Archive for May, 2006

The “debate” over 30-second ads online

Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

It’s understandable that the advertising industry — and certainly broadcasters — want desperately to hang onto the 30-second ad paradigm, so research from CNN as reported in today’s Online Media Daily should surprise no one. In a nutshell, CNN found that visitors to CNN.com “tend to let the 30-second ads play in their entirety.” But, as reporter Erik Sass noted:

(The) figures reflect only the percentage of viewers that permitted an ad to play without shutting it off–not necessarily the proportion of visitors that actually watched the ad. The study also did not address the optimum length and positioning of video ads in relation to other video content–currently hot topics of debate.
Long time readers of this blog will recall my encounter with MSN Video and MediaDailyNews over a report about optimum ad lengths for ads attached to video segments, such as news stories. The report said that MSN Video would attach a 7-12 second ad to individual segments. The next day, however, the report was changed to 15-30 seconds. I wanted to know why. The reporter told me that his source had called, which led me, after many days of investigating, to an interview with the two top guys at MSN Video. Optimum was indeed 7-12 seconds, but they were running 15s and 30s. Why, I asked? They told me it was because that was what advertisers would pay for.

The only thing worse than a square peg in a round hole is a square peg trying to get into a round hole.

This is a debated issue, but it’s only debated because the advertising industry is too bloody lazy to move to a 10-second paradigm. Not only is a 30-second ad a bad idea for streaming online, these things are killing broadcasting too, at least if you view the health of the industry from an audience’s perspective. The 30-second ad was a license to print money, and it produced a manageable method for growing profits. If you needed more money, you either raised the rates or shoved another ad in front of viewers. It’s not rocket science.

But that’s all in the past now, and viewers are in charge (and voting every day). Let me repeat something I’ve said before. If you put 30-second ads in front of an unbundled piece of internet content, you are asking users to go elsewhere. Why is this even debated?

You can do an awful lot with 10 seconds of undivided attention.

“I have seen the enemy, and he is us.”

Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

I’ve come to an interesting conclusion today about why media companies are so afraid of really interacting with their audiences, and it relates to this wonderful observation from Pogo.

Take a look at the comments to WKRN-TV General Manager Mike Sechrist’s post about making sweeping anchor changes at the station. As best I can tell, Mike is the only GM of a commercial broadcast station that maintains an active blog, so when the station made these changes, Mike felt compelled to post them. The reaction has been fascinating from an observational perspective and revealing about media in general.

Since Mike is the only GM with a blog, it gets a lot of attention from the world of local TV news. After the announcements Friday, FTV Live, a popular industry insider Webzine, posted a story about it. This spread the word, and soon Mike’s blog entry was being read everywhere.

Now, when you’ve been a third-place station for as long as WKRN has been, a lot of people come and go, and those who go leave with opinions about what they’d do if they were in charge. Many of those people didn’t leave on their own, and their opinions are even more harsh, and it’s clear when reading the comments to Mike’s blog entry that many of them come from disgruntled former employees. Add to that the fact that some of them still live in the community, and you can see why an announcement of anchor changes brings out the worst in them. Add to this the opportunity that competitors have to stick it to the GM, and you’ll understand why many of these comments must be taken with a grain of salt.

WKRN has built a solid reputation with local bloggers, and the blogosphere’s reaction has been much different. In fact, some of them are asking where all the vitriol is coming from. They don’t understand the business — and the people IN the business — which brings me back to my opening statement.

I believe media companies are afraid of interacting with their audiences, because they (mistakenly) believe that their audiences are made up of people just like them — resentful, mean spirited, backbiting, hostile egomaniacs with inferiority complexes who, if given the opportunity, will spout their opinions without regard or respect for anyone but themselves.

This is why I love the blogosphere so dearly, because the experience here is so different. Here, respect comes from a mutually-shared experience (blogging) and, I believe, a more realistic view of human nature. If you blog, you are respected until you give a reason to not be respected, and isn’t that a great way to get to know people? We used to call that “the benefit of the doubt,” but that’s apparently been lost in a media culture that looks first to find reasons to doubt before opening the door of acceptance.

We’ve truly entered the era of the “audience is your enemy,” and that’s pretty sad.

(NOTE: WKRN-TV is a client.)

