Media Curmudgeon

« July 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

November 28, 2006

A Longer "Nightly News?"

It is counterintuitive when a blogger gets his ideas from the MSM (main-stream media), like The New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, or, even Advertising Age. You don't expect that us bloggers have original ideas, do you?

Well, I saw a story in the Monday, November 27, 2006, New York Times that caught my eye. The article was buried on page C4 of the Business Day section, and the headline was "A Lone Sponsor for a Longer 'Nightly News,'" and it peaked my curiosity.

Let me see, "…a longer "Nightly News;" does that mean that NBC is making its traditional half-hour Brian Williams newscast longer--say, ten minutes longer? No, it means that a viewer will get an additional news story within the half-hour newscast, because for two weeks it will have just one sponsor that will run one minute and 15 seconds of commercials instead of the usual 14 units (seven minutes) of commercials, allowing for an additional, longer news story.

It's not a unique idea; single sponsorship has been tried before. In fact, it was the rule, rather than the exception, when TV first started in the early 50s. Are we reverting back to the Golden Days of the "Schlitz Playhouse," or "The Texaco Star Theater?"

I doubt that it is relevant any more. First, the people who watch the NBC "Nightly News" are ancient--all over 55 years old. Second, young people (and my wife) get their TV news from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report," not "The Nightly News." (The single sponsor is Phillips Electronics, whose target audience for its products is probably adults 18-49, who won't have anything to do with the NBC "Nightly News.") Third, the 18-49 target audience doesn’t like advertising much, so even a little as one-minute and 15-seconds goes a long, long way. Fourth, TiVo. And I could on, but so can you. Thus, you get the point.

I applaud Phillips Electronics for trying something innovative, but I know I won't be watching or even care if there is one more story read by Brian Williams, who I happen to like (he blogs), and not just because he had the guts to "certify" recently that Iraq was in a civil war. I know that he certified it as civil war because I heard it on "The Daily Show."

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:38 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

Just The Facts, Please

The lead story in the November 27, edition of Advertising Age was an article titled "The Short Tail," ostensibly about the fact that, according to the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) 2005 report on internet ad spending, that 72% of all the internet ad money went to the top ten websites. That figure is now a year old, and we know how things can change in a year of internet time.

I've been told by at least two knowledgeable internet people that the 2006 figure is 80%, and it goes to the top five websites: Google, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, and MySpace, leaving 20% to tens of thousands websites that scramble for crumbs (hard, hard work).

I write "ostensibly" because Abby Klaassen's Advertising Age article headline seems to imply that "If there's long tail for internet ad dollars, it's still a very skinny one. There has been much talk about how the democratizing the web has opened a brave new long tail (in Wired Editor Chris Anderson's coinage) world, where many small sites can survive and thrive. But in truth, where internet ad dollars are concerned, is that it seems to be shaping up to look at lot like the broadcast world, with a handful of players dominating marketers' spending." OK, so far. Klaassen seems about right.

But, later on in her story, the author writes, quoting Google's Gokul Rajarum, product manager for AdSense, that, "In all cases, [engagement for] the niche site was just as good and performed just as well or better," which seems to contradict the "Short Tail" headline.

I see this article as another example of "he-said, she-said" journalism that one too often gets from the MSM (main-stream media. I think the article tries to make a case for the niche sites, as the author quotes small-site publishers and from the pitch that the Online Publisher's Association is making on behalf of smaller sites.

I say "don't bother trying to be balanced, just give me the facts, mam." The long tail concept only works for tiny sites that have little or no overhead, sites that are put up by bloggers or tech-savvy people who can maintain them for a tiny investment and a lot of time. Thus, even pennies of advertising are profit. I like the headline, "The Short Tail," which communicates the concept that the internet is now being dominated by the big sites, and gives numbers to back it up, even though the numbers are a year old, to be sure. Don't waste my time with balance. Like this and other blogs, gimme a fast opinion and let me make up my own mind, don't bore me with balance and trying to be well liked by everyone.

Are you listening New York Times?

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:16 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 26, 2006

Taming The Digital Future

Richard Siklos of the New York Times has an article today (Sunday, November 26, 2006) in the Media Frenzy column in the Weekly Review titled "Seeking Executive to Tame the Digital Future." I'm sorry, but I'm not available.

Here's a fake he wrote about the job qualitficaions:

"WANTED Digital media genius to guide a nimble — or at least we like to think we are — media giant through transformation from analog to digital in all its gory glory.

JOB DESCRIPTION To take all the stuff we produce for other formats, like TV or print or film, and figure out how to shovel it onto the Internet in a way that makes money.

