Measuring Up

Fifty five and finally relevant

I never got this one. Ever since TV advertising began some 50 years ago, the 55 and above age group was considered completely unimportant to advertisers. Actually, those who weren’t in the main 20-something to early 30s, didn’t matter much either.

The backwards thinking behind this focus stemmed from the perception that younger audiences are extremely malleable and more apt to become loyal than their older generational counterparts. Just as importantly, these pre-middle aged audiences possess a much longer tail of purchasing power across their lifetime, so marketing to them made a lot more sense. Finally, when it came to what’s cool, hip and in, it was all about what younger audiences wanted at any particular time versus the tastes and preferences of the older folks.

Guess what, that’s all changed. According to this article (link to NY Times Sunday article: In shift, TV and Marketers try to entice over-55 set), Network executives have all together changed their thinking, largely because of the lingering bad economy (many young people have no purchasing power because they have no job) and the reality that there is a very large and important 55-plus baby boomer audience. Now, for the first time, they’ve created entire fall series lines aimed at 55-plus audiences. This is so they can directly build lots of advertising $$$ from sponsors who create products for middle aged and senior audiences.

It’s nice to see that a giant constituent base that was once completely forgotten has now become mainstream. But, I truly never understood why they were ignored for decades. For a brief period, we represented one of the networks. Any idea that we developed which wasn’t exclusively focused on hitting young, hip adults was instantly thrown in the garbage. What killed me was that no one even gave a second thought to going beyond what the industry accepted blindly.

If they stopped acting like robots to understand real demographics, someone would have changed this mindlessly accepted industry norm a long time ago. Fifty-five and over audiences have always held enormous sway over so many different components of our society— from determining the fate of national and regional political contests, to playing roles in how entire towns and communities are built and developed, to brand loyalty and purchasing power on thousands of products and services. Add in the fact that the affluent 40-something crowd plays a key role in deciding what’s accepted (or not) from a luxury brand standpoint (mainly because younger audiences can’t afford these products yet) and we’re talking about a significant consumer base that should have been targeted through television advertising from the beginning. Lastly, because these audiences are more mature, they will be less fickle in becoming loyal to any particular brand. One would think that would actually be a very appealing reality for any marketer.

 Because public relations is a much more cost-effective medium that can be very flexible for marketers, our industry has always been able to segment and target different audiences very naturally.  If a luxury watch brand is largely bought by wealthy individuals in the 50+ range, then our campaign can focus exclusively on reaching those people by marketing to the media and channels that influence them (and that includes network shows and news).  We’d take a similar approach with a health or security product aimed at senior audiences, as well.  

Unlike the networks, our industry has always welcomed all marketers, regardless of the age group they focused on. The irony is that every fall the networks live and die with advertisers based on their new season line ups. If at least a few shows don’t appeal to the younger, erratic and unpredictable audiences, you can bet that this will have a direct impact on advertising revenue. Life might have been a lot less stressful many moons ago for them, if they had just evolved their programming to include middle aged and older audiences. It’s just a lot easier to comprehend how more mature people will react to any given story, show or brand. But, no one ever thought of that.

 

 

 

Happy Days actors aren’t smiling now

My wife found this news brief this morning. Since our Brand Squared division specializes in licensing, I found it interesting enough to offer some thoughts.

As you can see, it seems like most of the former "Happy Days" sitcom stars (all except Fonzie and Richie Cunningham that is) are more than a little annoyed with CBS these days. That’s the network owner of their former hit TV show "Happy Days". According to a law suit that they filed together, none of them have received a dime of licensing royalties from CBS since the show since it ended almost 30 years ago. These royalties come from merchandise such as lunch boxes, greeting cards, comic books, t-shirts, etc., that all display their likenesses on them. They claim that CBS profited immensely from sales of these products, while they made nothing. And now, they are asking for $10 million in compensation to recoup these losses.

Wow. That’s a lot of Potsie and Ralph Malph lunch box sales.

This blogger thinks that these former actors (and that’s what all of them are), have either gotten plain greedy or just gone crazy because there is no way a Happy Days licensing program would be worth that much $$$,

Does CBS owe Potsie, Ralph and Joanie some dough? You bet. They have a right to a small percentage of the royalties that were generated and taken by CBS. But, it’s hard to imagine that CBS could ever generate $10 million on its own for "Happy Days", much less for all of the hit TV shows it produced over the last 30 years. That’s just a lot of licensing money that doesn’t come so easy for one single property.

