Network news ratings are decreasing, and TV news credibility has reached an

In other words, I don’t think it’s because the networks are doing a bad job, or that all things human are sitting in front of computer screen searching out news information.  No.  I believe it is more important to think about how an average person decides whether something is real or fake, credible or invented, live or edited, natural or rehearsed, then it is to worry about where they get their news from.  And I think conventional news organizations are missing this point and worrying about the wrong things.

In fact, I believe network and local news organizations could be actively taking advantage of these new information processing mechanisms and building them directly into their daily news strategies. First let’s consider the current modes of news operation and what actually is taking place in the minds of consumers.

Two Models of News Presentation and Information Processing

In order to understand the differences which have occurred in news information processing, let’s begin with the current news model.  Here are the key elements of the network operation.

• Gatekeepers of information make closed door decisions about what is newsworthy and what is not.
• Information is compiled, edited, and disseminated in discrete news segments and sound bites.
• News is presented at specific times during the day and night.
• Broadcast newscasts are slick, professional, and designed to impress both the viewer and competitive stations.

Now here is the new media information processing model.

• Information is crowd sourced to the masses in order to produce user-generated content from thousands of street level reporters.
• Audience members edit information according to their own user profiles dictated by personal preferences, interests and needs.  The most popular stories are dictated by users and not gatekeepers.
• Information is continuously updated and available 24 hours a day.
• Newscasts have a “hand held” grainy live feel to them.  Real life takes the place of repackaged and edited events.

Implications for the Future

Whether we like it or even acknowledge it, a new form of information reality is the new benchmark of news credibility.  Oddly enough, the more slick the presentation, the lower the credibility.  There is a reason why people sit in front of a televised car chase for hours.  There is a reason why TMZ and other reality based gossip news outlets are flourishing.  People want to see it for themselves.  Uncut, unedited, and live.  Raw and real.  While some are building this kind of production reality into their news organizations, others are busy building new set designs.

Network news operations actually have the unique opportunity to create a totally live environment, and generate a feeling that they are EVERYWHERE.  I would think of it as their own version of Google Earth.  The vision would be one of a news operation that allows the viewer to see, experience, and go anywhere in the world to get a news actuality any time of the day.  This would mandate two important strategic decisions.

The first is to believe that user-generated content is not necessarily useless generated content.  That requires a huge paradigm shift at most news gathering operations.  We don’t have a staff of just 20 reporters; we have a community of millions of reporters.  The second strategic decision is to believe that media convergence requires convergence not only between the media and the audience, but also between ALL things media.

In other words, TV outlets would be required to cross-platform radio, print, and of course the Internet, in order to provide a ubiquitous entry point into their interactive second-by-second version of their “Google Earth” news operation.  This becomes a virtual reality of all things news in your community.

So watch the news tonight.  Tell me if you get the feeling of user interactivity, global convergence with all other media forms, and a viewer dictated democracy of content and subject matter.  Or instead, do you get a slick TV presentation that is actually an updated version of a network news format that Huntley and Brinkley invented in the early 1960’s?

The battleship needs to be turned around.  That may take some time, but I don’t think becoming obsolete is an option.  The reality has changed.  The media isn’t the message.  The viewers, listeners, and readers are the message.

Feeling depressed? Need some automated music mood evelators? 
Then check out

Plug yourself into the mood wheel and become automatically emerged into a world of stimulating music based on your own musical emotional profile. 

How about a stream of musical associations?  Pandora will find artists and music that matches your primary preferences and lead you into a grab bag of new artists and maybe even some older tunes you may have forgotten about.

But what about your friends?  What the hell are they listening to and what do they recommend?  Go directly to Last.fm or iLike and go deep into a musical social network.  I mean how hip is that?

Music isn’t what it used to be.  I think that is for the better.  However the atomic bomb proliferation of music has made it increasingly difficult to understand how one can make a single dime in this oh so fragmented industry.  My humble suggestion is to first understand how it is consumed by the public and then try to make some decisions about how to invest in the future.

I think there are four major music consumption models to take a look at:

• Music by Correlation - Tell me what you like and I will find more.  Pandora is the leading example of this.  In this case, you are trusting the experts to code the musical database into discrete categories that will allow a computer model to spit out like associations.
• Music by Association - Join the musical community of your choice and share stories, tips, reviews, and updates on your favorite bands or artists.  Check examples of this out on Myspace or Last.fm.
• Instant Access Music - More, more, I want more!  Dig into the world’s largest pool of assembled music and pick out what you like.  Slacker.com claims to have about 2.5 million tunes to choose from.  Spotify, the European music service, will soon be offering free access to 5 million tunes in the US.
• Shared Music Experience - Music programming by somebody somewhere, and shared by passive listeners who form a listening community.  Old school radio comes to mind, as does satellite radio, and the zillion more Internet radio stations popping up on the worldwide web.  Certainly live concerts and performances would also fall into this category.

