Several people have e-mailed me regarding what I have been reading lately. Today, we begin a feature that I will update from time to time. It will be reviews of varying lengths of books that I have come across that might be germane to our readers interests.
Here are our first entries:
1) THE DUMBEST GENERATION by Mark Bauerlein (Penquin, 2008). This is written by a professor of English at Emory University in Atlanta. It is an angry book making many of the same claims that Allan Bloom made in 1987 in THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND. This book is far more passionate than "closing' and candidly more fun to read. Bloom himself wrote of it saying "an urgent and pragmatic book on the very dark topic of the virtual end of reading among the young."
There are some wonderul anecdotes in the book. Bauerlein states that college students today are "six times more likely to be able to name the last American Idol winner than Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Most don't know who their governor, US Senators or Congressman are." When he mentioned this at a symposium a student yelled out "American Idol is more important."
He also tells a very interesting personal story. Back in 1977, he returned from UCLA for the Christmas holidays to his home in Maryland. He caught up with his high school buddies and played lots of basketball. With lots of time on his hands he watched some TV. At that time there were four stations plus PBS in the Washington, DC area. PBS was screening classic films every afternoon and with a choice of soap operas or the Gong Show, he began viewing the films. Over a few weeks, he saw La Strada, Rules of the Game, and The 400 Blows among others. When he returned to LA, he always checked out what was playing at the local art houses, as they were then known. This hit me like a freight train. As a teenager my sister introduced me to PBS and sometimes a lofty film. In college my roommate and I, along with a couple of other friends, took over the campus film society and began doing more serious entries instead of recent commercial films. We eased into it with some Bogart films but then moved on to an Orson Welles retrospective and finally a Fellini festival. In many ways, it changed my life.
Bauerlein's point regarding TV was that " If I had 100+ screen options to choose from as they have today, watching PBS would never have happened". It is an intriguing idea. In the late 1940's, many commentators thought that TV was going to be the greatest educational tool ever. Ohers said the same thing about the Internet 50 years later, although for the first several years, it appears that only pornographers made any real money. So, have we in the media unknowingly hurt the education of the young?
He also makes the statement that nine of the top ten sites visited by students are for social networking. That seems a bit hard to believe but I have never seen the research to back it up. Professor Bauerlein also is pessimistic as he says he cannot find intellectual pockets out there where groups of students are faithful to academic rigor.
As mentioned in previous posts, I speak on a lot of campuses and will really ramp up my speaking in the weeks to come. I would say the quality of students that I see has actually improved in recent years. Some cynics tell me that is due to the weakening economy and people stay afterwards to try to get job interviews or references. I must say, however, that the questions asked are far more insightful than in the past.
And, here is the ultimate irony. What school's students have impressed me the most? Emory University, home of Mark Bauerlein.
I do not argue that too many people are in college these days. And, all of us need to read more. This was brought chillingly clear to me watching the 2008 elections. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska was a great speaker, attractive, obviously intelligent, and vivacious. But, she had a frightening deficiency in core knowledge of basic facts that all citizens should know let alone a vice presidential candidate. After the election, conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who obviously liked her, said she "needs to go back to Alaska and read for several years." Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor has started a Web site called Ourcourts.org to teach children some basis civics that they obviously are not getting at home or at school.
But Professor Bauerlein ought to follow me around into a few classes. Maybe he would see that the upcoming generation has some real stars in the making!
2) THE BIG RICH (The Rise and Fall of the Greatest Texas Oil Fortunes) by Bryan Burrough (Penquin, 2009)
I picked up this book for light reading but was immediately hooked. It had many themes--the "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves" odyssey that hit many oil patch families over three generations, the funding that the political right received from Texas Oil at crucial times, and how the survivors learned to diversify to survive and prosper.
Let me end with a simple personal note. In 1997, I moved to Dallas, Texas. At noon one day, I had a media lunch scheduled at a posh watering hole. At the next table, a couple of old impeccably dressed fellows were on their second bottle of Chivas Regal which sat open at the table. In walked a big stereotype--big smile, big belly, tan suit, business Stetson and bolo tie. He joined my neighbors and they talked for a couple of hours as I tried to do a bit of business. The big fellow left first and a limo (thankfully) was picking up the two well lubricated lunch buddies. While waiting for the valet to bring my Subaru up, one fellow said to the other. "Our Fort Worth friend has done well. He has three units." The other nodded in agreement. Months later I discovered that a unit was Texas talk for a hundred million dollars.
3) HOT, FLAT, and CROWDED By Thomas Friedman (Farrah, Strauss, and Giroux, 2008)
I love reading everything Friedman writes from his New York Times columns to THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE, LONGITUDES AND LATITUDES and THE WORLD IS FLAT. This book had the same energy and fire of the previous three but struck me as unrealistic. He spent most of the book discussing the need for renewable energy sources with a tone of just do it. I was surprised at how naive he seemed. It takes a lot of steel that we do not have to build 350,000 windmills or millions of new solar panels. And the cost of harnessing renewables will likely rise and sharply. Also, some significant energy needs to be used to get us to energy self-suffiency. Nevertheless, he is always worth reading. Separately, he is a passionate free trade advocate which is interesting to see given his other beliefs. I became a free trader at age 20 after reading Bastiat.
4) TAKE THIS JOB AND SHIP IT By Senator Byron L. Dorgan (Thomas Dunne, 2006)
The North Dakota Democrat never impresses me when I see him on CNBC or C-Span. I read the book only to test my free trade position. He surprised me with an emotional appeal discussing America before globalization and how small town America thrived prior to NAFTA. I have newfound respect for him as he cares about everyday Americans but I firmly believe that free trade opens far more doors than it closes.
5) TWILIGHT IN THE DESERT By Matthew R. Simmons (Wiley, 2005)
The author is a Houston based investment banker who specializes in oil related activity. This is an alarmist but brilliantly researched book. His main point is that the easy oil has been taken out of Saudi Arabia and right now they are maintaining heavy production only by injecting vast quantities of water into the wells to get sufficient yield. By 2013, he states they cannot keep the game going and we need to develop alternative sources NOW. The book is intensely difficult to read and a bit labored at times but his point is very well made. Even today with oil at roughly 1/3 of its high a year ago, he stubbornly maintains that, when the global economy snaps back, we will have the mother of all oil crunches.
