Archive for April, 2006

Network affiliates in an on-demand world

Posted Thursday, April 13th, 2006

I was just interviewed by the Christian Science Monitor for a story on what happens to local affiliates in the wake of on-demand programming offered by networks directly to viewers. This is a very touchy subject and one about which most local affiliate people remain silent. I’ll tell you this, though. There are a LOT of nervous people out there, and I think they have reason to be concerned (NOTE to non-management readers: this applies to you, too!).

That’s because the supply/demand scale has shifted in favor of the networks. As I told the reporter, follow the trendline as the networks have been cutting back compensation to affiliates for carrying their programming. We’re headed to more of a syndication model for broadcasting, where compensation is reversed. You want Lost? You bid for it.

Attempts by stations — most notably WRAL-TV — to stream their signal, including network programming, are extremely cool, but the strategy is questionable in an increasingly on-demand culture. All this does is shift the broadcast model to the web, and that, folks, isn’t what the disruption is all about.

Those in the industry who think that anything about their business model or brand will carry them into tomorrow are sadly mistaken. Local broadcasters are so far behind the curve on new media technology (except for podcasts, but that’s not really new media) that it will likely be too late when the rug is pulled out from underneath them. I’m amazed, for example, at the number of local station websites that aren’t written in XML, the language of unbundled media.

When I do my dog-n-pony show, companies easily “get” the idea of unbundling their content and distributing it (with commercials) via aggregators of every kind, but the light bulbs above their heads often go out when I start talking about building new business models that don’t necessarily involve their content. Yet, this is exactly where the money (and especially the future money) can be found. The smart aggregator business in every market is wide open for the taking, but few are headed there, mostly because they just can’t, don’t or won’t see it.

To paraphrase Umair Haque, when your core competency is crumbling, look to build edge competencies. For an industry accustomed to exploiting artificial scarcity, that means understanding the value chain where abundance exists. Smart aggregators help people sort and filter (themselves) in the midst of that abundance, and that’s where local media companies are missing the boat.

That means moving from the supply side of the on-demand world to the demand side. Counterintuitive? Yes, but that describes just about everything in the media 2.0 paradigm.

So if you’re an affiliate, and you’re thinking that sharing download and ad revenues with your network is the road to profitability, ask yourself this. Can I make more money as a pure content provider or as a company that helps people sort, filter and use all that content? Think about it.

BONUS LINK: Disney boss Robert Iger told an AG Edwards roundtable discussion Tuesday that despite affiliate complaints, ABC will continue to aggressively pursue new media options for content distribution. He told the Hollywood Reporter that he doesn’t believe that such plans have a “cannibalizing” effect (on the affiliates), and that one way of combating piracy is to offer more content legitimately over the Internet.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Quote of the week

Posted Thursday, April 13th, 2006

From Doug Rushkoff, who tells his blog readers that he’s cutting back on some of his obligations to pursue more creative alternatives. He’s turning down lucrative writing gigs, because, well, this is what he wants to do. And so he offers this wonderful line (such a writer you are, Doug):

I figure if the universe is being cooperative enough to let me survive doing what matters to me, I shouldn’t second guess it.
This is kind of the way I feel. Life is a ride, and faith is the ticket. Of course, the way you know if you’ve planted yourself in the right seat is if you have the cooperation of nature, as Doug so wonderfully puts it. Otherwise, you might find yourself living on the street.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

The internet and higher education

Posted Wednesday, April 12th, 2006

I wouldn’t recognize Joel Best in any crowd anywhere. Don’t know the guy. Didn’t know he existed until today. My serendipitous introduction to Joel was through an article he’s written for the Chronicle of Higher Education that was directed my way through my Google alert subscription on the word “postmodernism.” I meet a lot of smart people through that channel.

Joel has been in academia all his life, chairing departments at three universities over the last 25 years. He’s written a new book called, Flavor of the Month: Why Smart People Fall for Fads, and my guess is this article is part of his marketing plan for the book. Joel sees fads where others see opportunity, and the article — and likely the book — is filled with interesting information.

So why am I writing about this?

He offers an extensive list of innovations in education to which he’s been exposed over the years, one of which is the internet. Each, he notes, promised to transform education.

