Media Curmudgeon

« June 2008 | Main | August 2008 »

July 24, 2008

Go Get ‘Em, Bob!

In this week’s Advertising Age Bob Garfield in his “Garfield’s Review” column writes a blistering open letter to Omnicom’s President, John Wren, for allowing his ad agency to create a blatantly homophobic commercial for Snickers.

Garfield writes:

This is from your own statement on corporate responsibility: "As a leader in the communications industry, Omnicom Group is committed to ensuring that we use our position to promote socially responsible policies and practices and that we make positive contributions to society across all of our operations." Is that so? My guess is that the parents of Matthew Shepard, the Wyoming college student beaten to death for being too effeminate to suit his killers, would take a different view. Because your commercial is just a cartoonish recapitulation of their son's brutal murder.

Since you are the executive ultimately in charge of both TBWA and BBDO, I ask you: How could you be so insensitive, how could you be so shallow, and how could you be so mean?

This letter is to you, but it is equally to your colleagues throughout the industry. Are you so bereft, of ideas and simple humanity, that you must be reduced to stereotyping and bullying? That you must identify an "other" to ridicule, or worse? That you must build a brand on the backs of people who have harmed no one save for challenging a high-school locker-room standard of masculinity?

Stop the dehumanizing stereotypes. Stop the jokey violence. There is no place in advertising for cruelty. Pull the campaign. Do it now. Then tell your agencies how to behave. Or else.

Garfield has Omnicom dead to rights for ignoring its mission statement, which, like those of too many corporations, are cynical public relations releases that are ignored in practice. Of course, I agree with Garfield, but what also fascinates me is that there are 68 comments on Garfield’s column (as of 4:45 p.m. 7/23) on the Ad Age Web site, many of them excoriating him and some ardently supporting him. Many of the critical comments site freedom of speech and creative license as reasons to support the homophobic Snickers commercials.

However, I believe the larger issue is that many of the popular media and the advertisers (and their agencies) that support the media have crossed over the line of good taste and social responsibility just to make a little more money and are hiding behind the skirts of the First Amendment and creative license in order to duck their responsibility.

And I admire and respect Garfield’s courage in calling them out. It’s time the lying and hate mongering of Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Snickers advertising are called out, too. Keith Olbermann does it; although, he, too, often lacks credibility by crossing the line himself and by often being in poor taste and irresponsible.

Garfield has credibility as the leading critic of television commercials in the country and as the co-host of “On the Media.” I have criticized Garfield in the past for being snide at times and for doing an ambush interview with Bill Gates a year and a half ago, but I’ve never felt he was a wimp. He’s no wuss, and he called out a huge advertising conglomerate and a major advertiser for tasteless, irresponsible advertising.

It’s about time that all of us who watch television and see irresponsible hate mongering begin to voice our repulsion and punish the offenders by turning off our TV and radio sets, blogging, writing letters to the offenders, or not buying products that are advertised irresponsibly. Never eat a Snickers bar again, and join me in saying, “Go get ‘em, Bob.”

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

July 21, 2008

The Media Morph

According to many media critics and professionals, the old media are dying. On such Web sites as Newspaperdeathwatch.com, doomsayers are predicting an imminent demise.

Even such really smart people such as Marc Andreesen are predicting death. On his pmarca.com blog Andreesen, co-founder of Netscape and current CEO of Ning, has started The New York Times Deathwatch. And in a speech on a panel titled “Looking Around the Corner to the Future” at Allen & Company’s Sun Valley media mogul confab last week, he predicted the death of all of the old media.

Death seems to be a recurring but highly exaggerated theme meant to gain attention, not shed light. The old media are not dying; they are changing their method of distribution. It’s a morph, not a death.

Some media, such as broadcasting and cable are defined by their method of distribution. Some older media, such as print (magazines and newspapers) are defined by their method of production, which was rational in the 18th Century when they first appeared. But all of these media are being disintermediated by the Internet.

This fact was dramatically emphasized last week when Apple sold over a million new 3G iPhones and over five million apps were downloaded in the same period of time. Apps for the iPhone vary in price, but one, such as the $4.99 Tuner, turn an iPhone, which is also an iPod, into an Internet radio station, allowing iPhone owners to browse “thousands of Internet radio stations in a format that makes it easy to find exactly what you want to hear.”

Furthermore, Pandora is currently the fourth most popular application for the new iPhone, reports The Washington Post. The music service experienced an all-time high of usage over the past weekend, streaming 3.3 million tracks just to iPhone users. New listeners reportedly tune in every two seconds and listen for an average of one hour per day. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that over 200,000 stations have been created on the iPhone. “I really think this has broken the dam for Internet radio, and we’re now going to start seeing people think about it differently – not as something you just get on your computer, but as a 360-degree solution – in the car, in the home, on the go,” said Pandora founder Tim Westergren, according to Kurt Hanson’s RAIN: Radio and Internet Newsletter.

