Measuring Up

Has this media empire out Foxed the rest?

Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch announced his next big media move. News Corporation introduced 'The Daily,' a digital-only daily newspaper.

Delivered as a news application designed for the iPad, Murdoch is taking a bold step forward by charging a monthly subscription rate of $39. According to his comments, he believes that this new venture will position News Corporation as the digital newsstand of the future.

The concept is quite interesting and controversial because it runs counter to how people consume their online news today. Instead of the ever popular push model where free RSS feeds and subscriptions allow any and all relevant news to be pushed on a 24/7 basis, this model literally creates a digital version of the USA Today model.

Murdoch believes that a more general interest, high- resolution color digital newspaper that offers readers news and gossip on dozens of topics will greatly entice them. He also claims that 'The Daily' will be the first to seamlessly bring photos, video and interactive features together, in this new “all in one place" format.

Murdoch's initial costs for this venture are purposely low. He hopes to build sales through subscriptions over time. No doubt the partnership with Apple will help. And if he's able to build circulation numbers, then advertisers should naturally flock to his outlet as well.

Yet, I wonder if 'The Daily' is still a few years ahead of its time. I do believe that many (including this blogger) would happily subscribe to this app if it was free. But, with so much other free content available at my finger tips, what motivating factor will compel me to want to offer up my credit card for this content? Thirty nine dollars isn't a lot. It's just the difference between having to go that extra step with a payment for content, versus continue to use my favorite model– free.

In the end, I believe that 'The Daily 'will need to provide some incredible value to generate mass subscriptions in this day and age.

I applaud Murdoch's moxy and continued innovative mind set. He failed big time acquiring soon to be 'has-been' My Space a few years back. This time, he's done a complete 180 degree change by establishing a first mover status. I just believe that unless 'The Daily' is offered as part of a larger package (i.e. buy an iPad and receive a six month subscription for free), with Apple consuming the cost, it will be a long and difficult climb to grow sales for News Corp.

Who really cares?

The debate between advertising, digital and PR professionals regarding who should lead digital engagement for   clients has grown tiresome.

Witness another piece of propaganda (this one from PR Newswire). This white paper focuses most of its effort (to no one’s surprise) on the opinion that PR professionals have a better mix of ‘the right’ skills to consult and execute client digital campaigns. The argument isn’t necessarily wrong (yes, I am a PR man at heart). Public relations professionals have a certain type of DNA that pushes them to communicate in a non-commercial, typically transparent way. If we hadn’t operated this way for the last 50 years, media wouldn’t accept our client stories or use them as sources for interviews. And, non commercial, organically created humor/news/stuff is typically how real digital engagement works best on the Internet today. But, that certainly doesn’t always mean that PR professionals or their agencies are best suited to follow these rules.

Sam Ford, Peppercom's Director of Digital Strategy wrote a Chief Marketer piece on this titled 'Get Advertising and PR to Work Together on a Spreadable Approach.'

I’ve listened to and read of countless articles and debates from the digital and advertising professions as well. Their belief is that creative concepts, sustainable campaigns and the high quality graphics and use of content that are key to making brands appeal to online consumer audiences have always been owned by them. So, naturally those that have always led traditional brand building through advertising, direct marketing and now digital content development,  are better positioned to be the lead dogs in showing clients how to build their brands and create better online engagement. Objectively, it’s hard to argue the rationale behind some of this thinking as well.

Anyone in the marketing agency business can understand why this debate is growing louder and louder. A lot is on the line because the reality is that all of these ‘sister’ industries are undergoing a seismic paradigm shift that hasn’t been seen since… well, maybe never. The lines of who is responsible for creating anything digital are completely blurred. Because of this, these agencies with different traditional disciplines now (for the first time) view each other as encroaching on eachother’s turf. The result is that they aren’t playing nicely in the sand box together anymore. And, that is becoming a real problem for clients everywhere.

So, who do I believe should own the digital landscape. To me, it’s always come down to the actual people who live within each individual agency  versus the discipline or brand differentiator that any agency possesses. There are some hot digital agencies that have very mediocre executives. In those cases, any client accounts those professionals work on will probably choose their more strategic PR and/or ad agency brethren to lead digital efforts. I’m sure the reverse holds true with public relations firms offering less than stellar PR executives up to clients as well, because when there is risk involved (and digital engagement is still an unknown risk to most), clients turn to who they trust most  for direction. Not, the PR guy or advertising account leader because of some discipline specialty.