Of all the above, the Shared Music Experience has the longest legs.  It has been around since the caveman banged two sticks together to create a rhythm around the campfire.  There is something inherently grand about listening to music as a group…and not by yourself.  It’s why radio and live performances endure amidst a gigantic array of alternative choices.  It is exactly what is human about the music listening experience.

My money’s on the media that has lasted the longest.  50 years from now people will still be passively listening to music programmed by somebody else…and loving it.

 Hey…has he gone crazy? Steve Jobs recently announced the development of the newly designed Apple Nano complete with a built-in FM tuner. He must be crazy to build an old technology like radio into a new technology like the Nano.

The new Nano has some cool new features, like Live Pause that allows you to pause your radio, and fast forward as well.  But more importantly, there is a feature called Tagging that lets users tag, preview, and purchase songs they like when they sync their Nano with iTunes.  So the obvious becomes transparent.  Radio exposes consumers to the music, and the Nano Tagging feature drives listeners directly to Steve Jobs iTunes, which happens to be the number one music retailer in the world.  Radio sells the music, and Apple collects the checks. Bingo.

But I think there is more to it than that.  Take a look at the chart below of “Daily Media Hours by Media Source”:  

Source: 2008 TVB Media Comparison Study

Are you surprised to see that radio accounts for around 23 percent of the average media time spent by Adults 25-54? That exceeds the average time spent on the Internet!!  With the addition of a radio tuner on Nano, Mr. Jobs has the ability to further tap into people’s daily media habits…and make a ton of money from it.  The radio industry isn’t too upset about it either.  Nano FM Tuner = Bigger Radio Audiences.  Radio has always been a portable medium, and it is not surprising to find that it has once again morphed into the latest portable technology.

New personal media devices and mobile telephones become even more personalized when people can localize the content, listen to local radio stations, and local announcers, local traffic and weather, local and national sports, local news information, and even local advertisers.  Yes, people want to hear about sales, discounts, and ways they can save money…locally.

Plus radio is free. Free works. Free is an outstanding media model.  And free will continue to keep radio alive and well for many many years to come.  Radio has moved from AM transistors, to stereo FM, to Internet radio, to Apple Nano’s, and onto mobile telephones. Radio provides free local content that is available in the car, in the office, on your Nano, and on your mobile telephone.  The old media has become new again.  And radio continues to be an important part of daily life even in a media abundant society.  Thank you Mr. Jobs.

It’s almost like hitting the delete button on your computer. One second it’s here, and the next it’s gone. That’s how fast local newspapers across the United States are evaporating into thin air.

Here’s the latest scorecard for the major players who have either already filed for bankruptcy or continue to face financial woes.

New York Times & Daily News
LA Times
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Chicago Sun Times & Chicago Tribune
The Detroit News
San Francisco Chronicle
Miami Herald
Philadelphia Daily News & Inquirer
Rocky Mountain News
Seattle Post Intelligencer
The Boston Globe

So what went wrong?  Do we really need to discuss the obvious reasons?

• classified dollars go to the Internet
• the spiraling costs of home delivery
• diminishing interest in the printed word among the younger demos 
• giant overhead expenses 

You know the story. Yet newspapers still generate giant gross revenues compared to other local media forms. They still have strong brands, and according to most research, people still believe that the printed word has more credibility than the broadcast word. But local newspapers are dropping like flies.  I think there is more to it than the obvious.

I would like to suggest that newspapers forgot what business they were in. Let’s go back in time and recall the original premise for a newspaper. Here it is: Current, and up to date information.   That is correct.  The original newspaper brand promise was “we will deliver you up to the minute breaking news that is accurate, in-depth, and complete.”  But once the press found out that their product could be sourced out on a computer screen, they went into the deep freeze of brand management.

Instead of using the Internet and/or other media forms to deliver “up to the minute in-depth information”, they just recreated their newspapers on the Internet.  Worse yet…they gave it away for FREE!!!  What the fu##???  Give it away for free?

If instead they had worked hard to use the Internet, texting, twittering, and ANY form of media (including radio and TV) to provide the hands down most up to the minute, in-depth information in the market, they would still be in business.

But no…they decided to just duplicate their valuable product in electronic form and give it away for free.  They panicked and thought the Internet was their enemy and not a competitive advantage that could leverage their brand.  They thought about the object and not the consumer benefit.

