Advertising & Obesity

American children have been supersized indeed. As recent films (Supersize Me, Fast Food Nation) suggest, the relationship between childhood obesity and fast food marketing may be a positive correlation of cataclysmic proportions. The World Advertising Research Center reports that 16% of American children are obese (not just chubby), and food/beverage advertising has been blamed for this undesirable growth in kiddy girth.

All fast food chain advertising has been under scrutiny in recent years for one thing or another--errant health claims, price point wars, distasteful creative strategies, unfair competitive claims, just to name a few. Rarely, however, do you see kids (in TV ads anyway) gorging on burgers or stuffing faces with french fries. Indeed, the fast food nutritionists have been busy finding new kinds of cooking methods to avoid trans fats, so the fast food emphasis has been on screen-size close ups of juicy burgers or happy families eating salads with Ronald McDonald.

The Federal Trade Commission is monitoring self-regulatory guidelines to avoid corporate squealing around health issues, but most fast food brand leaders are concerned about the longterm effects of boycotts, dietary changes, and the cost of changing the food chain paradigm.

The real question--from an advertising perspective--is how influential all this advertising for burgers, fried chicken and shakes? Does a commercial lead the horse (or child) to water (unhealthy food)? Is the messenger to blame?

I've seen the future... and the future is BLUE.

The Democrats have taken control of the House. There are two Senate races that are still undecided (as I understand it - the Virginia race is a “done deal” with a Democratic win, although the final results may not come out until December). If the Democrats can pick up two more Senate seats, they will obviously control the House and the Senate. Now imagine the 2008 election – and a possible Democratic win… a Democratic President, and a House/Senate controlled by Democrats.

What does all of this mean for broadcasters? If the Democrats run the show – what kind of regulation changes might broadcasters experience? How will Democrats handle issues of indecency, fairness, and programming?

Are you ready for CDA III?

Look into your crystal ball… how will it unfold between 2007 and 2012?

Google Radio, Google Billboards... coming soon... maybe.

Rumors have been surfacing about a possible Clear Channel buyout. CNBC recently reported that the Mays family had been approached to sell their controlling stake in Clear Channel to a private equity group. Several financial experts have suggested that Google is motivated to own at least a minority stake in CC. Adding fuel to the rumor mill, Google recently hired several “sales superstars” in New York, DC, and Chicago - these cream of the crop types have specific knowledge of major market radio sales.

Is Google good for terrestrial radio? Would Google add more or less diversity (programming voices not people) to the airwaves? How might Google influence CC’s Outdoor (billboard advertisement) presence on America’s Highways? Connections… YouTube and FM radio - possibilities, predictions…?

ITube, YouTube, WeAllTube

A couple of weeks ago I posted a short piece on my Interactive Media blog about the purchase of YouTube by Google. YouTube is one of this year's rags-to-riches stories...or at least for its founders. However, the rise of YouTube has led to speculation about the future of internet video and the demise of traditional television program delivery. Some have questioned the future of Consumer Generated Media, such as YouTube, because of concern about Digital Rights Management and current abuses of copyrighted material. Others have expressed concern over a possible shift from authentically consumer-generated videos to corporate messages, network promos, and even political ads (e.g., this one by Michael J. Fox). One question is whether consumers will continue to "tune in" if and when the content appears to be manipulated by commercial or political interest groups. Would you believe that some colleges and universities are using YouTube to promote themselves? (e.g., this clip). Hah, bet you weren't expecting that were you? :-) But did you listen to the first couple of sentences of the video? That script was written a couple of years ago, and yet it remains amazingly accurate in terms of the changes that we're currently experiencing. You gotta love this business...never a boring moment!

Happy National Freedom of Speech Week

This year, National Freedom of Speech Week takes place Oct. 16-22. (See http://www.freespeechweek.org/). One way to celebrate is to reflect on what freedom of speech means to each of us.

