NBC=Next Big Cutback?

The news that NBC O&O's are gutting their in-house promotions departments should come as no surprise. They're already cut back their news departments so much there's hardly anything worth promoting anymore.

From my perspective of having been laid-off in the past year, this sucks for those getting the ax, and my heart goes out to them.

From a marketing perspective, this could make sense. As an ever-growing number of viewers use TiVo and other DDRs, the traditional model of television promotion simply does not work. Tuesday night's, "....tonight at 11" promo is useless for those watching the show Thursday morning. The way people watch television has changed, and the vast majority of promotions departments haven't adapted. They still focus primarily on short-term topical promotion. New media, and social media are either unused, or an afterthought. To make matters worse, most in-house Creative departments have scarce experience with image and branding. Local television needs a new model, and if done correctly, this could be a good start. But, if you think this is going to be done correctly, think again. Here's why:

"In the new organization, creative services executives at each station will determine their local market branding campaigns and promotion strategies...."

There you have the problem in a nutshell. The prevalent notion in broadcasting is that branding is something you do with campaigns, logos and music. They don't get that a brand isn't something created in a campaign, but the overall experience. The best marketing can't sell a bad product for long, and right now the product is the problem.

Local television news has always been pretty dreadful, but the recent mass layoffs and buyouts have had a devastating effect. Forget lack of talent and experience, stations today are lacking in the warm bodies needed to function at a subsistence level. All the best marketing can do is bring customers through the door--once they're there, the product has to deliver or those customers won't come back. Right now there is nothing at any of the networks O&Os, or most other stations that are remotely watchable.

If NBC stations want to fix the brand, they have to start by fixing the product. If, instead of simply reducing head count and improving the bottom line, they replace the lost promotions positions with more people in the newsroom, this could be a good thing. It would be a good step toward putting a watchable newscast on the air. Sadly, I don't see that happening.

For years, NBC and all the rest have taken the customer for granted. You can only do that for so long before they all go away. Too bad they still haven't figured that out. Right now, the networks still have the mindset of R.J. Fletcher from UHF's Channel 8.

Just Don't

I tried. I really did. But I just couldn't make it past the first few minutes of Nike SB's latest video, Debacle, even if it was free.

The skating is not the problem. Paul Rodriguez and the rest do a competent job with the skateboard action. The problems start when the skating stops. The set ups for the gags are obvious, and they are poorly executed. The opening gimmick with the car is badly telegraphed, and the second angle destroys any remaining illusion of spontaneity. I've never made it past the confrontation scene. You can see the setup coming from up the block, and the execution is so forced and hammy that it is unwatchable.

Perhaps more perplexing than the general crappiness of the non-skating content, is why it's there at all. It wasn't that long ago Nike was pushing this message:

So what is it? Skaters are just like every other athlete? Or they're a bunch of confrontational, destructive punks? Or, maybe Nike really doesn't know.

The problem is that as much as skating is a sport, it's a subculture, and Nike doesn't get that. When they look at skaters, they see a market, and a potential market share. What they don't see is a community--a community they're not part of, and can't just buy their way into.

Skating has been around for long enough that it's gone though several cycles of boom and bust. After the credits rolled on Dogtown and Z-Boys, skating sort of died off. Then, it reinvented itself before dying off again. After another reinvention, here we are, and skating is more popular than ever before.

In addition to Steve Rocco, guys like Element's Johnny Schillereff were building skating at a grassroots level, and built their brands around visionaries like Stevie Williams, Ray Barbee and Bam Margera. Element's new video, Make It Count doesn't suffer the same problem that plagues Nike SB's Debacle.

While Debacle awkwardly fumbles for some sort of narrative to make it seem relevant, Element's Make It Count simply has to tell the company's story. Element's founder was thrown out of his house at 17 because of his skating. Schillereff was virtually homeless until he finished high school before going on to found the company in 1992. When that's your story, you don't have to make silly shit up. Nike finds itself in the unenviable situation of fighting for a position in a market it's competitors created. That's a hard sale to make.

