Media Curmudgeon

« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 30, 2007

After Imus, Advertisers Should Step Up

The Don Imus firing by NBC and CBS served as an opportunity to call public attention to the dirty little secret that that the big, main-stream-media has been broadcasting and promoting personalities who consistently use offensive language for years. Like Captain Renault in the movie “Casablanca,” NBC and CBS were shocked, shocked that indecent language was going on.

In “Casablanca,” the Nazi Officer, Major Strasser, ordered Captain Renault to close down Rick’s Café, and when Renault said, “But everybody’s having such a good time,” Strasser replied, “Yes. Much too good a time. The place is to be closed.” Renault then says, “But I have no excuse to close it.” Strasser replies, “Find one.” Renault closes the café and Rick asks him, “How can you close me up? On what grounds?”, to which Renault makes his classic reply “I’m shocked. Shocked to find that gambling is going on here,” and then accepts his gambling winnings.

MSNBC and CBS knew perfectly well that Imus often used racist and sexist language, poked nasty fun at his guests, and often crossed the line of good taste and used offensive language—offensive to some but not necessarily to his predominately male audience. But he wasn’t indecent, according to the FCC guidelines on indecent language; he knew enough not to use the seven dirty words you can’t on television. Therefore, technically, he wasn’t indecent, so NBC and CBS didn’t have an excuse to close him up. Furthermore, Imus’s advertisers and their agencies were familiar with his content and gladly placed commercials in that program environment.

But Imus’s racist, sexist remark about the Rutgers women’s basketball team provided the two networks with an excuse, although one they weren’t necessarily looking for. Just as Renault’s “shocked” remark was disingenuous, so were NBC’s and CBS’s press releases rationalizing Imus’s termination. They might have taken the high ground if they had fired Imus immediately, but both networks waited over a week, which made it look like they bowed to pressure from advertisers, their employees, and Al Sharpton. So their reluctant behavior brings up an interesting question: Will NBC and CBS be more careful in the future about hiring personalities who use offensive language?

The answer is no. The networks will continue to hire personalities who bring in audiences, even if these stars continually push the bounds of good taste and teeter on the edge of indecency and objectionable material. They will do this for several reasons: 1) Competitive pressure for ratings. Younger viewers (18-34), who all broadcast and cable networks covet, prefer edgy, boundary-pushing performers. 2) Younger viewers and listeners, especially those in urban areas, have different and much more liberal sensitivities and definitions of objectionable and indecent material than older people, conservatives, many lawmakers, and the FCC do. 3) As long as most advertisers and their agencies seek younger audiences, they will buy advertising in efficiently priced programming. 4) Hiring personalities with high name recognition and with established personas and reputations is a safe choice.

By being safe, I mean safe for the executives who make programming decisions. If they hire an edgy star, when he crosses over the line of offensiveness, programming executives can avoid blame by saying, “It’s not my fault for choosing him, it’s his fault for not obeying the rules I laid down.” When a network exec hired the star, the exec said something like, “You know the rules; no obscenities or hate talk,” and winked. The star said, “Of course not,” and winked back. The wink means, “Don’t get caught.”

Stars will do anything to get the affection and approval they desperately need and are addicted to, and they will push the limits to get the unconditional love of their audience and bosses as measured by ratings. The bosses pay the stars exorbitant salaries as a means of holding them hostage to the boss’s whims and fickleness, based on the shifting winds of public, press, regulators’, and advertisers’ opinions. It’s very risky for the stars, but they know the game. They must push the envelope of tastefulness (vulgarity, nudity, violence, etc.) to appeal to younger viewers, and occasionally go over the line and risk getting fired. The most successful stars push the envelope, but don’t self-destruct. Leno, Letterman, O’Brien , and before them, Johnny Carson, are masters of walking the fine line but staying in bounds.

Even if they go outside the lines (or get caught, which is the real issue) and get fired, stars know they will be re-hired by someone who wants ratings more than propriety. Thus, Imus will be back on the air, just as Bill Maher was back on after he “left” ABC. Rosie O’Donnell will eventually be back somewhere after she leaves ABC’s “The View” in June.

So, three questions come to mind: 1) Should the broadcast and cable networks censor their programming and eliminate objectionable content? 2) Who should decide on the standards for objectionable content, the programmers, the audience, or the creators of the content, and 3) what are the limits of free speech?

I believe the networks have the obligation to have control, including censorship, over the content of their programming and each should decide on their own standards for objectionable content. Thus, ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, might have stricter standards for what constitutes objectionable programming than might, say, CBS, which is controlled by Sumner Redstone, who also controls MTV. A radio or television station in New York or San Francisco might have different standards from one in Omaha or Memphis.

As far as free speech, people should have the right to say what they want, but they must realize that the owner of the distribution channel for that speech has the right to say, “You may say what you like, but not on my network.” Thus, NBC and CBS each had the right to stop winking, fire Imus, and say “not on my network.”