Capturing moments

Monday, May 29th, 2006

It’s Memorial Day, and my neighborhood is basically empty. Everybody’s out doing something with family, and I think that’s great. People will take a lot of pictures this weekend, because that’s what we do. We try to capture the moment for all time by taking pictures of it.

This is on my mind, because I’ve spent the weekend working on Allie’s memory book. You know what I value most about the pictures I have? It’s not the photos of special occasions when everybody gets together, and it’s not the formal, posed pictures taken by a pro. It’s not the family gatherings or the shots of her on-the-job in the TV News business.

What brings my heart the most joy are simple, candid pictures of every day life. You know the kind: no make-up, no special “good” clothes, nothing artificial — just life in its natural form. These are the pictures that mean most to me right now, because I don’t want to remember her just for the holidays or the special events. I want to remember the rawness that was myAllie.

And so my message to you this holiday weekend is that you take all the pictures you want today, but don’t forget to take a few tomorrow and the next day, too. For one day, you might find yourself in my position and discover that the moments most worth capturing happen every second of every ordinary day.

It just got worse

Friday, May 26th, 2006

So Google Adsense now has an office in Englewood, Colorado, huh? They want to establish relationships with local advertisers and ad agencies in the Denver area.

WAKE UP!

(I’m hoarse from screaming that so often.)

Thanks for the tip from Stephen Warley at Lost Remote.

Holding back the (good) flood

Friday, May 26th, 2006

A “stopper-doer” is an old term signifying a person who stands in the way of forward progress. Often well-intentioned and protective of the establishment, these people can stop any movement they view as negative. It can be a good thing to have one of these fellows (or gals) around, but for local broadcasters and the internet, these people would be best kept in a locked room somewhere.

There are two types of stopper-doers who are preventing local media companies from truly moving forward with regards to creative web strategies.

The first is local advertisers and especially advertising agencies. If you think local media companies are ignorant regarding innovation, then local advertisers are ignorance gone to seed. When approached with anything out-of-the-box, most will ask, “Well, what’s the audience size? Show me the numbers, man.” Blank stares are all that greets concepts like engagement, influence, loyalty or any other new media metric. Mass marketing may be dying, but that word hasn’t filtered down to the local level yet.

And nobody in local advertising is capable, it seems, of looking downstream to the world of possibility.

I find this enormously frustrating when trying to work with local stations, because the big technology players easily attract national advertisers who are more hip to imaginative new concepts and thus fund them. These are the same players who are moving in to seize local niches on many levels, and they “speak” directly to people who wish to advertise — not the keepers of most local ad dollars, the ad agencies. This means these outsiders are free to explore and establish in what is essentially a land grab at the local level. And even if a local company can match the application tit-for-tat, they’re at a disadvantage, because these local stopper-doers are too busy saying, “Duh.”

The challenge to media companies, then, is to find a way to speak to agency people and advertisers in terms that they’ll understand, and that’s not easy when you’ve built your life around reach and frequency.

The second set of stopper-doers are the lawyers who represent the companies that own the local stations. Now don’t get me wrong; it’s not so much the lawyers themselves as it is the GMs and corporate managers who don’t or won’t challenge the opinions (that’s what they are) of people paid to create the safest possible scenario for their clients. I find little willingness to legally explore citizens media opportunities or take any legal position other than that which is the most conservative possible. It’s often, “Oh, our lawyers would never permit that.” Permit?

This stems, I think, from an entirely economic, bean counter perspective, and it produces behavior that any shrink would view as dysfunctional. “Let’s only make right turns as we drive downtown today, because statistics show that you’re more likely to be in an accident while making a left turn. Can’t take that chance, you know.”

That’s easy for you to say, Terry. It’s not your company (or money) that you’re trying to protect.

Yeah, but you pay lawyers to give you their opinion and then follow those opinions as if the attorney owned the company. Of course the lawyer’s opinion is going to be conservative. That’s his or her job! But when your ship is heading for the iceberg at full speed, do you veer to the right or left or stay the course, because the bottom line says you must?

Do you see the insanity of this?

Where are the people with the balls to say, “Find a way to defend this,” instead of, “Well, I guess we just can’t take that chance?” Does the name Rupert Murdoch ring a bell?

And why not use the legal process to restructure your company to create protections by putting new media efforts in a separate corporation? There ARE ways to do creative things without exposing yourself to what you view as untenable risk, and to discard those along with creative concepts for new media because you “might” have problems is corporate malfeasance, in my opinion.

