The Affari Edge Blog

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…

While killing some time during a lunch break, I stumbled across an interesting column from ESPN’s Pat Forde regarding the antics of two college football coaches at press conferences. The first came from Oklahoma State head coach Mike Gundy, who spent several minutes ripping into a columnist for The Oklahoman after she wrote a column regarding the toughness of OSU’s starting quarterback Bobby Reid. The second story referred to Navy head coach Paul Johnson challenging an unnamed fan (and indirectly the reporter who asked the question) to come to his house and talk football, or find one instance in the past four years where Johnson praised his coaching ability when the team won. If someone could do that, he would kiss the person’s butt at city dock.

With the overzealousness of both coaches at their individual press conferences, it’s easy to see why Forde would be upset with what both gentlemen did. Gundy spent a considerable amount of time ripping into the columnist instead of praising his team in beating a tough Texas Tech team. Johnson got a little graphic when trying to deflect the thought that when Navy wins he pats himself on the back and when they lose he blames the kids. Throughout the column, Forde brings up several good points including the double-edged sword of praising and criticizing a player in the media, calling out coaches who claim they don’t read or listen to the local media (trust me, they do), and asking for a little more professionalism from coaches in a public forum such as a scheduled press conference. The problem with Forde’s criticism is while he makes some very valid points, the company he is working for (ESPN) is making what Forde is criticizing perfectly acceptable.

In it’s 28 years of existence, ESPN has turned the sound bite or the incredible piece of video footage into a sportscasting art form. When it comes to coaches losing their top, ESPN has seen its fair share of antics. And I know this because ESPN KEEPS SHOWING THESE ANTICS OVER AND OVER AGAIN! Whether it’s former Dallas Cowboys‘ coach Bill Parcells leaving a press conference regarding Terrell Owens in a huff, former Indianapolis Colts‘ head coach Jim Mora snarkingly screaming, “PLAYOFFS?!?” when his team was in a tailspin several years ago, or Tampa Bay Lightning head coach John Tortorella claiming the idea one of his defensemen purposely injured the opposition’s defensemen as, “BULLS–T!”, ESPN doesn’t mind showing an expletive-laden press conference when one comes along. And it’s not just press conferences.

Sometimes, a coach just melts down, like Asheville Tourists manager Joe Mikulik did in 2006, or Mississippi Braves manager Phillip Wellman did in 2007. Hal McRae has thrown telephones, Lou Piniella has launched bases, and even the usually even-tempered Roger Nielson once through a stick on the ice because he didn’t like a penalty called against his Philadelphia Flyers. The grand master of all meltdowns is Bobby Knight, who could single-handedly have an ESPN show devoted just to his blowups in the 40 years he has coached college basketball. As big of a sports fan as I am, I didn’t just think up of these legendary mental lapses in judgment– I saw them on ESPN (or other sports highlight shows and networks to be fair to ESPN).

But in today’s culture, and really since the early 1990s, showing these meltdowns as “highlights” only adds to the problem. The videos have never been shown to teach someone a lesson, or to get the idea across that “this is a bad idea folks”. Instead they were lampooned and laughed at, and we the viewers laughed along. Along with the coaches going bananas we were treated to football players doing silly end zone dances, bench-clearing brawls in baseball, and wackier attempts at dunking a basketball in the NBA and NCAA. With the endless looping of these “highlights” the idea of showing how a team won or lost a game has turned into how one guy said, “LOOK AT ME!” louder than anyone else in the game. ESPN is not the only guilty party in this issue, but it has certainly led the way the past 15 or 20 years. And if anyone doubts me, please remember ESPN once put together a Top 10 video list of the biggest coaching meltdowns for crying out loud.

Whether or not you agree with Forde is not the issue here. The issue is Forde is panning something ESPN profits on. More outrageous moments in sports, especially in a controlled environment like a press conferences, equals higher ratings which leads to higher ad revenue. In the crystal-clean Disney World ESPN lives in, it actually pays to be nasty. And in a world like that, a guy like Forde needs to realize he falling on a double-edged sword when he tells coaches to behave better in public.

I sat down last week to write about the new show Kid Nation, but honestly, I didn’t know what to write about. I began ranting on what I did and didn’t like about the program, but I felt more like a critic writing a column than an ad professional writing a blog. The truth is, I really don’t know how to react to the new show that I was so excited to see a week ago.