In a trade article from last year, CBS reported $340 million in annual merchandise sales to consumers.  After you factor in retail markups and average royalty rates, CBS actually generates about $20 million in annual profit from all properties they license out– "Happy Days", "Survivor", "Price Is Right", "NCIS", and many more.  What would "Happy Days" as a property contribute to that $20 million (when the property was in high demand)? Maybe  5%?  So you have Happy Days generating $1 million in merchandise-related profit annually, when the show was at its peak.  Happy Days was on for 10 years.  Essentially, a forgotten supporting cast with a $10 million lawsuit seeks 100% of what CBS earned (because after all, why should the producers, writers, creators, Richie and Fonzie get a share of that revenue). One might expect that collectively, the former stars could earn upwards of 5 percent on that figure (again being generous). That would equal a combined pay-out of $50,000 among all the parties involved. Clearly, a far cry from the $10 million that is being demanded.

While the publicity surrounding this law suit might unearth other hidden pay outs that CBS (and other networks) has failed to make, it certainly won’t help these desperados collect money that just isn’t theirs.  My estimates are probably off, but within the general ballpark of reality. Therefore, this blogger thinks that the Happy Days crew should put on a happy face, take their fair payout of a few dollars and drop this bogus law suit.

Give me sun, beaches and warm blue skies…

I am sick of winter. Let me restate that differently– I really hate this winter.

In the Northeast, we’re having record snow (and ice) falls. It feels as though the temperature never rises much above 25 degrees. And, I can’t remember the last time the wind wasn’t pushing me a step or two backwards. In my mind, this all adds up to misery.

I’ll be honest. As I’ve gotten older, the cold has become less and less appealing. And, my family just isn’t enthralled with all those things most people do during the winter to have fun. We’re pretty bad skiers (remind me to tell you about the time I broke a rib attempting to ski in the frozen tundra of Canada). We don’t really enjoy skating and, overall, we typically cry bah humbug during each subsequent snow fall that takes place.

Yes. I’d like to be living or at least visiting somewhere warm right about now. But like many, I also have a day job in New York City. And, my kids are tied to their schools in New Jersey. So, what can a guy do?

Not much. Except, I can focus (for the rest of this post) on how so many feel the exact opposite way I do. There are thousands of industries/companies/brands that simply love frozen weather like this. The colder and longer it endures, the happier they become. That’s because they feast on every consumer whim and need to make scores of $$$. It isn’t hard to find them. The smarter companies have found ways to market themselves online, in commercials and just about everywhere else we go or turn to.

In no particular order, here’s  a bunch that exploit my misery in every way:

-    Cough and cold medications – I don’t think there’s one person in the Northeast who hasn’t gotten some cold, cough, flu or stomach bug or some viral ailment that has spread rapidly because of the cold. I went to the drug store yesterday to get a new supply of day and nighttime cold medicine. It might just be my perception, but it looked like there are two or three additional shelves filled with two to three times more products. I just checked some research online. Seems that over the counter cold products have increased their sales by 30 percent over this time last year. Bad winter means great seasonal sales for these companies.
-    Resort vacations – Turn on the TV, or click onto a popular online news site. You can’t miss all the promotions for vacation spots to warm places. Just this morning, I saw ads for: The Breakers, Sandals in Jamaica, Barbados, San Diego, The Keys and the Cayman Islands.
-    Public utilities – Have you looked at your heating bill for December yet? Ouch! It’s about 110 percent higher than it was in November. Sure, it’s supposed to be higher… but that is a gigantic increase. This winter should prove to be one of the most profitable on record for any utility in this neck of the woods.
-    Snow removal products – Ice melting salt, shovels, scrapers, snow blowers, snow throwers, etc….They are all selling like hotcakes. This weekend, I happened to be in a Lowes. A shop person told me that they had to replace these products three times as quickly as normal because the turnover is just so high.
-    Winter apparel manufacturers- By now, one would think that most people have bought their heavy winter coats, gloves, scarves, hats, etc. Not true. Or, maybe they just want to have reinforcements. I actually went looking for a new winter coat the other day. The department in this store was mobbed with many doing just the same.
-    Hot cocoa brands – Kids love hot cocoa during the winter. After a little sledding or fort building, that’s the go-to drink for any kid. I bet Nestle and other category brands are making out like bandits these days.
-    Soup brands – Same goes for soup. A little research shows that the soup industry has unusually high sales of their soup products now. Nothing like a good ol’ bowl of Chunky Chicken Noodle for lunch to warm the bones.
-    Vitamin companies – Vitamins are products that consumers turn to during times when sickness is everywhere. We’re seeing serious sales of vitamin C now. I’d say the overall desire for any pill that can increase the body’s vitality and offer help in warding off colds has risen greatly.