This is not the season to listen to the stopper-doers.

Broadcast revenue is up or down (or up AND down)

Thursday, May 25th, 2006

During a give-and-take email exchange with Business Week’s Heather Green over the past week, the subject of broadcasting revenue growth came up, and I told her it was down. She wrote back that it was actually up and asked me to explain. Well, it’s up or down depending on how you look at it, and an excellent report yesterday from BIA Financial Network, a Virginia-based financial advisory company, tells the story better than anything I’ve seen recently.

The story is that revenues are up 7.2% this year COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. The problem, of course, is that this is a no-brainer. Last year was an odd-numbered year (no Olympics and no political ads), and when compared to 2004, the decline is $300 million or approximately 1%, according to a story on the report in today’s MediaDailyNews. Here’s a wonderful graphic that shows the real picture:


© BIAfn, used here with permission
Mark R. Fratrik, Ph.D., Vice President, BIA Financial Network, notes in the press release that local television revenues are becoming predictably cyclical, with even years being up and odd years being down. He adds that one of the culprits is automotive advertising, which is painfully moving to what he calls “more contemporary mediums.” (Hmm. What does that say about broadcasting?)

The point, I guess, is that this is a time of great spin for the industry, and that if you want a realistic picture of what’s taking place, you have to look beyond the headlines. Dr. Fratrik points out that web revenues are a very small piece of the local ad revenue pie, but he expects that to grow significantly during the next five years.

“Local television stations are in precarious positions and must think creatively to drum up new revenue streams,” Dr. Fratrik said. “We believe there will always be a strong desire from the public to have access to local community and regional news. It is just a matter of the stations themselves identifying a mode in which consumers will be receptive to receiving it, and a method that can be profitable.”
And the key question for broadcasters is finding that “method” in a confusing and extremely liquid environment. Stay tuned, folks. These are interesting times indeed.

Turning one of life’s pages

Thursday, May 25th, 2006

It was one month ago today that I awoke at 3:30am to find my precious Allie dead on the bathroom floor. The last month has been the most painful of my life, but I’m doing better — thanks in no small measure to you and the hundreds of emails I’ve received from friends, former co-workers, family, and people I don’t even really know.

One friend called to say that he was so inspired by things I wrote about the importance of every moment that he swallowed hurt pride and reconnected with his daughter. She had apparently been quite rebellious, and he was pissed. They weren’t talking to each other, but now they are.

I’ve been drawn closer to my own children through this.

I’ve made new friends and discovered tribe members I likely wouldn’t have met otherwise.

These are silver linings in the dark cloud of her passing. I’m sure there are many others.

I miss my sweetie, but the agony has faded, and I’m busy preparing to move forward. I still have bad days, but the important thing is I’m letting myself have them. I won’t pretend to be strong. That’s just so much bullshit in the wake of such a loss.

I’m creating a memory book, having a dumpster delivered next weekend, giving notice to move August 1st (don’t know where just yet — likely just a smaller place here), planning a garage sale, and keeping busy with writing and clients.

Turning the page on this is what I must do, and I know that’s what she would want me to do. I have so many sweet memories, and she will always occupy a special place in my heart.

Thank you for being you and for asking how I’m doing.

The On-Demand Trap

Wednesday, May 24th, 2006

Here is the latest in my ongoing series of essays, TV News in a Postmodern World. I consider this to be among the most important I’ve written, because it raises issues relative to the current on-demand frenzy that many broadcasters see as a way out of the untenable position of shrinking audiences. Since I essentially coined the phrase “unbundled media,” I’m clearly not “against” on-demand as a strategy. However, I think it’s extremely dangerous to bet the ranch on it alone. Moreover, I think the greater downstream opportunities are in aggregating other people’s content, and this essay offers arguments as to why.