To me, freedom of speech means the ability to find -- whether in books, on TV, in newspapers, on the radio, on the Web -- messages that can make me feel angry, courageous, cowardly, creative, encouraged, happy, inspired, shocked, sad, uneasy. It means being both amazed and bewildered by the brilliance and the stupidity of the human mind. Freedom of speech means creating learning opportunities from messages my 7-year-old daughter sees or reads that don’t make sense to her.

What does freedom of speech mean to you?

What's the future of MySpace.com?

MySpace.com is the hottest social networking site, if not the most visited Internet site, overall, these days. The site has millions of users/visitors who enjoy posting their personal profiles and using the site to visit with old friends and meet new ones.
Users talk of almost being addicted to the site, needing to visit it many times each day to see who has posted to them. Users talk of the power it brings them to express themselves in such a public way.
Is this something our high school and college aged users will eventually grow out of? Will MySpace.com grow old at some point for these users as their life experiences change?
Or will this generation of MySpace.com users continue with this level of social networking throughout their Internet life, creating a new generation of Internet users who use social networking sites to create their own special worlds?
What do you think? Why do you like or not like MySpace.com? Do you think you'll continue to visit the site as extensively after college? Are we going to have millions of senior citizens in 50 years, still networking on MySpace.com?? (you better agree to change your photo as you age...in the interest of honest communication!)
-Jen Mullen

Click Fraud: The Latest Ad Sleaze?

Well, here we go again. The advertising industry is under seige for yet another potential boondoggle--and one that Business Week (Oct 2) claims may present "the single biggest threat to the Internet's advertising gold mine." Yikes! Although this scam concern has floated around the advertising industry for the last couple of years--often focusing on the big guns like Google and Yahoo who are most vulnerable--BW has one of the best discussions of this internet plague written thus far. Read and weep, budget directors.

BW defines click fraud as "clicking on internet advertising solely to generate illegitimate revenue for the web site carrying the ads; those doing the clicking typically also get paid." Professional revenue thieves have been around for centuries, but there are few merry men looking after these Robin Hoods. Advertisers and marketers, who pay per click for their use of these webnets, are losing millions report both BW and Advertising Age.

Okay, the robbery system has it's legal, financial and pragmatic impacts, but there is the sociopolitical issue of advertising's industrywide problem of controlling the bad apples in their barrel too. How do we stop the bleeding? Do we need more laws? More passwords? Fewer entry points to the system? Better fraud detecting software that can't be breached by every 12-year-old hacker in the country? And why do we want to demonize both advertising and the internet delivery system anyway?

I guess because we can.

Citizen journalism comes to Southern Colorado

The Colorado Springs Gazette has joined the Your Hub network of Web sites, allowing local citizens to report and post news stories from the area on the Colorado Springs Your Hub site (ColoradoSprings.com). The Southern Newspaper Publishers Association reports that Your Hub at Colorado Springs will begin publishing three zoned, weekly tabloid newspapers on Oct. 26, featuring the best stories and photos from the Web site as well as some staff-generated content. Eventually, the SNPA reports, six Your Hub papers, covering different parts of the Gazette's circulation area, will be published.

Citizen journalism is a definite departure from the traditional style of journalism, but, as Gazette publisher Freedom Communications reports, citizen journalism "is journalism for the people, by the people, our freedom of speech in pure form."

Your Hub sites and zoned publications are already doing well in the Denver metro area, pulling in much-sought-after revenue for the newspaper industry. Is citizen journalism really the face of journalism's future? Do you think more readers prefer this rather unfiltered type of reporting over the traditional news gathering process? Should traditionalists (like me, I suppose) get out of the way and let journalism take this new direction?

Advertising in textbooks...good idea?

Would you like to save a few hundred dollars each semester by getting your textbooks for free? That may not be so far fetched if some textbook publishers have their way. McGraw-Hill and other publishers are considering including advertising in college textbooks to offset rising costs. Although faculty members are likely to object, the tide may be too strong to hold back once students and parents catch the wave.

Of course textbooks are only the most recent medium to fall under avertisers' spell. Video games, urinals, and even people's foreheads have all been plastered with ads in recent years. For more examples see this flash slideshow from USAToday. We've grown accustomed to ads of every shape and size, for every type of product and service, in every type of environment. And we've grown accustomed to free media content as a result. What do you think, is this a good idea who's time has come? Or is it one more human sacrifice to the god of capitalism?

