March 3, 2010
A TV News Truth Scroll
There ought to be a Truth Scroll on the bottom of the screens of TV news and interview shows so that viewers will know how much someone is shading the truth or bending the facts.
The Truth Scroll would be a new product that Google would sell to TV networks because it has the data and the technology to do so.
This isn’t my idea. It was first suggested by Head Butler creator and Huffington Post blogger Jesse Kornbluth, but it’s time now to be implemented because things have gotten out of hand, as evidenced by recent research.
On February 19, “On the Media” reported on a study conducted by The Nation that found that “many of the talking heads on cable news were found to also be working as paid lobbyists, often with stakes in the issues they're invited on-air to discuss.” On the same program it interviewed Terry Holt, a frequent guest on cable news programs. OTM indicates that, “He's a prolific talking head, and, also, frequently lobbies on behalf of health insurance companies. He says that he tells cable news producers about his lobbying work, but whether they disclose that to viewers is up to them.”
A Truth Scroll would properly tag these guests with all of their affiliations. For example, the Truth Scroll would indicate that news show guest Tom Ridge is a “former Governor of Pennsylvania, former head of Homeland Security, former advisor to Senator John McCain, and current consultant to several security firms vying for Federal contracts” or “Terry Holt is a Republican operative and insurance company lobbyist who often lobbies against health care reform.”
The Truth Scroll would also instantaneously fact check every statement made by news anchors, hosts, and guests. Google’s search technology is getting faster and better every day and its voice recognition technology is also improving rapidly. Therefore, Google’s smart algorithms should be able to quickly check if Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or their guests are factual, and display the facts on the Truth Scroll.
Google would sell the Truth Scroll to cable companies and news-oriented Web sites, and these content providers could then charge people for not using it. Yes, reverse pricing or negative option pricing. The notion is that the Truth Scroll would be free to all viewers, but if people didn’t want the truth, they would have to pay to remain ignorant.
Because Fox News has the most viewers by far of any cable news network, this pricing scheme would probably make Fox even richer because most of its viewers are clearly not interested in the truth.
But a Truth Scroll is an idea whose time has come, and it would clearly be a public service. The only problem with it and my pricing scheme is that it would make those who don’t tell the truth even richer. But isn’t that the way it has always been?
Charles Warner at 10:48 AM
| Post Comments (1)
|
Print
|
Media Curmudgeon 
at March 7, 2010 7:15 PM writes:
Bruce Braun comments:
"You and Jesse missed including all the serving members of the Congress who have spouses and adult children working for lobbyists, labor unions and and as consultants to government contractors.
Not to be overlooked all of the former members of the Congress who now serve in similar capacities referenced above.
Let's not forget that the Congress, post Watergate 1978 passed legislation that banned staffers of the Executive Branch from doing any lobbying of the Executive Branch (including cabinet officers and their staffs) for two years after leaving the administration, or be prosecuted. In 1987, Lyn Nofziger, who had only served as the head of Reagan's transition team, was investigated for allegedly violating the Ethics in Government Act when he lobbied in behalf of Wedtech Corporation, a defense contractor . Under this law, former government officials could not lobby their former office for a period of two years. Nofziger knew this, and for two years, he did not lobby the Office of Political Affairs at the White House. Federal prosecutors claimed the law made it illegal for Nofziger to contact any office at the White House. In spite of the ambiguity, Nofziger was indicted and later convicted of violating the law. Nofziger fought the indictment and conviction, which was eventually overturned on appeal. The government pressed its case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which refused to reinstate the conviction. The federal government and the prosecutor, James C. McKay, lost in the end.
Of course, Congress exempted themselves from that ban. Leave office today, begin lobbying your old pals in Congress tomorrow."
February 24, 2010
The NY Times Has It Bass Ackwards
The New York Times, following suit from The Financial Times and Stephen Brill, have it bass ackwards by offering readers free access to up to 10 articles and then charging for reading more.
