The Affari Blog

After attending Bright House’s “New Technology of Advertising” seminar last week, I was really impressed by some of the new services the media provider has to offer. Bright House has found several ways to make television advertising interactive. By incorporating ad banners, surveys, direct mail, and Marketplace On Demand, Bright House has created a way to bring advertising into homes that we have never seen before in the Tampa market.

One of the new channels is Marketplace On Demand. I have actually seen the ad spot on TV several times since originally viewing it at the seminar. Basically, Bright House has created an on demand channel for products and services. Anything from real estate to auto dealers can be found on the channel. It works by categorizing all of the products and services, and then sub-categorizing them so that users can pinpoint exactly what they are looking for. After they select the product or service that they are interested in, a video will play the actual advertisement. The cool part of advertising on this channel is that you can see exactly how many viewers tune into your ad and how long they stay. For example, if you had a real estate client and you advertised on Marketplace On Demand, you would categorize it according to price range, location, etc.

Another very innovative feature is Bright House’s new “Request for Information” program. This program runs during your company’s regularly scheduled commercials. The difference is that once your commercial starts playing, a tool bar scrolls up at the bottom of the TV screen. Usually there is one line of text and three options below labeled “a”, “b”, and “c”. (These lettered buttons can be found on all Bright House remote controls.) A great example is a campaign that a local car repair shop is currently running. The text reads “Are you interested in…” and each letter reads “A. discounts on new brakes”, “B. coupons for an oil change”, and “C. special offers on tune ups.” If the viewer selects any of these options, he/she is taken to a different page that allows him/her to request information. Bright House then mails the special coupons to the viewer’s home address directly.

Sure, this feature is really innovative and neat, but it is actually much more valuable than it may seem. This feature combines the tools of television advertising with direct mail. Here’s the best part, not only does Bright House take care of sending the mailing, postage and address information, but they only send the mail pieces to individuals who are interested in the product/service. Regular direct mail campaigns have a return rate at around 2%. This excellent feature allows you to cut the losses usually incurred from launching massive direct mail campaigns. Brilliant!

Advances like these are what our industry needs in order to maintain its growth. Bright House is doing a fine job in adapting to the ever-changing media marketplace, and I look forward to seeing what other advancements they have in store for our market - and our clients.

Okay. I must admit that I am the PR guy here and not the advertising guru. We have some talented people on staff here that can make some great commercials.

But I wanted to give some kudos to this AT&T/Cingular commercial:

I laugh because the mom knows what her daughter is saying. I laugh at the expression on the girl’s face because it’s quite authentic. I laugh when the mom tries to say “SNF” at the end. Entertaining commercials that don’t fast forward on my DVR.

Now, let’s contrast that with another one. I really want to ask what the creative team at Saatchi and Saatchi were thinking with this Wendy’s Commercial:

It may be a twist of going against the crowd mentality… but man couldn’t they do it with a better spot? (Of course, they might also point out that I am talking about their spot and spreading the message).

Heck, just read the comments on the YouTube pages for the AT&T and Wendy’s spots.

Most influencing medium: Television. Demo most able to be influenced: Teens.

So why are so many ad professionals ripping their hair out over this generation? With so much hype in internet advertising, many companies may be missing out on the real deal. Sure, teens these days may be more educated when it comes to traditional advertising and commercials, but they aren’t smarter than us. They may not buy in to your classic, Ogilvy print ad anymore. A plain commercial on MTV may not bring you the ROI you want. But there is still one method of convincing these individuals that your product is perfect for them.

MTV has become so successful among teens for one reason. The station has aligned its programming, images, and storylines with those that this demo truly desires. This demo can directly relate with these programs because many of them portray the ideal lifestyle among this age group.

The hit show Entourage has done the same thing among a slightly older crowd. Vincent Chase lives a life of sex, fortune and fame with a sleek sense of style that every 18 - 30+ year old desires. It is amazing just how much product placement is in each episode of Entourage. Everything from cars, clothes and jewelry can be found from scene to scene in the show. Basically, the show ‘teaches’ viewers how to live the ‘good life’ and what it takes to gain and maintain that high social status that seemingly only exists in Los Angeles.

It seems that product placement is still one of the best forms of advertising - when done correctly. PP really works well on Entourage and MTV. Most advertisers on these programs incorporate products that fit into the lifestyle that the shows promote. In Entourage, you don’t see a Nike store along the street. Instead, one of the characters debates classic Nike shoes that are “hip and cool” with another character. Entourage has done a fine job of using PP to enhance the show. Products advertised in Entourage are all part of the stereotypical L.A. lifestyle. By bringing these products in and using them to define the show’s characters, the advertising not only generates some income for the show, but also spices it up. Without this PP, the show would probably die. It’s the luxury cars, designer clothes, and expensive toys that make Vincent Chase so cool and popular among the audience. While many people complain about PP, I applaud Entourage for using it, and using it well.

