REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Super Bowl = Super Ad Showcase

 

CBS says ads for Super Bowl LIII are more than 90 percent sold out, with just over two weeks to go.  And title sponsorships have been sold for each hour of pre-game and post-game shows.

Marketers are shelling out more than $5.2 million for a 30-second spot.

CBS expects the extravaganza in Atlanta to bring in $500 million, topping the $414 million that NBC earned for last year's Super Bowl.

Understandably, CBS will milk the event for all they can get.  Starting at 11:30 a.m. eastern, with seven hours of pre-game shows.  They'll be covering the game with 115 cameras, including four with live augmented reality graphics.  CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus says the broadcast "will look as innovative as any broadcast in history."

For many people, Super Bowl is as much about the ads as it's about the football.  Top advertisers this year are automotive, beer and beverage, movie studios and technology companies.  Returningf advertisers include Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, Doritos, Avocados from Mexico (even with tariffs), and WeatherTech.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

Mixed news on the media landscape

 

The papers have been reporting some mixed media news...two encouraging items and one discouraging, although not at all surprising.

On the positive side, Tribune Media has called off its pending sale to Sinclair.  I'm happy to see that, since the sale would have created an enormous media company with a strong conservative bent to the news it broadcasts. 

Sinclair already forces the local TV stations it owns to air brief news updates within local newscasts that have strong right-leaning and not always accurate opinion disguised as real news.  The purchase would have added 42 more stations to the the 181 it already owns, giving it coverage in 70 percent of the U.S., plus cable outlet WGN Worldwide, which Sinclair planned to convert to a FOX-like conservative channel.

The deal was called off after the FCC chairman voiced concerns about side deals Sinclair was making to enable it to continue to control the content of several stations the company had agreed to sell off in order to meet FCC standards for competition in some major markets.  Sinclair was trying to bypass rules that encourage competition and help prevent one media company from controlling content -- in this case, news content -- in individual markets.

Another encouraging piece of news is the report from the New York Times that its digital subscription base and revenues are continuing to climb, offsetting losses in print advertising.

The Times says digital subscriptions went up by 20%, to a total of 2.9 million. Add the 900,000+ print subscribers, and the total is now up to 3.8 million subscribers.  The increased subscription revenues helped the Times have 2nd quarter profits that exceeded analysts' expectations.  "Failing" New York Times?  Hardly, thank goodness.

On the disappointing front, a new poll by Axios shows how the White House's constant demeaning of the media is having the desired effect, on his supporters at least.  Forty-three percent of Republicans, the survey shows, believe the president should have the power to stop media he feels are "behaving badly." One could reasonably assume, based on the president's tweets and rhetoric, that bad behavior includes being critical of the president, his policies and his allies.  "Bad behavior" might also mean reporting on possible presidential misbehavior such as conflicts of interest, conspiring with enemies of America, and telling just a few lies to the American people and to Congress.

Permitting that sort of presidential power moves us another big step toward fascism or tyranny be rather than democracy... something the president and his supporters seem to prefer, based on action and tweets. 

It's scary indeed, but we need to keep reminding ourselves that 43% of Republicans still means only about a third of all Americans, when you factor in independents.  The majority still has the power, but we need to remember that the power exists only if we vote.  Otherwise, we will continue to be held up by a powerful minority.

 

Who do you trust?

 

Despite the endless and increasingly desperate taunts by the president about fake news, network TV remains the most trusted source for political and major breaking news, according to a new study by the Video Advertising Bureau, reported by MediaPost.

Regardless of political affiliation, more than two-thirds of Americans surveyed said television is their primary and most-trusted source of information.

Newspapers appear to be the second-most popular source of information, slightly ahead of social media for most demographics except "blue collar," where social media takes a slight lead.

Social media continues to be a leading source of 'fake news,' fueled by political entities (Democrats and Republicans alike) and, as we now know, foreign powers like Russia who have been using misinformation online to fuel discord here and even impact our elections.  While the president constantly rails against the legitimate media, he has done absolutely nothing to have our government try to deal with that misinformation -- propaganda -- coming from our enemies via social media. 

That propaganda, and those putting it out there, are the "enemy of the people," not our media.