Some of those much-heralded innovations are long forgotten. Others remain housed somewhere on the campus, but I think it is fair to say that higher education hasn’t changed all that much, that none of these ideas proved to be as transformative as their advocates predicted. Compared to their advance billing, they all turned out to be short-term enthusiasms or — more bluntly — educational fads.
So the internet is a fad that has failed to transform higher education. This, I believe, may be the most ignorant statement I’ve ever heard from an academic. The internet has already altered all education forever, because a great deal of knowledge is now accessible without memorization, contemplation, research or study. That higher education “hasn’t changed all that much” may be more a reflection of the self-serving nature of the institution than what he sees as the false promises of “fads.” Moreover, I think it’s a little early to proclaim that the internet isn’t transformative.

I’m reminded of former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s 2004 statement that “Application separation is the most important paradigm shift in the history of communications, and it will change things forever.” Application separation is made available through the internet, and it’s whacking institutional fatted calves everywhere.

And it’s also how I found Joel’s unique knowledge in the first place.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Overcoming the Weather Channel’s local forecasts

Posted Wednesday, April 12th, 2006

Cory Bergman at Lost Remote references a story from Multichannel News outlining the Weather Channel’s plan to provide local web video forecasts for the top 25 markets beginning May 1st.

Everybody wins in the deal, but there is one huge loser: local television. That’s because the deal offers — to newspapers, radio stations and bloggers — the key franchise of any local TV News operation. It’s another chapter in the continuing saga of local broadcast media companies sitting on their asses while outside providers come in and snip away at market share.

It’s also terribly smart strategy on the part of the Weather Channel, because the forecasts will come with advertising. It’s a brilliant unbundled move, because others distribute the content. That includes, I’m assuming, local bloggers.

To counter this, stations need to create weather widgets that can display content — and even video — in the sidebars of blogs. Widgets are the killer app for local media companies in dealing with the personal media revolution in their neighborhoods, but I suspect most won’t offer them and the majority of those who do will clumsily present them as if they’re doing bloggers a favor.

As Gordon Borrell notes, “The deer now have guns.” What do you do when the deer have guns? You get into the ammunition business. Widgets are our ammunition.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Nabbing “sexual predators” for profit

Posted Tuesday, April 11th, 2006

Nothing epitomizes the depth of salacious pandering that “news” has become like NBC Dateline’s “To Catch a Predator” sweeps’ stunts. Using the skills of volunteers working for a Portland, Oregon group called Perverted Justice, who pose as naive and innocent teenagers in online chatrooms, the network newsmagazine lures unsuspecting men to a house wired with cameras and proclaims them “internet pedophiles” without due process. And now comes the news that for a May sweeps airing of these entrapments that was shot in Ohio, NBC actually paid Perverted Justice “low six figures” and that its members were deputized to make convictions easier to obtain. The end — nice ratings, not capturing evil men — justifies the means. NBC’s cameras have become extensions of the state, and where do we draw the line?

The premise itself is unjustifiably beyond the scope of our legal system but is rationalized by news execs and viewers, because it deals with protecting our young people from sexual predators. This is viewed, in consulting language, as a highly attractive “position” in marketing a station or network to the (stupid) public. In so doing, however, the practice raises the fear level in our communities and lowers the trust level between human beings everywhere. After all, if every stranger might be a predator, it’s better just to not acknowledge anybody you don’t know. Tell me this is good for our culture. Tell me you want to live your life in an isolation booth.

This idea was birthed in local news, which I wrote long ago is the metaphorical Lizard on America’s Shoulder, relentlessly shrieking in our ear that everything is life-threatening and that we must always be afraid. Hidden in this message is the notion that we can somehow “manage” our way to success and happiness if we’re better informed, an idea that many learn too late is only a myth.

Sexual predators are the lepers of the 21st century, an indefensible group of (mostly white) men who sadly live in a fantasy world in which they actually believe young girls want to have sex with them. This is the sick fantasy that compels them to get in the car and drive to meet a potential partner that they’ve found on the internet. In their minds, it isn’t rape or even predatory behavior, and we’re repelled by this line of thinking.

But this problem is much bigger than the act of driving to a teenager’s home. We don’t talk about how this fantasy is formed in the minds of some men, nor do we talk about how it is furthered by our increasingly sex-based culture. We leave that to self-serving special interest groups who make money yelling at the symptoms instead of attacking the bigger matters of loneliness, powerlessness, rejection and fear. We don’t dare admit that what we call “normal” is also an illusion, and worse, that it only exists among the haves.