Stephen Brill, founder of The American Lawyer and co-founder of Press+, an online pay method for news Web sites, in a sidebar to an article in the March 1 issue of FORTUNE titled “The Future of Reading,” writes “…Press+ has pioneered a metered approach: After someone a read five or 10 or 15 articles a month, say, you start asking him to pay something for it.” I’m not linking to the FORTUNE article because the magazine, which is fading fast from its past glory, does not have its own Web site and the article is not available on the Web.
By charging after reading 10 articles, the Times is virtually assuring that an unknown, but probably vast, number of readers will read nine articles and stop, then go somewhere else to get their news free – the wrong pricing strategy.
In shaping pricing strategy, the NY Times or any company, should begin by asking what its goals are and then what the strategies should be to achieve its goals.
One of the main goals of the online version of the Times is certainly to maximize revenue, both advertising and subscription revenue. These two revenue streams are obviously in conflict because charging subscription fees for content will reduce Web site traffic, which means there will be less traffic and, thus, less advertising revenue.
On the other hand, if a publisher does not charge for content, advertising revenue alone will not be sufficient to cover the costs of responsible, high-quality journalism to satisfy the needs discerning, well educated readers. Therefore, a compromise solution – a hybrid model or strategy – must be found.
Another goal of a publisher is to serve readers as many ads online as possible, which, in turn, means that a publisher wants readers to read lots of articles. The more articles that are read, the more page views there are, and the more ads that can be served.
Another goal of a publisher is to serve ads to a desirable demographic that advertisers will pay more to reach. However, if a publisher gives content away free, it tends to encourage mass sampling and tends to encourage “gluttony, hoarding, thoughtless consumption, waste, guilt, and greed,” according to Chris Anderson in his book Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Anderson bases his assertion to a large degree on the research of behavioral economists such as Daniel Ariely, and as elucidated in his book Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.
Thus, if the goals are to encourage upscale readers to read lots of articles and to discourage freeloaders, who might read just a few articles and might well be less affluent, then wouldn’t it make sense to change a fee (say $1) per article, but after someone has read 10 or more in a week (equivalent to $520 a year), to rebate the per-article fees and price further reading would based on a yearly subscription fee of, for example, $199.
In addition, as readers consume more articles over the 10 weekly, they would receive Frequent Reader bonuses for each additional page they view. If readers click on ads and take action (buy stuff or register or whatever), they would earn triple bonus points. Then, if readers accumulated enough bonus points in such a loyalty program, they could reduce their yearly subscription costs to zero.
Such a system would reward readers for doing the right thing – being loyal to their preferred publications, reading more, and being loyal to those publications’ advertisers.
The NY Times could form a consortium with a limited number of other upscale publications such as the New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Weekly Standard. These publications would agree to aggregate their Frequent Reader reward points into a common pool that could be administered by American Express.
Such a system would allow readers to self-select quality content and advertisers would be willing to pay higher rates for engaged, upscale audiences that like quality content. Such a system would reward readers for purchasing or taking action through the ads in their preferred publications.
The NY Times and Brill have it bass ackwards. They are rewarding freeloaders and punishing frequent, loyal readers, and not giving any incentives to readers to take any action on ads.
It’s time for the Times to rethink its pricing strategy.
Charles Warner at 10:44 AM
| Post Comments (0)
|
Print
|
February 19, 2010
Commercials for the Olympics
Guest blogger, architect Chris Warner, writes:
"NBC does not appear to understand the sophistication of its audience, or they are targeting a dumb audience, which contradicts Olympic aspiration. The usual offenders are there, working their spin magic on our psyches.
Diet Coke is a proud sponsor of Olympics, Special Olympics, Paralympics, etc. at a time when there is a big push to remove soda vending machines from schools due to an obesity crisis that is crippling our health care. It turns out that soda is as bad for us as cigarettes.
American oil and gas pledge too? They are at the root of the problem, also.