For a contary opinion, try THE BOTTOMLESS WELL By Peter Huber and Mark Mills (Basic Books, 2005)
The thesis here is that "technology will trump geology" and we will continue to have all the oil we need as recovery of existing discoveries will only get better.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Case for Streaming Video
In California, a trim ebullient 66 year old attorney spends an hour each day in his office watching Twilight Zone episodes from the early 1960's on Hulu.com (I wonder to whom he is billing that hour!). Three thousand miles away, in the mid-Atlantic, an erudite and lovely lady of a certain age never misses The Daily Show on Hulu.com or Grey's Anatomy on ABC.com. Her husband, a 59 year old crusty curmudgeon, is a private investor struggling through a winter of discontent. The old grouch rarely turns on his TV but he watches 30 Rock on his laptop thanks to Hulu.com and monitors his sinking finances via CNBC.com daily. What on earth is going on? Streaming video has changed their habits forever.
What is streaming video? Simply put, it is video that is watched in the digital space. It may be the latest episode of a mainstream TV series, a home made film on You Tube, a news or sport clip from CNN or ESPN, or a vintage movie that you watch for free on an illegal site based in China. Or, it could be Video on Demand that you pay for via your Comcast or Time Warner subscription. As it catches on, it will change our way of using media in general and in launching and supporting brands.
Almost exactly a year ago today, NBC Universal and News Corp. (Fox) announced an unusual joint venture with a strange Chinese name. They dubbed their new service Hulu.com and it grew steadily from day one. Hulu featured hundreds of episodes of old TV shows from decades ago as well recent episodes and clips from current shows on NBC, Fox, and a number of cable channels. They also had a motley mix of feature films. The service was free to consumers but ad supported. Viewers only saw roughly 1/4 of the advertising that a live viewer on TV would see. The model seemed just about right--viewers would put up with a bit of advertising when the service was free. Advertisers like it as you cannot zip or zap commercials as you can with a remote in your hand or a DVR. And, you watch what you want exactly when you want. Hulu distributes content to its own site but also syndicates it to many others. They have received a lot more attention in recent weeks after launching an ad campaign in Super Bowl XLIII featuring Alec Baldwin.
Time magazine, in its year end issue, rated Hulu.com the 4th best website of 2008. The editors sent shudders to the big MSO's when they said "when cable eventually dies, websites like Hulu will be responsible". They go on to describe the service as a corporate knockoff of YouTube that "has untethered TV from that box in your living room".
Why on earth would NBC Universal and Fox create Hulu.com? Doesn't it merely hasten the decline of their networks? Yes, to a certain degree it does. To me, both companies are being realistic. People are abandoning broadcast and now cable to watch video online. So, by creating Hulu, they have created an advertising supported service that still reaches many viewers to their key programs. And it catches some light viewers, and very importantly, some exceptionally light viewers. Today, Hulu.com outdelivers ABC.com and other leading players in the field. As of August, they sell local availabilities across any DMA in the U.S. They are pricey locally just as the CPM is higher for spot TV vs. network. However, you must see the commercials to get to content so real world delivery of the message may be nearly as efficient as TV. CBS has announced that it will soon release a Hulu clone with some of their programming. If you haven't tried Hulu, do so soon. It does not save as much time as a DVR does but it is close and is a very good experience.
But streaming video expands far beyond Hulu. This morning I was dying to see highlights of the epic Syracuse-UConn basketball game that went to six overtimes. I scrambled to ESPN.com and patiently watched a 15 second commercial prior to seeing the clip. Magazines, even highbrow books, offer it on their sites and when buying ad networks, bring the topic up with your sales rep. You will be surprised where your spot will be shown. And, the odds are good that you will introduce a substantial number of blue chip viewers who have either been underexposed to your commercial via broadcast/cable or not seen it at all. In an era when reach & frequency projections are suspect, authentic fresh reach, although small at present, is highly desirable.
Finally, some research, admittedly fragmentary, makes a case for making streaming video a part of your marketing mix. When advertisers have used streaming video and TV, they find that key brand metrics and message communication work just as well via streaming video as with conventional methods of delivery. And, again, streaming has the added plus of finding some of those hard to reach light TV viewers like many of us in the business.
Is video the future of digital advertising? I would say that it has to be. For years, critics blasted television content. It was considered "a vast wasteland." Yet viewing levels continued to inch up year after year. David Moore, CEO of 24/7 Real Media put it well last year when describing streaming video--"No other advertising vehicle combines the sight, sound and motion of television ads with the interactivity, targeting, and measurability of the Internet."
Face it! Americans, particularly younger Americans do not read enough. But they watch video anywhere, including their cell phone. Recent studies have shown that teenagers now go to YouTube in many cases before Wikipedia when they are researching a topic. The thought process is that maybe a video in some form is available on the subject.
Last month, America celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. Libraries highlighted dozens of Lincoln biographies on their shelves. C-Span and the History Channel gave him great coverage and commentators quoted him at length. Well, I dug up a quotation from Honest Abe that could be an exellent fit with today's situation regarding streaming video. Lincoln said "the best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
So, take a tip from our 16th president. You do not have to plunge into streaming video tomorrow. But, start to get ready. Maybe test several low cost venues later this year and certainly next. Once consumers of all ages get into it, there will be no turning back. Get to know this powerful new media force well before it becomes mainstream.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
What is streaming video? Simply put, it is video that is watched in the digital space. It may be the latest episode of a mainstream TV series, a home made film on You Tube, a news or sport clip from CNN or ESPN, or a vintage movie that you watch for free on an illegal site based in China. Or, it could be Video on Demand that you pay for via your Comcast or Time Warner subscription. As it catches on, it will change our way of using media in general and in launching and supporting brands.
Almost exactly a year ago today, NBC Universal and News Corp. (Fox) announced an unusual joint venture with a strange Chinese name. They dubbed their new service Hulu.com and it grew steadily from day one. Hulu featured hundreds of episodes of old TV shows from decades ago as well recent episodes and clips from current shows on NBC, Fox, and a number of cable channels. They also had a motley mix of feature films. The service was free to consumers but ad supported. Viewers only saw roughly 1/4 of the advertising that a live viewer on TV would see. The model seemed just about right--viewers would put up with a bit of advertising when the service was free. Advertisers like it as you cannot zip or zap commercials as you can with a remote in your hand or a DVR. And, you watch what you want exactly when you want. Hulu distributes content to its own site but also syndicates it to many others. They have received a lot more attention in recent weeks after launching an ad campaign in Super Bowl XLIII featuring Alec Baldwin.
