A little over 20 years ago I was called in to a meeting. Agency staffers were reviewing work for an upcoming new business presentation. I was asked my opinion and said, “Two of the executions seem way too upscale for the target demographic.” The writer, took offense, and asked me to define the target. Briefly, I outlined what market and media research indicated. “Some 70% of the people who would buy this product live in households making less than $50,000 per year”. The young writer laughed in my face and said, “no one could live on that.” Trying to maintain my composure I responded that most people do. He dragged me in to see his boss who told me that something was wrong with my figures. I responded that they were not my figures and ticked off top line income estimates from the U.S. Census, Department of Labor, Merrill Lynch, Mediamark Research, Inc. and Simmons. The upscale executions were kept in the presentation and we did not get the business. I talked briefly at the pitch but my income data were not part of the slide show.
After this event, I turned my annoyance into action. I put together a presentation that I dubbed “The Real American Consumer” that tried to impress upon clients and prospects that everyone in the U.S (and now the world) does not live as all of us do. I update it every year and it holds up well.
The presentation is built on the premise that people who work in marketing, advertising, broadcasting, cable, and publishing tend to lead comfortable lives. As we get older, unless we have very bad habits or get married and divorced too often, we tend to become affluent and, a few, wealthy. Yet, as we grow in wealth, we get more detached from the people who have bought our products and gave us our pleasant lifestyles.
Each year, the Gallup organization does a survey of American opinion. And, the results almost always indicate that some 89% of Americans view themselves as middle class. That is fine but for a marketer it can be a deadly assumption. If senior executives see themselves as “everyman”, then some bad decisions are often made. Once a client rejected a creative campaign because he said that his golf buddies at the club did not like the storyboards that he presented. Another client, a fast food maven worth millions with many stores owned outright, told me that my media buy was no good because he was “not seeing the commercials.” I told him that was good as he was not the target. His response was that he was just a regular guy and he should see his spots. He did admit that sales were up nicely but felt something was wrong.
Well. The moral here is not to lose contact with your target audience and respect them as well. According to the latest government data, the median household income in the US is $51,914. Remember what a median is? Statistically, it is the 50th percentile so approximately half of America earns below that benchmark and the other half above it.
Here are some other quick facts that show how far you may be from the average American:
22% of Americans have a passport. Well, then 78% do not. I bet virtually all of you and your friends have a valid passport.
30% of Americans have no credit card
18% are completely unbanked
17% are functionally illiterate
8% live in mobile homes. In some counties, the figure is 26%
3% use a library each year even though the library has free books and movies
20% at the bottom have an effective net worth of zero. The next 20% are worth about $15,000
Can you, as a marketer, relate to all this? If you want to be effective as a marketer, you do not have to live as your customers do, but you need to know a lot about them.
Sam Walton was the most successful retailer of the 20th century. Shortly before his death and suffering from bone cancer, Mr. Sam, as he liked to be called by associates, would still fly in for every new Wal-Mart store opening. When he met with the manager just prior to the ribbon cutting, it was not uncommon for him to observe that he had visited the grocery store down the street and that Wal-Mart was charging 2 cents more for a half gallon of milk. The smile would disappear as he told the manager to get the price below the competition. Walton, by then a billionaire, was said to live on $200 a day, wear clothes sold at Wal-Mart and spent his free time tooling around Bentonville, Arkansas in an aging pickup truck. How much of that is truth or folklore is irrelevant. What he did do was constantly talk to and LISTEN to his customers. He may have been the wealthiest man on earth for a few months in the late 1980’s but he never forgot who put him there.
Several years ago, my CEO told all of us to visit one of our client’s retail locations every couple of weeks at a minimum. Few did it but I was a good soldier and always complied. Once, I entered the fast food restaurant on a Sunday, bought a cup of coffee, and sat in the back of the dining area and watched and listened. I was reading a copy of the New York Times Book Review but kept the cover page concealed. At one point, I saw a lady arrive with three children. As they were eating she raised her voice to one of the children and said, “Finish your sandwich. If you don’t, next month we are going to McDonald’s.” What a wake-up call that was for me. This was a special and expensive treat in her eyes. The next day I told a few colleagues about it. Most got the point, one’s eyes filled up, but one young fellow said, “Who cares about those people.”
Tonight when many of you open a nice bottle of cabernet or pour yourself a single malt scotch, remember who is giving you that pleasant lifestyle. They buy fast food, beer, Coke and Pepsi, cigarettes, pickup trucks, soap, razor blades, and Kraft macaroni and cheese while you grill the swordfish. Don’t lose touch with the Real American Consumer. They deserve your respect and understanding.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Shifting Gears in 2012 Media
A number of years ago someone whom I know very well was diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cancer. He visited some doctors, read widely and came away a bit confused. It seemed that surgeons all recommended surgery and radiologists all recommended radiation treatment. The surgeons essentially said that with radiation you might not get all of the cancer or that it could come back. The radiologists to a man stated that invasive and delicate surgery could have terrible side effects. He finally made a decision and it worked out well for him.
Each group of doctors was not really being defensive. They were working in their area of expertise and their comfort zone. As our new world of media evolves, I see the same thing happening with agency and corporate media strategists.
Despite protestations to the contrary, most of us do not really like change. So media staffers over the age of 45 or so nod and smile when digital is discussed and they can navigate their way through the buzzwords with growing fluency. Off the record, many tell me that their heart is not in it. One fellow whom I do not personally but who is an active reader of this blog writes, “I am a TV guy. The young kids just want to recommend online, Facebook, and soon mobile on their plans. They treat me like a dinosaur. Maybe I should just take early retirement.” At the other extreme, a young reader hit me with “why do you bother talking about spot broadcast in your blog. It is so 20th century.”
Well. With respect, I feel that they are both wrong. When I look back on my career, it is clear that I am/was a spot TV guy as well. I probably placed more money there than all other media put together. But, it is no longer 1982 or 1992. We have to work in the present. At the same time, TV, radio, magazines have not dried up and blown away yet. So, some sort of balance is required.