From an advertising stand-point, I don’t really know how to react about the prime time opportunity. The show seems like it will draw a very interesting audience. After receiving very mixed reviews last week, I am eager to see if the show gets better and draws steady numbers, or if it fizzles out and crashes within weeks. I noticed the premiere show had limited commercial breaks making me wonder just how much inventory NBC actually sold. An interesting trend that I’ve seen on blog sites and article message boards is some popularity among younger demographics. Many message board replies read something similar to “my 11 year old and I loved it”. This suggests that the show may have found an interesting niche demo - parents and their children (or especially mothers and children). I haven’t had a chance to research any hard, statistical data that confirms this, but from what I’ve seen thus far, this seems to be a basic profile of who will watch this show every week.

After watching the first episode, I expect that I’ll tune in again this week. The social experiment that the show is molded around is still quite interesting to me. However, I noticed something in the very first episode the kinda of ruined it for me. As is true with any experiment, all variables should be controlled in order to maintain the experiment’s validity. There were two problems I had with the way the show/experiment was run.

First, claiming the children were on their own with no direction or adult supervision is a bit ridiculous. I don’t really believe that the children are not given a helping hand by the adults in the production - in fact, I’ve read accusations that many of the lines were spoon-fed to the children by the production team. I understand how promoting a show with “40 kids, zero adults” makes the premise more appealing and interesting, I just don’t completely buy the notion that the children are completely independent.

To be honest, I’m not really too upset about this first issue. What really ruined the first episode for me was the ending. In each episode, one of the 40 kids is selected to win the “gold star” worth $20,000. Before the star was mentioned or explained to the kids, everyone acted like their true selves - older kids were cocky, stuck up girls were self centered and the kids told the town leaders exactly how they felt. Once the star was given away and explained, the kids didn’t care about anything but the money, and previews from future episodes show kids who were not the ‘ideal citizens’ in the first episode who seem to be highly motivated now. Unfortunately, it seems like money and greed are going to play major roles in this society instead of team work, leadership and genuine friendship.

Last week, I created a lot of buzz for the show among my peers and friends. Many of them tuned in and watched the first episode and their feedback was mostly negative. Many of them didn’t even finish watching the show, claiming the children were “annoying” and “hard to take seriously”. Many of the individuals I talked to claimed they would rather watch reality TV with more drama, which in turn led me to assume they preferred older personalities and participants (such as those found on The Real World).

I am looking forward to this weeks episode and reading more reviews after a second show has aired. I think I will continue watching throughout the season, as long as the experiment doesn’t get much more ‘contaminated’ by outside sources. The extra adults and the $20,000 bribes really made me question the show’s integrity. Hopefully some new storylines arise and some twists and turns come up. I already expect some of the town leaders will be impeached in the coming episodes. I foresee Michael, Greg and Sophia rising to the occasion and possibly taking over the town before it’s said and done.

I started seeing the TV commercials a couple of months ago. Slightly overweight, slightly older men, doing what men do (watching football, barbecuing, etc.). The voice-over guy comes on to say, “Gusto is back” as the beer that made Milwaukee famous, Schlitz, is back.

I’m a self-confessed beer snob. I buy those micro-brew India Pale Ales, pricey double-bocked German lagers, and spiced pumpkin ales during the winter. Quite a turnaround from my college days of ten years ago where a 12-pack of Miller Lite for $6.99 was just fine for me. I’m not the only beer snob in my family or circle of friends, but I’m one of the few who doesn’t mind a good old-fashioned blue-collar beer every now and then. And for me, now is a good time to like those beers.

Blue-collar beers are making a comeback. Born in upstate New York, Genesee Cream Ale is my poor man’s poison of choice. Further north you’ll find Black Label and Narragansett returning to store shelves. In the Midwest it’s Old Style and Falstaff joining the legions of cans of Old Milwaukee and Pabst Blue Ribbon. So why the sudden influx of these less-than-finely hand-crafted brews once thought dead in the 1980s? Well, there’s a number of reasons, and the first is money.