Time magazine, in its year end issue, rated Hulu.com the 4th best website of 2008. The editors sent shudders to the big MSO's when they said "when cable eventually dies, websites like Hulu will be responsible". They go on to describe the service as a corporate knockoff of YouTube that "has untethered TV from that box in your living room".
Why on earth would NBC Universal and Fox create Hulu.com? Doesn't it merely hasten the decline of their networks? Yes, to a certain degree it does. To me, both companies are being realistic. People are abandoning broadcast and now cable to watch video online. So, by creating Hulu, they have created an advertising supported service that still reaches many viewers to their key programs. And it catches some light viewers, and very importantly, some exceptionally light viewers. Today, Hulu.com outdelivers ABC.com and other leading players in the field. As of August, they sell local availabilities across any DMA in the U.S. They are pricey locally just as the CPM is higher for spot TV vs. network. However, you must see the commercials to get to content so real world delivery of the message may be nearly as efficient as TV. CBS has announced that it will soon release a Hulu clone with some of their programming. If you haven't tried Hulu, do so soon. It does not save as much time as a DVR does but it is close and is a very good experience.
But streaming video expands far beyond Hulu. This morning I was dying to see highlights of the epic Syracuse-UConn basketball game that went to six overtimes. I scrambled to ESPN.com and patiently watched a 15 second commercial prior to seeing the clip. Magazines, even highbrow books, offer it on their sites and when buying ad networks, bring the topic up with your sales rep. You will be surprised where your spot will be shown. And, the odds are good that you will introduce a substantial number of blue chip viewers who have either been underexposed to your commercial via broadcast/cable or not seen it at all. In an era when reach & frequency projections are suspect, authentic fresh reach, although small at present, is highly desirable.
Finally, some research, admittedly fragmentary, makes a case for making streaming video a part of your marketing mix. When advertisers have used streaming video and TV, they find that key brand metrics and message communication work just as well via streaming video as with conventional methods of delivery. And, again, streaming has the added plus of finding some of those hard to reach light TV viewers like many of us in the business.
Is video the future of digital advertising? I would say that it has to be. For years, critics blasted television content. It was considered "a vast wasteland." Yet viewing levels continued to inch up year after year. David Moore, CEO of 24/7 Real Media put it well last year when describing streaming video--"No other advertising vehicle combines the sight, sound and motion of television ads with the interactivity, targeting, and measurability of the Internet."
Face it! Americans, particularly younger Americans do not read enough. But they watch video anywhere, including their cell phone. Recent studies have shown that teenagers now go to YouTube in many cases before Wikipedia when they are researching a topic. The thought process is that maybe a video in some form is available on the subject.
Last month, America celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. Libraries highlighted dozens of Lincoln biographies on their shelves. C-Span and the History Channel gave him great coverage and commentators quoted him at length. Well, I dug up a quotation from Honest Abe that could be an exellent fit with today's situation regarding streaming video. Lincoln said "the best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
So, take a tip from our 16th president. You do not have to plunge into streaming video tomorrow. But, start to get ready. Maybe test several low cost venues later this year and certainly next. Once consumers of all ages get into it, there will be no turning back. Get to know this powerful new media force well before it becomes mainstream.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Monday, March 9, 2009
Regional Sports Channels--Time for Another Look
Regional sports channels have been around for a long time. But they are perhaps the most misunderstood medium of them all. Much of the problem is they are neither fish nor fowl--not a national network such as ESPN and not spot TV either. This causes them some real problems in selling their products and also, to a certain degree, in evaluating their effectiveness.
What is a regional sports channel (RSN)? It is a cable channel that generally devotes 100% of its airtime to cover sports programming. Unlike ESPN, which is an amazing success story, regional channels, by definition, are not national in scope. They deliver as little as a single Nielsen DMA to a dozen or more simultaneously. The focus is on local teams both professional and college. There are also some excellent syndicators such as Raycom which air basketball and football such as the ACC Conference on broadcast TV in a number of markets and have splendid production values. Cable giant Comcast is entering the fray in many parts of the country and, if they stick with it, should have some success down the road.
The largest player is Fox Sports which has 10 owned and operated regional networks crisscrossing the U.S. plus partial interest in others and serves as a sales organization for 35 entities. They at one time probably thought they could compete head on with ESPN by delivering large numbers in home markets across the US. String the local numbers together and you should get far more than ESPN could with a national game. Somehow it did not work out that way in terms of dollar sales. ESPN is one of the greatest success stories in TV history. They have branded themselves better than almost any other product or service in the world. Their Sportscenter program is Appointment Viewing for many young men and has turned people across the country away from late news on their local affiliate. When college football appears on ABC, it tellingly is billed as ESPN on ABC. No one would have forecast that years ago.
So while Fox and other RSN's often deliver surprising numbers in the 2009 media world, they do not get the respect or outrageous premiums that ESPN does both nationally and in local cable. Young people tell me they watch a game on Fox but afterwards switch to ESPN to see the highlights rather the Fox post game show. I guess the spirit of Rodney Dangerfield still lives on as Fox gets no respect. Certainly, they and others in the RSN space do not get what they deserve from the advertiser community.
Another problem for the RSN's is finding out who the decisionmaker is regarding their use. Is it the client? Agencies hate it when they are bypassed by salespeople. Is it the spot buying director? The planning supervisor? The media director? You have as many answers as you have agencies so this hybrid medium which is a tough sell to begin with has logistical problems that other media types do not have to hurdle.
Salespeople in the regional arena have always been problematic to me. I have never seen such wild extremes in quality. Two of the best salespeople that I have ever encountered across all media types were RSN reps. One was from the midwest; the other the Carolinas. But very often the new rep assigned to an agency seems to have had 48 hours of training and is turned loose on the ad world. They are particularly ineffective if they cannot shed the mindset of spot TV salespeople which many of them were prior to joining the RSN. They are very presumptious and feel they deserve a share of a local market buy. Talk to them of "crossover points" (where regionals become a better value than buying the covered spot markets) and you get a deer in the headlights response.
