Why Print Really Could Die
BY Rob Yoegel
For years now I’ve argued during conversations and at conferences that print magazines will never die and that as long as there’s good, compelling, original content, magazines will live happily every after alongside Web 2.0, 3.0, 4.8, etc. Now I’m not so sure.
The more I sit in on our annual publication meetings that involve most of our publishing teams, the more worried I’m getting. As citizen journalists/bloggers tout that they can get their content to more people and faster, traditional media counters with their accuracy, integrity and proper grammar. But what are we doing about the time it takes to publish in print today?
Editorial Calendars
It’s alarming to me that editorial calendars are still a significant part of a trade magazine’s plans. Yes, I know advertising reps need to be able to go on calls and point out certain issues that will cover topics of interest to a potential advertiser, but I’m perplexed as to why the goal wouldn’t be to get that advertiser into each and every issue?
Today is July 13, 2007. An editor-in-chief is busy crafting an editorial calendar to impress a publisher that details stories and special sections up to 16 months away (of course, he could be blogging instead)! Technology has brought on rapid changes that are not affecting just certain markets. I propose the end of a 12-month editorial calendar and recommend that editorial calendars be scrapped altogether, be done seasonally, or — at most — six months in advance.
Circulation Audits
Ripe for my next criticism are circulation audits. I’m only familiar with BPA and admitedly what I know is based only on what I’m told by collegues or read and hear about. That said, I’m still unaware of any initiative to help print publishers obtain and “qualify” a subscriber within one week or, better yet, days of someone saying, “Yes, I want your magazine!”
One publisher recently rolled her eyes during a meeting when a similar topic was discussed saying, “We all know how long it takes,” referring to BPA audit periods. It’s nuts that trade magazines that apparently rely so heavily on an audit to sell advertising deal with folks like BPA that make it expensive, difficult or impossible to be more productive and likely more successful.
Production & Printing
Monthly print production and ad closing schedules remain absurd. Let’s take, for example an October issue of your magazine. How is a deadline to know all of the advertising and editorial that will be included six weeks in advance acceptable? Paper layouts and impositions should not be used, art directors should not need a week to lay out a magazine, and magazine printers that are consolidating and going out of business must work harder to get issues to the postal service.
And how could I finish without mentioning the USPS, which more and more seems to me that it doesn’t want business. When my son or daughter ask me why it costs the same to mail a birthday invitation to the kid down the street as it does to send a letter to Uncle Howie in California, I change the subject to the “birds and the bees.” At least I understand that better.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
"That was then but this is now. What are you going to do about it?"
David Sullivan: "That was then but this is now. What are you going to do about it?"
Posted by Sniffer dog at 7/3/2007 7:58 AM and is filed under Innovation,Weaknesses,NEWSPAPERS,Online newspapers,US journalism,journalists,Journalism,Convergence,Trends
SnifferDog writes: This is a column by David Sullivan, a journalist in Philadelphia, written especially for Inksniffer. It's a passionate plea for newspaper people, management and staff, to stop destroying their own business and work out what we need to do to survive and thrive. Please leave comments and throw your ideas for what newspapers might do into the pot. You can call it brainstorming. You can call it open-source innovation. You can call it thinking out loud. But our first steps will be fueled by our own ideas and the things we do with them.
===============================
We need to form a new trade organization: Journalists Who Believe in Printed Newspapers.
JBPN isn’t much as an acronym, so someone else can do better. But it’s become clear that blogs, discussions and articles on the (nearly always hopeless) future of the printed newspaper are not merely composed of those looking on with disinterested analysis. There are People Who Honestly Are Platform Agnostic, and then there are People Who Are Internet Triumphalists, and People Who Just Hate Print, and People Who Hate Print Because They’re All Damn Liberals Over There.
And they get a lot of mileage out of their ideas.
Sure, let a thousand schools of thought contend. But The Next Big Thing always gets more press than the Currently Existing Thing. So those of us who believe that the Currently Existing Thing has a future – here at The Inksniffer, Juan Antonio Giner with Innovation in Newspapers, Alan Mutter with Reflections of a Newsosaur, Samir Husni at Ole Miss, and many many more - need to speak louder.
Yes, the Internet is a wonderful medium and tool for us to learn with and from and develop many journalistic uses for. It’s tres cool. But as was noted on this blog recently – the Internet is part of our future, it is not the future.
Think of cities. At one time Le Corbusier’s Cité Radieuse or Wright’s Broadacre City were the utopian future. Crumbling cities would be torn down and replaced by World’s Fair visions of towers in the garden for the uplifting of mankind. Then Escape From New York and Blade Runner became the future and 1970s-style urban dystopia was inevitable.
In Philadelphia in 2007, I walk on the same streets Washington and Jefferson did and pass some of the buildings they saw. I also pass high-rise towers surrounded by gardens. We have bombed-out districts and vital neighborhoods. Most of what was predicted happened – but only to some extent. None of the predictions became the single, unavoidable answer.
Some of this is the persistence of infrastructure and culture. But also, people who believed in historic buildings acted not just to save them, but to give them new uses so they would be economically viable to save. People who believed in downtowns saw that while the 1950s Main Street was gone, downtowns could prosper with the right mix of residences, culture and businesses.
At the same time, it took downtowns a long time to begin to recover because people had to get over wanting to “bring it back the way it was.” The world we operated in even 10 years ago is gone for good. It’s up to us to position print for the 21st century. Doing so doesn’t mean we didn’t do our jobs in the 20th as well as we could.
So the Internet is not the single, historic, inevitable answer to our future. It's not the single thing that we need to devote all of our time to at the expense of letting the printed paper go to its inevitable death. Because there never is a single answer.
But, of course, we’re scared. And newspaper owners are even more scared. And so as an industry we try to cover every bet. It’s all about search! It’s all about video! It’s all about podcasts! It’s all about blogs! It’s all about social networking! It’s all about citizens’ band radio! It’s all about Betamax! Whoops…
Take just one of those categories, video. TV stations snoozed a long time, but they are getting more serious about the Internet. They have 60 years of experience doing video. We don’t. Their staffs’ only purpose is producing video. We have a few people who can do it and have to parse or pirate resources to get more.
And the Internet for TV is mostly a change in method of transmission. Video on a computer by broadband is pretty much like video on a TV screen. Sure, you can add links and the like, but they're still in the same field.
For newspapers, video is an effective tool – for some stories. And we can make good use of it as an adjunct. But video isn’t our primary business. And we have to watch over the manufacturing and distribution business as well. Video is their entire business.
So who’s my money on to ultimately dominate video on the Web? Hint: They’re not listed in the E&P Year Book.
We like to think of ourselves as in the news business or the media business, following Theodore Levitt’s Harvard Business Review article, “Marketing Myopia,” in 1960:
“The railroads did not stop growing because the need for passenger and freight transportation declined. That grew. The railroads are in trouble today not because that need was filled by others (cars, trucks, airplanes, and even telephones) but because it was not filled by the railroads themselves. They let others take customers away from them because they assumed themselves to be in the railroad business rather than in the transportation business. The reason they defined their industry incorrectly was that they were railroad oriented instead of transportation oriented; they were product oriented instead of customer oriented....”
And from that many would draw the conclusion that we are wrong to see ourselves in the newspaper business and whether there is a print product is irrelevant and thus comes the inevitable triumph of all things Internet, because the railroads should just have junked all their trains and gotten out of that 19th century vestige known as the railroad business.
But less known is that later in the article Levitt said:
“As transporters, the railroads still have a good chance for very considerable growth. They are not limited to the railroad business as such (though in my opinion rail transportation is potentially a much stronger transportation medium than is generally believed). What the railroads lack is not opportunity, but some of the same managerial imaginativeness and audacity that made them great.”
In other words, there was nothing inherently wrong with the railroad business as long as you saw it as a part of the transportation business. Once there was more than one way to get to Bugletown, saying “We have one train to Bugletown that leaves at 3:13 a.m., and you’re welcome to buy a ticket on it between 4 and 6 p.m. the previous day” no longer worked. But saying “close down the trains and put everything on trucks” wouldn’t work either, because the railroads knew little about the trucking business. The point was to see how you could serve the customer’s needs, and as a railroad, your strong point in doing so was the railroad business. You just could not offer “this is how we do it” as your only answer to the problem. But someone else could do a better job of putting it on a truck.
Delivering breaking news on the Internet is a good thing and fun and a service to democracy and we should do it because someone is going to anyway. Using the Internet to expand and enhance the reach and influence of the newspaper and let you see things you can’t see in print is a good thing. That is seeing the newspaper business as part of the media business.
But thinking the newspaper business can somehow “transition” to being a primarily or exclusively Internet business runs into the fact that for some years, many years, decades – the time differs, but even those who want to yell “Stop the Presses” for the last time most fervently acknowledge it – most of our cash flow, most of our business, is going to be print-based.
So a newspaper company that is having to draw most of its money from its “legacy” business, and pay a huge amount of attention to the logistics and production of that business, and that has prospered and survived because it is successful in that business, is somehow going to completely change its core competency and have the funds and resources and staff to produce the Next Big Thing in the Internet business that is going to replace all that cash flow, restore profitability, bring down manna from heaven? It defies rationality. Companies whose primary business from the get-go is the Internet are going to do that.
Probably most of us know that in our hearts, but then are faced with the fact that our leaders then have to go before investors and say, “Um, well, yeah, actually, the print-newspaper business will still be a good business, but it will be a smaller business and will never have 45-percent margin cash cows again.”
Sell! Fire the board! Fire the CEO!
So we say that it’s all about the Internet and just give us time, give us time, and we’ll get there. And then there’s not as much money to improve the core business, and then the Internet Triumphalists say: "You’re dead meat, and you just haven’t noticed that your legs have turned green."
Which is very tempting to say if you have found in the Internet a wonderful place where people will flock to listen to you unedited, and get into immediate arguments with you, and create other blogs to discuss or praise or disparage you, and link to you, and you have infinite space to express fully your youness, and not chafe at the restrictions of editors and space, and when all of us can be there, we will say to ourselves, what a wonderful world.
And that world will exist, and money will be made in it; and I’m not knocking it, because this very post is part of that world; but it's just another part of the media business. It’s not the newspaper business and it’s not going to kill it.
Another false analogy often used is the buggy whip business. The buggy whip business didn’t die because people started using Star Trek transporters to get from place to place. It died because people replaced the horse with an engine. But the buggy is still there – four wheels, seats, cargo space, paint, dashboard, steering and brake mechanisms. The buggy business became the auto business, in many cases literally, because it was the same business, with a motor. The buggy business didn’t become the airplane business, even though both transport things. Now, the buggy whip business is more like the syndicated-bridge-column business. That little subset of business may indeed die. But we’re not in the buggy whip business.
We who believe that the printed newspaper 1) has a firm place in the 21st century and 2) anchors the brand under which whatever we may want to do on the Internet or anything else can stand out, have got to change our thinking. We have to put the dustbin-of-history panic out of our heads and, more importantly, others’. We have to stop assuming that any blogger who writes “I will never use a printed newspaper again” somehow stands for uncounted millions in an inevitable dialectic.
Fine, let him never read a printed newspaper again. Find the ones who want to read newspapers, and give them a Newspaper They Want. "They Want" meaning, they’re not going to just eat their vegetables because daddy journalist says it's good for them. "A Newspaper" meaning, there are still some vegetables on the plate. It’s printed and it’s got stories next to ads and it’s got a lead and someone runs it off on a press and it winds up at your home or office or corner store.
If we’re honest, we’ve known for 30 years what we need to do to make a better newspaper business. We just don’t want to do it and hoped we wouldn’t have to.
Short-sighted management is doing its part to commit newspaper suicide. (Laying off too many people is one way. Lousy reproduction on flimsy paper is another. Throwing newspapers on the street in the snow and expecting readers in 2007 to want to walk out in their slippers and pick them up at the curb is the worst.)
Journalists need to stop aiding and abetting them with our own self-destructive urges.
Students in marketing are told: You are not the customer. The fact that you want to go into marketing means you are different than the customer. Journalists go into the profession with the belief that the reader really is, or wants to be, or should be, like them.
Journalists have to overcome their contempt for readers who have less than noble motivations or interests, and work to put out a product people will want to buy. (Actually, journalists don’t have contempt for The Readers. They are proud to serve The Readers. But they have contempt for individual readers. It’s kind of like the communists distinguishing between the People and the people.)
As one colleague of mine put it in 1984: "Wouldn’t it be great if we could lose 9/10ths of our circulation, so that we could write just for people who understand what we’re doing?" Well, we’re on our way. And it would have been great, except losing 9/10ths of the staff wasn’t part of that bargain, I’m sure.
Readers have said for years that they don’t like jumps. Al Neuharth took them at their word and said one jump per section, and it is hard to believe that is not one reason that USA Today became the largest paper in America. Journalists looked at USA Today and said, well, we wouldn’t want to read that. USA Today isn’t written for journalists. It’s just written by journalists.
Readers have said for decades that they want local news – about events in their communities, about new businesses, happenings in the schools. Our responses in many cases:
1) We don’t care about that, so why should you? We didn’t go to college so we could write about bagel shops. Stupid reader.
2) We have things we care more about, like “Rationing of fuel roils Iranians.” Sorry, no bagel space.
3) OK, we might cover things like that, but only by using our college-educated journalists to write stories about whether the growth in bagel shops means that urban Jewish culture is more acceptable in the heartland. Maybe then we could run a list. Maybe, if we can find a clerk to compile it.
4) Whoops, we can’t afford to do that anymore, so, we’re going to stop doing that. We will still run “Rationing of fuel roils Iranians,” though. Some day you’ll thank us.
5) Oh, hey, but if you want to post that stuff that you seem to care about for free on our Web site, go ahead! We’ll even tell some people in the newsroom it’s their job to watch over it. But don’t expect most of them to get promoted. That will happen to the guy interviewing roiled Iranian motorists.
Readers have for decades loved comics. Every time we have to shrink the page size, we shrink the comics rather than eat into that “vital newshole,” and then say to the readers: We had no choice.
Readers have said for years that they want standing elements to be in the same place every day. Sometimes advertising wants to sell an ad there, but sometimes we just get bored with doing the baseball standings the same way, so, we change it. Readers call and complain. Stupid readers.
Readers have told us for years that they don’t have time to read the whole paper. A sorry excuse, we respond; look at all we do for you? If we could, we’d give you even more to read, and you darn well better be grateful. After all, everyone we know reads the New York Times. Does anyone we know ever say the New York Times should be smaller?
Readers have told us for years that our newspapers are dull. Journalists have told each other for years that they don’t read most of their own newspapers. Wonder why?
Readers have said for years that the paper looks crappy. Maybe when the Times has a front page that looks like the Virginian-Pilot’s it will be OK to be different. Until then most of our examples come from overseas. Take a look at Giner’s redesign of Eleftheros Typos. Take a look at the new business newspaper Mint, designed by Mario Garcia. These are products designed with readers in mind first, not with upholding journalistic tradition. What, you wonder what we can learn from Greece or India? Reminds me of Ronald Reagan flying over Sao Paulo. He looks at this modern city of skyscrapers and saying, "Gee, I didn’t know you had things like this down here".
Readers have more recently been telling us that one product doesn’t fit all needs. I am always amazed in our few remaining two-newspaper cities to see journalists occasionally advocate merging the papers on the basis of: instead of sending two reporters to cover the same meeting, one of those reporters could be doing something really, really substantive, like spending six months on a takeout project about Abyssinian wolves. State it here again: The reader is not us.
Note as well that the question is not: "What are you going to do in print to get it back up to 550,000 paid circulation and a newsroom staff of 675."
The newspaper business will never be what it was before the Internet. It is not what it was before cable news. It is not what it was before TV. It is not what it was before radio.
But then theater is not what it was before movies. Painting is not what it was before photography. Concerts are not what they were before recordings. They’re all still there, though they’re different. People enjoy them. They buy tickets and go to galleries.
And printed newspapers – different, yet still the same - will be there too, unless we really, truly wish them to go away.
Start the presses.
Posted by Sniffer dog at 7/3/2007 7:58 AM and is filed under Innovation,Weaknesses,NEWSPAPERS,Online newspapers,US journalism,journalists,Journalism,Convergence,Trends
SnifferDog writes: This is a column by David Sullivan, a journalist in Philadelphia, written especially for Inksniffer. It's a passionate plea for newspaper people, management and staff, to stop destroying their own business and work out what we need to do to survive and thrive. Please leave comments and throw your ideas for what newspapers might do into the pot. You can call it brainstorming. You can call it open-source innovation. You can call it thinking out loud. But our first steps will be fueled by our own ideas and the things we do with them.
===============================
We need to form a new trade organization: Journalists Who Believe in Printed Newspapers.
JBPN isn’t much as an acronym, so someone else can do better. But it’s become clear that blogs, discussions and articles on the (nearly always hopeless) future of the printed newspaper are not merely composed of those looking on with disinterested analysis. There are People Who Honestly Are Platform Agnostic, and then there are People Who Are Internet Triumphalists, and People Who Just Hate Print, and People Who Hate Print Because They’re All Damn Liberals Over There.
And they get a lot of mileage out of their ideas.
Sure, let a thousand schools of thought contend. But The Next Big Thing always gets more press than the Currently Existing Thing. So those of us who believe that the Currently Existing Thing has a future – here at The Inksniffer, Juan Antonio Giner with Innovation in Newspapers, Alan Mutter with Reflections of a Newsosaur, Samir Husni at Ole Miss, and many many more - need to speak louder.
Yes, the Internet is a wonderful medium and tool for us to learn with and from and develop many journalistic uses for. It’s tres cool. But as was noted on this blog recently – the Internet is part of our future, it is not the future.
Think of cities. At one time Le Corbusier’s Cité Radieuse or Wright’s Broadacre City were the utopian future. Crumbling cities would be torn down and replaced by World’s Fair visions of towers in the garden for the uplifting of mankind. Then Escape From New York and Blade Runner became the future and 1970s-style urban dystopia was inevitable.
In Philadelphia in 2007, I walk on the same streets Washington and Jefferson did and pass some of the buildings they saw. I also pass high-rise towers surrounded by gardens. We have bombed-out districts and vital neighborhoods. Most of what was predicted happened – but only to some extent. None of the predictions became the single, unavoidable answer.
Some of this is the persistence of infrastructure and culture. But also, people who believed in historic buildings acted not just to save them, but to give them new uses so they would be economically viable to save. People who believed in downtowns saw that while the 1950s Main Street was gone, downtowns could prosper with the right mix of residences, culture and businesses.
At the same time, it took downtowns a long time to begin to recover because people had to get over wanting to “bring it back the way it was.” The world we operated in even 10 years ago is gone for good. It’s up to us to position print for the 21st century. Doing so doesn’t mean we didn’t do our jobs in the 20th as well as we could.
So the Internet is not the single, historic, inevitable answer to our future. It's not the single thing that we need to devote all of our time to at the expense of letting the printed paper go to its inevitable death. Because there never is a single answer.