As usual, cars dominate the commercial breaks, and airlines also invest heavily on attaching their brands to our emotions. I hold out more hope for a sustainable future for cars than planes.
My daughters cover their hopeful eyes during NBC spots because their programs are mostly promoting sex and violence, and don't get me started on commercials for video games. Our girls (ages 4 and 7) idolize the Olympic heroes NBC slots between their commercials.
Most offensive is Clean Coal. There is no such thing as clean coal. It is unconscionable to broadcast healthy athletic competition and take money from the number one source of CO2, and allow them to outright lie about their product. Shame on NBC.
For the viewing audience, the Olympics is about sitting back and watching gifted youth passionately pursue their dreams. That is what makes us feel good and motivates us in our routines when we wake up energized. There are companies committed to being part of the solution that combine environment, ethics, and economics. Where is their message using accurate, appropriate and positive advertising? Certainly not in the Olympics.
We want to win, but victory is hollow if not fair. The IOC sets the bar high to level the playing field so aspiring athletes from all countries can try for their personal best, and NBC serves up the most heartwarming stories. Intuitively, the games and the commercials are at odds. Three days after seeing the clean coal spot, that insult of twisting the truth for profit is as enduring an image as any effort in the games.
Is there a profitable message of sustainability and hope to guide the 21st century generation beyond the broken model of 20th century business as usual? As Obama said about Wall Street, any business model based on fossil fuels needs adult supervision. Since the commercial media cannot be counted on to play that role, my and my family's precious viewing time is increasingly going to PBS, where dirty lies are not tolerated.
I ain't no saint, but we do still have a climate crisis that needs to be resolved so the Olympics can continue for another millennium or two, with or without NBC."
Charles Warner at 10:30 PM
| Post Comments (0)
|
Print
|
February 17, 2010
Stop Me Before I Kill Again
The following headline was on The Huffington Post on Monday, February15: “Donald Trump Points to Snow Storms, Calls for Al Gore to Be Stripped of Nobel Prize.”
Thus, Trump proves he knows as much about climate change as he does about running casinos or having meaningful relationships with women. His knowledge in these areas rivals the expertise and intellectual depth of Sarah Palin on foreign policy and geography.
Why does the media continue to give publicity and celebrity status to Trump and Palin? The answer is the ultimate example of circular and media logic. They get headlines because they are famous, and they are famous because they get headlines.
Fame gets you on television, which in turn, gets you more famous – the celebrity circle.
Thus, their goal is not accomplishment, productivity, creativity, excellence, humor, expertise, or contribution to humanity, but to get headlines and to be famous.
Fame got Trump a prime-time television program on NBC (and we know how much that helped NBC, which owner GE is trying to palm it off on Comcast) and fame got Palin a gig as a commentator on Fox News.
Sarah Palin is imminently qualified to be on Fox News; she’s got a pretty face and nice hair, which probably explains why Donald Trump doesn’t have a gig on Fox News and might well explain why NBC eventually canceled “The Apprentice.”
What should the media do to stop creating these shallow monsters of fame? They should stop publicizing them, stop giving air time and ink to them.
So stop me from writing before I kill again.
Charles Warner at 2:26 PM
| Post Comments (1)
|
Print
|
KMashek at February 17, 2010 4:56 PM writes:
Donald Trump was once asked "Where does milk come from?" His response was "The grocery store!"
February 9, 2010
Focus on the Family’s Super Bowl Ad Violence
Focus on the Family’s Super Bowl commercial featuring Tim Tebow tackling his mother is typical of the anti-abortion movement’s twisted thinking: Using violence to support their position against using violence to kill nascent life.
It’s the same type of twisted thinking that causes right-to-life fanatics to murder doctors who perform abortions to stop them from what these self-appointed moral policemen consider to be the murder of a fetus.
The Tebow commercial was also a symbolic flag bearer for how low and twisted the thinking of television commercial producers, advertising agencies, and CBS have become. The only exception was the brilliantly conceived and executed Google commercial.