Nor do we wish to examine the issue of fatherlessness — real, forced or imagined — in our culture and the impact this devastating reality has on young girls who aren’t sufficiently knowledgeable as they learn to seek attention from the opposite sex.

If you were to ask any Hollywood costume designer to present the look of a streetwalker for a film, they could find all of the clothes they needed on the bodies of young girls in any mall in the U.S. And what is the role of streetwalker apparel if not for advertising? Yet the vast majority of these girls would be astonished at the suggestion they were advertising, and that’s not their fault. Our culture flaunts the “come hither” look for young women, and this, like it or not, feeds the fantasy of the sexual predator.

We hear a lot about sexual predators in the news — and a lot from Law and Order, SVU — but we hear FROM very few. Let’s do a reality show from inside a Sex Addicts Anonymous meeting instead of lectures from those who study it from arm’s length. Let’s get all the ugly insight, straight from the horse’s mouth, and in an environment more conducive to honesty than being probed by a self-serving reporter with another “gotcha” notch on his gun belt.

It’s not likely to happen, though, because such a show would be a turn-off, not a titillating turn-on. However, if we really want to protect young women from this scourge, we’re going to have to peer into this darkness for causes instead of throwing everything we have at symptoms.

This whole matter is complex and messy, and it’s not made one little bit better by NBC’s entrapment of these men for the sake of ratings. I think it’s actually made worse, because it drives the behavior further into the shadows and far from the sunlight of the healing it so desperately needs.

Shame on you, NBC.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Evidence of the awakening

Posted Tuesday, April 11th, 2006

Slowly, it seems, media companies are stirring in their slumber chambers. Here are a couple of gems from today’s PaidContent:

Staci Kramer interviewed Anne Sweeney, Co-Chair, Disney Media Networks/President, Disney-ABC Television Group, shortly after ABC’s new online program distribution announcement. She sounds like somebody who really gets it, despite the comments yesterday of underlings.

Do you think you’re going to end up with multiple business models? Sweeney: “I can tell you that we’re open to it and we’re intent on finding that out but we’re putting the consumer first and the idea right next to them and then we’re figuring it out — because I really don’t want to get in a world where we’re retrofitting new technologies into old business models.”
I think this statement is remarkable. If this powerful media executive is genuinely experimenting based on customer wants and needs, she is to be saluted. We’ll see.

The second gem comes from Rafat Ali in a blurb about AdAge.com’s site redesign. After comments about technical glitches, comes this:

…the site’s name (not its URL) has changed from AdAge.com to Advertising Age. “That reflects our strategy and belief that Ad Age is a media brand not a product defined by a distribution platform.” Who knew?
I think you’ll see more companies opting for this idea in the short term. It’s a smart acknowledgement of reality, but it won’t do anything for the bottom line. That will come through diversification and distancing ourselves from our brands in order to build new businesses. The real value of offline media brands is their ability to promote their online enterprises, something other entrepreneurs would have to pay big money to possess.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Umair doesn’t think much of ABC’s new gambit

Posted Monday, April 10th, 2006

As a bonus to the story below, here’s Umair Haque’s somewhat contrarian perspective:

The point: unbundling media is only half the game: the value creation half. And it’s exactly and totally the wrong half from a strategic point of view.

Rebundling is where value capture will happen - at communities, reconstructors, markets, networks - that direct people’s attention to individualized ‘casts. This is where branding will be reborn - and where advertising is already being disrupted, ripped apart, and reborn (viz, Google, PPC, pay per call, etc)

It won’t happen overnight. But in the next few years, rebundling will be the future of connected consumption. Most often, it’s why consumers connect in the first place: why do you think people

By focusing on unbundling without rebundling Disney is getting edge strategy exactly wrong. They are handing market power to folks like YouTube and MySpace - literally just forking over market power.

He’s right, of course, and this is the part of my presentations to broadcasters that is the most difficult for them to grasp. For more, read: The Ammunition Business.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

ABC’s new gambit

Posted Monday, April 10th, 2006

ABC’s announcement, as reported in the Wall Street Journal today, that it will begin offering its prime time programs free-of-charge over the internet is another example of the leadership role they’re playing in the new media space. Does anybody really think this is just an “experiment?”