The cost of living is higher, and salaries and wages aren’t necessarily following the trend. What’s a beer drinker to do? If you absolutely have to have some beer in your fridge, you can’t splurge $13 or $14 every week for a 12-pack of the usual micro-brew stuff. Especially since a 12-pack of Genesee (bottles OR cans!) is just $7 after taxes. But the money aspect has more than the economy on its side. Most beer drinkers start drinking when they’re 15 or 16, or if you’re good you at least wait until college to start. If you’ve been through college you know some times you only have $20 a week to spend on groceries and other necessities, so in comes the cheap beer and that special micro-brew beer will just have to wait until you get a job. Besides, who wants pumpkin ale with Ramen noodles?

With such a young base of drinkers looking for cheap stuff, beer that’s even cheaper than the college-standard Miller Lite and Budweiser, major breweries have an incredible fan base to tap with these old names. And this generation of young folks, with their i-pods and blogs, has no shame in dabbling in historic stuff. Retro is in, as evidenced by sports teams bringing back jerseys and logos from 50 years ago or movies like Transformers getting made into summer blockbusters. So it would make sense for a tried and true brand like Schlitz, to return to the market with this new generation of consumers eager to snatch it up like all those other “retro beers”. But here lies the problem: Schlitz’s ad campaign says everything BUT that.

I passed by a billboard today advertising Schlitz. Besides the usual “Gusto is Back” campaign, I saw the line, “Gentlemen under 55 need not apply”. I nearly drove off the road in shock to the campaign. While most of Schlitz’s hardcore drinkers probably are 55 or older, why would Schlitz (brewed by the Pabst Brewing Company) go out of its way to discourage 20 or 30-somethings from drinking their product? Does Schlitz really think there is a line in the sand, daring younger people to cross to try their brew? I’m not seeing it. And maybe it’s because at 29 (and very soon to be 30) I have no desire to be my father’s age (very soon to be 65). I look forward to my older, senior years, but when I reach them! Not now while I’m still young, spry, and able to weight lift in the morning without throwing my back out.

I’m not even sure Schlitz is sure at who they’re going after. One trip to the Schlitz page at the Pabst Brewing website shows this confusing description of what Schlitz is:

Schlitz is one of the undiscovered gems of American beer and today, young adult consumers are embracing the brew because it has stayed true to itself and hasn’t “sold out”. When you’re ready to discover something new (or old in this case), reach for a Schlitz and see what we mean when we say it’s “Just the Kiss of Hops”.

First, this sounds like something painfully written by a 46-year-old guy pretending to be 16. Young adult consumers are embracing Schlitz because it hasn’t “sold out”?!? NO THEY’RE NOT! THEY’RE EMBRACING IT BECAUSE IT’S CHEAP! This curious description of the beer undercuts the current ad campaign. Young adult consumers are embracing the beer, but Schlitz doesn’t want anyone under 55 to enjoy it? This ad campaign is further undercut by the website Schlitz then sends you to.

Go ahead, click on the “advertising” link. Amongst the collection of classic and new Schlitz ad campaigns, old-timey background music is playing. Now I like classical jazz and big band music, but some of this stuff is MUCH older than 55 years old. I’d be willing to venture some of this music is 70 or 80 years old, which would make the majority of Schlitz’s target audience DEAD.

The ad campaign still confuses me, and the conflicting messages on the billboards and the websites confuses me even more. Perhaps it’s as simple as Pabst targeting Schlitz for older drinkers while keeping Pabst Blue Ribbon securely in the hands of younger drinkers. If that’s the case, that’s a smart business move by Pabst. But in terms of advertising, I think Schlitz is missing the boat here. While the baby boomer generation is growing into the largest consumer demo in the nation, a perfect audience for Schlitz, excluding the younger crowd will likely make Schlitz a dinosaur again in 10 or 15 years.

One of the few network TV shows I’m looking forward to is a FOX creation called “Back to You” starring Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton. My main interest in the show comes from wondering if it will be based on true stories or situations from TV news rooms, much like “Frasier” and “WKRP in Cincinnati” had some truth to the hilarious plot lines. Whether the show is actually funny and entertaining is yet to be seen though, as some people are hoping this sit-com can save the sit-com genre.

