The Affari Edge Blog

During the past few days, former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather has been the target of much hate for his assessment of the current state of the program he hosted for 23 years. But when one looks at what Rather said, HE hit the target with his comments while those throwing bitterness at him are clearly missing the point.

It all began the morning of Monday, June 11th, when Rather appeared via phone on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, hosted by Joe Scarborough. When the topic of conversation shifted to the current state of the CBS Evening news, currently ranked third in the Nielsen ratings among the three network newscasts, Rather gave his honest opinion. In short, he felt the people at CBS have been “dumbing it down, tarting it up,” by having Katie Couric host the program. This comment is the one that has set most people ablaze. But I ask, what’s so wrong about what he said?

When Couric announced in May 2006 she was moving from NBC’s Today Show to the CBS Evening News, there was much hoopla– 98% of it from CBS. In a day and age where fewer people are getting their daily news from old media (network TV, radio, and printed newspapers), CBS felt it had to re-invent the wheel. Instead of a stodgy old man like Rather or Bob Schieffer sitting behind a desk with a map of the world behind him, here was a vibrant woman at the tail end of the Baby Boom age range. She would sit behind a desk, but she would also stand in front of green screens with a lot of eye candy in the form of nice graphics and really shiny colors zipping by. She would also introduce guest opinion segments called “Free Speech”, a rare (by today’s standards) editorial piece from today’s biggest celebrities.

The biggest re-invention though would be on the internet, where the newscast supposedly would have met with a larger audience through various innovations such as a Couric blog, on-demand “editor’s cut” versions of interviews, a rundown of that night’s newscast in the afternoon, and an on-demand one-minute newscast on the top stories of the day. With the new and younger face, and the hi-tech additions to the old-fashioned newscast, where would CBS do its research to see how this new newscast should be carried out? CBS decided to send Couric out on a nationwide “town hall meeting” tour in the summer of 2006, going through several major cities to see what the “average person” wanted in his or her nightly news. That would prove to be the biggest mistake by CBS.

Nowadays everything is title “MY” this or “YOU” that thanks in part to successful new media platforms Myspace and You Tube. As online technology and information gathering and dispersal fly miles ahead of traditional media, anyone who runs a TV or radio station, or a printed newspaper, is panicking to get in to the mix. CBS depended too much on the “average person” factor in shaping its new version of the nightly news. As the average person knows, yet major broadcast networks still fail to understand, is what works in Los Angeles doesn’t necessarily work in Chicago. The people who went out of their way to speak with Couric at one of these gatherings probably weren’t watching the nightly news that night. Do you see what I’m getting at? While a carefully molded group of likely young women were collected at meeting sites, the 60-something white males who are the network news’ bread and butter were at home actually watching the news.

Following these meetings, and some additional research from a demographic much younger than the one that watches network news now, CBS radically altered the nightly news. With Couric, it brought in the softer side of hard news. Unfortunately for the people at CBS headquarters, it didn’t bring in the hoards of people expected. Ratings for the newscast were excellent at first in September 2006, but by the end of October CBS had returned to its familiar third place in the ratings. The situation hasn’t improved much since then, as it has become painfully clear that people who watch the network news on a regular basis don’t want soft news coming from someone who spent 16 years interviewing celebrity chefs and fashion designers on the Today show. There’s a good reason why “hard” news segments last only five minutes on national morning talk shows– people who watch those shows want chatter and not news.

So I ask again, what did Rather say that was so wrong? In an attempt to beef up ratings, CBS spent on a ton of money to lure a morning show interviewer away from the competition, spent even more money promoting that interviewer, and tried to change the content of network news for a generation of consumers not brought up on Walter Kronkite or David Brinkley. From the view of an old hawk like Rather, this was CBS “dumbing down” and “tarting up” what he knew as network news from the 1960s and 1970s for the vastly different world of the early 21st century.

Network news ratings as a whole have continued to decline over the years, while most people under the age of 50 (and specifically under the age of 30) now get their news online in one form or fashion. CBS tried to bring the two different realms of media together and it hasn’t worked yet. To be fair to Couric and CBS, this experiment is only nine months old and any measure of success for any TV or radio program should be done over a year’s time.

Still, in the end, we may see CBS shift back to its traditional hard news delivery, and according to some insiders it may not be Couric delivering it after the 2008 presidential election. CBS will fall back in line, and the big three network news makers will still have a low-rated nightly newscast simply because there are enough people in their twilight years sitting in the recliner watching it.

While running to nowhere on an elliptical machine yesterday morning, I was reading through my latest edition of TIME magazine and saw something that almost caused me to fall off the machine. Yes, it was the new logo for the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.

Like a bloody car wreck, I had to stare at it. Was this something representative of 2012? While we don’t know what the future holds, I certainly hope it doesn’t involve shapes and colors straight out of 1989. I mean, really? Who designed this mess? I bet you if you watch the opening credits to Saved By the Bell frame by frame you’ll probably see this design slipped in somewhere. I’m wondering if the designer won an episode of Nickelodeon’s Guts in the early 90s, and was inspired by his or her glowing piece of the AggroCrag.

