Media Curmudgeon

« January 2004 | Main | March 2004 »

February 26, 2004

February 26, 2004. Trump

February 26, 2004. Trump Should Fire Dobbs
I watched "The Apprentice" tonight for the first time. Several years ago I vowed that I would never watch prime time broadcast network television again, but I read a story in Newsweek about "The Apprentice," in which it quoted someone as saying that it was must-watching for MBAs at Harvard and Wharton. I figured I ought to see what the hullabaloo was about.

After watching "The Apprentice," I now know what the hullabaloo is about--an hour of prime time television promoting Donald Trum, his enterprises, and wealth. It was not good television and Trump is an obnoxious narcissist. So what's new? I wasted an hour to see the Donald say, "You're fired." The only thing I learned during the hour was from a Crest commercial--it's got a new double-rotor electric toothbrush. I guess the only thing I'm grateful for is that P&G (Crest is a P&G product) didn't demonstrate how to use Charmin.

When Trump said, "You're fired," which, by the way, he admitted in the Newsweek story he never says, the thing that came to my mind is that I wish he had the power to fire Lou Dobbs on CNN.

I have only watched Lou Dobbs a few times and I found him to be even more obnoxious, arrogant, and narcissitic than Donald Trump. And Dobbs is condescending and patronizing to boot. Trump is mean and arrogant, but not patronizing.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story today with the headline, "Job Losses Pit CNN's Dobbs Against Old Pals," which told how Dobbs was railing against American companies who were outsourcing jobs. He criticized on the air the very companies he used to champion. Even the pro-business Wall Street Journal seemed shocked that Dobbs was preaching an anti-big business sermon. The WSJ pointed out that Dobbs defended Arthur Andersen in the wake of the Enron scandal when he was paid high speaking fees by Andersen (and didn't disclose the fact, of course).

I'm not upset that Dobbs took a position for or against free trade, because his role is to be a commentator. But he has been consistently pro big business all along, so why the switch now to a pro-labor approach (the same populist approach that John Edwards takes)? The WSJ hinted that it was because Doobs wanted to get higher ratings, and, in fact, his ratings are up slightly.

In other words, if you buy the WSJ reasoning, which I do, then Dobbs will say anything to get ratings, even if it goes against his beliefs and past positions--hypocritical in other words. But being a hypocrite is not why I think Dobbs should be fired. He should be fired because he's an obnoxious, arrogant, mean, narcissist person who is only interested in himself.

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be a delicious irony if Dobbs could be and would be fired by Trump.

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:15 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 23, 2004

Monday, February 23, 2004.

Monday, February 23, 2004. Talk About Bad Taste!
In the original Mel Brooks movie, "The Producers," with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, there is a scene on opening night of the two would-be crooked producers' play "Springtime for Hitler." When a chorus line Nazi storm troopers break into the sunny song, "Spring time for Hitler and Germany," a man standing in the back of the theater says incredulously after his jaw drops in astonishment, "Talk about bad taste!"

Last week the Fox television network put on a new program titled "The Littlest Groom" in which the audience is invited to watch as a 4' 5" man searches for a wife. A New York Times editorial indicated the show "...may mark an exploitative new low in television programming. It may also be the tip-off that reality television has 'jumped the shark,' TV-aficionado lingo for the point past which programming makes a final leap into witlessness and heads irredeemably into reruns."

Maybe the end game will be when Fox gets the Super Bowl and decides to out-tasteless CBS's half-time show by putting on the losers of "The Littlest Groom" doing a crotch-grabbing, breast bearing hip-hop extravaganza. Fox could put on a half-time show, that Fox is uniquely qualified to produce, that has something in it to offend absolutely everyone. Talk about bad taste! Fox has just begun to fight.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:17 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 23, 2004. College Football

February 23, 2004. College Football Scandals and MTV Half-time Show"
The Super Bowl is the ultimate football event. Every aspiring football player in America, and, yes, the world, wants to play in the Super Bowl eventually. Young football players want to emulate the players on the filed of the big game--look like them, have hair like them, have tattoos like them, talk trash like them, demonstrate like them, and, of course party like them.

If the Super Bowl endorses a crocth grabbing, boob showing, tasteless, indecent, and violence-against-women-is-OK half-time extravaganza, then it is to be expected that aspiring football players will emulate these attitudes.

I think there is a correlation between the type of male power trips and anti-feminine attitdues displayed at the Super Bowl half-time show featuring hip-hop rappers and the type of behavior by the University of Colorado football team that was recently uncovered. Ex-U of C kicker Katie Hnida revealed to Sports Illustrated that she was harassed and groped unmercifully by the U of C football team and raped by one of its members--the type of behavior demonstrated by the MTV-produced Super Bowl half-time show and Justin Timberlake in exposing Janet Jackson.

A New York Times editorial on Friday, February 20, 2004, articulated the problem clearly: "Occasionally, the National Collegiate Athletic Association of the local authorities vow to clean up the athletic subculture. But just like the three-card monte players who reappear on the sidewalks once the cops are gone, the boosters and recruiters and other abusers of the system show up with the limos and private planes and women and alcohol, and whatever else it takes to get a athlete to sign up. Clearly it's time for N.C.A.A. to come around again. It's also time for the people who run the universities to take charge."

Well said, but I would add that "it's time for the people who run the broadcast and cable television networks to take charge and take the male-power-trip, women-as-sex objects video off the air."

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:44 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

Monday, February 23, 2004.

