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."

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.

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

By Jean Halliday

Published: October 03, 2008

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.

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

By Kim McAvoy and Harry A. Jessell

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.