MTV also has its fair share of product placement - which is to be expected being that it is the premier television concourse for teens. Everyone from Apple to Hummer can be found on screen. MTV’s music videos are bursting with PP. Fancy cars, sunglasses, and (sometimes ridiculous) jewelry get more air time than most of the actual artists do. The problem with this PP is the fact that MTV isn’t receiving the benefits or the actual advertising dollars. Since the products are featured in music videos, the artists are collecting the benefits. MTV only receives payment for PP in its shows - which is a mere fraction of the PP that can be found in these music videos. Nonetheless, the advertisers are still getting great exposure.

These two examples illustrate the power of product placement, and how important it is to find the proper media niche for your particular product. If your product is something that can really enhance a show or program, then your PP campaign will have a lot of potential. I promise from now on you will never watch Entourage the same again.

No, we’re not an SEO company. There are quite a few in the area, tho.

But for those who might want to try some search engine optimization on their own, check out SEO Tools. They have “links to the best SEO Tools on the internet and these tools will help you to optimize your website and move your search engine position higher.”

Just a good place for people who want to improve their search engine placement.

(h/t to Think)

We here at Affari Edge have decided to do something, well, unique.

Okay, so it’s not so unique. But we Affarians love bacon. I mean, who doesn’t??

So much so that we’ve created a new website: Just Add Bacon.com to highlight our love for bacon!!

Actually, the site is a place where we can showcase some of our creative talent and have fun. So head on over to the JAB site and watch the videos. Laugh. Cry. Laugh some more. We had a great time making them.

More importantly, however, if you think your company might be interested in exploring the use of “viral” videos, or you need a professional commercial, Affari Edge can help you reach your audience.

With or without Bacon.

With the world of sports marketing growing with each new season, we see more and more endorsement deals making millionaire athletes richer. If you have been following over the years, you probably are familiar with the infamous $90 million deal that Lebron James has with Nike. I love the guy to death, but a $90 million endorsement is insane. Sure, you get the face of the NBA and arguably the most entertaining player in the league to wear your brand, but it’s this very spending that is inflating shoe costs.

Athletic marketing and branding throughout all sports are driving prices. Huge endorsement deals are what make the new Lebron James Nikes over $100. The particular demographic that Nike is reaching doesn’t necessarily have the expendable income to buy such over-priced shoes. But not to fear - there is a hero coming to rescue the inflated shoe market.

Stephan Marbury is your average player on your (barely) average team. Stephan is getting national recognition for his recent endeavor to give-back to communities nation-wide. He isn’t giving back in the form of a huge check or community beautification campaign. He is giving back in a way that will inspire America’s youth to pursue their dreams on the basketball court.

Introducing the ‘Starburry’. The new shoe endorsed by Stephan Marbury with a suggested retail price of $14.95. At about 1/10 of the price of new Nike shoes, these sneakers are hip and affordable. To prove that they are for real - he actually wears them every game.

I personally believe that this campaign is great. It is about time someone took a stand against some of the ridiculous pricing in the basketball shoe marketplace. This shows what a company can do when it REALLY cares about the consumer. I wish Marbury the best, and hope that this campaign is the first of many that will inspire companies to take a step back and appreciate the consumer.

During the past several years, the usage of digital video recorders (DVR) such as TiVo and those provided by cable and satellite providers has increased to a national average of 17% of households in America. With that number expected to jump into the upper 20s by the end of 2008, the “Big Four” networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) and advertisers are jumping up and down worrying about whether or not viewers who watch a show are actually watching the ads. This week, and thanks to superb coverage of this issue by the New York Times, it has been revealed the networks and Nielsen Media Research have agreed to a unique way of accounting for audiences with live and recorded viewing. The system is called “live plus three”, a ratings report generated by Nielsen that will account for total viewers who watch a program live or via DVR within 72 hours of its original broadcast. While the new approach is intriguing, will it truly measure the total audience for a show? And will it appease both networks and advertisers who have been dragged kicking and screaming into the changing world of media?