Over the last few years, I have stressed the need for constant testing and experimentation with emerging media. With each passing year money will move away from conventional media and in to less conventional venues. This trend is as certain as the sunrise. The trick will be how to manage the withdrawal from legacy media into our emerging world. For example, I personally believe that mobile is perfectly positioned to be the big thing over the next several years. Right now it is underutilized and more people should be testing in that space. Soon, however, people will begin piling in to mobile much as they did online or Facebook a few years ago. Some will be disgruntled as they misallocated their budgets and placed either way too much or do little in mobile early on in the game. With careful planning a smart strategist can avoid getting caught up in the cavalry charge into mobile that is sure to come (we will discuss mobile in detail in upcoming Media Realism posts).
There is another issue out there that is slowly getting traction. It is the growth of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC). Big companies have been involved for some time; medium size players tend to pay lip service to it but are learning and the small fry tends to say, “What’s that.”
Simply put, IMC, is the coordination of all marketing and communications activities. The academics say that there are seven pillars to IMC: advertising, promotion, direct marketing, public relations, publicity, interactive, and personal selling. At every touch point, your message and your look are similar and working in tandem with all other pillars.
As IMC grows, advertising is going to decline as part of the overall marketing mix. Right now, advertising may still be 80% of the action for many brands. With each passing year, the number continues to decline a bit. In package goods, promotion has overtaken advertising in a big way. Please keep in mind that just as every company has a different media mix, each will have a different path and different mix of variables as they go down the IMC road.
So, to my mature media strategists out there, learn to shift gears. You need to adapt or die. To the young firebrands, may I suggest that many of your customers do not yet share your media habits? So, keep pushing the envelope on emerging media but remember you still need a foot or at least a few toes in legacy media.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Each group of doctors was not really being defensive. They were working in their area of expertise and their comfort zone. As our new world of media evolves, I see the same thing happening with agency and corporate media strategists.
Despite protestations to the contrary, most of us do not really like change. So media staffers over the age of 45 or so nod and smile when digital is discussed and they can navigate their way through the buzzwords with growing fluency. Off the record, many tell me that their heart is not in it. One fellow whom I do not personally but who is an active reader of this blog writes, “I am a TV guy. The young kids just want to recommend online, Facebook, and soon mobile on their plans. They treat me like a dinosaur. Maybe I should just take early retirement.” At the other extreme, a young reader hit me with “why do you bother talking about spot broadcast in your blog. It is so 20th century.”
Well. With respect, I feel that they are both wrong. When I look back on my career, it is clear that I am/was a spot TV guy as well. I probably placed more money there than all other media put together. But, it is no longer 1982 or 1992. We have to work in the present. At the same time, TV, radio, magazines have not dried up and blown away yet. So, some sort of balance is required.
Over the last few years, I have stressed the need for constant testing and experimentation with emerging media. With each passing year money will move away from conventional media and in to less conventional venues. This trend is as certain as the sunrise. The trick will be how to manage the withdrawal from legacy media into our emerging world. For example, I personally believe that mobile is perfectly positioned to be the big thing over the next several years. Right now it is underutilized and more people should be testing in that space. Soon, however, people will begin piling in to mobile much as they did online or Facebook a few years ago. Some will be disgruntled as they misallocated their budgets and placed either way too much or do little in mobile early on in the game. With careful planning a smart strategist can avoid getting caught up in the cavalry charge into mobile that is sure to come (we will discuss mobile in detail in upcoming Media Realism posts).
There is another issue out there that is slowly getting traction. It is the growth of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC). Big companies have been involved for some time; medium size players tend to pay lip service to it but are learning and the small fry tends to say, “What’s that.”
Simply put, IMC, is the coordination of all marketing and communications activities. The academics say that there are seven pillars to IMC: advertising, promotion, direct marketing, public relations, publicity, interactive, and personal selling. At every touch point, your message and your look are similar and working in tandem with all other pillars.
As IMC grows, advertising is going to decline as part of the overall marketing mix. Right now, advertising may still be 80% of the action for many brands. With each passing year, the number continues to decline a bit. In package goods, promotion has overtaken advertising in a big way. Please keep in mind that just as every company has a different media mix, each will have a different path and different mix of variables as they go down the IMC road.
So, to my mature media strategists out there, learn to shift gears. You need to adapt or die. To the young firebrands, may I suggest that many of your customers do not yet share your media habits? So, keep pushing the envelope on emerging media but remember you still need a foot or at least a few toes in legacy media.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The Truth About Deficit Spending
You hear a great deal these days about the annual USA budget deficit and the long term US debt. My take is a bit different than that of many so I thought that I would try to articulate it. What does this have to do with Media Realism? Well, I do not think the mainstream media really wants to face to up to it so they paint people as Cassandras if they tell the absolute truth about it. Admittedly, it is a hard topic to face head on and still maintain the sense of optimism that many of us still have for the future.
As I write, the US national debt is about $16 trillion and rising fast. Last month alone, our deficit was a record breaking $220 billion. Most project that we will add $1.3-1.6 trillion to the national debt this year and maybe slightly less next year. The gloom and doomers say that we face disaster within 18 months while others say that we have a decade or more to maneuver. Few deny that there really is a problem.
The issue, as it often is in Media Realism posts, is demographics. We have 90+ million baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) retiring over the next dozen years. This will put record-breaking strain on government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. All of these programs need structural reform or they alone will bankrupt the US as some point in the future.
Most people nod and smile when someone raises the issue but not 1 in a 1000 seems to understand the enormity of the problem. Recently, someone whom I had just met was telling me that if we get rid of President Obama and elect any Republican we could get a balanced budget in several years and pay off the national debt in about 15. I kept a straight face and asked how it would work mathematically. His response was that there was so much waste in government that a good manager could right the ship without changing programs or raising taxes.
Okay, think for a moment. Have you ever considered what a trillion is? Do you know what it is? It is 1,000 billion.
Last year, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin presented a plan to balance the budget and reform Medicare. It left Social Security alone and did not raise income taxes. Ryan stressed that it was just a starting point for discussion. If you read the Ryan plan (few did) you will see that his plan would balance the Federal budget in the year 2041 some thirty years after he presented it. If by some miracle the Ryan plan was passed, how much more water (i.e., additional debt) would we take on over the next 29 years? Would it go from the current $16 trillion to $30 trillion or maybe $40 trillion?
