my 2 cents

40 Years of Excellence

One of the most famous and most-loved streets in the world celebrates 40 years this week.  It's not Broadway or Fifth Avenue here in New York, nor the Via Veneto in Rome or the Champs d'Elsee in Gay Paree.

It's Sesame Street.

Unlike most people, I came across Sesame Street not as a kid or a parent.  It was the summer of 1970 and I was finishing work on my Master's thesis, with books and note cards surrounding me on the living room floor.  I needed to take a break one afternoon at 4, so I put the TV on and this kids' program had just begun.  I was about to change the channel, but something about the show caught me and I watched it all.  And I watched it again the next afternoon and the next. Thus began my almost 40-year relationship with Sesame Street.  I was entranced by the fast pace, the captivating Muppet characters, the diversity of the human cast and the overall intelligence and humor of the show.  And they had big stars of the time as guests on the show, singing with the kids or with Big Bird or Kermit -- names like Richie Havens, Judy Collins, Bill Cosby, Buffy St. Marie. 

I became a regular watcher again about 14 years later, when my daughter was old enough to begin watching it.  I was a hit with her and her friends because I could imitate the voices of Cookie Monster, Oscar the Grouch and Grover (my favorites), as well as passable mimics of Bert & Ernie and Big Bird. I remember around that time how nicely they dealt with the real-life death of the man who played the storekeeper, Mr. Hooper.  Instead of just pretending he'd moved away and closed his store, the show dealt head-on with death and the emotions that come with it.

And about six years later, I began watching Sesame Street yet again, with my son.  Around that time I had my first real-life encounter with Sesame Street.  I was representing a client at a luncheon at Channel 13.  I got there a few minutes late, and everyone was already seated.  I was shown to a table, sat down and everyone introduced themselves.  When the man next to me turned, shook my hand and said, "Hi, I'm Bob McGrath," I acted like a star-struck teenager.  "Bob!!" I shrieked much too loudly.  One of the (human) stars of Sesame Street, sitting next to me at lunch!  Unbelievable.

We had a nice chat and I told him how I had first discovered the show while working on my Master's paper.  He laughed and told me he's heard many similar stories, and that Sesame Street has always, right from the start, had a very big following among college students.

About a year later, I attended the opening of a McDonald's in Rockefeller Center.  Mickey D's was a client, and they had just started their first Happy Meal tie-in with Sesame Street.  Jim Henson came to the opening and I had the chance to talk with him.  I had no idea what he was saying to me, because I was so distracted hearing Kermit the Frog's voice coming out of the mouth of this tall, bearded grown-up.

Fast-forward another ten years.  I was handling p.r. for The Christopher Awards (still a client) and a puppeteer named Caroll Spiney was being honored for a children's book he had written.  Most of us have no idea who Caroll is, but we all know two of his most famous characters -- Big Bird and  Oscar the Grouch.  I got to hang out with Oscar after the ceremonies, when Caroll so graciously and patiently obliged a long line of adults who wanted the chance to get their picture taken with Oscar.  When I had my chat with Oscar, I found myself, like everyone, having conversation with the puppet and not the elegant, white-bearded man holding Oscar.  It was amazing to see adults revert so quickly back to childhood with Oscar.

And last year I hit the mother-load.  Childrens Television Workshop was being honored with a Christopher Award for so many years of excellence in children's TV, and most of the Sesame Street cast was there.  I again met Bob      McGrath, along with the actors who play Gordon and Luis.  I got to play with my old pal Oscar, and I met my grandson's favorite -- Elmo.  (That's me in the picture, with, from left, Bob, Oscar and Caroll.)

Over the past 40 years, I've had many encounters with Sesame Street -- both in front of and behind the TV screen.  It's been fun, on both sides.  I hope many more generations of kids all around the globe will have the chance to learn about letters and counting and about life from our friends on the world's most famous street.

NBC's big gamble... Will it pay off?

Monday night at 10 p.m. will be the start of "do or die" time for NBC, as The Jay Leno Show debuts.  NBC has been hyping it heavily and I think a lot of people are rooting for Jay to succeed.  He comes off like a nice guy... an "everyman" sort of fellow, and most of America wants to see him do well.