Survivor playing the race card

Did you watch TV last Thursday evening? If so, you might have noticed that Survivor, a perennial ratings champ, returned for another season on CBS. But with the ratings sliding in recent years, producer Mark Burnett reached into his bag of tricks for something to stir up public attention and controversy. In case you missed the season opener, the buzz around the water cooler, or the title of this post, the new season of Survivor started by pitting one tribe against the others based on the race of the participants. That's right, blacks versus whites, and Hispanics versus Asians. Some see it as a desperate attempt to appeal to the most base instincts of an audience that still loves, (even in this PC culture), to root for the "tribe" that most closely reflects its own skin tones. Others see the "social experiment" as a gimmick that will soon give way to the standard reconfigurations that will result in fully-integrated tribes. What do you think? Is race off-limits when drawing lines in the sand? Is it any different than separating contestants by gender? And, does it send the wrong message to viewers who may already harbor racist attitudes?

Brewing storm over 9/11 docudrama

When is a docudrama not a documentary? Just listen to ABC/Disney as they respond to criticism of their "epic miniseries" The Path to 9/11, airing this Sunday and Monday evenings at 7pm locally. According to ABC, the program is, "a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources." It is also interesting that ABC attempts to deflect criticism by noting that the program was produced by the entertainment division rather than ABC News. Intense criticism by Democrats, including former president Clinton, has been leveled at the program for perceived inaccuracies. Specifically, Democrats object to portrayals that they didn't do enough to go after Bin Laden in the years leading up to 9/11. According to news reports today, ABC is responding by making some last-minute editorial changes.

But this is not simply an argument about facts or the portrayal of events. It is a debate about whether this or any docudrama/miniseries should be held to the standards reserved for news and documentaries or whether it should only have to rise to the expectations of prime-time, network, entertainment programming. Dramatizations of true events often play fast and loose with the facts. This time, however, the facts are much more sensitive and mid-term elections hang in the balance.

Clearly the terms documentary and docudrama are important distinctions...and that, in turn, dictates the expectations that we should have as to the accuracy and objectivity of the program.

Watch the program this Sunday and Monday evenings and let us know what you think.

Who do you trust?

A recent survey of more than 3,000 American adults by Pew Research Center indicates that we do not trust network news. NBC, ABC and CBS ranged from 23-22% when respondents were asked if they believe all or most of what they see. Cable news numbers were slightly better. Fox News had a 25% favorable rating and CNN turned in a 28%. All of these numbers are considerably lower than they were eight years ago. A look at political affiliation of viewers suggests that some news networks are trusted more by the right or left. CNN is trusted most highly by Democrats, while Fox News received higher ratings from Republicans.

While this may not be surprising, it is cause for concern. If Americans are so distrustful of their main source of news (and TV is still by far the most important news source for most Americans), who and what do they trust for information about the world around them? Tell us what you think. What do you trust when you’re trying to understand national and international issues?

Protecting College Student Press

Trish tipped me off to the following story, which is posted on the Student Press Law Center Web site:

CALIFORNIA - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed a bill into law that would explicitly prohibit prior restraint and other forms of censorship of the college press.

The bill's sponsor, assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said in a press release the legislation makes California the first state in the nation to specifically prohibit censorship of college student newspapers.

"College journalists deserve the same protections as any other journalist," Yee said. "Having true freedom of the press is essential on college campuses and it is a fundamental part of a young journalists training for the real world. Allowing a school administration to censor is contrary to the democratic process and the ability of a student newspaper to serve as the watchdog and bring sunshine to the actions of school administrators."

The bill passed the state Senate by a 31-2 vote on August 10 and was unanimously approved by the California Assembly in May.

The free-press bill was drafted in response to the Hosty v. Carter decision out of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, a supporter of the bill.

The appeals court decision held that the Supreme Court's 1988 Hazelwood decision limiting high school student free expression rights could extend to college and university campuses in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in February not to hear the Hosty case, letting stand the June 2005 decision out of the 7th Circuit.

