The Affari Edge Blog

“I would rather watch WWF than Criss Angel…they’re both fake but at least wrestlers bleed.”

“Criss Angel stole an hour of my life.”

“Chris Angel sucks.”

These were three of the new status updates I noticed when I checked up on some of my facebook friends this morning. If you aren’t familiar with status updates, they’re open ended sentences that users update to let others know what they’re doing/thinking. I awoke to a list of anti-Criss (sometimes “Chris”) Angel propaganda on the web this morning. Away messages, IMs and even more status updates raged about their disappointment with last night’s much-hyped stunt.

If somehow you missed it, Criss Angel ’starred’ in a live, hour-long special on A&E last night performing his newest stunt: escaping from a locked building in less than four minutes. Cameras were placed throughout the hotel to give viewers an inside look. The cameras showed Angel race through the building, but when the timer hit zero he was still inside. The building imploded and there was no trace of Angel. Miraculously, Angel walked from the rubble and great the crowd - not scratched, not bruised, not broken.

Right. It took the crowd I was with about three seconds to debunk the ‘illusion’. The popular belief is that Angel never actually ran through the building. That he escaped while viewers watched prerecorded B-roll footage of him running around a building. I found it insulting that Angel and all involved in the ‘trick’ (which felt more like a cop-out) actually believed Americans were stupid enough to believe he actually survived the explosion. In fact, yesterday’s TBT had an article that predicted this very outcome! Kudos.

In my opinion, the biggest story here is no the magic stunt, but the publicity stunt. This story was everywhere yesterday (especially here in Tampa since the stunt was performed across the bay in Clearwater). People gathered to watch the stunt, even though everybody knew the chances of Criss Angel being killed on live television were right next to impossible. I speculate that ratings were up - especially for A&E - and it’s safe to say that Criss Angel’s awareness level among the public has been elevated. The ultimate question, though, is: Is this publicity good publicity?

Sure, there are many who believe the old saying “any publicity is good publicity”, but, is that really true?. Is the negative reaction to this stunt supposed to help Angel sell more tickets in Vegas? Sure, because of yesterday I know that Angel has a 10 year, multi-million dollar deal to perform in Vegas, but at the same time I know there is no way I’ll pay to see him. I am more aware of Criss Angel (In fact, I know that his name is spelled “Criss” rather than “Chris”) now than ever before, but I am also more aware that I find him less credible as a magician.

This morning I heard a radio personality claim he wouldn’t be surprised if this stunt would discredit Criss Angel as a magician and ruin his career. Many message board posts that I read this morning were filled with disgruntled messages calling Angel “a cheat”, “a fake” and even ” coward”. A poll on tbo.com asked “How Did Criss Angel Do It?” with 75% of respondents selecting “He was never in the building. The guy in the building was a movie, like on ‘Scooby Doo’”.

Time will tell. The stunt definitely got people watching, talking, and yes, blogging. Despite a rather negative reaction, awareness and Criss Angel talk/banter is high. I just see the stunt as a missed opportunity. The reaction to the the stunt could have been the exact opposite had it been more believable and mystifying. They promised viewers gold and gave them a fancy ‘coin behind the ear’ trick. A quality act would have won many more fans and much more positive feedback. I’m curious to see what happens to his career from this point forward. For his sake, I hope his fans don’t pull a magic trick of their own and disappear. [ohhh burn]

When people think about the biggest day in advertising, they immediately think: Super Bowl. In the next 10-20 years, there may be some competition for the standard NFL Super Bowl. There is a new trend that is slowly emerging in the sports advertising scene that has been under the radar until the past couple years. What is this ‘new Super Bowl’ you may ask? Tune into FOX this Sunday at 3pm EST and find out for yourself.

Fox is eager to present the NASCAR Daytona 500 this Sunday. Considered by drivers, fans and sports writers alike as the ‘Super Bowl of NASCAR’, the Daytona 500 continues to draw attention. In fact, FOX sold out inventory for the event over two weeks ago (a record for the network).