The new show is a gamble for Leno, who's been at the top of the late-night heap for years.  But as he's made clear in recent interviews, he feels he doesn't have anything to prove and if the show should stumble, he can still make a very nice living doing standup in Vegas and/or in big venues around the country.

The real gambler is NBC.  They've been justifying the move by talking about the profit factor, saying they can make money even with lower ratings because the cost of the Leno show is way cheaper than scripted dramas or comedies. 

But there's another factor at work here -- the local affiliates, who need a strong 10 p.m. show as lead-in for local newscasts, which can be the real moneymaker for the stations.  So even if Leno succeeds in profitability terms for the network, if the ratings are down significantly, it means fewer eyeballs tuned to NBC that might hopefuily stay tuned when the late news comes on.

That could cause an uproar from the affiliates.  Some might eventually try to put other programming in at 10, rather than carry the Leno feed on the network.  NBC brass could have a mutiny on their hands.

What can we expect?  I'm sure the new Leno show will have strong ratings at the start, especially with guests like Jerry Seinfeld.  The real test will be after a few weeks, or maybe a few months, when the newness has worn off and people start migrating to other shows.

Topical comedy will draw people, but it may not be enough to bring people back five nights a week.  Maybe if Jay allows his on-air humor to be a bit more biting, people may tune in to see what he has to say on the day's hot topic.  But what about days when there's no big, hot issue or news item that has everyone's attention.  Every day can't be a giant news day a la Michael Jackson, Bernie Madoff, Bill Clinton and the blue dress, etc.

And he'll have to have guests who we don't see all the time on the usual talk-show circuit, hawking their latest movie or book or CD.  Leno's bookers will have a real challenge.

Like most of America, I wish Jay Leno luck in his new gig.  I'll be watching next week, like many of us.  After week 2 or 3, I'll probably become an occasional Leno viewer, depending on who his guest is, what else is on the tube (and that includes the hundred-plus cable channels, pay-per-view or whatever I've DVR'd), or if I'm engrossed in a good book or on the computer blogging, twittering or just surfing the web.

Quite a challenge for Jay Leno and NBC.  It certainly will be interesting.

The magic demos

We all know how advertisers seem to crave the magic demographics -- people between the ages of 18 - 49.  That's what's most sought after by TV advertisers.  That's what the networks tout to marketers -- how many people in the 18-49 age category they reach.  The rest of us are just "bonus" viewers.

Maybe that made sense 20 - 30 years ago, but as so many of the boomers have moved well past the top edge of the magic demos, we're still spending money (current recession notwihstanding).  College has been paid for, the kids have moved out and are (hopefully) self-sufficient.  Except for those who were raped by Madoff, we've put money away for retirement.  So now, we spend chunks of our income on ourselves -- new furniture to replace the tired stuff that the kids wrecked over the years, nice vacations for just the two of us, maybe a new car that's selfishly indulgent, like a sports car or convertible rather than a family-friendly SUV or station wagon. 

The boomers have money to spend and we're spending it.  And yes, we buy Coke and shop at WalMart.  Ok, maybe we don't frequent McDonald's or The Gap, but we're out there shopping.

Craig Ferguson, host of CBS' Late Late Show following David Letterman, has, in my opinion, the best monologues of the late night crew.  His recent rant about advertising's magic demographics is hilarious, but it's also right on target.  He makes a lot of sense.

I'll let Ferguson speak for himself.  Click here...

Whad'ya think?

 

Man on the Moon: That's the Way It Was

It does seem like a long time ago, but I can't believe that tomorrow it will have been 40 years since man first set foot on the moon.  When I realize how many of these 40-year old major news stories (Woodstock, the Beatles first appearance on American TV, the Kent State shootings) I can remember, it makes me feel old -- or at least to wonder how did so many years pass so quickly?

The lunar landing took place late in the afternoon on July 20, 1969.  I had just graduated college and was home for the summer, awaiting the start of grad school.  So I had the luxury of being able to sit in front of the TV to watch the event unfold.  But those who were working that day gathered in front of TVs and radios to witness the once-in-a-lifetime story.  No computers, no Twitter back then through which to share the experience.  TV was king.