In the end, those agencies in the know are now attempting to morph into much more of an integrated marketing model, which can offer clients as much as possible under one roof (and most importantly, a real digital solution). The real question isn’t which discipline is better positioned to lead this fast growing digital landscape. But, it’s about which agencies can build the most talent to show clients how to do it right.

Should we call it 'digital driving'?

OnStar announced today a new application where drivers can soon communicate on their Facebook page with just a push of a button.

From what the company's president discussed on MSNBC this morning, this new capability is almost entirely hands free. Drivers simply need to push a new button on their OnStar devices and then talk into the microphone. That voice monologue will then be automatically turned into text that will appear on his/her Facebook page.

Pretty wild, huh? If you're stuck in a frustrating traffic jam, all your Facebook fans can read about it as it's happening. Or, maybe you've just past something of interest on the road. Once again, everyone you care about will soon read about it.

What I found most illuminating about this announcement though is what the OnStar president said about other possible coming features/applications. He mentioned technologies that could allow for live video conferencing and even the ability to do much more social networking on the Internet. Of course, he also reinforced numerous times that his company focuses on safety first. That's why all of these applications are (or will be) virtually hands free.

When I first watched this story, I thought this is pretty cool because these new breakthrough technologies have come so far. But, then something in my mind didn't add up when I combined the objective of driving safely with the reality that by leveraging new gadgets such as these, drivers will have to focus on so many other variables that don't include the road (or the car in front of them). That spells potential disaster.

We all know that texting, emailing and, generally, having conversations on PDAs while driving causes many more accidents these days. OnStar's new apps might be quasi hands free, but that won't help many drivers who fumble about figuring out how to make their connection to Facebook work (while they drive).

I also wonder about when enough is enough. In this case, do new boundaries need to be mandated? For example, do we (as a society) really need to be completely connected to our friends/fans every single minute of the day?  And, although video conferencing could certainly provide another twist to making business more accessible and personal, what's so appealing about watching someone stare at the road ahead versus just listening to him/her on a phone call. Some technology innovations like that simply add very little appeal.

No, it seems to me that the automobile should be one place where safety and common sense need to take precedence over accessibility and efficiencies. That means the concept of digital driving should really be limited to playing a Wii video game at home. Not an OnStar application that probably will have more of a negative impact than positive benefits.

Still relevant or digital relic?

When's the last time you discussed the social networking site MySpace with friends? And, when it came up, was it discussed in a positive light or as a passé online destination that lost its mojo many moons ago? For me, the answers are: probably six months ago and it's kind of a joke representing any company that lost its relevance.

Here's an interesting article in AdWeek (MySpace: Still Here) that surprisingly portrays this once dominant entity as still strangely relevant. In fact, MySpace actually attracts 61 million unique users per month, second only to Facebook (which still dwarfs any other networking site with 146 million users).

According to this article, MySpace has assumed a much more focused role as a sharing site versus its larger nemesis which really has become the ultimate communications platform. To capitalize on its positioning, MySpace has developed numerous programs around music and has built a following of over 5 million bands on the network. It has leveraged sponsorships with the likes of Wendy’s to build brand awareness for MySpace "Music's Get Close Program," a competition that gives fans the chance to see the net's featured musicians perform live.

It's interesting to see how this once proud leader is making a valid push to revive its relevance among young people. Still, I wonder if these efforts fall under the heading: Too Little, Too Late.

While clearly the site has many fans, MySpace lost its cool factor (and more importantly) its buzz three years ago. I spent 15 minutes conducting my own informal, non-scientific research (I asked half a dozen teens and 20-somethings their perceptions of MySpace). The answers were uniformly consistent – “not interested and my friends aren't either.” That told me a lot.

As superficial as it sounds, buzz is critical for digital survival as well. It brings advertisers in and it creates the perception of success, which ultimately breeds more (real success), if managed correctly.

These days, Twitter and Facebook are the clear kings on the mountain. New entrants such as FourSquare are also creating real buzz and excitement. Of course, there will always be one or two other new players who challenge their buzz supremacy by offering the newest and latest cool networking or communications tool, as well. Understanding all of this, my belief is that it's next to impossible for forgotten brands (such as MySpace) to stage any type of real comeback, regardless of what unique offering they develop or how they reposition their value proposition.