It’s kinda funny when you think about it. If you asked the average American to list the top five most popular sports in America, you would probably expect the NFL, MLB, NCAA FB, and possibly the NBA and NHL before you would expect NASCAR. Surprising to some, NASCAR ranks second among most watched regular season sporting events.

The Daytona 500 isn’t your ‘typical’ Super-Bowl-esk broadcast in terms of audience. While the NFL Super Bowl doesn’t discriminate in terms of demographics, the “Daytona Bowl” reaches a good amount of a specialized audience. Many advertisers have been trying to tap the difficult to reach audience of M18-34. The viewership rating among this age group increased last year, and is supposed to increase again this year.

Why has the Daytona 500 become so huge over the past few years? Is it because of the increased hype from ESPN? Maybe the growing ad dollars are attracting a larger audience. I believe it has a lot to do with timing. Being a huge sports fan, I find this time of the year mostly depressing. Both NCAA and Pro football season are over, which is extremely hard for most American sports fanatics to stomach. The only major sports going on at the moment are pro/college basketball and the NHL (which are all in mid-season and experiencing declines in fan-ship).

Then, two-weeks into our Super Bowl hangover, we sports fans hear of a huge event in the American sports world. Something to hold us over until March Madness beings. The Daytona 500 Bowl. Nestled in a quiet Sunday afternoon, it poses a perfect opportunity to invite over some friends, grill out and enjoy one of America’s classic pastimes.

The numbers are there. FOX even sold out the QUALIFYING event last Sunday. Usually qualifying is aired on SPEED or some other cable station. This race airs the qualifying in prime the Sunday before. While there will always be critics who contest that the sport is one-dimensional and boring, there will also always be those die-hard fans who will continue to bring large numbers to the sport and it’s viewership.

I’m not claiming that the Daytona 500 is going to become what the Super Bowl is today. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it became something similar. With the inflow of huge dollars from major corporations, attention is sure to follow. I know exactly where THIS male 18-34 will be on Sunday with about ten other peers. The funny thing is, so do those huge advertisers…

FOX broadcasted the first half of a 4-hour series premiere for American Idol last night. With the second half of the premiere set to air tonight, individuals across America seem eager and excited for yet another season of the hit show. Already renowned as the #1 show in America, American Idol continues to draw large audiences, which in turn, bring large advertising budgets.

The rates aren’t getting any cheaper. An article from AdWeek.com claimed that certain sponsorships from Coca-Cola, Ford and AT&T are reaching prices upwards of $35 million. These packages include product placement along with some online and TV ads, too. While these rates may seem outrageous, there’s a possibility that these sponsors are getting an amazing deal…

Considering the timing of the premiere, American Idol is poised to have the most successful season ever. Being the 7th season, and considering that several of the past Idols haven’t really ‘panned-out’, one may expect the series to start seeing lower ratings and less public interest. The writer’s strike may be the best thing to happen in American Idol history. With reruns being broadcasted on other stations, FOX and A.I. are rumored to attract even more viewers than ever.

What does this mean for the nation’s top advertisers who rely on large audiences? Higher rates. Media buyers’ hands are tied here. How can you justify buying primetime space for re-runs when you can be reaching potentially larger audiences? Unfortunately for advertisers, FOX realizes this and continues to raise the rates.

Looks like that ‘Green’ campaign would have been better off with FOX rather than NBC….

You know the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for”? That saying is coming down hard on broadcast radio stations and the companies that own them in the form of Arbitron’s “portable people meter” (PPM). And I say, GOOD! This is what the money-grubbing robber-barons of the radio industry deserve! At this time I should point out after seven hard years of work at the Tampa Bay cluster of Clear Channel Radio, I was fired last September due to “budget cuts” so this post may be ripe with sarcasm. Less than two months after I was released because my paltry salary was dragging down the company’s line, Clear Channel agreed to go private with a $26.7 billion sale to Bain Capital Partners and Thomas H. Lee Partners.