The vast majority of Americans watching the lunar landing on TV saw it on CBS.  The newscast on the Tiffany Network had a share of nearly 65 percent that day.  It wasn't because CBS had better camera angles or fancier graphics.  People tuned to CBS because "America's most trusted man" was guiding us through the event --  Walter Cronkite.

As I watched "CBS Sunday Morning" today, I was reminded of how many big news stories Walter Cronkite took us through.  His was a voice of calm that seemed to help us get through even the toughest stories -- the assassinations of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, the craziness of the Viet Nam era, Watergate.

I wonder how he would have reported on the financial meltdown last fall, the GM bankruptcy, the recession and all the job losses.

Cronkite ruled the airwaves when it was a much smaller news universe.  Back then, we got our news from the morning papers and the evening network newscasts.  There were no 24-hour newscasts on cable or even on radio yet.  When we thought of computers back then, we pictured warehouse-size air conditioned rooms filled with rows upon rows of machines with whirling tape drives.  The internet -- what?

In an old interview, Cronkite admits that TV news was always, to a  degree, a bit of show business.  But he and his producers remembered that, above all, it was news business.

And that's the way it was.

 

Is it news or show biz?

I'm afraid I already know the answer to the question above, but it's frustrating when you tune into the local morning news on TV and you get so much fluff.

The Daily News today called out two local morning TV reporters for less than professional moves.  Good Day New York's Ann Craig, on FOX 5 here, was doing a red carpet interview with Cameron Diaz for her new film "My Sister's Keeper" and she asked the actress how she manages to keep her "Heinie" so tight.  Diaz started to walk away and then told her, "I guess I'm just lucky."

Diaz may have a nice "heinie," but is this information relevant to the film?

And then WPIX entertainment reporter Emily Frances, who I know and like, slipped with a curse on air.  That's not the issue for me; it's that it happened while she was playing a game with a C-list celeb, running an obstacle course in the studio hallways.  Maybe the celeb had nothing of substance to talk about, so the producers thought a stunt would be a better use of precious morning news airtime.

I know the morning shows need to have some entertainment value, but...  Maybe this is why more people are going to the web for their news updates.

Media in the News -- My Take

Jay Leno and Non-profit Newspapers

The media IS the news in two stories making the rounds.

The TV and ad trades reported that Jay Leno, in his new 10 p.m. incarnation this fall, will focus on one guest per show, with guests coming more from the world of politics and current events than from entertainment.

Depending which media pundit you listen to, reviews are mixed as to how good an idea this is.

I think it's brilliant, as long as Leno's bookers can get interesting guests.  Good, lengthy chats with newsworthy people will draw an audience, whether they watch it live or later on DVR or VCR (yes, people still tape shows).  I think that type of format can do better than a primetime version of what Leno's been doing since Johnny Carson retired.  The standard late nite talk shows with the same corral of celebrities pushing their latest show or movie or book will get tired very quickly at 10 p.m.

Talk with interesting, relevant people will get people to watch, live or later.  NBC wins either way.

---

Another story in the news is the proposal, which began as a joke but now is picking up steam, made by Maryland Senator Benjamin Cardin suggesting that newspapers function as nonprofit businesses as a way to remain alive.

I wrote about another version of this idea, just about a month ago.  In my post "The Next Bailout," I suggested newspapers might turn to philanthropic sources for much-needed capital.  I cited examples like PBS and NPR, who rely largely on support from philanthropic foundations as well as from the public and the government.

Sen Cardin takes the idea to the next step and, to me, it makes a lot of sense.  Let newspapers have the option of organizing as "low profit limited liabilty companies," which would exempt them from the burden of taxes and permit them to take money (Sen. Cardin calls it "investment") from nonprofit organizations and, possibly, from the government.  It would also place limitations on whether they could accept advertising and, if so, what type of ads.  For instance, ads for liquor or tobacco products or political candidates or political issues might be forbidden.