However, viewers, listeners, and activists, such as Al Sharpton, will have little influence on the broadcast and cable networks and broadcast stations because the audience is not a single monolith, it is comprised of a multitude of groups that have a wide variety of preferences, tastes, values, ages, races, sexual orientations, religions, and political affiliations. Therefore, there are no universal or broadly accepted standards for tasteless or objectionable program content, and so the networks and their stars will continue to push the envelope.

Thus, the ultimate arbiter must be advertisers. Each advertiser must decide which content creates a suitable environment for its advertising. Is the content credible, does it reflect an attitude that enhances the image of an advertiser’s product or service? Is the content in attitudinal and emotional harmony with its target audience? Will the content reflect well on an advertiser’s image? Procter & Gamble, the world's leading advertiser, has long avoided controversial programming and editorial content that it feels doesn’t create a desirable, product-friendly environment. I have a sense that after the Imus affair more advertisers will take a closer look at the content in which their advertising is imbedded and begin to have their agencies make buying decisions based as much on program environment as on ratings.

If hate and pornographic content on the airwaves is going to be toned down, advertisers are going to have to demand it, because the stars and the networks won’t stop it on their own—they’re addicted to it.

Posted by Charles Warner at 04:42 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

April 24, 2007

NY Times, Lower Revenue, Fewer Pulitzers

The NY Times recently announced its first quarter 2007 financial results, which showed lower revenue than last year, and in last week’s announcement of annual newspaper Pulitzer Prizes, the Times received three awards, fewer than it has in the last three years. Is there any connection?

First, the facts: For the first quarter of this year, the NY Times reported a 33 percent decline in quarterly earnings, from $.21 per share in 2006 to $.14 in 2007, and 10 percent decline in quarterly operating profit from $60.5 million to $54.5 million, even though Internet revenue was up 22 percent over the same period last year. The NY Times’s fight with Morgan Stanley’s Hassan Elmasry, who runs Morgan Stanley’s American and Global Franchise Strategies Portfolio, has been widely reported. Elmasry’s fund owns about 7.5 percent of NY Times stock and isn’t happy, to say the least, about the stock’s 40 percent decline over the last two years. Of course, the NY Times isn’t the only newspaper with declining revenue, circulation, and advertising—the entire newspaper industry is suffering—many worse than the NY Times.

In terms of Pulitzer Prizes, this year the NY Times won one award and got two honorable mentions, for a total of three. In 2006, it received a total of seven awards, five in 2005, and four in 2004 for the year 2003, when current executive editor Bill Keller took over from the embattled Howell Raines, under whose leadership the paper won 11 awards in 2002 for its superb 9/11 coverage, up from four Pulitzers in 2001.

Some people believe the NY Times is the best newspaper in the country. But what does “best” mean? To Wall Street and investors, “best” probably means most profitable, for that’s all they care about—don’t talk to them about quality, coverage, or awards. To individual readers, “best” is probably a subjective judgment based on the coverage of what interests them and agrees with their positions on a number of issues. To professional journalists and journalism educators, “best” might be a combination of subjective and objective judgment, with Pulitzer Prizes being a big factor in objective considerations. Pulitzer Prizes have long been a signal of quality in a newspaper. So, by these criteria of quality, what is the best newspaper in the country?

If we use Pulitzer Prizes as the standard for quality, then the NY Times, over the last eight years (2001-2007), is the best newspaper in the country with a total of 37 Pulitzers. The LA Times over the same period was second with 34, the Washington Post third with 25, and the Wall Street Journal fourth with 14. The Chicago Tribune was fifth with 10, The (Portland) Oregonian and the AP were tied for seventh with eight, and the Baltimore Sun, the Boston Globe, and the Miami Herald each had six over those eight years.

However, if we look at the four years of Bill Keller’s reign as executive editor of the NY Times (2003-2006—the 2007 awards were for the calendar year 2006), then the NY Times has not been as good a newspaper as the LA Times. In that period, the NY Times has been awarded a total of 22 Pulitzers and the LA Times a total of 26. Awards include first place and honorable mentions, of which there are typically two. What is the reason for the decline in the number of Pulitzers? Is it Keller’s leadership, the NY Times’ leadership, newsroom layoffs because of budget cuts due to lower revenue, the Public Editor’s (Byron Calame) harping, complancency, or hubris?

For as many readers of this blog as there are, there will be an equal number of reasons for the decline in Pulitzers and for the LA Times being awarded more Pulitzers over the time of Keller’s reign. However, if the reason were layoffs due to budget cuts, the LA Times had as many, if not more cuts, as the NY Times did and much more turmoil in the newsroom. What about NY Times leadership? Arthur Sulzberger has been the CEO of the NY Times during the period under examination, including in 2001, when the NY Times won an unprecedented 11 Pulitzers, and he chose both Howell Raines and Bill Keller as executive editors. He can conceivably be blamed, to some degree, for the stock and revenue declines, but there is evidence that the NY Times, under his overall leadership, has suffered fewer circulation lower revenue declines than many other major-market newspapers. Furthermore, under his leadership, the NY Times website has flourished. It has continually improved, been redesigned as is now perhaps the best newspaper and news website in the country.