In the never-ending search for more money, the radio industry (not just Clear Channel) demanded a new way of accounting for its listeners. For decades the industry had been using paper diaries from Arbitron to create ratings reports four times a year (two times a year in smaller markets). Several years ago I felt the diary method was extremely outdated, and that belief continues to this day simply because people are too busy with their lives to write down every station they listen to at all hours of the day. So several years ago Arbitron came up with the PPM, a beeper-like device that detects hidden tones in a station’s signal. The PPM basically is a live, as-is ratings report. Whether a person listens to one station for eight hours, or eight stations in one hour, the ratings can be accurately reported instead of hoping the diary holder can accurately recall which stations he/she listened to at the end of the day.

There’s no doubt about the real, underlying reason why stations wanted the PPM– MONEY! With accurate, real-time ratings stations would not only know the age and gender of the listener but the listener’s habits too. How many hours does a person listen to the radio? Exactly where are they listening at? Why does a person change the station or turn off the radio? By digging deeper in to ratings, stations could adjust their rate cards and charge more to advertisers because they would know precisely how long a listener is listening. But then an interesting thing happened… radio found out how long people were listening to the radio. And the news wasn’t all good.

In the first PPM report from Houston, Texas, the most shocking revelation was that fewer people listening to radio during the morning drive (6 a.m. to 10 a.m.) as opposed to ratings derived from diaries. The data also showed just as many people listened to nights (7 p.m. to midnight) as they did morning drive. Afternoon drive (3 p.m. to 7 p.m.) was the highest-rated drive time, while weekends were listened to more than indicated in paper diaries. If this data remains accurate, it will turn the radio world upside down in that it was commonly thought that the order of most listeners (from highest to lowest) was mornings, afternoons, evenings (weekends were typically “thrown out”, never really considered as viable data in determining rates).

In New York City, stations that ranked in the top 10 during diary days have slipped 10 to 15 spots in the rankings with the PPM. Some stations say a lack of representation in minority listeners is to blame for this. But as evidenced in an article from the New York Times, Arbitron senior vice president Tom Mocarsky cites radio listening among minorities has actually gone up 67% with use of the PPM over the diary. So what does this mean?

Well first of all, Arbitron needs to make sure they properly fill the quota for minority listeners. This is something I’m sure they will do since the future of the PPM requires extremely accurate data from all demographics. Second, it means the radio industry HAS to wake up sooner or later and realize people don’t listen to one station for a long time like they used to. With competition from the Internet, mp3 players, and CDs, radio has to give the average person a compelling reason to listen in the first place and to listen longer. Radio could also help itself out by not having so many similar formats. With so many crossover artists and tight playlists it’s hard to tell one station from another. Finally, you have to have live, local, and entertaining talent to get people to listen and to listen longer.

But these are bean counters we’re talking about, and they’ll ignore good programming while counting their beans and blaming the PPM results on some outside force. But by keeping their blinders on the bean counters are merely getting their just desserts.

* A follow-up to a previous entry of mine regarding casual dining outlets. Following Applebee’s new logo it appears other chains are also trying to pump up business in the sagging industry… with coupons! One analyst calls the move one of the worst things she’s seen in 14 years in the business. Check out the story from USA Today.

As the self-proclaimed office hippie, I felt it appropriate to contribute a post related to the ‘Green Movement’ currently sweeping the nation. Whether you like it or not, you have probably heard about the movement. Lately this campaign has been everywhere from movie theaters to website wallpapers. The expression ‘Think Green’ has been shoved down our throats so much that it has become a catch phrase in everyday conversations.

There has been a lot of controversy regarding the seemingly positive campaign. Is this campaign really a movement to clean up the earth and make our country a better place to live? Or are its critics correct when they point out the underlying hypocrisy of the movement’s promoters?