A great example of this is Yahoo. Yahoo was the pioneer and dominant force in internet search for a good long time. Then, it was googled by Google and life was never the same. While it has found some relevance in the online advertising arena, it lost any real search relevance forever because Google consistently out maneuvered it.

Regardless of what AdWeek writes, MySpace has fallen into the digital relic category. It may still attract a unique audience, but there's a big difference between being a compelling Internet player that so many are buzzing about versus just being there, while no one really cares.

Calling all employers- stay away from Germany!

Ever since I've been in the business world, Germany has been one of the worst countries for companies to do business in.

The labor laws are so egregiously one sided (supporting employee interests) that one has to wonder how companies there actually survive. I remember a few years ago when we actually looked at the possibility of opening up an office there. After a week of being educated, the decision to stay out became the easiest call in Peppercom's 15 year history.

Some reasons include the fact that there seems to be more holidays for employees throughout the year then actual days they are supposed to go to work. Paternity leave laws are also absurd in this land of high performance cars and great beer. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for giving new mothers as much time off as they need. But, if memory serves, fathers are also guaranteed upwards of a year off at half pay as well. And, their job has to be held open upon returning to the workforce as well. Come on... give me a break. That is a real unnecessary hardship for businesses (especially small ones).

And now, this latest news that employers cannot leverage some social media tools like Facebook to learn more about potential employees throughout the hiring process, just takes the cake.

Yes, we all understand why German society is so focused on pro-employee (or consumer) rights. When a culture goes through an event as monumental as the Holocaust, one can understand how it needs to stay committed to being at the other end of the human rights/privacy spectrum. Germany has done just that by demonstrating to the world that its people will be treated with the utmost care concerning any and all privacy and human rights issues. But, it's now 65 years later. I wonder if some of these laws/regulations actually make sense any more.

The Facebook law also makes me think that the arm of the German government which made this decision simply isn't in-tune with the transparently digital world we live in today. This ruling greatly handicaps businesses that need to compete with the best international companies in fast moving and ultra challenging marketplace environments. As an employer, we try to leverage every tool available to understand (as best as possible) whether a candidate's skill set and personality would match well with our culture and the services we provide. If a candidate uses Facebook and/or other social networking sites to showcase an irresponsible (or worse) behavior, then that person has tipped a key hand about himself.

Understanding all of this, it doesn't really matter though. The other reality is that Facebook has obvious privacy controls which don't let just anyone see a person's profile or page unless permission is granted.  So, even with these tools, it just isn't all that easy to leverage them by HR folks in the hiring process.

The plain reality (though) is that we don't need democratic governments imposing new, stringent laws that reign in transparency. Protecting employees/consumers' rights is a good thing. The German government should think about how to do this the right way in a modern 21st century open information architecture world.

How do you measure PR success?

That’s a never ending question for my industry. Ask 100 executives and there is a chance that you might actually hear 100 different answers (well, maybe 75 would be closer to the truth).

I’ve found that too many professionals continue trying to isolate the public relations discipline (or the value it provides) from the rest of the communications/marketing mix. In this day and age, this makes little sense. I’ve also continued to watch with amazement how more often than not, the discipline (itself) is still only equated to “old time” media relations concepts…especially as it refers to measurement.

Like many others, I joined a few Linkedin industry group discussions a while back. Usually, there are too many topics covered to actually keep up on a regular basis. But, every once in a while a thread of a conversation or debate catches my eye. Here’s one professional’s take on the issue at hand How Do You Measure Your PR Success? . While he makes some valid points, I’ll refer back to the problems I just laid out to respectfully disagree with many of Drew’s assertions. 

For starters, I disagree with his theory that PR campaigns cannot be measured based on sales achieved or rate or return. I’m paraphrasing, but Drew elaborates by stating that PR is a long term investment that can increase awareness of a product/service/expertise. But, that doesn’t mean skyrocketing sales will be the result.

There’s no doubt that PR professionals need to be careful when over promising that any individual campaign/program will lead directly to sales. This is especially the case if the product/service being marketed is not really unique, or the market is already saturated with competitive look a likes, or if the company behind it has almost no visibility (which means a lack of credibility with target audiences). That said, I’ve witnessed many recent campaigns leverage the integration of very creative social media, traditional media and experiential disciplines to generate real, honest to goodness sales.