In an interesting article at Forbes.com, “Back to You” producer Christopher Lloyd (no relation to the actor) lays out why sit-coms have suffered in the ratings and in the general interest of the public over the past few years. Lloyd hits one component of this fall from grace right on the head: sit-coms became cookie-cutter shows in the late 90s and early part of this decade. Thanks to the success of NBC’s “Friends” and “Seinfeld”, and ABC’s “The Drew Carey Show” in the mid 90s, the stereotypical loser main character and his/her friends would sit around a coffee house/diner/bar and complain about their lives. One or two wacky jokes or plot twists would make the 22-minute shows entertaining and ratings winners for years. Then came the impostors: “Caroline in the City”, “Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place”, and the rather forgettable “It’s Like, You Know…”. Add to the fact that numerous sit-coms earlier this decade featured role players spun off from hit comedies (Jason Alexander, Michael Richards, Matt LeBlanc) the sit-com over-saturation was bound to collapse as the TV drama experienced a revival (CSI, Cold Case, the various spin-offs of “Law & Order”).

But it goes much deeper than just over-saturation, and Lloyd hints at this point here. It all comes down to great writing and character development. “Friends”, “Seinfeld”, and “The Drew Carey Show” all featured distinctly (and no exactly stereotypical) different personalities in situations you or I have been in before (or know of someone who has been in that situation). While the situation may have turned out differently for us in the real world, on TV it either comes out all good in the end or leaves us hanging for the next episode or next season.

Lloyd points out that the “new comedy” approaches of single-camera TV isn’t necessarily the answer to the problem, and he’s right. While comedy shows such as “My Name is Earl” or “The Office” feature a different style of comedy, it still comes down to writing and character development. We all know someone like Jason Lee’s Earl character, or his ex-wife Joy played by Jaime Pressly. We also all work with someone like Steve Carell’s character Michael or Rainn Wilson’s Dwight on “The Office”. Humor and personalities we can relate to is a winner. That’s why shows like CBS‘ “Everybody Loves Raymond” and ABC’s “According to Jim” hung around so long.

I can’t say if “Back to You” will be a hit, or the default “savior” of network comedies, but the writers of the show and other new comedies can take a lesson from current hit network comedy shows and from history. I already mentioned “Earl” and “The Office”, but even “The Simpsons”, “Family Guy”, and more and more “American Dad” manage to make the audience laugh, think, and feel despite the fact they are adult cartoons. And the sit-com has been through this routine before. Everyone thought it was dead in the early 90s when the success of “The Cosby Show”, “Family Ties”, and “Growing Pains” led to a glut of feel-good family-friendly shows. But with “Friends” especially, and the maturity of “Seinfeld” and the quirkiness of “The Drew Carey Show”, network sit-coms were refreshed with new ideas that were vastly different from the kid-tested, mother-approved programs of the 80s.

With a few new ideas in 2007 and 2008, the sit-com can be revived simply because in times like these America needs a good laugh.

It is already getting a lot of buzz - both good and bad - but nonetheless, Kid Nation is poised to be one of the Fall’s most popular new shows.

Even though there are multiple reports highlighting controversy behind the new show, I am very excited for the first episode on September 19. Adults across the nation are speaking out against the show - claiming that the concept is dangerous and unethical. In addition, many critics are blaming the network for luring participants with the $20,000 prize.

I personally don’t understand what all of the commotion is about. If this show would have come about ten years ago, I would volunteer for it in a heartbeat! Winning the $20,000 prize wouldn’t even be a concern of mine - I would do the show for free, just for the experience. It’s like a super-exclusive summer camp where you get to interact and coincide with children across the country - not to mention the extraordinary opportunity to grow and mature and an individual. I guarantee majority of the children benefited from the experience and are much more open and assertive in their everyday lives because of it. I view the show as more of a leadership training camp rather than the child labor camp that some critics are relating it to (which is ridiculous in my opinion).

To me, it is way too early to criticize the show the way many people have. The most anyone has seen is the trailer which features four minutes of the season. Accusations of child labor have already come up - even though the children were voluntarily taking part in the show - and were permitted to leave at any time. Sure, the trailer makes it sound as if the children are completely on their own in the middle of an old deserted town, but do people really think CBS is that irresponsible? Of course the network took the proper safety measures to ensure that the children were in no danger. In fact, even some of the dialog in the trailer sounds somewhat scripted and too mature for children of these ages. It’s Hollywood, it’s drama, it’s what makes reality TV so successful in prime time.