Oddly, Nike has been in this position before. Way back in the late 1990's when Lance Armstrong started winning Tours and topping the bestseller lists, Nike decided to get into cycling in a big way. Like skateboarding, cycling's popularity has been cyclical. Like the skateboard, the bike is more often viewed as a toy than a sporting good. Still, like skaters, cyclists maintained a fairly consistent core community, and over time something of an outsider culture has formed around the sport. When Nike entered the market it had (by comparison) a huge marketing budget, and the biggest star of the sport for a spokesman. Sure, there were many well-established brands with a history of involvement in the cycling community, respect for the tradition and a knowledge of the sport you can't just suddenly acquire, but marketing can make up for all that, right? Maybe, but after less than a decade, Nike quietly dropped out of the cycling business in 2007. Let's hope history repeats itself.

Who the hell is....

Bill Baylis?

Are you better off now? Part 2

It was 30 years ago, today. Jimmy Carter's Crisis of Confidence speech. More commonly known at The Malaise Speech (though the word malaise was never used), Dick Polman rightly cites it as the beginning of the end for Carter. Sadly, that says as much about America as it did about Carter. Read that speech today, and see how little has changed, how it still has the ring of truth. Thirty years later, it still is relevant. Somehow, I think we're still not ready to listen.

Are you better off now?

After twenty years, more relevant than ever.

The Ultimate in Editorial Restraint.

Kudos to the philly.com crew for not going for the obvious headline on this story.

"Innocent critters squashed on the highway of life."

The road trip is a time-honored motif in cinema. Perhaps it's because it's just a bit too easy....a bit too literal. When the story is about lives in transition, put the characters in motion. Have them in between here and there. When you think about it it's probably a bit of lazy storytelling. A bit too on the nose. Still, it's hard to deny that it works. Some of my favorite movies are road movies, from Fandango to Oh Brother, Where Art Thou to Crossroads--good, great or trite, I enjoy the theme.


So, when I hear that Plaid Nation is heading out on a road trip with another tour, I can't help but wonder why. After all, if you're all about social media, and trying to show what a great tool it is, why not use social media? Using a van, hundreds of gallons of gas and hours of actual face time seems to run counter to the message. I don't get it. But, then again, in the context of the movies, maybe I do. The road trip is never about the trip, but the transformation. Social media is in a nascent form. facebook and twitter are what's hot now, but I suspect in five years we will speak of them only in the past tense. People who grasp the potential of social media understand we've just hit the road, and there's a long trip ahead. Right now, it's all transition. Why not get out there, meet the people who are along for the ride, and see what you can discover together?

Even lacking some great, transformative moment....hey, it gets you the fuck out of Danbury, and that's always a good thing. Right? Okay, looking at the schedule, maybe not. I've had a beer or three in most of those cities, and wouldn't choose to revisit many of them. One date really sticks out: Branson Missouri. Branson is like Vegas, but less classy. Dear God, why? Even the guys who planned the trip don't know. "Who's in Branson that we could profile??" The only reason to ever do anything in Branson begins and ends with Roy Clark. If you're of a certain age, or are Nelson Muntz, Andy Williams puts on an enjoyable show. Other than those two, the best you can hope for in Branson is, "That wasn't as horrible as I expected." If Plaid really wants to do some good while they're in town, the should pay a visit to Shoji Tabuchi. If they can suffer through all the kitsch and dreck, they'll be treated to some truly enjoyable moments of fine musicianship. It's almost worth it. While there, maybe they can do something about Tabuchi's web site, which seems frozen in some bad design from 1997. Oh, and be sure to check out the restrooms at the Shoji Tabuchi Theater. Don't forget to vote.

Remember this.

Short and to the point.

Caught my attention.

Part of a series, but it's the one that really says, "We're different."

Bye, bye....

It's a bit way too long, and a few of the verbal contortions they go through for a rhyme are excruciating, but overall, it's worth a listen.

"Let's be bonest....."

"Let's be honest" is the marketing equivalent of "the check is in the mail" and "I won't cum in your mouth." You know what's coming next is going to be anything but honest. So what's the first thing you hear in the first GM ad since declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy?

"Let's be completely honest...."