Quality Children's Programming on the Air

 

The chairman of the FCC has indicated plans to eliminate regulations requiring local TV stations to include on their schedules quality programming for children.

In the late 1990s, the FCC mandated that TV stations be had to provide a minimal number of hours  of "educational" programming aimed at young people.  This forced stations to drop or reduce mindless or violent animated programs, replacing them with shows that had a more educational nature, like wildlife stories, science-oriented shows and news magazines like "Teen Kids News," produced by my friends Alan Weiss and Marilou Yacoub.  On CBS on Saturdays, local stations air "The Dream Team" a block of kids shows like "The Open Road," dealing with environmental issues, and "Innovation Nation," promoting interest in science and technology.

Taking away the FCC mandate could endanger quality children's shows like these, enabling stations to replace them with cheaper reruns or paid programming -- infomercials.

The FCC chairman said he is making the move because children have access to quality programming on cable and pay channels.  But not all families can afford pay channels or cable, so why not make good programming available on free advertiser-supported broadcast TV?

I understand the concerns many have about too much government regulation of businesses.  But in some cases, like the FCC mandate on quality children's programming, along with recently rolled-back regulations that protect our environment or regs that protect consumers against bad banking practices, we need the government to step in to be sure businesses do what's in the best interest of the public.

It’s not governmental overreach. It’s common sense in the public interest.

What We Do: The Christopher Awards

 

It's not the Emmy's.  It's not the Oscars.  But in many ways, the annual Christopher Awards are more meaningful than the big industry awards, with all their glitz and glamour.

The Christopher Awards each year recognize the creators of work in TV, film and books that inspires and shows how each of us can make a difference.  It's always an honor and a humbling experience to work this event, filled with so many people who use their creativity for good.

At the 69th annual Christopher Awards ceremony Thursday night, the authors, illustrators, writers, directors and producers of 21 books, TV programs and feature films were honored.  Among them were author and historian David McCullough for his latest, "The American Spirit," and the writers, directors and producers of three films I enjoyed -- "Lady Bird," "Wonder" and "The Darkest Hour."  

Ken Burns, the prolific filmmaker whose documentaries on PBS have taught so much about history and ourselves, was honored with a Christophers Life Achievement Award.  His films have helped us understand and appreciate things and events as diverse as jazz, the Civil War, baseball, the Statue of Liberty and last year's 18-hour look back at the Viet Nam War.  Coming soon, he says, are films on the history of country music and profiles of Ernest Hemingway and Muhammad Ali.

In an interview we arranged for him last week with Catholic News Service, he compared making documentaries to making fiction-based films.  "Steven Speilberg can make stuff up; I can’t.  We’ve talked about this.  A good story is a good story, no difference between a documentary and a film."

Ken Burns certainly knows how to tell a good story, as do all the winners of the Christopher Awards.  Info on all the award-winners is here.

 

Photo:  Ken Burns, right, with Christopher Awards emcee Ernie Anastos, FOX5 New York anchor.  Credit:  Paul Schneck

 

Upfront Week

 

It’s probably TV’s biggest week, and it’s not even on the air.

Upfront Week, happening now here in New York, brings execs from ad agencies, media buying firms and advertisers together to hear from the networks (over-the-air and cable) about their planned fall schedules and their new and returning shows.  The Upfront presentations are giant dog & pony shows in high-profile spots like Radio City, Lincoln Center and Carnegie Hall, and the nets trot out their stars, putting their late-night hosts Jimmy Kimmel, Steven Colbert and Jimmy Fallon to work as emcees.

There’s big money at stake – upwards of $16 billion in advance commitments by advertisers to buy time in the nets’ primetime schedules next season.  Advertisers scramble over each other to buy positions in what they are betting will be the big hits next fall.   They’re afraid if they wait, they could get locked out of a hit show, or if they can buy spots in the fall, the prices will be quite a bit higher.  That’s been the traditional thinking that’s enabled the networks to keep raising prices for ad time, even as their audience continues to shrink.

Years ago when the late media buying guru Gene Dewitt was a client, I’d line up interviews for him with ad biz reporters at The N.Y. Times, USA Today, The L.A. Times, CNN and the ad trades, where he’d make his prognostications on which new shows would be hits and which would fail.  He also would decry the whole upfront process, claiming it pits advertisers against each other in a feeding frenzy that really only serves the networks -- pushing their ad prices higher.  For years, Gene used to predict the end of the upfront marketplace, encouraging advertisers to forego the hyped feeding frenzy and push back, demanding better programming, more audience data and an orderly structure for pricing and buying ad time.

