Scraping Up Ads by the Skins of Their Teeth

Pictured: The Biggest Threat to American Youth and Ad Sales.

There has been a lot of controversy in the last month over MTV’s Skins. The show, one of many in a long line of British television shows adapted for an American audience, very graphically depicts the hedonistic lifestyle of eight fictional high school students as they party with pills, struggle with mental illness, and sleep with each other—and, in one case, their teachers. Skins has garnered the unwanted attention of the Parents Television Council, who accuse MTV and its parent company Viacom of engaging in child pornography with its young actors. In a statement released to the press, the PTC said to Congress:

Furthermore, we urge you in the strongest possible terms to compel the Attorney General to mount an investigation by the Department of Justice into whether the production of ‘Skins’ has violated federal law meant to protect minors from exploitation.

Having the Parents Television Council on your back is dangerous in the world of television, but not because the viewing public really pays attention to their many protests of network impropriety; past outcries include a constant barrage against Gossip Girl and Family Guy, still highly successful shows despite the wagging fingers. Where the PTC can really hurt Skins, especially because it airs on a cable-only network, is with advertisers. Companies understand the threat of a backlash from angry, disposable-income-having parents, and they won’t buy ad time on a show that is being so publicly flagellated by the Parents Television Council; the groups has been attacking advertisers who run their spots during the show, criticisms bound to get back to consuming parents via action alerts (like this one) and media attention. The PTC is aware of the power it holds over spending parents, as illustrated in a menacing statement released by its President Tim Winters immediately following the first airing of Skins, in which he said: 

Every single advertiser who sponsored the premiere episode of ‘Skins’ is not only endorsing, but glorifying teen drug and alcohol abuse, not to mention a plethora of baseless sexual content. The following companies and brand names can rest assured that they will be hearing from PTC about their decision to sponsor the program: Schick Hydro, H&R Block, L’Oreal, Subway, Foot Locker, Orbit chewing gum and Extra chewing gum. We sincerely hope these advertisers will agree that the content in ‘Skins’ is harmful to their corporate image.

Since the initial airing of the pilot, seven major brands—GM, H&R Block, Proactiv, Subway, Schick, Wrigley’s, and Taco Bell—have pulled their advertisements from the Skins scheduling block. 

Now, I understand that, as a brand, you’ll do anything you can to avoid the PTC breathing down your neck or denouncing you to its constituency. I personally have no problem with the show and am a devotee of the British original, so I was a bit surprised at the massive controversy the show created amongst parents and businesses; but, once I took into account the considerable influence of the Parents Television Council, as well as the controversy the show initially caused in the UK, I understand why brands would not buy ad space during Skins. However, I am still shocked that these companies waited until after the pilot aired, after they had secured the time initially, to pull their ads. As responsible advertisers, shouldn’t they have known seen what was coming?

It’s not as if they can argue that they had no idea what risqué content their ads would be running next to. For one, before the show even hit the US airwaves the PTC was crying foul, naming it “the most dangerous television show for children that we have ever seen” Secondly, there has to be some way they could have gotten their hands on a copy of the pilot episode to screen it for content unbecoming of family-friendly businesses; if the Parents Television Council had an advance copy, I’m sure Taco Bell could have gotten one, too. Also, the show is rated TV-MA. So there were three clear signals coming in before the pilot aired that, hey, maybe Skins isn’t the show for you to place ads in if you don’t want hard-partying teens buying your products or being associated with your brand.

But even if, for some strange and incomprehensible reason, the companies couldn’t get advance warning to remove their Five Dollar Foot-long and DoubleMint ads from Skins commercial breaks, they had one obvious resource to clue them in to the content of the show: four seasons of the British original. MTV’s incarnation of Skins doesn’t stray far from the E4 version; in fact, the US pilot was essentially a shot-for-shot, line-for-line remake of its UK counterpart. The only major changes I noticed were the adjustment of slang terms that would get lost in translation in the US. In fact, the experience was a little unsettling; I heard the lines that I had so often heard on the E4 version, expecting them to come out in a British accent. It also threw me off that all the curse words were bleeped out of the show, but other than that the shows were nearly identical. American Tony Stonem manipulated his best friends, cursed at teachers, called his girlfriend “Nips,” and bough marijuana in his introductory episode just as British Tony Stonem did in Bristol. If the companies had taken the time to simply look at the source material, they would have known exactly what they were about to slap their branding on.

My personal theory is that these companies fully knew what they were getting into, but agreed to run their advertisements during the show and being aware that there were two positive outcomes: (1) the show would be wildly popular and their advertisements would reach the disposable income demographics of teens and young adults, or (2) the show would be denounced by the PTC and, once they removed their advertisements, they would be celebrated as heroic bastions of responsible business practices. Well, number 2 is exactly what happened. In the past month, for every advertiser that has pulled out of Skins, the PTC has released a statement applauding their morality. So, unsurprisingly, the businesses made the financially foolproof decision to run their advertisements regardless of the show’s content and find the positive consequence either way; its not that they have a problem with the story lines of teen promiscuity and drug use, but rather that they want the publicity that comes from being in the PTC’s good graces.

Now, this could really screw over Skins; as they lose major advertisers, it’s hard to replace them with the parental watchdog ever-looming. But at the same time, the show gains a certain amount of cache, especially among the targeted teen demographic, for being so controversial; as someone who was very recently a teenager, if my parents tried hard to shield me from something I fought even harder to see it. It boils down to the clichéd concept that all press is good press, and this kind of press will certainly draw in a curious teen audience.

However, even if MTV’s Skins can pick up a huge teen following, if it loses all its advertisers it cannot stay on the air. I really doubt the show will last past the first season, which is already in the can, so if you have been enjoying it I suggest you instead Netflix the original series. The first two seasons are so much better than the American remake, as is often the case, and you can catch early glimpses of Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) and the fantastic Nicholas Hoult (up next playing the Beast in X-Men: First Class). Plus, this way you can just avoid advertisements all together.