Need proof?  Let’s take a look at the latest marketing campaign from the Miami Herald.

What marketing genius came up with this non-relevant campaign?  First, this campaign has nothing to do with consumer benefits.  I don’t really give a damn if the Miami Herald weathers the economic storm.  I want up-to-date news information that is the best in my local market.

Second, the positioning line (Then, Now, and Always) has nothing to do with a consumer benefit other than an empty promise that the Miami Herald is not going out of business.  What does that have to do with up-to-date news information?  Nothing!!

And finally, where’s the proof in this spot that the Herald is going to deliver important information to me faster, better, and more accurately than what I can get for FREE?  Stop the presses and roll the credits.  The Miami Herald is going to be toast if they continue to spend money on this nonsense.

Want more proof of a completely lost Miami Herald brand promise?  Take a look at this current TV spot.

Clueless, utterly clueless.  Tell me about breaking news information.  Talk to me about comprehensive local coverage.  Show me how I can get this information through multiple media sources, and then WOW me with superior writing and reporting that I should be willing to pay for.

I really don’t care if the Miami Herald is there “Then, Now, and Always.”  That sounds like something that should be on a Valentine’s Day card.  All I care about is fast, accurate, and easily accessible news information.  Not just an electronic duplicate of the Herald on line, but instead a state-of-the-art multimedia platform that I can take with me everywhere.

“Fast, Accurate, and Immediate…The Miami Herald.”  Does that work?  I think so.  Now they just have to deliver on the brand promise.

   

That’s exactly what WSVN-Fox 7 in Miami did.  They accused Nielsen of “recklessly, arbitrarily, capriciously” understating the audience of their local and national programming.  To be more precise, The Fox 7 10pm Newscast lost 50 percent of their viewers, and the all so popular American Idol took a 29 percent drop!  Ed Ansin, owner of WSVN said: “It’s a very bad situation…it’s a very bad situation.”

Fox 7 places the blame on Nielsen for introducing the metered home methodology last October.  In the past, Miami had been a diary based ratings system.  The new in-home meters automatically detect what a household is viewing, and then data is shuffled back to Nielsen headquarters via phone lines. TV stations contend that the metered homes produce higher ratings for the cable channels and much lower ratings for the locally broadcast stations.  Sure seemed to be the case for WSVN-TV who reported a loss in the neighborhood of $1 million per month, and a reduced station value of $100m in the past six months.  That’s according to Sunbeam, the parent company of WSVN.

Oh but wait….there is more!  The Sunbeam lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Miami also claims that Nielsen is in violation of both federal and state antitrust laws.  They claim this antitrust activity allows Nielsen to “charge supra-competitive prices for poor quality service.”  They state further that “Nielsen’s monopoly in the market for television ratings gives it the power to control price, output and quality.” 

But you know what?  WE created this mess.  By establishing a system whereby broadcasters share in ONE universally accepted ratings system, we have cast our lot in stone. The fact of the matter is, ALL the ratings services have a ton of error in them.  The question is, what kind of error do you want to tolerate?  These ratings companies have return rates that are in the range of 25 to 35 percent.  That means approximately 7 out of 10 viewers/listeners will NEVER agree to participate with Nielsen or Arbitron.  That means never ever.  Next time you are cocktailing with your friends ask them if they ever pick up the phone at night and agree to participate in a survey.  Now you understand the truth about the ratings. 

So when the ratings game changes…which in this case means going from diaries to meters, the error changes.  Minorities error may increase, local TV audiences may decrease, time spent viewing/listening may increase, etc etc.  We go from one system of error to another.  But at least it is universal.  Isn’t that a relief!

The really interesting thing about this lawsuit is the antitrust aspect of the claim suggesting that Nielsen is a monopoly.  You’re damn right this is a monopoly.  It’s a monopoly that is propagated not only by Nielsen and Arbitron, but further supported by broadcasters and advertisers alike.  Like I said….we the people choose to have one and only one ratings service to make it easier for agencies to buy our product.  

But recently the antitrust waters have become choppier with the arrival of the Obama administration. According to the New York Times, Obama’s top antitrust official, Christine Varney announced that this administration intends to “restore an aggressive enforcement policy against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share.”  That could spell trouble for the giant single corps like Nielsen and Arbitron that have a headlock on media rating services.  So stay tuned.  And do remember that once you make your bed, you have to lie in it (no pun intended).

Dr. Ted’s reply: First, congratulations on creating an online daily newspaper.  Local is what it is all about and you guys seem to get the joke.  Getting advertisers to jump into the web is difficult because even though you exceed print metrics, the metrics required for Internet ads are extraordinarily high.  Big city newspapers have millions of weekly page views and they can’t seem to find a way to monitize their efforts.  You are finding the same problem.

