To Drink or Not to Drink: Lowering the Drinking Age

CNN.com (www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/08/18/college.drinking.age.ap/index.html) is reporting that college presidents from about 100 of the nation's best known universities are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, claiming the current laws lead to underground, unsafe, and binge drinking on college campuses. One college president said the current law "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening the risks."

The age of legal consent to drink can be determined either of two ways: a federal law could be created for every state, or each state could evaluate the decision and determine what age was best for that state. In Colorado, the legal age of consent for drinking is 21.

MADD disagrees, citing research that a lowered drinking age will mean more fatal car crashes and more deaths from binging.

Which is it? Will a lowered drinking age mean more responsible drinking for our college students because they won't have to hide it? Or could it mean more indulgence in alcohol...more hangovers...and more trouble healthwise and with law enforcement.

Should Colorado have this discussion at the state level?

How much is it worth to you to respond?

Audience research is a significant element in communication. Promoters want feedback on their products, services, issues, or candidates, radio and television broadcasters want feedback for programming decisions, and newspapers want to hear reader comments on stories.
Public opinion determines success in a democracy so all entities need to know what their audiences opinions are in order to successfully move forward and prosper. In Mass Communications, we are acutely aware of how important it is for us to be willing survey participants. Perhaps the general population doesn't realize how important it is, but Mass Comm majors certainly understand the power of public opinion.
Audience surveying is now going online, of course, as is most communication. Regardless of whether the channel is an interpersonal moment with a clipboard at the mall, a print mail survey to your home, a telephone survey, or an email survey, a key question is what motivates you to respond?
Some options might be, how involved you are with what content the survey is covering, or current opinions you might have about the content you're being questioned about. Or it could be that you got caught at just the right time and felt like doing the survey.
But another option is some kind of actual INCENTIVE such as a free gift, or a coupon, or a percentage off, or any other kind of incentive.
What motivates you?
Do you think getting an incentive from a surveyor changes your opinion on the survey questions?
Do you think that getting something free might change one's opinion from negative to positive?

Beautiful Deal

U2 has just signed a 12 year deal with Live Nation (tour production, promotion, branding, etc.) - in U2 speak that translates to (fingers crossed) three more tours… 2009, 2013, and 2017. The band is expected earn at least $100 million in the LN agreement before 2020 (completely believable considering their 05/06 Vertigo tour grossed over $400 million).

In order for U2 to earn their $100 million, what kind of ticket and merchandising prices can we expect?

15 years ago, I was to trying to scrape together $40.25 to attend U2's Zoo TV Tour (in the Fall of 92 it was nearly unheard of to charge $40+ for a concert ticket - even Springsteen, the Stones, Elton, Clapton, and Prince were still in the $25 - $35 range).

Then, in 1994 Hell Froze Over - the Eagles reunited and the rest is history. The Eagles were the first arena rockers to charge (and the audience abide willingly) $70+ for a show ticket, and $30+ for a tour t-shirt. The Eagles sold out three nights at Fiddler's Green in the summer of 94 (55,500 seats total for the Denver stop) - tickets for that particular tour were very hard to come by, they sold out arenas all over the U.S.

If you consider that CD sales and concert ticket sales have tanked for most contemporary musicians (only a few artists seem to be making real money touring... the Stones, Madonna, U2, etc.) - is perceived "price gouging" the next logical step (continued escalation of ticket and merchandise pricing) to counter illegal music downloading?

I've never bought into the "artist is greedy" argument - perhaps we're getting a bargain... I would suggest the U2 live performance is worth every penny of $175 or $275 or whatever they are going to charge per ticket next year. Before you ask me to step away from the Kool Aid, take a sip... Did you experience the Zoo TV, Popmart, Elevation, and Vertigo tours? If you skipped one or all of them, you missed out.

Please share your concert ticket price, concert merchandise price stories. What is the most/least you ever paid for a great concert? Have you recently caved and dropped $35 for a t-shirt inside the arena? What would you be willing to pay to see Gilmour and Waters together, or Page, Plant, JPJ, and Bonham Jr. on stage? Are you planning on paying $375-$500 per ticket to see Madonna's rumored Hard Candy tour? Does illegal downloading have anything to do with concert ticket pricing?