Now, think about that. Let us say that we did balance the budget in 2041 but now had a national debt of $40 trillion. The first year out we would have a surplus of $100 billion. Excellent! But, if we continued to produce surpluses at that pace, we could pay off the debt in 400 years. Not a typo, my friends. Some 400 years. Do you think the world will stand still that long? Do you think politicians would say that “we owe it to ourselves” or get involved in foreign wars or be tempted to deficit spend again in a weak economy to “prime the pump” of economic activity? Of course they would!
So, with all respect to my new acquaintance, the Federal debt WILL NEVER BE REPAID. Never! That is not the end of the world. All countries, even the very solvent ones, have some national debt. What is a government bond except a loan to a sovereign nation? The problem in the US is that we are borrowing 33-40% of every dollar that we spend in recent years. Sooner or later, despite our global stature, we will hit our national credit card limit with international lenders. When that happens, interest rates on US bonds will rise and maybe soar.
That is an issue few Americans have come to grips with at all. Right now, we have artificially low interest rates. America’s shirt is dirty but many other nations, particularly those in the European Union (EU) are filthy. So the US dollar remains a safe haven and the world’s reserve currency. People are willing to park vast amounts of money in US debt, as many other nations look even weaker. The return is at record lows. But, for the moment, it is deemed safe. The majority of our debt is now short term and at low interest rates. What would happen if interest rates rose smartly due to a lack of confidence in the dollar or the global perception that we are unwilling to face our problems with real solutions? Interest rates would jump and the interest on our national debt would make the current huge deficits look mild by comparison.
You have heard the term ad nauseum lately but politicians keep “kicking the can down the road.” Perhaps after the election this fall, whoever wins will put a bi-partisan team of adults together and really address the issue. The longer we wait, the higher taxes will have to go up.
Many now say simply “soak the rich.” And it is true that many who earn fabulous sums of money each year only pay about 15% in Federal income taxes as a percentage of their total income. But, there are not enough of them. If we put a minimum tax of say 25% for those earning over $1.5 million per year, it would raise some revenue and we would all feel that the system was more just. However, it would not put an appreciable dent in the annual deficit. And, if we took all the wealth of American billionaires, we would still not make a meaningful reduction in the $16 trillion dollar national debt.
So, something has to give. The only rational approach appears to be entitlement reform (meaning cutting some benefits), cutting defense spending not defense, and raising taxes. If we do those things we can move to a balanced budget over a period of years.
Even then, we still remain between a rock and a hard place. A couple of years ago, the Simpson-Bowles Commission made recommendations that would trim $4.5 trillion from the deficit over a 10-year period. It was shelved but it would be an excellent starting point for a SERIOUS approach to reining in government spending.
The demographics are really against the status quo. If we want to maintain the social safety net that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid provide we need to reform all three systems and do it soon. Also, unless we cut spending and moved toward a balanced budget, interest on the national debt will drown all other line items in the government expenditure.
Years ago, political humorist P.J. O’Roarke wrote that “giving politicians the power to spend money is like giving whiskey and car keys to teen age boys.” I am for giving Congress all the whiskey that its members want. The car keys, however, are not negotiable.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
As I write, the US national debt is about $16 trillion and rising fast. Last month alone, our deficit was a record breaking $220 billion. Most project that we will add $1.3-1.6 trillion to the national debt this year and maybe slightly less next year. The gloom and doomers say that we face disaster within 18 months while others say that we have a decade or more to maneuver. Few deny that there really is a problem.
The issue, as it often is in Media Realism posts, is demographics. We have 90+ million baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) retiring over the next dozen years. This will put record-breaking strain on government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. All of these programs need structural reform or they alone will bankrupt the US as some point in the future.
Most people nod and smile when someone raises the issue but not 1 in a 1000 seems to understand the enormity of the problem. Recently, someone whom I had just met was telling me that if we get rid of President Obama and elect any Republican we could get a balanced budget in several years and pay off the national debt in about 15. I kept a straight face and asked how it would work mathematically. His response was that there was so much waste in government that a good manager could right the ship without changing programs or raising taxes.
Okay, think for a moment. Have you ever considered what a trillion is? Do you know what it is? It is 1,000 billion.
Last year, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin presented a plan to balance the budget and reform Medicare. It left Social Security alone and did not raise income taxes. Ryan stressed that it was just a starting point for discussion. If you read the Ryan plan (few did) you will see that his plan would balance the Federal budget in the year 2041 some thirty years after he presented it. If by some miracle the Ryan plan was passed, how much more water (i.e., additional debt) would we take on over the next 29 years? Would it go from the current $16 trillion to $30 trillion or maybe $40 trillion?
Now, think about that. Let us say that we did balance the budget in 2041 but now had a national debt of $40 trillion. The first year out we would have a surplus of $100 billion. Excellent! But, if we continued to produce surpluses at that pace, we could pay off the debt in 400 years. Not a typo, my friends. Some 400 years. Do you think the world will stand still that long? Do you think politicians would say that “we owe it to ourselves” or get involved in foreign wars or be tempted to deficit spend again in a weak economy to “prime the pump” of economic activity? Of course they would!
So, with all respect to my new acquaintance, the Federal debt WILL NEVER BE REPAID. Never! That is not the end of the world. All countries, even the very solvent ones, have some national debt. What is a government bond except a loan to a sovereign nation? The problem in the US is that we are borrowing 33-40% of every dollar that we spend in recent years. Sooner or later, despite our global stature, we will hit our national credit card limit with international lenders. When that happens, interest rates on US bonds will rise and maybe soar.
That is an issue few Americans have come to grips with at all. Right now, we have artificially low interest rates. America’s shirt is dirty but many other nations, particularly those in the European Union (EU) are filthy. So the US dollar remains a safe haven and the world’s reserve currency. People are willing to park vast amounts of money in US debt, as many other nations look even weaker. The return is at record lows. But, for the moment, it is deemed safe. The majority of our debt is now short term and at low interest rates. What would happen if interest rates rose smartly due to a lack of confidence in the dollar or the global perception that we are unwilling to face our problems with real solutions? Interest rates would jump and the interest on our national debt would make the current huge deficits look mild by comparison.