There’s no doubt that this well-researched, heavily-financed logo is the ugliest thing seen in the Olympic games since Atlanta’s memorable Izzy from 1996. There’s also no doubt the creators of this horrific art piece are also getting something any artist would LOVE to have: free publicity.

Irish author Brendan Behan once said, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.” That is certainly the case with the 2012 logo. Thanks in part to the fanatical British media, and art critics from all around the world on the internet, people are talking about the 2012 London Olympics. In case you forgot, the next Olympics are in China in 2008. That alone is a major victory for the London Olympics committee.

While the Olympics are still a major event, and still give a major ratings boost to NBC every summer, unless the games are in your backyard quite a few people don’t care. Actually, I should clarify that as not too many people watch it from start to finish. The buzz for most Olympic games, again when not in your nation, is typically minimal until just a few days before opening ceremonies. For the London group, they’re getting a five-year head start on the buzz. They’re also getting creative.

If you go to the 2012 Olympics website, you can design your own Olympic logo for the games. To date, there have been more than 400 entries posted (although probably thousands of more unacceptable ones are sitting in some 2012 staffer’s in-box). It’s a great and fun response from the 2012 group: Okay, you don’t like it? Design one yourself and do better! After perusing through most of the posted entries, I can say without hesitation that everyone else’s sucks just as much as the official logo. Granted there are a few excellent submissions, and a couple of humorous ones, but most of them are pure crap. I suppose it’s just further proof that anyone can be a critic.

But if the 2012 logo follows through on Behan’s idea of publicity, if it does indeed die in favor of a new logo, than a public search and competition for the next great idea in the 2012 Olympic logo creation will not only generate a nicer logo it will also provide another stream of buzz going in to that Olympic games.

If you know of the tale of the ugly duckling, you know that eventually it becomes a swan. I don’t know if the 2012 logo will actually change into a beautiful swan, as in a brand new and more easy-on-the-eyes logo. In fact, the logo doesn’t have to change period. The London Olympics committee already got its beautiful swan: free publicity. And that’s a creature so beautiful, money just can’t buy it.

This morning I caught a very interesting segment on Bay News 9. The segment highlighted a new advertising medium that is making some noise in Clearwater. I suppose it is a form of outdoor advertising. And yes, it seems to be billboard-esc. Yet, this form of outdoor billboard is much different than your traditional, roadside board that you purchase through Clearchannel outdoor. This billboard has a sweeter ‘ring’ to it.

Located at the Chi Chi Rodriguez Golf Club in Clearwater is a billboard that is part of an outdoor phone booth. However, this is no ordinary phone booth. This booth allows users to make long distance calls nationwide - and to over 30 countries - for free. It costs the user nothing, and it also cost the host (in this case Rodriguez’s golf club) nothing. All the user has to do is make the call in front of the paid advertisement.

I believe this concept is very interesting. Since each call has a limited time, costs won’t be too outrageous. Also, if placed in the right places, these phone booths could create a lot of buzz and draw lots of attention - which eventually ups ad pricing. For example, placing these booths in airports would be a great idea. Travelers make long distance calls more than most individuals - making this placement a no-brainer. The booths would be particularly popular amongst international travelers. When you first arrive in a new country, there is nothing better than a free phone call home. When placed in high traffic locations (such as airports) it opens the door to more advertisers. Local restaurants and shops would fit in great as potential advertisers at these booths.

I believe these booths would also fair well on college campuses. Campuses house thousands of exchange students every year who are always looking for ways to communicate with their families back home. These boards would also get plenty of exposure on campuses, especially at some of the nation’s larger institutions. I know I personally would visit these booths regularly, just to catch up with friends of mine who reside overseas. In fact, I would even be inclined to fill out a survey while on the phone since the call is completely free.

Either I am hung up on this news segment that I watched this morning, or there really is some potential with this new medium. I believe the units need to be strategically placed - meaning no more golf courses - in order to be effective while producing a good return on investment. I believe we will begin to see much more of these “simple-service” ads if this campaign proves successful. I look forward to running into one of these booths in the future, not only to give my Swedish friend Daniel a call, but to also observe this medium’s growth.

Yahoo and Google are revolutionizing the advertising industry, and it won’t be all for the better.

Yahoo and Google have “context-based” advertising programs. Microsoft just purchased one. These are great for advertisers looking to reach a more targeted audience.

If there is a story about surfing on a website, ads for things surfers are likely to buy. Advertisers win because their actual customers are more likely to see their ads. Moreover, for less ‘popular’ terms, the cost is lower — which means the smaller the market or the narrower the niche, a company can get into advertising for relatively less money.

Sounds like a win-win, right?

Well, consider this as well. As Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft sign up partners for their ad programs, they will be looking to large, national advertisers because they can aggregate so many sites into one place. Yahoo, for example, has more than 400 daily newspapers as part of its network. For the Proctor & Gambles, Johnson & Johnsons, and Coca-Cola’s of this world, this is great. Their agencies can place ads on all of these sites by going to one source: Yahoo.