Watch those f****ing expletives

That’s “fleeting” expletives, and the Supreme Court agreed on Monday (March 17) to hear arguments over the FCC’s policy regarding those slips of the tongue (see related article). The case revolves around two incidents during the Billboard Music Awards in which Cher (in 2002) and Nicole Richie (in 2003) used profanity.

The FCC applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case. Fox Broadcasting (responsible for airing the Billboard Music Awards) said the case will allow them “to argue that the FCC’s expanded enforcement of the indecency law is unconstitutional in today’s diverse media marketplace, where parents have access to a variety of tools to monitor their children’s television viewing.” But Parents Television Council President Tim Winter argues, “Such harsh, unedited profanity is unacceptable for broadcast over the publicly owned airwaves when children are likely to be watching.”

How far do you think our high court will go in this case? Do you think it should give the FCC more power to police profanity?

The New Media Presidential Race

Looking back at the 2008 Presidential Race historians and media critics are likely to note some dramatic shifts. One is the increased interest and participation on the part of young voters. The second, and clearly related, phenomenon is the use of new media technology by the candidates, their supporters, and their detractors. For a more institutional take on this phenomenon, check out the Politics Online Conference website. The two-day conference (March 4-5) is held in Washington, DC and has sessions with titles like Campaigning in a Web 2.0 World.

One example of consumer-generated new media in a supporting role is the We Are The Ones music video by the Black Eyed Peas’ will.i.am. The title comes from Senator Obama’s Super Tuesday speech in which he said, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” On the same website you can upload your photo to contribute to a picture montage of the video.

On a more sinister note, Matt Druge posted an image on his website of Obama in traditional Somali garb. Drudge reported that the photo was sent to him by Clinton operatives, who Obama’s camp accused of fear-mongering.

But these developments are just the tip of the iceberg. A couple of months ago YouTube partnered with CNN for a televised debate…the highlight of which was a question about global warming asked by a snowman! Someone uploaded a parody spot for Obama featuring Senator Hillary Clinton as Big Bro in the classic 1984 spot for Macintosh. And don’t forget Senator John Edwards feeling pretty. Before that was Obama Girl, who is now trying to cash in on her 15 minutes of fame with her own blog. And before her there was Senator George Allen’s “macaca” moment, Dan Rather’s “memogate,” Senator Foley’s sexually explicit emails to pages, Howard Dean’s scream, and the Lewinski affair brought to light by the Drudge Report. New media and politics…its a powerful, and potentially dangerous, combination!

Social Media and Advertising

When do we turn over the reins of advertising to the echo boomers?? Many demographers and social scientists have declared that this scrappy, wide-eyed generation is everything from cynical to naive to self-assured and techie. Are these the rascals who should be creating web-based advertising? Afterall, consumer generated messages have been all over ad-space for a long time.

So, consider these tips for marketing to Generation Y (gathered from Sara Malarchy at Associated Content)...."Echo boomers are...cynical, politically savvy, and opinionated, but their opinions are extremely diversified." She argues that Gen Y likes tech stuff, so "anything digital makes your product or company more appealing." Don't use mystery or curiosity, they want information. Their moms were in the workplace, not home with the kids all day, so nostalgia doesn't work. They trust online marketers, but can get taken easily because they trust too much. Answer their questions. Involve them. "...anything that seems new, advanced, and computerized."

So, aren't social media sites the best nesting spaces for such messages? Well, site members avoid them on some sites (MySpace, Facebook) as much as they can. They don't like many listservs that carry banners or other flashing connections. So what about blogs? Hey! Blogs!

Business Week just published a great piece on the realities of blogs....(and although I read BW often, thanks as well to the person who provided a copy of this great piece in yonder mailbox. Hats off to reporters Stephen Baker and Heather Green--who say:

"Go ahead and bellyache about blogs. But you cannot afford to close your eyes to them, because they're simply the most explosive outbreak in the information world since the internet itself. And they're going to shake up just about every business--including yours. It doesn't matter whether you're shipping paper clips, pork bellies, or videos of Britney in a bikini, blogs are a phenomenon that you cannot ignore, postpone, or delegate. Given the changes barreling down upon us, blogs are not a business elective. They're a prerequisite."

Assuming that Baker and Green are correct, how can we reach Gen Y readers/viewers through advertising messages. Blogvertising perhaps? What will it look like? How will it sound?

Tequila makes her clothes fall off!

