Charles Barkley, Fox News Trade Pre-Election Shots
TNT basketball analyst and former NBA star Charles Barkley calls Fox News Channel "corrupt," Fox News dismisses Barkley as a "shill" for CNN
By Ben Grossman -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/29/2008 1:00:00 AMFormer NBA star, current TNT basketball analyst and possible future Alabama gubernatorial candidate Charles Barkley says he is no fan of Fox News Channel.“I watch CNN, they’re not fucked up like Fox,” Barkley told B&C. “They are a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. I watch [Fox] a couple times when there is someone I want to see on there. But they’re corrupt."When asked whether he is just shilling for his parent company (TNT and CNN are corporate cousins), Barkley denies that he has to stick up for his team.“Hell no, I don’t,” he says. “I like Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper and John King. They at least try to give both sides.”But Fox News Channel doesn’t see it that way, as a network spokesperson fired back immediately.“It’s hardly a surprise that Charles is a shill for a Turner owned network.... He obviously needs the steady paycheck to pay off his consistent gambling debts,” the spokesperson told B&C.Barkley in May said he was at least temporarily putting on hold a gambling habit that he once told ESPN has cost him about $10 million over the years. Earlier this year, a hotel in Las Vegas alleged that Barkley had failed to repay casino markers.The longtime NBA star, who is now a colorful NBA analyst for TNT, is backing Barack Obama for President, and thinks he is going to win.“I do, but it’s gonna be close,” he says.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Suite & Sour NATPE?
This article is always relevant because Dr. Pitts is so heavily involved with NATPE. I thought it was interesting that they are planning on making all of this extra room and upgrades to try to bring in more people, given that the economy contradicts these plans. Some people have expressed concern, given that it will cost extra money, and will it really bring in more people?
Suite & Sour NATPE?
Convention Veterans Question Timing of Planned Expansion
By Andrew Krukowski
Despite the National Association of Television Program Executives’ ambitious plans to draw exhibitors back to the trade show floor next year, high costs and the general atmosphere of the NATPE 2009 conference could cause some sellers to keep on living the “suite” life.
While NATPE veterans agree that the organization’s recently announced expansion plans are a step in the right direction, they fear the timing might not be right.
In a conference call with reporters two weeks ago, NATPE President-CEO Rick Feldman announced intentions to double the size of the conference floor and creates a lounge area and restaurant in order to inject life back into the exhibition floor at the 2009 NATPE convention.
NATPE is betting that the changes will lure stations, ad executives, agents and other attendees out of their hotel suites at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, where the convention is being held, and back down to the trade show floor.
“It’s a bold move given the economic times,” said Dick Askin, former president-CEO of Tribune Entertainment and current president-CEO of television consulting firm Askin & Co. “I don’t know if there is enough of a financial incentive for exhibitors in the suites to move to the floor,” he added.
One former syndication exec said suites are cheaper as well as quieter for making deals, while a presentation at a booth is more labor-intensive and expensive. A large booth can run tens of thousands of dollars to build, store and operate, Mr. Askin said.
A suite, he said, just includes chairs and some signage and is a much cheaper proposition.
“Costs are going to become a key factor to anyone going,” said Jim Packer, co-president of MGM Worldwide Television. He said he supports the changes, especially the restaurant, saying it was aggravating to have to wait in line for food at outside eateries when on a strict time schedule.
But, Mr. Packer said, the suites aren’t as money-saving as some believe.
“They’re cheap,” he said, “but not that cheap.”
For Mr. Packer, each distributor is going to have to make a decision as to what best suits their clients. Not everyone is a major exhibitor, and a smaller distributor might be able to get by with a small booth, he said.
“It’s always going to be a little more expensive to have a booth depending on what you want to build,” Mr. Feldman said.
The changes to the floor, he added, were spurred last year by convention-goers who asked NATPE to create an environment that kept people on the floor.
The purpose of the convention itself has come into question in recent years, as station and syndication company consolidation and financial considerations have put a dent in attendance.
“Essentially, we are doing what we were asked to do,” said Mr. Feldman, who characterized the additions to the 2009 convention—which also include wi-fi, a celebrity chef kitchen and a theater for tech demos—as a “thank you” to the sellers who take booths.
Despite the push toward the floor, Twentieth Television, ABC-Disney and Debmar-Mercury will be located in the suites again next year, as they were in 2008. Warner Bros. had no comment on its plans, while representatives at Sony Pictures Television could not be reached.
By Andrew Krukowski
Despite the National Association of Television Program Executives’ ambitious plans to draw exhibitors back to the trade show floor next year, high costs and the general atmosphere of the NATPE 2009 conference could cause some sellers to keep on living the “suite” life.
While NATPE veterans agree that the organization’s recently announced expansion plans are a step in the right direction, they fear the timing might not be right.
In a conference call with reporters two weeks ago, NATPE President-CEO Rick Feldman announced intentions to double the size of the conference floor and creates a lounge area and restaurant in order to inject life back into the exhibition floor at the 2009 NATPE convention.
NATPE is betting that the changes will lure stations, ad executives, agents and other attendees out of their hotel suites at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, where the convention is being held, and back down to the trade show floor.
“It’s a bold move given the economic times,” said Dick Askin, former president-CEO of Tribune Entertainment and current president-CEO of television consulting firm Askin & Co. “I don’t know if there is enough of a financial incentive for exhibitors in the suites to move to the floor,” he added.
One former syndication exec said suites are cheaper as well as quieter for making deals, while a presentation at a booth is more labor-intensive and expensive. A large booth can run tens of thousands of dollars to build, store and operate, Mr. Askin said.
A suite, he said, just includes chairs and some signage and is a much cheaper proposition.
“Costs are going to become a key factor to anyone going,” said Jim Packer, co-president of MGM Worldwide Television. He said he supports the changes, especially the restaurant, saying it was aggravating to have to wait in line for food at outside eateries when on a strict time schedule.
But, Mr. Packer said, the suites aren’t as money-saving as some believe.
“They’re cheap,” he said, “but not that cheap.”
For Mr. Packer, each distributor is going to have to make a decision as to what best suits their clients. Not everyone is a major exhibitor, and a smaller distributor might be able to get by with a small booth, he said.
“It’s always going to be a little more expensive to have a booth depending on what you want to build,” Mr. Feldman said.
The changes to the floor, he added, were spurred last year by convention-goers who asked NATPE to create an environment that kept people on the floor.
The purpose of the convention itself has come into question in recent years, as station and syndication company consolidation and financial considerations have put a dent in attendance.
“Essentially, we are doing what we were asked to do,” said Mr. Feldman, who characterized the additions to the 2009 convention—which also include wi-fi, a celebrity chef kitchen and a theater for tech demos—as a “thank you” to the sellers who take booths.
Despite the push toward the floor, Twentieth Television, ABC-Disney and Debmar-Mercury will be located in the suites again next year, as they were in 2008. Warner Bros. had no comment on its plans, while representatives at Sony Pictures Television could not be reached.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Are You Game for Some New Revenue?
(Not sure if this week was mine or not, but I need to get my posts in sooner or later. Either way, I found this story pretty interesting since it shows brainstorming for future game-show ideas. Programming like this could still be a great way to continue to put on inexpensive programming that attracts casual viewers even in economically troubling times...)
Are You Game for Some New Revenue?
TVNEWSDAY, Oct 27 2008, 1:41 PM ET
Recently, I received an e-mail from Las Vegas-based producer Mark Richards, whose resume includes a long list of game shows he's created, hosted or produced for cable and local TV and radio stations.
The e-mail summarized Three Heads Are Better Than One, Richards' ambitious proposal for a local, hour-long, Monday-Friday game show that promises to generate new revenue for stations. The format recruits teams from 20 small businesses per week to compete for $10,000 worth of spot time on the producing station.
A yearly fee to Richards would cover most production elements, including music, graphics and a virtual set. The show would contain no barter, says Richards, "so stations can sell the entire 12 minutes of inventory per show."
Richards' confidence in the sure-fire profits is based upon each business paying the station $750 to play. This, says Richards, is OK with the FCC because the quiz-based contest is a game of skill, not chance.
Now $750 times 20 businesses yields $15,000 weekly. I won't attempt to review all of Richards' math, but he expects this total will cover weekly fees for both for the station and Richards as well as in-house production expenses plus the $10,000 in spot time (presumably heavily-discounted).) Richards estimates that stations that produce the show year-round will earn $260,000 from the players' fees alone.
Naturally, I had my doubts, so I sought a second opinion by sharing Richards' complete e-mail with my friend Bruce Kaplan, a longtime CBS station sales executive now the principal in Pittsburgh-based marketing consultancy Shoots & Scores. Among other concerns, Kaplan was "skeptical at best that there would be enough interested clients."
For one thing, Kaplan worries that clients will balk at the entry fee, however modest. He also questions the viability of a 60-minute format. "About the only successful hour-long game show is the network version of Deal or No Deal, which offers a famous host and beautiful women."
Recalling his experience with local high school quiz shows at Pitttsburgh's KDKA, Kaplan further cautions that "it's a real stretch to produce five half-hour episodes at a time with any production quality.
"It's probably smarter and more realistic to start with just one half-hour show per week and try to build up," he says.
All good points, but still I wonder whether Richards' idea is so crazy it just might work. In any event, you've got to give the man points for positive, creative thinking at a time when even network chiefs seem to have run out of fresh ideas.
In fact, if we're to maintain ratings and revenue between now and full fiscal recovery, we need more of this kind of thinking. So here are some of my ideas for game and game-like revenue boosters.
News quiz: Challenge viewers to answer a daily question at least once in each newscast, awarding an advertiser-driven prize for each correct answer. To expand your station's e-mail list, encourage e-mail entries, but also provide a telephone alternative. Each reply enters the viewer in a daily and/or weekly drawing for a larger prize. Sure, this could add an asterisk to your news ratings but, these days, that might even be a good thing.
60-second game show: This mini quiz show requires some post-production, but will likely prove less labor-intensive (and more entertaining) than a call-in format. Viewers register online (or regular mail, which reportedly still exists) for a chance to answer a question on the air within 15 seconds to win a prize — provided, of course, by a sponsor.