You have heard the term ad nauseum lately but politicians keep “kicking the can down the road.” Perhaps after the election this fall, whoever wins will put a bi-partisan team of adults together and really address the issue. The longer we wait, the higher taxes will have to go up.
Many now say simply “soak the rich.” And it is true that many who earn fabulous sums of money each year only pay about 15% in Federal income taxes as a percentage of their total income. But, there are not enough of them. If we put a minimum tax of say 25% for those earning over $1.5 million per year, it would raise some revenue and we would all feel that the system was more just. However, it would not put an appreciable dent in the annual deficit. And, if we took all the wealth of American billionaires, we would still not make a meaningful reduction in the $16 trillion dollar national debt.
So, something has to give. The only rational approach appears to be entitlement reform (meaning cutting some benefits), cutting defense spending not defense, and raising taxes. If we do those things we can move to a balanced budget over a period of years.
Even then, we still remain between a rock and a hard place. A couple of years ago, the Simpson-Bowles Commission made recommendations that would trim $4.5 trillion from the deficit over a 10-year period. It was shelved but it would be an excellent starting point for a SERIOUS approach to reining in government spending.
The demographics are really against the status quo. If we want to maintain the social safety net that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid provide we need to reform all three systems and do it soon. Also, unless we cut spending and moved toward a balanced budget, interest on the national debt will drown all other line items in the government expenditure.
Years ago, political humorist P.J. O’Roarke wrote that “giving politicians the power to spend money is like giving whiskey and car keys to teen age boys.” I am for giving Congress all the whiskey that its members want. The car keys, however, are not negotiable.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Sunday, March 4, 2012
NPR
NPR, formerly National Public Radio, is a national syndicator, which distributes programming to over 900 public radio stations across the U.S. It is a privately and publicly funded non-profit organization, which gets its money from a mix of contributions, grants and indirect government subsidies.
Basically, they distribute news and cultural programming to public radio stations. A huge misperception about NPR is that programming is consistent everywhere. If you spend all your time in a single market listening to a single NPR affiliate, you might have that idea. Actually, the common thread across the stations tends to be that they carry the two highest rated flagship programs “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered.” After that, programming varies wildly. Some stations run wall-to-wall classical music outside of those two drive-time shows, while others are largely talk. On long road trips it can be amusing or annoying to go from budgets deficits to Beethoven as you shift from one station’s coverage area to another. Also, they distribute programming from other syndicators. My two favorite programs on the stations are “Marketplace” from American Public Media and “This American Life” from Public Radio International.
The audience is a blue chip one financially and extremely well educated. Agree with it or not, the stories do make you think. And, they cover issues that are hard to find anywhere else. A danger that they face in the future is that they are skewing increasingly older. Unless you are a graduate of an elite school, it is unlikely that you listen to NPR if you are under 35.
Those on the right often attack NPR for having a strong liberal bias. After close observation, I would say that is not entirely fair. Some years back, it struck me as being far more pronounced. Now, the interviewers are sometimes more friendly to those left of center, but they work hard to provide contrasting points of view on most issues. The weekly sessions summing up the week in politics with David Brooks of the New York Times (conservative) paired with E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post (liberal) are a good example of such efforts for authentic balance.
Interestingly, when I questioned people across the country about NPR, the knee jerk reaction from several was summed up by one panel member who said “NPR, forget it. They are way too liberal. It is like listening to MSNBC.” Later most admitted that it had been close to a decade since they listened to anything on NPR.
Advertising is sticky issue. They do accept 15-second spots just about everywhere. The problem to us as marketers is that you cannot extol the product or have a clear “call to action” in the spot. That limits creative minds. And, it is not called advertising. It is underwriting. ☺ Yet a long time radio hand that I have known forever says he has had success selling an NPR member to local advertisers. His pitch, and it is intriguing, is that his station can reach people who do not like and who generally avoid advertising. Raising name identification and association with a desirable broadcast property appear to cancel out the ability to have a rousing call to action that is possible on commercial radio.
The big controversy ahead will continue to be the partial funding of NPR by government both federal and state. As any thinking person knows we face a budget crisis. If we are to continue entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid going forward we are going to have to reform the systems and cut spending in many areas as the demographic tidal wave of 92 million baby boomers retiring will bankrupt these programs in their present form. So, some representatives raise the issue of cutting all expenditure to public broadcast through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund PBS on TV and NPR.
Some of the congressmen say it will someday be a financial imperative. Others are more blatant and say why fund something which touts a philosophy different than their own? When I polled people about this, the answers surprised me. A few well educated and politically astute people in their 20’s said in essence, “Don’t worry. If congress pulls the rug out, wealthy individuals and foundations will pass the hat and NPR will be saved.” I checked this out with others who agreed quickly with the young analysts. All felt PBS would have a harder time in the future as money gets tighter.
A West Coast lawyer told me “I think that the NPR on-air people are full of themselves. But I love their stories." I tend to agree. NPR has been and will be an integral part of my life. And no one has ever called me a liberal.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Basically, they distribute news and cultural programming to public radio stations. A huge misperception about NPR is that programming is consistent everywhere. If you spend all your time in a single market listening to a single NPR affiliate, you might have that idea. Actually, the common thread across the stations tends to be that they carry the two highest rated flagship programs “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered.” After that, programming varies wildly. Some stations run wall-to-wall classical music outside of those two drive-time shows, while others are largely talk. On long road trips it can be amusing or annoying to go from budgets deficits to Beethoven as you shift from one station’s coverage area to another. Also, they distribute programming from other syndicators. My two favorite programs on the stations are “Marketplace” from American Public Media and “This American Life” from Public Radio International.
The audience is a blue chip one financially and extremely well educated. Agree with it or not, the stories do make you think. And, they cover issues that are hard to find anywhere else. A danger that they face in the future is that they are skewing increasingly older. Unless you are a graduate of an elite school, it is unlikely that you listen to NPR if you are under 35.
Those on the right often attack NPR for having a strong liberal bias. After close observation, I would say that is not entirely fair. Some years back, it struck me as being far more pronounced. Now, the interviewers are sometimes more friendly to those left of center, but they work hard to provide contrasting points of view on most issues. The weekly sessions summing up the week in politics with David Brooks of the New York Times (conservative) paired with E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post (liberal) are a good example of such efforts for authentic balance.
