MediaFlect

Poynter’s The Chaser breathlessly tells us that teens are using text messaging in droves. I guess, being academically oriented, they have to have “proof” even of the obvious. But anyone interested in the next generation need only ask any college professor about their latest tech annoyance (students using Sidekicks in class, for example, is what I heard one prof complain about on Saturday), to find out which way the wind is blowing among this choice demographic. (Is it really a surprise to anyone that young people are using text messaging? Is there any news organization that hasn’t at least considered the impact of handheld devices? Well, yes, of course…).

I guess that’s a marketing research tip for new media: Ask college instructors what their students are using, to find out how the new generation of high HHI, 18-24s consumer their media. Ask the kids, themselves, what media they consume — but that’s a more rigorous research project.

Recently had an exchange with an old friend, who works for a major magazine at a major media company. I’ll put it here because I think it’s illustrative of the kinds of thinking some people are doing, and the kinds of terror the current changes sweeping through our industries are causing.

I told my friend I was doing Internet publishing consulting, and he asked me the following (I’ve edited somewhat to protect his, and the company’s, identity): “A large, famous media company in the United States seeks a strategy to make money publishing on the web, because its famous old media properties are going down the tubes. Problem is, the company’s management doesn’t have the first iota of a clue as to what to do, let alone how to do it. All that’s at stake is whether the company will exist in ten years. Any ideas?”

Well, that was pretty stark. And frank, coming from someone within, whose livelihood depends on these decisions. But, as I said, indicative of the terror within.

Here’s my answer, again edited for masking purposes: “Yeah, I’ve got some ideas and I think an executive had lunch with there a couple months ago probably “gets it,” but I don’t know if upper management can. It’s quite a quandary: What company in any industry wants to participate in destroying its own business, making radical change, become its own competitor in order to survive? (Like gnawing off your own legs, perhaps, to get out of a trap — except in this case many new legs can grow back.)”

“[Your company] is not alone — we are at an inflection point, and shakeups continue. There will continue to be a need for good journalism and entertainment. That “content”, I think, has to come with an acceptance of dispersal or flattening of the information and command chains — again, something [your company] may not be terribly good
at.”

I’m sure some of the behemoths will survive in some fashion. But some will go the way of RCA or the Mutual Broadcast Network or the New York Herald Tribune.

TV stations might be ecstatic that the Nielsen ratings have found many many more 18-24 and 18-34 year-olds watching TV in urban centers, thanks to their new people meter systems, which rely more on technology than human beings keeping logs. The findings go counter to the usual logic that folks say they watch more than they do, which is fine — I’ll take more scientific measurement any day.

But am I the only one who finds the jumps startlingly large? According to AdAge: In Washington, D.C., the 18-to-34 viewership increase was 83%; Philadelphia, 56%; San Francisco, 55%; New York, 24%; Chicago, 21%; and in Los Angeles, 10%.

83 percent, 56 percent, 55 percent jumps when switching to the new technology? What does that say about accuracy of Nielsen’s diary-keeping system? There’s some discussion about whether this is a jump in viewership or a change due to the new measurement techniques. I vote for the former (what’s the chance 83% more 18-34 year-olds are watching in DC or 55% more in SF or Philly?)

For any of you who get Cynthia Turner’s Cynopsis — essentially a pre-blog blog of the broadcast industry and its ratings — I found it here on Blogger. Seems to be the full text. Today’s headline: a repeat of “Two and a Half Men” beat Monday night NFL.

Soon to start an Executive MBA program — very excited, but also something’s gotta give. Might be this blog.

Sorry for dearth of posts: Blogsome, hosting this, hasn’t let me on until just now for last 24-36 hours. Tried 5-10 times.

In the current issue of Radar, Editor Maer Roshan bemoans the sameness of magazine covers: “You can’t just slap a picture of Nicole Kidman on your ocver and expect people to say, ‘Wow, what a cover!’ It’s just another picture of Nicole. Who gives a shit?”

He contrasts that with what calls the social commentary of his current cover: Tom Cruise in his underwear (a la “Risky Business”) with arrows through him (a la Jesus?) after his Scientology meltdown.

I’ve often wondered the same thing Roshan alludes to: How come mag after mag after mag fronts the ingenue-du-jour, whether Kidman or Hilary Duff or Lindsay Lohan or even Paris Hilton? When all the mags come out at the same time with the same person on their covers, do they really all sell? Are magazines that finely segmented that the audience will buy their mag if it has the celeb of the moment? Or are folks so mad about whomever it is that they’ll stuff their bathroom mag racks with a half-dozen magazines sporting the same person, albeit in different hair, makeup and clothes?

I can understand when, say, Jennifer Aniston appears on the cover of Vanity Fair with what appears to be a real scoop — talking about her split with Brad Pitt — and a few celebrity weeklies parasitically pick that up and put her on their covers with the same story, inside refering to VF’s effort. But what gives when there’s really nothing but press-agent created buzz around, perhaps, a new album or movie, or some mysterious artificial zeitgeist? How many can survive when the market gets that finely sliced, and more sliced all the time?

Meanwhile, I find it amusing that the wonderfully self-promotional Roshan derides other magazines for being derivative not long after Kurt Andersen savaged Roshan’s own effort with Radar for being derivative of Andersen’s Spy as well as other magazines:

“Radar’s fundamental problem is that all of it—the good, the bad, the mediocre—is extremely familiar. There is not a moment of shock or wonder, not a whiff of the strange or novel. At a time when glossy journalism tends to be very dull and similar, Radar is, alas, a wholly recursive exercise in recombinant magazine-making. We have seen every bit of it before.”

I’ve looked at one issue of Radar (the second since relaunch) and don’t feel I can pass judgment yet, but I do agree with Andersen that the Website is worth the time, and finding its footing well. I do wish I could read the magazine online. I think TimeWarner has the equation right: If someone’s willing to pay, let them see the magazine online. why should I have to refer to a print copy if I’m willing to cough up my bucks to read it in a format I prefer?

This USA Today piece on newsmagazines slipping at the newstand while celebrity journals pick up is not surprising, though it’s worth a read for folks interested in media. I can’t help but wonder why it’s so popular, though: Blogdex says it’s one of the most linked to at the moment. …

Sounds like pants some powerful women would wear, perhaps, but is a fascinating relatively new feature from Amazon.com (seems to have appeared in the last month or so). Buy works of, say, a couple or few dozen pages, pay 49 cents, and get the right to read them forever, even print them out from your “digital Locker in PDF, HTML, and text e-mail formats.”

Let’s call it the iTunes model brought to books. Wonder when we’ll see books sold a chapter or section at a time. Serialization for the modern era.

Joseph Jaffe was on the
Smart City radio show, touting his new book, “Life After the 30-Second Spot” and saying the things we all know to be true, but that marketers would rather not say or hear: We are getting really good at not consuming ads. We switch the station on radio, or use our TiVOs to go through them on TV, or flip past them in magazines, or block popups on the Web. (It’s always interesting to me how many of the people in TV ad sales departments have TiVOs at home and thus avoid seeing very the ads they’re selling that way.)

He made a few interesting points, both of which come from the content world, saying to be effective we need to model advertising after what’s been popular in content. He talked of “reality advertising,” getting real people’s testimonials, people who identify with or are passionate about a brand or product, how a blog with a simple post extolling the virtues of a product can be very powerful at promoting that product. And he talked about “advertising on demand,” saying, essentially that if the ads are good, and relevant we’ll want to watch them. For example, if you’re looking for a car you’ll want to find an ad for cars.

‘Brands have become engines of themselves, but they need to become enablers,” he said. You can listen to the show here.