On April 30, ABC will unveil a revamped Web site that will include a “theater where people with broadband connections can watch free episodes of “Desperate Housewives,” “Lost” and other hit shows on their computers. Episodes will be available the morning after they air and will be archived so people can eventually view a whole season.
The programs will have three, one-minute commercial breaks (sans fast-forwarding) featuring only one sponsor, and, get this, users get to choose the sponsor before viewing the program. ABC was first to offer programs for sale via iTunes, and now this.

Jeff Jarvis offers his usual excellent commentary, including this great line: “I’d sell your cable stock, by the way.” Good advice. This won’t help broadcast stocks either.

The story offers one troubling line, however, that suggests even forward-thinking ABC doesn’t totally get it.

Disney will also promote the creation of fan sites for various shows. “We want to tie all of these fan sites closer to our brand,” Mr. Cheng says.

In the words of the immortal Mick Jagger, “You can’t always get what you want.” The reality is that fans don’t need the network to “promote” creative sites, and there’s something compelling about the disconnection anyway. Would the network, for example, really want to get in bed with a wonderful spoiler site like Lostpedia? If the answer is yes, then hooray for ABC. If not, then it’s really about control and the mass market.

Hats off to ABC for forcing the truth about the network/affiliate relationship to the surface. Once again, the only future local media companies have is to diversify via the internet. I don’t care how much news you produce, it won’t produce profitability in an on-demand world.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Postmoderns look for God too

Posted Saturday, April 8th, 2006

When we moved from premodern times (I believe, therefore I understand) to modern times (I think, therefore I understand), we took a lot of the old with us. It’s true that modernism witnessed the birth of atheism and secularism — those bastions of logic and rational thinking — but faith prospered. Revivals of religion are as much a part of the fabric of our culture as industrialization and innovation, because, by and large, we are still a people of faith. We want to know, yes, but we believe nonetheless.

This comes to mind with the National Geographic’s publication of the Gospel of Judas and all that another apocryphal piece of ancient text brings with it. What’s different this time around is that postmoderns (I experience, therefore I understand) — who are much more comfortable with God, the Holy Spirit, than a hierarchical God, the Father — are deconstructing everything that led up to decisions to canonize or not canonize literature over the centuries. While the institutional Christian church is justifiably uncomfortable with this, I can’t imagine it strikes God the same way.

God either is, or He isn’t, and I think more knowledge leads to more faith, not vice versa. My spiritual quest has including reading that which was read by early Christians, before “the church” decided what was and wasn’t edifying and “Holy.” This included that which was available to the disciples. One book, The Secrets of Enoch, for example, is quoted by Paul in the Bible, but it wasn’t canonized by the Council of Nicea. Other early writings, like The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs foretell of the coming Messiah in such strong terms that it’s easier to understand the general atmosphere among some Jews during the time of Christ. The First and Second Books of Adam and Eve offer a wonderful view of life outside the garden and give a vivid picture of “the Word” as a person. This only deepened my understanding of the use of that term in the New Testament.

So I say let’s all read the Gospel of Judas and all of the other writings upon which our faith is built. Let’s not be afraid of a little deconstruction, for who’s to say that that’s not yet another gift of God to the human race.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

When media companies attempt to own the internet

Posted Saturday, April 8th, 2006

This is a complex matter to describe — and even moreso for media companies to understand — but here goes.

In any market in the U.S. (or anywhere), there are a limited number of mass media outlets. These include the usual suspects, like radio, television and newspapers. It’s important to understand that the government and the market determine how many of these entities exist in each location. This limits the number of people or groups who’ve been traditionally “allowed” to play the mass marketing game, and in the mass marketing paradigm, that’s important, because it assures that each will have a piece of the advertising pie — assuming they run their business in a way that brings profitability.

This idea of limited access to the masses is at the core of the mass media model, and it drives the strategic thinking of the mainstream. In this restricted environment, the entire enterprise is built on the company’s brand, something about which I’ve written extensively. After all, nothing is more important in a mass market than a powerful brand, because manipulating the way it stands out is what gets attention when exposed to all those people.

And so, when media companies approach the internet, they do so thinking that the Web is just another gathering of the mass in which to drop their brand and message. A part of this assumption is a continuation of restricted access. If the brand works offline, the thinking goes, it’ll work online. And so, NBC pulls its copyrighted property from the popular gathering place, youTube and makes it available on their own site, thinking that’s where it belongs. They even go so far as to include some of the functionality of youTube.