But, of course, we’re scared. And newspaper owners are even more scared. And so as an industry we try to cover every bet. It’s all about search! It’s all about video! It’s all about podcasts! It’s all about blogs! It’s all about social networking! It’s all about citizens’ band radio! It’s all about Betamax! Whoops…
Take just one of those categories, video. TV stations snoozed a long time, but they are getting more serious about the Internet. They have 60 years of experience doing video. We don’t. Their staffs’ only purpose is producing video. We have a few people who can do it and have to parse or pirate resources to get more.
And the Internet for TV is mostly a change in method of transmission. Video on a computer by broadband is pretty much like video on a TV screen. Sure, you can add links and the like, but they're still in the same field.
For newspapers, video is an effective tool – for some stories. And we can make good use of it as an adjunct. But video isn’t our primary business. And we have to watch over the manufacturing and distribution business as well. Video is their entire business.
So who’s my money on to ultimately dominate video on the Web? Hint: They’re not listed in the E&P Year Book.
We like to think of ourselves as in the news business or the media business, following Theodore Levitt’s Harvard Business Review article, “Marketing Myopia,” in 1960:
“The railroads did not stop growing because the need for passenger and freight transportation declined. That grew. The railroads are in trouble today not because that need was filled by others (cars, trucks, airplanes, and even telephones) but because it was not filled by the railroads themselves. They let others take customers away from them because they assumed themselves to be in the railroad business rather than in the transportation business. The reason they defined their industry incorrectly was that they were railroad oriented instead of transportation oriented; they were product oriented instead of customer oriented....”
And from that many would draw the conclusion that we are wrong to see ourselves in the newspaper business and whether there is a print product is irrelevant and thus comes the inevitable triumph of all things Internet, because the railroads should just have junked all their trains and gotten out of that 19th century vestige known as the railroad business.
But less known is that later in the article Levitt said:
“As transporters, the railroads still have a good chance for very considerable growth. They are not limited to the railroad business as such (though in my opinion rail transportation is potentially a much stronger transportation medium than is generally believed). What the railroads lack is not opportunity, but some of the same managerial imaginativeness and audacity that made them great.”
In other words, there was nothing inherently wrong with the railroad business as long as you saw it as a part of the transportation business. Once there was more than one way to get to Bugletown, saying “We have one train to Bugletown that leaves at 3:13 a.m., and you’re welcome to buy a ticket on it between 4 and 6 p.m. the previous day” no longer worked. But saying “close down the trains and put everything on trucks” wouldn’t work either, because the railroads knew little about the trucking business. The point was to see how you could serve the customer’s needs, and as a railroad, your strong point in doing so was the railroad business. You just could not offer “this is how we do it” as your only answer to the problem. But someone else could do a better job of putting it on a truck.
Delivering breaking news on the Internet is a good thing and fun and a service to democracy and we should do it because someone is going to anyway. Using the Internet to expand and enhance the reach and influence of the newspaper and let you see things you can’t see in print is a good thing. That is seeing the newspaper business as part of the media business.
But thinking the newspaper business can somehow “transition” to being a primarily or exclusively Internet business runs into the fact that for some years, many years, decades – the time differs, but even those who want to yell “Stop the Presses” for the last time most fervently acknowledge it – most of our cash flow, most of our business, is going to be print-based.
So a newspaper company that is having to draw most of its money from its “legacy” business, and pay a huge amount of attention to the logistics and production of that business, and that has prospered and survived because it is successful in that business, is somehow going to completely change its core competency and have the funds and resources and staff to produce the Next Big Thing in the Internet business that is going to replace all that cash flow, restore profitability, bring down manna from heaven? It defies rationality. Companies whose primary business from the get-go is the Internet are going to do that.
Probably most of us know that in our hearts, but then are faced with the fact that our leaders then have to go before investors and say, “Um, well, yeah, actually, the print-newspaper business will still be a good business, but it will be a smaller business and will never have 45-percent margin cash cows again.”
Sell! Fire the board! Fire the CEO!
So we say that it’s all about the Internet and just give us time, give us time, and we’ll get there. And then there’s not as much money to improve the core business, and then the Internet Triumphalists say: "You’re dead meat, and you just haven’t noticed that your legs have turned green."
Which is very tempting to say if you have found in the Internet a wonderful place where people will flock to listen to you unedited, and get into immediate arguments with you, and create other blogs to discuss or praise or disparage you, and link to you, and you have infinite space to express fully your youness, and not chafe at the restrictions of editors and space, and when all of us can be there, we will say to ourselves, what a wonderful world.
And that world will exist, and money will be made in it; and I’m not knocking it, because this very post is part of that world; but it's just another part of the media business. It’s not the newspaper business and it’s not going to kill it.
Another false analogy often used is the buggy whip business. The buggy whip business didn’t die because people started using Star Trek transporters to get from place to place. It died because people replaced the horse with an engine. But the buggy is still there – four wheels, seats, cargo space, paint, dashboard, steering and brake mechanisms. The buggy business became the auto business, in many cases literally, because it was the same business, with a motor. The buggy business didn’t become the airplane business, even though both transport things. Now, the buggy whip business is more like the syndicated-bridge-column business. That little subset of business may indeed die. But we’re not in the buggy whip business.
We who believe that the printed newspaper 1) has a firm place in the 21st century and 2) anchors the brand under which whatever we may want to do on the Internet or anything else can stand out, have got to change our thinking. We have to put the dustbin-of-history panic out of our heads and, more importantly, others’. We have to stop assuming that any blogger who writes “I will never use a printed newspaper again” somehow stands for uncounted millions in an inevitable dialectic.
Fine, let him never read a printed newspaper again. Find the ones who want to read newspapers, and give them a Newspaper They Want. "They Want" meaning, they’re not going to just eat their vegetables because daddy journalist says it's good for them. "A Newspaper" meaning, there are still some vegetables on the plate. It’s printed and it’s got stories next to ads and it’s got a lead and someone runs it off on a press and it winds up at your home or office or corner store.
If we’re honest, we’ve known for 30 years what we need to do to make a better newspaper business. We just don’t want to do it and hoped we wouldn’t have to.
Short-sighted management is doing its part to commit newspaper suicide. (Laying off too many people is one way. Lousy reproduction on flimsy paper is another. Throwing newspapers on the street in the snow and expecting readers in 2007 to want to walk out in their slippers and pick them up at the curb is the worst.)
Journalists need to stop aiding and abetting them with our own self-destructive urges.
Students in marketing are told: You are not the customer. The fact that you want to go into marketing means you are different than the customer. Journalists go into the profession with the belief that the reader really is, or wants to be, or should be, like them.
Journalists have to overcome their contempt for readers who have less than noble motivations or interests, and work to put out a product people will want to buy. (Actually, journalists don’t have contempt for The Readers. They are proud to serve The Readers. But they have contempt for individual readers. It’s kind of like the communists distinguishing between the People and the people.)
As one colleague of mine put it in 1984: "Wouldn’t it be great if we could lose 9/10ths of our circulation, so that we could write just for people who understand what we’re doing?" Well, we’re on our way. And it would have been great, except losing 9/10ths of the staff wasn’t part of that bargain, I’m sure.
Readers have said for years that they don’t like jumps. Al Neuharth took them at their word and said one jump per section, and it is hard to believe that is not one reason that USA Today became the largest paper in America. Journalists looked at USA Today and said, well, we wouldn’t want to read that. USA Today isn’t written for journalists. It’s just written by journalists.
Readers have said for decades that they want local news – about events in their communities, about new businesses, happenings in the schools. Our responses in many cases:
1) We don’t care about that, so why should you? We didn’t go to college so we could write about bagel shops. Stupid reader.
2) We have things we care more about, like “Rationing of fuel roils Iranians.” Sorry, no bagel space.
3) OK, we might cover things like that, but only by using our college-educated journalists to write stories about whether the growth in bagel shops means that urban Jewish culture is more acceptable in the heartland. Maybe then we could run a list. Maybe, if we can find a clerk to compile it.
4) Whoops, we can’t afford to do that anymore, so, we’re going to stop doing that. We will still run “Rationing of fuel roils Iranians,” though. Some day you’ll thank us.
5) Oh, hey, but if you want to post that stuff that you seem to care about for free on our Web site, go ahead! We’ll even tell some people in the newsroom it’s their job to watch over it. But don’t expect most of them to get promoted. That will happen to the guy interviewing roiled Iranian motorists.
Readers have for decades loved comics. Every time we have to shrink the page size, we shrink the comics rather than eat into that “vital newshole,” and then say to the readers: We had no choice.
Readers have said for years that they want standing elements to be in the same place every day. Sometimes advertising wants to sell an ad there, but sometimes we just get bored with doing the baseball standings the same way, so, we change it. Readers call and complain. Stupid readers.
Readers have told us for years that they don’t have time to read the whole paper. A sorry excuse, we respond; look at all we do for you? If we could, we’d give you even more to read, and you darn well better be grateful. After all, everyone we know reads the New York Times. Does anyone we know ever say the New York Times should be smaller?
Readers have told us for years that our newspapers are dull. Journalists have told each other for years that they don’t read most of their own newspapers. Wonder why?
Readers have said for years that the paper looks crappy. Maybe when the Times has a front page that looks like the Virginian-Pilot’s it will be OK to be different. Until then most of our examples come from overseas. Take a look at Giner’s redesign of Eleftheros Typos. Take a look at the new business newspaper Mint, designed by Mario Garcia. These are products designed with readers in mind first, not with upholding journalistic tradition. What, you wonder what we can learn from Greece or India? Reminds me of Ronald Reagan flying over Sao Paulo. He looks at this modern city of skyscrapers and saying, "Gee, I didn’t know you had things like this down here".
Readers have more recently been telling us that one product doesn’t fit all needs. I am always amazed in our few remaining two-newspaper cities to see journalists occasionally advocate merging the papers on the basis of: instead of sending two reporters to cover the same meeting, one of those reporters could be doing something really, really substantive, like spending six months on a takeout project about Abyssinian wolves. State it here again: The reader is not us.
Note as well that the question is not: "What are you going to do in print to get it back up to 550,000 paid circulation and a newsroom staff of 675."
The newspaper business will never be what it was before the Internet. It is not what it was before cable news. It is not what it was before TV. It is not what it was before radio.
But then theater is not what it was before movies. Painting is not what it was before photography. Concerts are not what they were before recordings. They’re all still there, though they’re different. People enjoy them. They buy tickets and go to galleries.
And printed newspapers – different, yet still the same - will be there too, unless we really, truly wish them to go away.
Start the presses.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Digital Dramatics: Staff Changes Reflect Magazines' New Direction
Digital Dramatics: Staff Changes Reflect Magazines' New Direction
by Erik Sass, Monday, Jul 2, 2007 7:00 AM ET
Big things are afoot in the top ranks of the leading magazine publishers. Personnel changes indicate the growing importance of digital operations to traditionally print-focused companies.
Vivek Shah -- formerly head of digital publishing for Time Inc.'s Finance and Business Network -- was bumped up to president of the division on Friday, replacing Chris Poleway. Last week, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia named former Yahoo sales chief Wenda Harris Millard its new president of media.
Millard's move to MSLO from Yahoo was part of a larger game of musical (and disappearing) chairs at both companies. At Yahoo, the display ad sales division headed by Millard is merging with the company's search ad business. Meanwhile At MSLO, president and publisher Lauren Stanich is stepping into an advisory role.
As the new president of media, Millard will oversee MSLO's publishing, Internet, and broadcast concerns. Brand matriarch Stewart predicted: "Under Wenda, I expect many new and beneficial developments, including an intensified focus on our Web site, more cross-platform content initiatives and international expansion."
Her new role actually marks Millard's return to the publishing world. Most recently, from 2000-2001, she was chief Internet officer for tech and gaming publisher Ziff Davis Media, as well as president of Ziff Davis Internet. In that role, Millard helped launch the smaller publisher's move to digital distribution. The business disruptions caused by the Internet affected Ziff Davis earlier than other publishers, due to its Web-savvy readership and tech-focused editorial mission. After a prolonged rough patch, the company returned to profitability in the last year.
While MSLO is doing well on both its print and digital sides, things aren't quite so rosy at Time Inc.'s Finance and Business Network, where its name-brand business mags have been struggling. Shah, seen as a rising star in the company, has a challenging mission. Can he bring his online success to the network's struggling print operations?
2006 was a hard year for the individual titles -- Fortune, Money, Business 2.0 and Fortune Small Business -- and 2007 is shaping up to be even worse, according to figures from the Publisher's Information Bureau. In the first quarter, Fortune's ad pages were down 12.9%, compared to the same period last year, Money's tumbled 33.2%, Business 2.0 dropped 21.8%, and Fortune Small Business sagged 6.4%.
Shah's online credentials are impressive. He led CNNMoney.com to a triumphant 2006, when Nielsen//NetRatings declared it the top business Web site in terms of unique visitors, page views and time spent. (It also received the award for best business and financial Web site from OMMA, owned by MediaPost.) But it remains to be seen whether Shah's magic will translate from online to print.
One possibility: Shah isn't expected to restore the print operations to their former glory, but rather to slim them down -- perhaps even transform them into useful adjuncts to a Web-centered distribution strategy. Over the last couple years, Time Inc. has shown itself more than willing to slash magazines' guaranteed rate base -- as it did with flagship Time magazine in September 2006 -- or dump print operations entirely.
Teen People got the axe in July 2006, and Life magazine folded in March of this year. The Teen People brand was supposed to live on with its Web site, but the online presence was nixed earlier this year.
by Erik Sass, Monday, Jul 2, 2007 7:00 AM ET
Big things are afoot in the top ranks of the leading magazine publishers. Personnel changes indicate the growing importance of digital operations to traditionally print-focused companies.
Vivek Shah -- formerly head of digital publishing for Time Inc.'s Finance and Business Network -- was bumped up to president of the division on Friday, replacing Chris Poleway. Last week, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia named former Yahoo sales chief Wenda Harris Millard its new president of media.
Millard's move to MSLO from Yahoo was part of a larger game of musical (and disappearing) chairs at both companies. At Yahoo, the display ad sales division headed by Millard is merging with the company's search ad business. Meanwhile At MSLO, president and publisher Lauren Stanich is stepping into an advisory role.
As the new president of media, Millard will oversee MSLO's publishing, Internet, and broadcast concerns. Brand matriarch Stewart predicted: "Under Wenda, I expect many new and beneficial developments, including an intensified focus on our Web site, more cross-platform content initiatives and international expansion."
Her new role actually marks Millard's return to the publishing world. Most recently, from 2000-2001, she was chief Internet officer for tech and gaming publisher Ziff Davis Media, as well as president of Ziff Davis Internet. In that role, Millard helped launch the smaller publisher's move to digital distribution. The business disruptions caused by the Internet affected Ziff Davis earlier than other publishers, due to its Web-savvy readership and tech-focused editorial mission. After a prolonged rough patch, the company returned to profitability in the last year.
While MSLO is doing well on both its print and digital sides, things aren't quite so rosy at Time Inc.'s Finance and Business Network, where its name-brand business mags have been struggling. Shah, seen as a rising star in the company, has a challenging mission. Can he bring his online success to the network's struggling print operations?
2006 was a hard year for the individual titles -- Fortune, Money, Business 2.0 and Fortune Small Business -- and 2007 is shaping up to be even worse, according to figures from the Publisher's Information Bureau. In the first quarter, Fortune's ad pages were down 12.9%, compared to the same period last year, Money's tumbled 33.2%, Business 2.0 dropped 21.8%, and Fortune Small Business sagged 6.4%.
Shah's online credentials are impressive. He led CNNMoney.com to a triumphant 2006, when Nielsen//NetRatings declared it the top business Web site in terms of unique visitors, page views and time spent. (It also received the award for best business and financial Web site from OMMA, owned by MediaPost.) But it remains to be seen whether Shah's magic will translate from online to print.
One possibility: Shah isn't expected to restore the print operations to their former glory, but rather to slim them down -- perhaps even transform them into useful adjuncts to a Web-centered distribution strategy. Over the last couple years, Time Inc. has shown itself more than willing to slash magazines' guaranteed rate base -- as it did with flagship Time magazine in September 2006 -- or dump print operations entirely.
Teen People got the axe in July 2006, and Life magazine folded in March of this year. The Teen People brand was supposed to live on with its Web site, but the online presence was nixed earlier this year.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Media conglomerates in the past, panel says
Media conglomerates in the past, panel says
By Georg Szalai
June 27, 2007
NEW YORK -- Is the heyday of media and entertainment conglomerates behind us?
A panel of industry analysts and bankers discussed this and other deal making questions as part of a PricewaterhouseCoopers event here Tuesday, with several of them arguing that conglomeratization has no real benefits, especially in the digital age.
"Consolidation in the old media world destroys value," said Laura Martin, founder and CEO of Media Metrics LLC. "They are buying stuff (and audiences) because they don't know what else to do."
She argued that online and digital deals with a monetization rather than a traffic focus are key, citing Google as a firm that has made smart acquisition decisions, while signaling that media giants are often otherwise inclined.
Martin also said that the young technology entrepreneurs that make a difference in today's world want cool and hip work environments. "That's not the big media companies," she said.
Former Morgan Stanley entertainment and media analyst Richard Bilotti said that consolidation can at times create scale advantages, such as when News Corp. expanded its TV station group in recent years to reach duopolies and what he called "superb margins."
But he argued that the Walt Disney Co.'s acquisition of Pixar -- while strategically positive -- may have taken a form that didn't benefit Disney shareholders much. Bilotti argued the price paid was fairly high for the CG-animation studio. "CG looks like it is in the seventh inning," he said on a bearish note, suggesting Disney could have instead sold Pixar its own studio operation and then taken a stake in it.
Gamco Investors portfolio manager Lawrence Haverty said the Internet and cable and satellite TV spaces are all sectors where consolidation makes sense due to "natural economies of scale."
PwC is predicting continued merger, acquisition and alliance activity in the media and entertainment space.
"With content now distributed on multiple platforms, content producers/providers, distributors and technology companies are looking to expand their presence among the proliferating channels, resulting in an increase in merger and acquisition activity," PwC's latest "Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2007-2011," which was formally launched at Tuesday's event, states.
Last year, media and entertainment deal volume exceeded $70 billion, according to PwC.
And 2007 is "on track to be the greatest year in volume since 2001," when the AOL-Time Warner merger happened, Thomas Rooney, partner, transaction services at PwC, told attendees Tuesday. PwC expects more than 1,000 sector deals with about $167 billion in deal volume across various sub-sectors pending already.
However, Tuesday's panelists were also largely bearish on the value of partnerships, arguing that they limit companies' flexibility and create the risk of dysfunctional marriages.
The experts, however, differed in their takes on the increased role of private equity groups in recent media industry deals.
Haverty predicted that "we're heading for a train wreck" given the rise in leveraged buyouts that boost debt levels for the acquired firms and recent upticks in deal prices. "We've seen this movie before."
Bilotti though said he prefers such deals over ones that see publicly traded companies dilute their earnings by issuing a lot of stock to finance deals.
The PwC report simply highlights today's importance of PE players for the sector.
"Private equity is having a significant impact on the entertainment and media industry," Rooney said. Of deals announced year-to-date, 74, or 13%, involve PE firms, while they have a 54% share in deal volume where announced, he told event attendees Tuesday.
Links referenced within this article
Find this article at:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3ifb6d40236328714d3f3bb0967ad1642b
By Georg Szalai
June 27, 2007
NEW YORK -- Is the heyday of media and entertainment conglomerates behind us?