Ten days after the 7th Circuit decision, the general counsel for the California State University system sent a memo to university presidents saying the Hosty decision could impact California.

"[T]he case appears to signal that CSU campuses may have more latitude than previously believed to censor the content of subsidized student newspapers, provided that there is an established practice of regularized content review and approval for pedagogical purposes," wrote CSU general counsel Christine Helwick at that time.

Although the 7th Circuit's ruling is only applicable in the three Midwestern states covered by the appeals court, Ewert said the memo raised some concerns amongst student press advocates.

Ewert said he is thrilled with the governor's decision to sign the legislation.

"This law sends a very strong message to administrators that the student press is just as deserving of strong free press protection as professional media," said Ewert.

-by Evan Mayor, SPLC staff writer

The questions for discussion are:

Is this a good thing? Should Colorado and other states enact similar legislation? What should be its provisions? Under such protection, who will be held legally responsible for libel and invasion of privacy, should such suits be filed? What, if any, supervisory role should the adviser and department play?

I certainly do not believe the administration of any college or university should engage in a priori censorship, just as I don't believe advisers should edit/censor student newspapers -- but if a student publication does end up in court (criminal or civil -- yes, Colorado still has its criminal libel statute on the books), who will end up in jail or paying out a libel judgment? If the publisher is considered to be the university/department, then that's who. In the professional world, publishers have absolute censorship rights over what their editors and reporters want to publish.

Are the Emmys getting political?

The Emmy Awards were held Sunday night, and this year it was a draw between the big winners in cable versus broadcast television. Last year, cable programs such as The Soprano's, et al, absolutely spanked the traditional broadcast networks in awards.
Sunday night, in the big categories, it was 13 awards both for cable versus broadcast.
Interesting...the voting changed this year. Rather than the traditional popular vote by Emmy members would determine the winners, the top 20 popular vote getters in each category were then "reviewed" by a panel of industry "judges", who then determined the winner in each category.
Is it possible that the powers of the NBC, CBS, and ABS broadcast networks want a bit more equity in the winners of Emmys?
Then some would say that cable primetime programming is actually better television and deserves more Emmys. Not this year.

A question of ethics

The year was 1981. USC Today Editor Erin Emery and the news editor at the time (whose name completely escapes me) decided on a lark to run for ASG president and vice president, more as a flip-of-the-finger to the ASG old guard (with whom we had been warring for years) than through any genuine political ambitions. Then something unexpected happened. Their campaign got legs. People started taking them seriously. It looked like they might actually win. They began aggressively campaigning and discussing in more specific terms what they might do if elected. They held a press conference in Sally Watkins' "News Beats and Features" class. I was in the audience. I asked three questions: 1) "Do you ascribe to the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics?" 2) "If you do, how can you justify having your names appear on bylines and in the masthead of the Today when this creates such an obvious appearance of conflict of interest?" 3) "Are you ready to resign your editorships in order to pursure your political ambitions without compromising the credibility of the USC Today?" By the end of the day, they dropped out of the election. Don' get me wrong. Erin would have made a spectacular ASG president. As it is, she has become an absolutely top-flight journalist. And I think she would agree that this firsthand education in journalism ethics was an important lesson. I'm told we now have the ASG president serving as an editor of the Today. Has our grasp of journalism ethics -- and its essential role in helping preserve the credibility, and thus the future, of our craft -- eroded to the point that this raises no red flags among the newspaper staff or department faculty? Or is this an exercise in situational ethics: "we don't have that many strong news/editorial students; they should be free to explore all the university has to offer, etc." I say students should be encouraged make the most of their experience here. But ethics is about making choices. And by not forcing a choice, you have deprived this student of a foundational piece of journalism education -- and have sent the wrong message to the rest of your students. Every day as a working journalist provides dozens of chances to make the wrong decision, to get mired in ambiguity and expedience, to bend the rules just this once. We need more ethics education, not less. The newspaper, the department, the industry, needs more credibility, not less. If the Today is, indeed, going to be a first step into the real world of journalism, then these real-world situations must be addressed in a real-world fashion. Richard, if you were still editing a daily paper, what would you say to a member of your editorial team who decided to campaign for mayor?

