Advertisers Sponsor TV Movie

Wal-Mart and Procter & Gamble – the world’s largest retailer and consumer-products maker, respectively – are partnering to produce and air a television movie that executives believe reflects that values embodies by the two companies. “Secrets of the Mountain” will air on NBC in April. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Secrets of the Mountain” is the story of a single mother and emphasizes generosity, honesty and togetherness. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703455804575057551112653666.html?mod=djemMM_t)

Wal-Mart and P&G executives make the argument that the companies are judged by the company they keep – the company in this case being the television shows during which their commercials air. This idea isn’t new. More than a decade ago, marketers (which included P&G and Wal-Mart, according to WSJ) formed the Alliance for Family Entertainment in an effort to create family-friendly programming. Out of the Alliance came the WB’s long-running “Gilmore Girls.”

In some ways this is a throwback to the early days of radio when companies like P&G sponsored soap operas so the company would have another place to advertise. Both Wal-Mart and P&G ads will air during the movie. Their products will also be shown within the movie itself. According to “Business Week,” featured products will include Duracell batteries, Iams dog food and cereal from Wal-Mart’s private label. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-11/wal-mart-p-g-to-produce-family-friendly-television-programs.html).

The Wall Street Journal quotes Wal-Mart’s chief marketing officer as saying: "We're at a point where we really couldn't increase our advertising significantly from here unless we have more programming options … (Marketers) really worry about the last 10% to 20% of the ads that they have to place, because they're squeamish about the reaction they might get from the audience.” The marketing office singled out the Super Bowl and the Hallmark Channel as examples of family programming. (I would like to hear how the Super Bowl qualifies as family programming given the sexiest and “sexy” commercials that aired during the game.)

It will be interesting to see if families do in fact turn in to see the movie. On the one hand, parents may welcome a program they can watch with their children and teenagers. A study by the Association of National Advertisers (cited by the WSJ) said only 23 percent of parents were satisfied with the amount of family programming currently available on TV. At the same time, I wonder whether kids will have any interest in watching TV with their parents (just because parents feel one way doesn’t mean children do). “When you self-consciously set out to make it family friendly, you almost already have given it a kiss of death,” Robert Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University, told the newspaper.

Also, to what extent will the product placement be a distraction? A camera zoom onto a package of batteries will hardly feel organic or natural to the telling of the story (remember “You’ve Got Mail?” The entire movie was like a commercial for late-90s consumer goods).

“Secrets of the Mountain” will air April 16.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; February 2010).

Columnist Forgets Stewart Isn't a Journalist

Howard Kurtz’s weekly media column is usually a pretty good read as I find him to be fair, critical and interesting. However, his column on Feb.1 set off alarm bells in my mind for two reasons: Kurtz’s apparent confusion over Jon Stewart’s humor and political leanings and the failings of broadcast news. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013102338.html)

First, I feel exasperated by the mainstream media’s apparent surprise that Stewart and the cast of “The Daily Show” are able to make fun of President Obama. There is always humor in power and politics. Have these reporters forgotten that Obama is just another politician? Writers for the Weekly Standard and FOX Nation questioned (perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek) whether the jokes were a sign that Stewart is not as liberal as we presumed. The director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs is quoted in Kurtz’s piece as saying, “He’s clearly become an important cultural arbiter. He’s pulled off the trick of being taken seriously when he wants to be and taken frivolously when he wants to be.” Yes, that’s because he’s a comedian.

Let me say that again – Jon Stewart is a comedian. NBC anchor Brian Williams is quoted as saying, “A lot of the work that Jon and his staff do is serious. They hold people to account, for errors and sloppiness.”

This brings me to the second issue that came up in Kurtz’s piece and that is what is happening at cable news networks. (I would distinguish between reporters and commentators but the fact that both FOX and MSNBC are readily identified by viewers and members of the media as conservative and liberal stations overshadows whatever objective reporting may actually be taking place at either network.)