But the future is dimmer for local advertisers. As more and more ads are placed by the three giants, less and less inventory will be available to local businesses. Some sites could abandon their ad sales staff entirely, giving all of their inventory to the Yahooglesoft monster.

How does a local mom-and-pop restaurant advertise in this world? They have to be savvy enough to sign up on a Yahooglesoft program website, and hope they can limit their exposure to people in their immediate area? Would a Tampa restaurant really want to advertise on a California newspaper site that has a story mentioning “Tampa”? After all, they are not looking to reinforce their brand - they want butts in seats.

Advertising agencies will adapt and learn how to navigate the online world, much as they did with the offline world. Still other agencies will adapt to become “local ad sales agents,” serving as the local/public face of websites targeted to a specific geographic area.

Yes, the Yahooglesoft monster will change the industry… how it will all shakeout will be interesting to see.

…but thank God the Stanley Cup Finals are over! At least that is what most people (especially NBC advertisers) are saying. If you haven’t heard about it by now, Game 3 of the NHL Stanley Cup Finals made history for NBC. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the ‘bragging-rights’ kind of history. Game 3 exhibited the lowest rating of all time for an NBC prime time program. Never before had NBC run a program with such a low reach, share, you name it during prime time.

ESPN talk shows normally discuss the competitiveness and the story lines that are balled-up in this historical series. This week, however, most ESPN talk shows focused on the fact that nobody is watching the Stanley Cup Finals. As hockey sports analysts cried out to fans, sports reporters began devising new systems to bring viewers back to the NHL.

Until the Stanley Cup Finals, playoff games could only be found on cable channel VS. NBC covered a game or two during weekends, but they never put the NHL playoffs on prime time network television. This week’s numbers show that it just doesn’t belong.

Historically, sports have not done well on prime time network television. In fact, the only sports programs that seem to produce great numbers are football championships (NCAA and NFL of course). Even though MLB and NBA playoffs and championships aren’t the best prime time sports producers, they have proved to be more desired that the NHL championship.

When the Lightning were in the playoffs for a whole (1) series, I wondered why they weren’t broadcasting the games on the major sports channels, or even on network television. I now see how terribly the NHL sits among American viewers.

Hopefully we acquire an ice skate client here in the coming year. We will be able to get them some great TV spots on prime time national television for super cheap! That is, if NBC dares to duplicate its risky prime time NHL broadcast again next year.

Recently, Sam Leccima, a regional host of A&E’s popular show Flip This House was accused of fraud following a story by Atlanta television station WAGA.

In the story, Leccima is accused of “fixing up” houses on the program with shoddy or temporary repairs that looked good on camera but didn’t actually make the house any nicer or safer. The bigger issue though is how Leccima allegedly had his friends or family members pose as potential buyers to the “flipped” house, then “sold” the house to the buyer even though he didn’t own the house. The reaction from A&E was fast and predictable: all reruns of the program featuring Leccima were pulled and any references of him on the network’s website were removed. What’s interesting though is what Leccima claims A&E, and the production company Departure Films, knew about the scam he was pulling. In short, he claims they knew exactly what he was up to.

In an Associated Press report on the allegations, Leccima claims, “Ask anybody who works in television how a reality show is made and you’ll find that ours was a very typical approach.” Leccima is right in this assessment, and it once again exposes one of the pitfalls of reality programming: it’s not always as real as it seems. Fudging the truth for the sake of entertainment (and larger ratings) is no secret in the reality TV world. Whether it was “re-doing” contest scenes in Survivor or cleverly editing audio on any of the popular dating shows to make a suitor seem nicer or bitchier, production companies and networks know that 100% truth does not stream from the final product. The networks and production companies also shouldn’t expect that to change as a poll by TIME magazine in 2006 showed more than half of the respondents weren’t looking for honesty in their favorite shows anyways. In fact, only 25% of the respondents thought reality shows were almost entirely or completely fake.

But this story has an interesting twist, far more alarming than “did so-and-so do such-and-such behind the bushes in that one episode”. Leccima claimed in the program he was a successful Atlanta-area real estate investor. Problem is, he wasn’t licensed. In fact, his license was revoked by the Georgia Real Estate Commission in 2005, a full year before his episodes were aired. The reason for the revocation: he “does not bear a good reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, integrity, and competence.” These claims were made after several complaints were filed from investors who said Leccima stole their money. After Leccima’s episodes aired on A&E, his phone allegedly rang off the hook from potential investors who wanted to give money to a man who apparently could fix up anything. Basically, this program became an infomercial for an alleged crook.

That’s the biggest problem in this whole mess. Nevermind the smoke and mirrors Leccima allegedly pulled out for his shows, but look at the greater picture of how everyone turned a blind eye to this guy’s past for the sake of a network’s highly-rated program. Networks keep pumping out reality programming because it’s cheap to produce, often featuring “every day people” or unheard of hosts who are cheap to work with. There’s rarely an expensive set or pricey actors to deal with, so the network makes money hand over fist with high ad rates for the most popular programs.

But when the network can’t see the forest through the trees, and can’t do its diligent homework on who they’re showcasing on their network, the reality of promoting a con artist is too real and all too possible.