Tony Snow as the President's Spokesperson?

Former Fox news correspondant, Tony Snow, became President Bush's press secretary recently, to provide a more open dialogue with the press corp as the Bush administration struggles with low public opinion ratings.
How's he doing? It's not his fault that his natural demeanor suggests he's a bit of a smart-aleck. He's always come across that way to me and he's putting on the same presentation during his daily news conferences. His approach also seems to be the antithesis of Scott McClelland's robotic approach, in that he's kind of flippant and very informal during these sessions. Clearly, he's trying to position himself as "one of the press corps who just happens to be on the other side of the podium."
But on June 8th, he went too far when he insulted every public relations professional with his smart-aleck comment. When asked if Zarquari's death was a PR move on the part of the Bush administration, he cynically referred to public relations as "selling soap", thereby reinforcing that the terrorist's death was anything but that. Of course, Zarquari wasn't killed for "public relations", the question was inane, but his smart-aleck response was also uncalled for.
I get tired of "PR bashing" by people who secretly understand the power of persuasive communication and the potency of reputation management, but think if they admit it, it's some kind of weakness.
And by the way..."selling soap" is MARKETING, not Public Relations.
-Jen Mullen

Net Neutrality

Perhaps you've heard the term "network neutrality" being bantered about recently. Rather than attempt to reinvent the wheel, here's a nice summary from XP News:

A network such as the one run by your ISP treats all types of traffic the same way. One type (whether a specific protocol such as VoIP or content from a specific provider such as Microsoft or e-mail from specific addresses) doesn't get priority over any other type. The worry is that ISPs such as your cable company or phone company and services such as AOL can use technology called Quality of Service (QoS) to give some of the data that passes over their networks priority. Corporate networks have been doing this for years. Packets generated by mission-critical applications can be given preference over less important traffic.

This could be a money-maker for service providers because they can strike deals with content providers to ensure that those content providers' data gets delivered more quickly than that of other content providers who don't pay the fees for this priority attention. For example, Verizon could contract with Google to give their search services priority over Yahoo's or MSN's search. This would make Google more attractive than its competitors to those who use Verizon as their ISP, because it would be faster. In addition, the money that Verizon got from Google could be used to keep their prices for Internet service lower than those of an ISP that doesn't engage in such contracts.

What does it mean to you as an ISP customer and user of the Internet? If ISPs are allowed to make discriminatory deals, at the extreme they could actually block the Web sites that compete with their partners. That is, in our example of Verizon making a deal with Google, they could prevent Verizon customers from accessing the Yahoo or MSN search sites. This is not what any ISP is proposing to do at this time, but it's certainly technologically possible.

So, the question is whether federal government ought to regulate the infrastructure owned and operated by the telecom companies in order to prevent them from selectively controlling the flow of content over their "wires." On the surface it appears to be obvious...of course they should. However, as content providers start to deliver high quality video over the internet, bandwidth demands suggest that other content will be backed up in the traffic jam of digital bits. As we become more and more dependent on our internet-connected-computers to deliver both information and entertainment, something has to give. The federal government doesn't have a great track record when it comes to implementing policies designed to ensure equality. Often these regulations have the exact opposite effect. What it is likely to do is reduce the incentive to deploy greater bandwidth. And if the telecom companies don't have a financial incentive to install fiber optic lines to the home (and in so doing, increase bandwidth exponentially), we'll be stuck with computers that are only good for text, images, and music...with TVs and DVD players providing the moving images. What do you think? Can we have HDTV on our computers and at the same time have universally available service?

Advertising in a Google Universe

The World Advertising Research Center (WARC) and other data collectors around the United States have been scaring the advertising community with tales of doom for the past few years: If you don't shift to New Media sources pretty soon, Mr and Ms Marketers, your audiences for advertising are going to disappear. Or at least track in a new direction. Not good news to those television networks and newspapers that depend so heavily on advertising revenue, certainly, but an alert that is shuddering the integrated communication world more fiercely each day. Not to mention the directories services that made advertising more than just a yellow page.