Better and brighter minds than me have made the point that the ad is shite. It looks like a last-minute, done-on-the-cheap made for YouTube project. More than that, it goes to show they still don't get it. "Eight different brands"? "Cost structure"? How about they built a company around expensive, big, inefficient vehicles that became toxic when gas prices went north of three bucks a gallon? In the short run the vehicles were very profitable, but given the realities of the energy market it was obvious they couldn't sustain the business for very long. Down the product line cars like the Cobalt and the Korean-built Aveo were less than inspiring. If you aren't interested in an SUV or a Cadillac STS, you are not going to be interested in GM. You can reduce the number of brands and bring the cost structure into line, but if you continue to build crap that nobody wants to buy, you're still going to go out of business.

There's a bigger problem with the spot. It's tone deaf. It's got a, "I'm going to tell you how it's going to be" feel, but it forgets who it's talking to. GM just reached into America's pockets and pulled out $60 Billion. Sixty billion works out to over $200 from every man, woman and child in the USA. The US owns 60% of GM. Canada and the United Auto Workers are major stakeholders as well. If not for us, GM would be no more, and there is nothing in the spot that acknowledges that fact. It seems General Motors doesn't get that it's not just talking to it's customers, it's talking to the owners as well. Don't forget that most of those owners are reluctant at best. We didn't want to be in this position, most of us are very unhappy about it and right now we are doubtful GM management can do anything to reverse the situation. That spot does nothing to assuage that doubt.

"The only chapter we're focused on, is Chapter One."

That last line is the most troubling. A clever turn of the phrase that says, "Chapter 11 is in the past, we're not worried about that. We're looking forward." That's not a bad position to take with consumers. It's an awful position to take with your stockholders. In exchange for $60B secured only by your toilet-paper stock, they damn well better be concerned with digging their/our asses out of Chapter 11.

This is a largely unprecedented situation. How do you position your brand when you customer is also a reluctant owner? If they were to be completely honest, the spot wouldn't start with some cliche that no one really believes. It would start with two words: "We're sorry."

"I'm going to Disneyland!"

By now you've probably heard the bizarre story of Bonnie Sweeten. The suburban mother of three set off a region-wide manhunt with a frantic 911 call that said she and her daughter had been abducted following a traffic accident in Southampton, Bucks County. Her call was from the trunk of the late-model Cadillac that her abductors, two black men, had stuffed her and her 9 year old daughter into.

For television news, it was the trifecta--abducted blond woman, missing little girl, and black suspects. Who could ask for more? Okay, upon closer examination the story made no sense, but is that important?

Understandably, the police had to pursue every lead as if it was real, because that's their job. When life and death are in the balance it's foolish to jump to conclusions. But the initial story stunk to high heaven. A midday accident and abduction on one of the area's most heavily traveled roads with no witnesses or evidence? Off the record the police said the story didn't make any sense. The local print media covered it, but it was pretty obvious they were downplaying the story. Most of the reader comments on philly.com were hopeful but skeptical, and many on domelights.com--a local forum with a heavy police presense--agreed that this didn't pass the smell test. And, fortunately, it turned out this story was as fake as it sounded.

So what's up with the Today show? How incompetent, desperate or totally unethical do you have to be to look at a story that raises so many red flags and still decide to give it national exposure? I understand why the locals covered it, but there was no reason to rush such a questionable story to the national stage.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

One would think that some producer somewhere might have flashed back to Charles Stuart or Susan Smith, and thought maybe the story deserved another day or two at the local level. But, no....when the victim is a blond white woman, and the suspects are black, it must be true. Right?

Thankfully this story is long on bizarre and short of tragic. Because of that, I can enjoy a little moment in the Annals of Unintended Prophecy. Consider the song Dizz Knee Land, recorded by dada way back in 1992.

Dizz Knee Land

What's Wrong with this Picture?

The great potential and strength of digital media is in its incredible ease of and speed of creation and distribution. The great weakness of digital media is in its incredible ease of and speed of creation and distribution. Consider this item from the the front page of this morning's philly.com.So, what's wrong with that? Writer Stephan Salisbury does a good job of explaining a fairly complex issue without getting too bogged down in the politics. That's not the problem. It's that damn picture. Ignoring the obvious question of why they would choose an AP file photo, when they have a staff of world-class photographers and extensive archives, there's something wrong with that photo. Something is missing....a couple somethings, really.