Monday, February 23, 2004. Bill Grimes Responds
I think this (February 19th "I Told You So") is one of your better blogs. You present both the facts and your opinion succinctly and interestingly.

Unfortunately, you reach an erroneous conclusion.

The the evidence you sight that this GM action is "a tipping point" is very weak. It is in compete contradiction with history.

Here is why.

Every time GM, and often when other large network television advertiser companies, have poor net income performances their share price declines and often remains at a lower price until future quarter performance improves. (Other public companies whose profits decline whether they are large TV advertisers or not--particularly when revenue growth and market share are also diminishing--suffer the same share price fate as well). Wall Street says "Sell" and the price of their shares naturally goes down.

What happens next at these companies with large advertiisng budgets is that the CEO calls into his office the company's senior advertiisng/marketing executive or a division president like GM's Mr. Cowger and tells him to reduce planned expenditures. "We need to show Wall Street we can manage in tough times or we will both lose our jobs. And, do not forget to spin this in the the press that we have learned something smart about our media suppliers and that is why we are cutting advertising, especially if it's our netwotk tv budget. Those arrogant bastrds never give us a break."

Then Mr. Cowger makes his tough-sounding revelations of network TV reductions. Wow, $40 million here (they spend nearly one billion in TV), and you believe that GM, in this case, has learned its lesson after 15 years of declining audiences and increasing CPMs and that it is a "tipping point." Sure are slow learners out there.

Sorry, Charlie. Just watch for future quartelry earning statements from GM. If they get lucky and start to sell more cars and grow their bottom line too, guess what! Network TV expenditures will go up, up and away. I can see the qoute from Mr. Cowger at this distant and happy date. "Some time ago we got tough with our network TV suppliers and cut their budgets. They have responded in recent months with new comprehensive marketing and advertising programs that enable us to get so much closer to our customers. This is what we at GM call a true partnership. And as reported yesterday our company's sales, profits and share price are all up. We are delighted to announce that this new partnership with ABC, CBS and NBC will result in a significant increase in expenditures with our good partners. This is a win-win.".

It happens every time.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:12 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 19, 2004

Thursday, February 19, 2004. I

Thursday, February 19, 2004. I Told You So
I know some people who like to say, "I don't like to remind you, but I told you so," when something happens that they warned you about. I'm not that humble. I like being right and saying, "I told you so."

In my first blog on October 2, 2003, I wrote:

"Buyers are saying to television sales departments to work harder and start delivering more value.

Both concepts are anathema to network television salespeople--they are lazy and arrogant. A friend of mine who has to deal with them says, "They are order-takers. They wait for the phone to ring."

By canceling part of their upfront buys this year, some buyers have had the courage to say that the emperor has no clothes, and he wants to charge more for less and less.

I believe that this might be a tipping point -- a small event that will throw the light of reality on the value of network TV and the way it is bought and sold."

In the February 16 issue of Advertising Age there was a front-page story titled "GM zaps $40 mil in upfront buys." The story by Jean Halliday reports, "Following a brutal 2003 earnings report, General Motors Corp. has cancelled an estimated $40 million in upfront TV buys for the second quarter of 2004.

The timing is unusual because the auto giant has 13 all-new 2004 models to launch. According to executives close to the situation, the nation's largest advertiser is not, however, shifting money to other media or marketing disciplines. The executives said the carmaker is taking the step as a straightforward cost-cutting move."

(By the way, in an earlier issue of Ad Age this year, a front-page story indicated that in 2003, for the first time in several years, P&G became America's number-one advertiser, beating General Motors. I guess Jean Halliday doesn't read or pay attention to her own publication.)

Later in Halliday's Ad Age story this quote appeared: "Gary Cowger, president , GM North America, took a shot at the broadcast TV networks in an evening speech last month at the Automotive News World Congress in suburban Detroit. 'Thirty yeas ago, this time of night, 90% of TV viewers were watching ABC, CBS, or NBC. Used to be TV as the answer. But the old marketing model is dead....it stopped working sometime around 1987.'"

Well, you sort of have to ask, "Then why the hell did GM keep spending an obscene amount of money in TV and in the upfront market after 1987, when they knew the old marketing model was dead?" Was it stupid or just simply a matter of habit and inertia? Probably all three.

Then, I think you have to ask, "What is the new marketing model?" It's been seven years since 1987, and has GM a clue about what the new marketing model is? It should if it knew back then that the old one was broken. Sounds like seven years of confusion to me. So, I guess the new marketing model is to cut back on TV advertising and admit, in essence, that it overspent in the 2003 upfront market. Maybe the TV seesaw is tipping down even more now, and even slow General Motors recognizes it.

An article in the next day's New York Times (February 17) in the "Advertising" section and written by the Time's excellent writer on the advertising industry, Stuart Elliott, was titled "Microsoft and I.B.M. put their marketing dollars into trying to keep their existing customers happy." The story read, in part, "Two technology giants, I.B.M. and Microsoft, are reassigning accounts with spending estimated at more than $500 million in decisions that underline the increasing importance of marketing communications outside the realm of traditional advertising.

The accounts being awarded...cover assignments unrealted to producing television commercials, print advertisements or billboards. Rather, the work is primarily centered on what is known as customer relationship management--that is, efforts to strengthen the loyalties of current customers that can range from offers of free merchandise to rewards for frequent buyers to invitations for sponsored events."

Now that's a new marketing model, and one I would urge GM to look at.