Google, that initially upstart search engine gone Wall Street, has made things even more dicey by localizing their media offerings online. According to WARC, "Google's Local Business service has been undergoing limited US trials since December, with the participation of selected advertisers such as Barnes & Noble. The Google Local pilot enabled searchers using terms like 'bookstore New York' to auto-activate a map of Manhattan marked with small coffee-cup logos indicating the location of selected B&N stores." (WARC, April 3, 2006)

So, everyone in the old media chain is now quaking in their boots. And, like so many interactive/direct response media of the late 1900s, the Google advertising is billed on a price per inquiry (price per click thru) basis so it's more measurable than ever. This may be the great shift for service providers, retailers, as well as branded goods makers: The more ROI measures available to prove that internet advertising is working (or not in some cases), the more budget is going to underwrite those opportunities.

What WILL happen to those creative prime time TV spots or those glossy magazines pages? Food for thought.

Free TV on your computer

Last week ABC announced that it will be offering some of its top-rated shows, for free, over the Internet. Until now you’ve had to pay $1.99 for downloads of Lost and other fare. Now they’re free, but you have to watch the embedded commercial spots. You might think, hey, its just like watching commercial TV…and you’d be right, except that now it’s on-demand. Competing networks have also been offering their programs as podcasts viewable on a computer or video-equipped iPod. NBC’s The Office is an example of a TV show that has really found its niche online. While most people still watch by turning on their TV and tuning in to a local station or cable network, the traditional “appointment TV” paradigm is beginning to wear thin around the edges. People want control of their media experience…and that means they want to watch what they want, when they want it. All of this is leaving local broadcast affiliates feeling unnecessary. Of course, it’s the bottom line that they’re worried about. More Internet downloads means fewer viewers for the broadcast of the program, and that means less advertising revenue. What do you think? Will all TV programming eventually move to on-demand delivery? And if so, what will be the role of the local broadcast affiliate?

Did 'Dateline NBC' practice sound journalism?

An April 6 USA Today story by Nate Ryan reported that “Dateline NBC” is defending its actions after bringing Muslim men to Martinsville (Va.) Speedway to gauge the reaction of NASCAR fans.

According to the article, NBC defended its reporting tactics in a statement released last week. NBC said the news magazine is ”following up on a recent poll and other articles indicating an increase in anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. … There is nothing new about the technique of witnessing the experience of someone who might be discriminated against in a public setting.”

NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston said the Muslim men walked around outside the track and that NASCAR fans had no reaction to the group. Poston said NBC was seeking “to create the news instead of reporting the news.”

What do you think? Did “Dateline NBC” justify their actions? Or was the news magazine attempting to sensationalize stereotypes that exist both for NASCAR fans and for Muslims?

(See http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-04-06-dateline_x.htm)

Bye Bye Howard

Jacobs Media has reported that 70% of Howard Stern’s Rock listeners have decided not to “sign up” with Sirius Satellite. Approximately 20% of Stern’s audience has subscribed – another 10% plan on subscribing. Is this good news for terrestrial broadcasters fearing an audience exodus from FM rockers like WXRK in New York or KXTE in Las Vegas? Is Howard’s brand of radio wearing thin... or is it only a matter of time before a majority of Stern’s former audience “gives in” to the $12.95 price tag?

The Future of News

A Poynteronline article by Bob Andelman quotes Andrew Heywood, former CBS News president, on the future of news:

"Bloggers will say, 'News is no longer a lecture like this; it's a conversation.' Others will say, 'Mainstream news is the conversation starter,' " said Heyward. "I think there will be a new Darwinism. In an era of authenticity, quality will win out. You're going to see much more emphasis on the highest quality products winning."

So says Andrew. What say you?

How do you want your cable television?

We're already buying our music one song at a time, why not pay for our cable television one program at at time? Yes, let the rumble begin between the cable industry, the FCC, and our elected officials, over bundling of cable channels versus ala carte individual program selection.

