This morning’s drive time MPR story about the 3M chemical spill was preceded with a cheery message reminding listeners that the 3M story was brought to us by, you guessed it, 3M, who, by the way, also supplies hundreds of matching contributions for 3M employers who contribute to MPR. That’s synergy baby!


Was the story biased? Nope, it was balanced and thoughtful. Did the juxtaposition of the 3M sponsor message and the 3M story create an ooky perception that makes MPR fans like me worry about the increasing corporatization and gilding of King Kling’s Kingdom? It sure did.

– Loveland

4 thoughts on “3MPR

  1. Do you think that’s a coincidence (and for Seinfeld fans, perhaps a “big coincidence”), or do you think an ad rep — sorry, “development coordinator” — called 3M and said, “Hey, you wanna…”?

  2. Curtis Smith says:

    I think it’s flat out irresponsible. I can understand the miscommunication between advertising and the producer, but shouldn’t someone pick up this obvious conflict of interest? I smell yet another public apology.

  3. Lurker says:

    In my experience, sponsorships on MPR are booked well in advance. It’s probably a “big coincidence” that 3M ended up sponsoring that particular segment. The company I work for provides funding for MPR and it’s taglines are typically read on specific dates and times that are calendared far in advance.

  4. jl says:

    We want a giant ethical wall between the MPR advertising/sponsorship staff and the MPR news staff, and ironically that wall surely contributed to this happening. Just a dumb mistake, but it sure was a dumb mistake.

    Hope they build a system to avoid these kinds of perception problems, or they could screw up something a helluva lot more valuable than corporate contributions — their credibility.

Comments are closed.