Sen. Cardin, as reported in Media Daily News, said the measure "is targeted to preserve newspapers serving communities and not large newspaper conglomerates.  It may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains, but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat."

I've said it here many times.  Newspapers are a vital part of our democracy.  Any idea that can keep them alive and doing their job sounds good to me.

An example of great (not) customer relations

Television Week and Ad Age ran stories last week under the headline:

TV Networks Resist Discount Requests from Advertisers

Advertisers struggling through tough times and tightening budgets have been asking the networks to reduce their rates, whether for ads bought in advance during the upfront market last summer or for scatter ads being bought now.  For most marketers who use national TV, media costs make up the bulk of their marketing budget.

Advertisers are, understandably, trying to stretch their ad dollars.  But the networks are exhibiting an arrogant and short-sighted "take it or leave it" attitude, claiming there's enough demand now for them to hold the line on their prices.

Have the network sales execs taken soie pages from Detroit's playbook?  Never mind what the customers (advertisers) want.  Give them the same old thing at higher prices.

As the recession continues and budgets get tighter, many experts are predicting that the nets may be facing a much less robust market for the 2nd quarter.  Weaker sales in the spring could impact the prices they'll be able to get in the next upfront market in June/July.  With so many channels out there, some advertisers who feel railroaded by the major networks may just put their money elsewhere, like on other cable nets where the sellers are showing some cooperation and understanding of their customers' situation.

The networks are a business too, of course, and say they need the added revenues from higher ad rates to enable them to produce content that viewers and advertisers want. Does that mean more reality shows and more Leno in prime time?  Both formats are much less costly to produce than scripted series.

I'm seeing forecasts that network revenues will be down by 7 - 10 percent in 2009 as ad spending continues to tighten.  So is the solution to charge more for fewer viewers?

TV may remain king for a long time, but online media continue to make inroads.  Ignoring customers' pleas for help hardly seems like the way to build relationships and loyalty, which may come in handy a few years down the road when TV isn't still the advertising king.

It's good PR -- and good business -- to say Thank You

My mother taught me as a child to always say thank you when someone does something for me or gives me something.  My parents had a retail store -- children's clothing -- and they trained me to say thank you whenever a customer paid me.  To this day, the habit sticks and when a cashier or store clerk gives me change, I still say Thank You.

Showing your appreciation by saying thank you is more than common courtesy.  It's good business, good customer relations and, in some cases, good public relations.

Stuart Elliott, in his weekly New York Times e-column, writes about one example of saying thanks.  The N.Y. City Mayor's Office of Film and Broadcasting earlier this month unveiled a public service campaign to thank New Yorkers for hosting film and TV production in their neighborhoods.  "Hosting" is a polite way to put it, because in many ways we New Yorkers "tolerate" the inconvenience of having streets or sidewalks closed off while location shooting takes place. 

I must admit -- I often used to get an attitude when some kid with a walkie-talkie would politely ask me to wait or cross the street while a scene was being filmed.  I used to feel, "who the hell are these people to take over an area and inconvenience all the rest of us working people."

And then, several years ago, a film crew took over my neighborhood at home as Penny Marshall was filming the Drew Barrymore-Brittany Murphy feature "Riding in Cars with Boys."  The crew people were so nice and polite and genuinely thankful for being allowed to come into our neighborhood to film.  My neighbor, whose house was used for several exterior and interior shots, got more than $30,000 for the inconvenience, along with new shrubs and wallpaper.  We let them use our home as a "green room," so we got $2,500 along with an open invitation to eat at the craft truck.  We also got to meet a nice bunch of crew people and actress Brittany Murphy, who fell in love with our dog, who was just a puppy then.  They even hired our son to assist with traffic control.

Our son later got a degree in filmmaking from Emerson College and now directs music videos.  We've seen him doing location shoots, and it reinforced our realization that the film crews are, for the most part, a nice group of (mainly) young people trying to earn a living from their craft.  They don't assume that because they have  a film permit they can run rampant through people's neighborhoods.  The vast majority of the crews are very appreciative of the public's tolerance.