Interestingly, when I questioned people across the country about NPR, the knee jerk reaction from several was summed up by one panel member who said “NPR, forget it. They are way too liberal. It is like listening to MSNBC.” Later most admitted that it had been close to a decade since they listened to anything on NPR.
Advertising is sticky issue. They do accept 15-second spots just about everywhere. The problem to us as marketers is that you cannot extol the product or have a clear “call to action” in the spot. That limits creative minds. And, it is not called advertising. It is underwriting. ☺ Yet a long time radio hand that I have known forever says he has had success selling an NPR member to local advertisers. His pitch, and it is intriguing, is that his station can reach people who do not like and who generally avoid advertising. Raising name identification and association with a desirable broadcast property appear to cancel out the ability to have a rousing call to action that is possible on commercial radio.
The big controversy ahead will continue to be the partial funding of NPR by government both federal and state. As any thinking person knows we face a budget crisis. If we are to continue entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid going forward we are going to have to reform the systems and cut spending in many areas as the demographic tidal wave of 92 million baby boomers retiring will bankrupt these programs in their present form. So, some representatives raise the issue of cutting all expenditure to public broadcast through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund PBS on TV and NPR.
Some of the congressmen say it will someday be a financial imperative. Others are more blatant and say why fund something which touts a philosophy different than their own? When I polled people about this, the answers surprised me. A few well educated and politically astute people in their 20’s said in essence, “Don’t worry. If congress pulls the rug out, wealthy individuals and foundations will pass the hat and NPR will be saved.” I checked this out with others who agreed quickly with the young analysts. All felt PBS would have a harder time in the future as money gets tighter.
A West Coast lawyer told me “I think that the NPR on-air people are full of themselves. But I love their stories." I tend to agree. NPR has been and will be an integral part of my life. And no one has ever called me a liberal.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
WEB TV hits its stride
For the past several weeks, I had been working on a post regarding Web TV. On Friday, February 17th THE WALL STREET JOURNAL beat me to it with a very nice feature in their Friday Journal section entitled “Web TV’s New Lineup.” If you have not read it already, I highly recommend it.
In brief, they covered many of the new entries that have just begun or will soon debut on the web. Highlights include Netflix’ “Lillehammer” which I mentioned last week and a revival of “Arrested Development”, long a Fox cult favorite, also on Netflix. Madonna is producing a channel for You Tube that will have talent hunts and highlight videos dubbed “Dance On.” Amy Poehler, the pride of Boston College, is working on a You Tube channel funded by Google, called “Smart Girls at the Party”. It is said to build self-esteem for young women. Plans are for several A list stars to sign on to projects shortly.
The Journal piece focuses on production issues and signing bankable stars. My take is a bit different but consistent to what you have seen in previous posts over the last few years.
Simply put, many of these projects will likely crash and burn. So what! Since I have been in the business, some 72% of new network series never made it past their first season. Some will catch on, however, and a few could really have a significant impact on viewing trends and ultimately advertising.
We are all sick of hearing about fragmentation. But, this trend toward Web TV can only accelerate it. If I watch another episode of “Lillehammer” this weekend (and I will), it will take me away from some form of advertiser-supported television. There will likely be several hundred thousand like me and, once again, TV as we know it, will spring another small leak in delivery. If some of these shows catch on, they could do ratings comparable to a fair sized cable network. Should they be unusually well produced, they will get critical acclaim and buzz. This is very important with young people who are comfortable watching video online or even on their i-phones.
So, a few successes on Web TV will make the attractive upwardly mobile young demo even harder to reach than it is now.
A lady whom I admire and respect dismisses my thesis as nonsense. She is a very light TV viewer who is attracted to Web TV but says she would likely be doing something other than watching some form of video if she were not viewing a Web series. I see her point but feel that she is in a small minority. Few are as well educated, sophisticated, or lead a varied life as she does. For the overwhelming majority of us, every hour with Web TV will take us away from advertiser supported broadcast and cable.
As a viewer, give Web TV a chance. It is one more way to give you control watching good programming when and where you want it. Should you be a media planner, your job of hitting some key demos will just get tougher.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
In brief, they covered many of the new entries that have just begun or will soon debut on the web. Highlights include Netflix’ “Lillehammer” which I mentioned last week and a revival of “Arrested Development”, long a Fox cult favorite, also on Netflix. Madonna is producing a channel for You Tube that will have talent hunts and highlight videos dubbed “Dance On.” Amy Poehler, the pride of Boston College, is working on a You Tube channel funded by Google, called “Smart Girls at the Party”. It is said to build self-esteem for young women. Plans are for several A list stars to sign on to projects shortly.
The Journal piece focuses on production issues and signing bankable stars. My take is a bit different but consistent to what you have seen in previous posts over the last few years.
Simply put, many of these projects will likely crash and burn. So what! Since I have been in the business, some 72% of new network series never made it past their first season. Some will catch on, however, and a few could really have a significant impact on viewing trends and ultimately advertising.
We are all sick of hearing about fragmentation. But, this trend toward Web TV can only accelerate it. If I watch another episode of “Lillehammer” this weekend (and I will), it will take me away from some form of advertiser-supported television. There will likely be several hundred thousand like me and, once again, TV as we know it, will spring another small leak in delivery. If some of these shows catch on, they could do ratings comparable to a fair sized cable network. Should they be unusually well produced, they will get critical acclaim and buzz. This is very important with young people who are comfortable watching video online or even on their i-phones.
So, a few successes on Web TV will make the attractive upwardly mobile young demo even harder to reach than it is now.
A lady whom I admire and respect dismisses my thesis as nonsense. She is a very light TV viewer who is attracted to Web TV but says she would likely be doing something other than watching some form of video if she were not viewing a Web series. I see her point but feel that she is in a small minority. Few are as well educated, sophisticated, or lead a varied life as she does. For the overwhelming majority of us, every hour with Web TV will take us away from advertiser supported broadcast and cable.