The On-Demand Trap

It’s all in the headlines

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006

Let’s have a little fun with I Want Media headlines today to get a view away from the forest in today’s rapidly-changing world. For the uneducated, I Want Media is an excellent media observation Website and newsletter that I read every day. What’s different about today? I don’t know. It’s kind of like the stars are lining up for something big, I guess. Here are the headlines:

  • MySpace Seeks Link With Google or Microsoft
  • Google Gains in Search Market, MySpace Enters Race
  • Schools Address MySpace Phenom: Teen Blog Watch is On
  • Google to Reinvent TV Ads
  • Yahoo Shaking Up Its Media Division
  • TV Advertising’s DVR Challenge
  • Media Firms Snapping Up Tech Start-Ups
  • Tribune Buys ForSaleByOwner.com
  • AP Teams Up With Topix to Boost Newspaper Sites
  • Newspapers: Too Late to Face Online Threat?
  • Meredith to Yank Child Magazine Off Newsstands
  • Hearst’s Natmags in Online Expansion
  • Swedish Magazine Giant Nabs Stake in Saveur Parent
Okay, let’s review. Google, MySpace, Yahoo and Microsoft are linking, gaining, entering, reinventing, and shaking up. Tech start-ups are getting snapped up. Schools are addressing. TV advertising has a challenge. It’s too late for newspapers, who are buying and teaming up. Magazines are biting the dust and expanding online.

And this is just one day of stories. Do you see the trends here?

Old wine in new wineskins

Monday, May 22nd, 2006

I can’t let this one go without comment. An article in today’s Online Media Daily looks at how the Christian TV ministry The Inspiration Networks is creating a new business model online with a broadband channel. Read this paragraph and pay attention to how the guy sees the twin marketing gods of reach and frequency as the goal of this web project.

“This is the dawn of a new era serving of the most important market segments of the country,” Bill Airy, Inspiration’s COO stated earlier this month, noting that the potential audience for such programming represents about 40 percent of the U.S. population. “We will leverage all our programming and promotional assets through more than 30 million households that receive them and the more than 8 million people weekly” that watch Inspiration’s TV channels, he added.
The earliest adopters of mass marketing concepts have always been evangelical Christian ministries. The first book printed was the Bible. Evangelists of centuries gone by pitched a tent to gather a crowd. Early radio and early television had their evangelists, and two of the ten transponders of the first RCA Satcom satellite were owned by evangelicals. It makes sense, because one-to-many is their mission. It was also very neat.

The early Christian church, however, was messy. It was up close and personal. People often sold their worldly goods to take care of each other. It was very much a one-to-one thing.

This, I think, is why the big ministries haven’t really explored the community or social aspects of the web. If they thought the web was the next great evangelical tool, they’d have been all over it from the get-go. It’s not, so they haven’t.

I wish Mr. Airy well, but I’d also challenge those in positions to do something about it to take the red words of the New Testament and apply them to web in a way that isn’t so “arm’s length” and sterile. The web may not be the best pulpit ever created (that’s TV), but it certainly is the most efficient means of connecting with others. I don’t want to argue with anybody’s theology, but isn’t that what pure religion is all about?

The next BIG thing (well, maybe)

Monday, May 22nd, 2006

Mediapost’s George Simpson is at his best with a hilarious piece of cynical humor today (what else from George, eh?) about the fictitious rejects.com, a Website that “posts all the photos screened out as inappropriate by MySpace and other community sites.” If you’re looking for a good laugh for a Monday morning, check it out.

The “broadcaster” mindset is a tough nut to crack

Sunday, May 21st, 2006

A good time was had by all at the Public Broadcasting Showcase 2006 in Orlando. I was made to feel quite welcome and especially enjoyed presenting the realities of unbundled media to the folks responsible for marketing PBS stations.

At the general manager’s meeting, my fellow panelist Robert X. Cringely offered an idea that is very interesting. “Why not,” he proposed, “place your video streaming server with the local cable company or telephone company?” The idea is that these two businesses in any community have virtually unlimited bandwidth from their house to yours, and if you really are interested in providing quality video to internet users in YOUR market, why not do a deal with these providers? Bob is a technical guru, so I assume he’s thought through the technology and that this is at least technically possible (what’s in it for the cable company is a good question).

Of course, I did my “don’t paint yourself into a purely content provider corner” thing, and what was interesting was the response from the general managers. The vast majority of the questions went to Bob about this cable company/telephone company thing. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have been surprised, for it’s hard to move broadcasters to a model that’s outside, well, broadcasting. They like his idea so much, because streaming is easy to understanding from a one-to-many mindset. I should add that Bob suggested that running your streaming from the cable company would producer a higher “quality” user experience, and that that would mean more viewers.