Why not instead use the multi-platform sell to value ad your radio spots?  Try using Internet ads that create value with coupons or specials available only via the web?  That will help convince advertisers that Internet ads actually do work. 

Isn’t it strange that a print ad may get half the readership but 10 times the ad cost?  Advertisers like to see and feel what they are buying.  As a fan of traditional media…thank God.  Don’t give up.  You are a step ahead of the competition and building brand strength for your media products.

Early in 2009, TiVo announced the further development and expansion of their Stop//Watch Ratings service.  Because hard wired TiVo television sets track second by second TV viewing back to TiVo headquarters, we now have a means of instantaneous audience feedback. The implications of this are either very cool or very frightening….depending upon your perspective.

Let’s start with the cool part.  If you have a second by second EKG of your viewers, you can make some very smart changes to programming based upon the tune in or tune out (or in this case maybe fast forward) indicators.  Boring programming elements can be avoided, initial program hooks can be measured, or the players in a local newscast can be given an electronic “approval rating”.  Joe the sports guys goes, and RoxAnne the weather girl is a keeper.  All based on the second by second audience data provided by TiVo. 

Here’s the frightening part.  Not only do you get measurements of actual programming elements, but you of course get measurements of how many viewers skipped through the spots you just sold to your client at a premium.  Good for the advertisers, but not so good for the broadcasters who fight the good fight.  One more method to get beat up on rates.  I have not looked into this, but I am assuming all the agencies get the Stop//Watch service for free, and the broadcasters pay through the nose.

But do keep something in mind.  TiVo subscribers differ from the general population in some known and unknown ways.  For example, I would suspect the TiVo user to have a higher socioeconomic profile than the non-user.  There could be geographic differences, TV usage differences, attitudes about TV spot differences, etc etc.  Just having a gigantic database (in this case a sample of 100,000 subscribers for the ratings service, and 20,000 for the socioeconomic data service) does not necessarily make it better data.  Sampling error is error, plain and simple.

But still…. imagine watching your TV audience come and go, back up, and fast forward…all in real time.  Cool indeed.  Very cool.

So we have a last minute bailout for Sirius/XM with John Malone riding in as the white knight.

Mel ends up with $530m in bailout dough, and life goes on. But satellite radio has deeper problems that begin and end with the paying customer. Because if current subscribers don’t renew, and economically challenged new customers don’t come into the slot….all the bailout money in the world will not slow the eventual demise of a technology that is already outdated. 

Creating a Technological Leap

Satellite radio has not created a technological leap for the consumer. Think of it this way. How many current subscribers could live without satellite radio? Hold onto this thought and ask yourself the same question about other technologies that may have created a technological leap for you.

Could you live without your cell phone? How about your IPod? Some refuse to ever give up TIVO or DVR technologies. Can you get by without your laptop? Compare these needs to the need for satellite radio.

Satellite radio is nice to have but not required to have for far too many current subscribers. The fact that many customers feel it is a want and not a need is going to create huge problems down the road for Mel Karmazin. I need to have my IPod, my computer, my cell phone and my TIVO. I certainly can live without a $12.95 per month Sirius invoice. The technological differential between satellite radio and other “can’t live without” technologies is just too great a divide.

I also believe satellite radio is an already outdated technology. Commercial free streaming of music via mobile technologies will one day make satellite services obsolete. Will you pay for in-car satellite service when you can plug your cell phone into your car and receive digital quality uninterrupted customized music for free? The early adopters already have their home computers wired into their home stereos. These same people will have their cell phones plugged into their cars and wired for the world wide web of music. And these early adopters are the core subscribers to Sirius/XM services. They will soon be gone.

Finally “free” is an outstanding business model. Napster created one of the largest technological leaps in history when they offered free music file sharing with a click of the button. Free radio still commands a lions share of music listening. Sirius and XM have a combined subscriber base of 20 million listeners. That reach barely exceeds the radio listenership in New York City alone. Total radio listenership in the US is around 230 million. Free music is a strong need. Paying for music is a luxury.

OK OK….before I get hit over the head from Satellite Junkies. Yes it’s great when you live on an island, or go boating, or sit in your car or truck for hours at a time. Yes it is a great place to find out about new music, or listen to sports, or go deep with Howard. The variety of programming can be wonderful.

But wonderful enough to support $ 3.25 billion in debt? Wonderful enough to create a technological leap that equals a cell phone and places you into the “I can’t live without it” world of need??? Maybe for some of you. But definitely not enough for all of us.