The need for an accurate ratings system is imperative. As of just a few months ago, Nielsen’s prime source of information was the old-fashioned method of sending paper diaries to viewers in the hopes the viewer actually remembers what he or she was watching that day in case they didn’t write it down while watching TV. If you’ve ever taken part in one of those surveys, and I must admit I have before, it’s not as easy as it sounds. With the technology available today, Nielsen is FINALLY moving into the 21st century by collecting data through digital means, and through info collected by DVRs themselves. Accurate ratings are crucial to both the networks and advertisers. For networks, accounting for the “lost” viewers who record and later watch a program helps them raise ad rates since they have a clearer picture over who is watching their programs. For advertisers, an accurate number helps determine if a particular ad campaign on a particular network is paying off those big bucks spent on the spots. But I’m not so sure the “live plus three” is the best solution for this issue, although it is a start.

In Stuart Elliott’s article, the idea of “live plus seven” was apparently floated out to the networks and advertisers only to get shot down. This is curious to me because BOTH parties could use the “live plus seven” method to their advantages, and the capability of providing those numbers is available from Nielsen. I bring this up as an issue because some of us have hours and hours of prerecorded TV shows we haven’t watched yet, and they happen to be more than three days old. I actually have three or four episodes of House I have yet to watch, but I know when I get a free afternoon I will finally catch up on one of my favorite shows. I also haven’t watched last week’s edition of The Office yet, but I know I will watch it tonight before the season finale’. Both NBC and its advertisers have “lost” me, and since I love the show (and have since day one… I’m one of the few who can say that) they may want to count me in their final numbers.

Right there is the dilemma both parties are fighting. The networks would like to have the seven day report because those of us who take our sweet time watching a recorded show can be counted. That would mean bigger numbers, higher ad rates, and ultimately more revenue for the networks. Outside of revenue, a true accounting of viewers may also do the networks a great service since so many people think the Big Four are losing their relevance in today’s media-savvy society.

The advertisers, however, want instant gratification… and you can hardly blame them. Corporations spend billions and billions of dollars in national advertising in the hopes of generating and maintaining a consumer base. Even if viewers aren’t watching the commercials live or when the program is prerecorded on a DVR, the numbers generated will justify a corporation or ad agency to spend more or cut back on a particular show or network. With so much money at stake, and even a few corporations’ public image as well, the instant turnaround when it comes to results is a given. Viewers either really love a commercial, or they really hate it. Why spend more in seven days to air a spot that isn’t received well, and why hold back when consumers want more?

The division of interests has caused some tension between the parties. As it is stated in the aforementioned article, CBS president of sales Jo Ann Ross said, “This is still a gentleman’s business. You do business on gentleman’s agreements.” The article goes on to suggest CBS would really like the advertisers to try the seven-day method, and to let them “write the business” where recorded viewing is factored in to ad rates. I applaud CBS (and it appears other networks are leaning this way) for trying to get the best of both worlds with the seven-day plan. But in these days where the bottom line is everything with the Wall Street giants (the networks and advertisers) money talks and common sense walks. The advertisers want to make key financial decisions not just for a season or month of programming, but for individual episodes as well. The networks need every dollar that walks through the door, so the “gentleman’s agreement” gets done. That means both sides are still left a little short in my opinion.

For advertisers, I can’t see why a seven-day or even a 30-day plan can’t be effective. Sure, there are some products or services (such as movie releases, national car sales, etc.) that are time-sensitive. But even if a viewer sees a commercial for an “expired” product or service, didn’t the viewer still see the spot? It’s almost the “if a tree falls in the woods…” scenario. If I see an ad for a Ford F-150 that originally ran in April, wasn’t I exposed to the product? I may not be able to get that truck for the exact same monthly payment or interest rate advertised, but that won’t stop me from thinking it’s a pretty nice truck. The same goes for movies. I may be watching an ad for Spiderman 3 three weeks after the movie was first released, but does that mean I won’t go out and see it now? Does it also mean I won’t order it on Netflix or buy it when it comes out on DVD? NO! This short-sightedness is one reason why advertising in mainstream media is so fluky.

Another problem with the advertising world is why is advertising so crucial on the “Big Four”? Yes the message typically gets out to more people than the cable networks, but getting a message to your intended audience seems to make more sense to me (and also justifies your media spending a bit more). That F-150 ad would look better on CMT, GAC, or ESPN instead of in the middle of a “Heroes” episode. The Spiderman trailer might be more successful when used on the Sci-Fi channel, Cartoon Network, or Nickelodeon instead of lost in a sea of ads during “Ugly Betty”. Creative ads playing on You Tube or downloaded via iTunes would also hit that target consumer better than the “mass media”. It’s just another sign that some advertisers clearly haven’t figured out how to reach the consumers they want through new media.