Internet radio will be on your cell phone and in your car, and television won’t be far behind. Goodbye old distribution systems. But what won’t go away is the content. Newspaper and magazine content will continue to be valuable and read; it will just have a different, far less expensive and more rational distribution channel – the Internet.

Smart magazines are learning to morph their content to the Web. BusinessWeek is doing the best job of business magazines of Web morphing, and thus its well-established brand will survive and thrive. The Harvard Business Review doesn’t get it and will eventually die if it doesn’t figure it out.

In newspapers, The New York Times is doing by far the best job of any newspaper of Web morphing and innovating, and thus its top-of-heap brand will survive and thrive. Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal is trying hard to compete online with The Times, but is far behind, and as mentioned in a flattering Advertising Age article titled “Leading in Turbulent Times” about Arthur Sulzberger, the WSJ might well have to drop its subscription model to compete with The Times. The winners? Readers who have computers.

Television content creators are beginning to morph to the Web via such sites as Hulu.com and will accelerate the morph because of increasing competition from Web distribution channels such as Google’s YouTube, which recently signed an exclusive $100 million deal with Sean McFarlane, creator of the FOX series “Family Guy,” to produce original content. The winners? Viewers who have computers.

Isn’t it confusing, but isn't it exciting?

Posted by Charles Warner at 04:41 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

July 07, 2008

Fairness Doctrine? No!

Guest blogger Bruce Braun responds vigorously:

Guest blogger Greg Todd wrote:

"The public figure doctrine needs to be revised, the Fairness Doctrine needs to be revived, there must be brakes and restraints on falsehoods and deception, otherwise they will propagate like bacteria through a population that we Upper Eastsiders rarely mix with."

Using Mr. Todd's reasoning, we would have to muzzle every elected and appointed member of our government. Actually, that is not a bad thought! I guess it depends upon what the meaning of is, is. How do we treat news outlets that mistakenly report an item or regurgitate governmental press releases that are false or wrong? What should we do with those who are deemed to be dangerous demagogues? Silence them? Ban them from any government licensed broadcasting station or public forum? Arrest them? Where do you draw the line when the line keeps moving? Should Al Franken, Jon Stewart or Randi Rhodes have greater rights to express their opinions and philosophies than a Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity? I doubt even the ACLU would condone that. The implied assumption in Mr. Todd's comments would say, yes.

I don't recall very much in the Constitution about "Qualified" freedom of speech. To my thinking, that sort of reasoning would call into question our other freedoms such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Fairness Doctrine was a bust from the beginning. It was just another intrusion into our society by a bunch of power hungry politicians determined to silence those with whom they hated or feared. There was nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. The FD did nothing more than create yet another layer of government regulations upon radio and TV stations requiring them to hunt down or put on every single point of view on virtually any semi-political or controversial issue that was expressed on the station. Anyone who lived through the FD times can tell you that every nut ball and his brother were constantly banging on the station's door, demanding free time and threatening to report you to the FCC if you ignored them. What a country! Exempt from all of this were the print media. How was that fair? The Internet was not even a thought in those days.

Now that we are in the digital age, why shouldn't Congress renew and extend the FD to include print media and everything on the Internet? Are we all, not guaranteed equal protection under the constitution? Why stop with broadcast stations? Let's go find those bastards and shut them up! Let's go set up committees as to what is acceptable speech! Political correctness could soar to new heights.

Where should it stop? How far should it go? Just who is going to be selected and charged with the responsibility of 1) identifying the demagogic offenders, 2) determine what constitutes bacterial demagogic speech and 3) how to rectify those demagogues? Who decides what, according to Mr. Todd is deceptive, or a falsehood? The politically appointed FCC? A partisan Congress? A "citizens committee" made up of political appointees?

Are we to turn over the determination of what constitutes media free speech to the same people who gave us the IRS? Those same elected officials who continually refuse to simplify the tax codes and legislate heavy fines and penalties and even imprison any who violates those laws? Your personal privacy? What government agency knows more about every individual in this country than the IRS?

What about the great job Congress has done with Social Security? A system that started as a sham because the government figured that given the average longevity of the time, that the majority of contributors would never live long enough to collect for more than a short period of time. Universal Health Care? What should we call it when our right to choose our health care is taken away from us, in favor of a government run system?

Limbaugh and all the others, no matter what their political agenda is, and, I know this will stick in the throats of many, should be completely free to spew whatever they want. Otherwise, we put ourselves on the same road as the HUAC of the 1950's and the Chinese Red Guards of the 1960's.