Sorry, Bob, but I disagree with that one. It’s not the quality of the video; it’s what’s ON the video that determines more users online.

The reality for public broadcasters is the same for commercial broadcasters. Nothing you can do from a broadcasting perspective will stop the disruption of personal technology, and downstream profitability lies in embracing the disruption, not moving your business model to the web. That means leaving your comfort zone — an area that’s going to become much more like the Twilight Zone in the next few years.

Meanwhile, I’m beginning to hear more talk about February 18, 2009 and what that means for broadcasters, and none of it’s good. Cringely said that this whole High Definition digital thing was a waste of time and money. “Move on,” he advised the GMs. Amen to that.

Leavin’ on a jet plane

Thursday, May 18th, 2006

I’m off to Orlando tomorrow for the Showcase 2006 meetings with Public Broadcasting general managers and marketing people. I’m on two panels, including presenting my “unbundled media” dog-n-pony show. I’ll be back late Saturday.

Arbitron: On-demand explodes

Thursday, May 18th, 2006

Arbitron has released their latest Edison Media Research internet study, and as usual it’s filled with great stuff. I’ve been following this tracking study since 1999, and it continues to give some of the best data about the rise of new media. This report focuses on the on-demand world.

What I like most about this report is that Arbitron provides PowerPoint slides, and a picture is worth, well, a thousand words. Here are the highlights:






CBS’s Sunday night problem…

Wednesday, May 17th, 2006

…isn’t movies. It’s the bloody runovers from NFL games that destroy TiVo timings and make for an impossible evening of passive viewing. Good grief, do these people really think putting four series in there is going to take viewers from ABC and NBC? Not in a million years, folks.

Spin, thy name is Les Moonves.

Chalk one up for truth in advertising (sales)

Wednesday, May 17th, 2006

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) yanked the wizard’s curtain wide open Monday when it announced new guidelines for counting ad impressions in broadband streams. Here’s the key paragraph from an article in Online Media Daily:

“A valid broadband ad impression may only be counted when an ad counter (logging server) receives and responds to an HTTP request for a tracking asset from a client,” the new guideline states. That means measurement should not occur when the buffer is initiated; rather, “measurement should occur when the ad itself begins to appear on the user’s browser, closest to the opportunity to see.”
This will hasten the move to Flash players for news clip streaming, because buffering time is a major turn-off for users. With this guideline, advertisers will be expecting counts on only those ads that played. Darn it! A guy just can’t BUY any blue smoke and mirrors with this internet thing. The yellow brick road of broadcast sales is fading in the distance, and there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

(Via Lost Remote)

The internet is the new “public”

Tuesday, May 16th, 2006

At the Beyond Broadcast conference at Harvard this weekend, my panel’s moderator, Chris Lydon, asked if the internet is the “new public,” and I said yes, absolutely. I assumed he was referring to the word “public” as in the conference theme about “public media,” but apparently this is a loaded concept. It conjures the pejorative “digital divide,” which is referenced by many observers as evidence that the internet is a white, mostly male, gathering place that is shutting the underprivileged, disenfranchised, socioeconomic have-nots out of the conversation that is cyber life.

This is a very touchy, multi-faceted subject that includes disparities between countries as well as subsets of our own culture. New York State Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer told the 2006 Personal Democracy Forum in New York City yesterday that his and other states are falling behind the rest of the world in terms of broadband internet access.

But this isn’t the “divide” to which conference attendees were referring. Andy Carvin is a “digital divide activist” who attended the conference and describes the problem this way:

We digital divide activists have been fighting what’s generally a losing battle as far as policymaking is concerned. Very little attention is ever paid to the digital divide as far as the media is concerned, so there’s little pressure for policymakers to deal with it. As public broadcasters embrace Web 2.0, it makes sense for them to engage the public and policymakers in a frank conversation about the digital divide, media literacy and what it means to be a 21st century citizen. Public broadcasting, at a fundamental level, exists to serve the public interest. Isn’t bridging the digital divide in the public interest?
This is a highly complicated and sensitive minefield that requires thoughtful contemplation, not emotional responses or finger pointing.

There is a remarkable revolution underway that doesn’t get enough respect in this discussion. And it IS a revolution, one that digital divide activists justifiably want everybody to be a part of. That’s all well and good, but interfering with this bottom-up movement is far more dangerous than simply leaving it alone, for the law of unintended consequences awaits those who — regardless of their motives — don’t carefully think through everything. Pleading the cause of the poor and the afflicted is a Godly calling. I believe that, and I’m not trying to discourage those with such intentions. I just want us to look before we lean on old energy and old ways of thinking to get to a righteous end.