If you were not a thirty-something (or younger) chip-eating, beer-swilling, insensitive, immature, macho male, you probably noticed the distinctive misogynistic tone of many of the commercials.
Those commercials that weren’t stereotyping and insulting and doing violence to women, gays, little people, and the elderly, were over-the top, over-produced, dull, un-funny, illogical messes, most of which were embarrassed to show the name of their product until near the end of the commercial.
The only exception was the Google commercial that showed the product name from the beginning and intelligently demonstrated how to use the product to do something useful, romantic, and uplifting (which included moving to France, which, I suppose, implied getting away from American over-commercialization).
CBS made some counterproductive decisions to group commercials according to some supposedly (and weirdly) related theme. For example, there was an abuse-the-elderly pod in which Betty White and Tim Tebow’s mother were violently tackled. Or a no-pants pod with CareerBuilder.com and Dockers commercials in it. Or a magical-places pod with the coupling of Disney’s “Alice in Wonderland” film with KISS for Dr. Pepper featuring little people rocking out.
The half-time show was the best in years, not because of the aging members of The Who, who played OK (windmill moves and all), but because of the awesome computerized laser light show and mind-blowing, light-revolving stage – an exploding celebration for the eyes, not necessarily for the ears.
In the second half there was an Audi commercial that touted its green, energy-saving car, which was fine to promote, but doing so in a commercial with a cast of perhaps a hundred that must have cost over $1 million to produce wasted more energy to create than a 100 Audi’s could save in a month. This is another example of ad agencies reaching into the upper levels of cognitive dissonance to make a point.
If you want to promote green, do like Google did – show a demonstration of the benefits of using the product. It’s ironic and symbolic of Google that its commercial was the probably the least expensive to produce, most efficient in the use of resources, and was by far the most effective. It’s a lesson of rational and effective advertising – a lesson that probably went over the heads of Focus on the Family and most advertising agencies.
And, oh, by the way, it was a really good football game, which, of course, has become incidental to the over-the-top, materialistic, consumption-gorging culture of commercialism which I am hypocritically honoring by writing about Super Bowl commercials and not about the game.
Charles Warner at 7:23 PM
| Post Comments (2)
|
Print
|
Bruce Braun at February 9, 2010 8:07 PM writes:
What is advertising if not a way of using commercial character surrogates for beating up on all those folks that terrorized or bullied you during your youth?
There was a day when CBS would not take issue advertising so as to avoid having to put on ads of differing opinions. Those were the days!
All the issue ads have the subtlety of a sack of hammers. And then they beat us over the head with the high frequency of airings. Personally, I could never watch TV were it not for the PVR, pause, fast forward and mute buttons.
No doubt Les Moonves and his minions at CBS are all about the money, taste and discretion be damned. The good thing is, we can always change the channel or turn off the sound.
Other than the game itself, I thought The Who were great for a band which half the original members were dead and a couple of mid-60's guys demonstrated why their music has endured for over 40 years.
Oh, yeah, did anyone connect the dots that the three CSI shows on CBS all have The Who tunes as theme music....now I'm not saying, but....
Bruce Braun at February 9, 2010 8:07 PM writes:
What is advertising if not a way of using commercial character surrogates for beating up on all those folks that terrorized or bullied you during your youth?
There was a day when CBS would not take issue advertising so as to avoid having to put on ads of differing opinions. Those were the days!
All the issue ads have the subtlety of a sack of hammers. And then they beat us over the head with the high frequency of airings. Personally, I could never watch TV were it not for the PVR, pause, fast forward and mute buttons.
No doubt Les Moonves and his minions at CBS are all about the money, taste and discretion be damned. The good thing is, we can always change the channel or turn off the sound.
Other than the game itself, I thought The Who were great for a band which half the original members were dead and a couple of mid-60's guys demonstrated why their music has endured for over 40 years.
Oh, yeah, did anyone connect the dots that the three CSI shows on CBS all have The Who tunes as theme music....now I'm not saying, but....