I don’t want to dig too deep into the politics involved in this debate. Accusations that Green Movement leaders - such as Al Gore - don’t necessarily practice what they preach are growing louder. Even caller’s on WFLA’s Schnitt Show ridiculed NBC for some of their ‘hypocritical’ promotions. Rather than spending time repeating these accusations, I’d like to explore this concept from a different angle; focusing on promotional strategies and advertising ethics.

One of the major supporters of this campaign has been NBC-Universal. Much of its programming has allowed time for personalities to discuss certain ‘green’ topics. If you watched Sunday Night Football last weekend, you witnessed a component of the Green is Universal campaign that is leaking its way into many media vehicles. The NBC icon was no longer multi-colored, but completely green. Personalities touched on certain energy saving techniques, drove traffic to the Green is Universal website and even demonstrated how much energy could be saved by turning off their set lights for a minute or so.

This blackout technique is one of the promotional elements that backfired on NBC. Instead of inspiring viewers to conserve their own energy, it made the TV programs seem hypocritical. Viewers asked why they should go out of their way to conserve energy when these TV sets were using ungodly amounts of energy. If you think about it - NBC was indirectly telling viewers to turn off their TV sets. In this sense, I don’t believe NBC really promoted the Green Campaign in an effective and inspiring way.

I read and heard several reviews that called NBC ‘hypocritical’, ‘uninspiring’ and ‘unwatchable’. I think it is really unfortunate that NBC is getting such negative feedback over this. In reality, they are promoting this movement to inspire some good. Maybe they are using huge amount of energy by broadcasting football games and other programming, but at least they are spending some of this camera time to promote a positive and proactive cause. Other stations have similar programming that does nothing more than entertain and sell products/services. NBC is incorporating a huge pro-bono campaign into its primetime schedule while other stations are just looking to improve ratings and ad income.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that NBC is a flawless company. I just don’t agree with the negative publicity that they have received over the past few days. In the end, they are backing a good cause. Whether they really believe in it, or if it’s simply a big PR stunt; the fact of the matter is they are promoting a positive movement. You may not agree with the specific messages they use, or the strategies they use to demonstrate them, but at the end of the day, the least you can do is respect them for their intentions and public service.

To check out the Green network online, go to www.greenisuniversal.com. You can check out the Green network, read up on the philosophy and even calculate how much energy you consume. I’d like to say that no trees were harmed in the production of this post, but I’m sure in some round-about way a scientist could disprove that statement.

Car makers are constantly looking for new ways to make their products more appealing to the public. While some use creative concepts and popular trends to impress viewers, other manufacturers use a more conservative approach.

It is no secret that the world of auto advertising is very diverse and cluttered. I have never been a big car buff, so I usually see through these commercials. I am not impressed by the spots with the new sports car that drives young and hip teens around town through all hours of the night. Nor do I care for the ridiculous truck demonstrations that show off the super powers of today’s new truck lines.

Yet, when I do catch a car commercial that impresses me, I am willing to give credit where credit is due. I personally believe it is one of the most difficult genres to advertise creatively. Once again for your viewing pleasure, here are my top auto commercials in no particular order:

This Toyota commercial is great. I have never seen in on TV, I actually saw this for the first time in one of my Intro to Advertising classes in college. I love the ‘human touch’ angle and the fact that they aren’t afraid to get a little cheesy. Good stuff!

This one really made me laugh. I saw it for the first time with one of my roommates. For those of you who don’t understand this reference, World of Warcraft (the game that this ad spoofs) is a very popular computer game. Hundreds of thousands of kids log on to this game daily and interact with each other. How do I know this? The very roommate who saw the commercial with me used to be one of these “WOW” addicts. There is also an episode of South Park that spoofed the video game. One of my personal favorite episodes by the way.

