The Times provides a state of the broadcast union speech
Monday, January 31st, 2005Lorne Manly and John Markoff and the New York Times have done the broadcast industry a service with their insightful article, Steal This Show. It covers the spectrum of issues programmers and producers face in an “I want what I want when I want it” world and is a must read for those who follow such things.
While exploring the world of downloaded TV programs, the article does more than simply preach or parrot the M.P.A.A. and other advocacy groups, and I found this refreshing.
Not surprisingly, the repercussions - particularly the rapidly growing number of shows available for the plucking online - terrify industry executives, who remember only too well what Napster and other file-sharing programs did to the music industry. They fret that if unchecked, rampant trading of files will threaten the riches of the relatively new and surprisingly lucrative television DVD business. It could endanger sales of television shows to international markets and into syndication. And it could further endanger what for the past 50 years has been television’s economic linchpin: the 30-second commercial.-o-
Ultimately, whether the television industry can avoid the disruptive fury that sideswiped the music industry - and even find lucrative ways to benefit from a digital, broadband, interconnected and portable entertainment world - will depend on how fast and flexible the conglomerates are in meeting viewers’ changing desires.
It will also depend on understanding the motivation behind this flurry of new activity. It’s not just the thrill of the illicit, like lighting up behind a Kroger’s in high school. That is “woefully inadequate to describe why millions of people steal,” said Mr. Garland of Big Champagne, the online media measurement company. “People aren’t essentially lawless. It takes far more motivation than that.”
-o-
A further CBS study gave viewers the chance to build their own night of television, where they could choose among a select group of pay-per-view shows in addition to the regular schedule of free programming that night. More than half of the 211 respondents chose to pay extra for at least one show. “This is the way people want television delivered,” Mr. Poltrack said.
Before this video-on-demand vision materializes, a bewildering thicket of contract and revenue-sharing issues among the producers, programmers and distributors of television must be overcome.
Nonetheless, executives understand that they have little alternative but to push ahead. Chasing after the people trafficking in television programming can do only so much good.
Blogging letters to the editor — Brilliant!
Monday, January 31st, 2005The Greensboro News & Record’s involvement in the furtherance of citizens media in that community took another step forward this weekend when the paper made its “Letters To The Editor” section available in a blog format online. This is, frankly, brilliant. Published letters from readers have long been the only form of citizen participation in the mainstream news biz, and the paper is very, very smart to make them available as blog elements — with comment sections available. Talk about a great way to elevate citizens media!
We’re adding this feature for two reasons. First, the blog format will enable readers to discuss and comment on each individual letter. Second, it will enable bloggers and other online writers to link directly to an individual letter, rather than just to a Web page containing multiple letters.We hope this change will make the online version of our printed letters to the editor more useful as reference material and as topics for public discussion.
Google cache speaks in the SpongeBob matter
Sunday, January 30th, 2005In his letter to supporters in the wake of the whole SpongeBob kafluffle, Dr. James Dobson notes that the argument isn’t about cartoon characters but rather about the organization that is using them to promote “We Are Family Day,” March 11. Dobson’s evangelical Christian organization concerns itself with matters of the family (Focus On The Family), so it’s understandable that they’d be interested in any event involving 61,000 public and private schools that uses the term, especially a video with cartoon characters. Dobson didn’t like what he found, and that’s his prerogative, but here’s where it gets interesting.
Dobson’s letter states that the organization behind the special day — the We Are Family Foundation — is actually a front for promoting a homosexual lifestyle to children, something to which his ministry is passionately opposed. As evidence, he sites text from their Website, specifically a section addressed to teachers on what kinds of classroom discussions to have in connection with “We Are Family Day.” According to Dobson’s letter, the foundation removed the offending section from its Website.
So I went cruising Google to find the pages in cache. Low and behold, a search of “wearefamilyfoundation.org +teachers” produces the cached file. Here are the first ten discussion topics:
SECTION 1
These activities are designed to be completed in 5 to 10 minutes.1.1 Questioning Order
Respond to ordered phrases; discuss hierarchical ranking in language.1.2 Generating a Description
Conduct a “write and pass” exercise; define identity terms (”gay” or “old.”)1.3 Rating Your Behavior
Complete a worksheet; expose student behaviors as they relate to “-isms.”1.4 Talking About Being “Out”
Answer worksheet questions; discuss perceptions of sexual orientations.1.5 Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation
Write definitions; explore the impact of homophobia and heterosexism.1.6 Looking at Looks
Write freely about experiences with appearance bias.1.7 Treating People in Parallel Manner
Rewrite sentences to give parallel treatment to various groups.1.8 Respecting Age
Debunk the myths behind adjectives associated only with certain age groups.1.9 Seeing the Whole Person
Rewrite sentences to “put the person back in.”1.10 Appreciating Diversity
Fill in the blanks, and raise awareness about perceptions of diversity.