The station calls eligible contestants until one answers, then the fun begins. Post-production cuts right to the action, removing extraneous stuff like dialing, answering and explaining. (You'll need to disclose the editing in a super.) You can retain a timely feel by basing the question on same-day programming. A great showcase for your weather or sports anchor.
Branded bargain-of-the-day: Coupon clipping is hot again in the current economy. Here's a video version that rewards loyal viewing and builds revenue. It also spares stations the workload of running a quiz or contest. Offer viewers station-branded bargains-of-the-day — significant savings at local restaurants or retailers — during key newscasts or syndicated fare. Significant is the key word, ideally a two-for-one deal or better. Naturally, businesses pay for this privilege. Thanks to ongoing promotion, this feature is a traffic builder for both you and the advertisers.
Homework challenge. Want to add a public service bonus to your sales promotion? Team with the local school system to challenge elementary and middle school children to answer questions from the actual school curriculum. Ideally, every correct answer would win a prize. This can start out as a weekly news segment, a great companion promotion to Fox's Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader? It could also be expanded into its own half-hour show. Sell it to a local sponsor or link with an ongoing sponsored public service effort such as Pizza Hut's reading incentive program, Book It!
So there are four ideas right off the top of my head. I've deliberately skipped over obvious watch-to-win formulas that depend on a secret word or number. On the other hand, I've followed Bruce Kaplan's advice and stuck to ideas that don't require producing an entire show, let alone a strip show.
Avid plans to cut 410 jobs
BLAKE O'NEAL HERE, IT'S NOT MY WEEK, BUT I FOUND AN INTERESTING ONE KNOWING THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE CLASS IS ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH THE SOFTWARE.
Avid plans to cut 410 jobs, sell 3-D unit
Avid Technology Inc. of Tewksbury, the leading maker of professional audio and video editing software, is laying off 410 full-time employees - 15 percent of its workforce - dismissing another 90 contract workers, and selling off its Softimage 3-D game animation software business in a major restructuring.
"We took a hard look across our entire business," said Avid chief executive Gary Greenfield, who was hired in December to overhaul the company in the face of growing competition.
Avid also said yesterday that third-quarter revenue fell 4 percent to $217.1 million, while the net loss ballooned to $66.4 million, or $1.80 per share, compared to a loss of $5.9 million or 14 cents per share in the same period in 2007. Most of the increase was due to a $51 million write-down of the value of Pinnacle Systems, a maker of home video editing software that Avid acquired for $462 million in 2005.
Greenfield said there is no clear evidence the economic crisis has begun to affect Avid. He said Avid's most vital customers, movie and TV production companies, are not yet cutting back production schedules, but added that TV commercial producers and music recording studios have expressed concern about economic conditions.
"We remain somewhat cautious about the economic climate," said Ken Sexton, chief financial officer, adding that the company would not issue guidance to investors about fourth-quarter revenue and earnings.
A company spokesman said Avid's move to a unified management structure will eliminate hundreds of redundant jobs and result in a one-time charge of as much as $24 million. The cuts will include 410 full-time employees - including 54 in Massachusetts and 20 in New Hampshire
Meanwhile, Avid has agreed to sell its Softimage business for $35 million to Autodesk Inc., a major maker of 3-D design software, removing a further 90 workers from Avid's payroll, and reducing full-time employees from 2,700 to 2,200.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
TV Prices Falling Faster
With the switch the digital sneaking up on us, most people are opting for new TV over the bulky converter boxes. But if anyone is looking to purchase a new fancy TV, you should definitely take a peak at this article. Paul Gagnon of DisplaySearch’s for the North American TV market research has predicted that flat panel TV prices will fall before black Friday (the Friday after Thanksgiving) and continue to for some time till Christmas. He thinks big retailers like Wal-Mart and Cosco will be recipients of theses prices, where they hope people will spend what little extra money they have. Most retailers are afraid previously popular big items like TV's will suffer from the poor ecoenmy durring the holiday season, so their soulution is to lower the prices drastically. So check this out before you make your next big TV purchase.
TV Prices Falling Faster
By Eric A. TaubIf you’re in the market for a new flat panel TV, you may be tempted to get ready to pull out your credit card (if you have any credit left). In the next few weeks, LCD and plasma set prices are due to plummet.
Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, has traditionally been the one-day-only super-sales for consumer electronics and the beginning of holiday sales. But this year, prices should tumble even sooner and perhaps stay there.
The reason is obvious: the bear-market economy has caused many consumers to rein in their discretionary spending, and retailers are terrified that sales, especially for big-ticket items like televisions, will evaporate.
Television manufacturers have already lowered their prices, cutting into margins. According to a DisplaySearch conference call held on Friday for its clients, in August the firm projected fourth quarter 2008 sales would climb 1.4 percent from the same period last year, while revenues were to decline 16.3 percent. Now the firm thinks unit sales could decline as well.
The solution: slash TV prices to make them so low that even Crazy Eddie would call them “insane.”
Paul Gagnon, DisplaySearch’s director of North American TV market research, predicts the following prices in the coming weeks:
19-inch high definition LCD: $199
32-inch HD LCD: $399-$499
40-inch 1080p LCD: $799-$999
42-inch HD plasma: $599-$699
50-inch HD plasma: $899-$999
That’s a significant drop from what’s available today. On Costco’s Web site, the least-expensive 32-inch LCD, made by Sceptre, is $599, at least $100 more than DisplaySearch predicts. Its least-expensive 42- inch plasma, a 1080p model from Panasonic, is $899 (with rebate), $200 to $300 more expensive than what’s predicted. At the other end of the spectrum, Best Buy has a 19-inch Dynex-brand LCD, selling at $249, $50 more than what it may cost in a few weeks.
To save cash, customers will most likely go for the stripped-down models, Mr. Gagnon said, devoid of the bells and whistles but still delivering good picture quality. And those sales should disproportionately go to the big box discount stores, like Costco and Wal-Mart, where consumers are now spending more of their money.
To increase profits, look for retailers to pressure customers to buy add-ons, like high-margin extended warranties, Blu-ray players, and custom installation services. But for those customers who are shopping for the lowest price, that could be a very hard sell.
Mr. Gagnon held out the hope that, in the best case, consumers would grab TVs at these once-unthinkable prices, helping retailers survive through what looks to be a bleak Christmas selling season.Thursday, October 23, 2008
FCC begins testing mysterious "white space" wireless broadband device
I have been following this whole thing about "white space" for a few months and thought it would be interesting to see what you guys thought about this whole deal. Basically, the FCC doesnt really have an idea of what to do with the analog channels that will be open to use after the conversion to digital. I think its pretty cool that companies are trying to develop new and improved ways to use this "Space" as they call it. I think this would be a great way to get some new technology into play. I think it would be a pretty cool idea for the FCC to allow it to be a open source so that things like wifi in the park could happen and quite possibly like the article says being able to provide dsl and cable internet to areas that were not able to get it. I think that is should be free in some cases like being able to use free wifi in the park, and charging the big companies like Comcast/Att and all thoughs companies. But as you know the FCC most likely use it as a way to gain money, but we will see.
FCC begins testing mysterious "white space" wireless broadband device
Earlier this month, a consortium of companies including Microsoft, Intel, Dell, and Google submitted a device to the Federal Communications Commission for approval that would use the so-called "white space" in the analog television spectrum for wireless Internet access. The FCC is testing the new device and will have results ready in July, according to an attorney for the companies, and the Commission could then adopt final rules for such devices in the fall of this year.
In the meantime, many people are hoping that the unused white space that exists between the individual channels will be made available for use by unlicensed devices like the prototype developed by the consortium. A bill introduced last week by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) would force the FCC to make a decision about the white space, something that the Commission has already indicated its intent to do.
Despite the recent movement towards increasing the amount of wireless spectrum available for broadband access, it appears as though we will have to wait until February 2009 for white-space devices to hit the market. Rep. Inslee's bill sets a hard deadline of February 18, 2009, although it mandates that the FCC make the spectrum available at the "earliest technically feasible date." The coalition of companies backing the prototype wireless device has said that they will not go on sale until February 2009.
Although little is known about the mysterious device, its implications are far reaching. Should the tests go well, it could have the effect of dramatically changing the broadband landscape in the US. Wireless networks using the spectrum should be relatively easy to deploy, and would provide residents of rural areas easy access to broadband while giving everyone else a third alternative to DSL and cable.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Mainstream News Outlets Start Linking to Other Sites
Mainstream News Outlets Start Linking to Other Sites
“Thou shalt not link to outside sites” — a long-held commandment of many newsrooms — is eroding.
Embracing the hyperlink ethos of the Web to a degree not seen before, news organizations are becoming more comfortable linking to competitors — acting in effect like aggregators. The Washington Post recently introduced a political Web site that recommends rival sites. This week NBC will begin introducing Web sites for its local TV stations with links to local newspapers, radio stations, online videos and other sources. And The New York Times will soon offer its online readers an alternative home page with links to competitors.
These experiments exemplify “link journalism,” an idea that is gaining traction in other newsrooms across the country. “It is a fundamentally different mindset” for journalists, said Scott Karp, chief of the Web-based newswire Publish2, who coined the term.
For years, newspapers, television station Web sites and magazines have hesitated about linking to outside Web sites because, the logic goes, they want to keep the users on their own site. More internal page views and longer time-spent-viewing can equate to larger advertising revenue for Web sites.
Mr. Karp argues that Google, the leading search engine, is a direct rebuttal to that logic. “It’s all about sending people away, and it does such a good job of it that people keep coming back for more,” he said.
NBC hopes to benefit from the same user behavior. Beginning with its Chicago affiliate, WMAQ, on Monday, the company will turn its TV station Web sites into full-fledged city guides. John P. Wallace, the president of NBC’s local media division, said the partnerships with content providers and the links to third-party sites will “tap into our communities much deeper than we have been able to historically.”
“It’s a change in mindset,” he said. “We’re looking at the fragmented local market and saying, ‘We’re going to provide a destination where you can come and search across different segments.’ ”
Brian Buchwald, the division’s senior vice president for local digital media and multiplatform, said the move amounts to an acknowledgment that local television stations must do more online than merely regurgitate their newscasts online. “We need to be a lot more than just TV stations if we’re going to be relevant,” he said.