The best television has to offer

When I flick on the remote control these days, there aren't too many shows that get me excited. Typically, I'll find an interesting documentary on The History Channel, or just watch a ball game, or one of the few unique HBO or Showtime series. But, that's about it, except for AMC's 'Mad Men', that is. I really love this show. And, the highly anticipated season opener this week did nothing to change that.

Two or three specific scenes made me feel like someone had secretly taped actual experiences from Peppercom's early days and recreated them to become Mad Men, 60s advertising world-centric. That's because this episode showcased all the challenges that a new upstart firm in the marketing world goes through. And, these pains were magnified that much more because all of these executives were used to having the cushiest, most sophisticated resources available to them in their previous agency lives. Yes, the show's writers found a way this week to make a unique personal connection with me like I haven't experienced in years.

For starters, the conference room table mini-plot had me laughing out loud. That's the scene where we see the firm's executives presenting to a prospect while sitting on chairs in a circle in Don Draper's office with the painfully barren void that exists because there isn't any conference table to present on. The background here is that Don Draper won an internal battle among his partners to take far less space in swanky mid-town location offices versus being satisfied with much cheaper (but spacious) digs in the lesser appealing downtown area. Thus, no space exists for a conference room (or a table for that matter). Steve and I faced an almost identical dilemma with our first space in Manhattan's famous Graybar building. By no means was this first office grand (like that of the new Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce firm). The parallel is that we had no available space for a conference room and my office had to constantly be transformed into such a meeting space when any new prospect or client came to talk with us. I remember (so vividly) the quick 10-minute shuffles to clear out all my personal objects from my office as we did a 180-degree move with my desk and accompanying chairs to create a small conference room-like atmosphere in our humble abode. After coming to our offices 4-5 times, one former client actually commented to Steve that he knew the conference room was actually Ed's office, and we weren't fooling anyone. Unfortunately, this reality existed for us for the better part of a year until we were able to grow and afford more space on that same floor down the hall.

Another striking similarity (that many upstarts can probably relate to) is that bad feeling that hits your gut when you hear the news that an initial first client is terminating the relationship. For Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce it was the little known Jai Lai account which had run out of advertising money. Account executive Pete Campbell delivered the news to the partners. Naturally, acting as a typical creative director who doesn't spend any time caring about finances, Don Draper said, "Good, we're better off without them." Yet, CFO Pryce was startled and offered up that the firm can't afford to lose many more accounts or it won't be in business much longer. He also mentioned his concern that one giant account, Lucky Strike, now made up 72 percent of the firm's billings and that is a very scary reality.

Peppercom faced the exact same dilemma within 18 months of opening up our doors. One of the big-four accounting firms (although back then it was the big-six) had grown so large (that was good) that it actually equaled more than 75 percent of our firm's revenues (that was bad). And, at that time, there were constant rumors on the streets that our firm would be acquired by another large competitor. I remember waking up early on a Saturday morning to pick up the New York Times at my local news stand to see in front page headlines, "X firm looking to merge with Y firm." Y firm happened to be our client, and I was absolutely sick to my stomach for the entire weekend. Needless to say, our top priority over the next six months was focused on growing and winning other business so that this client's importance was minimized greatly.

I could go on and on about how so many other mini plots on this show were so similar to my experiences in our early days (but I won't). 'Mad Men' proves one important cliché- as much as things change, they tend to always stay the same. 'Mad Men' is clearly head and shoulders above almost anything else on TV these days.

Say goodbye to the easiest interview on earth

Earlier this week, Larry King called it quits after 25 years as the host of CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

Larry is an iconic figure who will always be remembered. This man found a unique way to straddle the fence between the lightest of light hearted broadcast journalism and pop culture/entertainment talk show reporting. You could always count on the fact that each evening Larry would be interviewing someone who was either front and center in the news, or simply was viewed as the latest political, business or cultural phenomena/superstar of the day. Love him or hate his style, the fact is that Larry’s show (up until recently) was unique because it reached millions of people who crossed a multitude of demographics across our society. This diverse viewership made Larry’s show incredibly appealing to my industry.