My assessment of the NY Times’s decline in quality (as measured by Pulitzer Prizes received) is the result of hubris, most of all, and complacency. I don’t know if this hubris, this we’re-the-best-and-untouchable attitude comes from Sulzberger or Keller or is in-bred in the newsroom, but I suspect it comes from the very top. Sulzberger doesn’t seem to be a great listener, doesn’t appear to be in tune with the mood and attitudes in the newsroom. He seems to be aloof and overly defensive, as evidenced by his taking the family fortune away from Morgan Stanley’s stewardship because he was peeved at Elmasry’s harping (see my blog on the subject).

I think the complacency comes from the staff drinking their own Kool Aid based on the reputation that the NY Times is America’s “journal of record.” The NY Times executives, editors, and reporters seem to accept this trophy based on the efforts of previous journalism all-stars. Unfortunately, the current staff hasn’t earned this reputation (columnists excluded) and don’t seem to have the competitive drive to keep their reputation. They don’t realize it’s much harder to stay on top than it is to get there. Sulzberger seems to believe that the Times’s reputation, like his job, is his birthright.

I think Keller takes Sulzberger’s lead and is equally as tone-deaf and defensive. It seems to be a chicken-and-egg situation. Which came first, Sulzberger’s aloofness or Keller’s? Is Keller copycatting to keep his job or is it his nature? I don’t know, but whichever it is, I believe an aloofness, an arrogance, and a we’re-the-NY Times-and-can-do-no-wrong culture is manifested in the decline of Pulitzer Prizes.

I believe this attitude might be as strong or stronger in the coverage of culture and the arts, where the NY Times as been traditionally without peer. Many of its theater, art, movie, and book reviews are too long and unreadable. They are often muddy, highly pretentious, convoluted, and overly intellectual and theoretical ramblings that reflect more of the writer’s need to show off his or her vocabulary than to give insight or understanding.

This type of hubris and complacency, as evidenced in this style of writing will drive more and more people to the NY Times website in an attempt to 1) save trees and 2) to view short, understandable video reviews. I recommend this solution.

Posted by Charles Warner at 02:33 PM | Comments (2) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at April 25, 2007 06:28 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 25, 2007 06:26 PM writes:

---

April 22, 2007

Les Moonves Is Over His Head

Les Moonves revived a ratings sickly CBS by adding popular programs and dropping bad ones for the network when he was president of its entertainment division. He has not been as successful at hiring and firing people as CBS’s CEO.

Many management experts believe the most important task of a CEO is “getting the right people on the bus” and the wrong people off the bus, according to Jim Collins author of the best-selling management book Good to Great. Moonves has failed using these criteria. He made a cynical show-business decision to hire Katie Couric as the anchor of the “CBS Evening News.” It wasn’t a news decision—she wasn’t hired because she was the best possible, experienced news anchor, but because she was the cutest news anchor. Not only has Couric not increased the ratings of the “Evening News,” the ratings have slipped since she has taken over from two old men--Bob Schieffer and, before that, Dan Rather, both experienced news anchors.

Moonves hired Couric because he probably thought, being the first female sole anchor, she’d be unique and draw female younger viewers. He must have figured her perky approach would make the news more entertaining and more watchable. However, Couric has not caught America’s fancy and has been panned by critics for being too cloying and inauthentic.

Moonves did the right thing in firing Don Imus, it just took him too long and it looked as though he did it only because of pressure from Al Sharpton, NBC, and his boss, Sumner Redstone. CBS’s press release sounded high-minded, but it came out too late to change the perception that Moonves made the decision under pressure and only after NBC fired Imus. The morning before the firing announcement, CBS Chairman Sumner Redstone was widely quoted as saying that he knew Moonves would “do the right thing.” Redstone, who is exceptionally smart and wily, would not have said that unless he was concerned that Moonves might not fire Imus and, thus, and felt he had to give Les a not-too-subtle message.

By making the Imus firing announcement after a press conference in which Al Sharpton demanded Imus’s ouster and threatened a boycott of advertisers, CBS and Moonves enabled the bloviating Sharpton and made it appear they were caving in to him. CBS will regret this timing mistake—they encouraged Sharpton and his older pal Jesse Jackson to escalate their demands next time something comes up these two camera hogs don’t like.

Moonves may be able to pick prime time programs, but he might find himself doing it again somewhere else and not running Sumner Redstone’s company, because Redstone doesn’t allow his CEOs much rope. Ask Mel Karmazin and Tom Freston.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:19 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

KMashek at April 23, 2007 10:53 AM writes:

---

April 21, 2007

Media Coverage of the Virginia Tech Massacre

Television has once again gone on a rampage of gluttony over the tragic murders at Virginia Tech. However, it depends on your definition of what constitutes gluttony and what kind of TV you’re talking about.

First, all television is not cut from the same cloth. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are all-news cable channels, so they have a 24-hour news hole to fill. Because TV is inelastic, the three national news channels can neither expand or contract time nor add or subtract hours to the clock. Thus they fill those 24-hours with what each thinks the majority of their viewers will find compelling. And, of course, they all choose the same stories in what has become a cycle of competitive reinforcement, confirmation, and excess.

