When is an ad not an ad?

When it's on PBS, apparently, at least according to the NYT. Underwriters (PBS-speak for "advertisers") are no longer content with those little slides that used to flash before and after programs, giving the name of the supporter and nothing else. So now, as PBSophiles everywhere will have noticed in the past couple years, these corporate sponsors are allowed to create advertisements. Which seems to be sparking an existential crisis of sorts for the network's executives and devotees.

Of course, there are some rules that PBS advertisers, oh sorry, "underwriters" must follow as they craft their spots. Consider the Chipotle faux pledge drive spot described in the article. Take this example, buried deep in the article:

The Chipotle spots had to toe some very fine lines. For example, the guidelines allow people in the spots to consume a product as long as they do not appear to enjoy it overtly. So the producer instructed the actors in its pledge drive spoof not to look too thrilled.

This invites one observation in particular: It appears that PBS programming really can support advertising. You'll recall that the main justification for getting government in the TV business is that there is a variety of educational program that is worth having but that would not draw a large enough audience to attract advertisers. And yet, this "underwriting" charade has always been a form of advertising. PBS may not be drawing a very large audience, but it is drawing an audience large enough that advertisers, oh sorry, "underwriters" like Chipotle want to produce real ads for it. I chalk it up to the proliferation of niche cable channels, which have demonstrated to advertisers that they can get a big return on their ad money even from buying spots on a network with a narrowly defined audience.

So tell me again, why exactly are we funding PBS?