QUALIFICATIONS The ideal candidate might also have ideas for ways to make a few dollars online that don’t directly stem from our so-called traditional media businesses. (You know — like that whole user-generated thing that the kids are doing. P.S., loved the video clips about how Mentos and Diet Coke mixed together create a chemical reaction — maybe we can turn it into a prime-time special or a theme park ride financed by these brands?)

COMPENSATION Pretty sweet for as long as you last.

RETIREMENT BENEFITS Well, don’t plan on it.

THE want ad above is a goof, of course, but it roughly sums up the state of play among big media companies’ digital operations."

Siklos has the right concept: Find someone old enough to navigate the politics of a big media company, but young enough to understand the current state of the Internet, and smart enough to turn the business into a money machine. Well, the envelopes are in... and the ideal candidates are: Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

Murdoch, Redstone, Moonves, Parsons, and, yes, Semel are all too old to get the Internet, and they never will, no matter how many people they fire or hire. Real Internet entrepreneurs, like Page and Brin, want to work for themselves and reap the rewards themselves. These young, Internet-savvy entrepreneurs might work for a big media conglomerate for while as a tweener move until they can find the ideal, small, company where they won't have to put up with the bureaucracy and wait and wait and wait for decisions from bean counters..

The new entrepreneurs will be young and smart enough to be close to their customers, because they were the customers just a few weeks ago. Their consumers are the young people who populate the Internet in search of celebrity gossip and childish videos. Or they will be really smart geeks who know algorithms and platforms and stuff like that—who know how to know how to make the technology work.

What words Siklos left out of his ad were “young”, and “very, very smart technically”, and “geeky.” Being “geeky” does mean dull, or not a nice guy, but it does mean that you have to spend at least five hours a day online.

In other words, if you have trouble with email, like I do...fuggetaboutit.

Posted by Charles Warner at 5:16 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

Bruce Braun at November 27, 2006 1:20 PM writes:

---

November 22, 2006

Google Stock Hits $500

On Tuesday, November 21, Google's stock hit its top price for the year--$500. And I could have bought it when it came out at $85. I should have know better and not invested in the website DailyComedy.com, which I am closing down November 31.

I could afford to invest in a website because I made a little money on AOL stock when I was there from 1998 to 2002. I stayed a year too long, well, really six months too long. I should have known AOL and Time Warner was screwed when Bob Pittman left in July 2001, and left then.

Hindsight is always 20-20. What made me think that I could open a website? What made me think that AOL and Time Warner would be OK after Bob leftv(in the sort-term that is)? What makes Google think it can get into the TV and radio sales business? We'll only know in hindsight.

It seems stupid to bet against Google now that the stock price has shot up to the $500-a-share level, and just about every move it has made has spun gold. I'm a legacy of stupid moves. I predicted about a year ago that Google would fail in the TV and radio sales business, and I still feel that way.

At one time I also thought AOL was dead and would never some back and thought Yahoo! was more innovative than Google. Now, Google is winning big, Yahoo! is in a peanut butter tail spin (some even think Semel should go), and AOL is roping 'em in like never before with its new TMZ (6.8 million uniqe visitors last month, according to the NY Times). Who would have thought it?

It just goes to show that no one can predict the future. So why to we try? Because no one remembers when we're wrong and you can gloat about it if you're right. So, no one will remember that I predict that Google will ultimately fail in selling TV time and, probably, bigmarket radio time as well. It will be sucessful and make a lot of money selling newspaper ads with its superior technology. Yahoo! will also try to sell newspaper ads, but it doesn't have the clout or the technology to do it well and Google does--so Google will win this battle.

What makes me think that Google can sell everything but TV and, probably, big-market radio when I have been so consistently wrong. I dunno, just lucky I guess.

Posted by Charles Warner at 9:48 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 18, 2006

AOL is OK

Here is a an edited comment from someone smart and in-the-know, but the person was hesitant to let me use a name, something I don't like to do. Nevertheless, the comments tend to contradict--no, "up-date"-- what I wrote in my blog about AOL and Randy Falco cleaning up the sales operation. I thought I ought to publish it in order to be fair:

"Good points for Falco, but AOL has made serious strides with the ad sales organization over the past two years. The new blood with Kathy Kayse replacing Michael Barrett has made a huge difference. The deadwood and "buddy system" from Michael's days are gone. The quality of the salespeople has turned the corner on all counts.

The (sales)people at AOL I have met were most impressive, especially the salespeople who went over the AOL revenue goal by 15% in 2005. They were buttoned up and were knowledgeable about other forms of media, in particular, TV. My bullshit detector didn't go off...(when I met the salespeople from the San Francisco office).