To address certain accusations regarding the careless procedures of the show, creator Tom Forman issued a statement that read, “These kids were in good hands and were under good care with procedures and safety structures that arguably rival or surpass any school or camp in the country.”

The show was a voluntary commitment that offered a once in a lifetime opportunity to children who were interested in a unique life experience. Sure, the experience isn’t for everyone. Certain children rely heavily on their parents, friends and familiar lifestyles. But there are many children who seek adventure and change. I envy the children who had the opportunity to star in the show. I mean how often do you get the chance to join/create a society in which everyone starts on a level playing field? You govern yourselves, and you work together to create a society that thrives and operates in harmony. Giving these children the chance to take risks and coordinate such a project probably inspired them (and taught them) more than any school (or camp) project could.

Whether you view it as a cruel exploitation of children, great entertainment, or just a simple sociological experiment - Kid Nation is sure to make an impact during the Fall television schedule. I already have my day planner marked for the 8 o’clock hour on September 19. I will wait to pass judgment on the show and the network until I have actually seen Kid Nation, rather than jump the gun and throw it under the bus before a single episode has aired.

Now I have to admit, I’m not a big fan of fast food these days. At least, I’m not as big of a fan now as I was about 10 years ago. You see, I was really big because of all that fast food so I’ve practically cut it out of my diet. Now I eat fast food only when I have prepared no food and don’t plan on eating anything at home for several hours. And when I do eat fast food, it’s typically a burger with no fries and a water– something to hold me over for a few hours and not fill me up.

With that said, I am still amazed at how one of the fast food giants is missing the boat when it comes to advertising and customer loyalty. In 2004, Wendy’s, the longtime #3 restaurant chain in the fast food wars, was finally catching up to second-ranked Burger King in sales. The main reason for this increase? According to reports that summer, Wendy’s healthier, adult-themed fare was selling better than greasy cheeseburgers from Burger King. Keep in mind 2004 was the year of the Atkins diet, when fast food chains scurried to offer healthier fare in hopes of keeping carb-minded customers coming through the doors and drive-thrus.

But unlike their competitors, Wendy’s had the distinct advantage of already having salads, baked potatoes, chili, and other alternatives to the fast food menu when the carb craze hit. For years Wendy’s had positioned itself as the “adult” fast food place thanks to folksy founder Dave Thomas‘ appearance in their ads until his death in 2001. Thomas’ whole idea behind Wendy’s was to make a tastier, better, and fresher burger than McDonalds, Burger King, White Castle, and other chains that exploded in popularity in the 1960s. Even after Thomas’ death, the folksy feel and laid back atmosphere of cheap but good burgers and fries drew in older customers who didn’t like the noise or grease of a McDonalds or Burger King. Then, a few funny things happened.

The carb craze died in 2005, and fast food customers went back to their old ways of purchasing double quarter-pounders with cheese and salty grease-laiden fries from the Golden Arches. Burger King rolled out the “Enormous Monstrous Sandwich” for breakfast, an egg, cheese, and bacon concoction that amazingly was unhealthier than a Whopper. Sales at Wendy’s plummeted, and ownership panicked. So what to do? Wendy’s made the big blunder (in my opinion) of trying to go after the big boys and their 18-34 year-old consumers, while dumping the older customers who liked the folksy experience of Wendy’s.

Wendy’s launched the “Do What Tastes Right” campaign centered around the instrumental portion of the Violent Femmes‘ 1981 hit “Blister in the Sun”. That will CERTAINLY get 18-34 year-olds to buy the burgers! Eh… wrong. Perhaps it was Wendy’s selection of a song about masturbation that turned these youngsters off, but it didn’t work. Sales remained stagnant as Wendy’s went with a new ad campaign, and a new ad agency, going with the “Wendy’s, That’s Right” pitch. The pitch goes back to basics in advertising “fresh, not frozen” hamburger patties which has always been a strong sales point for decades. But the TV commercials feature a grown man wearing a red wig (like Wendy… get it?) doing bizarre things like kicking trees or playing the role of an aborigine when he realizes he wants a fresh hamburger.