A panel of industry analysts and bankers discussed this and other deal making questions as part of a PricewaterhouseCoopers event here Tuesday, with several of them arguing that conglomeratization has no real benefits, especially in the digital age.
"Consolidation in the old media world destroys value," said Laura Martin, founder and CEO of Media Metrics LLC. "They are buying stuff (and audiences) because they don't know what else to do."
She argued that online and digital deals with a monetization rather than a traffic focus are key, citing Google as a firm that has made smart acquisition decisions, while signaling that media giants are often otherwise inclined.
Martin also said that the young technology entrepreneurs that make a difference in today's world want cool and hip work environments. "That's not the big media companies," she said.
Former Morgan Stanley entertainment and media analyst Richard Bilotti said that consolidation can at times create scale advantages, such as when News Corp. expanded its TV station group in recent years to reach duopolies and what he called "superb margins."
But he argued that the Walt Disney Co.'s acquisition of Pixar -- while strategically positive -- may have taken a form that didn't benefit Disney shareholders much. Bilotti argued the price paid was fairly high for the CG-animation studio. "CG looks like it is in the seventh inning," he said on a bearish note, suggesting Disney could have instead sold Pixar its own studio operation and then taken a stake in it.
Gamco Investors portfolio manager Lawrence Haverty said the Internet and cable and satellite TV spaces are all sectors where consolidation makes sense due to "natural economies of scale."
PwC is predicting continued merger, acquisition and alliance activity in the media and entertainment space.
"With content now distributed on multiple platforms, content producers/providers, distributors and technology companies are looking to expand their presence among the proliferating channels, resulting in an increase in merger and acquisition activity," PwC's latest "Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2007-2011," which was formally launched at Tuesday's event, states.
Last year, media and entertainment deal volume exceeded $70 billion, according to PwC.
And 2007 is "on track to be the greatest year in volume since 2001," when the AOL-Time Warner merger happened, Thomas Rooney, partner, transaction services at PwC, told attendees Tuesday. PwC expects more than 1,000 sector deals with about $167 billion in deal volume across various sub-sectors pending already.
However, Tuesday's panelists were also largely bearish on the value of partnerships, arguing that they limit companies' flexibility and create the risk of dysfunctional marriages.
The experts, however, differed in their takes on the increased role of private equity groups in recent media industry deals.
Haverty predicted that "we're heading for a train wreck" given the rise in leveraged buyouts that boost debt levels for the acquired firms and recent upticks in deal prices. "We've seen this movie before."
Bilotti though said he prefers such deals over ones that see publicly traded companies dilute their earnings by issuing a lot of stock to finance deals.
The PwC report simply highlights today's importance of PE players for the sector.
"Private equity is having a significant impact on the entertainment and media industry," Rooney said. Of deals announced year-to-date, 74, or 13%, involve PE firms, while they have a 54% share in deal volume where announced, he told event attendees Tuesday.
Links referenced within this article
Find this article at:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3ifb6d40236328714d3f3bb0967ad1642b
Study: Internet 2nd Most Essential Medium, But #1 in Coolness
Study: Internet 2nd Most Essential Medium, But #1 in Coolness
by Les Luchter, Wednesday, Jun 27, 2007 6:00 AM ET
THE INTERNET HAS PASSED RADIO to become Americans' second "most essential" medium and swapped places with TV as the "most cool and exciting medium" since the subjects were last studied five years ago, reported Edison Media Research.
Edison's "Internet and Multimedia 2007" study, conducted this past winter with Arbitron, reported that 36% of consumers age 12 and over chose TV as the "most essential" medium in their lives, followed by 33% choosing the Internet, 17% radio, and 10% newspapers.
In 2002, TV was also ranked "most essential" by 39% of respondents, followed by 26% for radio and 20% for the Internet.
Interestingly, the Internet also placed second when this year's respondents were asked to name the "least essential" medium, this time placing behind newspapers.
Here, 35% found newspapers "least essential," followed by 24% for the Internet, and 18% for both TV and radio. In 2002, the Internet had topped the "least essential" list, at 33%.
Finally, the Internet and TV swapped places in the category of "most cool and exciting medium," with the Internet getting this designation from 38% of respondents in 2007 versus 25% in 2002, and TV from 35%, down from 48% just five years ago.
by Les Luchter, Wednesday, Jun 27, 2007 6:00 AM ET
THE INTERNET HAS PASSED RADIO to become Americans' second "most essential" medium and swapped places with TV as the "most cool and exciting medium" since the subjects were last studied five years ago, reported Edison Media Research.
Edison's "Internet and Multimedia 2007" study, conducted this past winter with Arbitron, reported that 36% of consumers age 12 and over chose TV as the "most essential" medium in their lives, followed by 33% choosing the Internet, 17% radio, and 10% newspapers.
In 2002, TV was also ranked "most essential" by 39% of respondents, followed by 26% for radio and 20% for the Internet.
Interestingly, the Internet also placed second when this year's respondents were asked to name the "least essential" medium, this time placing behind newspapers.
Here, 35% found newspapers "least essential," followed by 24% for the Internet, and 18% for both TV and radio. In 2002, the Internet had topped the "least essential" list, at 33%.
Finally, the Internet and TV swapped places in the category of "most cool and exciting medium," with the Internet getting this designation from 38% of respondents in 2007 versus 25% in 2002, and TV from 35%, down from 48% just five years ago.
Study: Internet 2nd Most Essential Medium, But #1 in Coolness
Study: Internet 2nd Most Essential Medium, But #1 in Coolness
by Les Luchter, Wednesday, Jun 27, 2007 6:00 AM ET
THE INTERNET HAS PASSED RADIO to become Americans' second "most essential" medium and swapped places with TV as the "most cool and exciting medium" since the subjects were last studied five years ago, reported Edison Media Research.
Edison's "Internet and Multimedia 2007" study, conducted this past winter with Arbitron, reported that 36% of consumers age 12 and over chose TV as the "most essential" medium in their lives, followed by 33% choosing the Internet, 17% radio, and 10% newspapers.
In 2002, TV was also ranked "most essential" by 39% of respondents, followed by 26% for radio and 20% for the Internet.
Interestingly, the Internet also placed second when this year's respondents were asked to name the "least essential" medium, this time placing behind newspapers.
Here, 35% found newspapers "least essential," followed by 24% for the Internet, and 18% for both TV and radio. In 2002, the Internet had topped the "least essential" list, at 33%.
Finally, the Internet and TV swapped places in the category of "most cool and exciting medium," with the Internet getting this designation from 38% of respondents in 2007 versus 25% in 2002, and TV from 35%, down from 48% just five years ago.
by Les Luchter, Wednesday, Jun 27, 2007 6:00 AM ET
THE INTERNET HAS PASSED RADIO to become Americans' second "most essential" medium and swapped places with TV as the "most cool and exciting medium" since the subjects were last studied five years ago, reported Edison Media Research.
Edison's "Internet and Multimedia 2007" study, conducted this past winter with Arbitron, reported that 36% of consumers age 12 and over chose TV as the "most essential" medium in their lives, followed by 33% choosing the Internet, 17% radio, and 10% newspapers.
In 2002, TV was also ranked "most essential" by 39% of respondents, followed by 26% for radio and 20% for the Internet.
Interestingly, the Internet also placed second when this year's respondents were asked to name the "least essential" medium, this time placing behind newspapers.
Here, 35% found newspapers "least essential," followed by 24% for the Internet, and 18% for both TV and radio. In 2002, the Internet had topped the "least essential" list, at 33%.
Finally, the Internet and TV swapped places in the category of "most cool and exciting medium," with the Internet getting this designation from 38% of respondents in 2007 versus 25% in 2002, and TV from 35%, down from 48% just five years ago.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
On the Record: They Aren't Just Like Us
On the Record: They Aren't Just Like Us
by Mike Bloxham
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=61095&Nid=31735&p=204904
The very fact you are reading this article and this magazine is evidence that you are - in the nicest possible way - a freak of nature. That is not to impugn either you or the goodly publishers of Media magazine or my fellow contributors (all of whom are worthy, wonderful and intelligent people).
Rather, it is a fact based on the sheer amount of time we spend contemplating and working in the world of media in all its forms (and for those of you bridling at the very notion of being a freak for reading this, console yourselves with the contemplation of what that makes me, the author of this piece). In short, this single-mindedness makes us so unlike the people we dedicate ourselves to reaching, moving, engaging, motivating, persuading and influencing that we are - in comparison - decidedly abnormal (freakish).
Consider for example, your average work day (probably at least eight hours and generally more). For all of that time you will be rigorously focused on planning, executing and evaluating campaigns. You'll be buying or selling media. You'll be pitching new business or being on the receiving end of pitches. The list goes on, and all the while you will be dipping in and out of the stream of online articles dropping into your inbox to inform your ever-evolving perspective of the fast-moving media landscape and all that takes place within it.
Your Media Day is very much made up of the business of media itself (as well as whatever content you consume via your channels of choice). For your consumers, however, the Media Day almost certainly involves a great deal of media, but they are all about content, not the business end of things. They care more about last night's ball game, the reality show of choice and the day's morning news. They also care about their kids' education, their prospects at work, their retirement and what the family holiday will be this year.
In short, they don't really care about media itself - just what it does for them. We, on the other hand, care a lot. And that's how it should be. It's the willingness to focus so much effort and time on the business of media that makes you good at what you do. The catch, though, is that it also helps to create a divide between practitioners and consumers that can be almost impossible to bridge.
Too often one hears statements from the media community that suggest an implicit belief that consumers are "just like us" - as well-informed and equally motivated to engage with media as those of us that are paid to. How many times have you heard that "everyone" is using a Blackberry incessantly, watching videos on their iPods, blogging, spending half their lives in virtual worlds, etc? If these kind of statements had been true, then the on-demand world would already be all-encompassing, every household would have a DVR, TV would be interactive from top to bottom and most retail outlets would have become a thing of the past.
Those with a vested interest in these things happening want to find evidence for them doing so. But we have to avoid the mass delusion of the dot-com bubble. As so many more platforms and capabilities emerge and reach a potential audience, we must strive to avoid falling into the trap of believing that the simple fact of availability will lead to inevitable and habitual large-scale use.
A case in point is the video-capable iPod. In a story in this magazine a few months ago, various commentators expressed surprise that a piece of Nielsen research found only 2 percent of a sample of 400 iPod users watched video on their device. Doubt was cast on the methodology, partly because the number of video downloads from iTunes would logically indicate iPod-based viewing. But consumers are inconvenient in their habits and as research will show, many of the movies downloaded from iTunes never make it off the pc or Mac, where they are viewed without the need for a further file transfer. To many users, this is a convenient route to what they want (the movie), while the iPod still performs perfectly well as an audio device.
Though there's unprecedented change happening in the media world now, it's not all happening at the same rate. While new devices and capabilities seem to come through almost every week and companies rush to commercialize, consumers don't always follow at the desired pace. Sometimes they even adopt unexpected patterns of use that leave companies playing catch-up. It's our ability to empathize with consumers that will enable us to turn expertise to practical advantage rather than be bogged down by our own perceptions.
Mike Bloxham is director of insight and research at the Center for Media Design, Ball State University. (mbloxham@bsu.edu)
by Mike Bloxham
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=61095&Nid=31735&p=204904
The very fact you are reading this article and this magazine is evidence that you are - in the nicest possible way - a freak of nature. That is not to impugn either you or the goodly publishers of Media magazine or my fellow contributors (all of whom are worthy, wonderful and intelligent people).
Rather, it is a fact based on the sheer amount of time we spend contemplating and working in the world of media in all its forms (and for those of you bridling at the very notion of being a freak for reading this, console yourselves with the contemplation of what that makes me, the author of this piece). In short, this single-mindedness makes us so unlike the people we dedicate ourselves to reaching, moving, engaging, motivating, persuading and influencing that we are - in comparison - decidedly abnormal (freakish).
Consider for example, your average work day (probably at least eight hours and generally more). For all of that time you will be rigorously focused on planning, executing and evaluating campaigns. You'll be buying or selling media. You'll be pitching new business or being on the receiving end of pitches. The list goes on, and all the while you will be dipping in and out of the stream of online articles dropping into your inbox to inform your ever-evolving perspective of the fast-moving media landscape and all that takes place within it.
Your Media Day is very much made up of the business of media itself (as well as whatever content you consume via your channels of choice). For your consumers, however, the Media Day almost certainly involves a great deal of media, but they are all about content, not the business end of things. They care more about last night's ball game, the reality show of choice and the day's morning news. They also care about their kids' education, their prospects at work, their retirement and what the family holiday will be this year.
In short, they don't really care about media itself - just what it does for them. We, on the other hand, care a lot. And that's how it should be. It's the willingness to focus so much effort and time on the business of media that makes you good at what you do. The catch, though, is that it also helps to create a divide between practitioners and consumers that can be almost impossible to bridge.
Too often one hears statements from the media community that suggest an implicit belief that consumers are "just like us" - as well-informed and equally motivated to engage with media as those of us that are paid to. How many times have you heard that "everyone" is using a Blackberry incessantly, watching videos on their iPods, blogging, spending half their lives in virtual worlds, etc? If these kind of statements had been true, then the on-demand world would already be all-encompassing, every household would have a DVR, TV would be interactive from top to bottom and most retail outlets would have become a thing of the past.
Those with a vested interest in these things happening want to find evidence for them doing so. But we have to avoid the mass delusion of the dot-com bubble. As so many more platforms and capabilities emerge and reach a potential audience, we must strive to avoid falling into the trap of believing that the simple fact of availability will lead to inevitable and habitual large-scale use.
A case in point is the video-capable iPod. In a story in this magazine a few months ago, various commentators expressed surprise that a piece of Nielsen research found only 2 percent of a sample of 400 iPod users watched video on their device. Doubt was cast on the methodology, partly because the number of video downloads from iTunes would logically indicate iPod-based viewing. But consumers are inconvenient in their habits and as research will show, many of the movies downloaded from iTunes never make it off the pc or Mac, where they are viewed without the need for a further file transfer. To many users, this is a convenient route to what they want (the movie), while the iPod still performs perfectly well as an audio device.
Though there's unprecedented change happening in the media world now, it's not all happening at the same rate. While new devices and capabilities seem to come through almost every week and companies rush to commercialize, consumers don't always follow at the desired pace. Sometimes they even adopt unexpected patterns of use that leave companies playing catch-up. It's our ability to empathize with consumers that will enable us to turn expertise to practical advantage rather than be bogged down by our own perceptions.
Mike Bloxham is director of insight and research at the Center for Media Design, Ball State University. (mbloxham@bsu.edu)
Are You Getting Any? Ad Spending From Billions To Trillions
Are You Getting Any? Ad Spending From Billions To Trillions
PricewaterhouseCoopers recently published a report entitled “Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2007-2011.” It anticipates the growth rate annually to be 6.4% resulting in $2 trillion dollars to be spent in 2011.
Internet advertising dollars are projected to surpass spending on newspaper publishing by 2009. PwC expects Internet ad spending to grow from $177 billion in 2006 to $332 billion in 2011, which predicts a 13.5% annual growth rate.
Although the United States has the largest industry, it is also the slowest growing market with a 5.3% AGR tapping $754 billion in 2011. Asia-Pacific is marked as the fastest growing currently holding a 13.5% AGR.
Over the next five years, the majority of the growth in the industry is to come from online and wireless digital media. Global advertising will increase at a 5.4% annual growth rate from an estimated $407 billion in 2006 to $530 billion in 2011. Five year projections show online/digital and mobile fields worldwide to increase to $153 billion. Broadband households will grow from 240 million to 540 million and wireless subscribers are predicted to increase from 2.3 billion to 3.4 billion globally.
PwC has said that in terms of regions, economic and media/entertainment growth will continue to foster the importance of India, China(BRIC), Brazil and Russia. “Content, distribution and technology companies need to aggressively seek out new relationships to accommodate the shift towards convergence,” said Jim O’Shaughnessy, global chairman of PwC’s entertainment and media practice
Asia-Pacific spending on distribution of TV programming on mobile handsets is expected to increase from $26 million in 2006 to $6.5 billion in 2011. At 14.7%this is three times the 5.5% growth rate projected for the rest of the world.
PricewaterhouseCoopers recently published a report entitled “Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2007-2011.” It anticipates the growth rate annually to be 6.4% resulting in $2 trillion dollars to be spent in 2011.
Internet advertising dollars are projected to surpass spending on newspaper publishing by 2009. PwC expects Internet ad spending to grow from $177 billion in 2006 to $332 billion in 2011, which predicts a 13.5% annual growth rate.
Although the United States has the largest industry, it is also the slowest growing market with a 5.3% AGR tapping $754 billion in 2011. Asia-Pacific is marked as the fastest growing currently holding a 13.5% AGR.
Over the next five years, the majority of the growth in the industry is to come from online and wireless digital media. Global advertising will increase at a 5.4% annual growth rate from an estimated $407 billion in 2006 to $530 billion in 2011. Five year projections show online/digital and mobile fields worldwide to increase to $153 billion. Broadband households will grow from 240 million to 540 million and wireless subscribers are predicted to increase from 2.3 billion to 3.4 billion globally.
PwC has said that in terms of regions, economic and media/entertainment growth will continue to foster the importance of India, China(BRIC), Brazil and Russia. “Content, distribution and technology companies need to aggressively seek out new relationships to accommodate the shift towards convergence,” said Jim O’Shaughnessy, global chairman of PwC’s entertainment and media practice
Asia-Pacific spending on distribution of TV programming on mobile handsets is expected to increase from $26 million in 2006 to $6.5 billion in 2011. At 14.7%this is three times the 5.5% growth rate projected for the rest of the world.
For papers, online's still a world apart
For papers, online's still a world apart
Media buyers want to see integrated ad packages
By Lisa Snedeker
Jun 25, 2007
For the longest time, newspapers were confused by the web, and frankly annoyed, irked that they were having to post stories for free that print subscribers were having to pay for.
But most publishers have moved a long way in understanding the longer-term strategic value of their web sites.
While they're still not sure how or whether internet advertising will ever make up for losses of print revenue, they know they must invest. They need to build up their online offerings, and they must also integrate them with their print editions, making them that much more attractive to advertisers.
Yet very few papers have yet to pull it off, just a handful. And the fear now is that time is running out.
A new JupiterResearch study on media consumption shows that people are spending more time online but they are doing so at the expense of newspapers. They are going elsewhere. The worry is that advertisers will follow.
The value of integrating print and web is in being able to offer advertisers combo deals that tie them into the paper. That means deals that are flexible, easy to understand, and priced in a way that makes them that much more attractive than anything the competition can come up with.
It's doable. The devil seems to be in the transition. All but a few papers continue to sell print and online separately, through different departments, each with its own rate card.
“I don’t know that newspapers have it 100 percent right yet. They are still trying to figure out structure and price to make those multimedia buys," says Randy Bennett, vice president of audience and new business development for the Newspaper Association of America.
And Bennett allows that there's a real need for it. “From the advertisers’ side, there’s particular interest in trying to change the media mix and moving money online,” he says.
