REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Trick or Treat

 

Americans will spend $9 billion on Halloween this year, says the National Retail Federation.

The group’s annual Halloween spending survey found 70 percent of us will celebrate, whether partying, attending parades or hayrides, trick-or-treating or just staying be at home handing out candies and goodies to goblins who come to the front door.

For kids, the favorite costumes will again be princesses for girls and super-heroes for boys.  Adults who dress up will favor witches, vampires, zombies and, of course, sexy nurses.  Even pets get in the act, with bumble bees, hot dogs and pumpkins expected to be the most popular doggie outfits.

The average store-bought costume runs about $45, the National Retail Federation says.

When I was a trick-or-treater, back in medievel times, most kids made their costumes -- usually helped by their moms.  I remember going as a ghost (in an old bed sheet), a hobo (in dirty tattered clothes and smudged makeup on my face), a witch (with a mop head for hair and a homemade cone hat).  The only store-bought item might have been a mask.

 

                                                             My grandpup Martin in costume

One year I went as a robot.  I had rescued a big cardboard carton, maybe from a refrigerator, and Mom  helped me cut out holes for my arms and head.  Dials and gauges were made from tin foil and my face was covered with silver-colored makeup.  It was pretty impressive.

But as I tried to get through the front door, I got stuck.  Although we had been able to squeeze the carton through when it was empty, once I was in it with my arms sticking out, it was too wide. 

It definitely hampered my candy collecting, but it was a Halloween I still remember.

It should be interesting to see how many, if any, homemade costumes I see in my doorway tonight.

 

A cautionary note: NHTSA says kids are twice as likely to get hit by a car on Halloween, so drive carefully and stay alert.

 

 

Words Do Matter

This post is personal, not political.

I am an American Jew.  Not a Jewish-American, but an American Jew. 

I am a 2^nd-generation American.  This country welcomed my grandparents more than 100 years ago when they came to Ellis Island in New York Harbor, fleeing pogroms and terrorism against Jews in Russia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.   

This country enabled my grandparents and my parents to raise their families in peace, with each generation moving up the financial and education ladder.  I was the first in my family to graduate from college.

As a kid, I sometimes felt isolated because of my religion – mostly around Christmastime when so many friends and neighbors put up decorations and trees and we sang Christmas carols in school.   Outside of the house or synagogue, I rarely heard any mention or acknowledgement of Chanukah.

By the time my children were in school, things were very different and people – at least here in the New York area – acknowledged that some of us held beliefs other than Christianity, and the shared values as well as the differences were celebrated.

I’ve been fortunate that, except for some stupid incidents when I was about 10 or 11, I haven’t faced anti-Semitism directly.  And even at 10 when I and some mostly Jewish friends were chased off a neighborhood ballfield by some Catholic school kids who threw rocks at us and called us Christ-killers, I held no grudge, since I had so many Catholic friends and neighbors who I knew would never condone such behavior and who always treated me and my family with affection and respect.

Despite feeling a part of this great nation, I’ve always had a nagging fear – way down deep – that what happened in Germany in the 1930s could happen here.  The Jews in Germany were assimilated, like Jews are here, and they were a vital part of that nation’s cultural and economic life.  Most of them felt what eventually happened there could never happen to them.

That’s how many of us Jews here in America feel.  We love this country and we cherish the freedoms it affords.  But we can’t ignore history and as much as I couldn’t imagine discrimination or worse for Jews here in America, deep down is the knowledge that to some, we are different and perhaps viewed with suspicion or even hatred.  Usually, I feel secure because civility and the law will protect me and my loved ones from anti-Semitism that might turn violent.

Now here’s the part that may look political, but I’m just speaking honestly…  The rhetoric that we’ve seen from the president over the past 3+ years has alarmed me.  If he talks hatred against Latinos and Blacks, we know what eventually follows… the Jews.  And in his rallies, he has made some statements that could be seen as dog-whistles for anti-Semites. 

The Anti-Defamation League has documented a startling increase in hate crimes against Jews in America over the past 2 years  -- up almost 60 percent in 2017.  Part of it is attributed to the tenor of the president’s talk. Words do matter.

Many people in public life and in government, including many Republicans, have called him out for talk that might encourage prejudice.  The nut-job who shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh Saturday didn’t take direction from the president, but he may have been emboldened to act by the hateful rhetoric, just as we’ve seen an alarming increase in violence against black people brought on by the rhetoric about “taking our country back.”  Back from who? 