And here we are, a dozen or more years later as the Upfront is again underway.

Stories in The Times (New York and Los Angeles) are reporting that this year’s Upfront could see only a small increase in sales – maybe 3% -- or even a decline of 2 or 3%.   

There are a number of factors converging to bring a change, not only in Upfront spending, but in ad spending on TV overall throughout the year.  One analyst quoted in the L.A. Times says it will go down by 2% this year.

What’s happening?

*  TV viewership is down.  Except for major sports and news events, TV doesn’t draw in the huge number of viewers that it used to.  The nation no longer tunes in, almost as a whole, to see Ed Sullivan on a Sunday night.  Primetime viewership over the past three years is down from 10% (FOX) to as much as 24% (ABC.)  Only NBC has seen an increase of 7%, thanks only to a bump last year fueled by its mega-hit “This is Us.”

*  We can watch what we want when we want.  And we can go to so many more places for news – 24/7 and even reflecting our own political biases, if we choose.  The amount of programming is mind-boggling.  Where we used to have perhaps 100 choices of scripted programs between the 3 or 4 major networks, we can now choose from more than 600 scripted programs on the networks, on cable and now on streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon, ready to play whenever we choose.

*  Add to the networks’ woes the fact that coveted younger viewers (the 18-49 demo) are watching less and less of anything on regular TV.  Many don’t even own a TV or they are not hooked to an antenna or cable.  They stream bits and pieces on their laptops, tables or phones... or their unconnected big-screen TVs.

So as the TV audience disappears and fragments, the networks hope to raise their ad prices yet again.  This year, the average $134,000 cost for 30 seconds on primetime was 6% higher than it was the previous season.  Even if it does go up again for next season, how many more years will advertisers keep paying higher prices for fewer eyeballs?

It’s not totally bleak for the networks.  The shows they produce bring in money for them when they are shown on other platforms.  And some shows that eventually go into syndication can be a golden goose for the producing network and/or the producing studio, often owned by the network or the network’s parent company.

And meanwhile, we’re in the midst of another Upfront Week.  With lavish over-the-top presentations and parties, it’s good for New York’s economy, if nothing else.

The Neighborhood

 

It's good to see that the U.S. Postal Service has issued a stamp a few days ago to honor a gentle man who was a hero and friend to so many young people who grew up from the '60s through 2000.

Fred Rogers, known to most of us simply as "Mister Rogers," was a fixture on public TV for nearly 40 years, starting locally in Pittsburgh, then on the CBC for a few years before launching on PBS in 1968.  "Mister Rogers Neighborhood" ran on PBS until 2001, two years before Fred Rogers' death at 76.

I had the chance to meet him and hear him explain why he kept his show soft and gentle and slow-paced, even as glitzy fast-paced programs like "Sesame Street" were getting all the attention and accolades.

"The space between the TV set and the young viewer -- those few feet -- is a holy space," he told the audience when he received a Christopher Award in 2002, just about a year before he died.  "It's a space that can be used to educate, explain and comfort a child, to let him or her know that it's ok to be just who you are."

When I heard him explain that concept, I realized why he kept his program low-key.  He was the friendly neighbor and a man kids could feel comfortable with, especially kids in homes without a soft and compassionate father figure.  The daily opening ritual on the show -- coming in the door with a smile and a soft hello as he changed from his jacket to a cardigan and from street shoes to sneakers -- put him on a different level with his viewers -- still an adult, but a non-judgemental one you could talk with and let your fears and insecurities out just a bit.  He was a man who could tell you, it's ok; whatever you feel inside, it's ok to be yourself.  

I was at the Christopher Awards in my capacity as the PR person for the annual awards program...something I've been doing for more than 20 years and which I'll be doing again in May for the 69th Christopher Awards.

That year, when the formal program ended, I had a chance to spend some time with Mr.Rogers.  A blizzard was raging outside and the car to take him to his hotel was delayed.  He was going to walk the several blocks to the hotel, dragging his big suitcase through the windy snow and slush.  I convinced him to wait, to stay inside until we were able to get a car. And we sat and talked.

