Techie and the Media

Notes From The Other Coast

So, I got in this morning from a week on the left coast. Exhausted and drained, I am happy to report that I am definitely encouraged.

You see, a year ago this time I was on maternity leave. I was watching way too much late-night TV and reacquainting myself with the perils of sleep deprivation. There was a looming strike (that did manifest itself a few months later), and we were entering the summer doldrums.

Now, a year later, I am still watching way too much late-night TV (my fault, not the baby’s), sleep deprivation is simply a state of being, we are talking about another possible strike and well, the old adage seems to be holding true. You know, the one about how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Except for the fact that the tone in Hollywood has changed. There is an openness for talking about things new and fresh; ideas and concepts that are different (save the broadcast networks that are still a bit hesitant). I am hearing words like multiplatform, integrated, showcasing, interactive, bold, character-driven, and edgy.

Granted, I have heard all of this before — but this jaded and jet-lagged gal sees a very bright, interactive and compelling season of content coming for 2009. Stay tuned.

Turning Value On Its Head (Or At Least Thinking Out Of The Box Office)

So, The Hollywood Reporter publishes The Top 40/Film list weekly. I was perusing the numbers and analysis bytes that highlight the winners and the losers when something made me stop and think. The caption pointed to the 61% drop in the weekend gross of "Wanted," stating that this was "a big sophomore drop, even for an action pilot." A 61% drop is always a bad thing (unless it relates to the price of oil).

But as I started to think about it and put ALL the numbers together, I was sort of irked at this casual comment. Let's look at the rest of the information, shall we? The film was in its tenth day of release, the cumulative gross was over $90 million. Now, compare that to, let's say, "Speed Racer," which was in its 59th day in release and had cummed a little over $43 million. Uh-huh. Looking at other films that were in the same range of days released. "Wall-E" was down 48%, with a cumulative gross of $127 million. Totally different genre from "Wanted," way wider audience, showing in 800 more theaters — and $37 million separates the two. Uh-huh. (By the way, "Hancock" scored a $103 million in the first five days of release — so never, ever question the power of Will Smith again.)

Then I started thinking about rating drops and shifts, and it hit me that part of what we miss in the pure day-to-day analysis of ratings in television is, well, the long-term performance. How long has the program been airing? How stable is the core audience? What is the value overall of the property, and the brands that are associated with that property and its actors, etc.? And finally, what has the value (both implicit and explicit) of the program been to the network?

Sure, drops suck — but we need to start looking at the numbers as part of a much larger picture. Wouldn't you agree?

When Does Too Much of a Good Thing Turn Around and Bite You In The Citizens-of-Humanity-Jeans-Clad A**?

It begins with a piece that I believe is important that everyone read — an op-ed in the New York Times called, "Would You Buy a New Car From Eva Longoria?"

No, I don't really care if you would or wouldn't — but I want to bring your attention to the reference to new legislation proposed by the Federal Communications Commission. As the notice released by the FCC on June 26 states, the commission is seeking "comment on current trends in embedded advertising and potential changes to the current sponsorship identification
regulations with regard to embedded advertising," since the advent of "recent technological changes that allow consumers to more readily bypass commercial content [means that] content providers may be turning to more subtle and sophisticated means of incorporating commercial messages into traditional programming. As these techniques become increasingly prevalent, it is important that the sponsorship identification rules protect the public's right to know who is paying to air commercials or other program matter on broadcast television and radio and cable." The FCC defines embedded advertising as "situations where sponsored brands are included in entertainment programming."  Embedded advertising is used to generally describe both product integration and product placement, where product placement is defined as "the practice of inserting branded products into programming in exchange for fees or other consideration." (you can download the complete notice here )

I won't bother with the rest of the details on the document (but do take the time to read it) — suffice to say that one of the most interesting tidbits of data presented in the document was that product placement on broadcast TV during the first quarter of 2008 was up almost 40% from the previous year — and that "American Idol" alone had 3, 291 product placements.  Now, I am not here to judge — but 3,291?

As the television industry continues to evolve, to react to a landscape littered with things like game consoles, DVRs, the Internet, cell phones, and the like, we should probably stop and think about what the long-term impact of an ever-increasing reliance on product and brand integration is on the production and monetization of television programming.  I shudder to think what will happen when legislators will turn their sights on short/long -form online content.

Thoughts?

Sponsorship Identification Rules and Embedded Advertising

Download the FCC's document  about Sponsorship Identification Rules and Embedded Advertising NOTICE OF INQUIRY AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING here .