There’s no doubt that the public relations world will greatly miss Larry. Sure, many entertainment publicists loved to book their hot Hollywood clients on his show. But, that’s not what I’m getting at here. You see, “Larry King Live” was the dream interview for our clients who faced the deepest public crises of the moment. I can remember many times throughout my career when a client was being torn apart by national media for some controversial business or personal scandal and it was critical to find a way to “get our client’s real story out” through a kinder and gentler format. Larry was that desperate, much maligned client’s salvation.

You may not have ever noticed this, but in many cases Larry actually allows his guest to interview themselves. Sure, he’ll start the interview off with a few relevant questions about the crisis at hand. But, the beauty behind Larry’s style is that he then allows the interviewee to take over from there. I’ve watched former heads of state, indicted CEOs, accused murderers and others (who should be sitting on the hottest of hot seats) simply dance around that opening tough question and then spend the next 15-20 minutes offering up a one sided monologue, rebutting all the negatives that other tough journalists had properly written about before. There were even times when Larry was so lax in his questioning that it seemed like he (Larry, that is) was empathizing with the interviewee. Just think about how powerful this opportunity can be for someone who has basically been indicted and found guilty through the media. Larry King provides an on-air asylum that can influence millions like no one else.

Let’s not forget the other side of Larry. The man has this lackadaisical (mostly forgetful), folksy style that should have gotten Larry in deep trouble many moons ago. But, instead, after each embarrassing moment, he simply shook it off with little care and moved on. Larry committed some legendary blunders and some consider him a laughable joke because of these. For example, there was the time when he interviewed the two remaining Beatles a year ago (Ringo and Paul). Of course, Larry had no idea what their names were as he started referring to Ringo as “George” (as in now deceased George Harrison). After Larry did this three or four times, Paul finally spoke up making fun of Larry and his cluelessness. Then there was the time a few years back when Jerry Seinfeld was being interviewed on the show. Larry actually asked Jerry if it’s true that his show would be ending soon (referring to “Seinfeld” which had been off the air for more than a decade). Being the good natured comedian, Jerry had some fun and responded by asking Larry if this was indeed CNN and was he actually on The Larry King Show.

My PR World is now in mourning for losing Larry. In essence, he is/was a critically important crisis communications delivery vehicle when the calamity of the day had reached a breaking point. I think everyone who watches Larry recognizes that his show has become old, he looks tired and it’s time for him to ride off into the sunset.  Although I’m sure Larry’s next career move will allow him to stay in the limelight in some fashion, there goes the easiest prime time interview on earth. Larry you will be missed.

ABC Network Reeks of Hypocrisy

I love this story: “At ABC, Cougars Are O.K., but Not Always.” ABC really looks dumb for how it handled its big  cat controversy, known as 'Cougar Town.' For those who haven’t heard, this comedy about middle aged women targeting younger, male studs in their sexual pursuits,  is the network’s latest attempt to find a new prime time hit. 'Cougar' is actually a much touted term these days (in bars and night clubs) to describe those ‘older’ women who date, or chase, considerably younger men.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Right? Not according to ABC executives, who feel that the content is appropriate for night time network television. In fact, the network has even allowed some big time advertisers (like Cadbury Adams) to run ‘Cougar themed’ ads during the premiere. As an example, in one risqué Halls Refresh candy commercial, an ordinary middle-aged woman is given a candy drop by her son’s nerdy college roommate. All the while, the two stare at each other intensely while suggestively sucking their drops. Oh boy… get the picture?

Whoa…Disney (ABC’s owner) didn’t deem this subject matter too over the top for network, nighttime TV?  I guess not. That’s why it rings so hypocritical that the network decided to turn away Cougarlife.com, another similar themed, wannabe advertiser, which seemed to be a natural fit for this show. ABC executives issued this one sentence response in defending their dismissive actions, “The ABC Television Network did not accept the CougarLife.com commercial based upon the fact that the Web site had not launched at that time of submission, and there was concern about its proposed content.”

Yet, according to those ‘in the know,’ that statement was a ruse. CougarLife.com had been fully seen and reviewed by ABC head honchos (and, in fact, it is a pretty standard dating web site – albeit for older women looking for younger men.) So, it seems that the network looks awfully silly. It doesn’t find the content from its show or candy commercial offensive, but worried that a web site promoting the same values, would be. And, of course, the owners of Cougarlife.com are pretty annoyed (as they should be). Claudia Opdenkelder, president of this web site, summed it up nicely in these few words, “So they’re comfortable with this in fiction, but not in reality.”