A recent survey by the Newspaper National Network found that 74 percent of their customers felt newspapers should offer integrated packages. NNN sells advertising for more than 1,500 newspapers across the country.
A similar Media Life survey a year ago found much the same thing. Media buyers regarded them a top priority, and a far bigger story, way ahead of the circulation issues that dominate so much of the coverage of newspapers.
The absence of integrated ad deals was a major source of frustration for media buyers.
Little seems to have changed in a year.
“We are not being approached with combo packages as of now,” says Mike Monroe, vice president of media and advertising operations at Macy’s, which advertises in four dozen newspapers and is one of the Los Angeles' largest advertisers. “Frankly, more times than not, we are the ones pushing bundling a print campaign with their (newspapers) online property.”
There are exceptions, of course: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Tampa Tribune are among those cited for offering integrated advertising packages across print and online platforms.
Most newspapers continue to see online as value-added, something to tack onto a print buy. Print is where the big dollars are, and there's where the interest is too.
As Bennett suggests, the problem is working out the details of a truly integrated buy, in which media buyers could move and choose from column A and column B and shift dollars back and forth as plans changed.
That's a lot harder to create than a bundled package with a single price and no flexibility, which is exactly what buyers do not want, says Jason Klein, president and chief executive officer of the Newspaper National Network.
“The print and the online package should not be stapled together but rather built using elastic bands for flexibility," Klein says.
“There is pressure from consumers and the market that newspapers have to be integrated to build that, even if it means they have to retrain their work force,” Klein says. “Change is never easy, but it clearly needs to be done.”
But one buyer at a top agency believes things have improved. She's Jouette Travis, executive vice president and managing director of Dallas-based Carat USA.
“Newspapers are getting better about selling combined print/online packages, and we are responding by having our internal newspaper and online teams make joint evaluations,” she says. "This has resulted in some new programs and begins to pave the way for a migration to the future of newspapers. It's very exciting to see publishers getting into this marketplace."
Media buyers want to see integrated ad packages
By Lisa Snedeker
Jun 25, 2007
For the longest time, newspapers were confused by the web, and frankly annoyed, irked that they were having to post stories for free that print subscribers were having to pay for.
But most publishers have moved a long way in understanding the longer-term strategic value of their web sites.
While they're still not sure how or whether internet advertising will ever make up for losses of print revenue, they know they must invest. They need to build up their online offerings, and they must also integrate them with their print editions, making them that much more attractive to advertisers.
Yet very few papers have yet to pull it off, just a handful. And the fear now is that time is running out.
A new JupiterResearch study on media consumption shows that people are spending more time online but they are doing so at the expense of newspapers. They are going elsewhere. The worry is that advertisers will follow.
The value of integrating print and web is in being able to offer advertisers combo deals that tie them into the paper. That means deals that are flexible, easy to understand, and priced in a way that makes them that much more attractive than anything the competition can come up with.
It's doable. The devil seems to be in the transition. All but a few papers continue to sell print and online separately, through different departments, each with its own rate card.
“I don’t know that newspapers have it 100 percent right yet. They are still trying to figure out structure and price to make those multimedia buys," says Randy Bennett, vice president of audience and new business development for the Newspaper Association of America.
And Bennett allows that there's a real need for it. “From the advertisers’ side, there’s particular interest in trying to change the media mix and moving money online,” he says.
A recent survey by the Newspaper National Network found that 74 percent of their customers felt newspapers should offer integrated packages. NNN sells advertising for more than 1,500 newspapers across the country.
A similar Media Life survey a year ago found much the same thing. Media buyers regarded them a top priority, and a far bigger story, way ahead of the circulation issues that dominate so much of the coverage of newspapers.
The absence of integrated ad deals was a major source of frustration for media buyers.
Little seems to have changed in a year.
“We are not being approached with combo packages as of now,” says Mike Monroe, vice president of media and advertising operations at Macy’s, which advertises in four dozen newspapers and is one of the Los Angeles' largest advertisers. “Frankly, more times than not, we are the ones pushing bundling a print campaign with their (newspapers) online property.”
There are exceptions, of course: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Tampa Tribune are among those cited for offering integrated advertising packages across print and online platforms.
Most newspapers continue to see online as value-added, something to tack onto a print buy. Print is where the big dollars are, and there's where the interest is too.
As Bennett suggests, the problem is working out the details of a truly integrated buy, in which media buyers could move and choose from column A and column B and shift dollars back and forth as plans changed.
That's a lot harder to create than a bundled package with a single price and no flexibility, which is exactly what buyers do not want, says Jason Klein, president and chief executive officer of the Newspaper National Network.
“The print and the online package should not be stapled together but rather built using elastic bands for flexibility," Klein says.
“There is pressure from consumers and the market that newspapers have to be integrated to build that, even if it means they have to retrain their work force,” Klein says. “Change is never easy, but it clearly needs to be done.”
But one buyer at a top agency believes things have improved. She's Jouette Travis, executive vice president and managing director of Dallas-based Carat USA.
“Newspapers are getting better about selling combined print/online packages, and we are responding by having our internal newspaper and online teams make joint evaluations,” she says. "This has resulted in some new programs and begins to pave the way for a migration to the future of newspapers. It's very exciting to see publishers getting into this marketplace."
Monday, June 25, 2007
Four in five printers working under capacity in disappointing quarter
Four in five printers working under capacity in disappointing quarter
Caitlin Fitzsimmons, printweek.com, 22 June 2007
The print industry had a tough start to the year, with spring failing to deliver the expected recovery in demand, a new report suggests.
Directions, the BPIF survey of industry trading trends, shows many respondents became too enthusiastic about the outlook for the industry after generally encouraging results in the autumn and winter.
Many respondents reported that the March-May quarter failed to meet expectations, while the proportion of firms working below capacity increased to nearly four in five (78%) from just over three in five (62%) the previous quarter.
Nearly one in four (24%) respondents said order books were worse than normal for the time of year, compared with one in five (21%) last quarter, while the proportion of firms reporting order books better than normal fell from 38% to 31%.
However, printers remain optimistic about the upcoming trading period and predict that ongoing consolidation in the industry - through both acquisition and weaker firms going into liquidation - will relieve the competitive pressure.
BPIF corporate affairs director Andrew Brown said the pace of change in the industry provided opportunities for progressive management.
"Although the results this time around were disappointing compared with the last two quarters, it is encouraging to see that printers are reasonably optimistic about the period ahead," he said.
"It is clear that rationalisation continues to take its toll on the industry, creating further opportunities for companies seeking mergers or acquisitions."
Many small to medium-sized general commercial printers signalled their plans to acquire other businesses, recognising that organic growth is difficult, but growth and economies of scale can be achieved through strategic acquisition.
Printers also plan to increase capital expenditure on plant and machinery in the coming year, with many companies either investing in digital for the first time or enhancing their digital capacity.
Caitlin Fitzsimmons, printweek.com, 22 June 2007
The print industry had a tough start to the year, with spring failing to deliver the expected recovery in demand, a new report suggests.
Directions, the BPIF survey of industry trading trends, shows many respondents became too enthusiastic about the outlook for the industry after generally encouraging results in the autumn and winter.
Many respondents reported that the March-May quarter failed to meet expectations, while the proportion of firms working below capacity increased to nearly four in five (78%) from just over three in five (62%) the previous quarter.
Nearly one in four (24%) respondents said order books were worse than normal for the time of year, compared with one in five (21%) last quarter, while the proportion of firms reporting order books better than normal fell from 38% to 31%.
However, printers remain optimistic about the upcoming trading period and predict that ongoing consolidation in the industry - through both acquisition and weaker firms going into liquidation - will relieve the competitive pressure.
BPIF corporate affairs director Andrew Brown said the pace of change in the industry provided opportunities for progressive management.
"Although the results this time around were disappointing compared with the last two quarters, it is encouraging to see that printers are reasonably optimistic about the period ahead," he said.
"It is clear that rationalisation continues to take its toll on the industry, creating further opportunities for companies seeking mergers or acquisitions."
Many small to medium-sized general commercial printers signalled their plans to acquire other businesses, recognising that organic growth is difficult, but growth and economies of scale can be achieved through strategic acquisition.
Printers also plan to increase capital expenditure on plant and machinery in the coming year, with many companies either investing in digital for the first time or enhancing their digital capacity.
Ziff Davis Sheds Enterprise Group, Revamps as Web-Focused Publisher
Ziff Davis Sheds Enterprise Group, Revamps as Web-Focused Publisher
by Erik Sass, Monday, Jun 25, 2007 8:00 AM ET
INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY PUBLISHER ZIFF Davis is continuing to divest itself of some titles, with the sale of its Enterprise Group. In addition to print properties eWeek, CIO and Baseline magazine, it also sold online ones: eweek.com, webbuyersguide.com, cioinsight.com, baselinemag.com, Microsoft-watch.com, channelinsider.com and deviceforge.com. Plus, it included a valuable database of 3.5 million business technology users in the sale.
The Enterprise Group is being sold to an affiliate of Insight Venture Partners, a private-equity and venture-capital firm, for about $150 million. Ziff Davis CEO Robert Callahan observed: "Insight Venture Partners has exciting plans to continue to pursue growth opportunities in this rapidly transforming technology media environment."
The sale of the division is, in part, a continuation of earlier sales and closures of print and online properties Ziff Davis deemed less profitable or peripheral to its mission.
During the last five years, the company has cut costs and reformulated itself as a Web-focused publisher. In the last year, it has finally returned to profitability after enduring a several-year slump. The Internet's impact on publishing hit the company earlier than many consumer magazines because of its tech-savvy audience.
In the first quarter of 2007, Ziff Davis saw a 15% increase in earnings to $3.1 million. Earnings increased despite a total revenue decline of 12%, or $4.3 million, as the company wrapped up a period when it shed a number of unprofitable print publications. This is the fourth quarter in which revenue fell, but profitability increased.
The curious phenomenon of falling revenues paired with increasing earnings may be indicative of a general trend. Magazine companies that move aggressively to online-centered business models are likely to be smaller, but also more profitable, after the transition.
by Erik Sass, Monday, Jun 25, 2007 8:00 AM ET
INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY PUBLISHER ZIFF Davis is continuing to divest itself of some titles, with the sale of its Enterprise Group. In addition to print properties eWeek, CIO and Baseline magazine, it also sold online ones: eweek.com, webbuyersguide.com, cioinsight.com, baselinemag.com, Microsoft-watch.com, channelinsider.com and deviceforge.com. Plus, it included a valuable database of 3.5 million business technology users in the sale.
The Enterprise Group is being sold to an affiliate of Insight Venture Partners, a private-equity and venture-capital firm, for about $150 million. Ziff Davis CEO Robert Callahan observed: "Insight Venture Partners has exciting plans to continue to pursue growth opportunities in this rapidly transforming technology media environment."
The sale of the division is, in part, a continuation of earlier sales and closures of print and online properties Ziff Davis deemed less profitable or peripheral to its mission.
During the last five years, the company has cut costs and reformulated itself as a Web-focused publisher. In the last year, it has finally returned to profitability after enduring a several-year slump. The Internet's impact on publishing hit the company earlier than many consumer magazines because of its tech-savvy audience.
In the first quarter of 2007, Ziff Davis saw a 15% increase in earnings to $3.1 million. Earnings increased despite a total revenue decline of 12%, or $4.3 million, as the company wrapped up a period when it shed a number of unprofitable print publications. This is the fourth quarter in which revenue fell, but profitability increased.
The curious phenomenon of falling revenues paired with increasing earnings may be indicative of a general trend. Magazine companies that move aggressively to online-centered business models are likely to be smaller, but also more profitable, after the transition.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Electronic paper is catching up with the real thing
Paper chase
Jun 15th 2007
From Economist.com
Electronic paper is catching up with the real thing
AN INVENTOR meets a venture capitalist in a bar. He pulls out of his pocket something that looks like a grubby handkerchief, straightens it out on the bar top, and begins his pitch for $10m of venture money.
It’s a video display that can be furled, folded or rolled up into a ball, the inventor enthuses. He shows how it can be viewed from any angle, is easy to read in bright sunlight, has a contrast ratio better than a laptop’s liquid-crystal display (LCD), is light and portable, and can run for months without being recharged. It will change the way we view the world, swears the wide-eyed inventor. “Naw, it’s all been done better and cheaper before,” says the unimpressed VC, as he crumples the newspaper he was reading and tosses it into the bin.
Ink on paper has evolved over the millennia to become the easiest medium to read and the most efficient means for conveying information. And despite all the talk about paperless offices, computers have contributed mightily to today’s deluge of printed material instead of helping diminish it. But that hasn’t stopped researchers around the world from trying to replicate print on paper electronically.
The one thing going for e-paper, which the dead-tree version can’t hope to match, is its programmability. Imagine a newspaper that could be updated as events developed during the day. Think of a book that could change its contents after you’d finished reading it. How about a laptop-sized screen that unfurled from your mobile phone so you could watch TV while strap-hanging to work? What if your tee-shirt could flash intimate messages to attractive passers-by?
Sony is the latest in a long line of gadget-makers to flaunt a paper-like electronic display. The flexible 2.5-inch display it demonstrated a couple of weeks ago was notable for two reasons: it offered full-motion video and was in living colour.
E Ink Corporation
In some ways, Sony is playing catch-up here. LG Philips, a joint venture between LG of South Korea and Philips of the Netherlands, has been showing off a 14-inch colour screen that’s flexible enough to wrap around a lamp post. Prime View International of Taiwan has something similar. So does Samsung of South Korea and both Seiko Epson and Fujitsu of Japan, as well as a handful of start-ups in Britain and America. But until recently, few of them were able to display colour video properly.
While making flexible displays in monochrome has been difficult, adding colours and making them switch fast enough for full-motion video has been a tougher nut to crack. The trick to making such furlable displays has been to fabricate the electrode arrays for switching the display’s millions of picture elements (“pixels”) from either conducting plastics or extremely thin metal foil. Fortuitously, the recent improvement in plastic electronics for ink-jet printers has invigorated the whole of the e-paper business.
Like real paper, e-paper has to be both highly reflective and passive—ie, it should need no juice for backlighting or for maintaining the image. The best way to do that is to use a medium that’s bi-stable. Like a tossed coin, a bi-stable material can flip between two possible states—and then remain stable, and require no energy, in one or the other state until flipped again.
The first attempts to devise a bi-stable ink were made 30 years ago at Xerox’s legendary Palo Alto Research Centre in California. Called Gyricon, the technology was based on a transparent silicone sandwich with millions of tiny polyethylene spheres floating in oil between the upper and lower surfaces. Each of the tiny beads, less than a hair’s width in diameter, was black on one side and white on the other, with each hemisphere carrying an opposing electric charge. When an external charge was applied to an electrode array on the upper surface of the sandwich, the beads floating beneath them rotated promptly to reveal either their white or black sides—spelling out words and images, depending on the pattern of surface electrodes switched on or off.
Nowadays, a Xerox subsidiary called Gyricon LLC sells its SmartPaper—the polarised-bead form of e-paper—as reprogrammable displays for draping inside retail stores, hotels, conference centres and colleges. The flexible signs are connected wirelessly to computerised databases so they can be changed with the click of a mouse.
The bi-stable technology that has progressed the furthest, however, is a refinement perfected at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the early 1990s. This uses tiny microcapsules filled with electrically-charged particles of white titanium dioxide suspended in an oily solution of black dye. The capsules themselves are trapped in a liquid polymer that’s sandwiched between two arrays of electrodes.
When a negative charge is applied to individual electrodes, the titanium-dioxide particles move to the top of the microspheres and make that part of the display appear white. As with the Gyricon, the pattern of electrodes switched on or off determines the image on the display.
E-Ink, the company spun off from MIT to commercialise the idea, supplies such displays to electronics firms around the world, including LG Philips, Samsung, Motorola and Prime View as well as Sony. The first e-book reader launched by Sony in 2004 used an E-Ink display with electronics supplied by Philips.
Sony’s latest announcement promises to bring e-paper even closer to everyday use. This time the device appears to be a home-grown development. Unlike the electrophoretic displays used in E-Ink’s products, which rely on charged particles being physically moved by an electric field, Sony’s new imaging device uses an organic electroluminescence display (OLED). Such displays emit light in response to an electric current or field being passing through them.
OLEDs generally use a glass substrate, or backing material. But Sony has found a way of forming the organic transistors for switching the pixels on and off on a flexible plastic substrate. The 2.5-inch prototype is little thicker than a sheet of actual paper and weighs about the same without its associated electronics.
Don’t expect such a clever innovation to be wasted on something as prosaic as a portable reader for e-books. Apple’s multimedia iPhone may be the gadget du jour, but Sony may trump it with an all-singing-and-dancing gizmo, built around a foldable display for downloading television, which can run for days without recharging. Now that’s something not to be sneezed at.
Jun 15th 2007
From Economist.com
Electronic paper is catching up with the real thing
AN INVENTOR meets a venture capitalist in a bar. He pulls out of his pocket something that looks like a grubby handkerchief, straightens it out on the bar top, and begins his pitch for $10m of venture money.
It’s a video display that can be furled, folded or rolled up into a ball, the inventor enthuses. He shows how it can be viewed from any angle, is easy to read in bright sunlight, has a contrast ratio better than a laptop’s liquid-crystal display (LCD), is light and portable, and can run for months without being recharged. It will change the way we view the world, swears the wide-eyed inventor. “Naw, it’s all been done better and cheaper before,” says the unimpressed VC, as he crumples the newspaper he was reading and tosses it into the bin.
Ink on paper has evolved over the millennia to become the easiest medium to read and the most efficient means for conveying information. And despite all the talk about paperless offices, computers have contributed mightily to today’s deluge of printed material instead of helping diminish it. But that hasn’t stopped researchers around the world from trying to replicate print on paper electronically.
The one thing going for e-paper, which the dead-tree version can’t hope to match, is its programmability. Imagine a newspaper that could be updated as events developed during the day. Think of a book that could change its contents after you’d finished reading it. How about a laptop-sized screen that unfurled from your mobile phone so you could watch TV while strap-hanging to work? What if your tee-shirt could flash intimate messages to attractive passers-by?
Sony is the latest in a long line of gadget-makers to flaunt a paper-like electronic display. The flexible 2.5-inch display it demonstrated a couple of weeks ago was notable for two reasons: it offered full-motion video and was in living colour.
E Ink Corporation
In some ways, Sony is playing catch-up here. LG Philips, a joint venture between LG of South Korea and Philips of the Netherlands, has been showing off a 14-inch colour screen that’s flexible enough to wrap around a lamp post. Prime View International of Taiwan has something similar. So does Samsung of South Korea and both Seiko Epson and Fujitsu of Japan, as well as a handful of start-ups in Britain and America. But until recently, few of them were able to display colour video properly.
While making flexible displays in monochrome has been difficult, adding colours and making them switch fast enough for full-motion video has been a tougher nut to crack. The trick to making such furlable displays has been to fabricate the electrode arrays for switching the display’s millions of picture elements (“pixels”) from either conducting plastics or extremely thin metal foil. Fortuitously, the recent improvement in plastic electronics for ink-jet printers has invigorated the whole of the e-paper business.