The real question we ought to be asking — regardless of how we feel about gays and their struggle — is why the We Are Family Foundation felt it necessary to remove this material from its Website.
Borrell: Huge online ad increases at the local level
Thursday, January 27th, 2005Borrell Associates is projecting that local ad spending will increase a 46% over last year, more than twice the growth rate for all Internet advertising. You can obtain both the Executive Summary and a list of projections by market by downloading a zip file here.
The significance of this report is that it targets individual markets. Most of what we hear about is on a national level, while broadcasting works locally. Important stuff.
Wikis eat away at the protected knowledge foundation
Thursday, January 27th, 2005Steve Rubel has an important post today that begs further exploration. Steve advises the folks who produce media directories to get into the wiki world as soon as possible, ‘lest they quickly become extinct. They’re a necessary tool of the PR industry. They’re expensive as hell (several thousand dollars for some subscriptions) and are far from perfect, occasionally containing incorrect information.
Steve recommends letting PR people into the process of building and maintaining the directory, a la wiki style.
Media directories must evolve into wikis or they risk becoming extinct. They are spending a lot of money paying researchers. Why not also bring customers (e.g. PR people) into the fold and enable us to edit listings, share insights and knowledge via a wiki? In the future, PR professionals - and even consumers - will create their own media directories.
(Cough, cough. Well, Terry, but how can you TRUST that information. Cough, cough.)
Wikipedia threatens to destroy the encyclopedia industry, just as the type of directory wiki that Steve references will destroy the media directory industry. I view this as a good thing for many reasons. One, I believe in people and that experience is the best teacher. Why shouldn’t we share our experience with each other to the betterment of the human race? Secondly, as these institutions collapse, the wealth is redistributed in a very efficient manner. I remember when I was growing up that the purchase of an encyclopedia was a HUGE deal for families, behind only a home, a car, and some appliances. That cash can be better spent elsewhere.
Is this REALLY necessary?
Wednesday, January 26th, 2005New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is suing General Motors for $2 million, because they used his likeness in an ad a month after his contract had expired. Oh puh-leeeeze! This is the kind of crap that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of everybody, except the lawyers who’ll make lots of money off it. I mean, come on! Sure the agency that did the dastardly deed should be called on the carpet for it, but to actually file a $2 million lawsuit is absurd. Is there any wonder why pro athletes are thought of as spoiled brats?
Brady, you’re being a dick! (Note: The FCC says I can say that.)
Re-thinking News Promos
Wednesday, January 26th, 2005Here is the next installment in my series of essays, TV News in a Postmodern World. This examines the industry’s obsession with topical promotions, and especially the techniques used to manipulate viewers into watching. This practice runs up against the now widely recognized beliefs that mass-marketing is on the way out and consumers are increasingly in charge. I believe we need to re-think the entire “branding” thing to see what aspects of it are actually hurting us in the long run, and this essay is a part of that.
Ted Turner’s foolish pronouncement
Wednesday, January 26th, 2005There’s an interesting cultural phenomenon underway over the obvious point-of-view journalism kid on the block, Fox News. I cringe every time I hear or read of somebody from the mainstream press moan and complain about Fox News, because they’re playing right into the hands of those fighting a cultural war against liberalism in the country.
The latest is Ted Turner. In a speech at the NATPE conference in Las Vegas yesterday — and reported by Broadcasting and Cable — he called Fox a propaganda tool of the Bush administration and indirectly compared Fox News Channel’s popularity to Adolf Hitler’s popular election to run Germany before World War II.
Having once worked the conservative side of the media street, I can tell you this is bullshit in its purest form, and it’s hurting the cause of liberalism more than people on the left realize. Fox doesn’t have to go on the air and claim red state ground in the culture war, because liberals are doing it for them. Every time someone from the left opens a critical mouth and points it at Fox, it validates Fox’s mission. Every time someone from a mainstream press outlet does the same, it validates the widely-held belief by red-staters that the press is liberal. The great have and have-not divide in the country is exacerbated by this constant harping about Fox not playing by the rules. Such complaining may galvanize support from the left, but look what happened in the last election. If the left wants to win, it must reinvent itself, not continue clumsily bouncing down a path to nothingness.