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:58 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

July 04, 2008

Guest Blogger Greg Todd Responds

I have a somewhat different view, since I regard Rush Limbaugh as a more serious menace than you probably do. To refer to him as a "wingnut" puts you in the camp of almost everyone I know in New York City, who regards him as a laughable fool. He is no fool, and he is far from laughable.

The political writers that the founding fathers looked to for guidance were all well versed in their classical history, and knew how quickly the democracies and republics of the classical world had been turned to tyranny and empire by the power of demagogues to sway the masses. Their ideas of government were designed to buffer the downsides of a true democracy with the stability of republican forms of government. And their assessment of liberty of the press was not the unilateral, no-restrictions-of-any-kind approach we now seem to take for granted in this country.

David Hume, in "Of the Liberty of the Press", notes the risk of an unfettered demagogue to the republic -- but believes that the demagogue cannot take hold of the minds of the people because the demagogue's words will be read in the privacy of the library.

We need not dread from this liberty any such ill consequences as followed from the harangues of the popular demagogues of Athens and tribunes of Rome. A man reads a book or pamphlet alone and coolly. There is none present from whom he can catch the passion by contagion. He is not hurried away by the force and energy of action.

I read this as a QUALIFIED endoresement of the freedom of speech.

And I see the Fairness Doctrine as an attempt to rectify the dangers which Hume and the founders well understood - because they knew their ancient history.

Americans today do not know their ancient history.

I have spent too many hours listening to Rush Limbaugh, and have heard too many smart, intelligent people parrot EXACTLY his words, not to understand the mind power exerted over people stuck in their cars, driving in traffic, angry at their fellow drivers and with their lot in life.

We are unwise to laugh at Rush Limbaugh. We have, in fact, too much freedom of the press in this country. The public figure doctrine needs to be revised, the Fairness Doctrine needs to be revived, there must be brakes and restraints on falsehoods and deception, otherwise they will propagate like bacteria through a population that we Upper East Siders rarely mix with.

Posted by Charles Warner at 09:05 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

Blacksmith at July 7, 2008 04:25 PM writes:

---

July 03, 2008

Barack and Rush

As reported by Broadcasting & Cable, last week Barack Obama’s press secretary, Michael Ortiz, said in response to the trade magazine’s inquiry “Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters.”

The Fairness Doctrine issue bubbled up recently after reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was thinking about reinstating it, but
reinstating it is a sensitive topic with conservatives and Republicans, who fear that Democrats will use it to try to muzzle conservative talk radio, which bloomed after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed and the wingnuts realized they no longer had to be fair.

It’s ironic that this week the King of Wingnuts, Rush Limbaugh, signed the richest contract in terrestrial radio history -- $400 million dollars. This announcement of Limbaugh’s contract extension through 2016 with his syndicator, Premiere Radio, and giant radio station owner, Clear Channel, came the same week as an 8,000 word article in The New York Times Magazine. A good week for radio’s biggest star.

If the Fairness Doctrine had not been repealed, Limbaugh’s monster contract and enormous wealth would not exist. So one would think that Democrats and liberals would want the Fairness Doctrine reinstated in order to muzzle Rush and other conservative talkers on terrestrial radio.

However, according to Wikipedia, the Fairness Doctrine:

”…did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.”

Thus, if the doctrine were reinstated, stations would just put on liberal talk shows for a couple of hours a day and claim they were being fair and balanced by putting on opposing viewpoints. And, of course, this would not muzzle Rush at all, but give him something more to rant about. No liberal talker, with the possible exception of Al Franken on Air America, ever came close to being as entertaining as Rush, so until a Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or a cleaned up Chris Rock decides to take him on, Rush will continue to bring in the ratings and earn his $50 million or so a year.

Barack was right to dismiss the Fairness Doctrine issue. The doctrine might have been a good idea when it was imposed on broadcasters in 1949 as a result of anti-Communist hysteria, but it became outmoded and too cumbersome to implement and police, in addition to being unconstitutional. The FCC was right to abolish it in 1987, and the ascension of unregulated cable and satellite radio and television and the Internet make the Fairness Doctrine a dinosaur that need not be brought back to life for the amusement park that is the diverse media of today.

I’m sure Barack understands these realities – he’s certainly no dummy – and he also understands that Rush is no fan of John McCain’s maverick Republicanism. So Rush might be doing Barack a favor by hurting McCain. There are two ways to win a race – run faster than your opponent or cause your opponent to run slower. Either will do for Barack.

It seems that both Barack and Rush know what’s good for them – the absence of the Fairness Doctrine.