As for the broadcasters, I would think the accounting of a show beyond seven days would be helpful in determining the real success of a show (and of course the ad rates). If a network discovers an extra one million viewers watched an episode of a show 8-14 days after it originally aired, could that save a show from getting canceled? Could it help a network show advertisers fans of shows are loyal to programming for weeks and weeks and not just 30 minutes a week? Could it also help networks devise programming and advertising methods that help viewers become more interactive with the show? If I’m told I could win a million dollars by answering a trivia question about a show online, but only after I watch the show live in its original airing, you can bet I’ll find some way to shift my schedule around for that carrot on a stick.

For now, both sides will wade through the waters of this new agreement to see how it works. It is a start, but I think the data available now can be used for better purposes on both sides. But since the advertisers need to make shrewd decisions now, and the networks need every penny they can squeeze out of them, I won’t hold my breath for things to change.

SOME OTHER NOTES ON ADVERTISING:

* It’s a bit of a spoiler, but NBC’s three-minute preview of tonight’s “The Office” on YouTube is simply genius. I was going to watch the show already, but now I’m so amped up for it I will probably watch it live! Note to networks: this is the use of new media as the “carrot on the stick” I was referring to before.

* The Orbit chewing gum commercials have grown old with me, mostly because they’re just plain silly (or in some cases not). But this commercial had me howling when I first saw it last night:

* On the not-so-funny end, in 2003 NHL player Dany Heatley was speeding in his car in a residential neighborhood in Atlanta. He lost control of his car, causing a wreck that killed his Atlanta Thrashers’ teammate Dan Snyder. Snyder’s parents are traveling across the U.S. and Canada to spread the word about their son. While they have forgiven Heatley, they haven’t forgotten what has happened. The use of Heatley in the Versus network’s bumpers for the NHL playoffs, where Heatley (now playing for the Ottawa Senators) proudly proclaims the playoffs are “do or die” time, just doesn’t feel right to me.

* Finally, success finds the most unexpected people at the most unexpected time. Just ask the guy who plays the role of the Geico caveman.

NOTE: This cloumn was originally written and posted by Matt Sammon at the Tampa Bay Devil Rays fansite, draysbay.com on April 1, 2007. It has been republished with the permission of draysbay.com. Matt is a regular contributor to draysbay.com, and is a part-time employee of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. His views and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays’ ownership, management, players, coaches, or other employees.

Believe it or not, all 30 teams in Major League Baseball already know how they are going to do this season. How do they know? It’s all in the marketing my friend. And now, if you don’t mind, let’s step away from the insanity of no lefties in the Rays’ bullpen and Jorge Cantu wants to be traded as we look at how the other teams are selling themselves.

This is has become an annual tradition of mine. Come opening day, I cruise around other MLB sites and see what the big sales pitch is. Some season slogans are creative, others are dull, while quite a few are just plain dumb. In a column I wrote on February 16th, I said I really liked the Rays slogan for 2007, “More than just a game.” I liked it most for its honesty– with a team relatively unchanged from last season a postseason berth probably isn’t in the cards this season. So, let’s pump up the fact that going to a Rays game is fun, even if the outcome of the game isn’t.

You’ll notice if you bounce around the other 29 MLB websites, the teams that aren’t guaranteed a playoff spot or long lines wrapping around the box office have to come up with a slogan. The world champion Cardinals, Yankees, and Red Sox don’t need an ad campaign with razzle and dazzle. As long as there is an open keg of Old Style in Wrigley Field, the Cubs don’t need a campaign. As long as Cubs fans live in Milwaukee, the Brewers won’t need a campaign. As long as Peter Angelos remains a cheap bastard, the Orioles won’t have a campaign.

So the other teams in MLB can’t just roll up the blinds at the ticket window and expect the gates to be stormed by people hungering for baseball, especially if the team may have to luck its way into the postseason. These teams then have to spend thousands of dollars on marketing groups headed up by people who never picked up a baseball bat, and thus the silly slogan is born.

Before we look at this season’s attempts to stuff a few more people in the stadium, a quick reminder of my picks for dumbest ad campaign in MLB the past two seasons:

2005– Pittsburgh’s “Come Hungry” campaign
2006– Detroit’s “Who’s Your Tiger?” campaign

* First the nominees for “winning = ticket sales” ad campaigns: The Padres, A’s, Yankees, and Cardinals have slapped some kind of postseason success logo up and that’s good enough for them. Must be nice.

* The “It worked well enough last year” group includes the Twins, Giants, Angels, Tigers and Pirates.

The Twins claim their “This is Twins Territory” campaign was so successful, they brought it back by popular demand. As long as notorious penny pincher Carl Pohlad owns this team though, I’ll always believe he just didn’t want to invest in something new.

The Giants again go with “Your SF Giants”, apparently still trying to alert people in the other city by the bay that the Giants are not moving to Tampa Bay.