NBC’s local media operation has hired about 55 people to create original content and filter the Web. A test version of the Chicago site last week linked to The Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, TMZ and the local blog Chicagoist. The sites do not distinguish between the articles written by their own staff members and the links to outside sites.
“If we can provide them great content, that’s wonderful. If it comes from somebody else, that’s fine, too,” Mr. Buchwald said.
As simple as that sounds, it represents an attitude shift. While linking to other sources is not a new occurrence by any means, it can still seem misguided to journalists who work vigorously to break a story ahead of other news outlets.
Mr. Karp believes the use of blogs by news organizations has helped newsroom managers accept that filtering the Web for visitors is a valuable editorial function. For bloggers, linking to original reporting, primary sources and discussions about stories is a form of etiquette, assigning credit to others who have written about a topic.
Jeff Jarvis, a prominent blogger who directs the Graduate School of Journalism’s new-media program at the City University of New York, has said that the culture of linking was creating a “new architecture of news.”
“Link unto others’ good stuff as you would have them link unto your good stuff,” he proposed in June. His “Golden Rule of Links” for journalists, naturally, earned at least 25 links from other bloggers.
Newsrooms seem more open than ever to that view. The New York Times is developing a version of the home page “that will contain links to other news sites and blogs alongside the articles we publish,” The Times’s chief technology officer, Marc Frons, told Web readers in July. That feature, called Times Extra, will be published using a technology called Blogrunner that the Times acquired in 2005.
Other Web sites are aggregating links manually: ProPublica, the nonprofit newsroom venture led by Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, has dedicated a section of its site to “Breaking on the Web,” a collection of links to the investigative reporting of others.
Last month The Washington Post added “Political Browser,” a professed source of “what’s good on the Web,” to its site. The page freely links to competitors with features like “Required Reading,” summing up articles in newspapers and magazines, and “Staff Picks,” a list of articles that Post employees are reading. Lest its own newspaper be forgotten, a “Best of the Post” section links to its own articles.
Mainstream News Outlets Start Linking to Other Sites
Hey guys this is Vicky and I found this article that I thought was pretty interesting if your looking at the business side of media. Do you think that news websites will benefit, as they hope, from including links to other news sites on their pages? If you were at one news website and saw a link to another website that gave you more information, would you continue to go back to the original site for other stories? I think that from a competition viewpoint this could be very good if many of the news websites started to do this, readers would be able to decide which news site allows for the most access to the most amount of information. I thought that the comment made in the article by Jeff Jarvis, a blogger who directs the Graduate School of Journalism's new-media program at the City University of New York, was very interesting, "Link unto others’ good stuff as you would have them link unto your good stuff,' he proposed in June. His 'Golden Rule of Links' for journalists." Do you think that this would actually happen? Or do you think that competition would get in the way of good journalism?
Goodbye to Local News?
This is from a few weeks ago by the Peoria Journal Star... but it still indicates technology, people, and management on a local level. Will our local stations turn into a trailer with an antenna to hub-out all network news? What does this technology aspect mean for each aspect of media- advertising, engineering, newsroom, production, etc?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Tough Times Ahead for Many TV Stations
Hey everyone, this is Brad. It's my week for lead blogging, and I found this article about the financial crisis and its effect on TV stations. It's an interview with Larry Patrick, managing partner of Patrick Communications. He's saying that the down economy might make it hard for the smaller stations to stay afloat. He predicts more bankruptcies and foreclosures to come. I think it's interesting that he doesn't think broadcasting should be publicly traded. His argument is a good one, what good does it do to be a publicly traded broadcast company right now? Profits and ratings are both down, and there's no real prediction of a turnaround until around 2010.
http://tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/10/07/daily.1/
Tough Talk About Even Tougher Times
TVNEWSDAY, Oct 7 2008, 12:24 AM ET
Few people have a better perspective on the broadcasting industry and what's ailing it these days than Larry Patrick.
Story continues after the ad
Revised Roche & Company Business & Finance News Display
As managing partner of Patrick Communications, a leading station broker and appraisal firm, he regularly examines stations' operations and their books as he helps them refinance, buy or sell. And he stays well grounded in the business through the ownership of a string of small-market radio stations.
Unfortunately, Patrick sees dark days ahead for broadcasting.
In this interview with TVNewsday Editor Harry A. Jessell, Patrick says the industry is just beginning to feel the full impact of an economic "tsunami" generated by the tight credit markets and the sharp advertising slowdown.
He says to expect more foreclosures and bankruptcies, greater pressure to cut costs, sinking station prices and a dearth of station deals as owners await better times, which may not come until 2010.
The news is not all bad. Broadcasters with heaps of cash may be able to pick up stations at bargain prices from owners who have to sell as the banks press in.
What the industry really needs is a roll-up of some of the mid-size publicly traded station groups, he says. The regulatory and financial hurdles may not be as great as the difficulty of settling on which of the CEOs would run the surviving company.
An edited transcript:
What effect is the subprime lending meltdown and credit crunch having on TV broadcasting?
The whole economic meltdown is a very tough body blow for broadcast lending overall. If you are a broadcaster who paid a high price for your assets and you're at a point where you desperately need to refinance, at the moment at least, those refinancing options are extremely limited.
Banks are either not loaning or they're loaning at much lower multiples than they were just a year or two ago. If you're a seller, the difficulty is that many of the buyers who legitimately would have had a strong interest in your station or stations can't swing the deals these days.
Let's say you want 12 times [cash flow] for your station. In the past, a buyer might say that's OK because I can borrow 7 or 7 ½ times from a bank and do the rest with equity. But now the bank is saying: "Look, if we do it at all, we will only do it 5 times." So, suddenly, you have to put in so much more equity and the deal may not make sense anymore.
Look at it from the seller's side. When the multiples come down on the lending side, it translates into lower multiples for the pricing. So, instead of 12 times today, maybe suddenly you can only get 10 times. If you're in desperate trouble, you take it and run. If you can hang on, you just don't sell. You sit there for a while.
Are there some station groups in trouble because they need to refinance and can't?
That's correct.
How widespread is that problem?
I can think of a half-dozen, at least, who are in that situation where they have a lot of leverage and they're trying to figure out how they can refinance. That's very difficult.
Are we going to see some more bankruptcies like Pappas?
I think you probably will. We've been asked to appraise stations with the idea of selling and the people that are calling are not the broadcasters. They're the banks that are saying: "We're going to move towards foreclosure." That's a very bad thing for the industry when that happens.
On the other hand, where there are losers there are always winners. The station that is taken over by a bank may come back out on the market at a dramatically lower price.
If you're a private company and you have dry powder, you have cash in the bank and you have a good relationship with your lenders and you are not particularly highly leveraged, this may be one of the great shopping times.
You're going to see a handful of stations, maybe more than a handful, that will come on the market that you would have passed by in 13 or 14 [multiples] times, but now they're asking 10 or 11 times. Maybe, you can get yourself a little bit of a bargain.
The trading multiples on all stations are probably drifting down slightly. I was in Texas last week at the request of a bank visiting a station. It's a very nice station and it's a profitable station. It's sitting there doing several million dollars in cash flow and there's nothing wrong with the station.
The problem is that the company borrowed a lot of money to do improvements, to buy out some shareholders and do a number of other things. Then, the bank itself got in trouble. It wound up with a lot of bad loans and was liquidated and sold to another bank.
The new bank walks in and says: "Hang on here, wait a minute, you guys are in violation of our loan documents with us. You're not paying us enough and, to be honest, we'd just as soon sell the station as anything." So that's a bad thing for the owner/operator right now.
But, on the other hand, somebody that looks at that station and looks at that market will say there's nothing wrong with either. That's still a $25 million or $30 million TV station in a nice little town. I wouldn't mind buying that. That would be a very nice little investment.
So, basically, the credit crunch is putting some companies under severe financial pressure, preventing others from selling and creating opportunities for companies with plenty of cash.
Yes. But that's only half the story. The other half is the dramatic slowing in the ad business in the core categories. When you see companies like Ford Motor being off 35 percent [in their ad spending] and others off 25 percent, it affects revenue and cash flow and it may put some companies that have had good relationships with their banks in jeopardy of breaching their covenants. They're not generating quite enough money as they're supposed to.
They still may be able to make your payments, but things are much, much tighter than they used to be. There'll be pressure all the way down the line. There'll be pressure to reduce staff size, there'll be pressure not to re-sign talent at big prices, there'll be pressure not to take gambles.
If you can't get as much revenue, you're not going to want to pay as much for syndicated programming and you are going to fight the networks every step of the way on any sort of reverse compensation.
It's also unfortunate that this is all happening at a time when broadcasters should be looking to exploit their digital spectrum by multicasting and offering mobile services. Broadcasters are suddenly going to say "there're many opportunities out here, but the core business is being hurt by the banking and the advertising slowdown and the corporation just told me that we've got to tighten our belts."
Right at the time of the DTV transition when you're going to suddenly have so much more inventory and more spectrum to do more creative and innovative things, you may find that your hands are tied.
We are in a tsunami of economic problems caused not by broadcasters, but by subprime lending and other things that have really shaken the whole foundation of the American financial system.
What about the publicly traded TV stocks? They are way off their highs and continuing to head south.
Broadcasting is out of favor in the stock market. The analysts and investors do not see it as a growth market. It still produces huge, huge cash flows, but that's not really what they're looking for. So the result is you see some of these companies that used to sell for $20, $30 or $40 at $5 or less. It's got some of the families and some of the controlling shareholders scratching their heads and asking: "How do I get out of this?" It's very tough.
There is no way out right now, is there?
Not now. The reality is broadcasting should not be publicly traded. There's almost no good reason to be a public company at this point. That changes over time, but right now you're better off if you're private.
Why is that?
Because public companies are under scrutiny constantly, quarter after quarter. If the analysts and investors don't see any growth, you're going to get hammered. Why take that?