As I said at the top of this blog, I like being right. Another thing I like is promoting my book, Media Selling. In the book, I list the objectives of a media sales department: (1) To get results for customers, (2) to develop new business, (3) to retain and increase current business, and (4) to create customer loyalty. I'm sure no one from Microsoft or I.B.M. read my book, but they didn't have to--those objectives are common sense. It's always more profitable to get increases from your current customers than it is to find new ones.

Smart marketers such as Microsoft and I.B.M. understand the concept of customer loyalty and of investing in customer relationship management. I wonder when American auto makers will get the message? I wonder when they will stop investing huge amounts of money in TV and in the upfront market? Toyota is now the number three automaker in the world and is closing in on Ford. Toyota has a little way to go to catch up to GM, but I wouldn't bet against Toyota, because they get the idea of making a quality product and creating customer loyalty--the new marketing model.

Posted by Charles Warner at 4:02 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 16, 2004

Sunday, February 15, 2004. Bill

Sunday, February 15, 2004. Bill Grimes Weighs In on "W"

THE WORLD IS A SAFER PLACE------TELL IT, "W"

In today's New York Times Thomas Friedman opines on what John Kerry should say about Iraq if he were interviewed on "Meet The Press" as President Bush was last Sunday. While in this column Mr.. Friedman does not comment on the President's performance in answering Tim Russert's questions about the invasion of Iraq, the missing WMD and conflicting intelligence reports about both, many supporters of the Administration's policies and actions aimed towards making the world a safer place today have to be disappointed in Mr.. Bush's responses or lack thereof.

After weakly defending the quality and quantity of the information the intelligence agencies provided on the capabilities of Iraq's producing WMD and after tepidly recounting the atrocities of the Saddam Hussein regime against Iraq people and after finally rising to state albeit incompletely how future generations of Americans will be safer with a democracy in Iraq, the President missed an opportunity to cite a number of his administration's achievements that have already significantly reduced the prospects of war, nuclear weapons buildups and terrorism around the globe. The President did a disservice to his Administration and to his re-election bid by not communicating information on the concrete successes (below) that it has clearly accomplished.

INDIA/PAKISTAN

Let's begin by looking at a most dangerous moment in 2002 when India and Pakistan----- agitated by each other's claims of Kashmir territory and with each denying charges of sponsoring terrorist activities in that state resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent people---- began insinuating a larger scale war and, more threateningly to not only Indian and Paki citizens but to peoples of the entire South Asian region, the use of nuclear arms. In 1998 the world learned that Pakistan had produced a nuclear bomb claiming its need to offset India's possession of these weapons. Many world leaders spoke out in dismay. Meetings were held with senior representatives of China, Russia and the U.S and these nations spoke with one voice their concern and disapproval. Next The United Nations passed Resolution 1172 which decried this nuclear weapons production by the two longtime enemies stating that it was "deeply concerned with the risk of a nuclear arms race.........".

Despite both public and private efforts by leading nations and the UN's Resolution neither nation displayed any willingness to seriously address this new threat to world safety. It was at this moment of growing international tension that President Bush directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to personally communicate to the leaders of each country that United States' economic and military support for each would diminish unless the countries began a serious dialogue aimed at a peace agreement which would restrict the use of nuclear arms and warfare. In a meeting with India's President Vajpayee the Secretary reminded him of the growing trade between the two democratic nations and the rapidly increasing investment US companies were making in his country. He pointed further to the growing market in the US for Indian technology. To Pakistan Prime Minister Musharraf Powell spoke of the improved relationship between the two countries after Pakistan's committed support to weed out terrorists there and reminded him of the increasing financial aid from the US and the growing military presence of the US in the region.

Discussions between India and Pakistan began shortly after Powell's involvement and culminated with the two leaders historic January6, 2004 Joint Statement of a wide-reaching non-aggression accord restricting the use of nuclear weapons. The Statement promised to codify specifically these agreements in coming months. Tensions between the two countries have greatly abated. The Bush Administration contribution to the substantially-improved relations between these two long-tome adversaries each possessing powerful WMD is one of major import. These efforts have greatly reduced tensions and fears in South Asia and throughout the world.

Yet we heard nothing of this from President Bush in his "Meet The Press" interview.

NORTH KOREA

Less than a year ago the world was shocked by North Korea's threat of possessing nuclear WMD and their suggestions that they did not fear reprisals if they used them. Missile testing in the oceans near South Korea and Japan further acerbated world concern and daily news reports of impending warfare in that region. The North Korea dictator blamed US policies for its economic woes and increasing regional isolation. Our ally, South Korea, expressed concern that US presence in that country and our non-recognition of North Korea should be re-examined. The US media with The New York Times in the forefront criticized the Bush Administration for contributing to North Korea's isolation and desperation thus enhancing the prospect that it might initiate a new regional war.

In this situation the Bush Administration recognizing the direct security concerns of China and Japan (as well as those of South Korea) sent diplomats to discuss with those countries ways that by working together and speaking to North Korea with one voice this new threat of nuclear war could be ameliorated. The US also appealed to Russia for its involvement and it joined with these nations to formulate a joint response to North Korea.

As is now clear these efforts of China, Japan, South Korea. Russia and the US to communicate forcibly to North Korea that their violations of UN resolutions against the acquiring and use of nuclear weapons and that threatening testing of missiles would not be tolerated have resulted in a much less bellicose-sounding North Korea. Today, just months after the media-acclaimed threat of possible imminent nuclear warfare, it is clear that North Korea's threats of violence against South Korea and reprisals against the US and our allies have been effectively silenced.