But here’s a graph from Alexaholic comparing youTube with the dot coms of NBC, CBS and Fox (ABC is a subdomain of go.com, and Alexa doesn’t like subdomains).

The thinking at NBC is that they can push their numbers up by offering youTube-type stuff exclusively at their own site. This is a classic and dangerous assumption, albeit completely understandable from a mass marketing perspective. After all, exclusive content drives people to the place where it’s presented, and we’re all used to that, especially those of us who didn’t grow up on the web.

But such thinking doesn’t generally work online, which I’m beginning to understand is more of a social phenomenon than media or technology phenomenon. People at youTube will simply find other things on youTube to view, leaving NBC bouncing merrily along doing their own thing and with a decreasing ability to pay for the content the mass used to view.

The same is true when mainstream media companies attempt to pull the blogosphere into their brands, which is happening with increasing frequency. The thinking is the same. It’ll boost my brand by bringing these writers into my corner, so that people will have to come to me in order to participate. In so doing, these companies are fooling themselves about the nature of the web and how to do business therein.

In both of these cases, the incorrect assumption is scarcity of content. This was true when access to the mass was restricted, but it isn’t the case anymore. Even those who recognize this reality about today’s media world often move the discussion to another form of scarcity, professionalism. I sat in a roomful of media execs once where one of those present — a fellow in his 50s — shot down the idea of local citizens doing webcasts for his company, because “people want to see our people doing it.” He went on to say that most of the stuff he’d seen done this way was crap, and that users/viewers/readers wouldn’t watch “his” webcasts without professional spit and polish.

This argument is an unproven red herring. Can amateurs produce professional quality webcasts? Even if the answer is no today, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it will be the case tomorrow. Meanwhile, I think it’s terribly dangerous for media companies who are watching their foundations crumble to cling to the maintenance of an idea (we’re professional, you’re not) that is causing the crumbling in the first place. What we’re witnessing, as Glenn Reynolds so beautifully puts it, is the triumph of personal technology over mass technology, and media companies that don’t embrace the possibilities found within this disruption will one day be on the outside looking in.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Overheard…

Posted Saturday, April 8th, 2006

So I’m sitting in my hotel room in an undisclosed Florida city last week, catching a little prime time television, when the anchor pops up for the obligatory “tease” and says…

“Did Jesus really walk on water? The story at eleven.”

I just thought you’d want to know.

(Oh, and I didn’t stay up to watch.)

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

It’s all about celebrity

Posted Friday, April 7th, 2006

The CBS decision to hire Katie Couric to replace Dan Rather was not a closely-guarded secret, which ought to give you some insight into its ramifications for the broadcast news industry. It will either go down in history as the smartest move of the century or the dumbest; there’s no middle ground.

CBS News (and Sports) President Sean McManus is taking his new job down the path of his old. In the sports world, celebrity is a given. News has always been reluctant to publicly acknowledge its front people as celebrities, although anybody with a brain recognizes such reluctance as self-serving (can you say “objectivity?”) bullshit. In addition to being celebrities, sports announcers are also cheerleaders. After all, why bite the hand that feeds you?

(In golf, for example, if “these guys are good,” isn’t it news when they’re not?)

We all love bright and happy cheerleaders, and who fits that role better than Katie? Katie Couric, America’s cheerleader. (Kathie Lee used to have that role, but then…)

And so McManus has gone out and publicly hired himself a celebrity of the first order. I’m sure she’ll do just fine, and I like the idea that McManus is at least being honest about what that anchor chair really is.

Now let’s see if the rest of CBS News follows his lead.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Why is RSS so hard?

Posted Friday, April 7th, 2006

I want to share a couple of thoughts from Steve about creating an RSS-enabled start page. Now, Steve is an extremely bright media fellow who deeply understands all this Media 2.0 stuff. But he’s not a geek, so his views on technology are decidedly consumer-centric.

“Right click. Copy shortcut. Paste here,” he grumbled while setting up the beta Netvibes start page with tabs. “It’s like a secret handshake, an inside joke.”

Those of us who write about this stuff need to LISTEN to what Steve’s saying. RSS will never reach its potential until it leaves the world of geekdom and subscribing to a feed becomes a simple one-click task. We need to accept the reality that RSS is intimidating. Yes, intimidating.

