As a matter of fact, considering we are talking about shutting down highways as comparable to shutting down the airports, I think that is exactly what we should do. Shut down all general aviation and use highways as shared resources so that both planes and ground vehicles can use the same place. Yah, that all makes sense, that’ll teach all those wealthy airplane owners.
But really, it doesn’t matter, soon you will be back to using horse and buggy and flight will be for those “wealthy” nations…or maybe just Palosians.
Oh and to the person who said “why would USA Today’s position on this issue matter?”, because you are not trying to convince USA Today that GA is good, you are trying to convince their readers, but there are other papers that have the same or similar readership that are not adversarial to GA, so why not benefit those that are maybe on your side instead of a paper that clearly is not? Makes sense to me…oh wait…makes sense, never mind.
“The truth hurts. Childish reaction to some excellent reporting.”
Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve now heard from the reporter in question.
Who else would call counting only 2% of the operations at an airport “excellent reporting” (see the Murtha flap). Who else would advocate letting our nation’s transportation infrastructure deteriorate and disappear? Who would call for letting our airways languish but not make a similar call for allowing the federal highway system to disintegrate?
Who else would take planted stories from the commercial airlines, who are working overtime to vilify general aviation in order to avoid paying their fare share of system costs?
Go back to Fox News.
The truth hurts. Childish reaction to some excellent reporting.
You gotta think before you speak, or in your case USA Today, print ! Think about all those newspapers that get put on corporate planes for the boss to scan over on that flight out to Somewhere, U.S.A. We as corporate pilots could just as easily pick-up a local paper and a Wall Street Journal.
It’s time that everyone in G.A. becomes involved in getting the word out about the value of G.A. to the everyday person not in aviation. Very few really know that air ambulance service, mercy flights, commuter service and hundreds of other services that people take for granted are a valuable part of our everyday lives and impact everyone at one time or another.
While I agree with the stance that NBAA has taken it is not enough. Everyone in aviation needs to contact USA Today and educate them as to the value of G.A. Also we need to put our money where our mouths are and support publications that know what is going on.
This actually seems a little backwards. If USA Today is an effective way of getting the message out to the public that GA is actually useful, then why would USA Today’s position on this issue matter? The fact that a paper like USA Today continually espouses their anti-GA position is an argument for NBAA to do more, not less! Why would NBAA only advertise in places that are pro-GA? They need to reach out to the people who aren’t convinced about our message, not the people who have already drunk the Kool-Aid of how great GA can be!!!!
BTW, USA Today could care less that NBAA pulled their advertising dollars.
I support NBAA 100% for this action. We know newspapers are hanging on for dear life, because of the reduction of advertisement revenue. I suspect the reporter in question has a salary lower than the revenue lost by NBAA’s refusal to support bias reporting. If that does not awaken the paper’s management, maybe all aviation advertisers should follow suit, USAToday will realize that GA does provide value (especially to their bottom line).
We note the Boeing 787 “Dreamliner” finally made its first test flight after 2+ years of delays. I have a theory as to why the first test flight was delayed so long: Suppose Boeing’s top management were to have pressured the 787 team to carry out a test flight before said team thought they were truly ready. And suppose there were a crash. I can guarantee that the same news media wowsers who wanted to kill the V-22 Osprey, would be all over the 787.
These news media people are the same ones who are giving general aviation a hard time.
I would like to congratulate The NBAA for taking a stance and doing the right thing. We, the general aviation community, need to get the truth out there, but that will not work with one of the orginizations that is trying to hurt you. That’s like trying to place ads promoting the values of the USA in the Taliban’s top papers. It would be a waste of time and money. Focus elswhere to gain a larger bang for the buck. Thank you NBAA for speaking up for us little guys.
I guess that Gannett News (the owner of USA Today) needs to get rid of their own plane (Falcon 2000) and their share in NetJets (Cessna 680) since they are so anti-general aviation and start flying the airlines.