But RSN's have a great deal to offer. Here is a brief list that an energetic salesperson should get across in a 20 minute meeting. In no specific order, we find:
1) They are a network and by definition networks save advertisers money over spot.
2) It is a wholesome environment which is increasingly rare in TV. (A few hockey games may negate this!)
3) The pods are shorter. In a world of men grazing across the satellite and cable universes during breaks, this is important.
4) As DVR penetration grows, sports are probably going to be a affected a lot less than primetime series. (In our January 6th post, "The Elephant in all Our Offices", we discuss how even sports is losing a bit due to DVR growth)
5) The teams featured are local or regional at worst. This goes a long way in instilling viewer interest and loyalty.
6) One of the last bastions of "Appointment TV" which has largely disappeared from broadcast TV.
7) Regional networks generally produce their programming which gives them great flexibility.
Flexibility requires a bit of explanation. RSN's often produce their own games and can create client oriented exposure with customized and fun features that the networks and ESPN cannot or will not do. The good ones will get out in the community for you with player appearances at retail locations and build consumer interest. Solid promotions, on-air contests and access to the teams are much more than their competitors can do. Long term with TV slowly sinking, this might be their best avenue of growth and financial survival.
They also listen to clients because they have to. Regionals are a very tough sell and often the advertiser is as involved as the agency in putting a deal together. Saavy clients need to ask for something that is unique to them. They usually can get it.
Finally, let's face it. When broadcast catches a cold, these guys at RSN's probably have walking pneumonia (basketball excepted early this month). So, they are very much in a "Let's Make a Deal" mode. There may not be a better time in the last 20 years than now to take the plunge with RSN's. Values are excellent and they are very hungry and that should spawn imaginative packaging.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
What is a regional sports channel (RSN)? It is a cable channel that generally devotes 100% of its airtime to cover sports programming. Unlike ESPN, which is an amazing success story, regional channels, by definition, are not national in scope. They deliver as little as a single Nielsen DMA to a dozen or more simultaneously. The focus is on local teams both professional and college. There are also some excellent syndicators such as Raycom which air basketball and football such as the ACC Conference on broadcast TV in a number of markets and have splendid production values. Cable giant Comcast is entering the fray in many parts of the country and, if they stick with it, should have some success down the road.
The largest player is Fox Sports which has 10 owned and operated regional networks crisscrossing the U.S. plus partial interest in others and serves as a sales organization for 35 entities. They at one time probably thought they could compete head on with ESPN by delivering large numbers in home markets across the US. String the local numbers together and you should get far more than ESPN could with a national game. Somehow it did not work out that way in terms of dollar sales. ESPN is one of the greatest success stories in TV history. They have branded themselves better than almost any other product or service in the world. Their Sportscenter program is Appointment Viewing for many young men and has turned people across the country away from late news on their local affiliate. When college football appears on ABC, it tellingly is billed as ESPN on ABC. No one would have forecast that years ago.
So while Fox and other RSN's often deliver surprising numbers in the 2009 media world, they do not get the respect or outrageous premiums that ESPN does both nationally and in local cable. Young people tell me they watch a game on Fox but afterwards switch to ESPN to see the highlights rather the Fox post game show. I guess the spirit of Rodney Dangerfield still lives on as Fox gets no respect. Certainly, they and others in the RSN space do not get what they deserve from the advertiser community.
Another problem for the RSN's is finding out who the decisionmaker is regarding their use. Is it the client? Agencies hate it when they are bypassed by salespeople. Is it the spot buying director? The planning supervisor? The media director? You have as many answers as you have agencies so this hybrid medium which is a tough sell to begin with has logistical problems that other media types do not have to hurdle.
Salespeople in the regional arena have always been problematic to me. I have never seen such wild extremes in quality. Two of the best salespeople that I have ever encountered across all media types were RSN reps. One was from the midwest; the other the Carolinas. But very often the new rep assigned to an agency seems to have had 48 hours of training and is turned loose on the ad world. They are particularly ineffective if they cannot shed the mindset of spot TV salespeople which many of them were prior to joining the RSN. They are very presumptious and feel they deserve a share of a local market buy. Talk to them of "crossover points" (where regionals become a better value than buying the covered spot markets) and you get a deer in the headlights response.
But RSN's have a great deal to offer. Here is a brief list that an energetic salesperson should get across in a 20 minute meeting. In no specific order, we find:
1) They are a network and by definition networks save advertisers money over spot.
2) It is a wholesome environment which is increasingly rare in TV. (A few hockey games may negate this!)
3) The pods are shorter. In a world of men grazing across the satellite and cable universes during breaks, this is important.
4) As DVR penetration grows, sports are probably going to be a affected a lot less than primetime series. (In our January 6th post, "The Elephant in all Our Offices", we discuss how even sports is losing a bit due to DVR growth)
5) The teams featured are local or regional at worst. This goes a long way in instilling viewer interest and loyalty.
6) One of the last bastions of "Appointment TV" which has largely disappeared from broadcast TV.
7) Regional networks generally produce their programming which gives them great flexibility.
Flexibility requires a bit of explanation. RSN's often produce their own games and can create client oriented exposure with customized and fun features that the networks and ESPN cannot or will not do. The good ones will get out in the community for you with player appearances at retail locations and build consumer interest. Solid promotions, on-air contests and access to the teams are much more than their competitors can do. Long term with TV slowly sinking, this might be their best avenue of growth and financial survival.
They also listen to clients because they have to. Regionals are a very tough sell and often the advertiser is as involved as the agency in putting a deal together. Saavy clients need to ask for something that is unique to them. They usually can get it.
Finally, let's face it. When broadcast catches a cold, these guys at RSN's probably have walking pneumonia (basketball excepted early this month). So, they are very much in a "Let's Make a Deal" mode. There may not be a better time in the last 20 years than now to take the plunge with RSN's. Values are excellent and they are very hungry and that should spawn imaginative packaging.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Monday, February 23, 2009
Are We in a Depression?
Panic seems to have taken hold in our industry. Over the last two weeks, I have received a few dozen e-mails or calls from people whom I know. They ask me point blank--"Are we in a depression rather than a recession."