The way it is now, a cable subscriber purchases a cable package and gets 50-70, or more, great channels...of which we only watch 16, according to the FCC, yet pay a pretty hefty monthly fee. Sounds a lot like purchasing that CD for full price, but only really liking two songs, doesn't it?

Wouldn't it be great to actually pick your top 30 cable channels for that monthly fee? No more food network if you don't want it, hey, throw in world federation wrestling, if you're into that. Pay for what you watch; no more, no less.
Well, as of this week, FCC chairman, Kevin Martin has changed his mind and is now in agreement that the cable industry should examine ala carte programming choice rather than bundling. Martin says it would help parents purchase better programming for their kids (no more Playboy channel as part of your bundle) and actually lower our cable bill each month.

A USA TODAY/CNN poll of U.S. viewers shows that 54% would prefer buying their cable channels individually, and 43% said they'd rather have the flat fee and get a bundled assortment of channels. Martin sights the fact that expanded basic cable has increased in cost 40% in the past five years, when overall prices for goods and services has only increased 12%. Sounds like the cable industry has had it good for a long time, doesn't it?

Needless to say, the cable industry is aggressively challenging this notion with some intense media relations and government lobbying.
The cable industry says that ala carte would imperil the small stations that don't program the most popular cable shows, and that ala carte would actually drive up the monthly price, not lower it.

Right now, a portion of cable's profit is based on the number of subscriptions purchased for the bundles options. If shows are individually purchased, cable experts say some of those cable programs that are great, but have really small audiences, won't be able to survive. No doubt, that is the beauty of cable television, each program doesn't live and die by its viewership because it's protected in a bundled format.

So before you call your congressional representative to support ala carte cable programming, remember that if others don't purchase the "sewing channel" that you're addicted to, it just might not be on anymore. Or, on the other hand, if hardly anybody is watching the sewing channel, why should it be produced on television?
Maybe it's worth it? Is it to you?

How 'bout those Olympic Games?

Are you, like tens of millions of other Americans, captivated by the dramatic stories of formerly unknown teens and twenty-somethings searching for their 15 seconds of fame? Are you mesmerized by the hyped-up stories of years and years of hard work that may or may not propel them to the podium? And are you fascinated by the cutthroat competition and the scathing pronouncements of the judges? Well then, you, like millions of your fellow Americans are probably tuning in to watch American Idol.

Yes I know, the title of this post threw you. You thought I was talking about the Olympic Games...that biennial celebration of the power and glory of athletic competition. But the sad truth is the Olympics just aren’t what they used to be when it comes to TV ratings. NBC’s coverage of the games has been contrived and choppy, so perhaps they deserve to be trounced by Idol. But who would have thought that a reality TV show that features vocal contestants vying for a chance to be insulted by a trio of C-list celebrities would pull in nearly twice the viewers as programming that was once an icon of “must-see-TV” viewing?

What do you think...are the Olympic games passé?, or are we just a nation in love with Idol?

Should the universal service fee fund broadband for rural areas?

Montana Republican Sen. Conrad Burns has introduced a bill to revise the universal service program, allowing funds from this program to help subsidize broadband and other high-speed telecom services for rural areas. According to an article published in The Missoulian and reported in The Rural Blog, this change would mean more telecom-related services (including Internet voice, cable Internet and broadband) would have to pay into the universal service charge. (See http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/02/11/news/mtregional/news08.txt)

In a related story (also from The Rural Blog), Drew Clark of National Journal’s Technology Daily reports that broadband Web service is becoming an economic necessity for rural American communities. Without broadband, these communities are unable to meet the growing technological needs of businesses, and businesses are being driven to relocate to areas that can provide them with proper technology. (See http://www.RuralJournalism.org, click on “Rural Blog” and access the blog for Monday, Feb. 13, 2006.)

Are you willing to pay the universal service charge for your cable Internet/broadband services to help rural communities in America become more technologically and economically competitive? Is the universal service charge the answer for making high-speed/broadband Internet affordable for more Americans? What other options are there?

