Advertising is a very attractive career path because of its potential for creative expression. While only a fraction of jobs in the advertising profession mention creativity in their job description, the business itself attracts people with artistic and creative skills…nothing at all like the accountants and sales people that work for Dunder Mifflin. Watch the opening scene from The Office: Local Ad to see what I mean.
But despite their creative moments, advertising pros are sometimes faced with a different effect than intended. The Hillary Clinton 3am Spot raised a few eyebrows when viewers questioned her use of scare tactics and whether Senator Clinton really was the candidate best qualified to take those national security calls, day or night. But an interesting twist was added when the young girl asleep in bed turned out to be–8 years later–an Obama supporter.
Use of stock footage is not an uncommon practice, especially for those on a tight budget. However, in this case, it is a classic example of penny wise and pound foolish. (And if you don’t know what that means, ask your grandmother.)
Radical transparency is a trendy concept in the world of corporate public relations…but not so much in the world of political reporting…until now. In The Case for Full Disclosure, Time Magazine writer James Poniewozik argues that journalists should put all their cards on the table…let us know who they’re voting for and where they stand on the issues. Instead of pretending to be unbiased, reporters should, “expose the sham of neutrality” and expose the lie that journalists are somehow able to remove themselves from the story. One problem, which Poniewozik freely admits, is that reporters may alienate half of their readers/viewers. And it will be much easier to dismiss a story as biased and unfair if the reporter is on record as a supporter of the opposing candidate/party/position. And what if we find that journalists are predominately Democratic or, more specifically, Obama supporters…would public trust and confidence in journalism and the political process suffer? Transparency will likely come slowly, if at all, to mainstream media which, for now, is using the “sham of neutrality” to differentiate itself from the sometimes rancorous and partisan political reporting found on blogs.
The average American household spends about $10 per month on magazine subscriptions. The average number of subscriptions per household is 6 magazines, and the average subscriber spends about 45 minutes with each magazine. (I know that’s a lot of averages…but hang with me.) On average, monthly magazines have a longer shelf-life than weeklies, and both stay around the house longer than daily publications, e.g., a daily newspaper. My personal experience seems to support these data…we subscribe to 5 or 6 magazines and I pick up a newsstand copy now and then. From time to time I also pick up and read magazines in public places–e.g. my dentist’s office. From the look of some of them they have been read by quite a few equally bored patients.
Most magazines are about 50% editorial content and 50% advertisements. And like nearly all mass media, magazines live or die on advertising revenue. So it should be no surprise that publishers want to know who’s reading and to what extent the magazine’s ads are engaging the reader. Just recently the Magazine Publishers of America (MPA) announced that they want to measure their audience by total readers, not just paid circulation. According to the MPA, magazines are “passed along” to other readers and these readers should count. Translation: advertisers should be paying for the privilege of reaching all the readers. According to their press release, the MPA also wants to provide more detail about issue-by-issue demographic data, advertisement engagement data, and,”consumer action as a result of the ad.”
But convincing advertisers that print magazines are such a good deal that they ought to be willing to pay for the secondary audience may be a tough sell. One thing is clear–print publications are trying to hold onto their audiences and prove their relevancy in a time of media upheaval. These latest measures may signal a desperate attempt to slow the hemorrhaging.
A couple of studies recently published confirm what we’ve suspected. Screen time and obesity are positively correlated. And the news gets worse. A study out of Canada found that children from disadvantaged neighborhoods were 3-4 times more likely to fall into these high-risk groups. Another study, this one out of SUNY Buffalo, found that kids whose screen time was reduced lost weight. According to a report in Bloomberg,
Children whose viewing was eventually cut in half ate less, spent less time on sedentary activities and developed a healthier body mass index, a ratio of height to weight. The reduction in screen time didn’t translate into additional physical activity, providing insight into how sitting in front of a television or computer contributes to obesity in children, the researchers said.
Caveat Emptor: The Bloomberg article linked above is an advertisement dressed up as news. The article spends as much space pitching a $100 electronic device called the TV Allowance as it does reporting consumer information. This blurring of PR/Advertising and Journalism is almost as frightening as a 5th grade classroom full of 200 pound screen junkies!
Samantha Power is no longer an adviser to Barak Obama. Another casualty of the war of words being raged in the quest for the Whitehouse, Ms. Power went a tad too far in her assessment of the Senator from New York–too far, that is, for a spokesperson for the campaign that is trying hard to avoid politics as usual.
As reported by The Scotsman, Power said, “We f***** up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win. She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything.”
Even after issuing a public apology to both Obama and Clinton, and confessing to admiration for the former first lady, Power felt obligated to resign her post.
But what about this on/off the record thing? Journalists will occasionally conduct an interview off-the-record, at the request of the interviewee–if that is the only way the information can be obtained. Although information gathered in this manner is not available to be used directly, e.g quoted or attributed, the information can be used as background research. The Scotsman, the paper that broke the story, includes an explanation of their policy on off-the-record interviews at the end of their story. According to The Scotsman, an interview can only be considered off-the-record, “when the rules are established in advance.” Trying to withdraw a statement made in the middle of an on-the-record interview by saying, “off the record” does not make it so. And according to one source, Power should have known better. As a graduate of Harvard Law School and a journalist herself–who has written for Time Magazine, U.S. News & World Report, The Boston Globe, The Economist and The New Republic–Power should have shown better judgment.