Look, folks. There never was anything such as objectivity, and you can’t argue for fairness unless you define what that means. And once you enter that arena, tit gives way to tat, and the tail-chasing begins in earnest. For every example the left can give of Fox working on behalf of the current White House, the right can make similar claims about the mainstream press and the Clinton administration. The press is not objective. The press is not “fair.” There isn’t any such thing, so let’s just drop all the bickering and get on with doing our jobs.
The biggest loser in all of this is the common man, that which used to make up the core of the party of the Democrats. But perhaps that’s supposed to be the case. I keep hoping for the day when a new political party emerges, one that my father would’ve been proud to support. As the left continues to fight this useless battle, that seems more likely every day.
When you can’t broadcast it, stream it
Wednesday, January 26th, 2005Budweiser has dropped an ad spoofing the Janet Jackson fiasco from its Superbowl lineup. The ad shows a guy in the costume room at last year’s superbowl. He uses a costume (Jackson’s) to help him open a twist-off Bud, and, well, you can guess the rest. It’s pretty funny and can be seen here.
By giving you the URL to the Budweiser site, I’ve just taken part in what is likely a Budweiser viral marketing experiment. If you can’t broadcast the thing, why not let everybody see it via new media? The company’s commercial will reach an enormous slice of the Internet population and, in so doing, provide Budweiser with a reach it wouldn’t have attained even in the Superbowl. Nobody will be fast-forwarding through it. Nobody will be getting up to use the can or grab a sandwich.
I’m not suggesting the company planned it this way, but given the nature of the content, the streaming viewership is going to be significant.
UPDATE: Jeff Gralnick responds to my comment about this item on Lost Remote.
Terry is right.Because the spot is part of an “issue” it will get streamed and seen and then the cablers will pick it up and play it a skillion times and Budweiser nets the views without spending a dollar.
Just like political ads. The parties create “pre-buzz,” do a narrow buy or worse release them to the media and then the cable networks do the rest.
Remember the LBJ/Daisy commercial which is now part of lore? It aired just once. The television networks did the rest and that was BEFORE cable.
Aren’t we just a helpful lot?
Google’s move into video
Tuesday, January 25th, 2005A day after Yahoo! announced it was getting into the video search business, Google unveiled Google Video, which has been actually functioning since December. It’s pretty crude now, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out where this is headed. Can you spell c-o-n-v-e-r-g-e-n-c-e.
Our mission is to organize the world’s information, and that includes the thousands of programs that play on our TVs every day. Google Video enables you to search a growing archive of televised content — everything from sports to dinosaur documentaries to news shows.
About face: Rolling Stone WILL run Bible ad
Tuesday, January 25th, 2005“We have addressed the internal miscommunications that led to the previous misstatement of company policy and apologize for any confusion it may have caused,” Lisa Dallos, spokeswoman for Wenner Media, Rolling Stone’s parent company, told USA Today. Apparently Rolling Stone doesn’t have an “unwritten” policy against advertisements with a religious message, as we were told last week. It’s not that the magazine necessarily “saw the light.” It’s more likely they’re reacting to public dissing they got in the wake of their original decision.
Overcoming the “Tucker Reaction”
Tuesday, January 25th, 2005Chris Schroeder offers a great read this morning in MediaDailyNews that compares reaction to disruptive innovations in communications today to those in the film, “Tucker.” You know the story. The guy builds a better automobile and is crushed by the auto industry.
As the music industry arrests file sharers, as the cable industry lobbies Washington claiming that basic cable is better for the customer even if they don’t want 80 percent of what they are forced to buy, as the television industry declares that skipping ads on TiVos is illegal, as the movie industry fights to hold onto traditional distribution, I have thought a great deal about that movie.
Personally - and I cannot document it - I think most people don’t want to be thieves, but at the same time they also don’t want to be told what to do, think about, or enjoy. For traditional media and distribution channels to embrace the power of the individual, it will take some significant rethinking about how they do business, how they will make services available when the individual is the aggregator, what their cost structures and perks are, and what life is like in an anti-monopolist world. In a word, it will take innovation, and innovation across the board - from product and services to business models to mind-sets
The gold in the Web’s hills
Monday, January 24th, 2005Poynter’s Steve Outing, a guy who knows more than most about this whole new media thing, misses the mark a bit in a Saturday piece about a new free classifieds Website in Bakersfield, California. The new site, Bakotopia, is published by the local newspaper, The Bakersfield Californian. The site runs independent of any Californian label, something Steve calls “clandestine,” but that’s another story. The site was built to compete with the incredibly popular “Craigslist.”