The Bush Administration's leadership role in these strong diplomatic measures taken jointly with the leading Asian countries is not and cannot be denied. Yet where was President Bush's voice on the US contribution to quelling the North Korean threat and making the world a safer place during his "Meet The Press" appearance?

LIBYA

After announcing in December that it "had been attempting to build banned weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons", Libya said it would invite inspectors to the country to oversee the dismantling of its weapon-making capabilities. This admission of illegality and willingness to completely cease from all such militant activity followed an "overture made to the United States by Libya a month before the war in Iraq commenced", according to The Boston Globe. While the anti-American Colonel Kaddaffi has not publicly given a reason for this major change of attitude and behavior it can be argued that our show of force in Iraq to destroy WMD did not go unnoticed. And, assuming The Boston Globe report to be accurate, the timing of beginning discussions with the West to dismantle weapon-making capabilities suggests that the Bush Administration's months of threatening action against Iraq was a factor. During recent weeks the Atomic Energy (IAFA) led by its director general, Mohamed El-Baradei have been inspecting four previously undisclosed weapons-making facilities with the cooperation of the Libyan government.

Removing Libya as a threat to regional security and eliminating their weapons capabilities contributes to the prospect of a safer world. With the US acting as a key player in this unexpected development one would think that President Bush would have taken some credit in his "Meet The Press" interview.

IRAN

In the current issue of "The New York Review of Books" (hardly a Bush Administration fan) a lengthy article by Christopher de Bellaigue titled "Big Deal in Iran" argues that American pressure (with support from Britain, France and Germany) on Iran for its building of an "advanced" nuclear program which, according to one of the author's sources, could produce "its first nuclear bomb within four years", is the likely reason for Iran's current compliance with the IAFA demands that Iran "call a halt to the most controversial parts of its nuclear program".

The article explains in detail the complex state of governing in Iran with the elected President Khatami having to obtain approval of the conservative Muslim mullahs led by Ayatollah Khamenei for any decision of national importance. It goes on to explain how after initial reluctance to approve Khatami's decision to comply with halting numerous operations of the country's nuclear program the conservatives finally agreed. This decision was affected first "when US officials told members of a Japanese consortium that they would be liable to secondary sanctions if they signed a long-pending $2.8 billion agreement to develop a gig oil field in southern Iraq". This Bush Administration initiative was the first economic threat to Iran after the public revelations of its greater nuclear efforts and ambitions. Secondly, after continual diplomatic urgings from the Bush Administration, Russia quietly backed down from its opposition to IAFA protocols affecting Iraq's nuclear activities telling the Iraqis that "they would not receive Russian fuel unless they signed the additional protocol."

That Iran's decision to curtail nuclear development leading to nuclear weapon production is good news to anyone seeking a safer Mideast and world can hardly be debated, as the article clearly points out, I might add here that as a frequent consumer of the NY Times, CNN and the broadcast networks news I would be basically unaware of the extent of this development in Iran. And, again, President Bush was reticent when the opportunity to mention progress in Iran was presented on "Meet The Press".

SYRIA

Just today The New York Times in an article on page four with the headline "Syria Frees 130 Prisoners, But Why" we read that Syria has recently provided "unexpected clemency for.... perhaps 3000 such (political) prisoners." (My suspicion as to why this article did not appear on page one is, of course, that the reading of the content of the article reflects well on the Administration. The newspaper determined that a story titled "Southern Baptists Bring Their Gospel to New York" about the presence of Baptists at the summer Republican Convention here was more important.)

Now the The New York Times, as the headline suggests, is puzzled as to why Syria has without explanation released from prison so many citizens and is presumably, therefore, desirous of showing the world a more benevolent face. While acknowledging pressure from America, the European Union and Israel it observes that "The workings of the Syrian state.............is a mystery to most observers (a rare admission from the Times),........and so it is hard to say with any precision (precision never has seemed to stop The New York Times from "saying" before) how exactly Syria is reacting to these pressure." However, in one sentence and without further exploration of the thought the article states ".......the larger pressures Syria is under these days with more than 100,000 American troops next door in Iraq." Well, now maybe The New York Times is on to something. American troops and pressure may be impacting the behavior of the Syrian government? Syria may have opened the door of human rights just a tiny bit? And, who is directing this American pressure? You will not read that it is the Bush Administration. Good things do not emanate from this President's policies. Maybe that is not news fit to print.

However, a sign of progress in Syria today fits a pattern in evidence since 9-11 and that is that the Bush Administration through persuasion, economic pressure and military might has caused substantial positive change in India and Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, Iran and Syria. And while the news in Iraq remains grim and democracy seems a long way off, there are signs of good developments there. Where? One place is the current issue of Smithsonian Magazine (not exactly a conservative house organ) which features a lengthy article with numerous pictures of Iraqi people at work, at home and at school. Interviews with many (not all) have praise for the US and huge appreciation for being freed of Saddam's oppression.

Come on, President Bush, tell the nation about these good events in these far-away countries and how your Administration is making the world a much safer place. Stay tuned. I think we will begin hearing it soon.

Posted by Charles Warner at 2:00 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 14, 2004

Friday, February 13, 2004.

Friday, February 13, 2004. Time for Eisner to Go
Comcast made a hostile bid for Disney this week about $54 billion. The reason Comcast gave for its offer was to combine its distribution with Disney's content. The real reason, I think, is because Disney is vulnerable because CEO Michael Eisner is under attack for being a terrible manager who has done nothing lately for Disney stockholders.