The business model is broken. The consumer model is broken. The technology is old.

RIP Sirius/XM. All the money in the world won’t save you from a very weak technological leap of faith.

ps…go to this link to get a feel for the consumer side of satellite radio installation. Compare these complexities to your IPod, your laptop, your cell phone, or your TIVO.

pss…John Malone has his own plans for satellites, for Sirius, for XM, and for Mel Karmazin, and I don’t think it involves a pay for the music subscription model.

Miller High Life found out the hard way that their brand stood for almost nothing. In fact most people only knew it was an inexpensive beer. Too many people didn’t even know it was still was around!! Sales had declined for 3 straight years.

Then they decided to give the brand some soul. They decided the beer should stand for a way of life. A way of thinking about culture, society, the economy, status, and the right way to live the “high life”…Miller style.

With this campaign, Miller High Life has stopped a three year downward trend. Tom Long CEO of Miller Beer says the campaign debuted in November of 06, and customers are repeating the ads storyline to their friends. The word-of-mouth buzz is strong. He credits the Miller High Life reversal of fortune to the “Taking Back the High Life” TV campaign.

Here’s what really happened. Simply put, Miller Beer gave The Campaign of Bottles Beers a soul. They gave it a simple product identity. And it hit their blue collared, beer-drinking male targets right between the eyes. “There’s no cover charge to live the high life” pretty much says it all. And it sure does resonate loudly during these hard economic times.

So put your own product to the test. Does it stand for something? Does it represent an attitude about a lifestyle and a way of living? Can your customers easily tell you what it means to be (in this example) a Miller High Life drinker?

And most important of all….do you stand for something that matters in the year 2009? Has your brand promise and brand personality become outdated? Or maybe it’s time for you to add some soul to your brand?

These are difficult times for marketers. However, when one door closes, a new door opens. For example, I am guessing that during these tough economic times, people will be searching for an economic beer that makes sense. A beer that shuns $11.50 hamburgers, velvet ropes, executive box suites, 22 ft limousines, and kangaroo meat hamburgers. Out with the cover charge and in with the high life!!!

Try this exercise. Create a Bill of Rights for your product. Make a list of what your product stands for. If you need some tips on what this means…check out The Miller High Life Bill of Rights.

Someone once said that a brand is “a promise you make to your customer.” Miller High Life has taken it to the next logical step. Their brand is not only a promise to their customers, it is a credo for living. I bet Miller continues to live “the high life” in 2009, while others may be scrambling to find any life at all.

       

Can wearing a Michael Phelps $550 LZR Speedo make you swim faster?

When you see an Apple logo will you become more creative? 

At least that’s what researchers have found in a recent study published in The Journal of Consumer Research.  Their findings show that respondents who were subliminally exposed to an Apple logo rated higher on a creativity task than those who were not.

These “halo” effects of brands are interesting. If they can have an impact on measured levels of creativity, they sure can have an effect on behavior. What that means is favorably viewed brand images should enhance ratings and audience loyalty over time. This study suggests people want to be associated with things that will make them perform better or feel better.

I am always surprised at how little time is spent on understanding media brands. Have you gathered a group of your customers together and shown them your logo or call letters and asked them to talk about what they mean? What is the personality of your logo/station? Are these personality traits something your target audience admires? In this example…..I want to be creative thus I want to have an Apple computer. I want to swim faster, thus I must have a Michael Phelps Speedo. Or maybe…I want to be smart so I read The Wall Street Journal? It begins with the kind of brand image that Apple, Michael Phelps or WSJ have cultivated over time, and how well these images are matched to the needs/wants/desires of their target audience.

Or consider this. The logo of your brand or your brand image may create subliminal effects in your readers/viewers/listeners that are working to your advantage….or to your disadvantage. If they are working to your advantage, this research suggests your money may be better spent providing maximum “casual” exposure. That is, place your logo in passing situations where defense mechanisms are lower and not as deliberate. This non-screened logo presentation may be more cost effective than expensive TV commercials are that screened out by your audience. The subliminal branding effects can work to your advantage!!

What I do know is this. Even under the most damning conditions in terms of outcome….people still want to be associated with a winning brand. Take golf for example. No matter how many state-of-the-art Nike golf clubs I buy, or Nike One balls I tee up, or Tiger Woods hats I wear…. my swing will NEVER look like this.

But I still keep on trying, and keep on hittin em out of bounds, and of course…I keep on buying that Nike gear. Yikes.

Note: To listen to the NPR interview with the researcher who completed this study, click here Apple Logo Stimulates the Brain.