The Tigers return with their silly “Who’s Your Tiger?” campaign from last season. I guess the eight-year-old who came up with that still works for little or no money.

Speaking of cheap, the Pirates again go with “We Will”. We will win? We will lose? We will, we will, rock you? Chances are “we will” precedes “miss the playoffs again for the 15th consecutive season.”

The Angels again roll with “The A-Team!” Knowing Mr. T’s financial situation, I’m sure there’s some kind of kickback here.

* Alright, let’s now go top to bottom, alphabetically, up to my selection for dumbest ad campaign of the season:

The Houston Astros proudly proclaim this season is “the return of the good guys”. I don’t know if this is saying the Astros will be good again like they were in 2005, or if Andy Pettitte and Aubrey Huff were assholes and the team is glad they’re gone.

The Blue Jays get aggressive this year with, “It’s always game time”. Great, just another reason why the Jays will be loaded with injuries again. Game time is all the time and these kids just can’t get any down time.

The Braves are suddenly coming up with slogans, and this year they try, “Welcome to the bigs”. One look at the Braves’ depth chart and those words have probably been uttered to most of the 25 active players recently. Less veterans, more kids still having to prove something, and probably a fourth-place finish in the NL East.

The Diamondbacks scream, “Are you ready?!?” For another ho-hum season in the desert? Not really, but at least the new unis look nice.

The Dodgers slogan isn’t flashy (It’s Time for Dodger Baseball!) but the way they write it is. Written in a 1954-esque style script, it appears somebody gave the marketing keys to Vin Scully. Either that, or the Dodgers are willing to bring Duke Snider back so he can earn an honest living and not evade the IRS again.

I like the Rays’ honesty in their ad campaign, but the Indians may have beaten the Rays in the honesty department this season. Ya ready for this? “Indians ‘07″ Yep… they’re the Indians and it’s 2007. Or is it 1907? The 1907 Indians also finished in fourth place, so there may not be much of a difference between now and then.

You have to look hard for the Mariners‘ campaign, but I found it and it sucks; “Mariners baseball… my oh my”. Well, I’ve heard different, more obscene descriptions of Mariners baseball recently, so I guess this is kid-tested and mother-approved.

The Marlins have the hysterical, “You Gotta Be Here!” campaign this season. Well I guess you gotta be there, because judging by the attendance figures you haven’t been there recently. It is a step up from, “Oh please, oh please just show up!”

The Mets have an equally goofy campaign, proclaiming, “Your Season Has Come”. Wow… after failing to do anything in two seasons of winter little league baseball, and playing nothing but beer-league softball (even that was six years ago), I’ve finally earned a season with the Mets! Baseball HAS been beddy beddy good to me!

The Nationals actually have a great and clever campaign. “Pledge Your Allegiance” is topical considering where the team plays, and is also a slight dig at the Orioles who continue to lose fans every day. Still, considering how painful of a rebuilding process the Beltway will see in the next few years, fans may be pledging their allegiance to masochism.

The Reds go with, “C You There!” Get it? There’s a “C” on their hats. Ummm… yeah.

In January the Rockies rolled out a “R You In?” slogan, but it hasn’t been back up as the team sticks with their previous “Gen-R-ation” campaign. Apparently their marketing genius really likes instant messaging, since he or she can’t spell a damn thing right.

Think your job sucks? Ever thought of selling tickets for the Royals? There, doesn’t that put everything in perspective? The Royals have to be the most creative, and this year they came up with “True Blue Tradition”. Sadly, that’s all the Royals have… true royal blue tradition from George Brett, Bret Saberhagen, Dan Quisenberry, and the greatness that is Buddy Biancalana. KC is still looking back at 1985, and owner David Glass is still counting every dollar in his pocket.

The White Sox don’t have the advantage of selling world champion t-shirts this season, so the south siders had to create the odd campaign of, “Back to the Grind”. True, the Sox have to get back to the style of play that got them a championship in 2005, but that approach just seems so depressing. You almost want to bring a gun to U.S. Cellular Field to off yourself. If you talk yourself out of the suicide, you can then protect yourself from the late night hoodlums in that part of town.

* The runner-up for dumbest ad campaign in 2007 is… the Texas Rangers notable attempt at selling tickets; “You Could Use Some Baseball”. Let’s do the math kids– 35 seasons, three playoff appearances (none since 1999), and zero championships. Yes, the people of Arlington, Texas, sure could use some baseball, and not the crap the Rangers will serve up this season.

