The Affari Edge Blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

With or without Bacon.