To Williams’ point that Stewart and his crew of producers and interns are able to hold people accountable, why don’t the mainstream media do this more? Why does it take a half hour program on Comedy Central to show clips of politicians doing one thing and then doing (or voting) another? “The Daily Show” does not have access to any resources that aren’t already available to MSM outlets.

As to the quality of broadcast news, here are some of the clips recently shown on “The Daily Show”:

· Fox News hosts celebrating Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts;

· MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann referring to Brown as “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women;”

· CNN’s “best political team” displaying Twitter comments to evaluate the president’s State of the Union address (I would also add the fact that there were at least 10 “commentators” and “analysts” to break down the speech for viewers who were either too lazy or unengaged to draw their own conclusions); and

· MSNBC’s Chris Matthews saying that while he watched the SOTU, he forgot President Obama is black.

We would all be better off without cable news. News outlets that follow a script in the way of expectations and then report the news through the lens of those expectations offer nothing of value to viewers.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; February 2010).

Syndication After Oprah

Oprah Winfrey’s departure from daytime television will do more than leave a hole in the pop culture landscape. Ending “The Oprah Winfrey Show” leaves holes in programming schedules and bank accounts. A New York Times article from Jan. 25 details CBS’s struggle to produce and sell a new franchise program (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/business/media/26grace.html?emc=eta1).

Traditionally, programs like “The Oprah Winfrey Show” are sold to affiliates, who pay a license fee to air the program. Not anymore. CBS is selling a new program with Nancy Grace titled “Swift Justice.” (Reporter Brian Stelter writes that CBS and Grace do not want this to be seen as another court show even though Grace will “resolve conflicts between participants, the same way other TV judges do, and her arbitration decisions will be binding” So … how is this unlike Judge Judy? I digress). To sell “Swift Justice” to 90 percent of the market, CBS made “barter-arrangements” under which the syndicator and the station each sell half the advertising for the program, without the additional license fee.

The bad economy means that “Swift Justice” will be made on the cheap – filmed in Atlanta with an executive producer and staff shared by another CBS court show. The arrangement makes sense – basic economics – but I wonder if that will translate into a higher profit margin once the economy picks up and advertisers bring their money back to TV. Also, if Grace’s show turns out to be a hit – which is entirely likely as her other show is HLN’s most popular program – will CBS be able to negotiate a license fee?

Another thought I had as I read this article was what it means for local news. In most markets, Oprah is a strong lead-in for the 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. news. (Chicago is an obvious exception as the show airs at 9 a.m. and is followed by “The View.”) Will local news suffer a ratings loss without Oprah? It may seem unlikely but look at what happened to the local evening news when Jay Leno replaced hour-long dramas on NBC. The Times article says syndicated shows may shuffle to new time slots once Oprah leaves for cable.

Maybe this is just another sign of problems in syndication-land. “The Martha Stewart Show” will jump from syndication to the Hallmark Channel in September, according to AdAge (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=141752). The executive chairman of Martha Stewart Living noted that the deal means the company will no longer pay a distribution fee to NBC Universal.

Variety’s Cynthia Littleton wrote about syndication on the macro level in a Jan. 23 article: “The fortunes of the 9 a.m.-3 p.m. traditional daytime TV frame have been hammered during the past decade by everything from a generational shift to the post-boomer era to the audience fragmentation spurred by the rise of so many niche cable outlets. From food to gardening to environmentalism to extreme sports, there are themed channels to serve every interest and aspiration.” (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118014204.html?categoryId=14&cs=1)

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010).

AP, Yahoo Negotiate Fee for News

The Associated Press and Yahoo are in the midst of negotiating restrictions and payment for wire stories that appear on the search engine’s news site. This appears to be the latest step toward charging for online news. Similar talks with Google have prompted the company to temporarily stop posting AP contest on its news site. In a Jan. 14 Wall Street Journal article, an AP representative says the current deal with online portals “helped make AP material ubiquitous … also diluted the value of the AP’s news offerings by not limiting availability or distinguishing articles that were unique.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703672104574654741484604838.html?mod=djemMM)

I think this article relates to a number of interesting issues. The first is AP’s assertion that portals like Yahoo and Google News do not distinguish between the quality of articles. In aggregating news, all news is created equal. How can a media company make its material stand out when it is an algorithm that determines its placement on a news search? Popularity may be a factor in that equation but popularity is not the same as objective, accurate reporting and writing. (In “Googled,” Ken Auletta describes the creation of Google News. “The placement and selection of stories is made, Google announced, by ‘computer algorithms, without human intervention.’ … It would, Google said, broaden newspaper readership, and allow newspapers to sell advertising once a user clicked on the newspaper’s link. … However, newspapers didn’t all jump up and down with glee.”)

