The case of "La Noria" has become a symbol of the exhaustion of the "model business of anything goes" on television. The success of audiences and, above all, of advertising, of this subject program seemed indisputable. But in the last few weeks, Telecinco has lost millions of euros in advertisements in "La Noria", has had to withdraw three programs, and the criticism about the contents of the channel is raining down. Even the program's ratings are dropping. What happened?

An interview conducted on "La Noria" on October 29th has caused a crisis after many of the program's advertisers (including Audi, Ausonia, Campofrío, Bayer, Bimbo, El Corte Inglés, L'Oreal, Mercedes, Nestlé, Puleva, Panrico and Vodafone) fled the program. The "fire" spread through network when it was revealed that 10,000 euros had been paid for the interview.

It is not the first time that some sectors of the audience start a "boycott" against a program. But what is surprising in this case is the effectiveness of the criticism. On November 12, "La Noria" had already only 2 minutes of advertising and only 5 brands were advertised (one of them, apparently, by mistake). On November 15, La Noria had no advertisers. Last weekend a few came back, after the network gave away its slots. Some of the remaining advertisers have had to apologize. It would also be interesting to ask what were all those advertisers doing on that program?

In addition to "La Noria", what seems to be in crisis is the whole model of television that some call "trash TV". Now the conversation moves to similar content (with special emphasis on "Sálvame"), and to the hypothetical survival of the business model , with implications for the management of the whole channel. Telecinco's reputation, which took a month to pronounce itself, has suffered considerable damage. Changes in the programming grid have already begun, with the withdrawal of three programs.

The rather belligerent reaction from "La Noria" (far from any request for apologies), and the eagerness to defend the indefensible ("others also pay for that subject of interviews", "it is an attack on freedom of expression", "we are victims of the skill", etc.) have served to fuel the fire of the rebellion of the audiences. It is worth remembering that in the past, controversy and controversy have helped programs such as "La Noria" to increase audience, income and notoriety. This time it seems different.

The crisis has shown the extent to which social networks are on the radar of companies. Twitter, Facebook and blogs have "mobilized" sectors of the public and have awakened the interest of the media in such a way that advertisers had to react. Social networks have achieved in a few days more than television viewing and consumer associations had achieved in decades. This is yet another example of the importance of online reputation. Advertisers listen carefully to conversations that can affect their brand image and reputation.

The logic of "share", which always demands more audience, leads to situations like this. But the search for audience for audience's sake is a mistake. It is not only notoriety that matters: prestige, quality and brand image are essential. It is not only important how many viewers a program has, but also which is the most suitable environment for advertisers' communication and which subject of reactions it arouses in this new massive public place formed by social networks.

Another television and another advertising are possible. More and more advertisers, media, agencies and citizens think so. The case of "La Noria" is paradigmatic and may represent a turning point in the market, with obvious benefits for audiences, networks, content quality and advertising. We could start by ensuring respect for the minimum protection slot, which has not been respected by content such as "Sálvame". This would be a good task for the new government and the television networks. Fortunately, "La Noria" already belongs to the past.