If CNN airs a story, then Fox and MSNBC producers say, “That confirms that the story is important—CNN (Fox, MSNBC) is running it.” They also say, “We’ve got to run the story more often and devote more resources to it or viewers will go elsewhere.” Thus, the news cycle spins out of control. Furthermore, the three cable news networks have structured their programming in hour-long blocks, often with personality-hosts who do talk segments (Larry King, Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly), and the assumption, generally, is that viewers watch for about an hour, so they have to repeat the news cycle and the top stories every hour. In all-news radio, the news cycles are usually shorter. For example, New York’s WINS has the famous tagline, “Give us 20 minutes and we’ll give you the world.” TV and radio all-news outlets are like a news faucet. The notion is that you can turn on a news station or channel at any time and the latest, most important news spews out.

Therefore, if you watch a TV news channel for longer than an hour, which happens with breaking news like the Virginia Tech story, you see the top story repeated, giving the impression of saturation and excess. And if you get sick of the coverage on one cable news network and turn to another, you see the same top story repeated, which increases the perception of excess coverage.

Furthermore, TV has much greater impact than any other medium because it engages viewers’ emotions through its blend of sight, sound, motion, and emotion. Thus videos of airplanes crashing into buildings or a killer’s deadly ramblings leave much more dramatic and lasting impressions. And it is these impressions that magnify the perception of excess.

TV and radio are real-time linear; you can’t rewind or fast forward. They are linear-accessed push media for which the audience can’t control what is pushed out; their only option is turn off or switch outlets. Conversely, print media and the Internet are non-linear pull media in which the audience can select what they want, go back and forth, and have random access to content they are interested in. Therefore, when people have no control over what is pushed to them, they are more frustrated than when they can control their content, can pull what they want as often as they want.

With these parameters in mind, we can now ask several questions: 1) Should NBC have released the video, pictures, and ramblings of Cho Seung-Hui? 2) Overall, was the media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre excessive and insensitive? 3) Is the media leading the charge to assign blame? 4) What is Cho’s proper name?

1. Should NBC have released the video, pictures, and ramblings of Cho Seung-Hui? NBC News President Steve Capus made the right decision to release the images and ramblings, not only to show them on NBC but also to release them to other news organizations. First, it was in the public interest to have information about the psychopathic killer distributed for a number of reasons, not the least of which was to bring closure to the horror and reassure people that there was no larger plot. Also, as Jack Shafer of Slate, writes: “NBC News needn't apologize to anybody for originally airing the Cho videos and pictures. The Virginia Tech slaughter is an ugly story, but the five W's of journalism—who, what, where, when, and why—demand that journalists ask the question ‘why?’ even if they can't adequately answer it. If you're interested in knowing why Cho did what he did, you want to see the videos and photos and read from the transcripts. If you're not interested, you should feel free to avert your eyes.”

NBC could not have kept the pictures for itself and away from other news organizations. But did it run the images too often? Yes, and it admitted as much by restricting their use after complaints from victims’ families, and Virginia Tech and Virginia officials. And while we don’t know if the complaints had anything to do with the decision, I think they probably did. However, the manner in which NBC promoted the video tapes on Brian William’s “Nightly News” was a little too self-congratulatory, and MSNBC was clearly over the top in its greedy self-promotion. Chris Matthews, in particular, should be pistol-whipped for his callous, gloating promotion of the Cho videos. But what’s so surprising about that? NBC’s grade is B minus for sharing the material and eventually restricting the use of the images to no more than 10 percent of any news program. MSNBC’s grade is F. CNN’s grade is D, mostly for contributing to the feeding-frenzy coverage. Fox News’ grade is F, for using the videos, as MSNBC did, as video wallpaper. NPR’s grade is A. Without pictures, radio doesn’t have the impact of TV, so NPR could be more thoughtful and do more meaningful, sensitive sidebars, which it did.

2. Overall, how was the media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre; was it excessive and insensitive? Yes and yes. The amount of coverage was excessive because of the nature of cable and radio all-news outlets, particularly in the use of the killer’s video on TV. Worse, in my view, was the invasion and occupation of the Virginia Tech campus by hordes of insensitive reporters who bombarded the privacy of the university, the campus, students, victims, and their families in a frenzy to get scoops. NPR recounted the story of a female student who lived in the dorm where the first killings took place. Her dorm was locked down, but, somehow, a female magazine reporter gained access, entered her room and asked her for an interview. The weeping student asked the reporter to leave and quit badgering her, and the reporter responded by handing the distraught student her business card and asked, “Call me.” The student apparently replied, “What makes you think I’d call you after what you just did?”

CNN sent four anchors to the campus and broadcast from there on Thursday. Was that necessary? Absolutely not. It was excessive, intrusive, and insensitive. Freedom of speech, yes. Invasion of privacy, yes. Come on, CNN, can’t you see the ironic insensitivity in overkill on an overkill?

If the major media news organizations don’t find a way to control this expensive, invasive, counter-productive feeding frenzy on major stories, they leave themselves vulnerable to the Federal government stepping in and regulating news coverage, which would be terrible. However, people are sick of this insensitive type of coverage, which gives them yet another reason for hating the media. So, slapping regulatory controls on the media by the government would more than likely be a popular move. The VT shootings might result in pool coverage of major stories, or guidelines or standards under the auspices of the Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), but, whatever, the big news organizations had better do something.