* Finally, the winner of the dumbest ad campaign in 2007 goes to our brothers in the city of brotherly love. The Phillies dare to ask, “Goosebumps– What Will They Do For You?” No really, that is their big-money ad campaign this season. Granted the Phils may finally put together a postseason run for the first time since 1993, but goosebumps? What about Ryan Howard, or Jimmy Rollins, or Chase Utley, or Pat Burrell, or the incredible changes Pat Gillick has brought to Philly during the past few months? GOOSEBUMPS?!? I haven’t gotten those from watching the Phillies since Tug McGraw threw his arms up in the air when he recorded the final out against the Royals in 1980. If the Phillies get that far this year, other side effects could include nausea, vomiting, and listening to Philly fans all offseason long bragging about their team. Please consult a doctor.

So there you have it, a look at how the other teams honestly think how they’ll fare this season. With 22 teams not making the playoffs this season, I can guarantee at least 22 more crazy, lame, or just plain dumb ad campaigns in 2008.

This summer, the sports talk radio format turns 20, practically a baby since broadcast radio’s first “official” station signed on 87 years ago. What was just an experiment by what is now WFAN-AM in New York City in that summer of ‘87 has since blossomed into one of the most lucrative and popular formats in the world. But in the past few years, the actual discussion of sports on sports talk radio has decreased. Oh sure, there’s still plenty of discussion about the biggest sports stories in national and local sports talk, but the keen ear will notice an increasing number of “guy talk” taking over the airwaves. And I hate to break this to you die-hard sports fans, but the trend will continue as long as radio continues to operate under the corporate structure it is in now.

Since the birth of the format, sports talk has become one of the most lucrative formats in radio. Some markets have THREE sports talkers competing against each other for slim ratings, but huge dividends when it comes to advertisers. Much like traditional news talk, sports talk draws a typically white male, age 25-54, who has a lot of disposable income for big-ticket items such as luxury cars, home mortgages, and investment banking. You don’t often hear commercials for “Bob’s Used Car Depot” on a sports talker, as it typically features car spots for Lexus, Cadillac, BMW, etc. Advertisers know sports talk fans have this money, because sports talk fans will buy anything representative of his or her favorite team or player. I dare you to walk into a grocery store and try NOT to find at least five people wearing SOMETHING with a sports logo on it.

With all of this money getting poured into sports talk stations, you would think sports talk would be at its best to bring in more listeners. But today, that is not the case as “guy talk” has started to take over the format.

Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Matt, a lot of guys listen to sports talk, so what’s wrong with guy talk?” My response is, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with guy talk. But guy talk only has a small part in the world of sports talk. There’s a time and place for discussion of boobs, beer, and fart jokes, but the last time I checked the name of the format was “sports” talk. Think of it like alcohol: there’s a time and place to have a few stiff drinks, but when you have too much all the time you tend to become less of a social butterfly and more of a pain in the ass. So why the shift to “guy talk” and is it bad for the industry and those who advertise in it?

There are several culprits to this guy talk takeover, but there are two in particular that stand out in my opinion. First, the corporate nature of radio (and broadcasting in general) has forced stations to make decisions based on money and not quality of programming. It’s not cheap to field a mostly live and local cast of talent, especially if you’re in a top 25 market. If you do the math, five hosts for weekday programming from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. at $50,000 each (on average) will cost you $250,000 a year… and that’s just to cover the cost of the talent. Once you add an engineer, producers, a sales staff, and equipment purchases and maintenance, you’re looking at upwards of $500,000 just to stay on the air! With major corporations such as Clear Channel, CBS Radio, and others riding the wave of Wall Street with these stations, you just can’t sink so much money into a station. So corners get cut by having only two live shows a day, two part-time producers, and no remote broadcasts since it costs a lot of money to purchase and maintain station vehicles and broadcast equipment.

By trimming down the budget, the quality of the prgramming typically gets cut. With only two live and local shows, you have only six or seven hours of local programming while the remainder of the day is filled with satellite programming based in Bristol, Connecticut (ESPN), or Los Angeles (Fox Sports). It’s pretty safe to say whatever is considered big news in L.A. most likely isn’t that big in Tampa, or Baltimore, or even Atlanta. But a primarily satellite-run station saves money, and the owner of a station can save even more by hiring sub-par talent, the second big culprit in this guy talk mess.