As a viewer, give Web TV a chance. It is one more way to give you control watching good programming when and where you want it. Should you be a media planner, your job of hitting some key demos will just get tougher.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Hemingway and Changing Media Trends
There is a marvelous passage in Nobel laureate Ernest Hemingway’s THE SUN ALSO RISES. A character, Mike Campbell, is asked how he became bankrupt. He answers, “two ways. Gradually and then suddenly”.
As usual, Hemingway says things with great conciseness. The quotation came to mind this week as I watched with amusement and interest three things happening in the advertising world. The three events appear totally independent but there is a common thread among them from my vantage point. They were:
1) P&G Chairman Bob McDonald hinted that the global personal care and household product giant might “moderate” their $10 billion ad budget as his brands get “free” impressions via Facebook and Google. The comment set off a firestorm in some quarters. The comments, often from ad agency principals, were that Facebook was not free. Unquestionably, working with Facebook can be labor intensive if you are to manage, track, and optimize it properly. But, in McDonald’s defense, such items as e-mail forwarding, blogs, Likes, and sharing are ways that things get a life of their own without an agency’s help. And, don’t forget You Tube. If you post a commercial on You Tube it may generate millions of impressions. Good ads tend to go viral and that is indeed free. These are not the easiest times to work in an advertising agency so we all can understand a bit of defensiveness. Over time, however, social media almost has to make ad spending more efficient than it has been historically.
2) Nielsen announced that young people, particularly those 25-34, are still watching video of all forms but less on conventional platforms such as advertiser supported TV and cable. We discussed this some time ago, as it appeared that a number of recent graduates of elite universities were simply using their laptops to cover their video needs. While only a few hundred thousand are going cold turkey on cable or satellite, the trend is growing. And those who do subscribe to cable or satellite are now viewing more Hulu, Netflix or other sources. Advertiser supported TV of all forms has to suffer as commercial avoidance is now gaining steam.
3) Speaking of Netflix, they just released their first made for Netflix series—"Lillehammer". I caught the first episode and loved it. It is about a New York mobster who enters the witness protection program and chooses to move to Lillehammer, Norway considering it safer than any United States hideout. All eight episodes were released the same day. It is great fun and rivals the quality of the very best HBO series.
How do these three events tie together? It is pretty simple—our business is changing and the old models are, to paraphrase Hemingway’s Mike Campbell character, “gradually going bankrupt.” Social media is here to stay and will evolve. And portions of it will provide free or far more efficient delivery than today. Young people are living a lifestyle that allows them to control when they watch video content but commercial avoidance can only soar and will not be limited to DVR playbacks or channel hopping. And, finally, every hour that we spend with a "Lillehammer" or fellow traveler, is an hour away from advertiser supported content.
The pace of change appears to be quickening a bit. The real challenge will be how to reach the affluent young adults a few years from now when millions more will be very hard to capture via conventional means.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
As usual, Hemingway says things with great conciseness. The quotation came to mind this week as I watched with amusement and interest three things happening in the advertising world. The three events appear totally independent but there is a common thread among them from my vantage point. They were:
1) P&G Chairman Bob McDonald hinted that the global personal care and household product giant might “moderate” their $10 billion ad budget as his brands get “free” impressions via Facebook and Google. The comment set off a firestorm in some quarters. The comments, often from ad agency principals, were that Facebook was not free. Unquestionably, working with Facebook can be labor intensive if you are to manage, track, and optimize it properly. But, in McDonald’s defense, such items as e-mail forwarding, blogs, Likes, and sharing are ways that things get a life of their own without an agency’s help. And, don’t forget You Tube. If you post a commercial on You Tube it may generate millions of impressions. Good ads tend to go viral and that is indeed free. These are not the easiest times to work in an advertising agency so we all can understand a bit of defensiveness. Over time, however, social media almost has to make ad spending more efficient than it has been historically.
2) Nielsen announced that young people, particularly those 25-34, are still watching video of all forms but less on conventional platforms such as advertiser supported TV and cable. We discussed this some time ago, as it appeared that a number of recent graduates of elite universities were simply using their laptops to cover their video needs. While only a few hundred thousand are going cold turkey on cable or satellite, the trend is growing. And those who do subscribe to cable or satellite are now viewing more Hulu, Netflix or other sources. Advertiser supported TV of all forms has to suffer as commercial avoidance is now gaining steam.
3) Speaking of Netflix, they just released their first made for Netflix series—"Lillehammer". I caught the first episode and loved it. It is about a New York mobster who enters the witness protection program and chooses to move to Lillehammer, Norway considering it safer than any United States hideout. All eight episodes were released the same day. It is great fun and rivals the quality of the very best HBO series.
How do these three events tie together? It is pretty simple—our business is changing and the old models are, to paraphrase Hemingway’s Mike Campbell character, “gradually going bankrupt.” Social media is here to stay and will evolve. And portions of it will provide free or far more efficient delivery than today. Young people are living a lifestyle that allows them to control when they watch video content but commercial avoidance can only soar and will not be limited to DVR playbacks or channel hopping. And, finally, every hour that we spend with a "Lillehammer" or fellow traveler, is an hour away from advertiser supported content.
The pace of change appears to be quickening a bit. The real challenge will be how to reach the affluent young adults a few years from now when millions more will be very hard to capture via conventional means.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Musings on the Summer Olympics
Back in December, I was putting out feelers to members of my panel and a number of others regarding 2012. Depending on what markets they worked out of or what media they focused on, responses varied a bit. One thing, however, struck me. For the first time in 40 years, no one made more than a passing reference to the Summer Olympic Games that will be held in London this year from late July to early August. Hence this post. What has gone wrong with the Summer games to the point where they have become almost an afterthought to broadcast and cable salespeople, agency media executives, and some fairly high powered advertisers?
I went back to a few dozen people and probed. Was it the lack of competition with Soviet Russia, the presence of professionals in virtually every sport, TV fragmentation, the pulse of modern life or anything else they could dream up?
First, I quote a friend from my Boston College days. He does not work in broadcast or advertising but is in communications. His comments on sports, which he follows avidly, are always astute:
The Summer Olympic games have certainly lost their allure. Some factors:
1) The fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc.