3. Is the media leading the charge to assign blame? Yes. According to Media Matters for America, on the April 19 edition of “MSNBC Live” Boston radio host Michael Graham told MSNBC’s David Gregory that the whole story of the mass shooting “is a story of people just freezing, of just letting him have their way [sic], except that one brave professor put himself in between the gunman and his students.” So Graham blames the victims and MSNBC let him get away with it. TIME magazine ran a commentary by John Cloud titled “Viewpoint: Va. Tech’s President Should Resign,” which blames Virginia Tech president, Dr. Charles W. Steger, for the massacre, which is ridiculous. Others in the media have blamed “passive students,” Virginia’s mental health providers, the campus police, the state’s gun control laws, Cho’s family, and South Koreans. All are hysterical over-reactions, except perhaps the reaction to gun-control laws.

Perhaps the media gets in a frenzy trying to find scapegoats to blame because it is trying deflect blame from itself to avoid the usual kill-the-messenger attitude of the public.

4. What’s Cho’s proper name? The New York Times, NBC, and MSNBC, among others, used the name Cho Seung-Hui, according to the Korean tradition of putting a family name first (thus, I would be Curmudgeon Media). CNN, NPR, and ABC, among others, used the American version of the name, Seung-Hui Cho, which I believe is proper because Cho’s parents came to America when he was very young and he is a product of American culture, having gone to grade school, high school, and college in this country (his sister graduated from Princeton). Therefore, he should not have been referred to as “South Korean,” which caused a rash of hate directed unfairly at Americans of South Korean decent and at South Koreans. Furthermore, the media confused the American public by using two different versions of his name. So, even though The New York Times used the Korean version, all the other media should have gone along, standardized the usage, and explained the American usage, as NPR did, in order to avoid confusion.

And what is the overall grade for the media? A failing grade of D. When will the media get its act together? It probably won’t as long as it tries to appeal to people’s baser instincts in its competition for ratings and in its attempt to find the lowest level of taste and decency. I think NBC, ABC, and, at times, CBS are trying, but they are not succeeding, just barely getting a passing grade. The cable channels aren’t even trying to be decent; they’re just trying to beat each other.

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:36 AM | Comments (1) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at April 22, 2007 01:44 PM writes:

---

April 15, 2007

Wrong Numbers

When I posted the entry "Google Buys DoubleClick," it was late at night and I was listening to the Yankee game. I made some stupid errors in the numbers. Google paid $3.1 billion for DoubleClick, not $1.6, as I wrote. That means Google paid 11 times revenues, not five times, as I wrote, and 42 times cash flow instead of 22 times, as I wrote. What makes it worse, I corrected Bill Grimes's original numbers--he had it right.

The correct numbers make the price even more outrageous, as Bill pointed out.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

April 14, 2007

Google Buys DoubleClick

Bill Grimes is a frequent contributor to Media Curmudgeon. Bill is the ex-CEO of ESPN, Univision, and Multimedia, and he was a partner in the successful investment fund B&G Media. He has been very good at identifying financial performance problems and economic trends. Here is what Bill had to say about Google buying the world's largest ad serving company, DoubleClick for $3.1 billion:

"I remember when a billion dollar company was an enterprise with about that amount in revenues and a 25% profit margin. DoubleClick has revenues of $300 million, which means that Google is paying about 11 times revenue and about 42 times cash flow. That, for a rather mature company, is hugely unusual and priced to the max.

I am flabbergasted at what Google paid; note it is double (no pun) the amount a private equity firm paid for DoubleClick just a year ago. This acquisition by Google plus the nasty mess it is in with media companies over copyright infringement by YouTube (Viacom's law suit, e.g.) suggests strongly to me that we are now seeing the decline of a company that dazzled investors and technology and media industries. As Don Henley wrote in a wonderful but obscure Eagles song: 'Call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye.' Watch Google stock begin a long, slow decline."

Google's stock closed Friday at $466.74, down about 9 percent from a high of $513 last November. If you own any Google stock, now, according to Grimes, who is a smart investor, would be a good time to sell.

I agree, not only because of the DoubleClick purchase, for which Google overpaid, in part, I'm sure, to keep it from going into the hands of Microsoft, but also because Google is trying to do too much, especially by trying to sell broadcast, cable, and newspaper advertising. For example, last year Google purchased dMarc, a company that sells radio remnant advertising, for $1.2 billion, and its attempt to sell radio airtime to date has been disappointing, according to a recent NY Times story.

Google also ran into a main-stream media buzzsaw when it bought the high-traffic site YouTube that posted videos containing copyrighted content from Viacom (MTV, Comedy Central), CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox that it didn't pay for. CBS seems to have worked out some kind of a deal with YouTube to get some compensation, but Viacom has filed a $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit. This lawsuit and continued copyright infringement pressure from the television networks will make it difficult, to say the least, for Google to convince the networks to let it sell their ad inventory.