Like real paper, e-paper has to be both highly reflective and passive—ie, it should need no juice for backlighting or for maintaining the image. The best way to do that is to use a medium that’s bi-stable. Like a tossed coin, a bi-stable material can flip between two possible states—and then remain stable, and require no energy, in one or the other state until flipped again.
The first attempts to devise a bi-stable ink were made 30 years ago at Xerox’s legendary Palo Alto Research Centre in California. Called Gyricon, the technology was based on a transparent silicone sandwich with millions of tiny polyethylene spheres floating in oil between the upper and lower surfaces. Each of the tiny beads, less than a hair’s width in diameter, was black on one side and white on the other, with each hemisphere carrying an opposing electric charge. When an external charge was applied to an electrode array on the upper surface of the sandwich, the beads floating beneath them rotated promptly to reveal either their white or black sides—spelling out words and images, depending on the pattern of surface electrodes switched on or off.
Nowadays, a Xerox subsidiary called Gyricon LLC sells its SmartPaper—the polarised-bead form of e-paper—as reprogrammable displays for draping inside retail stores, hotels, conference centres and colleges. The flexible signs are connected wirelessly to computerised databases so they can be changed with the click of a mouse.
The bi-stable technology that has progressed the furthest, however, is a refinement perfected at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the early 1990s. This uses tiny microcapsules filled with electrically-charged particles of white titanium dioxide suspended in an oily solution of black dye. The capsules themselves are trapped in a liquid polymer that’s sandwiched between two arrays of electrodes.
When a negative charge is applied to individual electrodes, the titanium-dioxide particles move to the top of the microspheres and make that part of the display appear white. As with the Gyricon, the pattern of electrodes switched on or off determines the image on the display.
E-Ink, the company spun off from MIT to commercialise the idea, supplies such displays to electronics firms around the world, including LG Philips, Samsung, Motorola and Prime View as well as Sony. The first e-book reader launched by Sony in 2004 used an E-Ink display with electronics supplied by Philips.
Sony’s latest announcement promises to bring e-paper even closer to everyday use. This time the device appears to be a home-grown development. Unlike the electrophoretic displays used in E-Ink’s products, which rely on charged particles being physically moved by an electric field, Sony’s new imaging device uses an organic electroluminescence display (OLED). Such displays emit light in response to an electric current or field being passing through them.
OLEDs generally use a glass substrate, or backing material. But Sony has found a way of forming the organic transistors for switching the pixels on and off on a flexible plastic substrate. The 2.5-inch prototype is little thicker than a sheet of actual paper and weighs about the same without its associated electronics.
Don’t expect such a clever innovation to be wasted on something as prosaic as a portable reader for e-books. Apple’s multimedia iPhone may be the gadget du jour, but Sony may trump it with an all-singing-and-dancing gizmo, built around a foldable display for downloading television, which can run for days without recharging. Now that’s something not to be sneezed at.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Publisher of Men’s Magazines Is Sold to Private Equity Fund
Publisher of Men’s Magazines Is Sold to Private Equity Fund
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: June 16, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/business/media/16mag.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Dennis Publishing, the magazine company behind three of the most successful publications aimed at young men in the United States — Maxim, Stuff and Blender — was acquired for an undisclosed price by the private equity fund, Quadrangle Capital Partners II, Quadrangle said yesterday.
Kent Brownridge, an industry veteran, is a junior partner in the purchase and will be chief executive of the magazine group. Mr. Brownridge, 66, spent 31 years at Wenner Media — publisher of Rolling Stone, US Weekly and Men’s Journal — most recently as senior vice president and general manager, before leaving Wenner in 2005.
Dennis Publishing is the American arm of Dennis Publishing Ltd., a British company owned by Felix Dennis. It will retain one of its American magazines, The Week.
A spokesman for Quadrangle said the group would be renamed when the sale is completed, which is expected to be in the third quarter. Quadrangle was represented in the deal by Davis Polk & Wardwell. Dennis was advised by Allen & Company and Jones Day.
Maxim was a pioneer among the “lad magazines,” the upscale-but-raunchy publications, including Stuff and FHM, for young men. Blender, a music magazine, also appeals mostly to men under 35, a favorite target of advertisers.
Blender, Stuff and Maxim, all monthlies, have a combined paid circulation of 4.5 million in the United States, and together they average more than 400 ad pages each issue.
The deal includes the magazines’ Web sites, which attracted more than four million unique visitors during April, and other related ventures including the Maxim satellite radio channel on Sirius and Maxim-themed resorts and restaurants.
Quadrangle is a major investor in a number of media companies, including Cablevision Systems and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. The company is led by Steven Rattner, the former deputy chairman of Lazard.
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: June 16, 2007\
Dennis Publishing, the magazine company behind three of the most successful publications aimed at young men in the United States — Maxim, Stuff and Blender — was acquired for an undisclosed price by the private equity fund, Quadrangle Capital Partners II, Quadrangle said yesterday.
Kent Brownridge, an industry veteran, is a junior partner in the purchase and will be chief executive of the magazine group. Mr. Brownridge, 66, spent 31 years at Wenner Media — publisher of Rolling Stone, US Weekly and Men’s Journal — most recently as senior vice president and general manager, before leaving Wenner in 2005.
Dennis Publishing is the American arm of Dennis Publishing Ltd., a British company owned by Felix Dennis. It will retain one of its American magazines, The Week.
A spokesman for Quadrangle said the group would be renamed when the sale is completed, which is expected to be in the third quarter. Quadrangle was represented in the deal by Davis Polk & Wardwell. Dennis was advised by Allen & Company and Jones Day.
Maxim was a pioneer among the “lad magazines,” the upscale-but-raunchy publications, including Stuff and FHM, for young men. Blender, a music magazine, also appeals mostly to men under 35, a favorite target of advertisers.
Blender, Stuff and Maxim, all monthlies, have a combined paid circulation of 4.5 million in the United States, and together they average more than 400 ad pages each issue.
The deal includes the magazines’ Web sites, which attracted more than four million unique visitors during April, and other related ventures including the Maxim satellite radio channel on Sirius and Maxim-themed resorts and restaurants.
Quadrangle is a major investor in a number of media companies, including Cablevision Systems and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. The company is led by Steven Rattner, the former deputy chairman of Lazard.
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: June 16, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/business/media/16mag.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Dennis Publishing, the magazine company behind three of the most successful publications aimed at young men in the United States — Maxim, Stuff and Blender — was acquired for an undisclosed price by the private equity fund, Quadrangle Capital Partners II, Quadrangle said yesterday.
Kent Brownridge, an industry veteran, is a junior partner in the purchase and will be chief executive of the magazine group. Mr. Brownridge, 66, spent 31 years at Wenner Media — publisher of Rolling Stone, US Weekly and Men’s Journal — most recently as senior vice president and general manager, before leaving Wenner in 2005.
Dennis Publishing is the American arm of Dennis Publishing Ltd., a British company owned by Felix Dennis. It will retain one of its American magazines, The Week.
A spokesman for Quadrangle said the group would be renamed when the sale is completed, which is expected to be in the third quarter. Quadrangle was represented in the deal by Davis Polk & Wardwell. Dennis was advised by Allen & Company and Jones Day.
Maxim was a pioneer among the “lad magazines,” the upscale-but-raunchy publications, including Stuff and FHM, for young men. Blender, a music magazine, also appeals mostly to men under 35, a favorite target of advertisers.
Blender, Stuff and Maxim, all monthlies, have a combined paid circulation of 4.5 million in the United States, and together they average more than 400 ad pages each issue.
The deal includes the magazines’ Web sites, which attracted more than four million unique visitors during April, and other related ventures including the Maxim satellite radio channel on Sirius and Maxim-themed resorts and restaurants.
Quadrangle is a major investor in a number of media companies, including Cablevision Systems and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. The company is led by Steven Rattner, the former deputy chairman of Lazard.
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: June 16, 2007\
Dennis Publishing, the magazine company behind three of the most successful publications aimed at young men in the United States — Maxim, Stuff and Blender — was acquired for an undisclosed price by the private equity fund, Quadrangle Capital Partners II, Quadrangle said yesterday.
Kent Brownridge, an industry veteran, is a junior partner in the purchase and will be chief executive of the magazine group. Mr. Brownridge, 66, spent 31 years at Wenner Media — publisher of Rolling Stone, US Weekly and Men’s Journal — most recently as senior vice president and general manager, before leaving Wenner in 2005.
Dennis Publishing is the American arm of Dennis Publishing Ltd., a British company owned by Felix Dennis. It will retain one of its American magazines, The Week.
A spokesman for Quadrangle said the group would be renamed when the sale is completed, which is expected to be in the third quarter. Quadrangle was represented in the deal by Davis Polk & Wardwell. Dennis was advised by Allen & Company and Jones Day.
Maxim was a pioneer among the “lad magazines,” the upscale-but-raunchy publications, including Stuff and FHM, for young men. Blender, a music magazine, also appeals mostly to men under 35, a favorite target of advertisers.
Blender, Stuff and Maxim, all monthlies, have a combined paid circulation of 4.5 million in the United States, and together they average more than 400 ad pages each issue.
The deal includes the magazines’ Web sites, which attracted more than four million unique visitors during April, and other related ventures including the Maxim satellite radio channel on Sirius and Maxim-themed resorts and restaurants.
Quadrangle is a major investor in a number of media companies, including Cablevision Systems and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. The company is led by Steven Rattner, the former deputy chairman of Lazard.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Newspapers World's Second Largest Ad Medium
Newspapers World's Second Largest Ad Medium
According to the World Association of Newspapers Newspaper recent release, global newspaper sales were up 2.3 percent in 2006, and had increased 9.48 percent over the past five years. Newspaper sales increased year-on-year in Asia, Europe, Africa, South America, with North America the sole continent to register a decline.
When free dailies are added to the paid newspaper circulation, global circulation increased 4.61 percent last year, and 14.76 percent over the past five years. Free dailies now account for nearly 8 percent of all global newspaper circulation and 31.94 percent in Europe alone. Advertising revenues in paid dailies were up 3.77 percent last year from a year earlier, and up 15.77 percent over five years, WAN said.
Timothy Balding, Chief Executive Officer of the Paris-based WAN, said "Newspapers in developing markets continue to increase circulation... and in mature markets are showing remarkable resilience against... digital media... (while) newspapers are exploiting...the digital distribution channels to increase their audiences... It is remarkable that the press in print continues to be the media of preference for the majority of readers who want to remain informed."
Newspapers share of the world ad market held relatively steady with 29.6 percent, marginally down from 29.8 percent in 2005. Newspapers remain the world's second largest advertising medium, after television, with more revenue that radio, cinema, outdoor, magazines and the internet combined. When newspapers and magazines are combined, print is the world's largest advertising medium, with a 42 percent share, compared to 38 percent for television.
In addition, the 2007 World Press Trends report reveals:
Paid circulation, with free dailies added, daily circulation increased to nearly 556 million, a4.61 percent increase from the total of paid and free dailies in 2005.
The total number of paid-for daily titles was up 3.46 percent in the world in 2006 and up 17.67 percent since 2002 to a record 11,207 titles.
Newspaper advertising revenue increased 3.77 percent in 2006 from a year earlier, and was up 15.77 percent over five years.
Paid daily newspaper circulations were up in 31 percent of the countries surveyed in 2006, stable in half the countries and down in 19 percent.
The circulation of US dailies fell 1.9 percent in 2006 and 5.18 percent over five years. Most of the decline came in evening dailies, which saw a year-on-year circulation decline of 4.62 percent, compared with only 1.48 percent for morning dailies. Over the past five years, evening dailies declined 19.62 percent, compared with a 2.52 percent drop for morning newspapers.
Circulation sales were up 3.61 percent in Asia in 2006 over the previous year, up 4.55 percent in South America, up 0.74 percent in Europe, up +0.65 percent in Africa, up 2.11 percent in Australia and Oceania.
Seven of 10 of the world's 100 best selling dailies are now published in Asia. China, Japan and India account for 60 of them.
The five largest markets for newspapers are: China, with 98.7 million copies sold daily; India, with 88.9 million copies daily; Japan, with 69.1 million copies daily; the United States, with 52.3 million; and Germany, 21.1 million.
Newspapers in 10 European Union countries increased their total circulation in 2006. They were: Austria, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia.
The number of paid-for newspaper titles in the EU climbed 0.41 percent in 2006, to 1,482, and was up 3.2 percent over five years. When paid and free titles are combined, the number of titles rose 2.57 percent over one year and 8.44 percent over five years.
Global newspaper advertising revenues have increased for four straight years and were up 3.77 percent in 2006.
According to the World Association of Newspapers Newspaper recent release, global newspaper sales were up 2.3 percent in 2006, and had increased 9.48 percent over the past five years. Newspaper sales increased year-on-year in Asia, Europe, Africa, South America, with North America the sole continent to register a decline.
When free dailies are added to the paid newspaper circulation, global circulation increased 4.61 percent last year, and 14.76 percent over the past five years. Free dailies now account for nearly 8 percent of all global newspaper circulation and 31.94 percent in Europe alone. Advertising revenues in paid dailies were up 3.77 percent last year from a year earlier, and up 15.77 percent over five years, WAN said.
Timothy Balding, Chief Executive Officer of the Paris-based WAN, said "Newspapers in developing markets continue to increase circulation... and in mature markets are showing remarkable resilience against... digital media... (while) newspapers are exploiting...the digital distribution channels to increase their audiences... It is remarkable that the press in print continues to be the media of preference for the majority of readers who want to remain informed."
Newspapers share of the world ad market held relatively steady with 29.6 percent, marginally down from 29.8 percent in 2005. Newspapers remain the world's second largest advertising medium, after television, with more revenue that radio, cinema, outdoor, magazines and the internet combined. When newspapers and magazines are combined, print is the world's largest advertising medium, with a 42 percent share, compared to 38 percent for television.
In addition, the 2007 World Press Trends report reveals:
Paid circulation, with free dailies added, daily circulation increased to nearly 556 million, a4.61 percent increase from the total of paid and free dailies in 2005.
The total number of paid-for daily titles was up 3.46 percent in the world in 2006 and up 17.67 percent since 2002 to a record 11,207 titles.
Newspaper advertising revenue increased 3.77 percent in 2006 from a year earlier, and was up 15.77 percent over five years.
Paid daily newspaper circulations were up in 31 percent of the countries surveyed in 2006, stable in half the countries and down in 19 percent.
The circulation of US dailies fell 1.9 percent in 2006 and 5.18 percent over five years. Most of the decline came in evening dailies, which saw a year-on-year circulation decline of 4.62 percent, compared with only 1.48 percent for morning dailies. Over the past five years, evening dailies declined 19.62 percent, compared with a 2.52 percent drop for morning newspapers.
Circulation sales were up 3.61 percent in Asia in 2006 over the previous year, up 4.55 percent in South America, up 0.74 percent in Europe, up +0.65 percent in Africa, up 2.11 percent in Australia and Oceania.
Seven of 10 of the world's 100 best selling dailies are now published in Asia. China, Japan and India account for 60 of them.
The five largest markets for newspapers are: China, with 98.7 million copies sold daily; India, with 88.9 million copies daily; Japan, with 69.1 million copies daily; the United States, with 52.3 million; and Germany, 21.1 million.
Newspapers in 10 European Union countries increased their total circulation in 2006. They were: Austria, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia.
The number of paid-for newspaper titles in the EU climbed 0.41 percent in 2006, to 1,482, and was up 3.2 percent over five years. When paid and free titles are combined, the number of titles rose 2.57 percent over one year and 8.44 percent over five years.
Global newspaper advertising revenues have increased for four straight years and were up 3.77 percent in 2006.
BPA Eases Rules for Qualified Circ, Non-Paid Subs
BPA Eases Rules for Qualified Circ, Non-Paid Subs
Lucia Moses
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003597780
JUNE 12, 2007 -
BPA Worldwide has widened its definition of qualified continuous circulation, requiring that publications serve recipients at least three months in a row, regardless of the number of issues. Previously, publications with 14 or fewer issues per year had to serve recipients at least six months in a row. Along with that change, publications also may serve up to 5 percent of total qualified circ for less than three months without disclosing it.
The revised rule, which applies to both business and consumer publications, was approved recently by the BPA board and took effect in June.
The board also approved a new service, called a Distribution Audit, to verify distribution for non-editorial media products, like product listings and coupon publications.
In other changes, the board broadened the definition of non-paid subscriptions, ruling that a publication no longer has to be the official publication of an association to be a non-paid subscription that’s reported as a benefit of membership in the association. To qualify, the association must state that the publication is a membership benefit, though.
The board also allowed publications to report as nonqualified their digital copies that went to advertisers and ad agencies.
Lucia Moses
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003597780
JUNE 12, 2007 -
BPA Worldwide has widened its definition of qualified continuous circulation, requiring that publications serve recipients at least three months in a row, regardless of the number of issues. Previously, publications with 14 or fewer issues per year had to serve recipients at least six months in a row. Along with that change, publications also may serve up to 5 percent of total qualified circ for less than three months without disclosing it.
The revised rule, which applies to both business and consumer publications, was approved recently by the BPA board and took effect in June.
The board also approved a new service, called a Distribution Audit, to verify distribution for non-editorial media products, like product listings and coupon publications.
In other changes, the board broadened the definition of non-paid subscriptions, ruling that a publication no longer has to be the official publication of an association to be a non-paid subscription that’s reported as a benefit of membership in the association. To qualify, the association must state that the publication is a membership benefit, though.
The board also allowed publications to report as nonqualified their digital copies that went to advertisers and ad agencies.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Study: Consumers Responsive To Junk Mail
Study: Consumers Responsive To Junk Mail
by Erik Sass, Tuesday, Jun 12, 2007 7:33 AM ET
IN THIS BRAVE NEW WORLD of digital communications, advertisers may be overlooking a valuable resource: junk mail.
Consumers are more responsive to junk mail, according to a new survey by International Communications Research publicized by Pitney Bowes. The ICR report has snail mail beating out email for certain kinds of communications, including confidential business information.
Per ICR, 73% of respondents prefer receiving new-product announcements via mail from companies they're already in contact with, versus just 18% for email. And 70% prefer mail for unsolicited information and offers telling them about products and services from companies that they don't engage with.
The most marked area of difference was confidential personal information. Eight-six percent of respondents prefer mail for things like bills, bank statements and financial reports, versus just 10% for email.
The survey also found that consumers aren't as likely to discard unsolicited mail containing product information, although they will trash email. Some 31% discard print mail versus 53.2% for email. This category includes products like brochures and catalogs.
Finally, consumers found mail offers less intrusive--i.e., less disruptive of daily activities--than both email and phone solicitations
by Erik Sass, Tuesday, Jun 12, 2007 7:33 AM ET
IN THIS BRAVE NEW WORLD of digital communications, advertisers may be overlooking a valuable resource: junk mail.
Consumers are more responsive to junk mail, according to a new survey by International Communications Research publicized by Pitney Bowes. The ICR report has snail mail beating out email for certain kinds of communications, including confidential business information.
Per ICR, 73% of respondents prefer receiving new-product announcements via mail from companies they're already in contact with, versus just 18% for email. And 70% prefer mail for unsolicited information and offers telling them about products and services from companies that they don't engage with.