Competition with them was a morality play: the good and free vs. the slave states, which were also excellent in athletics, because, we were assured, they cheated.
2) The drug scandals. People immediately question exceptional performances, even though the Olympics now probably have the most stringent anti-drug testing and standards of any sporting event.
3) Parity of competition-Track & Field is the symbol and centerpiece of the Olympics. Scientists say that the greatest reason for the lowering of world records is that many more people now compete and have access to modern training methods and equipment. Many, that is, very, very many of these people are from distant continents. Interest in individual competion necessitates the familiarity of the spectator with the main competitors. The PGA Tour suffers when Tiger is not a factor. People want to see Tiger vs. Phil; recently they have been getting some major wins by some fine young players who then fade back into the pack in later tournaments. (Remember how the press would criticize Tom Kite for making millions but not winning tournaments?) It is the same for Olympic Track & Field. Well-known American and British Empire runners would go into the Olympics with great public anticipation. Now, a casual glance at the list of men's record holders of non-hurdling races shows only one American, retired Michael Johnson. Most are from Africa. I couldn't name them, could you?
4) There are many more sports on TV now, with many more outlets, starting with ESPN and other cable outlets. Local news is more likely to lead with the score of a mid-season Red Sox game than with Olympic results.
Next, here are some comments from someone who has sold broadcast and cable for years, remains a knowledgeable fan, and always has his feet on the ground. To him, a big problem is what he dubs the “Dream Team effect.”
Dream Team effect:
When the NBA players participated for the first time in 1992 with the original “Dream Team,” it was fun to see these guys playing for our country but is did not seem so much like the Olympics as it was a basketball exhibition. Knowing that the U.S. and other countries are sending “professionals” in different sports seemed to lessen the perceived genuine competition of Faster, Higher, and Stronger – for those who were not getting paid. Baseball and Tennis players competing is somewhat strange to me as well.
24/7 today:
Now with full coverage on multimedia outlets, plenty on cable, of events, athletes and all different sports it reminds of the NBC Baseball Game of the Week impact. I truly enjoyed watching the sole Saturday telecast as appointment viewing and now the proliferation and availability makes it great to enjoy any game, any time but somehow it does not seem as special. There may be too much for even an ardent sports fan like me to catch all the action.
One of the smartest people that I know who has sold sports from time to time over the years weighed in this way:
To your “not being brought up” point…I’m hearing it lumped more with political, as the most common reason why some are staying away. First that it will be on the front end of political spends, but also…Political spending has become like the Super Bowl in that advertisers fear they can’t be on television. The only TV rates neophytes might hear is how much a :30 cost in the Super Bowl. So too…we spend so much time talking about Obama’s Billion that it scares some away from spending in September/October. Reality is the Late News doesn’t cost what it used too, and zoned cable options are available even more efficiently.
Some people have told you that it is “not worth the trouble”…this one I get. It’s a huge logistical nightmare on the front end, which only intensifies when they arrive. Live sports of any sort is always tricky, so compounding that tenfold only makes for more stress. Add in middle-of-the-night events, time zone peculiarities, language barriers, whether issues…it’s a wonder we can harness it well enough to sell. Have to package/sell the Olympic ideal, because the individual sporting aspects are too fluid to define. In the end…the Olympics are not about the competition, but much more so the personal narratives of those involved.
Others told you that the summer games are “losing their glow” which is an interesting take. On some level I agree, but it’s easy to say that in January. Come August I’ll be wrapped in it like many people, and it’s also one of a handful of programs you can watch with the family.
There is merit though to a lost glow …I blame first, the overall proliferation of sports available. In the 70’s we’d tune by Wide World of Sports for our only chance to watch Russian Vasily Alekseyev lift amazing weights over his head, and a year later remember the portly strongman in the next Olympiad. Were he around today, he might be a UFC fighter which means I could have watched all 37 of his matches on TV, while also being able to follow his eating, training and dating habits via the internet. Somewhere along the way he’d get a Nike deal and a Subway commercial. And eventually we’d learn through his reality show, that he and Vasily Jr. work as a Swamp Loggers during the day. We all have our saturation points.
A few people in their 20’s stunned me by saying that they will start watching the summer games when American football becomes an Olympic sport. One fellow said he was concerned that Olympic coverage could interrupt pre-season NFL and another said he will stick to MLB if his beloved home town team is in a pennant race.
Golf will appear in 2016 in Brazil and last week Jack Nicklaus, Annika Sorenstam, Gary Player, and Greg Norman among other luminaries all presented designs for an Olympic course that will break ground this fall near Rio de Janeiro. The addition of golf may add some new viewers for 2016.
What is my take? Viewing will be pretty good on a cumulative basis. In the heart of summer reruns, we will likely break the record of the Beijing games of over 200 million viewers during the two week run. NBC paid a lot for the rights so the profit picture is problematic. Times, however, have clearly changed.
When someone mentions the summer Olympics to me I think of one man—Al Oerter. He won the gold medal in the discus in 1956, 1960, 1964, and 1968. Al was a true amateur. He worked as an early professional in computers and arranged his training and meets around the Olympics. In 1964, he fell on a rainy day in the rink in Tokyo and was injured badly breaking some ribs. The US doctors urged him to drop out. He refused and won with his first toss. In 1968, as a college student, I was returning to my dorm late one morning when a guy poked his head out of the TV lounge and announced “Oerter is tossing.” Some 20 of us piled into the room to watch. One fool said “what is the big deal? He barely made the team this year.” After we all give him a dirty look, Big Al unleashed a mighty toss that put him in the lead. I had to leave and was stunned to hear on the radio a few hours later that he had his fourth consecutive gold medal and set his fourth consecutive Olympic record. Over the next nearly 40 years whenever I saw him interviewed he was modest, upbeat, and always positive. To me, he was the greatest competitor that I have ever seen. No one epitomized the Olympic spirit as much as Al Oerter did.
Will I watch some? Of course. But, like many things, the landscape has changed and, in this case, I am not sure for the better.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
I went back to a few dozen people and probed. Was it the lack of competition with Soviet Russia, the presence of professionals in virtually every sport, TV fragmentation, the pulse of modern life or anything else they could dream up?