That image is at lest 3 years old, and probably more. Philadelphia's skyline has undergone a significant transformation since then.

It's understandable that someone might not notice the absence of the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton. The welcome replacement to the hulking scar of One Meridian Plaza is easy to overlook, being tucked in alongside City Hall's tower and Billy Penn. Harder to miss is the absence of the Comcast Center. At 975 feet, the building dominates the Center City skyline.
Quite a difference, don't you think? Is it a huge mistake? No, but it is the sort of thing probably never would have made it into either the Inquirer or Daily News. Before anything goes into a newspaper it gets passed before several sets of eyeballs. It's all about accuracy, clarity and quality. It's about preventing stupid mistakes like this from happening.

In most digital media outlets there is very little, and often nothing, standing between the content creator and the "Publish" button. More troubling, it seems mistakes are not taken as seriously in digital media. Even after the problem with the skyline photo was pointed out, the picture remained unchanged until the story was bumped off the front page well over an hour later.

Online, mistakes are ephemeral--update the story, and the mistake is gone. Unless someone does a screen grab of your page, or it get's cached, the gaffe is soon forgotten. That is a luxury print reporters just don't enjoy. Screw the pooch in print, and the evidence is on doorsteps and mailboxes, and someone somewhere is likely to stash away, perhaps to show up on eBay in the future. Even television isn't immune these days with the possibility of errant reporting living on in perpetuity on YouTube.

Of course, just because mistakes in digital journalism don't hang around to haunt you does not mean they are somehow less important. That's missing the point. The point of journalism is getting it right for the sole sake of getting right--even the little things. Being honest and, to the best of your ability, presenting a factual picture of the world.

In the transition to digital media there has been a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water. To do away with whole levels of editors because the technology has made them redundant, though it can't replace their oversight. Style, usage, judgment and an eye for detail are now secondary to HTML and Photoshop skills. Getting it out there is more important than getting it right. I've come to expect that mentality from aggrerators like Drudge and Huffington Post where there is little sense of ownership to the content, so long as it supports their agenda. It's more troubling to see it cropping up around publications I trust and respect.

Yes, print media is going to have to make the transition to digital to survive, but if it leaves its core values behind when it does, what's the point?

180 Miles

The beginning of the racing season in cycling takes place in Italy in May. Milan-San Remo, the first of cycling's monuments each year, is also the longest at just about 180 miles. That makes for a long day in the saddle. The pros take about six and a half hours to cover that distance.

This year, Isle of Man native Mark Cavendish had the most left at the end outsprinted some of the fastest ment in the world.

I've never ridden 180 in a day. On a few occasions I've done a vigorous 140, and was pretty much shagged out at the end. Now, the pros are pros, and they train and ride all the time, so I get how they can do 180 miles and still have the energy to sprint it out at the end.

On the other end of the spectrum, consider the case of William Wagner. Long before Cavendish set off for the Via Roma, Mr. Wagner left his home in Havre de Grace, Maryland and set off on his own 180 mile bike ride to Scranton, Pennsylvania. Just as Wagner's destination was less glamorous than Cavendish's, neither was the purpose of his mission. Okay, cyclists ride for money and personal glory, which aren't exactly high-minded purposes....except compared to Wagner's. He rode 180 miles for sex. Sex on a baseball field in a Scranton park. Sex with a fifteen year old girl he met on MySpace.

Cavendish's ride probably secured his position on Columbia-Highroad through 2011, and his name joins the list of other MSR winners, a list that includes some of cycling's greats: Bartali, Coppi and Merckx. Wagner's ride has secured his position with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and his name will join those on the sex offender registry.

Two rides. One hundred and eighty miles. Two very different outcomes. Remember, people, it's not how far you ride, but why, and what you do at the finish line that counts.

"Hit it like this!"

Ever since Vince had his little run in with the law, his wonderful Slap Chop spot has been conspicuously scarce. Maybe that has something to do with the likelihood of Vince and the phrase "Slap Chop" together conjuring up this image. Too bad, because between ShamWow and Slap Chop, Slap Chop was way more fun to watch. So imagine my joy when Hot Chicks with Douchebags pointed out Steve Porter's brilliant remix, Rap Chop.