One great example from a few years back is Crocs- children’s rubber shoes that have became a huge phenomena. I remember when the company made a tremendous outreach to mommy bloggers and national media years ago. If memory serves, the specialists behind Crocs created some type of online contest to draw moms in…and it worked! At that early point in the company’s growth, it spent very little on advertising. So, public relations really helped to directly impact the bottom line, as well as create a longer term, trusted reputation with moms everywhere.

While it’s often hard to separate where public relations and other marketing disciplines begin and end these days (because of the Internet), my point rests on the fact that the digital world has created real sales opportunities for companies that leverage PR the right way, where they never existed before.

Drew also tries to provide clarity on the difference between the value of an ad and an editorial article. I agree with his premise that an article tends to be more credible, but I’m not really sure how he came to the scientific number that it’s worth 3 to 10 times more than an ad Regardless, I think this debate should be put to rest for ever. Because it simply isn’t relevant anymore.

Today, communications disciplines (and what their end products create) matter much less than making sure that target consumers are communicated with when they want and how they want it. Again, the Internet creates a real blur between disciplines and the channels we use. The value of an article versus and ad isn’t relevant anymore. Now, we should only care about how a client’s messages might resonate. If that means combining a steady blogging campaign, with hard hitting in-market events, where target media might then write about your product (because they saw it talked about in blogs and through online media buys), so be it.

The latest buzz phrases in our industry are “channel and discipline agnostic.” The premise is spot on. We need to worry less about defending public relations against advertising because we’re all treading on each other’s turf now anyways. The article, by itself, is dead (as is the ad). Reaching the consumer through messages that are indeed in motion are what matter now.   

A trusted barometer is becoming irrelevant

Ever since I can remember, The New York Times has provided a quarterly report on whether advertising pages within key magazine sectors have increased or decreased during a given three month period. (see link below). This data always represented a trusted and important gauge on how specific market segments (such as automotive, financial services, consumer goods and technology) are faring. It also provides those in the marketing world with a snapshot view of growth indicators in the publishing and advertising world (i.e. if ad pages are down across the board, then advertisers are typically spending less money on marketing).

There aren’t any surprises in this recent report. Generally, the number of magazine ad pages has continued to decrease over the last two years. And, while a few lone categories are bucking the trend, the recession has really beaten this industry down. Putting the economy aside though, I question whether magazine ad pages will ever really see significant growth again. And, that makes me question the relevance of using this data anymore as an indicator of how marketplace sectors are faring.

Most people now understand that the Internet has leveled the playing field for small businesses and consumers, alike. I'd say that it has also leveled the magazine world in a completely different manner.

You and I receive our news, trends and popular culture information digitally for free now. So, naturally magazine subscriptions are down across the board and it's hard to believe that those numbers will ever significantly rise again (even when our economy begins to grow). Advertisers focus their $$$ on the mediums that will have the most impact on reaching their target audiences. While magazines are still viable (for now), there are a plethora of more innovative and engaging ways to reach prospects and customers including search engines, mobile phones, blogs, online ezines and even offline, experiential advertising modes (where people go, eat, work, etc.). Even now, a paradigm shift is taking place because mobile technology is fostering the ability to localize content. No doubt, advertisers will start to move in groves to test this opportunity shortly.

It's all pretty logical, actually. It seems to me that those reporting on this soon to be antiquated and irrelevant data should start to think about a new barometer that is inclusive of so many other advertising mediums. Sure, magazine sectors can make up one small sliver of this possible index. But, as $$$ continues to flow out of the magazine publisher’s coffers and into the hands of these newer channels, the data we care about needs to evolve as well. My guess is that this might finally happen in a year or two when reporters covering the magazine world eventually see that magazine growth does not directly correlate with economic growth any more.

Can social media bring divided factions together?

Anyone who’s ever worked inside a large company understands that corporate politics and turf battles are almost always a reality of day-to-day business. From our consultant viewpoint, we’ve pretty much seen all of the ways companies get stuck in their own inertia. One run-of-the-mill infrastructure issue we often see involves functional departments competing over budget sizes and resource allocations. And, within departments, managers often jockey for control over specific projects/campaigns or groups of employees. In these cases, the end goal (whatever it might be) is typically sacrificed because of power battles.  My least favorite (though) is when great ideas (that have the ability to “move the needle”) are killed for no other reason than because of petty personal insecurities (i.e. it didn’t come from me, and I don’t want that guy to look good).