Not only has he done little for the stock, but the people on Disney's board, who act like Eisner's serfs, have made him the highest paid CEO in the world over the last several years. He not only has he micro-managed Disney into decline, but he hired his pal Michael Ovitz to be president of Disney several years ago. Ovitz was a disaster, widely despised by everyone who worked for him, so Eisner had to get rid of him and gave Ovitz a $91 million severance package. Any decent board of directors would have fired Eisner for this alone, but no, the board continued to pay Eisner an obscene amount of money.

Eisner's nit-picking, ruthless, mean management style has caused an exodus of capable executives, most notably Steve Burke, who is now president of Comcast. He will probably run Disney if the deal goes through. By all accounts, Burke, the son of ex-ABC/Cap Cities president Dan Burke, is an excellent executive--it's in his DNA.

So, if the merger goes through, it will be a triumph of good management over bad, which is a good thing. Some people are saying that Comcast's takeover of Disney would be more concentration of the media into fewer hands and that it would be anti-competitive. However, replacing awful management with good management is the bottom line, and, thus, let's hope the merger goes through. Maybe it will send a message to corporate boards to stop overpaying poorly performing CEOs.

Posted by Charles Warner at 3:28 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 9, 2004

Monday, February 9, 2004. President

Monday, February 9, 2004. President John Edwards
Senator John Edwards was a very successful trial lawyer and he has been a charismatic, excellent communicator in the primaries so far. His positive campaign strategy has put him in a position so that if he doesn't win the Democratic nomination for president (which he won't), he is in a perfect position to be Kerry's (who will win the nomination) choice for Vice President.

Edwards is smart and, I'll bet my wife's Howard Dean poster, he has studied game theory, because he has positioned himself brilliantly in the Democratic nomination game. He might have created a decision tree and payoff matrix (see "Game Theory - Sales" case on my website). Edwards thinking and decision tree might have gone something like this:

"I'll be 51 on June 10th of 2004. Dean is four years older and will be 55 this year. Kerry is 10 years older and will be 61 on December 12, 2004. If Dean wins the nomination, he will need a southerner to balance the ticket, and if I do well enough in the primaries and don't knock him, I could be his Vice Presidential candidate. He'll probably lose, which means I would be the leading spokesperson for the Democratic party and be its candidate in 2008, when Bush, the winner, can't run for re-election. The Republicans don't have a strong candidate, even if they dump Cheney, which they probalby won't. If they don't dump Cheney, and he's the candidate, Minnie Mouse could beat him, and I'd be President John Edwards."

"If Kerry wins the nomination, he will need a southerner to balance the ticket, too, and if I don't knock him during the primaries and show well, then I'll be his Vice Presidential candidate. If we lose to Bush, then it'll be the same scenario as with Dean. If we win, and I think we have an excellent chance of winning, I'll be Vice President for two terms because the Republicans don't have candidates strong enough to beat us. That means in 2012, when Kerry is 69 and can't run again, I'll be 59, the perfect mature age to run for president, and I'll be President John Edwards."

If Edwards is the VP candidate, every possible scenario results in a high probability of his being elected president in either 2008 or 2012. I think he's figured that out. So get used to the idea of President John Edwards--eventually.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:33 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 8, 2004

Sunday, February 8, 2004.

Sunday, February 8, 2004. Something You Won't See on CBS, NBC, ABC, or Fox
I teach online courses for the University of Missouri School of Journalism in its online Media Management graduate degree program. I love teaching these courses because I have such great students, mostly mid-career professionals. This week, one of my students, posted the following comment.

"I just watched 'Frontline's' look at the American porn industry. It was a fascinating look at a business that is growing, and that is getting nods from major American companies, some of which were on our lists this week.

What did I learn?

That AT&T, General Motors, and Yahoo all received large profits from the porn industry through affiliate companies ...

That the standard of 'when one large company does it, it becomes more acceptable' is applied ... And that media mergers allow the industry to continue to flourish... More info is available at PBS.org."

I replied to the student's posting:

"It's a sad commentary on what happens with the increased pressure for quarterly profits. Whatever happened to community service? The thing I found most interesting was that the report you mentioned came from PBS's "Frontline" and not from the broadcast or cable network news divisions. Can you imagine the commercial networks dissing their major advertisers about being connected to porn? It's a dirty little secret (pun intended)."

A Laurel to my student, and a Dart to NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox.

Posted by Charles Warner at 5:38 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

Sunday, February 8, 2004,

Sunday, February 8, 2004, Get It Right, NY Times
Alessandra Stanley, in an article titled "L'Affaire Bodice: Why We Are Shocked, Shocked" in the "Week in Review" section of The New York Times on Sunday, 28/2004, wrote "The F.C.C. has jurisdiction over networks, not cable, and its enforcement of indecency is scattered."

Stanley wrote a thoughtful article that expressed the hope that the "Super Bowl nuisance will lead to tougher scrutiny of television excess." The last line in the article quoted F.C.C. commissioner Michael Copps, who said, "I think Ms. Jackson's escapade illuminates the need to tackle this issue and enforce the law." All nice points. However, Stanley got it wrong. The F.C.C. does not have jurisdiction over broadcast networks.

The F.C.C. was created in 1934 to allocate the electromagnetic spectrum to radio stations--it gave licenses to stations to operate at a designated frequency. The licenses and the use of the public airwaves didn't cost anything, but in return for getting a license, stations were told they had to operate in the public good, convenience, and necessity. The F.C.C. did the same thing when TV came along--issued licenses for frequencies. The F.C.C. can fine stations and even take their licenses away for failing to serve the public good, convenience, and necessity, and for broadcasting obscene material. The FCC does not issue licenses to networks, but to their stations. Because the broadcast television networks don't make as much money as their owned stations do, the only way the FCC can punish the networks is to punish and fine their stations.