In some aspects the commercial is doing well in it’s attempts to get sales going in the stores. Wendy’s recently reported a modest second-quarter gain, yet in April it announced it was looking for a buyer, and in June it lowered its earnings outlook. To me it all comes down to advertising. The new ads are quirky, and are a hit on the internet where most 18-34 year-olds gather these days. But it seems to me Wendy’s has overlooked the older consumer (we’ll just say 35+ for demographic purposes) who doesn’t want the quirkiness of a 20-something lifestyle mixed in with his or her burger. They want what Wendy’s has always given them– a better, tastier burger than what McDonalds or Burger King can offer. No Happy Meals, no goofy big-headed king dancing to his BBQ Bacon Burger concoction, just a damn good burger please. And give me some options too, such as the salads, potatoes, and chili.

Wendy’s may make a little gain in the 18-34 year-old demographic with these new ads and an upcoming new breakfast menu, but even 18-34 year-olds grow up and I’m not so sure they’ll be coming back to Wendy’s when they just want good food without the bells and whistles thrown at the younger crowd going to McDonalds and Burger King. I give credit to Wendy’s for trying to drum up sales by rocking the boat, but by doing so the older customer is getting thrown overboard. It may be best for the healthy 37-year-old business to stick to what’s made it last so long– catering to those who are the same age or just a bit older.

Okay. So I’m a big USF Bulls fan.  Especially football.  As such, I follow a lot of news about USF and its upcoming opponents.  One of the cool sites I found was a blog from Phillip Marshall, a Huntsville Times reporter, about Auburn (whom USF plays on September 8th).  Normally such information would not be worthy of a post here on the Affari Blog… but he posted today about the process.  I thought it was worth sharing:

It is indeed a new day in my business.It used to be that, as the Auburn beat writer for The Huntsville Times, I would spend an average day asking questions and observing. I would put what information I could in the newspaper and go on to the next day.

The events of Wednesday show just how much things have changed. It was a little after noon when I ventured into offensive line coach Hugh Nall’s office and asked him about the situation at right tackle. He told me that he had moved freshman Lee Ziemba to the first team.

As recently as last year, that information would have been interesting, but I would have been more than 12 hours from being able to report it. By then, of course, Ziemba would have lined up there at practice and it would have become obvious to all.

But in this age of the 24-hour news cycle, of the Internet and blogs and the like, I went straight to my computer, wrote the story and had out half an hour later.

Perusing other newspapers on the Internet, I saw where my friend Chip Towers of The Atlanta Constitution was actually blogging live from Georgia’s practice. Sometimes you even see newspaper reporters carrying video cameras. As time goes on, you’ll see more blogs and the like. And you’ll see more people looking for unique ways to cover the news and get the attention of readers.

Things have come a long way since I wrote stories on an old black Underwood typewriter.

Now, he still works for a newspaper - but this niche (Auburn atheltics) is narrow enough that he could register a domain (”Tiger Tracking”) sell ads and become a full-time reporter-blogger.   News gathering and news reporting is changing, moving into more deliniated niches, rather than an “everything for everyone” kind of news we have today.   Marshall’s realization is just the beginning - it’s not quite a new day, more like a new sunrise.

Sure, the statement seems obvious since everything is changing these days. But it seems that news media has begun to take an entire different route. I’m not referring to internet incorporation or the death of the anchorman celebrity - in fact, I am speaking of an entirely new spin on celebrity.

As I was listening to talk radio this morning on my way to work, the program was interrupted and the current material was discarded for a really, super important news break. There was no tragedy or urgent message. The show was interrupted to announce that Lindsay Lohan was arrested for her second DUI in several months.

I immediately had several flashbacks to the huge Paris Hilton media fiasco a couple months ago and became somewhat sick to my stomach. I just don’t understand why celebrity problems have become top news headlines. Sure, sometimes the news can be depressing with all of the criminal headlines and stories streaming the airwaves, but the fact that people in this country care so much about celebrity gossip astounds me.

For whatever reason, I felt it necessary to submit a quick post about the situation. If anyone has any insight into why Americans are infatuated with celebrities, I would love to be enlightened. Forgive me if I sound a little cranky, I’m just not looking forward to hearing about Lohan’s irresponsibility for the next few weeks.