What a crock. ABC is stuck on some high and mighty morality cloud that makes absolutely no sense. The network surely knew that the very nature of this show would create an enormous amount of controversy among family and religion oriented groups who have loudly objected to its anti-family values theme (and it has.) Yet, it held firm, took its beating and stood behind this show because of a belief that ‘cougars’ do not cross the morality line and are fair game in the hunt for greater ratings in prime time TV. That’s why it should never have turned down any advertiser which supports the same values, cause and general content as well.

Of course, Cougarlife.com did not take this sitting down. The web site is urging visitors to sign an online petition to get the network to change its mind (which has yet to happen.) In this spirit of ‘all publicity is good publicity,’ I asked myself the question – is all this hoopla actually good for ABC and it’s new hit show? Ordinarily, I might say yes (because it will certainly cause more viewers to watch upcoming episodes.) But, with so many morality groups watching ABC’s every move, there’s no doubt that Disney will now feel a ton of pressure in the worst of ways. And, that won’t be fun for network executives.

“Bring back the better days of capitalism”

As I was working out this morning, I watched a taped version of Bill Maher’s interview the other night with documentary guru Michael Moore. The interview and brief glimpse of his new documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story” seems really entertaining. No doubt, each of Moore’s films does a valiant job of shedding a few rays of light on particular parts of our “American way” that are broken and need some real fixing. But, my overall feeling about Moore is that he is an entertainer (much like Rush Limbaugh is at the other end of the political spectrum), versus a truly informed subject matter expert. I believe that the good people of America really need to understand this.

Please understand that I have nothing against Moore. I am not one of those conservatives who looks at him as the anti-Christ. Instead, I try to maintain an objective viewpoint to truly understand his story lines, facts and where he is generally coming from. The problem I have with taking Michael seriously is that his commentary is often distorted and sometimes it’s just plain wrong as Bill Maher really pointed out in this interview. Although his sensationalistic way of making consumers feel the issue at hand is both witty and unique. (That’s why his films do so well.) They also tend to misrepresent the absolute truth of the matter, versus correctly illuminating what the real issue should be.

Let’s take his current documentary. He came onto Maher’s show with great fanfare and to huge applause. (No surprise, Bill’s show is a sanctuary for those left thinkers.) After a few softball questions and answers, Bill asked a very good question. He said something like, “Michael in your film, you actually depict capitalism as evil. I don’t think it’s evil and disagree with you on that. Is that what you are saying?”

Moore’s response was, “I don’t mean that capitalism is evil. I just believe that we need to bring back the better days of capitalism when it was about the ‘American Dream’ and a much fairer system for all.”

Hmmmm…..

Let’s see. I’d like to ask Michael a few (rhetorical) questions based on that response. Michael, do you mean that capitalism was much more fair for all Americans 20 years ago when junk bonds blew up on Wall Street? I seemed to remember that tens of thousands of people lost their jobs then (many who weren’t involved with Wall Street) and thousands of other innocent victims lost their life savings.

Right. You must mean that the “better days” were actually much deeper into our American past. OK. How about when capitalism treated everyone so fairly during that little episode known as the Great Depression (lasting almost a decade)? If memory serves, millions of average and below average ‘Joes’ lost their livelihoods, homes and pretty much all they owned in every town and city across America.

No? You actually mean earlier than that, Michael? Ok, let’s go back further into the 19th century. Michael, have you ever read about the depression of 1890? During this period, capitalism ran amok, as well.  You see, too many people attempted to redeem silver notes for gold. A panic ensued because the statutory limit for the minimal amount of gold in the Federal Reserve was reached and US Notes could no longer be successfully redeemed for gold. Everything was heavily financed through bond issues, which of course had extremely high interest payments that couldn’t be paid anymore. (Can you spell excess?) From there, banks everywhere failed, giant railroads shuttered and over 15,000 companies went bankrupt, creating 25 percent unemployment in our “fair capitalistic” America.

I could go on and on by discussing the 1819 depression or the 1837-1843 depression, or even the 1869 depression. But, I won’t. 