A study recently published in the Journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine has affirmed what many of us already know… Hip Hop and Country artists love to sing and rap about liquor and drugs. Researchers reviewed the lyrics (279 songs total) of the top songs of 2005. They figured out that “Americans aged 15 to 18 listening to 2.4 hours of music daily, hear 84 musical references to substance use a day and more than 30,000 a year.”

75% of hip hop songs tracked in the study contained such references, along with 36% of country songs, 20% of R&B songs, 14% of rock songs and 9% of pop songs - alcohol and marijuana were the most common references found.

Lyrics like "Tequila makes her clothes fall off" and "Breaking down the good weed, rolling the blunt, ghetto pimp tight girls say I'm the man”… were common.

So… should we be concerned…should the industry play a more active role policing lyrical content in contemporary music? Should the FCC put broadcasters on notice and put some teeth on Yale Broadcasting v. FCC 1973?

Blame it on the Bottom Line

And here’s more fodder for the “newspapers suck” conversation …

Guerrilla journalist and rogue columnist Jon Talton shares his 2 cents on the demise of the newspaper industry at

http://roguecolumnist.typepad.com/rogue_columnist/2008/01/whats-really-wr.html

Talton argues that discussions surrounding this topic fail “to focus on the more significant reasons behind the decline in journalism,” which include:

• Creation of monopoly markets and cartels of newspaper ownership
• Consolidation of newspapers into large, publicly held companies
• Reduction in investment in the unique intellectual capital of newspapers: journalism
• Emergence of a conformist agenda
• Collapse of leadership
• Collapse of an unsustainable business model

Talton concludes, “Now the tailspin continues, and the damage to our democracy is hard to overstate. … It almost might make the conspiracy minded think there was a grand plan to keep us dumb.”

[Although the context is different, I couldn’t help but think of Neil Postman…]

Do you agree with Talton’s argument that these bottom-line issues are really why newspapers face so many problems these days? And do you agree with Talton that “the damage to our democracy” because of the weakening newspaper industry “is hard to overstate”?

Do newspapers suck?

A friend recently sent the following link to me:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/01/why-newspapers-suck-a-theory.html

The author, Ron Dreher, and his friend, magazine publisher Wick Allison, think newspapers are losing readers primarily because they are boring, and they are boring because of the writing style (i.e., The Associated Press style of newswriting).

"As I travel around the country, I always pick up the local newspaper, and inevitably the prose in the news sections is dry and bland," Dreher writes. "There's not much personality there. This is no accident. It's part of the mentality of American newspapering."

I don't share their opinion. I don't think straightforward AP style newswriting is boring at all. I don't read news stories to be thrilled by the writer's clever turn of phrase, and no lack of artful writing has ever deterred me from starting and finishing any particular news story.

In fact, when writers wax poetic in news stories, if only by their word choices, it can often make the news less than boring. It can make it downwright irritating, in the same way the squeal of fingernails on a blackboard can jar the brains of those hearing it.

Too many spelling errors, grammar errors, punctuation errors, syntax errors, as well as poor organization and incomplete information, have stopped me in my reading tracks far too often, and I think that kind of writing ought to cause readers to abandon a particular newspaper in droves.

But I don't think that's the phenomenon we're observing in the continuous decline of newspaper readership any more than I think it's a lack of brilliant prose that's turning off readers.

In fact, I'm not sure readers are turned off at all, yet newspaper readership is in decline nationwide, and everyone in the business is trying to figure out why.

I don't think Dreher's theory gives the industry a real answer or a real solution.

What say you?

FCC Claims Concerns with VNRs

The FCC anticipates increasing concerns in 2008 over video news releases which don't identify the source of the information. The issue involves public relations efforts that send video news releases to television stations packaging some promotion about a brand within the guidelines of a traditional news release.
The information should be truthful and informative or the television station isn't likely to air it and it looks to the viewer like a regular news story.

Okay, I'm admitting my PR bias and I'm going to explain why this isn't such a big deal.

"A new diabetes drug is on the market," the local anchor says..."Here's Jane Doe with some background." Then a video airs in which Jane talks about a new drug for diabetes, providing lots of information on its benefits to the sufferer. The information is truthful...the information is helpful to people who suffer from diabetes.
What the information isn't...is produced at that station. In fact, such information may be created by the diabetes drug manufacturer by a public relations team. The VNR promotes the new drug...so its sells...television stations get some good video on a newsworthy topic...the consumer gets helpful information.