Why not just go private, stop the expense of being a publicly traded company and so forth. The difficulty is, in order to go private, you need a tremendous amount of cash and you can't get it now. I mean there's nowhere to borrow it and there're no equity people who believe enough in the future of broadcasting to gamble that much money.
Let me give you one example. I have to protect the name of it, but the operator of one of these pretty big public companies whose shares are down to $3 or $4 told me that his problem is that his original investors, the big institutional investors, are in at about $18 to $20 a share and so he can't sell when the stock price is so low. That just doesn't work. But they'd like to get out. I don't know how you get out in that case. I mean one theory is that you start liquidating assets. You just start selling stations.
Because the private market value of stations is higher than the public market value.
Yes, but that was more true six months or a year ago. Today, after this last little meltdown, private market value is still higher than public, but private value is down two or three clicks from where it was. So, there're a couple of groups out there that could have sold their stations six months ago and probably gotten 13 or 14 times because they were very excellent stations with everything going in the right direction. Today, the multiple is 10 or 10 ½.
It sounds as if your advice would be to sit and wait for the credit to loosen up and the revenue to start flowing again before trying to sell.
Yes. Hang in, if you can. Hang in and do the right things. Be very careful about what you're spending and get out there and redouble your efforts to find new ad categories.
I was at the NAB Small Market Television Exchange in Phoenix where there was a lot of focus on health care. That makes sense. You've got an aging population that is going to increasingly need more and more complicated health care delivery.
Every TV station in the country ought to have at least one sales person specializing in health care so you can get more ads not just for Levitra and everything else at the national level, but for your local hospital and your local dental clinic and your local oncology clinic and the pain relief center and the wound care center and all those other things you hear about.
What about Washington? Does broadcasting need some kind of regulatory bailout by the FCC?
Broadcasters always look at Washington and say "use some business common sense here." Some of the paperwork requirements that the commission wants to add on these days seem tremendously burdensome. The FCC is trying to catch the few bad folks in this business, but it ends up punishing that great majority of stations that are in fact doing a very good job in their local communities.
I keep hearing these words: localism, localism. Hey, it is good business to be very local. It is the best business to be focused on your community. You don't need a government with a stick in its hand banging you over the head to do that. If you don't serve the local community, if you don't focus on local issues, if you don't have a strong news operation and so forth, you slowly steadily sink and eventually get out of this business.
What really needs to happen in my view is the roll-up a number of these companies. There are a dozen or more broadcasters out there that are all being battered by the economy and are being battered by Wall Street. The reality is, it would be great to put three or four of these companies together.
I know that goes against the common wisdom in Washington that consolidation is a bad thing, but being big doesn't mean you can't do great broadcasting. NBC is a huge company. CBS is a huge company. They do some really great broadcasting. They have the size to invest in the programming.
Look at some of these companies that are struggling — you know, the Granites, the Youngs — and the companies that are trying to sell — LIN, CCA Nexstar, any number of these companies. They would be better off if you put together a company that suddenly had $600 million to $1 billion worth of revenues and cash flow that's up in the $200 million-$300 million range. You'd have a big enough company that Wall Street would start paying attention.
There are all sorts of pressures against that, obviously. Syndicators don't necessarily like giant companies because there's market power on the side of the broadcasters, and the FCC and Congress are inherently suspicious of bigness, but from a pure financial analysis, that's the way out of the woods.
There is also the problem of who gets to run that show. That's very, very tough.
You mean which company is the surviving company?
Yes. The regulations and financing are difficult, but, in my view, it's never the thing that really stops these deals. What stops these deals is figuring out who winds up running the tribe.
Some of these guys are at the right age where it's like: "Fine, give me enough money and I'll go to the beach," but others say no. They want to stay in and be the boss. But that's always been a problem in any business when you try to merge somewhat equal companies.
Who's the best bet for broadcasters, Obama or McCain?
I don't think either candidate has shown themselves to be a huge friend of broadcasting. Hopefully, whoever is elected will pay attention to this industry and we'll develop a relationship with him. I think we just have to see. I mean it's hard to categorize people. Many people see Bill Clinton as a liberal Democrat, yet the biggest rewrite of telecom law occurred under him. We've had eight years of George Bush and I don't know that we've had a lot of deregulation in the broadcasting industry during his administration. We have, in fact, taken a step or two backwards in terms of where the regulation emphasis has been from the current FCC.
Do you think we are going to see some sort of recovery next year? Or, do you think it's going to stretch into 2010?
I think it's going to stretch. Everybody I talk to in New York says, hey, we're not going to see a real recovery across the country until 2010. In the meantime, what happens is companies blow up, investment firms blow up, people's careers are destroyed and people get blown out. It's just a very, very ugly time.
That's a pretty grim note to end on.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's sort of the way I see the world.
http://tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/10/07/daily.1/
Tough Talk About Even Tougher Times
TVNEWSDAY, Oct 7 2008, 12:24 AM ET
Few people have a better perspective on the broadcasting industry and what's ailing it these days than Larry Patrick.
Story continues after the ad
Revised Roche & Company Business & Finance News Display
As managing partner of Patrick Communications, a leading station broker and appraisal firm, he regularly examines stations' operations and their books as he helps them refinance, buy or sell. And he stays well grounded in the business through the ownership of a string of small-market radio stations.
Unfortunately, Patrick sees dark days ahead for broadcasting.
In this interview with TVNewsday Editor Harry A. Jessell, Patrick says the industry is just beginning to feel the full impact of an economic "tsunami" generated by the tight credit markets and the sharp advertising slowdown.
He says to expect more foreclosures and bankruptcies, greater pressure to cut costs, sinking station prices and a dearth of station deals as owners await better times, which may not come until 2010.
The news is not all bad. Broadcasters with heaps of cash may be able to pick up stations at bargain prices from owners who have to sell as the banks press in.
What the industry really needs is a roll-up of some of the mid-size publicly traded station groups, he says. The regulatory and financial hurdles may not be as great as the difficulty of settling on which of the CEOs would run the surviving company.
An edited transcript:
What effect is the subprime lending meltdown and credit crunch having on TV broadcasting?
The whole economic meltdown is a very tough body blow for broadcast lending overall. If you are a broadcaster who paid a high price for your assets and you're at a point where you desperately need to refinance, at the moment at least, those refinancing options are extremely limited.
Banks are either not loaning or they're loaning at much lower multiples than they were just a year or two ago. If you're a seller, the difficulty is that many of the buyers who legitimately would have had a strong interest in your station or stations can't swing the deals these days.
Let's say you want 12 times [cash flow] for your station. In the past, a buyer might say that's OK because I can borrow 7 or 7 ½ times from a bank and do the rest with equity. But now the bank is saying: "Look, if we do it at all, we will only do it 5 times." So, suddenly, you have to put in so much more equity and the deal may not make sense anymore.
Look at it from the seller's side. When the multiples come down on the lending side, it translates into lower multiples for the pricing. So, instead of 12 times today, maybe suddenly you can only get 10 times. If you're in desperate trouble, you take it and run. If you can hang on, you just don't sell. You sit there for a while.
Are there some station groups in trouble because they need to refinance and can't?
That's correct.
How widespread is that problem?
I can think of a half-dozen, at least, who are in that situation where they have a lot of leverage and they're trying to figure out how they can refinance. That's very difficult.
Are we going to see some more bankruptcies like Pappas?
I think you probably will. We've been asked to appraise stations with the idea of selling and the people that are calling are not the broadcasters. They're the banks that are saying: "We're going to move towards foreclosure." That's a very bad thing for the industry when that happens.
On the other hand, where there are losers there are always winners. The station that is taken over by a bank may come back out on the market at a dramatically lower price.
If you're a private company and you have dry powder, you have cash in the bank and you have a good relationship with your lenders and you are not particularly highly leveraged, this may be one of the great shopping times.
You're going to see a handful of stations, maybe more than a handful, that will come on the market that you would have passed by in 13 or 14 [multiples] times, but now they're asking 10 or 11 times. Maybe, you can get yourself a little bit of a bargain.
The trading multiples on all stations are probably drifting down slightly. I was in Texas last week at the request of a bank visiting a station. It's a very nice station and it's a profitable station. It's sitting there doing several million dollars in cash flow and there's nothing wrong with the station.
The problem is that the company borrowed a lot of money to do improvements, to buy out some shareholders and do a number of other things. Then, the bank itself got in trouble. It wound up with a lot of bad loans and was liquidated and sold to another bank.
The new bank walks in and says: "Hang on here, wait a minute, you guys are in violation of our loan documents with us. You're not paying us enough and, to be honest, we'd just as soon sell the station as anything." So that's a bad thing for the owner/operator right now.
But, on the other hand, somebody that looks at that station and looks at that market will say there's nothing wrong with either. That's still a $25 million or $30 million TV station in a nice little town. I wouldn't mind buying that. That would be a very nice little investment.
So, basically, the credit crunch is putting some companies under severe financial pressure, preventing others from selling and creating opportunities for companies with plenty of cash.
Yes. But that's only half the story. The other half is the dramatic slowing in the ad business in the core categories. When you see companies like Ford Motor being off 35 percent [in their ad spending] and others off 25 percent, it affects revenue and cash flow and it may put some companies that have had good relationships with their banks in jeopardy of breaching their covenants. They're not generating quite enough money as they're supposed to.
They still may be able to make your payments, but things are much, much tighter than they used to be. There'll be pressure all the way down the line. There'll be pressure to reduce staff size, there'll be pressure not to re-sign talent at big prices, there'll be pressure not to take gambles.
If you can't get as much revenue, you're not going to want to pay as much for syndicated programming and you are going to fight the networks every step of the way on any sort of reverse compensation.
It's also unfortunate that this is all happening at a time when broadcasters should be looking to exploit their digital spectrum by multicasting and offering mobile services. Broadcasters are suddenly going to say "there're many opportunities out here, but the core business is being hurt by the banking and the advertising slowdown and the corporation just told me that we've got to tighten our belts."
Right at the time of the DTV transition when you're going to suddenly have so much more inventory and more spectrum to do more creative and innovative things, you may find that your hands are tied.
We are in a tsunami of economic problems caused not by broadcasters, but by subprime lending and other things that have really shaken the whole foundation of the American financial system.