It seems today the top qualifications of a sports talk host is a) say the dumbest thing first, and b) say it the loudest. Sports talk radio is filled with windbags who like to speak first and ask questions later. Gone are the days of research, confidential sources, and an understanding knowledge of certain sports and the people who participate in them. It is so much easier to say, “Alex Rodriguez sucks!”, then to explain why he sucks or why the people who says he sucks actually suck themselves. Too many sports talk hosts now walk in to a studio literally 15 minutes before a show, read the headlines in the local paper, and try to make a three or four-hour show out of that. Such a lack of preparation devolves into “poll question radio”. Instead of discussing how Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter together make the Yankees a force to be reckoned with, the unprepared host simply asks, “Who’s better: Alex Rodriguez or Derek Jeter?”, and waits for the phone calls to come in. Once the host gets some responses, then the real talking out of one’s behind begins. Instead of backing up statements and opinions with facts, the host spits out his or her thoughts on a subject simply to shoot down a listener. This is most evidenced in the discussion of steroids in sports, when hosts accuse athletes of using steroids simply because “he has a big head” or ” he gained 30 pounds in 10 years”. No medical research, no doctors or scientists as guests, just a shot in the dark with the hope of a target getting hit.

The lack of show prep in sports devolves to “guy talk”. Not everybody can break down why the Kansas City Royals are a trainwreck or why the acquisition of Randy Moss by the New England Patriots is a good deal for the Pats and his former team, the Oakland Raiders. But ANYONE can have an opinion on American Idol results, who should win an Oscar, or which NFL team has the hottest cheerleaders. Why do hours of homework on an upcoming league draft or dissecting the NHL playoffs when you can just talk about your favorite HBO show or throw out some hot-button issues like racism or politics? Call this the trickle-down theory of sports talk if you want. Cheap station owners hire cheap talent who in turn don’t want to invest his or her time in hosting an entertaining sports-based show. Despite the criticism of sports fans such as myself, the format is far from hurting.

Sports talk stations are putting up huge numbers in some markets, and even in the markets where three stations fight for the same audience, they still earn enough of a presence in the ratings to justify their existence and charge big rates for advertising. But does big ratings equal good radio? In my opinion, no. In fact, the flawed ratings system that is Arbitron actually HURTS radio. It all goes back to the corporate structure of radio, as most program directors in charge of these sports stations have never hosted a sports talk show ever. In fact, some sports talk program directors have been handed the job title because they can program a rock station or a country station– two formats that also grab the typically wealthier male. Some radio stations owners, in the interest of saving a big salary for a sports-minded program director, instead give the title of PD to a rock station or a country station because he or she has successfully pulled decent numbers from the same demo. While a male in the 25-54 demo may seem to be the same person to these PD’s, there’s a big difference between a sports talk listener and someone who listens to a rock station, country station, or even a news talk station.

The difference is the knowledge and the passion of sports fans. I’m not saying someone who listens to Metallica, Toby Keith, or Sean Hannity more often than not can’t be a sports fan. What I am saying though is people who listen to sports talk on a regular basis are a different breed than the others. These people know sports inside and out, as opposed to someone who casually watches sports while spending a lot of time in the pickup truck listening to Nirvana, the Dixie Chicks, or Glenn Beck. With the radio stations hiring cheap talent that half-asses its way through a daily show, the die-hard sports fans are getting kicked aside for the lowest common denominatior. Sure, the sports talkers are getting the big numbers, but the numbers are people who don’t live, eat, breathe, drink, and sleep sports. That in turn hurts the advertisers.

The message an advertiser sends is reaching more people, but not necessarily the right people. A format that is supposed to aim to the educated, passionate, and somewhat wealthy is now being inundated by the common man due to the common programming. Discussions about hot women, reality shows, and getting drunk in Costa Rica on your most recent vacation draws the younger crowd– a crowd that may not have the financial means to buy that Lexus or lock in that fixed-rate home mortgage. By watering down the talent, who then waters down the content, the once rich sports talk audience is now watered down with a lot of common people who probably can’t afford or don’t want to buy what advertisers are selling.

While this trend, and I hope it’s only a trend, is ruining sports talk radio now, it is really helping online sports discussions. Daily blogs such as Mike Florio’s Pro Football Talk or in-depth analysis from ESPN’s Insider or Fox Sports’ talented writers offer so much more in one column than most sports talk hosts can in one show. Even sports story posting boards such as Ben Maller’s or Drew Curtis’ FARK boards can offer more insight into a topic than the poll questions from hosts like, “Who’s better: Shaq or Kobe?” With the digital age in full swing, and more and more advertisers getting more bang for their buck in targeting sports junkies online, one can only wonder how much longer sports talk radio stations can maintain the charade of providing the right type of audience to big-spending national and regional clients.

You also have to wonder when the talent will get better on these stations, answering tough questions about why my favorite team didn’t go far in the playoffs instead of asking who should have been voted off American Idol last night. Until the stations make those changes, and I won’t hold my breath, I’ll just keep getting my info from trusty online sources.

And so will the next generation of well-to-do sports fans.