Before we answer, let's step back a moment and define terms and take a long look at U.S. economic history. In one sense, recession is a fairly new term. In the 19th century and up to the Great Depression of the 1930's, financial downturns were often referred to as Panics or Depressions. The two most famous were the Panic of 1837 which lasted five years and the Long Depression which was a horrendous downturn that spanned from 1873-1896. There were mini-depressions within the Long Depression with the most painful lasting continuously from 1873-1878. The Great Depression of the 1930's was really a downturn from late 1929-1933 and a later downward spike in 1937-1938. Stocks fell 89% from 1929-1933 and were halved again in the 1937-38 crunch. By Christmas, 1933, unemployment was 25%. Some claim only ramped up production in World War II pulled us out of it.
Since then, our downturns have been fewer and milder and are always referred to by the media as "recessions'. No one wants to use the term depression as it conjures up the 1930's which were horrendous. What is a recession? The classic definition is a decline in the Gross National Product that lasts for at least two consecutive quarters. Often, we have been out of recessions by the time we identify conclusively one having taken place. Today, we know for sure that we are in one and it has not bottomed out yet.
For those who think we are headed for another Great Depression or are already there, please keep in mind the following: We now have FDIC insurance on bank deposits and unemployment insurance, two key programs that were not available in the early years of the 1930's. They will put a brake on things. Also, we were on the gold standard in the early 1930's and government by law could not print money at will. Today, governments can, and they have few qualms about doing it to reinflate the economy. This will cause inflation, perhaps serious inflation a few years down the road, but people would likely be working still.
What is a depression? While opinions vary, many economists state it is a continuous decline in economic activity, or Gross National Product (GNP), that lasts for 36 months or more. By that standard, we would still need to be shrinking until January, 2011. Others peg it to an unemployment level of 11.0% or more. We are currently at 7.6% nationally and we did reach 10.8% in the recession of 1981-1982.
How does this relate to our world of media? It is hard to say. If the present trend continues for another 15-18 months, then we would likely be in a media depression. Newspapers may already be there but, as mentioned in a post last month, that medium has structural problems regardless of the state of the economy. Spot TV and radio are in a similar but less precarious position.
So, we all need to ride this out. Both Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan have been attributed the quotation: "A recession is when your neighbor is out of work. A depression is when you are out of work." As the media and agencies downsize in the months to come, it will be hard not to be discouraged or even frightened. And, the backdrop of rapid change in the media landscape itself takes an unsettling situation and makes it worse.
But, what you need to do is keep going. Take a deep breath when you hear the latest economic news or look at your 401k statement. This is a difficult time but definitely not the worst economic challenge that our country or advertising industry has seen.
I assure you, my friends, the future has not been cancelled.
If you would like to conact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Before we answer, let's step back a moment and define terms and take a long look at U.S. economic history. In one sense, recession is a fairly new term. In the 19th century and up to the Great Depression of the 1930's, financial downturns were often referred to as Panics or Depressions. The two most famous were the Panic of 1837 which lasted five years and the Long Depression which was a horrendous downturn that spanned from 1873-1896. There were mini-depressions within the Long Depression with the most painful lasting continuously from 1873-1878. The Great Depression of the 1930's was really a downturn from late 1929-1933 and a later downward spike in 1937-1938. Stocks fell 89% from 1929-1933 and were halved again in the 1937-38 crunch. By Christmas, 1933, unemployment was 25%. Some claim only ramped up production in World War II pulled us out of it.
Since then, our downturns have been fewer and milder and are always referred to by the media as "recessions'. No one wants to use the term depression as it conjures up the 1930's which were horrendous. What is a recession? The classic definition is a decline in the Gross National Product that lasts for at least two consecutive quarters. Often, we have been out of recessions by the time we identify conclusively one having taken place. Today, we know for sure that we are in one and it has not bottomed out yet.
For those who think we are headed for another Great Depression or are already there, please keep in mind the following: We now have FDIC insurance on bank deposits and unemployment insurance, two key programs that were not available in the early years of the 1930's. They will put a brake on things. Also, we were on the gold standard in the early 1930's and government by law could not print money at will. Today, governments can, and they have few qualms about doing it to reinflate the economy. This will cause inflation, perhaps serious inflation a few years down the road, but people would likely be working still.
What is a depression? While opinions vary, many economists state it is a continuous decline in economic activity, or Gross National Product (GNP), that lasts for 36 months or more. By that standard, we would still need to be shrinking until January, 2011. Others peg it to an unemployment level of 11.0% or more. We are currently at 7.6% nationally and we did reach 10.8% in the recession of 1981-1982.
How does this relate to our world of media? It is hard to say. If the present trend continues for another 15-18 months, then we would likely be in a media depression. Newspapers may already be there but, as mentioned in a post last month, that medium has structural problems regardless of the state of the economy. Spot TV and radio are in a similar but less precarious position.
So, we all need to ride this out. Both Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan have been attributed the quotation: "A recession is when your neighbor is out of work. A depression is when you are out of work." As the media and agencies downsize in the months to come, it will be hard not to be discouraged or even frightened. And, the backdrop of rapid change in the media landscape itself takes an unsettling situation and makes it worse.
But, what you need to do is keep going. Take a deep breath when you hear the latest economic news or look at your 401k statement. This is a difficult time but definitely not the worst economic challenge that our country or advertising industry has seen.
I assure you, my friends, the future has not been cancelled.
If you would like to conact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Nothing Can Replace Television and It Almost Has!
Until I returned permanently to Baltimore six weeks ago, I have been traveling 200,000 miles per year annually for decades. I visited with local TV stations, cable interconnects, magazines, clients, client prospects, and all sorts of new media sales teams. Today, I still talk and e-mail with hundreds in the media and visit some face to face.
What I see and hear stuns me. The broadcast media, as a group, are in almost complete denial about what is going on in our world of media. When the relentless march of broadcast fragmentation is brought up, local station people respond with "have you seen our local news. It is extraordinary." I have and it is not.
Ask industry people about how DVR's are changing the effectiveness of TV as an advertising medium and the more mature (in age only) say something to the effect that they hope they will be retired before the effects are truly felt in the marketplace. What kind of answer is that?