What about the publicly traded TV stocks? They are way off their highs and continuing to head south.
Broadcasting is out of favor in the stock market. The analysts and investors do not see it as a growth market. It still produces huge, huge cash flows, but that's not really what they're looking for. So the result is you see some of these companies that used to sell for $20, $30 or $40 at $5 or less. It's got some of the families and some of the controlling shareholders scratching their heads and asking: "How do I get out of this?" It's very tough.
There is no way out right now, is there?
Not now. The reality is broadcasting should not be publicly traded. There's almost no good reason to be a public company at this point. That changes over time, but right now you're better off if you're private.
Why is that?
Because public companies are under scrutiny constantly, quarter after quarter. If the analysts and investors don't see any growth, you're going to get hammered. Why take that?
Why not just go private, stop the expense of being a publicly traded company and so forth. The difficulty is, in order to go private, you need a tremendous amount of cash and you can't get it now. I mean there's nowhere to borrow it and there're no equity people who believe enough in the future of broadcasting to gamble that much money.
Let me give you one example. I have to protect the name of it, but the operator of one of these pretty big public companies whose shares are down to $3 or $4 told me that his problem is that his original investors, the big institutional investors, are in at about $18 to $20 a share and so he can't sell when the stock price is so low. That just doesn't work. But they'd like to get out. I don't know how you get out in that case. I mean one theory is that you start liquidating assets. You just start selling stations.
Because the private market value of stations is higher than the public market value.
Yes, but that was more true six months or a year ago. Today, after this last little meltdown, private market value is still higher than public, but private value is down two or three clicks from where it was. So, there're a couple of groups out there that could have sold their stations six months ago and probably gotten 13 or 14 times because they were very excellent stations with everything going in the right direction. Today, the multiple is 10 or 10 ½.
It sounds as if your advice would be to sit and wait for the credit to loosen up and the revenue to start flowing again before trying to sell.
Yes. Hang in, if you can. Hang in and do the right things. Be very careful about what you're spending and get out there and redouble your efforts to find new ad categories.
I was at the NAB Small Market Television Exchange in Phoenix where there was a lot of focus on health care. That makes sense. You've got an aging population that is going to increasingly need more and more complicated health care delivery.
Every TV station in the country ought to have at least one sales person specializing in health care so you can get more ads not just for Levitra and everything else at the national level, but for your local hospital and your local dental clinic and your local oncology clinic and the pain relief center and the wound care center and all those other things you hear about.
What about Washington? Does broadcasting need some kind of regulatory bailout by the FCC?
Broadcasters always look at Washington and say "use some business common sense here." Some of the paperwork requirements that the commission wants to add on these days seem tremendously burdensome. The FCC is trying to catch the few bad folks in this business, but it ends up punishing that great majority of stations that are in fact doing a very good job in their local communities.
I keep hearing these words: localism, localism. Hey, it is good business to be very local. It is the best business to be focused on your community. You don't need a government with a stick in its hand banging you over the head to do that. If you don't serve the local community, if you don't focus on local issues, if you don't have a strong news operation and so forth, you slowly steadily sink and eventually get out of this business.
What really needs to happen in my view is the roll-up a number of these companies. There are a dozen or more broadcasters out there that are all being battered by the economy and are being battered by Wall Street. The reality is, it would be great to put three or four of these companies together.
I know that goes against the common wisdom in Washington that consolidation is a bad thing, but being big doesn't mean you can't do great broadcasting. NBC is a huge company. CBS is a huge company. They do some really great broadcasting. They have the size to invest in the programming.
Look at some of these companies that are struggling — you know, the Granites, the Youngs — and the companies that are trying to sell — LIN, CCA Nexstar, any number of these companies. They would be better off if you put together a company that suddenly had $600 million to $1 billion worth of revenues and cash flow that's up in the $200 million-$300 million range. You'd have a big enough company that Wall Street would start paying attention.
There are all sorts of pressures against that, obviously. Syndicators don't necessarily like giant companies because there's market power on the side of the broadcasters, and the FCC and Congress are inherently suspicious of bigness, but from a pure financial analysis, that's the way out of the woods.
There is also the problem of who gets to run that show. That's very, very tough.
You mean which company is the surviving company?
Yes. The regulations and financing are difficult, but, in my view, it's never the thing that really stops these deals. What stops these deals is figuring out who winds up running the tribe.
Some of these guys are at the right age where it's like: "Fine, give me enough money and I'll go to the beach," but others say no. They want to stay in and be the boss. But that's always been a problem in any business when you try to merge somewhat equal companies.
Who's the best bet for broadcasters, Obama or McCain?
I don't think either candidate has shown themselves to be a huge friend of broadcasting. Hopefully, whoever is elected will pay attention to this industry and we'll develop a relationship with him. I think we just have to see. I mean it's hard to categorize people. Many people see Bill Clinton as a liberal Democrat, yet the biggest rewrite of telecom law occurred under him. We've had eight years of George Bush and I don't know that we've had a lot of deregulation in the broadcasting industry during his administration. We have, in fact, taken a step or two backwards in terms of where the regulation emphasis has been from the current FCC.
Do you think we are going to see some sort of recovery next year? Or, do you think it's going to stretch into 2010?
I think it's going to stretch. Everybody I talk to in New York says, hey, we're not going to see a real recovery across the country until 2010. In the meantime, what happens is companies blow up, investment firms blow up, people's careers are destroyed and people get blown out. It's just a very, very ugly time.
That's a pretty grim note to end on.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's sort of the way I see the world.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Feature film premieres for free on YouTube
Feature film premieres for free on YouTube
(AP) -- Is there room among the pratfalls and bedroom tirades of YouTube for an experimental, full-length film?
On Friday, the director Wayne Wang premieres his movie "The Princess of Nebraska" on the video sharing site. It will be available to watch for free at the YouTube Screening Room, a recently launched channel for movies.
Wang, who has made both studio films (1993's "The Joy Luck Club") and indies (1995's "Smoke"), is one of the most notable filmmakers to try giving away a film for free online. While it has become standard practice in music for albums to stream for free, movies are generally only available for free illegally.
Last month, Michael Moore released his documentary "Slacker Uprising" for free to stream or download. Coupled with Wang's YouTube release, it's starting to feel like feature-length filmmakers are wading deeper into the Internet.
"This is all accidental, but sometimes accidents are good," said Wang, speaking by phone from Singapore where he was promoting "The Princess of Nebraska" and its sister film "A Thousand Years of Good Prayers."
The 59-year-old, Hong Kong-born director has for more than 25 years vacillated between films made in Asia and ones made in Hollywood. He broke through with his second feature, 1985's "Dim Sum: A Little Bit of Heart" and later gravitated toward studio fare with movies like 2002's "Maid in Manhattan" and 2006's "Last Holiday."
Recently, he has moved back to his indie roots. "The Princess of Nebraska" was made to accompany "A Thousand Years of Good Prayers," which was released to art house cinemas in September.
Both are based on stories by the Chinese-born author Yiyun Li. "A Thousand Years" revolved around a 40-year-old woman who grew up during China's Cultural Revolution and is devastated by what her family had to go through. Alternatively, "Princess" is about a teenager emigrating from China to America who has no sense of history, only of cell phones and modern technology.
"When I was finishing `Thousand Years,' we had a little bit of money left and I just went ahead and did it," said Wang, who lives in San Francisco.
The film was made quickly with digital video and was "shot like a jazz riff," Wang says. It's hard enough getting one foreign language film into theaters, let alone two -- so the opportunities for "Princess" in the U.S. were few.
"When the idea came up, I said, `Well, that makes sense' -- even though I didn't intentionally make it for that," said Wang, referring to Google-owned YouTube. "The film is very much inspired by new media, by watching a lot of things on the Web and YouTube stuff."
In the movie, a pregnant teenager named Sasha (Li Ling) looks to have her baby aborted, all the while sporadically videotaping herself with her cell phone -- poetic moments that pace the movie.
It's not a necessarily positive view of youth and technology, making the YouTube release -- viewable at www.youtube.com/ytscreeningroom -- a bit ironic.
"I'm trying not to be judgmental because this is a new generation, this is a new media, this is what YouTube is," said Wang. "I wish there was more substantial information on it."
Wang pointed out that there's a Web page where Sasha's diary is posted, but all the comments from readers are about her attractiveness.
But while the marriage of full-length movies and the Internet might be young, Wang believes it could be a legitimate platform for films made with a sensibility unique to the smaller-sized medium. (Movies at the YouTube Screening Room are displayed with a "high quality player.")
"You kind of have to think differently about it," said Wang. "It has to move faster, the images have to be tighter, you can't really see a lot of details. If `Thousands Years' was shown on the computer, I would be kind of depressed ... it has to be projected big."
But as the distribution avenues for independent film become fewer, Wang thinks filmmakers need to explore different alternatives and, above all, make better films.
"We as filmmakers need to be smart about the kinds of films that we make and take more chances," he said. "The problem is that most independent films are trying to make Hollywood films. They're basically straightforward narratives and they're a little more interesting, but not that much more interesting. Take a film like `Blair Witch.' It's not the greatest film, but it's at least something really different."
Feature film premiers for free on YouTube
Director Wayne Wang ("The Last Holiday", "The Joy Luck Club", "Smoke") premiered his movie, "The Princess of Nebraska," on YouTube for free on Friday. The movie is an indie film based on a book by Yiyun Li, and follows Wang's previous movie, "A Thousand Years." Wang released "The Princess of Nebraska" on YouTube because he did not think he would be able to get it released in theatres. Michael Moore released a documentary on YouTube last month for free, as well. Do you think that the industry will eventually go this way? Will more directors premiere feature films on YouTube or will it be used mostly for independent films?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
WZMY Plans Early Analog Shutoff
Just a reminder of the switch to DTV that is coming up in a few months! Apparently they are allowing stations as early as 90 days ahead of time to switch, because certain areas have trouble switching equipment during the harsh winter months. They just have to make sure to inform their viewers so that they aren't left clueless. So how many people is this DTV switch truly going to affect? Do you guys know of many people who have to purchase the converters or a new tv in order to maintain their feed?