You have to love the art direction here. Using the car parts to create this concoction - great. Plus, who in their right mind doesn’t like concoctions? Seriously….

And finally, my favorite car commercial of all-time. There is no real reason why it’s my favorite - I’m actually not even a VW fan. It may have something to do with the peacefulness. Or possibly it’s the fact that I’m a Nick Drake fan and this song gets stuck in my head constantly. Nonetheless, this is the car commercial that has always stuck out to me.

I’m sure there are some great spots that I’ve left out. If you can think of any great auto ads, go find them and post them on the blog! I’m interested to see what’s out there that I’m missing!

Network television has taken another step towards releasing its content online, for free, and I like the sound of it. Thanks to a story at Forbes.com, I have been alerted that “Hulu’s Here”. In case you weren’t aware, Hulu (which sounds like the name of Uhura’s and Mr. Sulu’s space-aged love child) is the new Internet video service of NBC Universal. The site will feature full episodes of TV shows mostly from NBC and FOX, with programming from sister networks such as F/X, The Sci-Fi Channel, and USA. According to the article, you won’t just be able to get most of the programming from those channels, you’ll also be able to get TV classics such as WKRP in Cincinnati (one of my all-time favorites) and the Mary Tyler Moore Show. Movies from several studios, such as Sideways and The Breakfast Club, will also be available.

Even though the service is free, there is a price to pay. Unlike content on YouTube, there will be the occasional commercial messages on Hulu. Once you start playing a selection, a banner ad will be featured at the top of the screen (unless you select the “full screen” viewing option). Brief commercial breaks will appear about every 22 minutes, and like most network-driven online content today a quick commercial at the beginning or end of the broadcast will appear. And apparently the “overlay ad”, those annoying ads that just glide across your computer screen with a cleverly-concealed “close” tab will show up from time to time.

Despite the commercial interruptions, I think most web viewers will ignore (or at least put up with) the commercials. Banner ads, while not as annoying as the old-fashioned pop-up ad, are everywhere on the internet any way. And network television (cable networks included) invade the screen with overlay promos for upcoming shows on a regular basis. I think they do it too often, but over the past few years I feel most people have gotten over the intrusion (except when it covers up a graphic pertaining to the show like a chyron… I hate that). What is conspicuously missing from the Hulu “about us” page is any mention of advertising which I feel is a bit misleading to the consumer who isn’t totally clued in.

I’m also a little miffed at the service in general simply because following a press conference announcing its launch, and the nice pub from Forbes, the site isn’t ready yet. After signing up for the beta test version, the only e-mail I’ve received from Hulu is that yes indeed I signed up for Hulu. But even with the delay I’m curious about a couple of things regarding how successful Hulu can be.

Louis Hau, who penned the article about the site, seems to wonder if Hulu will be as big as YouTube. To me, I don’t think it has to be. In fact, I know it won’t be. But that shouldn’t make anyone think Hulu will be a disaster in the making. Hulu will be the only legal place streaming shows from NBC and Fox, and the other networks I mentioned earlier. If a niche audience is willing to go out of its way to watch an episode of Monk or My Name is Earl, than the advertiser is being taken directly to the person it wants to reach during a regular network broadcast. YouTube may have 2.5 million views of Chris Crocker crying about Britney Spears (sadly, it does), but who’s watching that garbage? Even if ONE show on Hulu has one-percent of that audience (25,000 viewers if you weren’t a math major), that’s 25,000 potential clients exposed to whomever advertises on that stream. And Hulu is unique in that unlike YouTube it will NOT accept user-generated material. The reason is simple: the minds at Hulu don’t want crap on their website. And you have to admit that 98% of the original, user-generated video on YouTube is indeed crap.