I think that aggregate news sites only hurt online news sources. Let’s say a Google News search directs a consumer to a Chicago Tribune article on the earthquake in Haiti. While that is one more hit on the Tribune’s site, there is a slim chance the consumer will stay on the page or click through the rest of the Web site. I predict the consumer will click out of the site and search for more articles on the earthquake (that is, search through Google News). What can news organizations do to keep consumers on the newspapers’ page? I think it starts by conditioning consumers to go directly to the original site for news and bypassing aggregation sites all together.

Setting aside the issue of quality and access, the Wall Street Journal article explores another important topic – payment. The owner of the WSJ, News Corp., is in talks to eliminate its excerpted content from Google’s search but allow it to remain on Microsoft properties. The Wall Street Journal is one of the few publications to charge for online content and as a result, executives do not want to see any of its work given away for free through an aggregated site. I agree. I strongly believe that consumers should have to pay for online news in some way. It is pragmatic – news organizations need to make money – and it forces the consumer to have some skin in the game. It is easy for a consumer to think, why should I have to pay for content when I can go to Yahoo or Google?

I think people are so overwhelmed with content that they do not even realize how much news, entertainment, music, television programming, blogs, movies and so on they actually consume. Faced with the option of paying $50 a month for a bundled package of the previously mentioned media or a complete shutout of content, consumers will pay.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010).

Google, India and Freedom of Speech

Google, which does not create original content, is being asked to exercise editorial control over the information its search engine and affiliated sites make available to Internet users in India. An article in the Jan. 4, 2010 edition of the Wall Street Journal explores the issue of free speech inside the world’s largest democracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239086161213013.html?mod=djemMM). According to Indian officials quoted in the article, censoring potentially libelous or inflammatory Web sites and articles is intended to prevent violent outbursts from religious and political groups.

This is an example of how new media companies, including Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, need to adapt to cultural norms and laws overseas. In the United States, Google will not remove material from its search results regardless of its defamatory or offensive nature unless it violates the company’s user agreement. This was evident in November when the top result for a search of “Michelle Obama” pulled up a photograph that depicted the first lady as a monkey. Users complained to Google and the company posted this statement above the photo: “Sometimes our search results can be offensive. We agree.” The Web site was eventually removed from Google’s search because it contained a virus, which is against the company’s policy. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/6737933.html).

India seems to be somewhat of a balancing act for Internet companies. On the one hand, it is a democracy that allows its citizens the right to free speech. On the other hand, speech in India can be restricted to maintain “public order, decency or morality.” Is Google at the mercy of Indian authorities? Material is preemptively removed because of what may happen, not what has happened.

From a business perspective I can understand why Google would work with Indian officials to censor information but I think it can be a slippery slope. Google is setting a precedent that it will remove any Web page, article or blog flagged by users and government officials – without argument. There is a potential for abuse there. Google’s attorney in India, Gitanjali Duggal, points out that the company’s does have a standard. “Saying ‘I hate Shiv Sena’ is one thing, but saying ‘I Hate Shiv Sena because they hate Muslims’ is another thing … (it) brings in the concept of religion.” I think that distinction is somewhat irrelevant. What other qualifiers are out there?

What responsibility does Google have to steer clear of the country’s religious and ethnic struggles? Perhaps a social one. Perhaps a financial one, should the company wish to continue business in India (and with an estimated 52 million Web users, why wouldn’t it?). I question how long Internet companies can limit information before savvy users find more and more ways to go around filters. I think this just the latest example of new media finding its way through a world that has yet to catch up.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010)