They measure all kinds of media usage these days, how much time you spend with it, how often you zip and zap it when it gets on your nerves for one reason or another and how much you get out of it.

One thing they don’t look at is which ads will chase you away from the environment in which the ad is featured and possibly motivate you not to return – either during that program/issue or possibly any programming/issue in that environment.

In my case the ads that will always get me to retreat – change the channel, put down the magazine, etc. are any ads that feature cruelty to animals. Not only will you not get a donation from me, you will cause me to abandon the ad environment altogether.

Now I’m sure some of these ads are big money generators or they wouldn’t be run by so many organizations, but I’m a huge animal lover and I will not tolerate those cheap and tawdry tactics. Tell me the good things you’re doing for animals, don’t show a sick looking creature locked up in a crate with a horror story or a tacky sad song.

When I know a network or magazine, etc. features these manipulative ads frequently I ban it from my existence. And I would not want my media buys to be impacted by this sensationalized bullying.

While animal cruelty ads are the number one reason I will “change the channel” there are others as well. I always avoid networks that show horror flick promos while I’m eating a meal – and for that matter I tend to avoid them in general.

As a marketer it is worth evaluating your medium with this concern in mind. How do you think a McDonald’s barbeque special commercial would fare run between two pods featuring animal cruelty? I know it would affect my appetite – that is if I hadn’t already abandoned the channel permanently before the McDonald’s spot even ran!