My point is that socialists like Michael Moore tend to be more about ideals than what’s really pragmatic. More to the point, our capitalistic society has never been fair to all (and in fact, has periodically broken down since its inception.) It simply wasn’t built that way. Instead, it’s a system that needs strong checks and balances to ensure that it can work reasonably well for most. But unfortunately, greed and the need for excess have caused the system to break down about every 10-20 years. This typically happens when the checks and balances aren’t really working all that well anymore because most everyone is living too fat and happy.  That’s not good. But, it is the nature of this beast. The ‘American Way’ is something special that our form of capitalism does offer many Americans, though. Although the odds are long, there is a tall list of business people and entrepreneurs who came from no money and sometimes little education to become successful because of hard work, very smart decisions and a little fortune.

Michael Moore’s point of view really isn’t based on reality. That’s why I treat his films as entertainment. He wants to create a pure, socialistic society. But, that can never happen in America (at least in our lifetime.) If he really wants to live his dream, the man should just move to Sweden, where every day (for him) will be better than the one before it because capitalism just doesn’t exist.

Michael, A foreign affair

It's official. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is seriously weighing a 1,500 word resolution in Michael Jackson's honor.

Why is this something that the Foreign Affairs Committee should possibly care about? Perhaps it’s because the resolution calls Jackson a "global" humanitarian. The resolution was introduced by Republican Lee of Texas. It praises the entertainer's many charitable activities that took place throughout his life. It states: Resolution Number 600-- honoring an American legend and musical icon.

Clearly, people tend to get carried away when someone famous dies. And, this resolution seems a tad over the top. But, this seems to be par for the course for Michael. I just heard this morning that a grassroots effort in Jacksonville, Florida is now underway to rename the city after the fallen pop star.

The media have also covered Michael's sad story (in both positive and negative ways) nonstop on a 24/7 basis for two solid weeks.

All of this has led to countless blogs, emails and just plain conversations from many that they are sick and tired of being forced to watch this story everywhere. I've heard some rant a few days back that after a week of coverage, no one cares any more. And, others grumble they are simply annoyed that this entertainer's death should receive the same CNN-like headlines as "more important" real stories like the Iran election battles, American journalist abductions in North Korean and our President's diplomatic discussions in Russia.

I don't disagree with any of this. But, on the other hand, I'm kind of surprised that so many people can't understand why news about the Prince of Pop has reached epic proportions.

Our culture has always been obsessed with celebrities and especially entertainers. And, that will never change. Some might claim that this is a chicken and egg question. (Which came first?) They believe the Jackson feeding frenzy is happening simply because the media won't stop reporting on it. Thus, the public are forced to consume it. On this topic, I tend to disagree. According to Nielson Media Research, over 31 million viewers watched Jackson's funeral on TV (and the Staples Center was completely sold out as well) and CNN.com served out 4.4 million video streams to a ravenous public who simply could not get enough of this story’s details.

Michael's ratings drew more views than two Presidents' memorial services (Reagan and Ford) and came in a close second to another beloved celebrity like figure years back (Princess Diana) who had 33 million people watching.

The bottom line is that after Elvis and The Beatles, Michael Jackson might be the next most influential rock/pop icon ever. The deaths of both Elvis and John Lennon incurred tremendous public interest also. And, I'm sure if either had passed away in today's age, we'd be experiencing similar 24/7 obsessions across the globe as well.

Entertainers create controversy. The media love to cover all of it. And, we consumers eat it up. Call it crazy. But, all this craziness surrounding Michael Jackson's posthumous interest seems very normal to me.

It will start to slowly fade away. My suggestion to all those people who are pulling their hair out-- turn it off whenever you can and just tune out all the time. But, stop fighting it. This is a continuing big global news story because our international society wants it. Whether you like it or not, that simply won't change.

Out of context is not out of the norm

I was media training a client the other day. This senior executive had no prior experience conducting media interviews. So, we spent a lot of time discussing 'the basics,’ including how journalists sometimes take meaty phrases or sound bytes that an interviewee might provide, only to use them in the absolute wrong context or another unintended part of a story.

This is either done because the reporter simply ‘screwed up’ and amateurishly forgot where the sound byte should have been used. Or, as is often the case with broadcast media, it happens because that reporter has to find a way to prove his or her story. I would say the latter point is all about a reporter having a preconceived agenda. But, in either case, they both illustrate a real degree of unprofessionalism.

The client asked me what's the best way to stop this from happening. Unfortunately, I told him there isn't a foolproof method. But, if the interviewee is focused on his/her core messages and doesn't get led astray to discuss sensationalistic or non-relevant topics, he/she will have a better chance of controlling the outcome of the story.