Finally, what really intrigues me is how a site like Hulu will affect the DVD market. Nowadays it’s cool to have seasons one through ten of The Simpsons on DVD, taking up valuable space on your entertainment center but showing your friends you’re a fan and you have enough disposable income to buy all of those box sets. But what if one day you could stream all of those episodes, and still get the bonus goodies that sell most DVDs today? Keep in mind just ten years ago people used to show off CD collections with towers of discs in their living rooms. Then came Napster, which begat Kazaa, which begat Apple iTunes. Who shows off stacks of CDs in their jewel cases any more? For 99 cents a song you build your library on a chip in you mp3 player.

So I’m still waiting for my personal “invitation” from Hulu that says they’re ready for me. I’m ready for them and I’m curious how eager the rest of the world is ready for a similar service.

While scanning today’s edition of The New York Times, I came across a rather interesting article regarding a whole new look for casual dining chain Applebee’s. In an attempt to pump up sagging sales, Applebee’s is launching a whole new ad campaign featuring the voice of comedienne Wanda Sykes as the company’s “spokesapple”. The spots, part of Applebee’s annual $180-million ad budget, features a feisty apple convincing people who are eating alone to get together with friends and family at Applebee’s for a meal. But the chain isn’t just stopping there. The entire chain will undergo a renovation in terms of a new logo, new uniforms, new building designs, and an upgrade on interior decorating.

Now at first I have to give Applebee’s some props for this massive public relations overhaul. Their recent ad campaigns, under former agency Draft FCB (Applebee’s is now with McCann Erickson) didn’t make the chain stand out from other casual dining chains such as TGI Friday’s or Chili’s. And with the economy to blame mostly for slumping sales (higher gas prices and a shaky housing market means less disposable income for the family to eat out), why not shake things up with a new look and a new feel to remind customers you still exist.

I also have to commend Applebee’s on how it has built up to this weekend’s unveiling of the ad campaign by taking out a full-page ad in USA Today on October 9th, directing readers to a website featuring “tryouts” by other types of apples for the Sykes apple that was eventually chosen. Applebee’s then allowed the videos to spread virally through websites such as YouTube to create a buzz. With Applebee’s wisely buying commercial time during TV programs such as “Desperate Housewives” and “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”, the chain is hitting it’s target audience– the moms of these families who ultimately decide where the family will eat.

But the biggest problem I have with Applebee’s has nothing to do with the new ad campaign or the refreshed logo and look of the place. To me, it all comes down to the food. Now maybe it’s because I’m a 30-year-old man and I don’t play on the emotional pull of “Together is Good”, but for a place like Applebee’s I’m just thinking about what I’m getting to eat. To me, a basket of boneless chicken wings at Applebee’s will taste just as good (or bad) as the same order of boneless chicken wings from Chili’s, TGI Friday’s, Ruby Tuesday’s, or Bennigan’s. With all of these aforementioned chains offering essentially the same line of food (burgers, chicken, sandwiches, fattening appetizers, and 2-for-1 drafts), there’s just no good reason for me to select one over the other. And most importantly, and this is what kills casual chains from the male point of view, I can think of several local or regional restaurants here in the Tampa Bay area (such as Tank’s Tap Room or Beef O’ Brady’s) who offer food that taste BETTER than a national chain and cost just about as much.

Applebee’s isn’t too worried about the smaller restaurants, rather it’s the fast food giants who have helped dragged down the casual dining market a bit. MacDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s, now offer healthier top-end choices along with their traditional greasy burgers. Kentucky Fried Chicken (trying to wean itself from the “KFC” moniker) is trumping how their low-priced combo meals are in fact meals and not fast food. Sister company Pizza Hut claims their family meals of pizza and bread sticks, or big servings of pasta, cures all ills when it comes to cooking for the family.

So it’s going to take more than just a new look and an altered menu for Applebee’s to pull ahead of the crowded, yet lucrative, casual dining market. Bennigan’s plays up the Irish pub angle (although as an Irishman I’m not buying it) while TGI Friday’s plays up the “flair” card with wacky outfits and drink specials. Red Lobster cornered the chain seafood market while Olive Garden snagged the middle-class Italian market. Applebee’s will have to come up with something creative with their cuisine, not their logo, to really make the other apples in the casual dining bunch look like oranges.