Google will remain the dominant search engine and seller of keyword advertising, but it will have trouble branching out into display advertising and selling broadcast and cable time, which is typically negotiated face to face among people who have built relationships with each other (agencies and networks, e.g.). The TV networks and big cable channels don't want to submit their inventory to online auctions such as Google employs and disintermediate their own salespeople and ad agencies, they want to negotiate and be able to package less desirable inventory and cross-platform inventory in with high-demand prime time programs in order to maximize revenue.

Furthermore, Google sells on a cost-per-click basis and broadcasting and cable sell on a cost-per-thousand basis, and it will be quite a while before broadcasting and cable give up that model and before Google understands it.

Google's buying of DoubleClick was primarily a defensive move to keep it away from Microsoft, (see Henry Blodget's blog--yes, that Henry Blodget--he writes well and with insight). When a company plays defense instead of offense, it's not an especially good sign of future growth, and Wall Street will notice. So, sell your Google stock. Don't get greedy and wait for it to go up to $600. Remember what happened to AOL in 2001.

Posted by Charles Warner at 03:38 PM | Comments (5) | Print |

Paul Talbot at April 15, 2007 01:11 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 15, 2007 11:59 AM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 15, 2007 11:55 AM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 15, 2007 11:03 AM writes:

---

ChuckG at April 14, 2007 09:13 PM writes:

---

April 13, 2007

Neil Derrough on Don Imus in 2005

Neil Derrough, posted the following comment on Media Curmudgeon in January 23, 2005. Read how smart prophetic he was about Don Imus:

Neil Derrough - Imus Addict

Neil Derrough is a past-president of the CBS Television Stations Division and before that VP, general manager, of WCBS-TV in New York. He now lives in La Jolla, CA, with his wife, ex-CBS News correspondent Sharron Lovejoy, and their two daughters.

"All right I’ll admit it, I’m an Imus addict. My time in New York allowed me to follow Imus's career and I always wondered if he could make it on television. A question I answered by not offering him a job at the time.

And now here I am, over 20 years later, living on the left coast and finding myself using my cable DVR to substitute Imus for the all of the other morning TV fare. I think his cast of characters, access to timely newsmakers, and unique ability to get so much from his guests prompts me to choose Imus. Also, he and I share a number of things, such as a respect for the late Jerry Nachman, a similar vintage, and being a news junkie. I could go on, but I think you get the point that I like him.

But in spite of my affinity, my Imus addiction becomes complicated. I can’t just be a loyal viewer of his MSNBC morning coverage because I find myself practicing my craft of “broadcaster.” I wonder when an independent, intelligent, bruising wit becomes merely self-indulgent. Sure, the Rickles-like humor has certain appeal. Many people enjoy seeing someone get a good shot, particularly if it strikes close to someone else’s bone. It’s knowing the limits between just rude behavior and hard-edged exchange that is critical and what a viewer (or listener) will tolerate. Imus has made a career out of dealing with this delicate balance. Being the iconoclast, the cynic, and the leveler of anyone who dares cross his path, is who he is.

What’s my concern? As I see it, Imus feels that he's out of reach of anyone getting in his face. Sure, there are practical professional guidelines he must follow, but they are mostly routine considerations. He conveys that no one can really hold him accountable, that he’s beyond that. That if “they” don’t like it, so be it. Again, part of his charm.

The problem is, I've never known talented people who can survive at the level they want to with that attitude. They leave the air decrying their critics, bosses, and finally the audience as out of touch. But ultimately they are done in because the significant impact and value they once had is diminished or even lost. All because they felt they were out of reach.

Now, what can Imus do so I can keep my peculiar viewing habit?

I would tell Imus if he worked for me to realize that his words really mean something. That he can’t get away with being mean spirited forever. Guests will take it for a while and so will the audience, but sooner or later a mean spirit is not entertaining or funny. People like a performer because they perceive he or she has a good heart. Imus's caustic, irreverent on-air persona does not cover up an inherent nastiness. I would tell Imus, "I think you know when you get too close to the edge. If you won’t listen to anyone else, use your ample survival skills and listen to yourself. I think you know how to solve my concerns."

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:35 AM | Comments (1) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at April 15, 2007 11:20 AM writes:

---

April 12, 2007

Imus Is Fired

“Ding, dong, the witch is dead, which old witch, the wicked witch…” Yes, today, CBS fired Don Imus a day after NBC canceled his program on MSBC. The chronology of the events was interesting. NBC had less to lose in firing “Imus in the Morning,” and it was the first network to move. Also, its press release was high minded and indicated that it respected the feelings of its employees, especially its female employees. The next morning, one of the first indications that CBS might ax Imus instead of just suspending his program came from CBS Chairman Sumner Redstone, who was quoted as saying that he was sure that CEO Les Moonves “would do the right thing.”

Moonves is no dummy. He knew what his boss meant. Even though a greater percentage of CBS Radio’s revenue comes from the Imus show than MSNBC’s does, after NBC fired him, CBS would look like an idiot if it didn’t do the same, and it did. After the magnificent, heart tugging, uplifting televised press conference performance of the Rutgers women’s basketball team coach, C. Vivian Stringer, and the members of the team, Imus was toast. I have two daughters and I would have been honored to have every one of the young women on the Rutgers team as their sisters. The team captain, Essence Carson, is America’s new sweetheart and she and her team members rallied America’s women to wave the anti-Imus banner, including the women at NBC.