I realize a lot of folks are addressing this. IE7, for example, makes it easy to subscribe to a feed, but the browser’s “Favorites Center” is the reader, so what does that say for all the cool Ajax applications out there that are getting all that VC money?

Steve also complained that there’s no continuity among sites. Where’s the xml button? Why is it different on every site? Why are there no instructions accompanying the xml button? Why do some use an rss button instead of xml? What IS xml? Why do some sites not even have a button? What the heck is all that garble when I click on a “Subscribe to this feed” link? What do I do then?

Steve’s right, of course. It is a secret handshake. Now what do we do about it?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

This blog reaches a milestone

Posted Wednesday, April 5th, 2006

Thank you. Thank you very much. This website now carries a Google Ranking of seven. That puts me over the top, folks. I’m officially known. Since the rank is one of “importance,” well, I guess you’d have to say that I am, ah, important!

Ah. I can now rest on my laurels and watch the money pour in. Wait ’till I get the chance to tell my grandkids that I’m a seven.

Heady stuff, eh?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Florida bound

Posted Wednesday, April 5th, 2006

I’m outa here for a couple of days (it’s getting to be a habit). The dog-n-pony show is headed back to Florida for a client visit. I’m talking about emerging trends in online advertising, which is the topic of a forthcoming essay. I’ll be back Friday.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The truth is out on TV advertising

Posted Wednesday, April 5th, 2006

Here’s something people will be talking about today. A report today in MediaDailyNews offers Nielsen ratings evidence showing significant viewing drops during commercial breaks in prime time television. In February, for example, the CBS hit CSI showed a ratings drop of 15% during the breaks, and that’s not good news for broadcasting.

Ratings guarantees are based on program averages, so the lower commercial measures could provide fodder for advertisers increasingly looking to prove that people are viewing their ads. On the network side, a revenue slide corresponding to the ratings drops could mean a loss of millions of dollars.

…Jean Pool, executive vice president-COO at Universal McCann and chair of the AAAA’s Media Policy Committee, told networks to make the ratings available or risk appearing as if they are “trying to hide some dirty little secret. In the end, we want commercial ratings, not program averages,” she said.

While this shouldn’t shock anybody, what’s new here is that the Wizard’s curtain is being pulled away on television advertising, and what we’re seeing isn’t nearly as pretty as the image the Wizard projects.

TV advertising is the ultimate in mass marketing potential. As such, it’ll always be a good bang for the buck, but news like this will only enhance the viability of internet advertising, where the numbers are much more precise.

And let’s not forget that mass marketing’s blue smoke and mirrors aren’t the sole purview of broadcasting. I wonder, for example, if newspapers measure the number of readers who actually see THEIR ads?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The TV made me do it

Posted Tuesday, April 4th, 2006

Well, it’s official. The media is responsible for all most of our culture’s ills. We all suspected it, but now we have scientific evidence in the form of studies from the institution that claims the intellectual (and perhaps moral?) high ground about what’s best for our kids — Pediatric Medicine.

That’s right, folks, the lobbying organization designed to further the interests of the medical community, the American Medical Association, appearing in the form of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, has published a whole series of reports loaded with expert opinion and documentation that points a scientific finger at you and me. Just look at the table of contents for this issue:

  • Effects of Media Violence on Health-Related Outcomes Among Young Men
  • Short-term and Long-term Effects of Violent Media on Aggression in Children and Adults
  • Disentangling the Relation Between Television Viewing and Cognitive Processes in Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Comparison Children
  • Does Children’s Screen Time Predict Requests for Advertised Products?: Cross-sectional and Prospective Analyses
  • Development and Validation of a Smoking Media Literacy Scale for Adolescents
  • Television Viewing and Risk of Sexual Initiation by Young Adolescents
  • Social Interactions in Adolescent Television Viewing
  • Is Television Viewing Associated With Social Isolation?: Roles of Exposure Time, Viewing Context, and Violent Content
  • Parental Media Mediation Styles for Children Aged 2 to 11 Years
  • Content and Ratings of Mature-Rated Video Games
  • Metabolic and Physiologic Responses to Video Game Play in 7- to 10-Year-Old Boys
  • Television Exposure and Overweight Risk in Preschoolers
  • Parental Weight Status as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Television Viewing and Childhood Overweight
  • A Content Analysis of Health and Physical Activity Messages Marketed to African American Children During After-School Television Programming
  • When Children Eat What They Watch: Impact of Television Viewing on Dietary Intake in Youth

The Kansas City Star has a worthwhile wrap-up of these findings, including the assertion that mass media is a “public health issue.” This will be fertile grist for the Parent’s Television Council mill, which will mean more aggressive enforcement from the PTC’s legal arm, the FCC.