Posted by Charles Warner at 04:09 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

Jay Mitchell at July 4, 2008 11:55 AM writes:

---

July 01, 2008

Sirius and XM Disintermediated

In spite of the fact that Sirius Satellite Radio CEO Mel Karmazin painted an upbeat financial picture for 2009 if the proposed merger with XM Satellite Radio gets approved by the FCC, these two (or one) companies will soon be disintermediated because of nationwide wireless access to the Internet.

The last week of June, Chrysler announced it will offer wireless Internet access in all of its 2009 models, as reported in Jim Carnegie’s Radio Business Report. RBR reports the Chrysler system “…dubbed UConnect Web, would be the first such technology from any automaker. Chrysler is hoping that providing drivers access to the information superhighway will set it apart from competitors. Needless to say, the system will be able to stream audio.”

According to RBR:

Chrysler is not the first company to offer Internet access in cars. Avis Rent A Car introduced Avis Connect in January 2007. Like UConnect Web, Avis Connect (which costs $10.95 a day) operates on the 3G network using a cellular-based signal.

UConnect Web is an extension of the company's UConnect system, which provides Bluetooth connectivity for cellphones and MP3 player integration with the car stereo. Rival Ford provides similar services, but without Web access, in its popular Sync system.

With the added Internet connectivity, drivers and passengers will be able to get such devices as laptop computers and Nintendo Wii consoles online. As to what users can download while in the car, Chrysler's Leung said anything was fair game.

RBR also makes the following observation:

Radio shouldn’t be quite as alarmed as satellite radio at this development, because as folks choose to spend disposable income on subscriptions for car internet vs. car satellite service, they will likely choose internet, because streaming Internet audio would be free with the package. And remember, someone listening to a streaming, terrestrial radio station a thousand miles away in their car would be credited in the online ratings and that station would benefit with online ad dollars.

If Chrysler does it, can Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Honda, and all the other car makers be far behind?

XM and Sirius charge subscribers $12.95 a month for over a hundred commercial-free music channels that they program and for commercial-laden news/talk/sports audio channels such as CNN News and ESPN. XM has Major League Baseball and Sirius has NFL Football plus its biggest draw, potty mouth Howard Stern.

Soon, with free Internet access, people in cars will be able to access every radio station in the world that streams audio, plus Internet audio and music services such as Pandora.com and Last.fm. Baseball will be available via MLB.com for $10 a year or free from radio stations that have an audio stream of the games, and the same with NFL games.

All of this means that content providers (music, sports, talk, comedy, and news) will be able to go directly to their consumers and bypass (disintermediate) traditional distribution channels such as radio stations, satellite radio, television stations, and cable systems sooner rather than later. The disintermediation of the main-stream, traditional media has begun.

There are several implications: One is that content will be more important than ever. Another is that creators of content (artists, writers, musicians, performers, etc.) can now sell their creations directly to their audience without having to pay rent and fees to middlemen such as wholesalers, agents, and distributors. Another is that marketing in the disintermediated world will be more important than ever – getting the message out about creative content to widely dispersed and niche (long-tail) audiences will be more difficult and require innovative solutions. Audience choice will be much greater as people learn that they can pull exactly the content they want from the Web and individualize it rather than having it pushed at them in homogenized, distributor controlled bundles. And, trillions of dollars of investment in buggy-whip distribution assets will be lost as radio towers are turned into cell phone towers and transmitting equipment is scrapped.

Terrestrial radio stations owners seem to be doing a good job of repurposing their content and streaming it on the Web in creative, user-controlled ways. Television networks are learning to stream their content on the Web and to create new, Web-friendly content. But what is satellite radio doing besides seeing the future through merger-tinted rose colored glasses? If Sirius and XM are to survive, they must begin streaming their content on the Internet. They can make their content password protected for subscribers for the time being, but be ready to make it free if the merger is not approved.

Sirius and XM will have to do what AOL did when it began losing dial-up subscribers by the hundreds of thousands each quarter, switch to a free, ad-supported model. Time Warner cannot sell AOL at anywhere near its $20 billion valuation because that valuation was based on a revenue model that produced over $1 billion in subscriber revenue, which is now sinking faster than real estate prices. The same will happen to Sirius and XM if they don’t act now.

Even though Sirius and XM can probably not get as much money for advertising on the Web as they do now for their satellite distributed programming, their market would increase substantially by having their content available world-wide, not just within the footprint of their satellite signals, which is primarily the United States.

Just think, you might eventually be able to get Howard Stern free all over the world in a variety of languages. Howard would love that, but Sirius investors will have to wait a long time to get their money back, if they ever do.

Posted by Charles Warner at 04:03 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

Blacksmith at July 1, 2008 04:59 PM writes:

---