First, I quote a friend from my Boston College days. He does not work in broadcast or advertising but is in communications. His comments on sports, which he follows avidly, are always astute:
The Summer Olympic games have certainly lost their allure. Some factors:
1) The fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc.
Competition with them was a morality play: the good and free vs. the slave states, which were also excellent in athletics, because, we were assured, they cheated.
2) The drug scandals. People immediately question exceptional performances, even though the Olympics now probably have the most stringent anti-drug testing and standards of any sporting event.
3) Parity of competition-Track & Field is the symbol and centerpiece of the Olympics. Scientists say that the greatest reason for the lowering of world records is that many more people now compete and have access to modern training methods and equipment. Many, that is, very, very many of these people are from distant continents. Interest in individual competion necessitates the familiarity of the spectator with the main competitors. The PGA Tour suffers when Tiger is not a factor. People want to see Tiger vs. Phil; recently they have been getting some major wins by some fine young players who then fade back into the pack in later tournaments. (Remember how the press would criticize Tom Kite for making millions but not winning tournaments?) It is the same for Olympic Track & Field. Well-known American and British Empire runners would go into the Olympics with great public anticipation. Now, a casual glance at the list of men's record holders of non-hurdling races shows only one American, retired Michael Johnson. Most are from Africa. I couldn't name them, could you?
4) There are many more sports on TV now, with many more outlets, starting with ESPN and other cable outlets. Local news is more likely to lead with the score of a mid-season Red Sox game than with Olympic results.
Next, here are some comments from someone who has sold broadcast and cable for years, remains a knowledgeable fan, and always has his feet on the ground. To him, a big problem is what he dubs the “Dream Team effect.”
Dream Team effect:
When the NBA players participated for the first time in 1992 with the original “Dream Team,” it was fun to see these guys playing for our country but is did not seem so much like the Olympics as it was a basketball exhibition. Knowing that the U.S. and other countries are sending “professionals” in different sports seemed to lessen the perceived genuine competition of Faster, Higher, and Stronger – for those who were not getting paid. Baseball and Tennis players competing is somewhat strange to me as well.
24/7 today:
Now with full coverage on multimedia outlets, plenty on cable, of events, athletes and all different sports it reminds of the NBC Baseball Game of the Week impact. I truly enjoyed watching the sole Saturday telecast as appointment viewing and now the proliferation and availability makes it great to enjoy any game, any time but somehow it does not seem as special. There may be too much for even an ardent sports fan like me to catch all the action.
One of the smartest people that I know who has sold sports from time to time over the years weighed in this way:
To your “not being brought up” point…I’m hearing it lumped more with political, as the most common reason why some are staying away. First that it will be on the front end of political spends, but also…Political spending has become like the Super Bowl in that advertisers fear they can’t be on television. The only TV rates neophytes might hear is how much a :30 cost in the Super Bowl. So too…we spend so much time talking about Obama’s Billion that it scares some away from spending in September/October. Reality is the Late News doesn’t cost what it used too, and zoned cable options are available even more efficiently.
Some people have told you that it is “not worth the trouble”…this one I get. It’s a huge logistical nightmare on the front end, which only intensifies when they arrive. Live sports of any sort is always tricky, so compounding that tenfold only makes for more stress. Add in middle-of-the-night events, time zone peculiarities, language barriers, whether issues…it’s a wonder we can harness it well enough to sell. Have to package/sell the Olympic ideal, because the individual sporting aspects are too fluid to define. In the end…the Olympics are not about the competition, but much more so the personal narratives of those involved.
Others told you that the summer games are “losing their glow” which is an interesting take. On some level I agree, but it’s easy to say that in January. Come August I’ll be wrapped in it like many people, and it’s also one of a handful of programs you can watch with the family.
There is merit though to a lost glow …I blame first, the overall proliferation of sports available. In the 70’s we’d tune by Wide World of Sports for our only chance to watch Russian Vasily Alekseyev lift amazing weights over his head, and a year later remember the portly strongman in the next Olympiad. Were he around today, he might be a UFC fighter which means I could have watched all 37 of his matches on TV, while also being able to follow his eating, training and dating habits via the internet. Somewhere along the way he’d get a Nike deal and a Subway commercial. And eventually we’d learn through his reality show, that he and Vasily Jr. work as a Swamp Loggers during the day. We all have our saturation points.
A few people in their 20’s stunned me by saying that they will start watching the summer games when American football becomes an Olympic sport. One fellow said he was concerned that Olympic coverage could interrupt pre-season NFL and another said he will stick to MLB if his beloved home town team is in a pennant race.
Golf will appear in 2016 in Brazil and last week Jack Nicklaus, Annika Sorenstam, Gary Player, and Greg Norman among other luminaries all presented designs for an Olympic course that will break ground this fall near Rio de Janeiro. The addition of golf may add some new viewers for 2016.
What is my take? Viewing will be pretty good on a cumulative basis. In the heart of summer reruns, we will likely break the record of the Beijing games of over 200 million viewers during the two week run. NBC paid a lot for the rights so the profit picture is problematic. Times, however, have clearly changed.
When someone mentions the summer Olympics to me I think of one man—Al Oerter. He won the gold medal in the discus in 1956, 1960, 1964, and 1968. Al was a true amateur. He worked as an early professional in computers and arranged his training and meets around the Olympics. In 1964, he fell on a rainy day in the rink in Tokyo and was injured badly breaking some ribs. The US doctors urged him to drop out. He refused and won with his first toss. In 1968, as a college student, I was returning to my dorm late one morning when a guy poked his head out of the TV lounge and announced “Oerter is tossing.” Some 20 of us piled into the room to watch. One fool said “what is the big deal? He barely made the team this year.” After we all give him a dirty look, Big Al unleashed a mighty toss that put him in the lead. I had to leave and was stunned to hear on the radio a few hours later that he had his fourth consecutive gold medal and set his fourth consecutive Olympic record. Over the next nearly 40 years whenever I saw him interviewed he was modest, upbeat, and always positive. To me, he was the greatest competitor that I have ever seen. No one epitomized the Olympic spirit as much as Al Oerter did.
Will I watch some? Of course. But, like many things, the landscape has changed and, in this case, I am not sure for the better.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