Hello, parents. Who speaks for you?

Not to worry. Take two aspirin, turn off the TV and call me in the morning.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

A new form of bias

Posted Tuesday, April 4th, 2006

Slate’s Jack Shafer offers valuable insight to a new study about a “new” form of media bias — tilting the news to protect one’s reputation. I’d like to add a comment about the report’s key finding.

If a media outlet cares about its reputation for accuracy, it will be reluctant to report anything that counters the audiences’ existing beliefs because such stories will tend to erode the company’s standing.
In the words of the immortal Head Lemur, “Gee, ya think?”
Newspapers and news programs have a visible incentive to “distort information to make it conform with consumers’ prior beliefs.”
Regular readers here will recognize two themes in this no-brainer “finding.” One, the first duty of any institutionalized entity is self-preservation. This is why there is no “public trust” of the media anymore. Two, the press is morally bankrupt anyway, because the notion of “objectivity” is an illusion perpetrated on the masses by its creator, Walter Lippmann.

This is why transparency is fast becoming the new foundation for journalism in the U.S. We don’t care if you have a bias of any sort — just be honest about it and how it impacts your reporting. And begin with yourselves.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Missing the point

Posted Monday, April 3rd, 2006

The noise from the status quo is getting louder as the encroaching disruption of Media 2.0 (Reynolds’ “Triumph of personal technology over mass technology”) continues to whack away at its fatted calf.

In what is essentially a pretty fair story on the matter as it relates to newspapers, Robert Manor of the Chicago Tribune includes these remarkable quotes:

Some newspaper executives see the movement of news content to the Internet as a threat.

“I think there is tremendous concern, especially if we are not being compensated,” said Mike Fancher, executive editor of The Seattle Times.

“Search engines essentially want to use our content to gather a larger audience,” Fancher said. “They are destroying our business model.”

Owen Youngman, vice president of development for the Chicago Tribune, said Google users come to think of Google as the news source and overlook the newspaper that published the story.

“Our brands are taking a back seat to the aggregators,” Youngman said. “Those of us who edit and write need to maintain the value of what we produce.”

Why guys like Youngman don’t see that they could get into the aggregator business too is beyond me. The story goes on to note the obvious — that the newspaper websites that serve up the stories found in aggregators do get compensation from advertising when users click through, but here’s the key paragraph:
All news Web sites can charge for advertising, but, unlike traditional newspapers, few Web sites can get away with charging the reader.
Newspapers, you see, have always been able to have it both ways — charge to read AND muck up the reading with advertising, all in the name of paying for the journalism. The personal media revolution, however, screws up that argument by lowering the barriers to entry to practically nothing, and the industry is crying “foul.”

Meanwhile, the record industry — those bastions of fair play — are pushing to set aside the 99-cent model for song downloads in favor of variable pricing based, at least in part, on the newness of the tune. They’re even suggesting that Apple give them a cut of iPod sales, something Steve Jobs calls plain old greed.

Over at CBSeye, the editor offers a piece by Samuel Freedman of the Columbia Journalism School in which he announces that he finds the citizen media movement “troubling.”

Citizen journalism does not merely challenge the notion of professionalism in journalism but completely circumvents it. It is journalism according to the ethos of indie rock ‘n’ roll: Do It Yourself.

For precisely such reasons, I despair over the movement’s current cachet. However wrapped in idealism, citizen journalism forms part of a larger attempt to degrade, even to disenfranchise journalism as practiced by trained professionals.

You can actually feel the disdain and animosity dripping off the nose from which he’s looking downward.
To treat an amateur as equally credible as a professional, to congratulate the wannabe with the title “journalist,” is only to further erode the line between raw material and finished product. For those people who believe that editorial gate-keeping is a form of censorship, if not mind control, then I suppose the absence of any mediating intelligence is considered a good thing.
This argument, it seems, will never end, and as long as there are “experts,” I guess that’s to be expected.