For example, in the January 28, addition of the Wall Street Journal an article titled "FCC Imposes Big Fine for 'Indecent' Broadcasts" reported that the F.C.C. had fined Clear Channel Communications $755,000 for 26 "apparent indecent violations" for broadcasts by Bubba the Love Sponge. The F.C.C. had fined stations, not a network.

NY Times reporter Stanley should know more about the industry she writes about. It's irresponsible reporting to suggest the F.C.C. has control over networks, because some readers will now complain that the F.C.C. isn't doing enough, when the F.C.C. can't do anything to the networks, except jawbone them. But, jawboning has worked in the past. When NBC announced it was going to accept liquor advertising last year, some members of Congress were outraged and started making noise about passing legislation forbidding liquor advertising on television (the Congress passed a similar law banning cigarette advertising from TV and radio). NBC changed its mind and backed down--no booze advertising on NBC.

So if you want to complain about Janet showing her boob during the half-time show of the Super Bowl (certainly a disappointing finale), don't write to the F.C.C., write CBS and your congressperson and senator--they can pass a law that outlaws showing a boob or boobs on TV. Then everyone will be happy, especially the religious right and the Internet porn industry where gawkers will go in increasing numbers to see what they can't see on TV. Indecency makes strange bedfellows.

On the other hand, I want to give a kudo to the Times for the great picture that accompanied the Stanley story. It was a picture of Attorney General John Ashcroft in the foreground and in the background a large statue of a woman with her arms raised and her right boob exposed (the left boob had a flimsy covering on it, as part of the statue). The caption on the picture read: "Breasts matter: Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the bare one covered."

The right-wing (and self-righteous) Ashcroft ordering a breast on a statue covered? What a concept. If Ashcroft's stupid order becomes widespread, it will cost as much as the war in Iraq to cover up all the breasts on all the statues in all of the museums and parks in America. Imagine a modest scarf covering Winged Victory's breasts just because we caught a split-second peek at a fading pop star's boob. Michelangelo and Rodin would be shocked, shocked.

Posted by Charles Warner at 5:24 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 6, 2004

Friday, February 6, 2004.

Friday, February 6, 2004. We Import Cars and Stereos, So Why Not CEOs?
The following commentary by Jesse Kornbluth appeared today as an Op-Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times.
Because it deals, in part, with Michael Eisner's outrageous compensation, I thought it belonged in my Media Curmudgeon Blog. I'm also posting it because I wish I'd written it--a little column envy.

LOS ANGELES TIMES, 2/6/04

COMMENTARY
We Import Cars and Stereos, So Why Not CEOs?

By Jesse Kornbluth

Few cared when the jobs of "little people" left the country. But now the flight of jobs from the United States has moved beyond back-office functionaries to IT guys and legal analysts, and salaries that once put bread on middle-class American tables are paying for chapati in India. And, at last, more of us are starting to hear the screams of the outsourced.

Everyone who matters — that's Big Business and the White House — seems to think nothing can be done about the giant sucking sound coming from India and China. The White House may want to forbid Americans to import prescription drugs from Canada, but it views the exporting of our jobs as simply the latest manifestation of free trade. Corporations with global reach agree. "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore," Carly Fiorina, CEO of Hewlett-Packard, recently noted. "We have to compete for jobs."

Fair enough. But why limit the competition to those who always take the fall for declining profits — people who live from paycheck to paycheck? Why not widen the focus? If budget-busting tax breaks for business and weakened workplace regulations aren't enough to ensure profits, maybe American corporations should consider outsourcing upper-echelon employees — that is, CEOs.

Can an unknown from India or China function at the exalted level of an American CEO? Well, look at Ken Lay. If he's to be believed, he has no idea what went on during his tenure as Enron's top guy, and yet he took home $141 million from Enron in 2000.

Nor does a foreign-born CEO need any sensitivity for public relations. Consider Morgan Stanley's chairman and chief executive, Philip Purcell. After Morgan Stanley paid a $1.4-billion fine for abuse of stock research last year, Purcell baited the government to take further action by telling reporters, "I don't see anything in the settlement that will concern the retail investor about Morgan Stanley." And yet this tone-deaf CEO's compensation and options came to $23.7 million in 2002.

Indeed, with a few notable exceptions, what's remarkable about American CEOs is how unremarkable they are. That's no accident; the CEO is largely a ceremonial post. And that makes CEOs expendable. For much of the time, they're not around — they're off at conferences, or attending to the business of other companies as members of corporate boards, giving secret advice to Dick Cheney or meeting with their lawyers to figure out a defense for their alleged crimes. For whatever reason, they don't find their jobs terribly compelling; every few years, they seem to move on.

So by traditional standards of achievement — intellectual horsepower, leadership and vision or even hours spent in the office — it's getting harder and harder to understand why corporate boards rush to shower huge compensation packages that average $10 million per man and the occasional woman. With some CEOs earning roughly 500 times the salary of their average worker, the most efficient way a company can save millions is with a single stroke of the downsizing blade right at the top of the org chart.

My bet is that Indian or Chinese executives would happily become American CEOs for salaries of $250,000. Would Indian or Chinese CEOs require millions of dollars in sweeteners? Not likely. And it's equally unlikely that they would demand the grotesque going-away payments that are the final prize for departing American CEOs.

This won't work with every U.S. corporation. But there is one company that has tripped over its feet to reward its chief executive: the Walt Disney Co.