Regular readers here will know that I certainly support the notion of a socioeconomic neutral web (I think that’s what it already is), but I think we need to be careful in efforts to “manage” something into the web that doesn’t exist. For if you assume that the web — by nature of its users — is tilted in any way, then you’re setting yourself up for bad strategy in the long run. Moreover, you’re playing right into the hands of the status quo, people who would like nothing more than to “help” the tilting of the web. The Telcos, for example, could easily satisfy the wants of the digital divide activists, but at what price?

We must begin with the assumption that bytes don’t care from whence they come, nor does the structure or nature of the web assume anything other than a level playing field. It is upon that assumption that the Personal Media Revolution is built, and for us to try and turn that into something else — no matter how pure our motives — flies in the face of our belief and support of net neutrality. You cannot be “for” neutrality when it comes to business and “against” neutrality when it comes to society. It’s either neutral or it’s not.

But, Terry, we’re with you on the revolution. We really are. But what’s wrong with working to spread the revolution to underrepresented groups?

Nothing, I suppose, but let’s also consider that the caste system we have in our culture today is there largely due to the failures of our institutions, all of which are self-serving to the max. That we have divided everybody into groups (the vaunted “tapestry” that is replacing the melting pot) is a fundamental necessity of mass market theory and mass marketing practices such as “demographics” and “geo-demographics,” mathematical formulas for segmenting the whole. Everything is a mass or a subset of the mass, and this has gotten us nowhere, because the tapestry is a myth, a necessary illusion to sustain the status quo.

This includes the remnants of social movements. If you’ve ever really looked at movement dynamics, you’ll know that when the energy (discontent) that drives the movement wanes (as it must), the founders will move to institutionalize the concepts and causes that formed the movement in the first place. This produces sad and self-serving reminders but little more. It is the scent of victory that de-energizes social movements, not victory itself. Even the most righteous of causes has to admit that this is true.

But we fight on, because the sense of injustice in some of us is a powerful motivator. And that brings us back to the “digital divide.” I beg you to try and view this with new glasses and not turn to the institutions created by a modernist culture to correct what you view as wrong. For it is against these institutions that technology is energizing an even bigger revolt. Why would we interfere with that?

The open source technology exists right now to provide every social group, church, civic organization or individual in any community in America to create and maintain a blog, and this is where I think “activists” miss the mark. In attempting to influence policy (and pressure public media into the effort), we’re following the top-down roads of the past, instead of turning to the new “top,” which is actually the old bottom. And where does this exist? At the local level. Activists would accomplish more by enabling those they deem as have-nots in one community than by all the lobbying, PR and media coverage that can be gained through conventional means.

A little noise at the bottom — the internet has proven — has a way of being ultimately louder than a lot of noise at the top. This is where we should be concentrating our efforts. Let us not despise the day of small beginnings.

I think media can, should and will play a role in all of this, and I actually believe that for-profit media is more motivated to “bridge the digital divide” than non-profits. Public media — for all its mission statements and altruistic participants — still must appeal to the good intentions of the elite to accomplish anything. Noblesse oblige, nobility obligates, described the role of the French aristocracy. And isn’t the cultural hierarchy precisely what the web challenges anyway?

The for-profit people, however, will always see dollars in adding people to the mix, so let’s encourage that to happen. Hell, let’s encourage everybody to get involved, but let’s not — in our quest to help — interfere with the process that’s already in place (and working, as far as I’m concerned). This is an area where unintended consequences must be considered before we leap too quickly.

BONUS LINK: The intelligent and always curious Jenny (”I’m wearing the red jacket”) Attiyeh of Thoughtcast interviewed several conference participants, including yours truly. My interview includes some comments about the above.

Affilates increasingly left out

Tuesday, May 16th, 2006

The television upfront season is underway, and the big unreported story continues to be the squeeze on the network affiliate model. While writers and observers are excited about what’s being offered, broadcast companies that used to be the delivery mechanism for network programming are finding their status completely untenable.

If you’re an NBC affiliate, for example, are you concerned that the network is launching a Website where new episodes will appear before they launch on the network airwaves? Are you concerned that NBC’s upfront gave as much time to its online efforts as broadcast?

Here’s Rafat Ali of PaidContent.org:

Digital was underscored as a priority on a par with developing the prime time slate during the NBC press conference with NBCU execs Jeff Zucker. Randy Falco and Kevin Reilly. “It will continue to be as important a focus for us going forward as linear development.” They want to close the loop between the platforms.
The more the networks talk about online, the less attention goes to the affiliates, and they are left to fend for themselves.

How long will the affiliate broadcast model continue? On February 18, 2009, the era of analog television will end in the U.S. as a government-mandated move to digital television begins. Most people don’t think this will impact those who already get their local TV via cable or satellite, but the truth is that channel positions will be changing, with local affiliates moving to three-digit channel tiers. That local station you grew up with — the one that spent all those millions of dollars branding their channel number — will be lost in the sea of fragmented digital TV. When added to the mix of what’s taking place today, I just don’t see how the model will survive that big a change.

Digital PR guru Steve Rubel says television’s future will be mostly ad-free:

As the technology gets more sophisticated and the generation that grew up with the Internet , iPods and always on connections become adults, I see a day coming when a lot of TV content will a) be paid for and b) consumed ad-free.

Now, some content will always remain free and ad-supported. However, in the future - as technology progresses - you will have to pay for the best programming, even if it’s carried by ABC, NBC, Fox or CBS. These shows will be sold a-la-carte, as subscriptions or in packages and they will all be delivered over the Internet protocol. Once purchased you will be able to watch these shows on any number of portable devices/phones, a computer or on your Internet-connected HDTV.

He goes on to ask the inevitable question, “Where will all that ad money go?” Nobody really knows.

Meanwhile, an online survey by Bolt Media found that four out of five 16-18 year olds couldn’t name the big four networks. This should increase sleepless nights for broadcasters, because it portends the world Steve is referencing above. As the last group of conventional television viewers passes through the python of broadcasting, the industry looks for sustenance from people who’ve entered a completely different snake. As we say in the south, it ain’t gonna happen.

The only hope that local affiliates have is to migrate to the web with new business models while the web is still essentially a land grab. Those who get the niches first will be successful. Those who do not will cease to exist.

Where will all that ad money go? Good question, and one that will impact our entire economy.

A lesson in love

Saturday, May 13th, 2006

Airports are places where I can get lost in a crowd. Such self-imposed isolation produces an introspective mind, and so I write. Yes, this will be about Allie and my grieving.

I share this not because I have some maudlin need to vomit my emotions all over you, but because I believe life and death are shared experiences. If the wisdom of the crowd means anything, it’s our ability to learn from each other, rather than entirely through history, tradition and what the elites tell us to learn. This is basic postmodernism, and the PoMo’s mantra — I experience, therefore I understand — includes the experiences of those close to us, be they our friends, family or tribe.

And so I share, in the fervent hope that somebody, somewhere needs to know what I know, and that this knowledge will become a part of the web’s long tail, to be shared by others across the landscape of time.

Let me begin this journey with an axiom I have come to believe: Love is a one-way street, flowing from the source of life itself through us to others. God is love and God is life, so love and life are the same. The heart may beat, but what provides the juice? That is life. That is love. That is God.

Nothing about love’s real deal is self-directed, although we certainly gain much. I liken this to a garden hose. We are the hose, the spigot is the source of life/love, and the nozzle is our method of spreading this to others. When all are functioning, all is well. We know contentment and serenity, not because we “seek and find” it, but because we’re giving it away to others and receiving a fresh load from the source of everything.

If we close the nozzle, that which is in us stagnates. We may run to the spigot all we wish in search of a fresh flow, but it can give us nothing until we give away that which we have. All of nature works this way. Only humankind has the authority to close the nozzle.

My love for my precious Allie is well documented here. I gave everything I had to us and our relationship, as did she, but the source of our contentment and the quality of our connection came not from what we received from each other but what we received from the source of all. That is the secret to happiness, not the extent to which we can manage our surroundings (and the people around us).

When she died, I was devastated. My whole world was yanked from underneath me, and I could find no peace. This is the way of grieving, as documented so well by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in the last century. Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and ultimately Acceptance. How could you be gone? Why did you leave me? If I could only die too. Darkness and loneliness. These are the very real feelings that accompany a sadness so profound that words can’t do it justice.

