In search of an ad policy to change the world Eating trail-mix and writing things down ... By Dan Frazier - Editor and Lisa Rayner - Publisher

Lately, the board of Flagstaff Tea Party has been trying to come up with an advertising policy that better reflects our mission and concerns. It's not easy. Our existing advertising policy, which was designed to support locally owned businesses, generally does not allow businesses based outside of Coconino County to advertise with us. There are other notable restrictions as well.

From the beginning, we have not been entirely satisfied with our advertising policy. It does not fully address issues like ecological sustainability, democracy and human rights. We do not want Flagstaff Tea Party to be like most other newspapers that accept nearly any type of advertising. We want our advertising to further our mission of supporting locally owned businesses and making Flagstaff and the rest of the world a more humane and sustainable place.

The type of ads a publication chooses to accept can influence its editorial content. For example, if we were reliant on ads from Big Box stores like Wal-Mart, as many newspapers are, we would have been reluctant to run the hard-hitting front page stories dealing with Wal-Mart that appeared in our September issue.

Most publications avoid pondering the implications of their advertising and will take ads from almost anyone. A few publications, determined not to be tainted by the need to please advertisers, shun all advertising, relying instead on subscriptions, donations and grants.

Flagstaff Tea Party is a weird hybrid - a nonprofit publication dependent on both advertisers and donors. We need both to survive. The money we receive from sources other than advertising insulates us a bit from the pressure to please all of our advertisers all of the time. Thanks to the generosity of ordinary people like you, Flagstaff Tea Party is able to air controversial views - views that may affect the bottom line of certain advertisers. For instance, in this issue, we encourage the observance of Buy Nothing Day. Such topics are important and deserve to be discussed. But in an advertising-driven media world, such topics rarely see the light of day.

Even if we managed to receive enough funding from donations, grants and other fund-raising activities to cover our budget, we still might want to accept advertising. After all, Flagstaff Tea Party's mission includes promoting locally owned businesses. Advertisements allow locally owned businesses to promote themselves.

We are attempting to work out an advertising policy that takes into account all the issues we think are important in a logical and consistent way. Why should we keep a company that is based outside of the county from advertising when we know that the company produces environmentally-sound goods and services, that the company treats its workers exceptionally well and that the company contributes significantly to our community? Why should we allow the majority of locally owned businesses to advertise when we know that some local businesses do not treat their workers well, that some local businesses sell products made in overseas sweatshops and that some local businesses sell environmentally-destructive products?

What about a locally owned business with happy employees and great customer service that sells products mostly made in places without adequate human and civil rights, like China? Such a business may have very few choices when it comes to suppliers. What about a local company that has moved its manufacturing operations to a Mexican "maquiladora" but continues to make significant charitable donations to the community? Is such an active choice more egregious than the former, more passive example? Or how about a very small, regional chain store that sells environmentally sound products like organic food, used clothing or used books? Does allowing a business like those in the examples above to advertise constitute a complete endorsement of everything the business does?

If we altered our advertising policy to take into account these issues, Tucson Cooperative Warehouse might be allowed to advertise in Flagstaff Tea Party. TCW is a worker-owned cooperative and natural foods wholesaler that sells to many Flagstaff buying clubs. Another possible contender is Arizona Public Service, a publicly owned utility that leases solar photovoltaic systems to rural residents who cannot afford the up front costs of buying such a system. These are just two examples of the kinds of non-local businesses that we could conceivably accept if changes to our advertising policy are approved by our board.

One possibility we have considered, and are still considering, is to create a separate advertising rate card with substantially higher rates for businesses that are not based in Flagstaff. It is hoped that such an arrangement, if approved, would help to limit the competitive advantage of larger companies that are able to operate in a number of cities.

If we decide to add more restrictions to our existing advertising policy, we run into the issue of possibly having to revoke the right of some current advertisers to continue advertising with us. Of course, if we were to restrict our advertising policy to only those businesses that are locally owned, that pay all their workers a living wage, and that sell only ecologically-sustainable products, the potential advertising pool would include only a handful of local businesses - too few to sustain us. We are also sympathetic to the difficult economic environment currently forced on small, independent businesses. The difficult part is deciding where to draw the lines.

One possible solution suggested to us is to ask certain local businesses who want to advertise with us to post signs stating that they know they are engaging in practices that are problematic (like paying less than a living wage). The signs could also explain how the business is working to improve the situation. It is hoped that such signs would help to bring attention to harmful business practices and ultimately bring about change. This proposal has sparked intense debate among our board members and is still far from being approved.

Tea Party Publisher Lisa Rayner has proposed deciding whether or not to let a business advertise based on a scoring system that involves several criteria such as local ownership, treatment of workers, ecologically sustainable products or services, and contributions to our community, including charitable donations, sponsoring community events, and customer service, among other things. Because local ownership is one criterion, local businesses would have an automatic advantage and would not have to score quite so high in other areas while non-local businesses would have to be exceptional on almost every level.

We have not lacked for wide-ranging opinions from board members, advisors and community members about how to improve our advertising policy. The debate among the board and advisors has become quite heated at times. Several of our board members and advisors are very concerned with human rights abuses in undemocratic countries. They compare the current widespread acceptance of the necessity of sweatshop labor to the widespread acceptance of the necessity of slavery 150 years ago.

What do you think about all of this? What will our great grandchildren think of debates like this one 150 years from now? No matter how you answer, we hope you agree that the very fact that we are having this discussion is encouraging. A great many people want to see our culture and our community move in positive directions. If you would like to join the debate, e-mail or write us with your comments. We are a community newspaper, here to serve the community's needs, as well as make the world a better place. But we can't do it without your help.