We were discussing many of these issues last week during a day-long workshop that Peppercom co-led with CableFax, the cable industry trade publication, and Access Intelligence (its parent company). The workshop focused on how cable and media companies can learn to leverage social media more effectively within their current internal and external communications/marketing efforts. No surprises really came from this group. In many cases, even the largest companies are just dipping their toes into the digital water right now. Others haven’t created a social media strategy due to lack of resources, expertise or because their organization is still figuring out where this new functional discipline should be housed internally.

We also had two excellent guest speakers, a research team from MTV Networks who discussed how their organization is using social media research to serve its many properties (i.e. MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, etc.) from a content and marketing standpoint. What I found most interesting, though, is how they’ve leveraged social media to unite so many different business functions within the organization. In their experience, this still misunderstood medium can bring many factions within a company together for the first time. And that’s exciting.

How is this possible? Well, after applying some logical analysis, it makes sense. What we heard is that most companies (at least in the cable and media industries) have not yet created one social media function or division within the organizational chart that runs across the company. Instead, various resources are often siphoned from different departments within the organization to take the lead on figuring out social media. These people are then deemed “social media experts.”  I’m sure that outside specialists are also brought in to show the way in many cases as well. But the point for MTV Networks is that, because its many business lines, brands and marketing areas are all intently trying to learn how to apply social media to their communications/marketing/audience engagement efforts, these factions find themselves opening up, integrating and simply working better with each other to learn and leverage best practices. More specifically, our guests discussed how social media research serves to play this unifying role (i.e. everyone wants it to make better decisions about specific campaigns/projects that should be created or not based on this first-time research).

In essence, because social media is so new and still somewhat mysterious (at least to its ultimate effect), it can actually serve to change the unwritten political rules that govern how internal behavior works within large organizations. Of course, this was but one example from one workshop. But, the possibilities are still pretty exciting.

What’s not to like about Steven Singer?

Ever hear of Steven Singer Jewelers? I’ve probably heard this company’s quirky radio commercials a thousand times and never thought anything about them. Until it finally hit me this morning just how bizarre Steve Singer’s marketing strategy is. You see, Steven Singer’s web site is www.ihatestevensinger.com. And, whether the company  is simply promoting discounted jewelry (as it always does) or special 14 carat gold dipped roses around Valentine’s day (yuck), this web URL is proudly highlighted over and over again in all of its advertising.

I found it quite odd that a company would promote such a negative statement about itself. So, I Googled Steven Singer to see if anything is being written about the URL name and then went to its Web site. I couldn’t find much being written, but the “About Us” section of Steven Singer’s Web site gave me what I was looking for. It seems that founder Steven Singer is quite a successful entrepreneur and businessman. He started the company at an early age and then expanded it in the Philadelphia area not long after. He’s won countless awards and has played a key civic role in the community as well. The positioning doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but Steven seems to feel that with each successful move he’s made, it’s a great reason for people to hate him (i.e. when people say, “Don’t you just hate the guy?”). Pretty weak, eh?

Regardless, his contrarian strategy to create a lot of noise around this negative (completely comical) Web site URL seems to work pretty well because the company keeps expanding. I only call this point out because it shows how sometimes counter intuitive, yet very creative marketing strategies can actually work when implemented the right way. With Steven Singer, he actually has Howard Stern preaching the company’s accolades, all while he makes fun of the URL ihatestevensinger.com. That’s caught on with Howard’s fans big time.

Who knows. Maybe this will start a trend and we’ll see Apple create www.ihateipod.com , or Disney promote www.idespisemickeymouse.com. Well… I can’t see this really becoming a trend (and I wouldn’t recommend it to any clients.) But, if it works for Steven Singer, that’s great.

Protecting the brand or antagonizing fans?

One of the ongoing Internet debates these days focuses on how companies can protect their brands when they are used in an unauthorized manner (often known as patent infringement), while also being very sensitive to the issue that they might be alienating, and even angering fans of that brand through their actions.