In maybe 30 minutes or so, he learned from me that my father had passed away less than two years before and that I thought of him every day.  I can't even remember the questions he asked me -- but he made the conversation more about me than about himself.  He spoke in that quiet way that we all saw on TV for so many years, slowly and deliberately.  He told me he had been a minister and, along the way, found that TV could be a powerful tool to minister to young people. 

When I finally walked him downstairs to the car, he thanked me for the conversation and he said, "Your father must have been a special man, because he raised a good person in you."

I was blown away; in fact, tears came to my eyes.  And for days after that, I was sort of floating, feeling I had been in the presence of a truly special person, someone truly touched by God.

 

More on Fake News

 

Over the past several days, I’ve seen several stories relating in some way to how to deal with fake news.

A few days ago in the New York Times, tech writer Farhad Manjoo wrote about a two-month experiment -- getting news the old-fashioned way by reading about it the daily newspapers and not looking at online news or social media. The headline neatly sums up the outcome… “Opting for Yesterday’s News Today: Deep, Informed, Accurate and Inky.”

Getting his news mostly through daily newspapers via their print editions enabled him to get information more fully developed and reported, with fewer inaccuracies and errors. In other words, slower but the truthful, or at least more truthful. He also got insight and context that fast-breaking news coverage can't always provide. And by avoiding posts about news on social media, he says he missed out on the slanted and sometimes intentionally misleading representation of information that we’ve all fallen victim to online.

It’s a good read and it does make me wish we could go back to the way it used to be. I know we can’t – that genie’s been let out of the bottle. But it seems that we as a nation might be better off if we could go back.

...

About two weeks ago on C-SPAN I caught the last few minutes of a conference from London about fake news. There was talk of an effort in the U.K. to create grades of truthfulness or accuracy for digital media so users might have a better idea if what they are seeing is truthful or biased. I thought, what a great idea! I wish there was something like that to assess U.S. media.

So I was pleasantly surprised to see a story in The Wall Street Journal a few days ago. It was bylined by a former WSJ publisher L. Gordon Crovitz, and it said that he and journalist Steven Brill -- best-known as founder and publisher of American Lawyer – have started a company called NewsGuard that will rate news organizations and sites based on their accuracy, bias and other things that might impact their accuracy, including ownership and affiliations. Rather than relying on algorithms, NewsGuard will have real people monitoring news and what passes for news, rating media green, yellow or red depending on their truthfulness and transparency.

They plan to rate some 7,500 news brands that account for about 98 percent of traditional and online news in the U.S. It’s a much-needed thing that will help most of us see what’s real and what’s fake.

Of course, it won’t stop those who prefer to believe fake news because it lines up with their own viewpoint. But it should help the vast majority of us who do want accuracy and truthfulness in the news we consume.

...

And finally, as we speak of fake news, there’s something that Sinclair Broadcasting, one of the largest owners of TV stations nationwide with nearly 200 stations, is starting to do. Sinclair’s owners are conservative and have been inserting into local newscasts brief “must-run” segments reporting on national political news, but with a strong conservative slant that is not always a truthful slant. They also insist that their owned stations run “terrorism updates” that repeat and spread the latest conspiracy theories. The pieces carry no identification as “editorial” or “opinion pieces,” but are presented as hard and unbiased news stories.

And now, according to the latest reports in the trade media, Sinclair plans to have its local news anchors -- people who are known and trusted in their local markets -- read pieces echoing the complaints we hear from the White House, some Republican politicians and from conservative media like FOX that the “traditional media” like the networks and major daily papers are reporting fake news.

Even though these pieces are being labeled as “opinion,” it is still extremely harmful to our democracy and to the public interest to have on-air reporters and anchors demeaning other media and promoting the idea of them being fake news. According to a CNN report, many Sinclair TV stations news anchors aren’t happy about this, calling this forced move “manipulative.”

It’s unfortunate and it’s dangerous, since it further pushes the concept of our news media doing fake news, ironically from one of the media companies that has been most guilty of disseminating fake and biased news.

My advice… check to see which station in your market is owned by Sinclair and be forewarned.