However, CBS blundered by indicating that CBS CEO Les Moonves met with Rev. Al Sharpton and then, later in the afternoon, he and NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker decided to fire Imus. By making the announcement after meeting with Sharpton, CBS enabled the camera-hungry demagogue. CBS made it look like it caved into his ransom demands, which will make him seem more powerful than he is—that’s a shame. Not that Sharpton didn’t have a right to be outraged, he did. But CBS should have taken a cue from NBC and said it fired Imus for its employees and integrity, not because Rev. Al asked them to. They would have been smarter (and typically cynical) to indicate that they fired Imus because its ratings-challenged, $15-million anchor Katie Couric demanded it to give her a much-needed boost. Now it looks like Moonves and Zucker did it because Sumner Redstone thought it was the right thing, not because they thought so.

Now, the big question is where does Imus go? Some people think he goes to satellite radio like Howard Stern did so he can say anything he wants. After all, Sirius Satellite Radio has no public conscience or moral standards, it’s run by CEO Mel Karmazin who loved Howard Stern when Mel was President of Infinity Radio and then CEO of CBS and who paid millions of dollars of FCC fines for Stern’s indecency but still kept him on the air. Karmazin brought Stern to Sirius. But Stern despises Imus, so the old redneck won’t go to Sirius, I’ll bet. How about XM Satellite Radio? Well, XM desperately wants the FCC to approve its proposed merger with Sirius, so it won’t slap the FCC’s face by hiring Imus. Finally, no national advertisers will follow Imus to satellite radio, even though some of his macho, racist, red-neck fans might. Who wants this high-priced trouble?

So where? He might wind up on Blogtalkradio.com or on some other Internet site—even YouTube. He belongs on the Internet with all the other right-wing (and left-wing) nuts, raunchy comedians, and porn. He presents his image as that of a cowboy. Well then, he belongs on the wild, free-wheeling, unpoliced frontier of the Web. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I fired Imus when I was general manager of WNBC-AM in 1977. Wouldn’t it be ironic if two old has-beens like us wound up on Blogtalkradio.com doing programs? I’m sure he’d get a much bigger audience than I ever will.

Who will replace Imus? If I were the head of programming for MSNBC, I’d make a deal with WFAN and CBS Radio to put Keith Olbermann in the time slot. Olbermann is almost twenty years younger than Imus, much smarter, and has an encyclopedic knowledge and love of sports, especially baseball. His blog today on MSNBC is about baseball, not politics, which he usually covers in his MSBNC prime-time program “Countdown.” Therefore, he would fit in perfectly with the WFAN-AM all-sports format. Olbermann would have to stop doing his one-hour stint every weekday on the ESPN Radio’s “The Dan Patrick Show,” which airs in New York on 1050, ESPAN Radio and is the best talk programming hour on radio—it’s that good.

Imus simulcast his morning program from MSNBC studios. Olbermann could do that and make the last hour the “The Countdown,” which would be replayed at 8:00 p.m.--hard but not impossible. It would be tough on Olbermann, too, but if he were given the same $10 million a year was making, he might be persuaded.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:54 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

April 09, 2007

Why Imus Should Be Fired

Talk show host Don Imus has been apologizing profusely for his insensitive remarks about the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team, as well he should. But these apologies are not cutting it with an ever-growing mob of critics who recognize the groveling meaninglessness of his apologies.

Aging entertainment attention addicts who have lost their edge, such as Imus and Larry King, will go to any length to stay in front of their fans and get the attention they crave—they’ll genuflect to authority or inform on their lovers. The magnificent, complex film “The Lives of Others” examines this phenomenon brilliantly when the actress and lover of the film’s playwright hero squeals on him to the East German secret police. She’s a nice, caring person who loves the playwright, but she is so addicted to applause and her career that to her horror she becomes a Quisling, which results in self-loathing.

As I wrote in my previous post about Imus, I’m quite sure he’s not a bad person. When I fired him in 1977, he was docile and gentlemanly, completely the opposite of his on-air persona. When he apologized today on his nationally syndicated radio, he said he was a “good person who said a bad thing,” which might be the case. And I believe he’s sorry for what he said, but this does not mean that he will change his behavior or stop making off-color, insensitive, stupid remarks. He can’t control his addiction and should be fired.

In the 40 years that I was associated with the radio and television business, I got to observe many attention-addicted personalities who crave love so desperately that they will do anything to get and keep it. Often they have a terrible self-image and the attention and love they get on air is like a drug. And like addictive drugs, they require ever stronger doses. And not only do these personalities need love, it must be unconditional. They want to know they are loved no matter what they do. Therefore, they continually test love givers (parents and parent substitutes such as bosses) by doing bad or inappropriate things. They’ll insult authority figures and then say, “Do you still love me?” Then, they’ll escalate the bad behavior and plea, “Do you still love me?” I think that’s what Imus is doing.