The most marked area of difference was confidential personal information. Eight-six percent of respondents prefer mail for things like bills, bank statements and financial reports, versus just 10% for email.
The survey also found that consumers aren't as likely to discard unsolicited mail containing product information, although they will trash email. Some 31% discard print mail versus 53.2% for email. This category includes products like brochures and catalogs.
Finally, consumers found mail offers less intrusive--i.e., less disruptive of daily activities--than both email and phone solicitations
Trade Shows Continue To Outpace Ad Pages, Grow 5.3% During First Quarter
Trade Shows Continue To Outpace Ad Pages, Grow 5.3% During First Quarter
by Joe Mandese, Tuesday, Jun 12, 2007 7:33 AM ET
TRADE SHOWS CONTINUE TO BE fueling the growth in the business-to-business media industry, according to the latest findings from American Business Media. Trade shows, conferences and events, a category the ABM has dubbed, "face-to-face media," took in $2.94 billion in revenues during the first three months of 2007, up 5.3% from the first quarter of 2006. During that same period, trade magazine ad pages fell 2.9%, and print advertising revenues declined 1.2%. Ad pages in the business press took an even steeper decline during March, dropping 5.1% from March 2006, with print ad revenues falling 2.6%.
Although magazine ad pages and revenues remain essentially flat, there are strong category performers for print, including the architecture/design/lighting category, with a year-to-date increase in ad revenue of 10.7%; professional services, which followed with a 9.4% increase; and the resources/environment/utilities category, with an 8.3% increase.
In recent months, the ABM has begun emphasizing the growth of new sources of B-to-B publisher revenues, especially online advertising and trade shows. Joe Mandese is Editor of MediaPost.
by Joe Mandese, Tuesday, Jun 12, 2007 7:33 AM ET
TRADE SHOWS CONTINUE TO BE fueling the growth in the business-to-business media industry, according to the latest findings from American Business Media. Trade shows, conferences and events, a category the ABM has dubbed, "face-to-face media," took in $2.94 billion in revenues during the first three months of 2007, up 5.3% from the first quarter of 2006. During that same period, trade magazine ad pages fell 2.9%, and print advertising revenues declined 1.2%. Ad pages in the business press took an even steeper decline during March, dropping 5.1% from March 2006, with print ad revenues falling 2.6%.
Although magazine ad pages and revenues remain essentially flat, there are strong category performers for print, including the architecture/design/lighting category, with a year-to-date increase in ad revenue of 10.7%; professional services, which followed with a 9.4% increase; and the resources/environment/utilities category, with an 8.3% increase.
In recent months, the ABM has begun emphasizing the growth of new sources of B-to-B publisher revenues, especially online advertising and trade shows. Joe Mandese is Editor of MediaPost.
Friday, June 01, 2007
American magazine market towers over Britain
American magazine market towers over Britain
Dan Sabbagh: Analysis
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article1867868.ece
Visiting the headquarters of the world’s biggest magazine company, Time Inc, on New York’s Sixth Avenue, reveals plenty about the difference between British and American media. In Britain, television and newspapers rule, and magazines are a cottage industry. Yet one look at the vast reception and escalators in the atrium of the 1950s skyscraper, opened, naturally, by Marilyn Monroe, suggests that the balance of power is somewhat different in a country where there are only a handful of national newspapers. After all, Time Inc – home to Time, People, Fortune and Sports Illustrated – makes $1 billion (£505 million) a year, which is somewhat more than the £72 million that Emap ground out of the magazine market back home.
It helps, of course, that the United States is a country the size of a continent. A niche title in America can find a circulation of a few hundred thousand, and afford staffing to match, whereas in Britain three journalists and two production staff can easily chuck out a monthly. The great strength of the scrappy British culture is its innovation, thinking nothing of building titles on the back of boob jobs or high street fashion, but its problem is that it encourages a lack of ambition as the internet changes the rules of the game – which is partly what did it for Emap’s boss Tom Moloney, who was ousted last month.
In the States, magazine publishers such as Time have their eyes on television. Collectively, Time websites manage 19.3 million monthly unique users, not much behind Disney (which owns ABC, as well as Mickey Mouse) or CBS Corporation, at 22 million and 23 million respectively. The publisher believes that, on the net, its products could exceed the reach of competing television shows, and that ad dollars may follow. Why shouldn’t Sports Illustrated run a video interview with Tiger Woods, or put together a one-hour weekly show if that’s what people want to watch – or People take on the late night talk shows for audience: they have enough capital to be competitive.
It’s not immediately easy to imagine the same dynamic back in Blighty. Emap has pushed brands like FHM, Kerrang! and Mojo into television and/or radio, but brand extension is not about trying to dominate a category such as sports. Troublingly, even Time is not so sure – and it owns IPC, the Horse & Hound market leader in the UK. Back in New York, the parent company is asking whether British magazines have the reach to take on the BBC. That, in turn, hardly bodes well for IPC, which seems to have become a straight financial investment for Time Inc’s parent, Time Warner. We already knew that most magazines don’t travel internationally: Sports Illustrated’s swimwear issue (the swimwear is worn by women) may be racy enough for American tastes, but hardened readers of Nuts and Zoo would be underwhelmed. However, a diversion of strategy between Time and IPC could be wrong.
Internet economics shows that the spoils go disproportionately to the winner. The traditional game in magazines is to identify the right audience and exploit the gap, but the new model requires more ambition. Already the BBC has seized the consumer motoring audience with the transition of Top Gear online (although, fortunately, it can’t buy AutoTrader to control the car market as well). If magazines are to have a chance, the sector needs to cultivate more ambition: bet on winners and build audiences before the BBC snaffles them all. Or find new owners and managers who are willing to try.
— Six weeks from now, even the most hopeless Muggle will not be able to move for the outburst of Harry Potter mania. The fifth film – which will gross somewhere between $800 million (£404 million) and $1 billion, if previous form is anything to go by – will be followed just over a week later by the last book. Amazon.com has already passed 1.5 million preorders of the title globally; 12 milion copies have been printed in the States; small children will wear out overjoyed parents as they queue for the midnight release.
This, of course, is big business. The author J. K. Rowling is worth more than £500 million. She has helped to create an industry with some 200 spin-off titles and, even if the wizard does not survive the Deathly Hallows, he will live on in the remaining two movies, even more spin-offs and a theme park in Florida that ought to be sponsored by Eton, as Hogwarts is such a good advert for the British boarding school.
The curiosity with Harry Potter is that the books are so startlingly successful in the postmodern era. The usual refrain of commentators is to bang on about how audiences are fragmenting, how computer games and/or the internet are ruining reading, and corrupting supposedly innocent teenagers. Read Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail, with its emphasis on discovering there is money to be made on supplying niches, and you’d be forgiven for thinking that hits don’t matter so much any more.
Yet as shareholders in Bloomsbury, Rowling’s British publisher, can ruefully attest, profits slumped last year when there was no new book to be released. Audiences are fragmenting, but there are times when vast numbers of people want to consume the same thing, whether it’s the World Cup final, The X Factor, Spider-Man 3 or Harry Potter’s seventh and last story. Mass entertaintment is far from dead: and those who reach global audiences make super-normal profits.
Dan Sabbagh: Analysis
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article1867868.ece
Visiting the headquarters of the world’s biggest magazine company, Time Inc, on New York’s Sixth Avenue, reveals plenty about the difference between British and American media. In Britain, television and newspapers rule, and magazines are a cottage industry. Yet one look at the vast reception and escalators in the atrium of the 1950s skyscraper, opened, naturally, by Marilyn Monroe, suggests that the balance of power is somewhat different in a country where there are only a handful of national newspapers. After all, Time Inc – home to Time, People, Fortune and Sports Illustrated – makes $1 billion (£505 million) a year, which is somewhat more than the £72 million that Emap ground out of the magazine market back home.
It helps, of course, that the United States is a country the size of a continent. A niche title in America can find a circulation of a few hundred thousand, and afford staffing to match, whereas in Britain three journalists and two production staff can easily chuck out a monthly. The great strength of the scrappy British culture is its innovation, thinking nothing of building titles on the back of boob jobs or high street fashion, but its problem is that it encourages a lack of ambition as the internet changes the rules of the game – which is partly what did it for Emap’s boss Tom Moloney, who was ousted last month.
In the States, magazine publishers such as Time have their eyes on television. Collectively, Time websites manage 19.3 million monthly unique users, not much behind Disney (which owns ABC, as well as Mickey Mouse) or CBS Corporation, at 22 million and 23 million respectively. The publisher believes that, on the net, its products could exceed the reach of competing television shows, and that ad dollars may follow. Why shouldn’t Sports Illustrated run a video interview with Tiger Woods, or put together a one-hour weekly show if that’s what people want to watch – or People take on the late night talk shows for audience: they have enough capital to be competitive.
It’s not immediately easy to imagine the same dynamic back in Blighty. Emap has pushed brands like FHM, Kerrang! and Mojo into television and/or radio, but brand extension is not about trying to dominate a category such as sports. Troublingly, even Time is not so sure – and it owns IPC, the Horse & Hound market leader in the UK. Back in New York, the parent company is asking whether British magazines have the reach to take on the BBC. That, in turn, hardly bodes well for IPC, which seems to have become a straight financial investment for Time Inc’s parent, Time Warner. We already knew that most magazines don’t travel internationally: Sports Illustrated’s swimwear issue (the swimwear is worn by women) may be racy enough for American tastes, but hardened readers of Nuts and Zoo would be underwhelmed. However, a diversion of strategy between Time and IPC could be wrong.
Internet economics shows that the spoils go disproportionately to the winner. The traditional game in magazines is to identify the right audience and exploit the gap, but the new model requires more ambition. Already the BBC has seized the consumer motoring audience with the transition of Top Gear online (although, fortunately, it can’t buy AutoTrader to control the car market as well). If magazines are to have a chance, the sector needs to cultivate more ambition: bet on winners and build audiences before the BBC snaffles them all. Or find new owners and managers who are willing to try.
— Six weeks from now, even the most hopeless Muggle will not be able to move for the outburst of Harry Potter mania. The fifth film – which will gross somewhere between $800 million (£404 million) and $1 billion, if previous form is anything to go by – will be followed just over a week later by the last book. Amazon.com has already passed 1.5 million preorders of the title globally; 12 milion copies have been printed in the States; small children will wear out overjoyed parents as they queue for the midnight release.
This, of course, is big business. The author J. K. Rowling is worth more than £500 million. She has helped to create an industry with some 200 spin-off titles and, even if the wizard does not survive the Deathly Hallows, he will live on in the remaining two movies, even more spin-offs and a theme park in Florida that ought to be sponsored by Eton, as Hogwarts is such a good advert for the British boarding school.
The curiosity with Harry Potter is that the books are so startlingly successful in the postmodern era. The usual refrain of commentators is to bang on about how audiences are fragmenting, how computer games and/or the internet are ruining reading, and corrupting supposedly innocent teenagers. Read Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail, with its emphasis on discovering there is money to be made on supplying niches, and you’d be forgiven for thinking that hits don’t matter so much any more.
Yet as shareholders in Bloomsbury, Rowling’s British publisher, can ruefully attest, profits slumped last year when there was no new book to be released. Audiences are fragmenting, but there are times when vast numbers of people want to consume the same thing, whether it’s the World Cup final, The X Factor, Spider-Man 3 or Harry Potter’s seventh and last story. Mass entertaintment is far from dead: and those who reach global audiences make super-normal profits.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Magazines feeling postal pinch
Magazines feeling postal pinch
High-circulation periodicals enjoy discounted rates, while smaller publications get hit with steep rate hikes.
By Teresa Stack and Jack Fowler, TERESA STACK is president of the Nation. JACK FOWLER is publisher of the National Review.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-stack28may28,1,5257005.story?coll=la-news-comment&ctrack=1&cset=true
THE COST OF getting magazines into your mailbox will shoot up July 15. How much? It depends.
Magazine publishers are facing a radical postage rate restructuring that favors those with large circulations and transfers costs to small- and mid-circulation publications.
Past increases to periodical postage were applied fairly equally across all publications. But this time, things are drastically different — and potentially damaging to the diversity of voices that our founders strove to foster when they created the national postal system.
Our respective magazines — the Nation and the National Review — sit on opposite ends of the political spectrum and disagree on nearly every issue. But we concur on this: These proposed postal rate hikes are deeply unfair.
It is not simply that we want to avoid a massive increase in our mailing costs, though that is a factor. More important to us is that we believe in a vibrant marketplace of ideas (where we each think our ideas will prevail). We are not afraid of intellectual competition; we welcome it.
For this latest round of rate hikes, the U.S. Postal Service proposed a 12% increase that would have affected magazines more or less equitably. Then, in an unprecedented move, that plan was rejected by the Postal Regulatory Commission, the body responsible for setting rates. Instead, it approved a complicated pricing system based on a proposal by Time Warner Inc., the largest magazine publisher in the country. Rather than base rates on total weight and total number of pieces mailed, the new, complex formula is full of incentives that take into account packaging, shape, distance traveled and more.
It adds up to this: discounts for some periodicals; as far as we can see, mostly the huge-circulation titles associated with firms like Time Warner. At smaller magazines like ours, rates will go up 15% to 25%. Research by McGraw-Hill Cos. concludes that the rate increases for some small-circulation publications could hit 30%.
Time Warner and the Postal Regulatory Commission say this scheme rewards efficiency. But the rates appear to have been adopted with little research into their effect on publishers and with no meaningful public input.
How will small magazines that operate on the economic margins — yet have an outsized effect on public discourse — accommodate $500,000 (in the case of the Nation and the National Review) in additional postage expense? Will we be forced to cut back on reporting, raise our prices, reduce our staffs or our number of pages to stay afloat? For some titles, the change may prove fatal. It certainly will make it more difficult to start a new magazine, and publishing will be less competitive as a result.
Time Warner and the postal commission seem to have little understanding of the crucial role the Postal Service has played in establishing an open marketplace of ideas. It has always been a central policy of the Postal Service to use its pricing mechanism to encourage smaller publications and competition.
Since the time of James Madison and the founders in the 1790s, it has been understood that low rates for small publications make it possible to have the rich, open and diverse media that a self-governing people require. This is what is at stake today. And because so much of the material online originates in print magazines, these postal rates could have the unintended effect of shrinking the digital marketplace of ideas as well.
We urge the relevant congressional committees to hold a hearing to investigate this coming crisis before it is too late. The last 215 years of postal policy were instrumental in the creation of the extraordinary free press we have in the U.S. today. We should not begin to overturn this magnificent tradition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-circulation periodicals enjoy discounted rates, while smaller publications get hit with steep rate hikes.
By Teresa Stack and Jack Fowler, TERESA STACK is president of the Nation. JACK FOWLER is publisher of the National Review.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-stack28may28,1,5257005.story?coll=la-news-comment&ctrack=1&cset=true
THE COST OF getting magazines into your mailbox will shoot up July 15. How much? It depends.
Magazine publishers are facing a radical postage rate restructuring that favors those with large circulations and transfers costs to small- and mid-circulation publications.
Past increases to periodical postage were applied fairly equally across all publications. But this time, things are drastically different — and potentially damaging to the diversity of voices that our founders strove to foster when they created the national postal system.
Our respective magazines — the Nation and the National Review — sit on opposite ends of the political spectrum and disagree on nearly every issue. But we concur on this: These proposed postal rate hikes are deeply unfair.
It is not simply that we want to avoid a massive increase in our mailing costs, though that is a factor. More important to us is that we believe in a vibrant marketplace of ideas (where we each think our ideas will prevail). We are not afraid of intellectual competition; we welcome it.
For this latest round of rate hikes, the U.S. Postal Service proposed a 12% increase that would have affected magazines more or less equitably. Then, in an unprecedented move, that plan was rejected by the Postal Regulatory Commission, the body responsible for setting rates. Instead, it approved a complicated pricing system based on a proposal by Time Warner Inc., the largest magazine publisher in the country. Rather than base rates on total weight and total number of pieces mailed, the new, complex formula is full of incentives that take into account packaging, shape, distance traveled and more.
It adds up to this: discounts for some periodicals; as far as we can see, mostly the huge-circulation titles associated with firms like Time Warner. At smaller magazines like ours, rates will go up 15% to 25%. Research by McGraw-Hill Cos. concludes that the rate increases for some small-circulation publications could hit 30%.
Time Warner and the Postal Regulatory Commission say this scheme rewards efficiency. But the rates appear to have been adopted with little research into their effect on publishers and with no meaningful public input.
How will small magazines that operate on the economic margins — yet have an outsized effect on public discourse — accommodate $500,000 (in the case of the Nation and the National Review) in additional postage expense? Will we be forced to cut back on reporting, raise our prices, reduce our staffs or our number of pages to stay afloat? For some titles, the change may prove fatal. It certainly will make it more difficult to start a new magazine, and publishing will be less competitive as a result.
Time Warner and the postal commission seem to have little understanding of the crucial role the Postal Service has played in establishing an open marketplace of ideas. It has always been a central policy of the Postal Service to use its pricing mechanism to encourage smaller publications and competition.
Since the time of James Madison and the founders in the 1790s, it has been understood that low rates for small publications make it possible to have the rich, open and diverse media that a self-governing people require. This is what is at stake today. And because so much of the material online originates in print magazines, these postal rates could have the unintended effect of shrinking the digital marketplace of ideas as well.
We urge the relevant congressional committees to hold a hearing to investigate this coming crisis before it is too late. The last 215 years of postal policy were instrumental in the creation of the extraordinary free press we have in the U.S. today. We should not begin to overturn this magnificent tradition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Ad Revenue Charges Ahead
Internet Ad Revenue Charges Ahead
IAB Suggests 35% Growth in Its Year-End Report
By Emily Tan
Published: May 24, 2007
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Internet ad revenue grew 35% in 2006, with search, display, classifieds and lead-generation categories continuing to rise at a healthy clip while e-mail, sponsorship and slotting fees remained flat or lost share of the total online ad market.
The IAB said online growth is coming from advertisers using the web to drive product awareness, purchase intent and brand loyalty.
The figures come from the Interactive Advertising Bureau's quarterly Internet Advertising Revenue Report released today, which included both fourth-quarter and full-year 2006 figures.
Hit record high
U.S. online ad revenue reached a record high of $4.8 billion last quarter, an increase of 33% over the 2005 fourth quarter. The 2006 full-year total was $16.9 billion. Display advertising and keyword search were up $3.7 billion and $6.8 billion, respectively, last year.
Randall Rothenberg, president-CEO of the IAB, said in the announcement that the growth is coming from advertisers using the web to drive product awareness, purchase intent and brand loyalty. "We have every confidence that this growth trend will continue as marketers allocate more of their total marketing dollars to interactive and the industry delivers effective and innovative platforms for connecting with consumers," he said.
As in past years, ad revenue was concentrated among top publishers. The top 10 raked in $11.6 billion, or 69% of total online ad revenue, down slightly from the 72% share those publishers had in 2005. The top 50 publishers accounted for 93% of the online ad market.
Rich-media share drops
While much of the buzz circulates around broadband video, rich media as a share of total online ad revenue actually dropped, increasing total dollars by a lower-than-industry rate, from $1 billion in 2005 to $1.2 billion in 2006. But Sheryl Draizen, senior VP-general manger, IAB, said that the growth is coming.
