The Affari Blog

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.