In short, they get it!"

Therefore, I stand corrected...at least in part...because it looks like AOL, partially at least, is now carrying Time Warner. There's a switch.

Posted by Charles Warner at 8:55 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 17, 2006

Bill Grimes on Clear Channel

Bill Grimes writes:

"The statement at the bottom of this piece is from 11/15's NY Times and it makes a number of key points--one which I argued strenuously in my 'Economics of the Media' class: That the media industry consolidation can be good or bad for our society depending upon the specific situation.

Radio station consolidation is not a case that I favored because it diminished the opporuntites for small buisnesses or private individual owners to participate as owners, i.e, the relative low expense of acquiring a radio station versus most other media proprties. The FCC misguided decision to permit a company to increase its radio station ownership from 14 stations in 1986 to at least 1200 twelve years later basically closed the door of ownership to many small buisnesses and individuals.

Worse was that, many owners in the past were citizens of the local community in which their station operated. Those days would be gone and the Clear Channel Commuincation (CCC) rapidly acquired more than 1200 radio stations.

The case I made in class was that eventually CCC, with its staggering dominance of the radio station industry (nearly 20% ownership of all US stations and its control of event venues in whch recording atrists played), would soon be unable to manage all these geographiclly disparate businesses.

Already the CCC share price had drifted continually down during last three years and was trading at 40% of its 2003 high. I figured that the company would likely begin selling many of its stations if only to accomodate Wall Street and investors.

Also, I knew that 25% of their stations made 90% of their profits, so keeping the unprofitable ones was simply a bad management decision. A bit of hubris, perhaps. Further, how could three or four people (including a father and two sons) manage successfully 1200 different operating businesses? Even Peter Drucker, Jack Welch and Bill Gates would be overwhelmed.

Also, I said that the prospect of having 5-6 huge media conglomerates was not a serious threat to reducing "the diversity of voices," certainly over any significant period of time and that certainly these conglomerates were not a threat to reduce total industry jobs. The "new media" has probably added nearly a million new jobs in the last ten years and it is difficult to spot any significant reduction in headcount when reviewing Annual Reports of Time Warner and News Corp. Happily, on this point there will likely be many new jobs in the radio industry after CCC sells 400+ radio stations (and their TV stations as well), especially since these stations are in "small" markets where more new jobs are usually sorely needed.

Students' concern about consolidation stifling dissenting voices on both information/news content and even on entertainment content was and is in my view unwarranted today given the explosion of "new" media, particulalry with the advent of blogging, which enables anyone to join the rainbow of political and social views continually spewed into the ethernet and available to 1 billion computers worldwide.

And, note the way these "new" media activities are increasing the number of new voices in old media. The New York Times, now includes daily reader response to many of its news and editorail pieces on its website (which had 30 million different viewers last month.) Imagine: readers having an expressed view in growing numbers at the NY Times! Perhaps some of this new User Generated Content is really Not Fit To Print and is seeping into the very veins of our venerated Lady, creating a plethora of new cacaphonous voices.

The FCC is not always wrong and the market nearly always is right.

NY Times: "Clear Channel (Communications) said in a separate statement Thursday that it would sell 448 of its 1,150 radio stations, as well as its 42-station television group. Overall, the properties up for sale generated less than 10 percent of Clear Channel’s revenue last year, and they are all in small to mid-sized markets, the company said."

Posted by Charles Warner at 7:36 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 16, 2006

Welcome Randy

To: AOL CEO, Randy Falco
From: Charlie Warner

Welcome to AOL as CEO, Randy. You should do well, because AOL needs you. I hope you do what Mel Karmazin did at Sirius Satellite Radio and shore up the sales operation.

I think the AOL product is pretty good, so don't spend too much time on that. And don't get too involved with technology--let the experts fool with that. AOL is not a technology company, it is a media company, and media companies are propelled by advertising, so concentrate on advertising. That's where your greatest strengths are and where AOL is weakest, so ad sales becomes your biggest opportunity.

I hope you will cut some fat off the sales team and get rid of the awful mentality of hiring your buddies, particularly old pals from the print world.

I also believe that AOL sales has suffered a great deal in the past from a magazine sales mentality (and we know where magazines are heading, although they are like rats--hard to get rid of). AOL is big time--it rivlas the TV networks in audience. You know how to sell TV; teach AOL how to use TV sales techniques and pricing models, and get rid of people who resist you. Good luck.