Earlier this week, I served on a panel for the Federal Communication Commission public hearing on media ownership here in Tampa. I was selected, primarily because of my personal blog, as the lone “blogger” representative - and talked a little about the future.

In recent weeks, there have been some significant issues related to the future of media.

Yahoo signed a deals with Viacom and Comcast to provide advertising. Google purchased Doubleclick, and earlier this year announced a deal to place advertising via Dish. NewsCorp is making a bid for Dow Jones (owner of the Wall Street Journal).

These announcements will all have an effect on the immediate future of the media.

But what about long term?

Jeff Pulver has a recent post on his blog talking about the future of television.

As a reminder, for the past seven years, billions of dollars of fixed-line revenue has been lost by phone companies around the world as their customers have given up using fixed telephone lines in favor of purchasing their primary phone service from wireless carriers. This trend is known as “Wireless Conversion” and this is revenue which will most likely never be replaced by the phone companies.

In the near future, I expect cable companies may start to suffer a similar parallel fate as the wireline phone companies. This eventually will mean billions of dollars of revenue loss without any notion of being able to replace the lost revenue. And I expect we will start to see this trend happen first in the 16-24 year old demographic.

How does this happen? It happens because there is a portion of the existing 16-24 generation which does not watch traditional broadcast TV and they are not watching Cable TV. What they are watching is TV content on the internet. And when these kids leave home and go off to college, they are not signing up for cable TV service in their dorm rooms. Instead they are continuing to watch their favorite TV shows thanks to BitTorrent or are going online to the network websites to catch up with a missed show or in some cases they are also going to iTunes and purchasing the shows to watch on their video iPods and computers.

Kfir Pravda is warning cable companies:

It seems to me that these industries are kind of dinosaurs, looking at the meteor coming and thinking that everything will be ok. Just like some of the big production companies, missing the fact that people create good content for fraction of the money they are spending.

Yes, my dear. The future is TVoIP. Get used to it.

Imagine a world where you can download in some still-to-be-invented application or device all the shows you want to watch… think TiVo on steroids, here. New “hit shows” like Lost, CSI, Desperate Housewives, Heroes, 24, etc are uploaded by the producers (not the networks) to their server. You can get new episodes of Jeopardy or Oprah or Days of Our Lives this way as well. Your device downloads them automatically, because you programmed it to do so (like your TiVo). But there’s more. Shows that are now “syndicated” can be downloaded, too. Want to watch the 3rd season of Seinfeld? or the 1st season of Sex in the City? or the entire run of the original Star Trek? Download ‘em all!

Michael Eisner has an teen drama airing on MySpace. The BBC recently launched iPlayer. NBC, NewsCorp, and Comcast have signed an agreement to provide shows online. The BBC is the latest European network to provide online programming.

Joost is one site that is aggregating a lot of these already:

In Tuesday’s deal with Time Warner Inc.’s Turner Broadcasting System, Joost said it would air episodes of “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” and “Robot Chicken” from Turner’s Adult Swim network along with “Larry King Live” and other CNN news and interview programs.

Joost also announced several other content deals Tuesday:

_ Sony Corp. will run episodes of several old TV series including “Charlie’s Angels” and “Starsky & Hutch” on Joost;

_ Time Warner’s Sports Illustrated will run photo shoots and programs about its swimsuit issue;

_ The National Hockey League will broadcast vintage games and game highlights; and

_ Hasbro Inc. will run old episodes of “Transformers” and “G.I. Joe.”

Joost has previously signed deals with Viacom Inc., Warner Music Group Corp. and CBS Corp.

The numbers are even more staggering in Europe — where 45% of people are watching some amount of TV online. Almost HALF of Europe.

That future is dangerous - not only for cable providers, but for local television affiliates, too. Who needs local stations when you can get your entertainment from the web? The Tampa Bay affiliate for CW and independent moreTV 32 don’t show local news. They have network, syndicated, and paid programming. They will be among the first to shut down. Then the local news channels will be forced to close when the national networks shift totally over to online programming.

This will have a dramatic effect on advertising. As Google and Yahoo develop their ad placement technology, it will be possible for the local businesses to advertise to local TVoIP viewers. But not every program will be advertiser supported — the more popular ones will be pay-per-view. Heck, some of them are already: you can get Lost on iTunes, for example.

Blonde 2.0 says it best:

There is a real revolution emerging right before our eyes which will change the way we have viewed and defined TV till now. I believe that within a few years time, we will see the internet establish itself as the leader of all media and that more and more services and technologies will be offered to those watching and those who want to be watched. All I can say is: Watch out broadcast TV - times are a-changin’ and you’re going down.