We recognize that no one likes change. However, sitting back and pretending that it does not exist is not only a non-solution, it is a danger to the future of our industry.
Today, more than ever, this is a time for truth. From our perspective, here is the reality of where we are:
1) the Internet is not "the" solution. A surprising number of people who should know better feel that on line activity will simply take the place of TV over time. Yes, it will help and continue to grow as an advertising medium, but, there is nothing out there that will ever replace the dynamic mass selling medium that television has been. (we will discuss streaming video in an upcoming post)
2) Today's consumers are now in control and they are not going back to being passive viewers again. Life "on-demand' appeals to people. DVR's, blogs, You tube, Hulu.com, The Slingbox, streaming video, new cable platforms, and many other possibilities have permanently upset the TV landscape. Watch how a young adult uses media--are you positioning your campaigns to reach young people well or at all for that matter?
3) It will be harder and much more expensive to bring out new brands and products. Time tested tactics such as "roadblocks" or vertical strikes in primetime are now virtually impossible. Buy 80 channels deep and you still cannot replicate the reach a conventional TV buy provided not that many years ago. And what of the cost?
4) Because of #3, the entrenched players are in a very good position over the next 10 years. Watch for lots of line extensions
coming from big players in package goods and many other disciplines. Nestle, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Heinz, and Kellogg along with the major soap companies will be unusually well positioned both domestically and abroad.
5) As mentioned, way too many (but not all) local broadcasters are in denial. To say that they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titantic gives them too much credit. Winning the night with a three rating is good in that a win is a win. But it is still a three rating. What are the other 97% of the DMA doing?
There is also a terrible danger with the presence of legacy mentalities out there. People sit in meetings and nod vigorously when I say that TV is losing its luster as a sales medium. But, moments later they say something to the effect that the solution to TV's slow death is simply adding more weight. Add more weight? They will still miss the people that they are missing now! All additional weight will do is add significant frequency to the same folks they reach now who are heavy TV viewers and not always the most desirable prospects.
Another huge problem is that most new media options will not work. In recent years and today, I try to give prospective clients a laundry list of media tests in new business presentations. The audience is more than polite; they are truly attentive. But, invariably, someone in the room will say "Tell us which ones will work and we will do those."
Well. We are recommending tests in these sessions. And, by definition, we do not know which will work. We expect and hope to be surprised and hit a 500 foot home run with some of them or, more realistically, one of them. The truth is that most will fail and fail quickly and badly.
There is a wonderful scene in both the stage and film versions of "1776." The fiery John Adams is watching fellow delegates to the Continental Congress pick apart and try to soften Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Finally, in exasperation, he rises and says "Gentlemen, this is a revolution. We have to offend someone."
Many of us with a bit of grey hair have had the privilege of working in an industry that was exciting and fun but somewhat predictable. Those days are over but even those who see it clearly are afraid to acknowledge it publicly. We desperately need a bit of the spirit of John Adams if we are to become founding fathers of the next generation of media professionals.
This is arguably the most exciting time to work in advertising and media since 1953 when TV really hit its stride as an advertising medium. Change is unsettling but no one can hold back the ongoing tidal wave. Embrace the change, challenge, if necessary offend the status quo, or the revolution will soon make you irrelevant.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, e-mail him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
What I see and hear stuns me. The broadcast media, as a group, are in almost complete denial about what is going on in our world of media. When the relentless march of broadcast fragmentation is brought up, local station people respond with "have you seen our local news. It is extraordinary." I have and it is not.
Ask industry people about how DVR's are changing the effectiveness of TV as an advertising medium and the more mature (in age only) say something to the effect that they hope they will be retired before the effects are truly felt in the marketplace. What kind of answer is that?
We recognize that no one likes change. However, sitting back and pretending that it does not exist is not only a non-solution, it is a danger to the future of our industry.
Today, more than ever, this is a time for truth. From our perspective, here is the reality of where we are:
1) the Internet is not "the" solution. A surprising number of people who should know better feel that on line activity will simply take the place of TV over time. Yes, it will help and continue to grow as an advertising medium, but, there is nothing out there that will ever replace the dynamic mass selling medium that television has been. (we will discuss streaming video in an upcoming post)
2) Today's consumers are now in control and they are not going back to being passive viewers again. Life "on-demand' appeals to people. DVR's, blogs, You tube, Hulu.com, The Slingbox, streaming video, new cable platforms, and many other possibilities have permanently upset the TV landscape. Watch how a young adult uses media--are you positioning your campaigns to reach young people well or at all for that matter?
3) It will be harder and much more expensive to bring out new brands and products. Time tested tactics such as "roadblocks" or vertical strikes in primetime are now virtually impossible. Buy 80 channels deep and you still cannot replicate the reach a conventional TV buy provided not that many years ago. And what of the cost?
4) Because of #3, the entrenched players are in a very good position over the next 10 years. Watch for lots of line extensions
coming from big players in package goods and many other disciplines. Nestle, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Heinz, and Kellogg along with the major soap companies will be unusually well positioned both domestically and abroad.
5) As mentioned, way too many (but not all) local broadcasters are in denial. To say that they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titantic gives them too much credit. Winning the night with a three rating is good in that a win is a win. But it is still a three rating. What are the other 97% of the DMA doing?
There is also a terrible danger with the presence of legacy mentalities out there. People sit in meetings and nod vigorously when I say that TV is losing its luster as a sales medium. But, moments later they say something to the effect that the solution to TV's slow death is simply adding more weight. Add more weight? They will still miss the people that they are missing now! All additional weight will do is add significant frequency to the same folks they reach now who are heavy TV viewers and not always the most desirable prospects.
Another huge problem is that most new media options will not work. In recent years and today, I try to give prospective clients a laundry list of media tests in new business presentations. The audience is more than polite; they are truly attentive. But, invariably, someone in the room will say "Tell us which ones will work and we will do those."
Well. We are recommending tests in these sessions. And, by definition, we do not know which will work. We expect and hope to be surprised and hit a 500 foot home run with some of them or, more realistically, one of them. The truth is that most will fail and fail quickly and badly.
There is a wonderful scene in both the stage and film versions of "1776." The fiery John Adams is watching fellow delegates to the Continental Congress pick apart and try to soften Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Finally, in exasperation, he rises and says "Gentlemen, this is a revolution. We have to offend someone."