Posted by Charles Warner at 9:47 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 15, 2006

Sirius Will Win

I usually don’t go into predictions, they are like politicians, usually wrong and no one remembers when you’re right. But here’s story that I love to tell and one that relates to why in the battle for satellite radio dominance that I think Sirius might have a leg up.

Several months ago, I bought time on the two satellite radio companies—XM and Sirius—for DailyComedy.com. I bought a schedule of ten spots on each service in their comedy channels. I made the buy first on XM Satellite radio, and made it prmarily because my friend from AOL was Senior Vice President and head of Sales and Marketing. I made the purchase in a dingy office on Vanderbilt Avenue from a sales manager of some kind that my friend had referred me to. We did the rest of our business via email. When I renewed for a month, I had to contact him and renew the schedule.

I had a completely different experience with Sirius, which I will now tell you in reverse chronological order: I was leaving the Sirius offices in the modern, well lit, McGraw Hill Building on 6th Avenue, when I first person I ran into was Mel Karmazin, Sirius Radio’s CEO. I had known him at CBS and NBC in the 60s and 70s, so he’s an old acquaintance, and the first thing he said was: “Charlie Warner! Why do you hate me?” Then he went on to explain: “Someone sent a blog that you had written, and you trashed me.”

I politely said, “I don’t hate you, Mel. I was just up to your studios and bought some time.” We then went on with a ten-minute conversation about old times and old friends—he asked about my CBS pal Russ Barry. It was a pleasant conversation with a nice guy with big, white teeth. Enjoyable.

I had just come from a tour of the Sirius offices and studios given to me by the VP of Sales. I saw all of their modern, well-equipped, glass-walled studios, even the overdone, tasteless Howard Stern sanctuary (I didn’t buy Stern because his show is way too expensive for me and DailyComedy.com, plus I have an aversion to Stern, as people who read this blog know). I have also trashed Mel, and rightly so, I believe, for a mean-spirited management style. But, he was a real gentlemen the day I saw him—other than his thin skin, about my blogs. What is a big shot like that wasting his time reading my occasional blogs about him? Why should he care? But that’s Mel.

A couple of days later, Greg Binen, one of Sirius’s salespeople called me and asked me to lunch. Of course I went…I was desperate for a good meal. It was a pleasant lunch with good conversation. I’m glad I went.

I got several emails from Greg over the course of the next month. He even asked—no, pushed hard, as he should—for a renewal. I did renew for DailyComedy.com for a month, largely because he took such good care of me and because he asked. To be fair, I also renewed XM, even though no one asked. And that’s why I predict Sirius Satellite Radio is eventually going to win. Because of Mel, because they know how to sell. Their rates are reasonable and Sirius takes good care of its customers—even DailyComedy.com, a very small player, but still a customer that they valued and treated well, as Mel treated me on the street.

Posted by Charles Warner at 8:57 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 13, 2006

The Los Angeles Times

Hi! I'm back again and will be blogging about once or twice a week, depending on my whims.

I'm closing DailyComedy.com effective November 30, because we weren't close to breaking even, and I had to save what money I had left for my retirement. I cancelled my book deal--Media Selling III as as it was taking too much time. I got fired from teaching at The New School while I was in the hospital. So, I don't have any teaching to do. Thus, when I have some spare time, I'll blog, which, other than Julia, is my only indulgence now.

In June before I got really sick (I'm much, much better now), my good pal in Los Angeles, Vince Thompson, had me see the Los Angeles Times. We discussed doing some sales training for the company's sales team. Apparently, I pissed off the LA Times sales managers when I spoke to them. After reading the long Wall Street Journal story last week, thank the Lord it didn't work out.

Can you imagine doing sales seminars for newspaper salespeople? I would have been mauled trying to teach old dogs new tricks. If the Chicago Tribune can't teach the LA Times anything, then what chance do I have? I'd be bucking an irreversible trend by trying to bail out a sinking sales team. Newspaper sales are not coming back. Newspapers, even now, don't want to change; don't want to learn anything, like the WSJ story indicated, and I don't think a 74-year old guy shouting at them is going to change it.

I'm well out of it, and the Chandlers will be well out of their LA Times investment when the paper is finally sold. I hope they invest at least some of their new found money from the sale of their once-proud newspaper in Internet properties.

By the way, have I got a deal for them--a hot start-up Internet property. I wish I'd thought of this sooner. I was pitching the wrong thing. I should have been pitching the future. But I made the mistake of pitching the past. If I'd gone even furter back, I might have made the sale.

Posted by Charles Warner at 6:52 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

jayarrigo at November 15, 2006 2:39 PM writes:

---