Craigslist is now in Bakersfield, as is a new Craigslist competitor, ZiXXo. As the Californian’s executives apparently have figured out, their traditional print and online classifieds can’t compete with Craig for the young demographic, so it’s time to fight fire with fire.
What’s the business model? Product manager Dan Pacheco (whose other life is as president of Colorado-based consultancy FutureForecast) says the plan is to build as large of an audience as possible, then down the road perhaps charge for some ads — though that’s not anticipated for some time. This is the Craigslist model: Craig’s city sites don’t charge for ads, except in a couple major markets where the company has begun charging for employment and some rental ads. Pacheco says other ideas for Bakotopia to make money are being discussed, but nothing’s yet ready to be talked about publicly.
The model can and surely will change as Pacheco and newspaper executives watch how the Bakersfield public responds and uses the site — and figure out how to make money from giving away classifieds. (Besides, what newspaper executive is ever going to write off on a business plan to create a free-classifieds site that competes directly with the paper’s traditional paid classifieds?)
On the Internet, you still make money the old-fashioned way. The difference between IRL and URL, however, is that the online model for so doing is often obscured. As I’ve preached often, if you feed the sheep, they’ll give you wool. Online, the wool is information. There’s nothing clandestine about that.
Convention versus the Internet
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005Here is the latest essay in my series, TV News in a Postmodern World. This one, Convention versus the Internet, examines the difficulty in trying to understand the nature of Internet communications from a conventional perspective. I use the square peg/round hole metaphor, because it’s appropriate. Those who approach the Internet as merely an extension of their “real world” business are destined to failure, because it’s a completely different world.
Although I’ve said this many times and in many ways, it remains at the heart of the resistance I encounter in my dealings with broadcasters. I genuinely fear for those who don’t get it. We simply cannot move forward if we insist on clinging to that which has always been.
I often feel like a square peg in a round hole when writing about this stuff. The feedback from readers keeps me going, though, so I know I’m not alone in this particular hole.
Thank you all for that.
If you watched “The Apprentice”…
Friday, January 21st, 2005…you need to read Steve Hall’s take on how the program made a colleague look like a fool. When we watch these reality shows, we tend to forget that these are real people that are playing the roles the producers assign to them — whether they realize it or not. In this case, I don’t think Mr. Kaster helped his cause very much, but we shall see. That’s the fun of these programs anyway.
Powell’s leaving is an enormous loss
Friday, January 21st, 2005Politics aside, the resignation of Michael Powell as FCC Chairman is a blow to downstream thinking in the U.S., and I’m personally frightened by the prospects of who might come after him. For all the weeping and gnashing of teeth done about his “national nanny” role in issuing record fines for indecency charges, Powell was a rare person in power who really understood the nature of the Internet and its business opportunities.
Here are my two favorite Powell quotes:
“Application separation is the most important paradigm shift in the history of communications, and it will change things forever.”“I have no problem if a big and venerable company no longer exists tomorrow, as long as that value is transferred somewhere else in the economy.“
I think those of us in the Internet world will miss him. A status quo proponent in that seat will be trouble for progress, to say nothing of what’ll happen in the battle for free speech.Thank you, Michael, for your efforts on behalf of innovation.
Belo decentralizes its Web business
Thursday, January 20th, 2005In a smart, smart move, the profitable Belo Interactive is being dismantled with most of its functions picked up at the local level. Mark Glaser has the details in a fascinating article in the Online Journalism Review.
“The major reasons for doing this [reorganization] were to maximize revenue growth of the local sites and to stimulate innovation in the company’s important classified verticals (especially recruitment, real estate and automotive),” (Wesley Jackson, vice president and general manager of Belo’s interactive operations) said via e-mail. “Local sites will now be managed by local editors and sales managers, rather than by BI managers in Dallas. We expect that with more local involvement, the Web sites will become richer in content and at the same time become a more tightly integrated part of the local sales strategy of our stations and papers.”
Belo Interactive has pioneered making money through the Internet, but it’s all been done from a distance. Local sales people need to be selling local sites. Why? Because local advertisers don’t have a clue about Internet advertising, much less the ability to create impressionable online ads. That’s the role of the local media company, but as long as the Web properties are seen as detached, these important steps in the growth of local online advertising simply won’t take place.