Many of us with a bit of grey hair have had the privilege of working in an industry that was exciting and fun but somewhat predictable. Those days are over but even those who see it clearly are afraid to acknowledge it publicly. We desperately need a bit of the spirit of John Adams if we are to become founding fathers of the next generation of media professionals.
This is arguably the most exciting time to work in advertising and media since 1953 when TV really hit its stride as an advertising medium. Change is unsettling but no one can hold back the ongoing tidal wave. Embrace the change, challenge, if necessary offend the status quo, or the revolution will soon make you irrelevant.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, e-mail him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Outdoor--The Last Mass Medium
Every two years, legendary investor Warren Buffett and his Vice Chairman at Berkshire Hathaway, Charlie Munger, invite a select group of financiers and business executives to a retreat to discuss the economy and value investing. At every meeting over the last couple of decades he also has an exercise that he does with all participants. A recent book on Buffett describes it as follows: "Buffett posed the Desert Island Challenge. If you were stranded on a desert island for ten years, he asked, in which stock would you invest in."
"The trick was to find a company with the strongest franchise, one least subject to the corroding forces of competition and time--Munger's idea of a great business." (Quotes from page 331 of "The Snowball--Warren Buffett and the Business of Life" by Alice Schroeder, Bantam Dell, 2008. Highly recommended!)
Taking a hint from the great Buffett, I went to my panel across the nation and asked the Don Cole version of the Desert Island Challenge. If you were planning a national media campaign for a well heeled advertiser, what medium do you think would be least effected by all the changes going on in the media envirionment in the next 10 years?
( A quick aside about my panel. They are a group of approximately 20 professionals whom I value and trust. Many are sales people across different media, a few at agencies and buying services and a couple of highly seasoned media researchers. There is signficant geographic dispersion to the panel as well. Every month or so, I throw out a question as I am preparing a post. All replies are treated with strict confidence and NO ONE will ever have his/her name mentioned.)
Response to the Desert Island Challenge was excellent. What was particularly gratifying is that the panel members did not gravitate to the medium that they are selling or where they place most of their dollars in the case of agency/buying service players.
There was a brief but intriquing response that listed college sports as a stable player over the next decade. The reasons were not media driven but more sociological in nature as the panelist wrote of its role in many US households.
But the dominant response and the one I also chose was Outdoor. Think about it for a moment. It has been very stable for generations and only now is getting interesting with the emergence of digital boards in many locations. One panelist who is even greener than I environmentally said "I would love to see the outdoor space shared with something useful, like attaching solar panels or wind turbines to the boards." An excellent idea to blunt criticism if localities decide that outdoor is environmentally insensitive.
To me, from a media perspective, Outdoor should change the least for one simple reason--it is the last mass medium. With fragmentation effecting everything else, Outdoor is the classic "old man river" medium in that it just keeps rolling along!
Am I saying that outdoor should become the dominant player in most media plans? Of course not. It will still likely be a support medium in many instances. But it will be able to deliver an audience that is larger and broader based than anything else as the years roll by. If you have a simple message, it should probably play a larger role going forward in many plans than it does today.
About two years ago, a GSM at a large market TV station invited me to give my media forecast presentation that looks five years ahead to his sales staff and other station personnel. He was fearless as my comments about spot TV were very blunt and he was not the least bit defensive. Afterwards, his two best salespeople came up to me, thanked me, and asked if they should look for a job selling outdoor. Half seriously, I said that they might want to consider it. Today, I would say definitely.
If you would like to connect Don Cole directly, e-mail him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
"The trick was to find a company with the strongest franchise, one least subject to the corroding forces of competition and time--Munger's idea of a great business." (Quotes from page 331 of "The Snowball--Warren Buffett and the Business of Life" by Alice Schroeder, Bantam Dell, 2008. Highly recommended!)
Taking a hint from the great Buffett, I went to my panel across the nation and asked the Don Cole version of the Desert Island Challenge. If you were planning a national media campaign for a well heeled advertiser, what medium do you think would be least effected by all the changes going on in the media envirionment in the next 10 years?
( A quick aside about my panel. They are a group of approximately 20 professionals whom I value and trust. Many are sales people across different media, a few at agencies and buying services and a couple of highly seasoned media researchers. There is signficant geographic dispersion to the panel as well. Every month or so, I throw out a question as I am preparing a post. All replies are treated with strict confidence and NO ONE will ever have his/her name mentioned.)
Response to the Desert Island Challenge was excellent. What was particularly gratifying is that the panel members did not gravitate to the medium that they are selling or where they place most of their dollars in the case of agency/buying service players.
There was a brief but intriquing response that listed college sports as a stable player over the next decade. The reasons were not media driven but more sociological in nature as the panelist wrote of its role in many US households.
But the dominant response and the one I also chose was Outdoor. Think about it for a moment. It has been very stable for generations and only now is getting interesting with the emergence of digital boards in many locations. One panelist who is even greener than I environmentally said "I would love to see the outdoor space shared with something useful, like attaching solar panels or wind turbines to the boards." An excellent idea to blunt criticism if localities decide that outdoor is environmentally insensitive.
To me, from a media perspective, Outdoor should change the least for one simple reason--it is the last mass medium. With fragmentation effecting everything else, Outdoor is the classic "old man river" medium in that it just keeps rolling along!
Am I saying that outdoor should become the dominant player in most media plans? Of course not. It will still likely be a support medium in many instances. But it will be able to deliver an audience that is larger and broader based than anything else as the years roll by. If you have a simple message, it should probably play a larger role going forward in many plans than it does today.
About two years ago, a GSM at a large market TV station invited me to give my media forecast presentation that looks five years ahead to his sales staff and other station personnel. He was fearless as my comments about spot TV were very blunt and he was not the least bit defensive. Afterwards, his two best salespeople came up to me, thanked me, and asked if they should look for a job selling outdoor. Half seriously, I said that they might want to consider it. Today, I would say definitely.
If you would like to connect Don Cole directly, e-mail him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Monday, February 2, 2009
Local TV News--Use Carefully
For my entire career local TV news has been a mainstay of spot TV buys that my team has made. In recent years, I encouraged staffers to cut back in its use in media plans for most products. Its future seems a bit questionable to me as a broad based advertising vehicle and I would like to discuss it in depth in this post.