There are tons of stories floating through cyberspace about how television network news is dead. While the ratings for network television news have declined sharply over the past several years, the forum for the 30-minute nighttime newscast is hardly dead in America. However, the television networks know that in order to keep the younger end of the crucial 25-54 demographic interested in the network news, especially the tech-savvy 18-34-year-old crowd, a little reinventing of the wheel needs to be done.

Now I’m not saying the wheel is network news broadcasts themselves. Networks have tried over and over again during the past few years to bump up ratings by changing hosts such as CBS and NBC have done, or by switching to a two-host system which ABC tried briefly in 2006 before Bob Woodruff was seriously injured while reporting in Iraq. I’m talking about “the wheel” as network newscasts on line.

Up until now a network’s website, which was heavily promoted throughout the newscast, featured repackaged news segments. Basically the website served as a dumping ground for features you may have missed or would like to see again. But that begs the question, if you didn’t see the feature the first time around are you really inclined to go searching a website for it? It’s the old “tree in the forest” adage at play here. If you’re not watching the network news in the first place, are you going to go out of your way to find a network news feature on the network’s website? Probably not, and I highly doubt anyone has been so moved by a network news feature recently they e-mailed all of their friends and said, “You’ve got to see this piece on Medicare from NBC!”

ABC News is trying to change that, and I love their approach detailed in this article from the New York Times. ABC’s internet webcast, titled simply “World News”, features regular ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson as host (most of the time). What’s unique about this though is Gibson merely isn’t cuing up eight or nine feature already shown on the ABC World News report that night. Instead, this 15-minute webcast features stories shot by the ABC News staff specifically for the webcast. What’s really interesting to me is how these stories are presented.

Jason Samuels, the senior producer of the webcast, takes a fresh approach to presenting the news to a generation of people whose lives don’t fit the network television schedule like generations past.

“I don’t have to count the seconds,” he said. “I just try to put in a good show that’s around 15 minutes. Do one long stand-up, do much longer sound bites, play an interview,” he said, summing up his advice to the staff. “Produce a story in any way you think is engaging — there are no rules.”

That right there sums up EXACTLY what network news programs have to do with their online content. Break all of the rules– the same rules that have been dragging down network news ratings for more than 20 years now. Reporters aren’t tied to 90-second or 2-minute packages, and unlike most newscasts stories aren’t bogged down with network promos masquerading as news stories or celebrity gossip. And staples of newscasts from the past, or newsmagazine shows prior to Chris Hansen busting one pervert after another, in-depth interviews are featured.

My favorite part of this webcast is the lack of commercials. There’s only one commercial, 15 seconds long, at the start of the webcast. After that, it’s laid out for convenience. The webcast on October 11, 2007, was a mere 16:27 long, and starts with updated headlines. The remaining 14 minutes starts with Gibson giving “signposts” to upcoming stories. Those same signposts are featured underneath the video player screen. Not only are there no commercial interruptions, you know exactly what you will get in that newscast, something someone my age (soon to be 30) appreciates greatly. Instead of dressing up reporters, sets, or story ideas with 53-year-old adults trying to look hip, ABC manages to deliver the news straight and without the bells and whistles others in the past have tried.

The big question is, will the coveted 18-34-year-old crowd actually tune in on a regular basis? To date, ABC averages 4.5 million downloads of the World News webcast per month. That averages to only about 150,000 a day, or roughly the amount of households watching a major market local newscast on any given night. ABC has a great product here, but the trick is to tell those 18-34-year-olds who don’t watch the network news on a regular basis to actually sign on and listen to a guy they probably remember as the host of Good Morning America 15 years ago.