The name of the blog

Let's get creative. Face it: most blogs ought to be called blahgs to signify the so-so content they contain (I'm neither including nor excluding this one in that category). What other terms can we use to identify blogs by content? If a blog is particularly edgy, for example, or particularly accurate in the information it provides, should it remain merely a blog? I think we need a descriptive lexicon to distinguish blogs from one another. Perhaps that lexicon already exists. If so, enlighten us all. If not, let's begin here with:

Blahg: A thoroughly enervating blog.


Add on, folks!

Book of Daniel has an afterlife on the web

If you blinked and missed the four episodes of The Book of Daniel on NBC, you have one more chance to catch a couple of episodes before it is sent to programming purgatory. Drawing more criticism than viewers (only about 6-7 million viewers per episode) the show was attacked by the American Family Association and others who viewed the portrayal of Christ as "blasphemous" and the minister and his family as dysfuntional at best. Surf on over to http://www.nbc.com/The_Book_of_Daniel/ to see remaining episodes and judge for yourself if this experiment in "edgy" programming deserved its fate.
Once you do, tell us what you think. Was it strong-arm tactics by offended viewers or simply market forces at work that pushed Daniel off the air? And while I'm asking questions, do you think the future of "broadcast" TV is safe, lowest-common-denominator fare while everything else will migrate to cable and the web?

The Impact of MP3 Players on FM Radio

I'm making a presentation next month on the "impact of MP3 players (iPod, Rio, etc.) on terrestrial radio ." I'm interested in gaining insight on the topic through your personal experience.

So... have you stopped listening to radio because your hubby gave you an iPod for Xmas? If you own an iPod, describe any "fatigue" you may have experienced (meaning, did you get tired of dumping songs into "the thing" - or creating your own "playlists," did you throw in the towel and go back to listening to ABC XYZ radio station?).

Radio stations with the "Jack, Dave, Bob" format (mix of 70's, 80', 90's, 00's rock - The Eagles + Guns & Roses + Nirvana + Dave Matthews Band) have grown in popularity. These stations sell themselves as "An iPod on shuffle on your radio." Can FM and MP3 live in perfect harmony?

Apple has sold over 28 million iPods so far (they expect to sell 14 million during the 1st quarter of this year)... should broadcasters be concerned?

Page One News? You Decide

The Wisconsin State Journal has come up with a new way to tie its Web site to its print publication. On Jan. 23, the paper began asking readers to vote on the paper's Web site (http://www.madison.com/) for the stories they'd like to see on the front page of the next day's print edition.

Readers have four or five different story "candidates" to choose from and can vote from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day, according the Managing Editor Tim Kelley.

(See article at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001883270)

Would you be more likely to read/subscribe to a print publication if you had a say in what went on Page One?

Got any great media and popular culture news?

The spring 2006 semester is here and the Mass Communications department faculty has been busily gearing up for the couple hundred students we work with each semester. The radio station has brand new state-of-the-art digital audio technology (Santa brought it over Christmas), the television station is continuing its schedule of live programming, and the newspaper is getting ready with both its print and online editions. This list doesn't include the dozens of student projects that are produced each semester through courses in all the Mass Communications emphasis areas.
Ah, we love the media and its societal impact, don't we?!

We love learning about:
*Howard Stern and his satelite radio coup against the FCC;
*The sordid allegations of the Bush administration inappropriately using PR to sell the American public on policy;
*The iPod phenomenon (how many of you got them for Christmas?)and its associated issues with illegal downloading of copyrighted music (are you doing it?);
*The print newspaper industry's concern that our college generation is preferring to read news on-line;
*The competition between the advertising and public relations industries for who can best promote brands;
*The allegations that weblogs aren't real journalism, or for that matter, aren't even credible content;
...and the list goes on. What interesting stories have you encountered in the media lately? What controversies do you have an opinion about? What information can you share with all of us "media-junkies" who teach and study in Mass Comm?
What are your opinions about some of the issues I mentioned in this blog?

Share it with us and keep checking the Mass Communications blog this semester to participate in the ongoing discussion of media-related topics. It's our own online classroom discussion!