CNN really disappointed me on Tuesday morning with its coverage of the AIG bonus mess. I used this case in point to show the client how even one of the more prestigious national networks can be guilty of committing this shameful act. And, in this case, there was nothing anyone could do to prevent it. The story focused on (what else) how and why AIG would have the gall to dole out $165 million in bonuses. Naturally, CNN was attempting to work viewers up into a tizzy through this segment.

That part didn't actually bother me. (I'm used to the media taking the role of consumer activist now.) What did upset me is how the piece started off. The anchor said that Fed Chair Ben Bernanke is steaming hot about AIG's mishandling of this entire affair. Then CNN showed a clip that was taken two days before during a 60 Minutes interview with Bernanke. In the clip, he openly discusses his anger with AIG for causing its traumatic mess (that's it). With this dramatic effect made, CNN then moves on to report further on the public and political outrage to these bonuses. The piece ends with the anchor asking the question as to whether the administration will find a way to "get the money back."

Here's the rub: Ben Bernanke was interviewed on 60 Minutes solely about the government’s continued involvement in helping this behemoth to survive. His quote (and that clip) about how he is mad at AIG had absolutely nothing to do with the bonus issue. It had everything to do with AIG's responsibility in creating this mess and the government needing to bail out the near bankrupt insurer. It couldn't have been about the bonus issue at hand because the interview with Bernanke was conducted before this news ever went public.

Yet conveniently, some unprofessional producer at CNN decided to use this Bernanke segment his/her way to make this story as controversial and one sided as possible. And, do you know what? It worked. I'm sure many in the public are that much more outraged because they believe the Fed chairman is mad as hell at AIG on this very issue. It's really shameful because we don't even know if Bernanke is actually mad at AIG senior management about the bonus issue. And, through irresponsible reporting, CNN has undoubtedly influenced countless more people with erroneous proof points.

The only lesson I can take away from this is that if your organization is in the heat of a crisis, understand that there are no holds (or ethical rules in this case) barred as far as the media are concerned. PR professionals and their senior executives need to understand that some media will do whatever it takes to build that perfect story. And thus, one needs to approach any media relations strategy with a real understanding that even if your organization has valid points to get across, it might not entirely matter with those journalists.

TV advertising ROI is declining quickly

I just finished reading an article that reported 27 percent of American households now have DVRs (according to Nielson, this has increased from just over 20 percent.) Scientific researchers further went on to study the impact of fast forwarding on advertiser recognition. No surprise, those who fast forward commercials, typically only see a second and a half of silent fast moving content. And this sharply reduces the viewers' recall of the commercials.

However, they also found that viewers were still able to recall commercials that contained many frames featuring the brand's name or logo, if the logo was in the center of the screen. Such commercials made viewers like the featured brands better, and increased their desire to buy the product advertised.

My bet is that these researchers are on acid. Because, this is a ludicrous study.

Let me explain. If we're at the point where advertisers need to defend TV commercials by asserting that some fast forwarded commercials are still effectively selling products if the brand logo is in the center of the frame, then this industry is really desperate beyond belief. I can’t believe the premise is actually true. And, it certainly won’t convince any corporate marketer that DVRs aren’t really as bad as they were led to believe.

Here are some facts:

-TV advertising costs a lot of money. The costs come from developing the commercials and more importantly buying the time. In some cases, TV advertising budgets are 10 to 20 times more expensive than direct marketing or public relations.

- Over 25 percent of households skip through commercials. That number will certainly grow every month and every year. I don't believe that DVR'd commercials provide any brand building value. Think about the cost highlighted above. Now, understand that one out of every four potential viewers will fast forward right by it.

- In this economy, marketers need to see that every dollar spent will produce efficient returns. That is the exact opposite of what TV commercials do.

- Today, the best marketing needs to focus on building trust, credibility and direct response with customers/prospects. Again, TV commercials provide none of these.

Lastly, even if a marketer does believe that TV commercials should be a key part of the marketing mix, he/she should maximize those bucks by pushing the media outlet/network to significantly enhance the buy for greater value, at no more cost. This could include additional Web advertisements on the broadcaster’s site, PR related promotions to create a larger call to action, direct response initiatives through online contests or a host of other marketing endeavors.

The Web is our future. TV will clearly still have a marketing role. Only, the cost to benefit received from this medium (alone) better change because many marketers are moving on.