These are all examples of Media 1.0 missing the point that Media 2.0 is really all about opportunity. The problem is that if you’re too busy defending your old model, you’ll never see what’s coming as the land of opportunity; you’ll only be able to see things that are getting in your way — keeping you from (usually) the profitability you used to know.

Steve Hall of Adrants moved away from his usual salacious and witty self over the weekend to deliver what I think is a very important essay on preparations to load mySpace with advertising. Do yourself a favor and go read it, if you haven’t already. Steve’s a bright guy who really understands what’s taking place, and he nails it here:

Because News Corp. is salivating over the potential millions in ad revenue advertisers eager to reach 60 odd million MySpace members may dump in its lap, the company is cleaning up MySpace, removing racy profiles and “offensive” images. It may all be for not as teens and twenty something will likely say “screw it” to News Corp’s attempts at cleanliness and move to other social media spaces or create ones none of us has heard of yet. MySpace became a guerrilla overnight. It could fail overnight too. These days, it’s too easy for people to gravitate to a place where they feel comfortable rather than put up with corporate censorship simply to please advertisers. It’s the advertisers who will have to adjust rather than the corporations.
Similarly, youTube is beginning to feel the possibilities of cashing out in a sale that would likely produce a similar problem for the new owners. YouTube is wild, dirty and free, but a competitor, Revver, is controlled, clean and legal. Will Revver or a “legal” youTube do the same kind of traffic that the current youTube does?

In every case cited here, we see the command and control grip of top-down business models rising to claim its place as the logical formula for making money in the burgeoning Media 2.0 marketplace. Where we can’t complain it to death, we’ll smother it with rules and regulations, but that will only further the resolve of the disruption and keep us swatting at specks instead of embracing the whole and creating new business models. If we don’t do the latter, we’re simply encouraging those who aren’t bound by our blindness to reinvent things that’ll leave us out in the cold completely.

Steve Hall says it’s the advertisers who will have to adjust rather than the corporations, but I think both need adjustment.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Of Christians and broadcasting

Posted Monday, April 3rd, 2006

I don’t usually venture into this discussion, but a couple of recent stories are stuck in my craw, and my roots as a former Christian broadcaster won’t let me keep silent. The first is the story of the Detroit TV anchor who filed a civil rights complaint against his employer for the right to use his gifts and skills to evangelize as he sees fit. This includes a radio program. Billing himself as “America’s First Evangelical Anchorman,” WXYZ-TV anchor Frank Turner was denied permission to do the radio show, so he’s complaining to the EEOC. On his Website (yup), Turner explains that he hasn’t “discerned” from God that he should quit his (six figure) day job to go into the ministry full time.

The second is the matter of Trinity Broadcasting’s new tax exempt status here in Tennessee. This goes back 10 years to when Paul and Jan Crouch (she of the blue hair) bought Conway Twitty’s old place and converted it to a broadcast facility. Crouch wanted a highway sign, but the state refused to give one of those blue signs to what the state felt was actually a church. Crouch was furious and set legal wheels in motion to then claim the tax exemption granted churches. They obtained a favorable ruling a month ago, and Crouch is rejoicing in his victory. This facility is in a small community and county, both of which are now required to pay the ministry tax refunds totaling $400 thousand. That’s $400k during a 10-year period during which TBN raised $120 million a year from viewers. Big money by the county’s standards, not so much by TBN’s standards, but money and the tax exempt status were never the issue. Crouch didn’t get his bloody sign.

In both of these cases, we have Christian broadcasters using the government to get their way, and it, well, it just bothers me. Turner has options, but he knows that it is his position — not his person — that gives him reach potential with an evangelical audience, and that reach will always be greater (especially in Detroit) if he’s still on the air. A “former” anchor who got saved is a whole lot different than an existing one. And yet, he wants to have this cake and eat it too by taking the position that his evangelical status puts him above the rules of his contract. And one has to ask if God really needs Caesar to help Him have His way.

The same thing applies to Paul Crouch. This tax exempt matter is revenge cloaked in fair play, and the fact that he fought in the legal system for ten years to obtain it begs the same question about God’s need for our justice system to assist broadcast ministers in their evangelical efforts.

One hopes that God has a sense of humor, for this is the kind of stuff that gives His people a bad name in their quest to do His will.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »