I sometimes feel like the newspaper business is dying a slow and painful death that I keep reading about-on line.
According to recent research data from Bloomberg, during Q2 2009, display ad revenue is down 30%, recruitment 66% and classified advertising is off 40%. No other media has suffered such a downward spiral and in my humble opinion, I just do not see it rebounding.
The world is becoming much more digital on a daily basis and try as they might, newspapers cannot compete with the speed at which other media delivers both news and entertainment. If I can log in or tune into any cable news net at any time of the day or night to find out what's going on in Washington or what celeb went out without any pants on, why would I wait for the newspaper to show up on my doorstep. Many would make the argument that newspapers deliver local, community news-true. But so do local cable systems, radio stations and digital platforms.
This will truly be a case of survival of the fittest. The print publications that innovate and quicken their transition to digital will excel. The ones that don't will be acquired.
It will be a one screen world in the next five to ten years-newspapers will be part of that world. Or they won't.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
August 27, 2009
I will admit that I will tune into unscripted TV fair on a semi-regular basis-'American Idol', 'Real Housewives ' franchise, 'Deadliest Catch', 'Ghost Adventures', 'Ghost Hunters' and 'Top Chef'.
We all know the economics of why in the last several years there has been a huge increase in the amount of reality TV: It is a lot less expensive to produce than a scripted series. Broadly speaking, if the cost to produce a non-scripted cable series is $150,000 per episode x 13 in a series=$1.95million. Spot time against the show is sold on a national and local availability and in a 60 minute show, there may be up to 5 commercial pod breaks with room for 2-3 minutes worth of messaging. Lets have a little fun with the math-If a national spot in 'Real Housewives of Atlanta' sells for a conservative $10,000 (and I think I am underestimating) x 8 national avails=$80,000 in revenue from national advertisers in hour x 13 episodes=$1.04 million. And that doesn't include the local airtime or the product placement or barter to offset the cost of production expenses. And keep in mind, a non-scripted show on cable can be run over and over again, gathering more ratings and revenue.
The fact is we enjoy watching others struggle, work hard, overcome challenges, argue and make up because we think to ourselves that could be me or I wish I had the balls to do that or I give them credit because I could never get on a boat or on a stage and do that. Kudos to you.
What I cannot tolerate watching is programming that is vapid, demeaning and quite frankly a waste of air time and most recently found to be linked to violent crime. Shows like 'NYC Prep' 'I Love Money', 'Real World', 'Miami Social', 'My Antonio' ,'MY BFF' and the list goes on and on and on. And now we have the sad story of Ryan Jenkins, a contestant on "VH1's Meghan Wants a Millionaire', and his murdered girlfriend, as well as the Brazilian TV producer that hired professionals to murder and then sent a crew over to film it.
When is it enough. I'm a business owner and a capitalist and I'm all about making money but I think this really speaks volumes about our society and culture when this programming makes it on the schedule.
I remember pitching several shows to the Manager of Development at VH1 several years ago. While we were discussing shows,ratings and revenue, her comment to us was:(and I'm paraphrasing) ' we're going to ride the reality train until it comes to a stop' Maybe it has. Or should.
We all know the economics of why in the last several years there has been a huge increase in the amount of reality TV: It is a lot less expensive to produce than a scripted series. Broadly speaking, if the cost to produce a non-scripted cable series is $150,000 per episode x 13 in a series=$1.95million. Spot time against the show is sold on a national and local availability and in a 60 minute show, there may be up to 5 commercial pod breaks with room for 2-3 minutes worth of messaging. Lets have a little fun with the math-If a national spot in 'Real Housewives of Atlanta' sells for a conservative $10,000 (and I think I am underestimating) x 8 national avails=$80,000 in revenue from national advertisers in hour x 13 episodes=$1.04 million. And that doesn't include the local airtime or the product placement or barter to offset the cost of production expenses. And keep in mind, a non-scripted show on cable can be run over and over again, gathering more ratings and revenue.
The fact is we enjoy watching others struggle, work hard, overcome challenges, argue and make up because we think to ourselves that could be me or I wish I had the balls to do that or I give them credit because I could never get on a boat or on a stage and do that. Kudos to you.
What I cannot tolerate watching is programming that is vapid, demeaning and quite frankly a waste of air time and most recently found to be linked to violent crime. Shows like 'NYC Prep' 'I Love Money', 'Real World', 'Miami Social', 'My Antonio' ,'MY BFF' and the list goes on and on and on. And now we have the sad story of Ryan Jenkins, a contestant on "VH1's Meghan Wants a Millionaire', and his murdered girlfriend, as well as the Brazilian TV producer that hired professionals to murder and then sent a crew over to film it.
When is it enough. I'm a business owner and a capitalist and I'm all about making money but I think this really speaks volumes about our society and culture when this programming makes it on the schedule.
I remember pitching several shows to the Manager of Development at VH1 several years ago. While we were discussing shows,ratings and revenue, her comment to us was:(and I'm paraphrasing) ' we're going to ride the reality train until it comes to a stop' Maybe it has. Or should.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
August 19 2009
Isn't it great when advertising creates dialogue and discussion? Ads purchased by the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers, feature clouds against a blue sky and say, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”
The Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority removed the ads citing the word 'God' has never been allowed on buses in the past. Executives from the bus agency noted that they have had churches advertise in the past for worship and membership, but never for a belief. Eventually the ads were replaced when the transit authority realized that its rules and regulations were outdated.
So what we have here is a group or group of atheists that feel it is their right to promote their beliefs on a public transit system. Isn't this really preaching your ideas in a forum that I cannot turn off, throw away, tune out or otherwise not engage with?
However, if you are accepting ads and messages from churches, there is certainly an issue of fairness here. Perhaps the answer is to rewrite the rules and regs to note that any ads referencing 'God', 'religion', 'atheism', 'church' or 'faith' will no longer be acceptable ad copy. And that rule will apply to Christians and Atheists, Buddhists and Taoists, Jews and Mormons. The list goes on and on.
Then we can have a unique form of advertising called: propaganda
What makes all of this so interesting and controversial IS the differing viewpoints and beliefs.
Personally, I find the bus ads offensive. But that's just my opinion and I am certainly allowed to express that-as is anyone else. At the core here is the question of whether or not one group has the right to change a business model or practice based on their opinion or beliefs. This is a murky area and unless lines are drawn and companies stand firm, you will continue to see stories like this.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
August 18 2009
Newsday Rejects Ad Criticizing Cablevision-The Tennis Channel offered up the ad that leads with 'Thanks for nothing Cablevision'...you dropped the ball by preventing your customers from seeing round the clock coverage of the US Open. The ad goes on to encourage readers to switch to DISH, Fios or Direct TV. All of the NYC area newspapers (NY Times, NY Post, Daily News, Westchester Rockland Journal News and the Record of NJ) accepted and ran the ad.
By the way, the Newsday is owned by Cablevision.
It is perfectly acceptable in this business to deny ad placement based on objectionable content, or disregard for a certain group of people. However, in this instance, neither one of those issues was what stopped Newsday. What prevented the paper from running the ad was that it positioned it's parent company in a very negative way. Representatives from Newsday were quoted as saying: “The Tennis Channel ads are nasty, unfair and intentionally misleading, and we don’t think anyone should carry them.”
The Tennis Channel counters that arugment by saying,“We desperately wish we weren’t in this situation. This wasn’t of our choosing. But at some point you have to look a bully in the eye and say, ‘This isn’t right.’ ”
In my opinion, this cable net has the right to fight their fight in a public forum-both for their loyal viewers and for their business model. Cablevision is censoring information because it feels the ads are 'nasty'?? It would be like NBC not accepting any ads from an organization that criticizes GE. Seriously doubt that would happen.
Ken Solomon, CEO of The Tennis Channel made a comment that resonated with me: “We figured this was just business and simply a message to let viewers know where to find us,” he said. “The newspaper industry is not doing all that well, so it’s a surprise they turned down this amount of money.”
Its a surprise to me as well.
By the way, the Newsday is owned by Cablevision.
It is perfectly acceptable in this business to deny ad placement based on objectionable content, or disregard for a certain group of people. However, in this instance, neither one of those issues was what stopped Newsday. What prevented the paper from running the ad was that it positioned it's parent company in a very negative way. Representatives from Newsday were quoted as saying: “The Tennis Channel ads are nasty, unfair and intentionally misleading, and we don’t think anyone should carry them.”
The Tennis Channel counters that arugment by saying,“We desperately wish we weren’t in this situation. This wasn’t of our choosing. But at some point you have to look a bully in the eye and say, ‘This isn’t right.’ ”
In my opinion, this cable net has the right to fight their fight in a public forum-both for their loyal viewers and for their business model. Cablevision is censoring information because it feels the ads are 'nasty'?? It would be like NBC not accepting any ads from an organization that criticizes GE. Seriously doubt that would happen.
Ken Solomon, CEO of The Tennis Channel made a comment that resonated with me: “We figured this was just business and simply a message to let viewers know where to find us,” he said. “The newspaper industry is not doing all that well, so it’s a surprise they turned down this amount of money.”
Its a surprise to me as well.
Monday, August 17, 2009
August 17 2009
I have been waiting for this season premiere and wasn't disappointed. The first scene with Don reliving his early life, including his birth was disturbing and moving at the same time. Loved Betty's comment to Don after Sally broke his valise that she was 'taking to his tools like a little lesbian'
Must agree that of all the characters, I really enjoy watching Peggy evolve. Here is a woman that started out acting little a frightened little mouse and has now become a force to be reckoned with. If you could fast forward the agency 4o years, I think she and Joan would be running the place and taking no prisoners.
I have to admit, I didn't see the foreplay scene coming with Sal and the bellhop that came to fix the air conditioning. And the look that Don gives him when he sees him is priceless-amused, disturbed and understood all in that 30 second shot.
All is not what it seems on'Mad Men' -and that's what makes it so amazing.
http://www.amctv.com/originals/madmen/
And while your here, Mad Men Yourself -;) Here I am-circa 1963
Friday, August 14, 2009
August 15, 2009
As summer is coming to an end, the fall TV 2009 will soon be upon us. I can remember getting new school clothes, leaves falling and all the new shows on TV happened all around the same time. In celebration of autumn (I'm not wishing the summer away!), here are the must watch shows and the not so much shows. Add to the list, make comments and suggestions - I may turn this into a radio show & web cast.
Must watch
'Caprica' -SyFy
'Flashforward' -ABC
'Fringe' -FOX
'The Good Wife' -CBS
'Human Target' -FOX
'Lie To Me' -FOX
'Spartacus: Blood and Sand'-Starz
'Mad Men'-AMC
'Vampire Diaries'-CW
'Community'-NBC
Not so much
'Witches of Eastwick'-ABC
'Cougar Town'-ABC
'So You Think You Can Dance'-FOX
'Accidentally on Purpose'-CBS
'The Beautiful Life'-CW
'Brothers'-FOX
'Hank'-ABC
Check out the pilots here:
http://www.thrfeed.com/player.html
Must watch
'Caprica' -SyFy
'Flashforward' -ABC
'Fringe' -FOX
'The Good Wife' -CBS
'Human Target' -FOX
'Lie To Me' -FOX
'Spartacus: Blood and Sand'-Starz
'Mad Men'-AMC
'Vampire Diaries'-CW
'Community'-NBC
Not so much
'Witches of Eastwick'-ABC
'Cougar Town'-ABC
'So You Think You Can Dance'-FOX
'Accidentally on Purpose'-CBS
'The Beautiful Life'-CW
'Brothers'-FOX
'Hank'-ABC
Check out the pilots here:
http://www.thrfeed.com/player.html
Sunday, August 9, 2009
August 9 2009
Newscorp CEO Murdoch is wasting any time. According to The Guardian, The Times will be relaunched as a stand-alone website and access to certain sections will require a fee begining in November. The Sunday Times is the largest weekend newspaper in the U.K with over 1 million weekly copies sold. Murdoch is betting that this move will prompt other papers to do the same-“Quality journalism is not cheap,” Murdoch said (via Australian paper The Age). “An industry that gives away it's content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting."
Interesting viewpoint. Has sort of a 'better than you' attitutude, doesn't it. It seems that Murdoch is truly believing that readers will enjoy what each property's reporters and writers have to say, that they will open their wallets to prove it. What's worse is that if other publications see that it can be done, they will follow suit and began to charge as well.
What you will begin to see is a wave of consumer protest, cancellation of any print subscriptions and an influx of Ihate(insert publication, website, TV here).com blogs and websites.
The bottom line is its all about value. Users will pay for something they feel adds something to their life that they can't get somewhere else.
Interesting viewpoint. Has sort of a 'better than you' attitutude, doesn't it. It seems that Murdoch is truly believing that readers will enjoy what each property's reporters and writers have to say, that they will open their wallets to prove it. What's worse is that if other publications see that it can be done, they will follow suit and began to charge as well.
What you will begin to see is a wave of consumer protest, cancellation of any print subscriptions and an influx of Ihate(insert publication, website, TV here).com blogs and websites.
The bottom line is its all about value. Users will pay for something they feel adds something to their life that they can't get somewhere else.
Friday, August 7, 2009
August 7 2009
News Corp President Rupert Murdoch announces to analysts and reporters that the company will start charging for all news websites in the struggling newspaper division as well as strong revenue generator FOX News Channel. Q4 showed a loss of $203 million dollars.
So now that the business model doesn't work and the company is experiencing one of the worst years ever, its time to charge consumers for reading newspaper content on line. Guess what-that concept is going to backfire. The argument here is that quality journalism is expensive. Yet, I'm still trying to get my head around paying for content on-line when there are literally thousands of other sources to turn to- other news outlets, bloggers, and Twitter feeds. The argument I often make with local media properties when pitched 'news' is by the time I see it or read it, its already 'old news'.
I think the only way to make paying for news content work, is for it to have tremendous value to the user. Offer up something they cannot get elsewhere. Deliver an integrated approach that includes a customized home page, rss reader, free print delivery, Iphone app and incentives and discounts for using multiple services. Its a business and I am all for making money-but it's a bad move for media properties to just start charging for content that was delivered up free. Its a recipe for disaster.
So now that the business model doesn't work and the company is experiencing one of the worst years ever, its time to charge consumers for reading newspaper content on line. Guess what-that concept is going to backfire. The argument here is that quality journalism is expensive. Yet, I'm still trying to get my head around paying for content on-line when there are literally thousands of other sources to turn to- other news outlets, bloggers, and Twitter feeds. The argument I often make with local media properties when pitched 'news' is by the time I see it or read it, its already 'old news'.
I think the only way to make paying for news content work, is for it to have tremendous value to the user. Offer up something they cannot get elsewhere. Deliver an integrated approach that includes a customized home page, rss reader, free print delivery, Iphone app and incentives and discounts for using multiple services. Its a business and I am all for making money-but it's a bad move for media properties to just start charging for content that was delivered up free. Its a recipe for disaster.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
August 4 2009
Last Friday on the Media Man radio show, we discussed breaking down the 'walled gardens' of media outlets. In fact, one of my guests, Heather Way says she no longer even uses the term traditional media as it really has become more and more digital with each passing day.
A recent article in TV Week from CBS Chief Research Office Dave Poltrack has a vision of media where the DVR is really a passing fad. What? No more recording of shows or restart what you've missed? Potrack sees a world where most of the viewing won't be seen on the square box in your living room, you'll be doing it via the internet and not neccessarily on your computer. Highspeed internet providers will stream the content to your big screen TV.
However, its all about revenue, so lets follow the money trail: the highspeed ISP would pay a fee to the broadcast property for any users that want to access the content, users would then view for free or pay a moderate subscription cost (similar to Itunes) to view commercial free. Great for broadcast properties as they will know have a dual revenue stream-ad dollars and funding from the internet providers.
Keep in mind, since both the ISP and the broadcaster have details on the household, this makes for a perfect addressable ad opportunity, only serving advertising messages that are appropriate for that household in that market. What a concept. No more ads for retailers or restaurants that don't exist near you. No more ads for luxury cars or Florida retirement homes. What if you take this one step further and use the technology that is currently available to find out about Miami while you're watching 'Burn Notice' or purchase diabetic equipment while viewing 'Nurse Jackie' or order up a case of Grey Goose Vodka during 'Mad Men.
The walled gardens are crumbling and media is headed this way-I am hopping on for the ride.
A recent article in TV Week from CBS Chief Research Office Dave Poltrack has a vision of media where the DVR is really a passing fad. What? No more recording of shows or restart what you've missed? Potrack sees a world where most of the viewing won't be seen on the square box in your living room, you'll be doing it via the internet and not neccessarily on your computer. Highspeed internet providers will stream the content to your big screen TV.
However, its all about revenue, so lets follow the money trail: the highspeed ISP would pay a fee to the broadcast property for any users that want to access the content, users would then view for free or pay a moderate subscription cost (similar to Itunes) to view commercial free. Great for broadcast properties as they will know have a dual revenue stream-ad dollars and funding from the internet providers.
Keep in mind, since both the ISP and the broadcaster have details on the household, this makes for a perfect addressable ad opportunity, only serving advertising messages that are appropriate for that household in that market. What a concept. No more ads for retailers or restaurants that don't exist near you. No more ads for luxury cars or Florida retirement homes. What if you take this one step further and use the technology that is currently available to find out about Miami while you're watching 'Burn Notice' or purchase diabetic equipment while viewing 'Nurse Jackie' or order up a case of Grey Goose Vodka during 'Mad Men.
The walled gardens are crumbling and media is headed this way-I am hopping on for the ride.
Monday, August 3, 2009
August 3 2009
Great meeting with the software development partner today. Funny thing is, the path we started on may not be the path we eventually take -;) After a coffee filled discussion today, we started to realize we had uncovered another possibility that is NOT being exploited now, can make money and may have a much lower barrier to entry. Stay tuned. BIG things are happening.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
August 1 2009
Discovered what I really love about being an entertainment host is the interaction with the guests and the chance to keep learning. Yesterday's show on mobile media was an eye opening experience. Having Heather Way from Parks Associates and Barry Bryant from Ad-Venture Media was amazing. Who knew that the technology is available NOW to walk past a vending machine, push an app on your mobile phone and get your beverage right out of the machine! And that all of the walled gardens between media are starting to crumble. Heather Way actually mentioned that she no longer uses the term 'traditional' media-love that. Barry Bryant shared his insight that advertising still has a 'bad name' and is there to be 'tolerated' but that with creativity and education it will become seamless and entertaining. And I think that is the key right there: entertain me, wow me-don't ever sell me -:)
http://www.ad-venturemedia.com/
http://parksassociates.com/
http://www.ad-venturemedia.com/
http://parksassociates.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