So it's a smart move -- both good public relations and good business -- for the New York City Film & TV Office to run a campaign that thanks New Yorkers for their  understanding and, in the process, makes them aware of the amount of revenue film and TV bring to the city.

More than 100,000 New Yorkers, including many of my son's friends and classmates who now work in film here, are employed by the industry.  More than $5 billion is pumped into the New York City economy every year by film and TV.

So the city is trying to remind us with a PSA campaign.  Hopefully, it will make more of us a bit more understanding the next time we're inconvenienced by a location shoot.

We New Yorkers benefit in many ways.  Film and TV work helps the city's economy.  And it's fun to see neighborhoods we know on TV or the big screen.  It makes us appreciate and love our city even more.

 

ABC muzzles we

The We Can Solve It Campaign, a project of The Alliance for Climate Protection -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort founded by Nobel laureate and former Vice President Al Gore -- got muzzled by ABC TV Tuesday night.

The goal of the Alliance is to build a movement that creates the political will to solve the climate crisis -- in part through repowering America with 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources within 10 years. Our economy, national security, and climate can’t afford to wait, the group says, and I believe them after seeing Gore's film on global warming two years ago.

The We Can Solve It campaign wanted to run an ad, which they were prepared to payt for, to air immediately after the Presidential debate.  "Repowering" America is the message in the ad... and then some.  The ad also attacks big oil, saying they spend millions on lobbyists (true), ads (true) and even scandals (perhaps.  I don't know) to block legislation.  

It's ironic that the network lets the candidates take potshots at big oil in the debates, but they won't allow a non-profit group to run an ad. 

Cathy Zoi, CEO of We Can Solve It, sent out an email explaining what happened.  She wrote:

"ABC had Chevron. CBS had Exxon. CNN had the coal lobby. But you know what happened last night? ABC refused to run our Repower America ad -- the ad that takes on this same oil and coal lobby.

I sent a letter asking ABC to reconsider their decision and put our ad on the air, but still we haven't heard back more than a week later."

Here's the ad's script:

    The solution to our climate crisis seems simple.
    Repower America with wind and solar.
    End our dependence on foreign oil. A stronger economy.
    So why are we still stuck with dirty and expensive energy?
    Because big oil spends hundreds of millions of dollars to block clean energy.
    Lobbyists, ads, even scandals.
    All to increase their profits, while America suffers.
    Breaking big oil's lock on our government ...
    Now that's change.
    We're the American people and we approve this message.

You can view the ad by clicking here...

I can understand the execs at ABC not wanting to upset some very big advertisers, especially in the current advertising and economic climate.  But since they use the airwaves -- the public airwaves -- are they right to limit discussion of a critical issue?  

The networks run ads that slam competing products.  They run ads by politicians slamming their opponents.  Why should they be allowed to prohibit a legitimate non-profit group from putting its viewpoint out there?  Pressure behind the scenes from big advertisers?  Or just fear in the ABC boardroom that such pressure might be exerted or ads might be pulled.  Either way, it sounds exactly like what the ad says is happening.

We Can Solve It probably could have gotten the ad on the air if they were willing to hold back on some of the punches and soften the language and accusations critical of the oil companies.  But would the message have had the intended impact?

We Can Solve It just might end up getting more views and discussion because ABC refused to run the ad.  It's bound to be talked about online in blogs like this, via email and eventually it may well get picked up in the mainstream news media.. except, of course, ABC.

Some interesting ironies and challenges at play here, wouldn't you say?

Should the TV networks replace ad agencies?

Should the TV networks replace ad agencies? 

That's the question raised by "Media Rules" author Brian Reich (no relation) at a recent New York Media Information Exchange Group session reported by Advertising Age yesterday.

Brian at says the TV and cable networks know what their audience wants, while at the other end are the marketers who know their product best.  Why, he asks, do we need to have ad agencies in the middle who (Brian's words) know only half as much about the audience and half as much about the product?

Shouldn't the networks work directly with the advertisers to craft the message, eliminating the ad agencies, he postulates?

I disagree and I explain why over at MarketingProfs Daily Fix.  See you there.