TV Missionary

Relevant News

Television news is a cash cow. Relatively inexpensive to produce, highly qualitative audience, generally DVR proof. The challenge for networks and stations is maintaining relevancy.

Network affiliated TV stations are at highest risk. Time relevancy is killing newspapers (v. internet) and it threatens stations as well. Late news (10P or 11P) sports and weather is old by the time it airs. Local interest stories break most often during daytime hours and are more timely at 5P or 6P. National stories have already been over analyzed by the cable networks.

Cable network news is losing its edge in two important ways. The 24-hour news cycle is not really 24 hours. AC360 airs live on CNN at 10P and repeats itself at 11P, followed by a Larry King repeat at 12M. Secondarily, TV news divisions are entertainment divisions first. To say the news programs are more about the personalities than the news is a vast understatement. News bias through personal and political agendas becomes transparent very quickly (Glenn Beck).

Truth seekers can still get the facts more quickly and accurately on niche TV news programs and via other media. Network and TV station "news" is losing its relevancy but it sure is entertaining. Catch Maddow last night? 

Yahoo Widget: New toy for early adopters?

The new Samsung LED TV 7000 now comes with the Yahoo widget engine. The Yahoo widget engine is an application that allows for television viewing and web surfing on the same screen at the same time. I think the majority of television content will continue to be viewed on "monitors" just like the Samsung 7000.  In other words on HD TVs (large and small) in living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, etc., as opposed to our laptop or desktop computers. (Broadband video content now accounts for only 2-3% of all video viewership.)

The problem with the Yahoo widget in the TV is that while web surfing and broadband video viewing on computers works for some, when you flip it around (as the widget technology allows) it gets lost in translation. The HD TV viewing experience is too dang good.  Why buy the 52"-er to look up baseball statistics..even if you're watching a baseball game?  If that's what you're into you can just as easily (maybe more so) watch the game on TV with your laptop, get this, on your lap. If you've ever observed a fantasy football player on a Sunday afternoon in October you'd know what I mean. 

Ultimately I could be wrong. We owe a lot to the early adopters who, driven by curiosity, just don't care if it makes sense to the rest of us.

It's Segmentation Stupid

All politics is local and most national advertisers could learn something by studying recent presidential television advertising campaigns.  Let's face it: are there any brands more "national" than presidential candidates?  

Campaigns know who we are, where we live and study our behavior intently.  They use digital media to leverage behavioral targeting but they are expert at geo-targeting as well.  As CNN (and others) demonstrate through state of the art graphics, swing states are won/lost in swing districts, swing zip codes, etc.  Districts and zip codes can be closely matched to sub-DMA cable systems.  If we sorted swing districs/zips by how closely the candidates are in the polls then ranked them by spending on a CPM it would all become clear. They know how local national really is.

Many national brands have an equivalent geographical skew.  They know this and act according to the television industry's legacy thinking. They buy spot television.  They may even be aware that they can further segment but here is where I think the industry lets them down. How should it be executed and what is the price/value relationship v. spot and network alternatives?  The media themselves can better solve execution. At last sighting I think the 4As was still debating a unified currency. If it takes much longer smart clients will create their own, use third parties and we won't need a single syndicated source.

Television Upfront

I'm surprised we're even talking about an upfront this year.  The economy is hanging by a thread and marketers are spending their budgets sparingly and judiciously. Maybe that's the point.  The old tried and true.  You can't go wrong placing your chips on network television. Low CPMs, and the ability to use the upfront market to lock into the networks most promising programs.  Right?  No.

In a consumer contraction it becomes even more important to reach the right consumer. There's even more waste than ever because folks are buying fewer cars, less clothes, less of everything.  I don't even think clients and their agencies are suffering from counter-intuition. Everyone knows this.  Then why act against one's interests? 

They just don't have enough reasonable options.  While the TV industry debates CPM, CPP, C3, one currency, etc., the lifeblood (clients) are dying. The perennial dance will go on.. and it's the best we can offer right now. There's ample behavioral data that can be applied geographically and through program targeting that should have already rendered A18-49 useless and obsolete.

Hopefully we can do better soon.

Quality, Quality, Quality

Interpublic Group Mediabrands Division today issued a revision to its 2009 ad spending forecast.  All the news was bad, and probably correct.  You know the details.  Here's what I found interesting.  Their research suggests that consumers are willing to give up cable TV and landline phone but not broadband access.

On the surface this seems like bad news for the cable TV industry. I don't think so.  The cable viewer is already a better consumer than the broadcast-only viewer.  Under recessionary circumstances the quality of the cable viewer as consumer will grow exponentially.  Yes the linear TV marketplace is contracting. Advantage cable.

What are our Priorities?

There were easily 3 dozen articles or links to marketing articles/blogs in my in-box today.  After sifting through in order to focus specifically on media, and more specifically on television I was able to cull it down to about 10.  Topics included media creativity, buyer discount expectations for the upfront, and Turner's reorganization.  Worthy issues indeed. But how critical?

The success of our medium hinges on the adaptation of a modern currency. Now. I finally got to a MediaPost article about the 4A's panel on a proposed spot television currency shift from CPP to CPM.

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=101768

At the end of the day, literally, the two agency honchos couldn't agree.  My point is that almost everything else is a distraction.  It's the banking system.  The currency.  Get it?  

What Would Google Do?

I just picked up Jeff Jarvis' book What Would Google Do?  It's less about the inner workings of Google than using the company as a metaphor.  According to Jarvis, Yahoo and AOL are old media companies.  They are web companies for sure but they act like old media.  If-you-build-it-they-will-come as opposed to "the internet is a better, cheaper way to engage with my customers.  

It got me thinking: how old is old?  Millions of media dollars were spent today in an effort to reach Adults 18-49.  We always knew that most 18 year olds don't consume like 49 year olds but heck, Nielsen convinced us it was close enough.  How in the world is this still happening today?

How old are you? 

Everywhere is Nowhere

Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner CEO, is afraid that (free) video distribution via the internet will kill the network television model.  The thinking goes that as web video viewership increases, "television" viewership decreases...ratings decline..as does ad revenue..until the networks can't afford to develop content.  There are many who agree with him.  I don't.

Right now only 1-2% of broadcast content is viewed "free" on the internet.  Free, of course does not mean they didn't pay for it.  There is no distinction as far as a network is concerned between a cable-, satellite-, or telephony-subscriber and what used to be a rabbit ears viewer.  The all counted, and were monetized via TV ratings.  

I don't blame Bewkes, TW owns media distribution through both cable and internet.  The networks have it wrong on two fronts.  First, that internet viewership is a substantial threat to "TV".. The TV experience is so dang good.  That's what 46" HD is for.  Second, that providing truly free content is what killed newspapers.  It was the experience on the net that was better, not the cost.

So, if you pay your cable MSO you can watch their content for free on the internet.  It's a non-starter to me.