I congratulate Belo for recognizing this important truth.
Another rush to judgment
Thursday, January 20th, 2005By now everybody’s aware of the story of Las Vegas weekend weather guy, Rob Blair, who was fired over what was believed to be a racial slur uttered during a weekend newscast on KTNV-TV. Activist leaders, including Barbara Ciara of the National Association of Black Journalists condemned what appeared — at the time — to be an unbelievably stupid thing to say on-the-air. According to all the reports, Blair said, “Martin Luther Coon King Jr” when referencing the upcoming holiday forecast. Huh? Who could be such an idiot?
Well, it turns out all the chest-beating comes from people who haven’t seen — or more importantly, heard — a tape of the event. Scott Jones at FTVLive (subscription required) streamed the event late yesterday, and after hearing it, I believe Blair is a clear victim of the rush to judgment that’s become so popular in this country, especially as it relates to political correctness. I mean, it’s not even questionable. Even the smoothest anchor in the business gets tongue-tied occasionally. I don’t care what you think you hear in the tape. It was a slip of the tongue, a rushed combination of the words “King” and “Junior.”
People who know Rob jumped to his defense, but it didn’t matter. He lost his job and it looks like he’ll never work in broadcasting again. And now it turns out the whole event wasn’t “live” and that six station employees had the opportunity to undo the deadly deed before it hit the air. Their jobs are now in jeopardy too. Holy shit, folks. I’m mean, why didn’t they stop it from going on the air? Because it was no big deal, that’s why.
Oh but it is a big deal, isn’t it? A special interest group needs events like these to raise money to fight the good fight. Such hypocrisy.
Why do we have to assume the guilt of people when the finger of accusation is pointed? When I worked for The Journal Company (owners of KTNV), the company stood up for its employees. Apparently, that’s not the case anymore.
Multicasting, diversion or savior?
Thursday, January 20th, 2005According to a Reuters report, FCC chairman Michael Powell will propose that cable companies won’t be required to carry digital multicast signals from local broadcasters. The issue has been simmering as part of the mandate for broadcasters to give up analog bandwidth by 2009 (It was originally 2007). Broadcasters think they’re getting screwed (they are, but what’s new?), but the real losers in all this are those to whom the bandwidth belongs — the American people. Most experts predict it’ll be at least a decade before the U.S. goes digital, and that’s a shame.
Other countries are already completely digital in the broadcasting space, but the U.S. lags far behind. At stake are billions of dollars in commercial wireless services that would be made available in the analog bandwidth.
Many stations already broadcast both digital and analog signals. But relatively few Americans own digital televisions, which are expensive, and not many cable subscribers get digital service which offers those channelsBroadcasters have expressed grave reservations about the plan because it would require them to stop airing analog signals by 2009. They have warned millions of Americans who do not subscribe to pay television services and have not bought a new set would not be able to see digital signals.
I have three suggestions for broadcasters in this regard. One, continue to invest money and manpower in digital distribution systems beyond broadcasting, especially the Internet. Two, aggressively pursue the FCC for a share of the revenue pie in the analog bandwidth market that they’re giving up. Hey, fair’s fair. Three, combine resources with other local broadcasters to provide a “broadcast cable” system in their community, using multicast to provide channels currently distributed only by cable by owned by the networks with whom they’re affiliated. ABC stations could offer a digital broadcast version of ESPN and The Family Channel. NBC could give us USA and Bravo. CBS could provide MTV and VH1, and so on.
Viral ads: where video advertising meets the edge
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005This is one of those things I love about the Internet. A viral ad is one that doesn’t see the light of television but effectively reaches people with the message, even though it may be completely fake. (Anybody can make a commercial these days) They’re “viral” because they’re passed around by Internet users, such as I’m doing here. The thing I like about them is they often cross lines of cultural acceptability, because — as you’ve heard here often — the rules are different online.
Example: Click on the link to see one of my favorites, the terrorist who tries to blow up a sidewalk cafe but makes the mistake of using a very tough automobile. It’s hosted by a fun site called Adland.
Volkswagon Polo (It may take awhile to load)
Bonus link: Viral award winners announced (via Adrants). Sadly, there aren’t links to the winners provided. What’s THAT all about?
UPDATE: Steve Hall says Volkswagon denies responsibility for the ad