WZMY Plans Early Analog Shutoff
Boston MyNetworkTV affiliate will complete DTV transition at noon on Dec. 1, two-and-a-half months ahead of mandated switch date
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/16/2008 10:29:00 AM
| DTV Transition 101: To watch a video guide to the February 2009 analog shutoff, including a step-by-step demo on how to hook up a DTV-to-analog converter box, click here. |
WZMY-TV Boston is volunteering to be a digital guinea pig. The MyNetworkTV affiliate says it will make the transition to digital at noon on Dec. 1, two-and-a-half months before the official switch to digital Feb. 17, 2009.
The FCC is allowing broadcasters to switch as much as 90 days early so long as they inform their viewers. That allows some stations facing tough winters to make the move when it is easier to switch-out equipment.
"By volunteering to undertake its transition to digital early, MyTV will provide viewers in metropolitan Boston and southern New Hampshire with a 'first look' at the digital broadcast transition," said the station in announcing the early cut-off. "If consumers in these areas find that they are no longer receiving MyTV after 12 PM on December 1, they’ll know what to expect from their televisions in February of next year, when the rest of the area’s local TV stations go digital. And viewers can take steps to become digital ready now.
WZMY-TV says it is teaming with Comcast to help get the word out to viewers about the switch. Cable operators have begun to tailor their DTV education messages to woo some analog-only households to cable service. A recent Nielsen study found that a third of such households are preparing for the DTV switch by subscribing to cable or satellite.
Earlier this week, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell suggested that stations should get together with cable and satellite companies to produce such long-form DTV education infomercials.
The station and Comcast will jointly produce a 30-minute educational program on their switch that will air on the station and on-demand on Comcast systems in the Boston area as well as northern New Hampshire. Although cable subs won't need to do anything to continue to see their local channels, they could inform friends and neighbors, or may have a second or third set not hooked up to cable.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Healty Competition or Deceitful Ads??
McCain, Obama camps trade barbs on negative ads
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
ASHEVILLE, N.C. -- The McCain and Obama presidential campaigns traded accusations of mudslinging Monday in the wake of new ads dredging up infamous events from 20, 30, even 40 years ago.
Nancy Pfotenhauer, an adviser to the McCain campaign, said it's "absolutely essential" that Americans hear not only about his plans for the future but also "about the decision they have to make about these two individuals." She said she thought that commercials that raise new questions about Obama's associations "have struck a nerve" with the Democrat.
Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, countered that the new McCain offensive - including GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's allegation that Obama "pals around with terrorists" -is happening because Republicans want to talk about something other than the struggling economy.
Gibbs, who appeared with Pfotenhauer on ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday, charged that the McCain campaign is resorting to "a despicable smear campaign."
Democrats on Sunday had denounced Palin's charge and warned that it would trigger reexaminations of McCain's past. Sure enough, Obama's campaign released a Web video and a letter about McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal from the early 1990s.
McCain "does not want to play guilt-by-association, or this thing could blow up in his face," Democratic strategist Paul Begala said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The names being bandied about - Bill Ayers and Charles Keating - are unfamiliar to millions of Americans, and their wrongdoings occurred decades ago. But political operatives dredged them up over the weekend, and they could play a prominent role in the campaign's final month.
Palin, the Alaska governor, defended her earlier comments about Obama and Ayers, in which she said the Democratic nominee is "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Ayers was a founder of the violent Weather Underground group during the Vietnam era. Its members were blamed for several bombings when Obama was a child. Obama has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities.
The two men live in the same Chicago neighborhood and once worked on the same charity board. Ayers hosted a small meet-the-candidate event for Obama in 1995, early in his political career. Obama strategist David Axelrod has said the two men are "friendly."
On Sunday, Palin told reporters in California that her comments were about "an association that has been known but hasn't been talked about. I think it's fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy's living room."
In fact, Obama was questioned about Ayers during a prime-time Democratic debate against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton before April's Pennsylvania primary.
"The heels are on, the gloves are off," Palin said of her campaign strategy.
Obama, speaking Sunday to thousands at an outdoor event in Asheville, N.C., fired back. He said McCain and his aides "are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance."
He described the criticisms as "Swiftboat-style attacks on me," a reference to the unsubstantiated allegations about 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry's military record in Vietnam.
Other Democrats rushed to Obama's defense. Veteran party activist Hillary Rosen, on CNN's "Late Edition," said, "If they throw mud like that, then you go back to Charles Keating, you go back to Sarah Palin's investigation." She was referring to inquiries into the firing of Alaska's top police official.
"You know, I just don't think that John McCain wants to take this nuclear strategy," Rosen said.
Just months into his Senate career, in the late 1980s, McCain made what he has called "the worst mistake of my life." He participated in two meetings with banking regulators on behalf of Keating, a friend, campaign contributor and savings and loan owner who was later convicted of securities fraud.
The Senate ethics committee investigated five senators relationships with Keating. The panel cited McCain for a lesser role than the others, but faulted his "poor judgment."
Obama's new Web video, being e-mailed to millions of his supporters, summarizes a 13-minute Web "documentary" that the campaign plans to distribute Monday.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement, "McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts."
On Sunday, Obama also unveiled a TV ad on the economy that describes McCain was "erratic in a crisis." Some see that as a reminder of McCain's age, 72.
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
ASHEVILLE, N.C. -- The McCain and Obama presidential campaigns traded accusations of mudslinging Monday in the wake of new ads dredging up infamous events from 20, 30, even 40 years ago.
Nancy Pfotenhauer, an adviser to the McCain campaign, said it's "absolutely essential" that Americans hear not only about his plans for the future but also "about the decision they have to make about these two individuals." She said she thought that commercials that raise new questions about Obama's associations "have struck a nerve" with the Democrat.
Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, countered that the new McCain offensive - including GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's allegation that Obama "pals around with terrorists" -is happening because Republicans want to talk about something other than the struggling economy.
Gibbs, who appeared with Pfotenhauer on ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday, charged that the McCain campaign is resorting to "a despicable smear campaign."
Democrats on Sunday had denounced Palin's charge and warned that it would trigger reexaminations of McCain's past. Sure enough, Obama's campaign released a Web video and a letter about McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal from the early 1990s.
McCain "does not want to play guilt-by-association, or this thing could blow up in his face," Democratic strategist Paul Begala said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The names being bandied about - Bill Ayers and Charles Keating - are unfamiliar to millions of Americans, and their wrongdoings occurred decades ago. But political operatives dredged them up over the weekend, and they could play a prominent role in the campaign's final month.
Palin, the Alaska governor, defended her earlier comments about Obama and Ayers, in which she said the Democratic nominee is "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Ayers was a founder of the violent Weather Underground group during the Vietnam era. Its members were blamed for several bombings when Obama was a child. Obama has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities.
The two men live in the same Chicago neighborhood and once worked on the same charity board. Ayers hosted a small meet-the-candidate event for Obama in 1995, early in his political career. Obama strategist David Axelrod has said the two men are "friendly."
On Sunday, Palin told reporters in California that her comments were about "an association that has been known but hasn't been talked about. I think it's fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy's living room."
In fact, Obama was questioned about Ayers during a prime-time Democratic debate against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton before April's Pennsylvania primary.
"The heels are on, the gloves are off," Palin said of her campaign strategy.
Obama, speaking Sunday to thousands at an outdoor event in Asheville, N.C., fired back. He said McCain and his aides "are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance."
He described the criticisms as "Swiftboat-style attacks on me," a reference to the unsubstantiated allegations about 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry's military record in Vietnam.
Other Democrats rushed to Obama's defense. Veteran party activist Hillary Rosen, on CNN's "Late Edition," said, "If they throw mud like that, then you go back to Charles Keating, you go back to Sarah Palin's investigation." She was referring to inquiries into the firing of Alaska's top police official.
"You know, I just don't think that John McCain wants to take this nuclear strategy," Rosen said.
Just months into his Senate career, in the late 1980s, McCain made what he has called "the worst mistake of my life." He participated in two meetings with banking regulators on behalf of Keating, a friend, campaign contributor and savings and loan owner who was later convicted of securities fraud.
The Senate ethics committee investigated five senators relationships with Keating. The panel cited McCain for a lesser role than the others, but faulted his "poor judgment."
Obama's new Web video, being e-mailed to millions of his supporters, summarizes a 13-minute Web "documentary" that the campaign plans to distribute Monday.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement, "McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts."
On Sunday, Obama also unveiled a TV ad on the economy that describes McCain was "erratic in a crisis." Some see that as a reminder of McCain's age, 72.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
How the world is protecting its businesses
As the buyout of Fannie and Freddie caused more than just a buzz in the United States, the world is reacting in a pre-emptive strike against similar possible downturns in the business world. This article from the Canadian Press indicates that European countries are taking steps toward stabilizing their economies. The most prominent example in the article is discussion in Britain of a 21-billion dollar fund to help small businesses survive. Meanwhile, Ireland and Greece have decided to protect all savings in banks. Does it bother anyone else that the United States is being used as the example for what not to do? I feel this may be a sign of our native superpower losing its top rank. We will have to wait and see if the 700-billion dollar approved buyout does the trick. Until then, lets hope that the world finds a more stable economic stance in the world of finance as well as the business world.
European leaders meet in Paris to deal with global financial crisis
1 day ago
PARIS — A European summit on the global financial crisis opened Saturday with Britain's leader saying strong banks should be protected and "whatever is necessary" must be done to restore stability.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on his European counterparts at the hastily arranged meeting in Paris to send the message that "no sound, solvent bank should be allowed to fail through lack of liquidity."
"We must take the action necessary to sort out whatever failings exist in the system," Brown said, with summit host French President Nicolas Sarkozy standing at his side.
"People will be very clear that every country represented here today will want to do whatever is necessary to secure the stability of the system and to ensure the safety of hardworking families and businesses in each of our countries," Brown said.
But European governments differ on how far they should intervene.
France had proposed - but backed off - a multibillion-dollar EU-wide government bailout plan; Germany says banks must find their own way out of the turmoil; Britain is suggesting a new fund to boost small businesses likely to be hard hit.