One of my all time favorite pastimes is college football. There’s just something about the atmosphere, the competition and the buzz it creates every Fall that gets me excited! Of coarse, when it’s football season, I am in my super sports fan state of mind. I watch as many games as possible, constantly hit sports web sites and chat it up with other fans on a pretty constant basis.

I had a conversation yesterday with one of my best friends whom I talk college football with daily. We were talking about college sports betting and he sent me a link to an article about sports betting in today’s society. The article suggested there be a SportsCenter-like show on ESPN that talked solely about game lines and sports bets. I replied, “anything but the same programming running over and over again reporting the same news every hour,” when it hit me. ESPN is in the middle of what I call ‘The MTV Effect’.

The MTV Effect is a new wave movement in television programming that happens slowly over time. We all remember when MTV was MTV - music television. Music countdowns, endless videos and Matt Pinfield (now that’s music television). Now it’s nearly impossible to squeeze a video in between The Hills and the two millionth episode of The Real World. Still, the station is successful, but as most of the old-school MTV fans would agree, MTV has officially ’sold out’ and turned its back on what it really was meant to be.

Now, I’m not saying that ESPN has reached a stage as severe as MTV, but I definitely foresee ESPN taking the same steps. For example, ESPN has aired several reality shows such as The Contender and Dream Job. As a huge sports fan, it is my opinion that this is not the programming that I want to see on ESPN. I could tolerate it if they had these programs on a separate ESPN channel - even running them on ESPN 2 would be fine with me, but running these reality shows (and sitcoms such as The Bronx Is Burning) during prime ESPN hours is unbearable. Honestly, who watched The Bronx Is Burning besides Yankees fans?

ESPN started as a fair, balanced sports broadcasting channel that reported sports news, scores and highlights. Anchors used to be reporters who actually reported the news in an entertaining way - periodically throwing in jokes, one-liners and catch phrases.

Now, many of the personalities on ESPN are sports reporters. Normally, this wouldn’t be an issue, but the sports reporters that are actually on the air don’t report - they preach their opinions and tell viewers what to think and believe - the objective view is gone. If an athlete isn’t very cooperative with the sports media, he/she will most likely be bashed on sports programming. Barry Bonds is the perfect example. His standoffish way of cooperating with the media eventually led to his demise. Once they got a whiff of steroid allegations, they crucified him. Bonds will go down as one of the greatest homerun hitters of all time, but thanks to the sports media (especially ESPN), he will be most remembered as a ‘cheater’.

Even ESPN’s programming has taken a biased approach at delivering the news. If it’s baseball season, the entire country will only hear about 4 of the 30 teams: the Yankees (NY), Mets(NY), Red Sox (Boston) and Cubs (Chi). (Notice any coincidence in those three cities?) Regardless if these teams are 20 games under .500 or 20 games ahead in the pennant race, they will get more publicity and screen time than any other team. The same goes for every other sport - ESPN only cares about who is popular. ESPN would rather air a 10 minute segment on the shading and pigmentation of the Green Monster’s paint job than spend 15 seconds showing two highlights from a White Sox/Indians game.

There’s ESPNU (that broadcasts college sports), ESPN News (that’s 24/7 news) and ESPN 2 (that seems to only broadcast poker these days). I suggest they create ESPN Bandwagon. This is where the SportCenter that plays 20 times a day should be broadcasted. Ratings would be through the roof in all of the major markets like New York, Boston, Chicago and LA. Then ESPN’s SportsCenter would actually be able to make time to show highlights of every game instead of mentioning the rest of the scores during the last 5 minutes.

Maybe I’m just bitter because I saw a similar change happen to MTV. Maybe I don’t want to cross ESPN off of my favorite channels list. Maybe I’m tired of staring at the scored on the ‘BottomLine’ to get my sports news. It’s just disappointing that ESPN has gone mainstream and left fans across the country in the dark. The MTV Effect has already begun at ESPN. Maybe I’ll write the programming director a letter asking for a ESPN Nick to launch in 2008…