If MSNBC (owned by NBC, which is owned by General Electric) and CBS forgive Imus and don’t fire him for the current incident, he’ll be back with more outrageous behavior and ask, “Do you still love me?” By not firing Imus, MSNBC and CBS are enabling his bad behavior, just as parents do when they enable anti-social behavior in their soon-to-be-delinquent children. At 66, Imus is still an emotional attention-addicted child who can’t help himself.

If MSNBC and CBS don’t fire Imus, it will say more about them and their values than it will about Imus. We know who he is. Who are they?

Posted by Charles Warner at 03:06 PM | Comments (7) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at April 15, 2007 01:32 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 15, 2007 01:23 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 12, 2007 09:00 PM writes:

---

joedpont at April 12, 2007 08:30 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 11, 2007 01:52 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 10, 2007 03:52 PM writes:

---

PaddyC at April 9, 2007 09:28 PM writes:

---

Fire Imus

It’s time for NBC Universal, which runs MSNBC, to drop Don Imus and for CBS Radio, which owns WFAN-AM and syndicates “Imus in the Morning”, to fire him. They have a perfect excuse to do something that should have been done several years ago—Imus’s calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" after they lost in the NCAA finals on his morning radio program on Wednesday, April 4.

Here’s what Imus and his racist sidekick, Bernard McGuirk said: Imus described the Rutgers women as "rough girls" with "tattoos" and added, "That's some nappy-headed hos there". McGuirk described them as "hard-core hos" and compared the game to "The Jigaboos vs. The Wannabees," apparently referring to "School Daze," a Spike Lee movie that addressed racial divisions between women's basketball teams. You can watch it on Media Matters for America, if you have the stomach. Media Matters for America first called attention to the slur, so good for them. Imus apologized on Friday, April 7, but he’s a contrite as an alcoholic is after a bad night—he’ll do it again because he always does.

Enough is enough. Fire Imus and his whole racist crew. Imus was 31 when he came to WNBC-AM in New York in 1971. He was a sarcastic, funny, outrageous shock jock who did his rebellious bits between records. He was the age of his target 18-34 target audience. Today, he’s 66 (going on 67 in July) and he’s still trying to appeal to a younger audience. In the 1970s his bits about Billy Sol Hargis, a fictional character were relevant, biting, and funny. But as he’s aged, his humor has aged even more and, worse has become harsher, meaner, and nastier—culminating in his racist “nappy-headed hos” remark.

When a comic loses his humor, when he can’t think of anything funny any more, he resorts to insults and gets dirtier—no imagination, just hate-filled and dirty remarks. It’s easier because you don’t have to think anymore, just insult someone or be dirty. The same thing has happened to Howard Stern over the years. Imus and Stern worked together at WNBC-AM from 1982 to 1985 and developed a deep personal and professional hatred for each other. In this case they were both right. But in spite of or because of the palpable hatred between the two, they are alike as two peas in a pod (although Imus is 14 years older)—two self-loathing, self-absorbed, celebrity craving gutter dwellers—they could well be brothers from the same dysfunctional, abusive family.

But the fact that Imus and Stern are still on the air says more about the media than about the two sickies. Technically, Stern isn’t on the “air”—terrestrial radio—he’s on satellite radio which is not regulated by the FCC, which is why he can be technically dirtier. The broadcast media are licensed by the FCC, which won’t allow profanity. So, Imus can’t say “fuck” or he’d get fined by the FCC, because the f-word is one of the seven dirty words, according to the FCC and George Carlin, that are defined as profane. But, because what Imus said is not technically “profane,” the FCC won’t fine him, even though by today’s standards, the f-word is much more acceptable and less offensive in common usage than such a racist remark as “nappy-headed hos” is.

The media that keep these paeans of poor taste and offensiveness on the air should be castigated for giving Imus and Stern distribution. NBC and CBS do not care about good taste, elevating content, or being a public trust; they care only about ratings. As both terrestrial and satellite radio are showing listening declines because of the competition from iPods, Internet radio, and other forms of diversion; as cable channels are experiencing viewing erosion because of a proliferation of cable channels; and as pressure for ever greater profits continue to escalate, these media are more desperate than ever for listeners and viewers. They’ll put on anything that gets attention.

But we must hold the media to a higher standard, we must demand more. We must hold the media accountable for demeaning the tastes, aspirations, and ethics of younger Americans (certainly younger than Imus). Listeners and viewers of America unite! You have nothing to lose but your racist smut! Let NBC and CBS know how you/we feel.

(Full disclosure: In 1977, I was general manager of WNBC-AM and fired Imus because he didn’t come to work often enough, and when he did he was often one or two hours late. When I fired him he was not abusive, but was cordial—unlike his on-the-air persona, which leads me to believe it’s an act. It’s a very bad act; he might do better as himself.)

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:01 AM | Comments (6) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at April 9, 2007 08:29 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 9, 2007 08:26 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 9, 2007 08:23 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 9, 2007 08:19 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at April 9, 2007 08:17 PM writes:

---

Yidwithlid at April 9, 2007 12:56 AM writes:

---