BTW, just yesterday Clinton’s communication chief accused the Obama team of “imitating Ken Starr.” When will the name calling stop? 😉
There’s a new feel-good reality TV show in town. Imagine a cross between The Apprentice, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, and The Amazing Race and you’ve pretty much got The Big Give. The similarities with the other reality TV shows are both an admission that certain formulas work, and the fact that the executive producer of TBG is also the executive producer of TAR. The Emmy-winning Bertram von Munster got his start with the long-time reality TV show COPS, but made his mark with the four-time-Emmy-winning Amazing Race. I had a chance to meet von Munster at the BEA/NAB conference a few years ago and was impressed with his producing skills. He has figured out how to create drama without stooping to the contrived interpersonal conflicts so common to the reality TV genre.
Oprah’s Big Give takes individuals who have a track record of service and gives them a chance to change the lives of complete strangers by organizing and coordinating giving campaigns to address their unique situations. Contestants are judged on Creativity, Leadership, Presentation, and the size of their “Give.” Like most reality TV shows, someone loses and is sent packing. In the words of Oprah, “You either give big, or you go home.”
The charity recipients are hard-luck cases that will pull your emotional heart-strings. If you’re at all the sentimental type, you may need a box of tissues when they announce the “gifts” that have been donated. If you like the “reveal” segment of EM:HE, you’ll love this show.
Looking back at the 2008 Presidential Race historians and media critics are likely to note some dramatic shifts. One is the increased interest and participation on the part of young voters. The second, and clearly related, phenomenon is the use of new media technology by the candidates, their supporters, and their detractors. One example of consumer-generated new media in a supporting role is the We Are The Ones music video by the Black Eyed Peas’ will.i.am. The title comes from Senator Obama’s Super Tuesday speech in which he said, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” On the same website you can upload your photo to contribute to a picture montage of the video.
On a more sinister note, Matt Druge posted an image on his website of Obama in traditional Somali garb. Drudge reported that the photo was sent to him by Clinton operatives, who Obama’s camp accused of fear-mongering.
But these developments are just the tip of the iceberg. A couple of months ago YouTube partnered with CNN for a televised debate…the highlight of which was a question about global warming asked by a snowman! Someone uploaded a parody spot for Obama featuring Senator Hillary Clinton as Big Bro in the classic 1984 spot for Macintosh. And don’t forget Senator John Edwards feeling pretty. Before that was Obama Girl, who is now trying to cash in on her 15 minutes of fame with her own blog. And before her there was Senator George Allen’s “macaca” moment, Dan Rather’s “memogate,” Senator Foley’s sexually explicit emails to pages, Howard Dean’s scream, and the Lewinski affair brought to light by the Drudge Report. New media and politics…its a powerful, and potentially dangerous, combination!
Sunday night will be the 80th anniversary of the little annual party known as the Academy Awards. The Academy is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences…quite a mouthful…which is why people refer to the show as “The Oscars.” So who is Oscar? Oscar is the name of the 13.5-inch, 8.5 pound statuette that is given to each awardee. According to the AMPAS website the statuette, “depicts a knight holding a crusader’s sword, standing on a reel of film with five spokes, signifying the original branches of the Academy: Actors, Writers, Directors, Producers and Technicians.” Approximately 6,000 Hollywood professionals make up the Academy and vote for the nominees.
This year’s host is Jon Stewart of The Daily Show fame. Incidentally, Stewart’s show won four Oscars in the Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Series category since 1999.
The program is sure to have a little something for everyone…including a couple of consumer-generated spots for Dove. And yes, all of you wannabe judges get to vote for the winning spot via text or online.
Speaking of voting, how about trying to predict the winners? Just download and print this ballot. The only thing more fun that sitting on your couch filling out a ballot as you await the start of the show would be sitting in one of the seats in the Kodak theater in Hollywood, keeping it warm while one of the celebrities visits the “powder room.” A couple of hundred “seat-fillers” perform this very valuable function every year…to avoid the embarrassment of empty seats when the cameras shoot the audience. Ah, the vanity of Hollywood!
With the WGA strike over (at an approximate cost of $2.5 Billion), the TV biz can get back to “bizness.” Here’s a rundown of shows and announced return of new epidsodes:
Saturday Night Live – February 23
Supernatural – April 24
How I Met Your Mother – March 17
Two and a Half Men – March 17
My Name Is Earl – April 3
CSI – April 3
The Office – April 10
ER – April 10
30 Rock – April 10
Scrubs – April 10
Law and Order – April 23
Lost – Five pre-strike episodes already “in the can.” More new episodes to air in late April
House – April or May
Grey’s Anatomy – April or May
Desperate Housewives – April or May
Ugly Betty – April or May
24 – January 2009
Until then, there’s always American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and other reality TV hits! WOOT!
Acknowledging the inevitable, Toshiba has withdrawn from the next-generation DVD race. Avoiding a protracted fight is probably a good thing…no sense in waging a war that they are almost certain to loose. The parallels drawn between the DVD format war and the VHS Betamax war of the late 70s are striking. This time Sony is coming out on top and their Blu-ray format appears destined to be the defacto standard for high-definition DVD recordings. While the VHS Betamax battle was largely won/lost over recording time and cost, this battle appears to be more about film studio and retail buy-in. Blu-ray was able to secure commitments from many of the leading Hollywood studios. In addition, retail and distribution outlets like Walmart and Netflix jumped on board the Blu-ray train. If you’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop before buying a DVD recorder/player…it looks like you now have one more consumer electronic gadget on which to spend your “economic stimulus” check!