I’m pretty sure we’ll feel comforted by an outpouring of sympathy and support from most Americans over these next few days.  The vast majority of Americans are horrified by prejudice and violence toward minorities.  (And yes, we Jews are a minority.)  But the sympathy and support and brotherhood must also come from our nation’s top leaders, and it must be honest support rather than hollow words mandated by the situation.

I’m an American Jew.  I would hope I and my loved ones will never be made to feel isolated from the mainstream because of our religious beliefs.  I would like to think it could never ever happen here in America.  But that’s something we all have to continuously work toward – all of us, from the top down.

 

Shorter is Better - For TV Ads

Shorter TV ads get more viewer attention than longer ones.  That's what research recently reported by Television News Daily says.

Ten-second ads get about ten percent more attention than 30-second spots, and 20 percent more than 60-second ads.

This doesn't seem like earth-shaking news.  To me, it sort of stands to reason.  A shorter ad is less of an intrusion. 

The challenge, though, for a shorter ad is you have less time to draw and hold the viewer's attention, and less time to get across a convincing marketing message.  Shorter ads might be used in combination with the more traditional 30s or 60s, which have the time to get across the marketing pitch, while the short 10-second spots can serve to keep the brand name out there and possibly remind viewers of the longer ads that have the full marketing info.

We've been seeing short ads -- some even less than 10 seconds -- on the internet for years as pre-roll for online content.  But for those online ads to be seen, marketers need to hook the viewer in the first few seconds so he or she will want to keep watching, rather than click on "Skip Ad."  That's where real creativity comes in... or not.

 

Caroll, Oscar and Big Bird

When I read yesterday that Sesame Street puppeteer Caroll Spinney, who created and played Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch, is retiring after nearly 50 years on the groundbreaking show, it reminded me of the time I met him (and Oscar the Grouch) ten years ago.

I've been doing publicity for he Christopher Awards for 20 years, and I was at the annual media awards program when Caroll was the presenter for the Childrens Books Awards.  He had previously won a Christopher Award, in 2004. 

Before he presented the awards, he told a story that touched me -- and it obviously touched him because he became choked up as he told it from the podium.

He told of a letter that came to the producers of Sesame Street from the parents of a young boy of about 5 who was dying of cancer.  He had lost the will to fight and was depressed -- never smiling.  The parents asked if it might be possible for the boy to get a phone call from Big Bird.

When the letter was passed along to Spinney, who seems to be a gentle and compassionate soul, he immediately agreed.  He said he called the boy and, in his Big Bird voice, spoke with him for several minutes.

A week later he received another letter from the parents, telling him how thrilled their son had been to get the call.  He showed excitement and smiled for the first time in weeks as he told his parents, who were at his bedside in the hospital, that Big Bird had called him and he was happy that Big Bird was his friend.  A few minutes later, he peacefully slipped away.

Spinney's voice choked with emotion as he told the story. 

I had a chance to chat with him for a while after the ceremony, and he said to this day he is glad that he showed compassion and called that boy.  As we talked about it, his eyes teared and he explained it still moves him, even after many years.

Spinney told me that Big Bird's role originally was simply to teach about letters and numbers.  But he realized the importance of teaching about compassion after he walked past a man on the street who he assumed was a derelict muttering to himself.  Something made him stop, turn around and ask the man if he needed help.  It turned out, the the man couldn't walk well and had been asking strangers to help him across the street.  Spinney walked the man not only across the street, but the three blocks to his apartment building.

The next day, he told the producers of Sesame Street that he wanted Big Bird to teach kids about feelings and compassion.  And after a while, Big Bird became the character who expressed concern about others' feelings.

After we talked for a while, I thanked him for taking the time.   And he said to me, "No. Thank you for coming over to talk with me."

And then Oscar gave me a hug.  How cool!

 

A note about Oscar...  At the after-party, Caroll stood quietly in a corner holding Oscar.   People -- grown-ups -- were lined up for a chance to take a photo with Oscar and as Oscar talked to them, every person spoke directly to Oscar the puppet, even as Caroll was speaking, with his lips clearly moving.  That's the power of master puppetry and of an impactful TV show.

Real Fake News

 

USA Today has been both praised and criticized for running the fact-deprived op ed by the president last week, where he talked about Medicare.

Some criticized the paper running it, since, as The Washington Post's fact-checkers said, virtually every sentence contained inaccuracies, exaggerations or straight-out fallacies.  Others criticized the paper for including links to fact-checking sites.