Even the Sun King would marvel at Michael Eisner's compensation: $737 million in a recent five-year period, or about 19 times the $38 million made by the average CEO in Forbes.com's Annual CEO Value Survey. Disney, in contrast, has fared less well. In lieu of great new products, it has raised prices on already pricey crowd-pleasers. After launching its own city to great fanfare, it has recently sold it off. Now, just weeks before a shareholders' meeting that will see dissidents crying for Eisner's dismissal, he has failed to reach agreement with Pixar, a partner that could generate as much as 7% of his company's total earnings per share through 2005.

And here is the beauty part: Although Eisner is closing in on retirement age, he seems to have made no plans for a successor.

Eisner is, in short, a CEO ripe for replacement by a low-priced foreigner. The savings in salary, bonus and options alone would make the Pixar deal affordable.

So when former Disney board members Roy Disney and Stanley Gold ask shareholders to bring them the head of Michael Eisner at their meeting next month, they will have an opportunity to do more than rid themselves of an enemy. They have a chance to usher in a new era in Fortune 500 CEOs.

Well, a brief era. For if Disney chose its bargain-priced CEO well, other companies would be sorely tempted to follow. But then would come an astonishing counter-trend: American CEOs voluntarily reducing their salaries in the interest of keeping their titles. Maybe even driving themselves to work. And — who knows? — maybe even doing a thing or two to help their employees keep their jobs.
-------------
Jesse Kornbluth was editorial director of America Online from 1997 to 2003.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:03 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 4, 2004

Wednesday, February 4, 2004. Expectations

Wednesday, February 4, 2004. Expectations May Alter Outcomes
On November 7, Sharon Begley wrote a "Science Journal" column in the Wall Street Journal titled "Expectations May Alter Outcomes Far More Than We Realize." Begley quoted Robert Rosenthal, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside: "Expectation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When teachers have been led to expect better intellectual performance from their students, they tend to get it. When coaches are led to expect better athletic performance from their athletes, they tend to get it."

Begley goes on to write that, "Expectation effects, also known as the Pygmalion effect, have been documented time and again (479 studies have found that teachers' expectations affect how students do, for instance). Begley also writes that "Expectations effects are not confined to human expect-ees. In one set of studies, 12 experiments were each given five rats. Six experimenters were told that there rats were of a genetic strain that learned like long-tailed geniuses; the other six were told that their rats were dolts. The experimenters then spent five days training their rats to run a maze." Of course, the rats were all of the same strain, no difference, except the the experimenters'expectations for them.

From the first day, the rats that were identified as smart ran the maze better. The experimenters treated the "smart" rats better, they felt more relaxed and enthusiastic as they worked with the rats, yelled at them less (no outbursts of "you stupid rat!"), and they handled the rats more. Higher expecations worked as well with rats as it did with kids in school.

In the Sunday, February 3rd New York Times there was an article with the headline, "Leaders Sought a Threat: Spies Get the Blame," about the failure to find weapons of mass distruction in Iraq and the failures of the British and American intelligence. Patrick E. Tyler, the article's author wrote, "On both sides of the Atlantic, there are officials and experts who say it would be a mistake to look simply at the intelligence 'failure,' because many of them believe the failure was a much broader one of politics than of intelligence."

Further on in the article, Tyler writes, "Political hands in both capitals redrafted the intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs--intelligence that had not appreciably changed in years--to make it appear that the threat was no longer merely evolving, but was imminent. Intelligence professionals in both governments willingly lent their credibility to this task, and may assume the blame, but political leaders drove the process."

In other words, the intelligence community in Britain and America were like the rats in the experiment, they rose to the level of the expectations of their handlers. The CIA knew what the White House expected, so the CIA gave the White House what it wanted. Bush and his handlers would only pay attention to and believe information that agreed with their pre-conceived notions, that lived up to their expectations, and the CIA knew it.

Does it worry you that the Bush administration can manipulate the CIA as easily as rats can be manipulated just by expecations? It worries me. But I quess there must be a pony in there somewhere. The lesson for managers is that you not only get the intelligence you expect, but the performance you expect. If you expect your employees to be stupid and lazy, they will be. If you expect them to be smart and hard-working, they probably will be. So raise your expectations of your kids, your rats (if you have any), and your employees, and you'll get what you expect. We know that it works because the White House expected there to be WMD, and they got them--but of course no one could ever find them.

Posted by Charles Warner at 3:03 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

Wednesday, February 4, 2004. More

Wednesday, February 4, 2004. More Boob Fallout
A good friend of mine said that MTV probably loved all the publicity it was getting because of its Super-Boob half-time show. Well, I'll bet MTV's ratings do go up. It may be good for MTV--the kids that watch MTV like that stuff--but it wasn’t good for CBS, Moonves, or Karmazin. I predict that Sumner Redstone will not be amused (he’s even older than I am) and will use this as an excuse to get rid of Kamazin when Mel’s contract is up next year. Infinity Radio is Stern and Imus, CBS tried to bribe Jessica Lynch, paid off Michael Jackson to get the "60 Minutes" interview, and dirtied up the Super Bowl half-time show so badly that the FCC is after CBS and Viacom.

It will all catch up to Mel, who was behind the Time Machine a couple of years ago. Several CBS O&Os used a digital recording machine that spend up network TV progams unnoticably to the viewers so that extra commericals could be illegally inserted. Karmazin and Moonves are sleazebags and have turned the once "Tiffany network" into the "T&A network." Redstone hates Karmizan, as he should, and he'll broom Mel. Let's just hope Redstone picks someone with decent taste to run Viacom and CBS; how about his daughter?