The talks, also attended by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, were being held amid signs that the financial crisis that devastated Wall Street is spilling into the real economy and amplifying a slowdown across Europe.
More worrying is that Europe hasn't pulled together on dealing with the crisis this week. Both Ireland and Greece acted independently, angering EU neighbours by offering their banks government guarantees to protect all savings.
That goes far beyond the standard EU guarantee for the first $27,668 in a bank account, and could see worried savers elsewhere in Europe move money where they believe it will be safe. Britain and others complain that the plan may break EU fair competition rules.
Merkel downplayed divisions at the summit, saying there is "a high degree of common ground" between Europe's four largest economies that they must prevent a repeat of such crises.
Merkel said politicians must step in to find solutions, but also warned that "those who caused the damage must of course also make their contribution."
Sarkozy said he agreed, and added that the crisis is a global problem that needs a global response. "Europe must show its desire to present a solution. That will reassure everyone," he said.
On Friday, U.S. Congress approved a $700 billion government plan to buy up bad debt from banks and help unfreeze lending, which President George W. Bush quickly signed into law.
The head of the International Monetary Fund, who met with Sarkozy before the summit, said the crisis represented a "trial by fire" for the euro, Europe's 10-year-old common currency, and would require a quick, co-ordinated response.
"We have to make sure Europe takes its responsibilities like the United States," said Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Banking shares have plunged in Europe amid fears that banks would be unable to find credit to cover their debts. Several European governments have stepped in to save major banks, including Britain's Bradford & Bingley, Belgian-Dutch Fortis, Belgium's Dexia and Germany's Hypo Real Estate.
The EU leaders were joined in their talks by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet and top economic official Jean-Claude Juncker.
A senior Sarkozy aide sought to dampen expectations, saying the European leaders are not "going to save the world."
They will set out what Europe wants the rest of the world to do to shore up the banking system, before next week's Group of Eight meeting on the economy involving four EU countries, the United States, Japan, Russia and Canada.
Britain's Brown said he wanted Saturday's discussions to focus more on the wider economy, seeking support for a $21 billion fund to help small businesses survive.
Britain, like France, is forecast to slip into recession this year.
The French, through Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, proposed creating an emergency EU fund for struggling banks. But Sarkozy quickly distanced France from the idea after it was swiftly rejected by Germany.
German Economy Minister Michael Glos told Bild am Sonntag newspaper that any emergency bailout would distract from efforts banks should be making themselves to restore confidence.
"Banks don't trust each other anymore. That's the core of the financial market crisis," he said. "In this situation, I don't think it's defensible to demand the state restore the trust that has been gambled away with large-scale debt write-offs using tax money."
The head of French bank Societe Generale insisted action to shore up confidence and liquidity was vital.
"We are in the eye of the storm," Frederic Oudea told Le Parisien newspaper. "Intervention from states and central banks is essential to avoid a domino effect."
European leaders meet in Paris to deal with global financial crisis
1 day ago
PARIS — A European summit on the global financial crisis opened Saturday with Britain's leader saying strong banks should be protected and "whatever is necessary" must be done to restore stability.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on his European counterparts at the hastily arranged meeting in Paris to send the message that "no sound, solvent bank should be allowed to fail through lack of liquidity."
"We must take the action necessary to sort out whatever failings exist in the system," Brown said, with summit host French President Nicolas Sarkozy standing at his side.
"People will be very clear that every country represented here today will want to do whatever is necessary to secure the stability of the system and to ensure the safety of hardworking families and businesses in each of our countries," Brown said.
But European governments differ on how far they should intervene.
France had proposed - but backed off - a multibillion-dollar EU-wide government bailout plan; Germany says banks must find their own way out of the turmoil; Britain is suggesting a new fund to boost small businesses likely to be hard hit.
The talks, also attended by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, were being held amid signs that the financial crisis that devastated Wall Street is spilling into the real economy and amplifying a slowdown across Europe.
More worrying is that Europe hasn't pulled together on dealing with the crisis this week. Both Ireland and Greece acted independently, angering EU neighbours by offering their banks government guarantees to protect all savings.
That goes far beyond the standard EU guarantee for the first $27,668 in a bank account, and could see worried savers elsewhere in Europe move money where they believe it will be safe. Britain and others complain that the plan may break EU fair competition rules.
Merkel downplayed divisions at the summit, saying there is "a high degree of common ground" between Europe's four largest economies that they must prevent a repeat of such crises.
Merkel said politicians must step in to find solutions, but also warned that "those who caused the damage must of course also make their contribution."
Sarkozy said he agreed, and added that the crisis is a global problem that needs a global response. "Europe must show its desire to present a solution. That will reassure everyone," he said.
On Friday, U.S. Congress approved a $700 billion government plan to buy up bad debt from banks and help unfreeze lending, which President George W. Bush quickly signed into law.
The head of the International Monetary Fund, who met with Sarkozy before the summit, said the crisis represented a "trial by fire" for the euro, Europe's 10-year-old common currency, and would require a quick, co-ordinated response.
"We have to make sure Europe takes its responsibilities like the United States," said Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Banking shares have plunged in Europe amid fears that banks would be unable to find credit to cover their debts. Several European governments have stepped in to save major banks, including Britain's Bradford & Bingley, Belgian-Dutch Fortis, Belgium's Dexia and Germany's Hypo Real Estate.
The EU leaders were joined in their talks by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet and top economic official Jean-Claude Juncker.
A senior Sarkozy aide sought to dampen expectations, saying the European leaders are not "going to save the world."
They will set out what Europe wants the rest of the world to do to shore up the banking system, before next week's Group of Eight meeting on the economy involving four EU countries, the United States, Japan, Russia and Canada.
Britain's Brown said he wanted Saturday's discussions to focus more on the wider economy, seeking support for a $21 billion fund to help small businesses survive.
Britain, like France, is forecast to slip into recession this year.
The French, through Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, proposed creating an emergency EU fund for struggling banks. But Sarkozy quickly distanced France from the idea after it was swiftly rejected by Germany.
German Economy Minister Michael Glos told Bild am Sonntag newspaper that any emergency bailout would distract from efforts banks should be making themselves to restore confidence.
"Banks don't trust each other anymore. That's the core of the financial market crisis," he said. "In this situation, I don't think it's defensible to demand the state restore the trust that has been gambled away with large-scale debt write-offs using tax money."
The head of French bank Societe Generale insisted action to shore up confidence and liquidity was vital.
"We are in the eye of the storm," Frederic Oudea told Le Parisien newspaper. "Intervention from states and central banks is essential to avoid a domino effect."
Daytime's DVR Threat
Hey guys, I'm lead blogger this week. This article addresses the fact that typical television viewing is being thrown by the wayside, even from the reliable dayparts. Part of the reason for this is that there are a growing number of DVRs in the U.S., but I would like to know what else is responsible for this occurrence. The loyalty to these programs is being threatened by these DVRs, and will only continue to get worse. But why are the daytime programs that are biult on loyalty losing people to DVR's?
Daytime's DVR Threat
No longer a fortress against time-shifting
By Paige Albiniak -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/6/2008
For the past few years, the Syndicated Network Television Association (SNTA) has been pitching advertisers that day-and-date syndicated programs hold on to more of their viewers because people continue to watch in traditional ways: when they are scheduled and without skipping commercials.
But like everything else in television, that's changing.
According to a study of 800 daytime television viewers age 18 through 54 by New York-based Frank N. Magid Associates, 25%-50% of the audience of any given daytime show is being time shifted onto digital video recorders (DVRs). More than one-third of the people surveyed had DVRs, while one in five said they were planning to get one. The survey looked at 25 daytime shows, including all the network soap operas, seven court shows and eight talk shows.
What's more, DVR viewing of shows from other dayparts—watching primetime premieres in the afternoon, for example—is beginning to compete with real-time daytime viewing. “People are really starting to use DVRs to shift into the daypart,” says Dan Wilch, senior VP, consulting, at Frank N. Magid Associates. “If Desperate Housewives was on last night, I've got my Desperate Housewives on during the day.”
And the number of DVR homes is growing, says SNTA. According to Nielsen, 23% of homes have a DVR, and it's even higher among adults 18 to 49, jumping to 29%. Media buying agency Magna Global projects that by 2010—only one broadcast season away—32.5% of all households will have a DVR.
“I would tend to agree that historically syndicated shows are less recorded and that syndication is lagging behind primetime in terms of vulnerability,” Wilch says. “But we've all got our heads in the sand if we think that's going to continue.”
In September, SNTA released a study that said 85% of syndicated shows still are watched live versus 60% of network primetime. Perhaps more importantly, viewers of syndicated shows watch more than 70% of the commercials during playback. Comparatively, viewers who record network primetime programs skip 60% of the advertising, reports SNTA.
But DVRs don't distinguish dayparts, so all television is the same to a TiVo: “The bigger issue is that DVR viewing starts to eat away at two things: loyalty to a program and how it becomes part of people's daily habit,” Wilch says.
DVRs aren't the only innovation that's changing the way people spend their time. Magid has been conducting this study of the daytime landscape for several years, and this is the first time the firm has found that people are spending more of their spare time surfing the Web than they are watching television.
“In the short term—the next three to five years—the people who are going to be the most reachable and watch TV the way they used to tend to be older and more downscale viewers,” Wilch says. “Over the long term, the bigger dilemma is that the DVR and the infiltration of other media are really eating away at the way people watch television.”
The study did turn up some good news. In terms of content, daytime viewers seem to be looking for light, fun fare and finding it in Warner Bros.' The Ellen DeGeneres Show, the season premiere of which was up 16% over last year's.
Says Wilch: “We asked people who had sampled each of the 25 different programs we looked at, and Ellen DeGeneres surpassed all other programs. We haven't seen anyone surpass all other programs in the history of doing this survey. It speaks to the enthusiasm of those who watch her. Often, it's predictive of where a show's ratings are going to go. If a show offered the information of Oprah and the fun of Ellen, that show would hit a home run.”