I understand that reputable papers usually fact-check op ed submissions when statements are presented as facts rather than opinion and if they are off base, the piece would be rejected or returned to the writer for corrections.

The editors at USA Today faced a tricky choice.  They had in their hands a piece by the president of the United States.  But they knew it was full of lies or errors. 

Do they refuse to run it?  Do they give it back and insist the White House correct it?  Or run it, with lies exposed and corrected?

I think the paper did the right thing by running it, with links to other reports that showed the real facts.  It let readers see the president's words while exposing them for the lies that they are.  False statements side-by-side with clear facts.  Let readers make their own judgement as to what's fake news.

Leslie Stahl also came under criticism from the right for her interview with the president, which aired on "60 Minutes" last night. 

 

From what I saw, she was doing her job as an objective journalist, trying to get at the truth.  She asked the president some tough and direct questions and didn't let him squirm out of them by changing the subject or throwing more falsehoods into the mix.  But now there's meme going around on Facebook saying how slanted the interview was.  "FOX & Friends" whined that the president was "peppered endlessly with questions" during the interview, as if Stahl  was doing something bad by asking questions and repeating or following up on them when they weren't directly answered.

When the fake news comes from the president, whether as an op ed or in answer to interview questions on TV, it should be called out for what it is -- lies.

Finally, the media is doing that.  Good for them and good for us.

 

Ads We Like and Those We Hate

 

My wife is participating in a focus group and as a prep question she was asked to list some ads she likes and some she doesn't like. 

We talked about it and we both agreed we love the "Dog Tested" campaign Subaru is running, showing dogs in various situations.  I could watch those ads over and over and, in fact, I've stopped the fast-forward on our DVR so I could watch one of those ads for perhaps the 20th time.

The other question was: what ads do we hate?

Two insurance ads topped out list.  Aflac, for the annoying Aflac duck.  At least they don't use Gilbert Gotfried's grating voice any more, but the voice is still annoying. 

The other ads are the seemingly non-stop pitches from Geico.  Some are funny the first time and maybe even the second time.  But Geico, which is by far TV's biggest advertiser, has them running all the time and everywhere, it seems.  So we hate them because of overexposure.

Now to the key question... Would I buy a Subaru because of the ads, and would I not buy coverage from Geico or Aflac for the same reason?  Hard to say, since many other factors would be in play.  For a car, it would be things like price range, style and comfort, reputation.  For insurance, it would be price and reputation -- reputation not based on the ads but on word-of-mouth regarding how they respond when you have a claim.  But, all other things being equal, I would avoid a company whose ads I hate.  I've done it before with banks.

 

 

 

Diversion

 

With so much big news grabbing headlines -- the Kavanaugh confirmation, tariffs and trade wars, the Mueller probe, kids held captive at the border... and the latest tweet-of-the-day -- it's easy to get distracted from other happenings in our government that could impact is in way large and small.

For instance, it looks like Congress just quietly approved another tax cut for the super-rich.  While most of us won't feel it directly, the cut means yet less tax money coming into the Treasury, pushing the deficit even higher.  Who pays the interest on that?  Might the government feel the need to fill the gap by borrowing against Social Security or cutting some of those benefits most of us do or will rely on?

And here's something else that's happening right under our noses.  The Environmental Protection Agency continues to have its legs cut out from under it. Regulations that protect our rivers, our air and our national parks are being rolled back in order to make it easier for businesses to exploit resources or maximize profits. 

Profits for business are good, but not totally when they come at a frightening cost to us, our children and future generations.

The latest thing that may be happening as our attention is diverted is a plan to abolish the EPA's Office of the Science Advisor.  The department's function is to counsel the EPA and its Administrator on the scientific and health impact of actions being considered by the EPA. 

The Center for Science and Democracy with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group, says that "everything from research on chemicals and health to peer-to-peer testing to data analysis would inevitably suffer."  A spokesman for the union that represents some 900 EPA employees calls the move "an attempt to silence voices...to kill career civil servants' input and scientific perspectives on rule-making."

The Administration clearly places little value on science, as evidenced by the president's frequently calling global climate change a Chinese hoax.  Unfortunately, it's not a hoax and many experts say we are very close to a tipping point where the amount of carbon in our atmosphere will unalterably lead to rising temperatures that will set off a climate chain reaction that could -- if not in our lifetime, certainly in our children's lifetime -- make earth unable to sustain human life.

That's a scary picture and it's one from which we can't let our attention be diverted.