All of these are self-centered efforts to protect that which is inside us, closing the nozzle, if you will. We circle the wagons, because we can’t stand the pain. We’re also terribly afraid and vulnerable at such times, and self-preservation takes center stage.

Allie’s sudden passing devastated her whole family in Lawrenceburg and many former co-workers, and I spent time hugging and holding them as well as receiving hugs and kindness. That’s the way we do things as a culture. We assemble together, because we find healing together.

But eventually comes the night, the empty bed, and the lonesome valley that we must walk by ourselves. This is where the real agony exists. No one to kiss me goodnight. That special warmth replaced by cold sheets. And then there are the thoughts and the whys and how comes, wild horses running through my mind that demand to be ridden, examined and experienced. I pray for morning, and sleep eventually comes.

A few days ago, I heard a song by Big Blue Hearts called “Lovin You.” The chorus spoke to my heart, “Lovin you is the right thing to do.” There it was! My answer.

One of the things that happened to me in the grieving process is that, in trying to protect myself from pain, I cut off all the joy that came with the outbound flow of love towards my Allie. After all, she was gone. How could I continue to love her? And isn’t shutting the door on that what it means by acceptance?

No. No. A thousand times no.

I love Alicia Faith, and I always will, and the extent to which I can acknowledge that and let it happen determines the quality and depth of my peace and serenity, because that’s the natural way of things. She may be gone — and I may be mad at her for going — but only I can block the love I have in my heart for her. Moreover, from a very real and practical perspective, loving myself is a big part of that. She helped teach me to love myself, and that, too, is a part of my healing.

And permitting myself to love Allie even though she’s gone is the secret to my wellness at this time. I also think it’s the key to my future — and especially any future relationships I might develop. Just because she’s gone doesn’t mean I have to “be” any different than I was when she was here. Discontent is directly proportional to the degree to which I fight the need to love her.

One older friend of mine who’d lost his wife of 55 years two years ago told me that I’m in store for many lonely months, but that eventually the pain will fade. This, I assume, is conventional thinking, and I certainly understand what he’s trying to tell me. But the truth is that nobody knows the pain I feel, nor could they possibly understand the joy I feel in my love for my Allie.

I’m neither naive nor a fool, and I know there are still rough days, weeks and months ahead. But I also know where to turn when I’m feeling down. I know that shutting out the pain also means shutting out the joy, and Allie wouldn’t want me to do that. She was my breath, and she remains the essence of all that’s worthwhile in me. Memories may fade with time, but I will always love her.

As I told people at the funeral, when the final sun sets and they write the book of love, Jesus will be chapter one. But chapter two won’t be Romeo and Juliet, Sleepless in Seattle or Doctor Zhivago. It’ll be Allie and Terry, two lost and tormented souls who found each other late in life and never took a moment of their short time together for granted. She believed in me, and that gives my life purpose and reason to go on. I believed in her, too, and she knew that.

Here’s something very private that she wrote to me on January 2, 2005. This was my Allie:

Thank you Lord for your Terry, then and now, my husband, a beautiful wedding ceremony, he let me be princess for weekend and now a lifetime ahead. We get one day at a time and I’ve never been happier or more surprised and real curious about having a partner who’s not about to get out and shoot a standup. His Carmex kisses, Bible reading, coffee making, spooning me, feeding me, loving me back. It’s a first love, thank you God, the wait was worth it and now I’m going to make every hour of every precious day count and lay down at night with a heart of happiness, not what or who will I report in the morrow…
I hope you can understand the message here and are able to use it somewhere in your own life.

A helpful travel tip

Friday, May 12th, 2006

The single most annoying thing about being dependent on the internet and traveling is the variety of bad hotel and airport internet services. The most common problem is the inability to send email, something that many services simply block rather than deal with potential liability issues. What good is it, I ask you, to receive emails when you can’t respond (or are forced to use some webmail variation)?

This morning, I actually decided to do a Google search on the subject, and I discovered smtp.com. For $30 a year, you can run your outbound email activity through them using a different port on your laptop. It’s the best $30 I ever spent, and unless I encounter a service that blocks every darned port, I should be okay.

I just thought you’d like to know.

Copyright © 2008 Audience Research & Development LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By Synapse CMS