Everybody's happy, right?
Not the FCC. The FCC believes the consumer should be told that the VNR is FROM the DRUG COMPANY. The argument behind this is the FCC believes the consumer should know when the information they're accessing is promotional to help the brand and its reputation, rather than the impartial views of a television journalist.

We've been reading news releases for decades from newspapers which don't identify that the news came from a source other than the newspaper. Print news releases are sent to newspapers daily with informative content of interest to the paper's readers.
CSU-Pueblo sends news releases out daily about all the important happenings at the university. The Chieftain staff and the local television and radio station staffs can't possibly come up here and cover all the news we've got to share on a daily basis. It's not LOGISTICLY POSSIBLE. CSU-Pueblo wouldn't get much coverage if the reporter had to personally come up here each time and write each individual story.
When you see a reporter's byline in a newspaper, it identifies the primary writer on the story. When you don't see a byline on a story, it could be because there were multiple authors...or it was a news release from the organization upon which the content is based.

It's standard protocol...it helps the media...as long as the content is accurate and truthful. What is the benefit of identifying every news release that comes into the paper or television station? If the media did, you might be surprised at how much of your news is generated by news releases. There's no other way to get newsworthy information to television and newspapers with such small journalist staffs.

The question is: Does this bother you as a consumer of news?

What can go wrong?

What can go wrong when pundits and pollsters report on elections? Everything, as the recent NH primary contest shows. There have been plenty of attempts to explain what went wrong, starting with questions about the poll's sampling frame. Just like the Dewey-Truman debacle nearly 60 years ago, phone polling biases may account for the bad data. In this case, pollsters may have failed to take into account the large number of "cell-phone only" respondents who skew younger and less conservative than those with land-line phones (see link below). Also, the early date of the primary meant that college students were still on break--perhaps out of state and less likely to vote.

But the real issue here for those of us who study the mass media is how did the news networks allow themselves to stumble once again in the rush to get it first? Yes, timeliness is a news value...but it should never trump accuracy. As former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw said, perhaps the news organizations ought to let the voters decide, then report on that!

If you're interested in the polling issues related to cell-phone users, check out this report from Pew Research Center for People and the Press.

Americans think Presidential Media Coverage is Biased and Trivial

A new Harvard study called the "National Leadership Index 2007" of over 1200 individual interviews (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership) found that 64 percent of Americans don't trust media coverage of the presidential campaign. Also, 88 percent believe the coverage has too much focus on trivial issues, rather than major policy discussions. The study found that 84 percent believe the media has too much influence on American voting choices. More than 60 percent believe that media coverage is politically biased. What do you think about media coverage of the presidential campaign? Do you access DIVERSE media content in order to balance any possible bias? Or do you only access media content which agrees with your political worldview? HOW are you getting your presidential news? Broadcast TV? CABLE? Online? Print?

Impact of Writers Guild of America strike?

How has the now three-week-old Writers Guild of America strike affected your network TV usage, if at all?

According to LA Times writer Richard Verrier, "The strike may also accelerate the exodus of younger viewers from broadcast networks, which have been losing market share to the Internet and other forms of entertainment." (See Verrier's full article here)

Are you tuning out of network TV more than usual these days because of the strike and a lack of fresh programming? Or had you already abandoned broadcast networks for other forms of entertainment?

Colbert for President?

Comedian and fake journalist Stephen Colbert, star of the Colbert Report, has officially announced his intention to run for the office of President of the United States. He will enter the Presidential race in his native South Carolina, where he intends to run as a "favorite son" in the January, 2008 primary.



I've blogged before about entertainers entering politics, but this time the line blurring TV persona and authentic candidate is nearly imperceptible. Remember too that there is an historical precedent. You may recall Laugh-In comedian Pat Paulsen who ran for president as a gag in 1968, and then like Forrest Gump couldn't stop running.

Is Colbert, the man who nearly had a bridge in Hungary named after him, who has a Ben & Jerry's icecream flavor called AmeriCone Dream, and who is the genius behind "truthiness" and "wikiality," just toying with us or is this more than a stunt? We should know more tomorrow, after the November 1st filing deadline.

Oh, but there is one little problem. Something called the Equal Time Provision may be interpreted to mean that Colbert will have to give up his cable TV show, or force Comedy Central to offer equal time to competing candidates. Hey wait a minute, that might be pretty funny...or not!