Sarah Palin SNL Skits More Watched on Internet
Saturday Night Live is known for a younger audience looking for comedy on Saturday Nights. Sometimes I wonder if the younger target audience of SNL hurts NBC. For example, the Sarah Palin skits that have been all over the news latety have actually been watched more online on-demand than live on SNL. Many of these online views are on YouTube accounts, which doesn't provide NBC with any credit or profit. I wonder if NBC is excited or proud of all of these online views... or if they are disappointed that more people didn't watch it live?
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=131419
'SNL' Palin Skits: Seen More on Web Than TV
More Than Half the Audience Watched Online
By Daisy Whitney
Published: October 02, 2008
LOS ANGELES (AdAge.com) -- More than half of the viewers for "Saturday Night Live's" recent skits featuring Tina Fey as Sarah Palin watched the sketches on the web as of Sept. 29, according to a survey conducted by Solutions Research Group.
Tina Fey as Sarah Palin.
Photo Credit: NBC
About 51% of viewers who have seen at least one of the skits are watching on the internet, indicating that viewing preferences for this type of content are shifting toward the computer.
About 23% of all views came from YouTube, including video of other talk shows that showed clips of the skit, with 17% of views attributed to NBC.com and 4% to Hulu.com
"When something viral hits the social networks people clearly first go to YouTube to search and take it from there," said Kaan Yigit, analyst with SRG.
In addition to informing public perception on the election, the sketches are increasing awareness of Hulu.com as a video destination. About 25% of online Americans are now aware of Hulu, up from 15% in July.
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=131419
'SNL' Palin Skits: Seen More on Web Than TV
More Than Half the Audience Watched Online
By Daisy Whitney
Published: October 02, 2008
LOS ANGELES (AdAge.com) -- More than half of the viewers for "Saturday Night Live's" recent skits featuring Tina Fey as Sarah Palin watched the sketches on the web as of Sept. 29, according to a survey conducted by Solutions Research Group.
Tina Fey as Sarah Palin.
Photo Credit: NBC
About 51% of viewers who have seen at least one of the skits are watching on the internet, indicating that viewing preferences for this type of content are shifting toward the computer.
About 23% of all views came from YouTube, including video of other talk shows that showed clips of the skit, with 17% of views attributed to NBC.com and 4% to Hulu.com
"When something viral hits the social networks people clearly first go to YouTube to search and take it from there," said Kaan Yigit, analyst with SRG.
In addition to informing public perception on the election, the sketches are increasing awareness of Hulu.com as a video destination. About 25% of online Americans are now aware of Hulu, up from 15% in July.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
GM Switches Media Accounts
I don't know how many of you went to the Bradley job fair, and/or talked to the guys at Starcom - but I did, and even applied to their "media associate" position. So when I found this, I'm kind of curious to know if they are even looking to hire in the aftermath of this situation.
Due to the economy and how car companies are doing, GM decided to change its media accounts from Starcom to the Publicis group. This move is a financial move, or so GM says. Starcom had 100 employees helping on the GM account - and GM historically spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually in the advertising business, so this is a big hit for Starcom. I never really understood the effect that the car industry has on the media (as far as advertising) until I saw this article. They are such big contributors, that when they suffer financially, so does advertising dollars. GM Moves Regional Dealer Media Biz Out of Starcom
Unclear Which Car Brands Are Heading to Martin Retail, Velocity
DETROIT (AdAge.com) -- General Motors Corp. will move its regional dealer media accounts for all eight of its vehicle brands, according to executives familiar with the situation. The accounts are leaving Starcom Mediavest Group for Publicis Groupe sibling Martin Retail Group, Birmingham, Ala., and Interpublic Group of Cos.' Velocity, an affiliate of Campbell-Ewald, Warren, Mich.The moves are said to be financially based, as GM figures ways to cut costs in the tough U.S. market.
A Starcom spokeswoman confirmed that the media accounts will transition to the two agencies in the next three months, but she said she didn't know which car brands were moving to which shop. She also said she believes the move involves both planning and buying of media.
Starcom has about 100 staffers currently handling GM's regional dealer media accounts, said two executives close to the matter who asked not to be named. The regional dealer groups have historically spent hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising annually.
Martin Retail already handles Buick-Pontiac-GMC's regional dealer creative account; Velocity has the bulk of Chevrolet's regional dealer ad group business.
A GM spokeswoman declined comment. David Martin, president of Martin Retail, didn't return calls. Neither did Mark LaNeve, VP-sales-service and marketing for GM in North America, or Ed Peper, VP of Chevrolet in the region.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Martin Gives Old College Try for Localism
This article was too sweet to pass up. I saw it and I wanted to get some feedback on it, so I thought I would post. It talks about a proposed residency program for recent graduates in journalism, to help meet localism obligations. I think it's a cool idea that can be beneficial to TV broadcasters and students, and so I hope they consider pushing this through. The idea has been "considered" by just about everybody, so we will see what happens with it.
Martin Gives Old College Try for Localism
TVNEWSDAY, Oct 1 2008, 8:08 AM ET
As a way for TV broadcasters to meet their localism obligations, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing that they fund residency programs for recent journalism graduates that would cover state government news and produce investigative reports for them, according to broadcasters and others who have been briefed on the plan.
The bureaus or news teams would be organized with the help of colleges and universities and based in state capitals, the sources say.
Bypassing the NAB, Martin has floated the proposal to the boards of the Texas Association of Broadcasters and the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters. Martin's staff also solicited the support of the California Broadcasters Association in a call to officials there early last week.
In each case, the state association officials have agreed at least to consider the proposal.
"When we get a call from the chairman of the FCC ... the first thing we are going to do it pay attention to do it," said Stan Statham, president of the CBA.
Statham and others briefed on the proposal referred TVNewsday to Martin's office for details. But neither Martin nor his staff would discuss it.
News of the proposal was first reported by the Taylor on Radio-Info newsletter on Sept. 19 after Martin met with the Texas association during the NAB Radio Show in Austin.
Before floating the proposal with broadcasters, Martin first sought the support of leading journalism school deans at a meeting with them at the W Hotel in New York on Sept. 14 and won their tentative support.
The deans were all members of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education, a group dedicated to advancing the education and professional of journalism through various programs.
Schools participating in the initiative include Arizona State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Nebraska, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, the University of Maryland, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the University of Missouri, Syracuse University, the University of California at Berkeley and The Joan Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
"I am not the authority on it; it's the chairman's idea," said Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center at Harvard, who attended the New York meeting. "It really doesn't depend on us," he added. "It depends on what the broadcasters decide they would be interested in doing. If they are interested, then we are interested in exploring it further."
Jones was among those who declined to discuss specifics of Martin's proposal.
Roderick Hart, of the University of Texas, who attended the New York meeting as well as Martin's meeting with the Texas broadcasters on Sept. 18, said he is interested in "exploring the possibilities" of Martin's proposal.
"We're committed to journalism and broadcasting. The idea of putting together a residency or post-graduate program that would have some supervision and would actually have some impact sounds interesting," he said.
Martin's proposal arises from the FCC's so-called localism proceeding, which is aimed at boosting local public affairs programming on TV and radio stations.
The proceeding takes a more conventional approach to localism, proposing programming quotas, citizen advisory boards and requirements that stations formally ascertain what their audiences are interested in through surveys, focus groups and town hall meetings.
At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate with him on what the localism requirement would comprise.
Of the state association heads, only California's Statham would comment on the proposal on the record.
At the chairman's suggestion, Statham said, his staff has begun conversations with the journalism schools at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Berkeley, and is keeping in touch with Heather Dixon, the Martin staffer assigned to the project.
Statham said he still has questions about the proposal. Chief among them are whether it would completely satisfy broadcasters' localism obligation and whether carriage of the students' output would be optional or mandatory.
Statham said he is awaiting some of the answers before taking the proposal to his members. "There are just so many steps between now and the finish line," he said.
Although Statham said he is open to the proposal, he is discouraged that the FCC keeps pushing the stations to do more local news as if they now do none.
"We always find ourselves in wonderland when the FCC suggests that we are not full force in the area of localism."
Broadcasters used to feel good when they heard about localism since it is at the heart of what they do, he said. "Now, whenever we hear the word, we feel we are being attacked by the federal government again.
"If we provide Desperate Housewives and what's happening in the local community, we win. We are all about localism. That's the key to our success."
Statham sees a least one benefit from the Martin plan: it would produce news that may appeal to younger viewers. "If we did this, then we would get an MTV view rather than a Walter Cronkite-type view of corruption is government," he said.
Other broadcasters were perplexed by the Martin's foray into promoting broadcast journalism. One industry source called it "bizarre."
Another called it "hightly unusual. I don't know many news directors who would feel comfortable turning over the airwaves to journalism school students or recent graduates not employed at the station."
Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association, said she would have to know more about the proposal before passing final judgment on it.
Turning to nonprofit organizations for newsgathering and investigative reporting is a bit of a trend, she said, citing the Center for Public Integrity, ProPublica and the Carnegie-Knight Initiative's News21 program.
"It's a way of responding to the need for more investigative reporting," she said. However, she added, the acceptability of the Martin proposal would depend in large part on how it is written into the FCC rule book.
"Is it voluntary or does it have government teeth behind it?"
If the FCC makes participation mandatory, it would be — like other government intrusions into the editorial decision making of broadcasters — unconstitutional, she said.
If, other the other hand, it is voluntary and one of a menu of ways that broadcasters can demonstration their commitment to localism, "then maybe it is useful."
The broadcasters would also have to have full editorial control over what they ultimately air, she said. "They need to have editorial oversight as they would with any [third-party] group."
The NAB is aware of the plan, but is not ready to talk about it. "NAB will not be commenting on this until our board has a chance to fully vet the idea," said NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton.
Paul Steiger, editor-in-chief of ProPublica, one of the nonprofit news organizations to which Cochran referred, said that Martin's idea is interesting. "But you have all of the problems of who would run these folks and how they would be trained," he says. "How would they be any better than the blogosphere?" Steiger added that he would oppose the plan if there were any role for the government in running it.
And the one-time managing editor of the Wall Street Journal also wondered whether the news from the statehouse would actually "crowd out the latest fire or murder" on the evening news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)