Local news for decades was a great source of pride for television stations. Competition was fierce and great care was taken to put together anchor teams and sports and weather talent that could appeal to a large cross section of the home DMA. They wanted to appear as good corporate citizens, responsible journalists and fulfill then FCC requirements about public affairs and community involvement. And, it was where much of the station's profits came from as well.
Two major things happened which hurt local news--first cable and then the Internet.
As cable got some traction, young men in particular and sports fans of all stripes realized that ESPN Sportcenter gave them all they wanted and more at 11pm (EST). If there was a big local game they could switch back to a local affiliate at 20 past the hour and catch hometown coverage as well. The Weather Channel did its bit by providing local "at the 8's" which allowed people to get an accurate weather forecast almost at will.
The at-will feature came with Internet growth. Sports, particularly minor sports, were given thorough coverage 24/7. You never had to wait a moment for results. ESPN shined here with all kinds of chat rooms and special features and, of course, streaming video in recent times. Weather was available from several excellent sources online.
Another issue that is hard to quantify is the content of the news. People got sick of the drumbeat of murders, fires, child abuctions, and overall sensationalism of the local product. Also, did you need four stations providing the news often simultaneously? There is only so much going in Podunk and so much beautiful weather in San Diego.
So who is the core of the local news audience? Early news is usually a 50+ vehicle skewing female and, if you do special tabulations via Nielsen, you will find that it is, in many DMA's, downscale, ethnic, and old. After all, if you are watching news at 5 or 5:30 pm the odds are not great that you have a fast track career. You should still be in the office then or perhaps, on Friday night, starting your commute.
Why does early news show up as 15% of some broadcast buys. It appears that many planners and broadcast buyers are lazy. Nielsen says it still may deliver a 2 rating against Adults 18-49 so it helps bring buys in . During a trip to the midwest last year, I sampled early news (5pm) in my hotel room prior to dinner with a station sales manager. I noticed spots for both Jaquar and Mercedes-Benz. My initial response was "what the hell is going on?" Early news cannot be a good vehicle for either brand in virtually any DMA. It appeared a buyer got very lazy or was totally inept and did not think beyond age and gender and bought the news even though 98% of the audience watching at that hour could not possibly afford either advertised vehicle.
It amazes me that local cable sales have not picked up on this issue a lot more. If you are selling detergent, toothpaste (but more denture adhesive!), or certain foods or health products, then early news is fine and often efficient. But cable has a fistful of channels that surely can provide a better demographic for many products and services than you see in early news in almost any market.
Late news was a stalking horse for Prime years ago both in audience size and demography. Not so any longer! And the Local People Meter (LPM) data have driven that point home even more strongly with long time late news goliaths suddenly slain when a new and improved measurement technique came to down. While more appealing than early news, it is simply not what it used to be as a media vehicle.
My point here is that all TV is suffering and is less effective than it once was due to rating distintegration on over the air channels, digital growth, and, of course, DVR growth. But leaving a heavy news component in many buys smacks of the late 1970's not the first decade of the 21st century. When it comes to news, CAVEAT EMPTOR!
To contact Don Cole directly, e-mail him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Local news for decades was a great source of pride for television stations. Competition was fierce and great care was taken to put together anchor teams and sports and weather talent that could appeal to a large cross section of the home DMA. They wanted to appear as good corporate citizens, responsible journalists and fulfill then FCC requirements about public affairs and community involvement. And, it was where much of the station's profits came from as well.
Two major things happened which hurt local news--first cable and then the Internet.
As cable got some traction, young men in particular and sports fans of all stripes realized that ESPN Sportcenter gave them all they wanted and more at 11pm (EST). If there was a big local game they could switch back to a local affiliate at 20 past the hour and catch hometown coverage as well. The Weather Channel did its bit by providing local "at the 8's" which allowed people to get an accurate weather forecast almost at will.
The at-will feature came with Internet growth. Sports, particularly minor sports, were given thorough coverage 24/7. You never had to wait a moment for results. ESPN shined here with all kinds of chat rooms and special features and, of course, streaming video in recent times. Weather was available from several excellent sources online.
Another issue that is hard to quantify is the content of the news. People got sick of the drumbeat of murders, fires, child abuctions, and overall sensationalism of the local product. Also, did you need four stations providing the news often simultaneously? There is only so much going in Podunk and so much beautiful weather in San Diego.
So who is the core of the local news audience? Early news is usually a 50+ vehicle skewing female and, if you do special tabulations via Nielsen, you will find that it is, in many DMA's, downscale, ethnic, and old. After all, if you are watching news at 5 or 5:30 pm the odds are not great that you have a fast track career. You should still be in the office then or perhaps, on Friday night, starting your commute.
Why does early news show up as 15% of some broadcast buys. It appears that many planners and broadcast buyers are lazy. Nielsen says it still may deliver a 2 rating against Adults 18-49 so it helps bring buys in . During a trip to the midwest last year, I sampled early news (5pm) in my hotel room prior to dinner with a station sales manager. I noticed spots for both Jaquar and Mercedes-Benz. My initial response was "what the hell is going on?" Early news cannot be a good vehicle for either brand in virtually any DMA. It appeared a buyer got very lazy or was totally inept and did not think beyond age and gender and bought the news even though 98% of the audience watching at that hour could not possibly afford either advertised vehicle.
It amazes me that local cable sales have not picked up on this issue a lot more. If you are selling detergent, toothpaste (but more denture adhesive!), or certain foods or health products, then early news is fine and often efficient. But cable has a fistful of channels that surely can provide a better demographic for many products and services than you see in early news in almost any market.
Late news was a stalking horse for Prime years ago both in audience size and demography. Not so any longer! And the Local People Meter (LPM) data have driven that point home even more strongly with long time late news goliaths suddenly slain when a new and improved measurement technique came to down. While more appealing than early news, it is simply not what it used to be as a media vehicle.
My point here is that all TV is suffering and is less effective than it once was due to rating distintegration on over the air channels, digital growth, and, of course, DVR growth. But leaving a heavy news component in many buys smacks of the late 1970's not the first decade of the 21st century. When it comes to news, CAVEAT EMPTOR!
To contact Don Cole directly, e-mail him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