"I think that everyone is talking about broadband digital video, but it hasn't happened yet," Ms. Draizen said. "There's still a lot of potential."
E-mail's share remained flat, although total dollars spent on the tactic was up 34% to $338 million. Ms. Draizen suggested e-mail may be reaching a plateau and that spam-blocking by consumers also is a key factor in its slow growth. The IAB has developed guides to provide marketers with information that will make e-mail campaigns more effective.
"Authentication and deliverability issues for e-mails need to be delved into," Ms. Draizen said. "It's really about what are the best practices for e-mail that they have the highest percentages to get to the audiences they need to reach."
IAB Suggests 35% Growth in Its Year-End Report
By Emily Tan
Published: May 24, 2007
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Internet ad revenue grew 35% in 2006, with search, display, classifieds and lead-generation categories continuing to rise at a healthy clip while e-mail, sponsorship and slotting fees remained flat or lost share of the total online ad market.
The IAB said online growth is coming from advertisers using the web to drive product awareness, purchase intent and brand loyalty.
The figures come from the Interactive Advertising Bureau's quarterly Internet Advertising Revenue Report released today, which included both fourth-quarter and full-year 2006 figures.
Hit record high
U.S. online ad revenue reached a record high of $4.8 billion last quarter, an increase of 33% over the 2005 fourth quarter. The 2006 full-year total was $16.9 billion. Display advertising and keyword search were up $3.7 billion and $6.8 billion, respectively, last year.
Randall Rothenberg, president-CEO of the IAB, said in the announcement that the growth is coming from advertisers using the web to drive product awareness, purchase intent and brand loyalty. "We have every confidence that this growth trend will continue as marketers allocate more of their total marketing dollars to interactive and the industry delivers effective and innovative platforms for connecting with consumers," he said.
As in past years, ad revenue was concentrated among top publishers. The top 10 raked in $11.6 billion, or 69% of total online ad revenue, down slightly from the 72% share those publishers had in 2005. The top 50 publishers accounted for 93% of the online ad market.
Rich-media share drops
While much of the buzz circulates around broadband video, rich media as a share of total online ad revenue actually dropped, increasing total dollars by a lower-than-industry rate, from $1 billion in 2005 to $1.2 billion in 2006. But Sheryl Draizen, senior VP-general manger, IAB, said that the growth is coming.
"I think that everyone is talking about broadband digital video, but it hasn't happened yet," Ms. Draizen said. "There's still a lot of potential."
E-mail's share remained flat, although total dollars spent on the tactic was up 34% to $338 million. Ms. Draizen suggested e-mail may be reaching a plateau and that spam-blocking by consumers also is a key factor in its slow growth. The IAB has developed guides to provide marketers with information that will make e-mail campaigns more effective.
"Authentication and deliverability issues for e-mails need to be delved into," Ms. Draizen said. "It's really about what are the best practices for e-mail that they have the highest percentages to get to the audiences they need to reach."
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Grade-School Girls, Grown-Up Gossip
Grade-School Girls, Grown-Up Gossip
By STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM
WHEN Britney Spears shaved off her signature blond locks, Alexis Gursky, 9, found herself wondering not why Ms. Spears picked up a razor in the first place, but why she did not do more with the hair she shaved off.
“I just thought it was a little weird to just do it and not to give it to people who have cancer,” said Alexis, a third grader in Manhattan.
And while scores of people were petitioning Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California to keep Paris Hilton from having to report to jail on June 5, Jessie Urvater, 8, could not muster any sympathy.
“I don’t like Paris,” said Jessie, of Manhattan, who was quick to point out that hotel heiresses are not above the law. “I think she should go to jail.”
Well before they experience puberty, children today are deeply immersed in the dirty laundry of celebrities — their eating disorders, bouts with drinking and drugs, and run-ins with the law (and one another). The gritty details are all around them: on the Web, on cable, at the top of the network news and splashed across the covers of magazines.
The prevailing wisdom is that exposure to vast amounts of gossip, particularly about Hollywood’s so-called bad girls — Ms. Hilton, Ms. Spears and Lindsay Lohan, to name the most frequently chastised — is leading America’s impressionable 8-to-12-year-old girls into the gutter. But the reality is more complex.
In interviews, tweens tend to be highly judgmental of the much-publicized antics, turning them into age-appropriate morality tales that would make their parents proud and bring comfort to those who fear the next generation will be made up of pantyless party girls known more for their D.W.I.s than their G.P.A.s.
Ms. Hilton, said Jamie Barton, 10, of Mobile, Ala.: “spends all this time acting like everyone else doesn’t mean anything. It’s just me, me, me.”
Said Diamond Martin, 12, of Parlin, N.J.: “I don’t see her as a role model. I’m not sure what she’s really ever done, actually.”
That tweens are not traipsing after the drunken pied pipers who erupt in the gossip headlines is not surprising to child behavior experts.
“I would be shocked if they did,” said Dr. Ritch C. Savin-Williams, a professor and chairman of the human development department at Cornell University. After all, he said, 8- to 12-year-olds are by and large “really heavily under the influence of their parents.”
That does not mean, though, that gossip culture is harmless. “There may be a delayed effect,” said Dr. Richard Gallagher, the director of the Parenting Institute at the Child Study Center of New York University. “When kids know that some behavior is possible and that it doesn’t lead to total ruination of your life, they may, as they get older, be willing to entertain that.”
But until then, many children view the unseemly behavior through a lens of common sense that some celebrities themselves appear to lack.
“They should really do good things that they want other people to do,” said Rachel Steir, 11, of Manhattan, “not smoking, taking drugs, thinking that they need to lose so much weight.”
That children today are exposed to much more scandal than those of previous generations is not in dispute. Like many girls, Courtney Barton, 12, of Mobile, Ala., said she does not seek out celebrity gossip, but encounters it everywhere: “I hear these things about all of them on the radio, Internet and TV.”
According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, the death of Anna Nicole Smith, on Feb. 8, constituted 9 percent of news coverage the week she died (she died midweek). That same week, 8 percent was devoted to the 2008 campaign and 3 percent to the Super Bowl. Pew also found that in the two days following Ms. Smith’s death, “nearly a quarter of the news from all sectors (24 percent) was devoted to this story, and fully half of cable news.”
Of course, Ms. Smith’s accidental drug overdose is old news by now. Children have moved on to Us magazine, where they can read about Ms. Lohan reportedly snorting cocaine, or to People.com, where they are informed that the estranged husband of Anne Heche, the actress, “craves porn, poker and money.”
Gone are the days when children who wanted to learn the meaning of a naughty word or slang term had to find a dictionary or a more worldly pal. Today, Wikipedia can explain in a matter of seconds that badonkadonk is a term for a woman’s buttocks.
Michelle Dale, a second-grade teacher in Brooklyn who works with the youngest of the tweens, said she is “always blown away” by all the things her students know about. “The movies that these little second graders have come in and watched,” she said, “I’m like, ‘Oh, my goodness.’ ”
In interviews, children expressed their detailed knowledge of Angelina Jolie’s penchant for adoption (though they never mentioned her previous marriage to Billy Bob Thornton or the vial of his blood she wore around her neck). They knew about Ms. Hilton’s sex tape, Ms. Lohan’s dramatic weight loss and Ms. Spears’s underwear-free club outing. Saturated with such gossip, they had formed some very strong opinions about what is good, bad and just plain weird.
Caroline Lee, 11, of Greenwich, Conn., pointed out Ms. Spears’s public parenting blunders, including driving with a baby in her lap: “I feel kind of like she’s a little young and she’s not the right kind of mom,” Caroline said.
But Ms. Jolie, Caroline said, is “a good mother. She takes care of her kids.”
“She’s not as strange and bad as Britney and Paris and Lindsay,” she said, adding that “she adopted so many kids and she also helped places that needed help.”
Of Ms. Lohan, Sophia Ambrosino, 12 , of Manhattan, lamented the passing of the young actress’s red-haired, reproach-free “Parent Trap” days. Now, she said: “There are things that she does just to be on the cover of something. I liked her when she was little.”
Arielle Urvater, 11, also said while once she was a fan of Ms. Lohan and Ms. Spears, she is no longer. “We’re well educated,” she said. “We know that drugs aren’t good and that smoking isn’t good.”
Tweens often think in moralistic terms, especially if they have a solid family support system or role models, Dr. Savin-Williams said.
But around 12 or 13, it is not unusual for a child’s individual values to give way to peer pressure, some child experts said, and children may be influenced by what they perceive to be cool, not what they instinctively know to be right.
“The younger kids are a little freaked out by Paris,” said Susan Schulz, editor in chief of CosmoGirl. “For the most part they’re still very good kids at that age.”
But, said Ms. Schulz, when they are teenagers, “every kid is trying to have a Paris Hilton kind of night at their prom.”
And that is exactly what some adults fear.
“I don’t think there’s any question that kids are getting more and more information at a younger and younger age,” said Dr. David Walsh, a psychologist and the founder of the National Institute on Media and the Family. “And there are very few filters available.” The result, he said, is the “adultification of youth.”
“Kids have information but not necessarily the emotional maturity to absorb the information,” he said. “We’ve got kids who are at the simple arithmetic phase in terms of their emotional maturity dealing with quadratic material.”
Dr. Gallagher of N.Y.U. suggested parents discuss celebrity misbehavior with their children. “You have to talk about it before someone else does,” he said. “That helps the kids digest it more effectively.”
Most of those conversations will likely be with and about girls.
“The bad boys have been replaced by the bad girls,” said Ted Harbert, the president and chief executive of the Comcast Entertainment Group, which includes E! Entertainment Television, Style Network and G4. “You just don’t hear as much of these guys who get in trouble as much as we used to in the ‘St. Elmo’s Fire’ generation.”
“The girls don’t want to just leave it to the boys to get in trouble,” he said. “They want their fair share of time in the principal’s office.”
But what about all those thoughtful things tweens say about celebrities’ bad behavior and their embrace of good clean role models?
Dr. Walsh said: “A kid can write a well-thought-out essay about why a behavior is not good, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to carry over to their behavior. Thinking ability is right on track but emotionally ability lags.”
Yet the girls interviewed cited wholesome-seeming celebrities as their favorites: Miley Cyrus, Ashley Tisdale, Hilary Duff, Dakota Fanning, Anne Hathaway and Ms. Spears’s younger, scrubbed sister, Jamie Lynn. Is it possible that today’s tweens have seen enough to inoculate them against the pressures of their teenage years?
“As I grow older I see more and more how bad they are,” Arielle Urvater said. And yet kids her age cannot help but be interested, she said.
“They’re famous, pretty and all the boys like them.”
By STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM
WHEN Britney Spears shaved off her signature blond locks, Alexis Gursky, 9, found herself wondering not why Ms. Spears picked up a razor in the first place, but why she did not do more with the hair she shaved off.
“I just thought it was a little weird to just do it and not to give it to people who have cancer,” said Alexis, a third grader in Manhattan.
And while scores of people were petitioning Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California to keep Paris Hilton from having to report to jail on June 5, Jessie Urvater, 8, could not muster any sympathy.
“I don’t like Paris,” said Jessie, of Manhattan, who was quick to point out that hotel heiresses are not above the law. “I think she should go to jail.”
Well before they experience puberty, children today are deeply immersed in the dirty laundry of celebrities — their eating disorders, bouts with drinking and drugs, and run-ins with the law (and one another). The gritty details are all around them: on the Web, on cable, at the top of the network news and splashed across the covers of magazines.
The prevailing wisdom is that exposure to vast amounts of gossip, particularly about Hollywood’s so-called bad girls — Ms. Hilton, Ms. Spears and Lindsay Lohan, to name the most frequently chastised — is leading America’s impressionable 8-to-12-year-old girls into the gutter. But the reality is more complex.
In interviews, tweens tend to be highly judgmental of the much-publicized antics, turning them into age-appropriate morality tales that would make their parents proud and bring comfort to those who fear the next generation will be made up of pantyless party girls known more for their D.W.I.s than their G.P.A.s.
Ms. Hilton, said Jamie Barton, 10, of Mobile, Ala.: “spends all this time acting like everyone else doesn’t mean anything. It’s just me, me, me.”
Said Diamond Martin, 12, of Parlin, N.J.: “I don’t see her as a role model. I’m not sure what she’s really ever done, actually.”
That tweens are not traipsing after the drunken pied pipers who erupt in the gossip headlines is not surprising to child behavior experts.
“I would be shocked if they did,” said Dr. Ritch C. Savin-Williams, a professor and chairman of the human development department at Cornell University. After all, he said, 8- to 12-year-olds are by and large “really heavily under the influence of their parents.”
That does not mean, though, that gossip culture is harmless. “There may be a delayed effect,” said Dr. Richard Gallagher, the director of the Parenting Institute at the Child Study Center of New York University. “When kids know that some behavior is possible and that it doesn’t lead to total ruination of your life, they may, as they get older, be willing to entertain that.”
But until then, many children view the unseemly behavior through a lens of common sense that some celebrities themselves appear to lack.
“They should really do good things that they want other people to do,” said Rachel Steir, 11, of Manhattan, “not smoking, taking drugs, thinking that they need to lose so much weight.”
That children today are exposed to much more scandal than those of previous generations is not in dispute. Like many girls, Courtney Barton, 12, of Mobile, Ala., said she does not seek out celebrity gossip, but encounters it everywhere: “I hear these things about all of them on the radio, Internet and TV.”
According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, the death of Anna Nicole Smith, on Feb. 8, constituted 9 percent of news coverage the week she died (she died midweek). That same week, 8 percent was devoted to the 2008 campaign and 3 percent to the Super Bowl. Pew also found that in the two days following Ms. Smith’s death, “nearly a quarter of the news from all sectors (24 percent) was devoted to this story, and fully half of cable news.”
Of course, Ms. Smith’s accidental drug overdose is old news by now. Children have moved on to Us magazine, where they can read about Ms. Lohan reportedly snorting cocaine, or to People.com, where they are informed that the estranged husband of Anne Heche, the actress, “craves porn, poker and money.”
Gone are the days when children who wanted to learn the meaning of a naughty word or slang term had to find a dictionary or a more worldly pal. Today, Wikipedia can explain in a matter of seconds that badonkadonk is a term for a woman’s buttocks.
Michelle Dale, a second-grade teacher in Brooklyn who works with the youngest of the tweens, said she is “always blown away” by all the things her students know about. “The movies that these little second graders have come in and watched,” she said, “I’m like, ‘Oh, my goodness.’ ”
In interviews, children expressed their detailed knowledge of Angelina Jolie’s penchant for adoption (though they never mentioned her previous marriage to Billy Bob Thornton or the vial of his blood she wore around her neck). They knew about Ms. Hilton’s sex tape, Ms. Lohan’s dramatic weight loss and Ms. Spears’s underwear-free club outing. Saturated with such gossip, they had formed some very strong opinions about what is good, bad and just plain weird.
Caroline Lee, 11, of Greenwich, Conn., pointed out Ms. Spears’s public parenting blunders, including driving with a baby in her lap: “I feel kind of like she’s a little young and she’s not the right kind of mom,” Caroline said.
But Ms. Jolie, Caroline said, is “a good mother. She takes care of her kids.”
“She’s not as strange and bad as Britney and Paris and Lindsay,” she said, adding that “she adopted so many kids and she also helped places that needed help.”
Of Ms. Lohan, Sophia Ambrosino, 12 , of Manhattan, lamented the passing of the young actress’s red-haired, reproach-free “Parent Trap” days. Now, she said: “There are things that she does just to be on the cover of something. I liked her when she was little.”
Arielle Urvater, 11, also said while once she was a fan of Ms. Lohan and Ms. Spears, she is no longer. “We’re well educated,” she said. “We know that drugs aren’t good and that smoking isn’t good.”
Tweens often think in moralistic terms, especially if they have a solid family support system or role models, Dr. Savin-Williams said.
But around 12 or 13, it is not unusual for a child’s individual values to give way to peer pressure, some child experts said, and children may be influenced by what they perceive to be cool, not what they instinctively know to be right.
“The younger kids are a little freaked out by Paris,” said Susan Schulz, editor in chief of CosmoGirl. “For the most part they’re still very good kids at that age.”
But, said Ms. Schulz, when they are teenagers, “every kid is trying to have a Paris Hilton kind of night at their prom.”
And that is exactly what some adults fear.
“I don’t think there’s any question that kids are getting more and more information at a younger and younger age,” said Dr. David Walsh, a psychologist and the founder of the National Institute on Media and the Family. “And there are very few filters available.” The result, he said, is the “adultification of youth.”
“Kids have information but not necessarily the emotional maturity to absorb the information,” he said. “We’ve got kids who are at the simple arithmetic phase in terms of their emotional maturity dealing with quadratic material.”
Dr. Gallagher of N.Y.U. suggested parents discuss celebrity misbehavior with their children. “You have to talk about it before someone else does,” he said. “That helps the kids digest it more effectively.”
Most of those conversations will likely be with and about girls.
“The bad boys have been replaced by the bad girls,” said Ted Harbert, the president and chief executive of the Comcast Entertainment Group, which includes E! Entertainment Television, Style Network and G4. “You just don’t hear as much of these guys who get in trouble as much as we used to in the ‘St. Elmo’s Fire’ generation.”
“The girls don’t want to just leave it to the boys to get in trouble,” he said. “They want their fair share of time in the principal’s office.”
But what about all those thoughtful things tweens say about celebrities’ bad behavior and their embrace of good clean role models?
Dr. Walsh said: “A kid can write a well-thought-out essay about why a behavior is not good, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to carry over to their behavior. Thinking ability is right on track but emotionally ability lags.”
Yet the girls interviewed cited wholesome-seeming celebrities as their favorites: Miley Cyrus, Ashley Tisdale, Hilary Duff, Dakota Fanning, Anne Hathaway and Ms. Spears’s younger, scrubbed sister, Jamie Lynn. Is it possible that today’s tweens have seen enough to inoculate them against the pressures of their teenage years?
“As I grow older I see more and more how bad they are,” Arielle Urvater said. And yet kids her age cannot help but be interested, she said.
“They’re famous, pretty and all the boys like them.”
Bill Keller:NYT "Our Stories Are Too Often Too Long
Bill Keller: "Our Stories Are Too Often Too Long"
http://gawker.com/news/inside-jobs/bill-keller-our-stories-are-too-often-too-long-263404.php
Today the New York Times held its "Throw Stuff at Bill" (that would be Keller!) meetings—one this morning and two this afternoon. We got a report about the early afternoon session, and learned that the future of the Times is all about Sewell Chan, among other things.
The bulk of Keller's presentation (which was followed by a Q&A) had to do with the Times' transition to "journalism on the web" and the evolving "web-print relationship." Newsroom editors, he said, "need to be better informed about features that appear in their sections. They don't necessarily have to know how to put up a slide show or put up a graphic, but they need to know who does what." Excellent plan!
He also spoke about the "gradual reallocation of resources from print towards digital" and copy editors being moved to the day side, so that there could be a "greater flow of fresh quality edit material." We imagine a chill swept quickly over the room! Then he brought up two of the Times' stars: Sewell Chan, who has become a "full-time, online Metro journalist"; and the comely Ariel Kaminer, who—assuming we heard this correctly—is becoming a "cultural impresario." Snarf.