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:45 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

February 3, 2004

Tuesday, February 3, 2004. Best

Tuesday, February 3, 2004. Best Companies to Work For? Not a Media Company.
The January 12 issue of Fortune magazine featured its annual list of the 100 Best Companies To Work For. For the first time, the J.M. Smucker company of Orrville, Ohio, was number one. Yes, the company that says about itself, "With a name like Smucker's, it's got be good." And it is. If you're not addicted to Smucker's red raspberry jam, then you're not human.

As I went down the list, I kept looking for a media company. Microsoft was #25, Timberland was #50--no media companies yet. Merck was #70, Arbitron #71, and IBM #73. I finally reached #100--Simmons, the mattress manufacturer--and no media companies. No GE, no Time Warner, and certainly no Viacom or Disney; everyone knows the last two media companies are horrible to work for. In the original book by Levering and Moskowitz titled The 100 Best Companies to Work For in America, published in 1993, only two media companies made the list: Knight-Ridder (newspapers) and Readers Digest, but they have faded from the list, according to the criteria used by Fortune.

"But wait a minute," I said to myself. "Arbitron is #71? Arbitron that has a virtual monopoly on radio ratings?" There are over 10,000 radio stations in the US, and every single one of them despises Arbitron, because no radio station owner, general manager, or program director ever believes they get the ratings they deserve, so it must be Arbitron's fault: lousy methodology, inadequate sample, poorly designed diaries, not enough Hispanics in the sample, and on and on. So radio management plays the blame game (television station management plays the blame game with A.C. Nielsen). Lousy ratings couldn't possibly be the fault of radio managers.

Well guess what, poor ratings and declining listening to radio is the fault of poor management. Radio is one of the worst managed industries in the country and is the worst managed medium in the media industry.

Why are there no media companies on Fortune's list, why are media companies, in general, bad places to work? Simple--supply and demand. Journalism, communications, and mass communications schools graduate far more students every year than there are jobs. Every girl in the country who enters into a beauty contest ( or has a mother who thinks her daughter is gorgeous) wants to be on TV. Every boy in the country who watches or plays sports wants to be on TV (especially ESPN). It doesn't matter if they are ugly, or fat, or dumb, or lazy or all four, they want to be on TV. So, every year there are 20 or 30 graduates for every job available in the media.

So what does the media do when there is high supply and low demand, pay people high salaries and treat them well? Of course not, they pay these aspiring stars below a living wage and treat people like dirt, because they can get away with it. It's a sad commentary on the media business, and I don't think it's going to change soon. The only way it's going to change is when the bright young people start seeking careers and jobs with companies that treat them with respect, caring, fairness, and understanding--things they won't find in most media companies, but might at Arbitron.

So what do you do if you're addicted to the media? What do you do if, in spite of all the warnings that media companies are lousy places to work, you still want to be a reporter, a producer, a director, or a writer? Look for a good boss. There are a few good bosses in bad companies, so the trick is to find one.

I have criticized Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. in this blog in the past, but I know several people who work at News Corp. or who know the top managers there, and all of them say that News Corp. and Fox are good places to work. The Time division of Time Warner, from all that I hear from several people that work there, is also a good place to work.

Posted by Charles Warner at 2:18 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

Monday, February 2, 2004,

Monday, February 2, 2004, Janet's Boob and WMD
Super Bowl XXXVIII was a great football game; one of the most exciting Super Bowls ever. But today everyone was not talking about the game but about Janet Jackson's bare right boob that Justin Timberlake uncovered for a split second (before CBS cut away) at the end of the half-time show.

The Bush administration should hire Timberlake; maybe he can find the weapons of mass destruction that Bush claimed were all over Iraq. But where are they? Weapons inspector David Kay has uncovered the Bush lie and has said that there are no WMD. Like Janet's boob, every red-blooded American male under 80 would love to see the WMD--just look at them to know they are there. But no one can find them.

Timberlake had no trouble finding the other thing that every red-blooded American male under 80 would love to see. He uncovered it deftly. He knew exactly where to go, and ripped off Janet's bustier in a well-rehearsed move. Then, of course, he innocently pleaded that he was shocked, shocked that there was a boob in there. He knew all along what he was doing and had clearly rehearsed his shocked reaction. Plausible deniability--"it was faulty clothing." With Bush, it's "faulty intelligence"--blame it on the CIA.

I don't believe either Bush or Timberlake. Bush will have a panel to investigate what went wrong with the intelligence, and Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, will have an investigation of what went wrong with Janet's clothing. I find it fascinating that there is as much interest in Janet's boob as there is in the missing WMD. And I'll bet the outcome will be that some CBS TV stations will get fined by the FCC and that the investigation into the missing WMDs will come up empty handed and exonerate the president like a British panel exonerated Tony Blair.

So, for allowing a split-second peek at Janet's boob, CBS will be punished because of universal outrage (by adults) and lying to the American public about the reason to go to war that cost America billions of dollars and hundreds of lives will probably go unpunished. Why? Because the press (including The New York Times) are giving more space and attention to Janet's boob than to the serious issue of where the WMD are.

The press sets the agenda for what people think is important, and it's clear by replaying, overplaying, and rehashing the story of Janet's boob, like the press overplayed Howard Dean's cheerleading yell, it is focusing American's attention on the wrong thing, once again.

Posted by Charles Warner at 1:16 AM | Comments (0) | Print |