In these cases, I don’t mean obvious theft where companies or consumers are illegally profiting from another company’s cherished brand by selling product knock-offs or leveraging it on a Web site in some way to conduct e-commerce. No, instead I mean there are hundreds of cases where “fans” of that brand are just so excited about it that they set up Web sites to discuss, promote and gain an exponential amount of positive publicity about that brand by attracting hundreds (or thousands) of other fans.

One example that comes to mind is a fan site called www.ILOVECROCS.com, a few years back. The creator of this site absolutely adored this trendy rubber shoe. To show his appreciation, he built this site and promoted the brand through photos of different styles of Crocs. He attracted hundreds of new fans (and one would think) helped to provide free, positive marketing services for this company. From what I understand (told to me through a third party,) it wasn’t long after that he received a 'cease and desist' letter from the company’s lawyers. When the man tried to explain that he wasn’t making any money at Croc’s expense and just wanted to show appreciation for the brand through this Web site, the company attorneys didn’t care. In the end, the man was forced to pull down the site. And, that was that. Until anger started to boil up inside this “fan,” and he completely changed his views about Crocs. This anger manifested in his developing a site called www.IHATECROCS.com. And, of course, he now was pushing out only negative stories and vibes to those same fans about this brand that he once cherished.

Other companies such as FedEx and Dell have had very similar experiences as well.

The other day, my business partner and I received the email below. We created a completely fun, post-holiday Star Trek spoof video (in the spirit of our agency’s personality). The video was sent out to friends and family of Peppercom and posted on our Web site. You’ll see this CBS attorney (which owns the Star Trek brand) was actually very polite and tactful in her letter to us. Which is very much appreciated. CBS has every right to protect its brand rights in Star Trek and clearly its attorney is making sure that this is enforced to the letter of the law. Personally, I have no problem with it.

But, the question I ask is whether companies like this are doing more harm by protecting the brand from any type of infringement (even when the other party isn’t trying to profit in any way from it) versus allowing the brand to build more excitement and fans through our new digital world? Common sense dictates that the more Star Trek is seen by consumers, the more these same consumers will be interested in buying products, going to their trade shows and watching the latest Star Trek movie. That all adds up to more $$$ for the owner of that brand.

There isn’t an easy answer here. But, I’d love to hear any thoughts you might have on the topic

Dear Sirs: 
 
I write as attorney for CBS Studios Inc. ("CBS"), owner of rights to the "Star Trek" franchise (collectively, the "Series").  These rights are protected by numerous copyrights and trademarks in and to the Series, the characters, the ships and other elements thereof (collectively, the "Star Trek Properties"). 
 
We appreciate that the success of the Star Trek Properties is enhanced by the interest of its dedicated fan base.  However, as a public relations firm, your company understands that CBS is obligated to enforce its rights in the Star Trek Properties to guarantee the Properties’ continued success.  In that regard, CBS is sensitive to consumers' desires to communicate and share information about the Star Trek Properties, and we seek to strike a balance between encouraging legitimate use and discouraging unauthorized infringement of valuable rights.  For example, CBS has numerous licensees worldwide who offer a wide range of products and services, all of which are carefully monitored for compliance with its licensing program to ensure the quality, authenticity and integrity of all goods and services associated with the Series.  In addition, CBS objects to the unauthorized commercial use of the Star Trek Properties, as well as the posting of protected material such as audio or video content, content from official websites, photographs, artistic renditions of the characters or other properties, music and sound files, and books or excerpts therefrom. 
 
It has come to our attention that your company has distributed a video utilizing the Star Trek Properties (http://vimeo.com/8707511) (the " Video").   While we appreciate your firm's interest in the Star Trek Properties, we are concerned about your use of the Properties as such use may be deemed violations of CBS's rights under applicable copyright and trademark laws.  It appears that the Video was limited in scope and timing.  We therefore request that your firm take steps to remove the Video from your website, vimeo.com, and any other website which your firm controls and confirm that your firm will refrain from using the Star Trek Properties in this manner in the future without prior written consent from CBS.
 
We trust that you understand CBS' concerns and will comply with our request.  We would appreciate receiving your written confirmation of your compliance within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter.  Should you need any additional information or wish to discuss this further, please use the contact information provided below. 

Nothing in this letter shall be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any right or remedy possessed by CBS Studios Inc., or any other affected party, all of which are expressly reserved.
 
Mallory Levitt
Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property
CBS
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
ph: 212-975-3633
f:  212-975-0114
Mallory.Levitt@cbs.com