"We can't let our reverence for quality become a straitjacket in new media," he warned. "The web environment is different... We can offer guidance but we cannot insist on the same control we exercise over print."
That, it would seem, might be a difficult lesson to absorb. But Keller hurried to make his charges feel better! "Online and in print, we are the New York Times," he intoned, not entirely convincingly.
He spoke of the new building: "Pioneers have already settled in our gleaming frontier." He brought up some of the complaints that the "pioneers" have had, including fire alarms having a mind of their own and motion-sensor lights not working. "There have also been reports of a rat sighting," he said, though he hurried to say that it was unsubstantiated. "The mice aren't scheduled to move in until June 15." Laughter! Relief!
"I implore you to be versatile," he implored. "It's an immense improvement over our venerable, but cramped and deteriorating, building on 43rd Street. The company is heading for a long future."
Part of the future includes a reduction in the size of the paper at the end of the summer. "Folks, it ain't that different," he said. There's that warm Bill Keller we all know! "It's an inch and a half narrower. There's no dramatic makeover of our design." In contrast to the Wall Street Journal's redesign, he said that the Times would "absorb the change without a great deal of fanfare." He said the changes include a display page for the foreign desk, and limiting the jumping of A1 stories to other sections.
While the paper will be adding pages, the "actual reduction of the newshole is about 5 percent," he said, which will give editors "some incentive about being a little more ruthless about throwing stories back for cuts. Our stories are too often too long... The 1200 word stories could be 800 or 900. There are editors at a Page 1 meeting boasting that a story is only 1400 words." (Good thing Sewell is only writing for the web, then.)
Then it was time for questions. Someone asked how the Times plans to make money off the web. "I heartily believe we will," Keller said. "How, is a lot more complicated." He talked about Wall Street, and doing PowerPoint presentations. "There's a phrase they use in drug and alcohol rehab—'fake it til you make it.' That's basically what we're doing."
Another person asked about Rupert Murdoch's bid for the Wall Street Journal and how that might affect the Times. Keller seems to think that if Murdoch wins the bid for Dow Jones, he will invest in Bloomberg-type news. "I don't think we want to go into the newswire and business newswire service," he said. "It's not our strength. We can respond in a smart way by providing more of what we provide now, which is stuff that if you're interested in business, you have to read. Smart analysis, columns, news of that kind." He speculated that Murdoch might be interested in starting a magazine to go with the Journal. "He doesn't seem to like the Saturday Journal," Keller remarked. "We're pretty good at magazines. I'm quite confident that if he comes up with something we will be able to respond. There are a lot of people at the Wall Street Journal wondering if we're the last lifeboat in the ocean."
Someone asked whether the hiring of online staff would affect hiring or staffing the paper. "Mostly, no," Keller said. "The web creates openings for very specialized jobs. Sometimes you have to go out and hire them from other places. But in the reallocation of resources from print to digital, we're not talking about closing down print slots and opening up web slots."
And then someone asked about City Room, which is Sewell Chan's new project, and is basically a mini-New York Times, but online and only about New York. "The idea is that the New York Times is not giving up New York City... We're taking one of our most inventive and productive journalists and setting him loose. He will do all different kinds of news without any narrow portfolio." God help us
http://gawker.com/news/inside-jobs/bill-keller-our-stories-are-too-often-too-long-263404.php
Today the New York Times held its "Throw Stuff at Bill" (that would be Keller!) meetings—one this morning and two this afternoon. We got a report about the early afternoon session, and learned that the future of the Times is all about Sewell Chan, among other things.
The bulk of Keller's presentation (which was followed by a Q&A) had to do with the Times' transition to "journalism on the web" and the evolving "web-print relationship." Newsroom editors, he said, "need to be better informed about features that appear in their sections. They don't necessarily have to know how to put up a slide show or put up a graphic, but they need to know who does what." Excellent plan!
He also spoke about the "gradual reallocation of resources from print towards digital" and copy editors being moved to the day side, so that there could be a "greater flow of fresh quality edit material." We imagine a chill swept quickly over the room! Then he brought up two of the Times' stars: Sewell Chan, who has become a "full-time, online Metro journalist"; and the comely Ariel Kaminer, who—assuming we heard this correctly—is becoming a "cultural impresario." Snarf.
"We can't let our reverence for quality become a straitjacket in new media," he warned. "The web environment is different... We can offer guidance but we cannot insist on the same control we exercise over print."
That, it would seem, might be a difficult lesson to absorb. But Keller hurried to make his charges feel better! "Online and in print, we are the New York Times," he intoned, not entirely convincingly.
He spoke of the new building: "Pioneers have already settled in our gleaming frontier." He brought up some of the complaints that the "pioneers" have had, including fire alarms having a mind of their own and motion-sensor lights not working. "There have also been reports of a rat sighting," he said, though he hurried to say that it was unsubstantiated. "The mice aren't scheduled to move in until June 15." Laughter! Relief!
"I implore you to be versatile," he implored. "It's an immense improvement over our venerable, but cramped and deteriorating, building on 43rd Street. The company is heading for a long future."
Part of the future includes a reduction in the size of the paper at the end of the summer. "Folks, it ain't that different," he said. There's that warm Bill Keller we all know! "It's an inch and a half narrower. There's no dramatic makeover of our design." In contrast to the Wall Street Journal's redesign, he said that the Times would "absorb the change without a great deal of fanfare." He said the changes include a display page for the foreign desk, and limiting the jumping of A1 stories to other sections.
While the paper will be adding pages, the "actual reduction of the newshole is about 5 percent," he said, which will give editors "some incentive about being a little more ruthless about throwing stories back for cuts. Our stories are too often too long... The 1200 word stories could be 800 or 900. There are editors at a Page 1 meeting boasting that a story is only 1400 words." (Good thing Sewell is only writing for the web, then.)
Then it was time for questions. Someone asked how the Times plans to make money off the web. "I heartily believe we will," Keller said. "How, is a lot more complicated." He talked about Wall Street, and doing PowerPoint presentations. "There's a phrase they use in drug and alcohol rehab—'fake it til you make it.' That's basically what we're doing."
Another person asked about Rupert Murdoch's bid for the Wall Street Journal and how that might affect the Times. Keller seems to think that if Murdoch wins the bid for Dow Jones, he will invest in Bloomberg-type news. "I don't think we want to go into the newswire and business newswire service," he said. "It's not our strength. We can respond in a smart way by providing more of what we provide now, which is stuff that if you're interested in business, you have to read. Smart analysis, columns, news of that kind." He speculated that Murdoch might be interested in starting a magazine to go with the Journal. "He doesn't seem to like the Saturday Journal," Keller remarked. "We're pretty good at magazines. I'm quite confident that if he comes up with something we will be able to respond. There are a lot of people at the Wall Street Journal wondering if we're the last lifeboat in the ocean."
Someone asked whether the hiring of online staff would affect hiring or staffing the paper. "Mostly, no," Keller said. "The web creates openings for very specialized jobs. Sometimes you have to go out and hire them from other places. But in the reallocation of resources from print to digital, we're not talking about closing down print slots and opening up web slots."
And then someone asked about City Room, which is Sewell Chan's new project, and is basically a mini-New York Times, but online and only about New York. "The idea is that the New York Times is not giving up New York City... We're taking one of our most inventive and productive journalists and setting him loose. He will do all different kinds of news without any narrow portfolio." God help us
Patterns, measurements define 2006-07
Patterns, measurements define 2006-07 seasonby Paul J. Gough
May 25, 2007
2006-07 SEASON WRAP
Overview: Patterns, measurements define season
Ratings rerun: Fox, CBS on top
Thursday, Monday are battlegrounds
Chart: Final series ranks
Network news makes headlines
NEW YORK -- It has been a wild and in some cases wacky season for network TV, culminating in a hunt for millions of missing viewers that is so complicated that it's worthy of its own episode of "CSI."
On the surface, it is status quo -- CBS extended its winning streak in total viewers to five years, while "American Idol"-powered Fox bagged a third consecutive season victory among adults 18-49.
But underneath, a sea change has been brewing.
"I think we'll look back and see 2007 as the watershed when all the things we talked about -- viewing behavior and audience measurement of that behavior -- all came together to start the new era," NBC research chief Alan Wurtzel said. "We've talked a lot about change and everything, but this is the first year we've seen it in a profound way."
At the beginning of the season, Nielsen Media Research introduced "most current" ratings, cuming the audiences that watch a show live as well as those that record it on a DVR and watch it up to seven days later.
But even with those additional viewers counted this season, primetime television viewing dropped significantly compared with last season.
The steepest decline was in live viewership, which fell 10% year-over-year among the four major broadcast networks. Adding in DVR viewership, which can boost shows' ratings by as much as 25% or more, the Big Four were still down 5%.
Things turned for the worse in the spring when many of TV's best and brightest fell to season or even series lows. That list includes "Desperate Housewives," "Lost," "Grey's Anatomy," "CSI: Miami" and "ER," among others. Even "Idol" wasn't immune though it hasn't seen a year-over-year decline.
The reasons seem myriad. Explanations include poor comparisons with the Winter Olympics, which boosted viewership levels last year, the lack of stunt counter-programming, a three weeks' earlier start to daylight-saving time, an abnormally high amount of repeats in February and March and a shift in viewing behavior brought on by the DVR, streaming video and the growing number of ways network TV is consumed these days.
"It's never one thing," said Fox scheduling czar Preston Beckman, who acknowledged that the early start to daylight-saving time and the increase in DVR penetration has changed the game.
He thinks that the networks also have learned the hard way that viewers are annoyed by their favorite shows going on hiatus or repeating. It's something Fox took into consideration three years ago when it scheduled "24" straight through. Nielsen said that only 66% of program minutes in March were original compared with 80% a year ago.
Daylight-saving time generally shaves 3% or 4% off viewing, something the networks saw three weeks earlier this year. It particularly hit the 8-9 p.m. hour and such shows as NBC's "My Name Is Earl" and "The Office." But even when things started evening out, the ratings remained down.
"Probably the two had a compound effect and moved people away from their normal March viewing patterns into a lower general pattern of television viewing," CBS research chief David Poltrack said. "We haven't really recovered from that."
Mindshare research director Debbie Solomon thinks that the long hiatus periods and schedule shifts are coming back to haunt the networks and turn off viewers.
"They're not leaving the set, they're leaving the shows," Solomon said. "It's important to make that distinction. The networks have been playing so many games with scheduling and a lot of programs have gone on long hiatus periods and a lot of changed nights. ... I think viewers have given up trying to find their shows."
And unlike the past two years, when several shows debuted in the winter and spring -- "Office," "The Unit," "The New Adventures of Old Christine," "Deal or No Deal" and, of course, "Grey's Anatomy" -- this year fewer programs were introduced and only three, ABC's "October Road," Fox's "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" and CBS' "Rules of Engagement" stuck.
"And certainly you wouldn't put them in the same class as 'Grey's Anatomy' and 'Deal or No Deal' in terms of strength," Poltrack said. "This was a spring where the networks were not reinvigorated with new programming as in years past. Hence, more repeats. This led to some lowering of overall viewing levels."
Fox's Beckman doesn't think that the decline is as severe as it seems when just looking at live-plus-same day. It's a function of the fact that the average Nielsen home is three or four times more likely to be recording programming and playing it back later than it was a year ago.
"When you incorporate the live-plus-seven (ratings), you see that viewing isn't down as much as it appears to be," Beckman said. By that yardstick, such series as "24," "Lost" and "Idol" are flat or slightly up compared with a year ago.
NBC's Wurtzel doesn't think that there's a mass departure of network TV viewers. It's just that there are more choices and people are consuming media differently.
"It may well be that for a lot of people they don't feel the need to be there day-and-date for conventional television anymore," he said. "I do not believe that people aren't interested in television. That doesn't make any sense."
But Beckman believes that with the networks putting so many shows on so many platforms, it is leading to a growing perception that viewers don't have to watch it on network TV. The trick, he said, is whether the loss in potential advertising revenue is offset by the gains in the other ways the shows are being sold.
NBC is asking Nielsen to look into its measurement to make sure that there's nothing hinky there, like a few years ago when young male viewership dropped precipitously. Nielsen said it's looking into NBC's concerns and plans to report to its clients before the Memorial Day holiday.
"What we've found is that people aren't watching less TV this season, they're watching slightly less live television," a Nielsen spokesman said.
Wurtzel is more concerned about the changes in the HUT (households using television) and PUT (persons using television) levels, upon which the viewership and ratings are based.
"I would be surprised if there was a proverbial smoking gun. I think it's going to be a lot of different things," he said. "But I think we really have to understand what the Nielsen situation is, either to say we've got to deal with it or to say it's been taken off the list."
Network season rankings
Network Total viewers (in millions) % change from 2005-06
CBS 12.5 -1%
FOX 10.4 +3%
ABC 9.9 -8%
NBC 8.9 -9%
CW 3.2 n/a
All data reflects "most current ratings"--live-plus-seven through availability and live-plus-same day for the final week of the season.
Adults 18-49
Network Total viewers (in millions) % change from 2005-06
FOX 4.0/11 -2%
CBS 3.7/10 -3%
ABC 3.5/10 -13%
NBC 3.1/8 -6%
Adults 18-34
CW 1.5/4 n/a
Source: Neilsen Media Research, Sept. 18-May 23.
May 25, 2007
2006-07 SEASON WRAP
Overview: Patterns, measurements define season
Ratings rerun: Fox, CBS on top
Thursday, Monday are battlegrounds
Chart: Final series ranks
Network news makes headlines
NEW YORK -- It has been a wild and in some cases wacky season for network TV, culminating in a hunt for millions of missing viewers that is so complicated that it's worthy of its own episode of "CSI."
On the surface, it is status quo -- CBS extended its winning streak in total viewers to five years, while "American Idol"-powered Fox bagged a third consecutive season victory among adults 18-49.
But underneath, a sea change has been brewing.
"I think we'll look back and see 2007 as the watershed when all the things we talked about -- viewing behavior and audience measurement of that behavior -- all came together to start the new era," NBC research chief Alan Wurtzel said. "We've talked a lot about change and everything, but this is the first year we've seen it in a profound way."
At the beginning of the season, Nielsen Media Research introduced "most current" ratings, cuming the audiences that watch a show live as well as those that record it on a DVR and watch it up to seven days later.
But even with those additional viewers counted this season, primetime television viewing dropped significantly compared with last season.
The steepest decline was in live viewership, which fell 10% year-over-year among the four major broadcast networks. Adding in DVR viewership, which can boost shows' ratings by as much as 25% or more, the Big Four were still down 5%.
Things turned for the worse in the spring when many of TV's best and brightest fell to season or even series lows. That list includes "Desperate Housewives," "Lost," "Grey's Anatomy," "CSI: Miami" and "ER," among others. Even "Idol" wasn't immune though it hasn't seen a year-over-year decline.
The reasons seem myriad. Explanations include poor comparisons with the Winter Olympics, which boosted viewership levels last year, the lack of stunt counter-programming, a three weeks' earlier start to daylight-saving time, an abnormally high amount of repeats in February and March and a shift in viewing behavior brought on by the DVR, streaming video and the growing number of ways network TV is consumed these days.
"It's never one thing," said Fox scheduling czar Preston Beckman, who acknowledged that the early start to daylight-saving time and the increase in DVR penetration has changed the game.
He thinks that the networks also have learned the hard way that viewers are annoyed by their favorite shows going on hiatus or repeating. It's something Fox took into consideration three years ago when it scheduled "24" straight through. Nielsen said that only 66% of program minutes in March were original compared with 80% a year ago.
Daylight-saving time generally shaves 3% or 4% off viewing, something the networks saw three weeks earlier this year. It particularly hit the 8-9 p.m. hour and such shows as NBC's "My Name Is Earl" and "The Office." But even when things started evening out, the ratings remained down.
"Probably the two had a compound effect and moved people away from their normal March viewing patterns into a lower general pattern of television viewing," CBS research chief David Poltrack said. "We haven't really recovered from that."
Mindshare research director Debbie Solomon thinks that the long hiatus periods and schedule shifts are coming back to haunt the networks and turn off viewers.
"They're not leaving the set, they're leaving the shows," Solomon said. "It's important to make that distinction. The networks have been playing so many games with scheduling and a lot of programs have gone on long hiatus periods and a lot of changed nights. ... I think viewers have given up trying to find their shows."
And unlike the past two years, when several shows debuted in the winter and spring -- "Office," "The Unit," "The New Adventures of Old Christine," "Deal or No Deal" and, of course, "Grey's Anatomy" -- this year fewer programs were introduced and only three, ABC's "October Road," Fox's "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" and CBS' "Rules of Engagement" stuck.
"And certainly you wouldn't put them in the same class as 'Grey's Anatomy' and 'Deal or No Deal' in terms of strength," Poltrack said. "This was a spring where the networks were not reinvigorated with new programming as in years past. Hence, more repeats. This led to some lowering of overall viewing levels."
Fox's Beckman doesn't think that the decline is as severe as it seems when just looking at live-plus-same day. It's a function of the fact that the average Nielsen home is three or four times more likely to be recording programming and playing it back later than it was a year ago.
"When you incorporate the live-plus-seven (ratings), you see that viewing isn't down as much as it appears to be," Beckman said. By that yardstick, such series as "24," "Lost" and "Idol" are flat or slightly up compared with a year ago.
NBC's Wurtzel doesn't think that there's a mass departure of network TV viewers. It's just that there are more choices and people are consuming media differently.
"It may well be that for a lot of people they don't feel the need to be there day-and-date for conventional television anymore," he said. "I do not believe that people aren't interested in television. That doesn't make any sense."
But Beckman believes that with the networks putting so many shows on so many platforms, it is leading to a growing perception that viewers don't have to watch it on network TV. The trick, he said, is whether the loss in potential advertising revenue is offset by the gains in the other ways the shows are being sold.
NBC is asking Nielsen to look into its measurement to make sure that there's nothing hinky there, like a few years ago when young male viewership dropped precipitously. Nielsen said it's looking into NBC's concerns and plans to report to its clients before the Memorial Day holiday.
"What we've found is that people aren't watching less TV this season, they're watching slightly less live television," a Nielsen spokesman said.
Wurtzel is more concerned about the changes in the HUT (households using television) and PUT (persons using television) levels, upon which the viewership and ratings are based.
"I would be surprised if there was a proverbial smoking gun. I think it's going to be a lot of different things," he said. "But I think we really have to understand what the Nielsen situation is, either to say we've got to deal with it or to say it's been taken off the list."
Network season rankings
Network Total viewers (in millions) % change from 2005-06
CBS 12.5 -1%
FOX 10.4 +3%
ABC 9.9 -8%
NBC 8.9 -9%
CW 3.2 n/a
All data reflects "most current ratings"--live-plus-seven through availability and live-plus-same day for the final week of the season.
Adults 18-49
Network Total viewers (in millions) % change from 2005-06
FOX 4.0/11 -2%
CBS 3.7/10 -3%
ABC 3.5/10 -13%
NBC 3.1/8 -6%
Adults 18-34
CW 1.5/4 n/a
Source: Neilsen Media Research, Sept. 18-May 23.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
