Techie and the Media

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?

Welcome To The You-Name-It Zone

I get about six to 10 newletters a day. I like to read. I like to read a lot. And as such, I come across these odd little bits of information — I call them nuggets of nonsense — that amuse me when I think about how far we have come, where people are seeking new audiences, and just what programmers think is of value to brands.

Today’s nugget of nonsense was a small mention that I saw about a new multimedia company (they shall remain nameless but have developed content for online and television) that has launched a Web site that caters to a certain over-popularized, dramatized and satirized group of ethic Americans.

Forget about who it is — that is not the point. The thing that caught my eye was the fact that someone out there figured that heritage was a viable target. Interesting.

So, being ever so serious, I checked it out. Now, I am a true believer in “know they audience.” I am also a true believer in the value of the micro audience or audiences that I would consider hyper- influential. Example, invitees of TED conferences, academics, volunteers and women.

But where I have a hard time seeing value is in creating audiences that are narrowly defined, but not by an indiscrete variable. For example, athletes. Yes, athletes may share a common interest, but each has their own nuances. Soccer, baseball, swimming and golf. All sports, but brand and advertising viability is vastly different.

Getting back to my multimedia company that has launched this content site targeting Americans of a certain ethnic background — you are off the mark here. What you should have done is targeted your content to deliver to a more neutral indiscrete variable (like IFC does to independent film buffs) or narrowed yourselves down to a group that is more discrete (NFL Network).

As its stands, the content is modestly appealing; but the value to advertisers and brands will likely remain unattractive.

Peter Buffett and Akon - An Odd Couple with a Powerful Message

Full disclosure, I work with Peter but this is a great initiative.  Get involved people and yes, you can make a difference!!!

Question: Is There Something I Can Do? Answer: YES!

Peter Buffett and Akon are happy to let you know what they are passionate about. But what are you passionate about?

Or are you so overwhelmed with what’s going on in the world that you don’t know where to start? Or think that when people are giving millions to a cause (or billions!), how can a few dollars make a difference?

Well… a few dollars - a little time - even a text message can make a difference.

On this site you’ll find places to start getting involved. You’ll have the ability to talk about what you’re into and why — share your stories of how you’re making a difference — and meet others who are trying to do the same.

http://istheresomethingicando.com

A Fresh Look At An Old Standby: The Question Is, Why?

OK — I admit it. I was one of "those" girls. The ones that didn't play much with dolls, wear makeup, or ever key into the color pink. Actually, I think wearing the color could cause me to go into anaphylactic shock — but that is a story for another time. My point is, I was one of those girls who loved the geeky things — I was all about the original "Battlestar Galactica." I had all the "Stars Wars" models.

I remember my mom gave me a Holly Hobby sewing machine for Christmas when I was eight. Not knowing what it was or how to use it, I promptly borrowed a screwdriver from my father's tool box, cracked the base open, pulled out the motor and tried to rig it inside my hand-modeled Death Star to see if I could get it to fly. Needless to say, I got in trouble for that.

But I guess part of the problem was that I never really got the "girly" thing. So when I opened the paper this morning to find that Strawberry Shortcake was getting a makeover for the 21st century, I almost keeled over. First of all, she was "sweet" enough as she was. Second of all, why does the update mean that she no longer has a cat but a cell phone, and a little bit of pink lipstick as opposed to pink cheeks? I am sorry, but since when did a brand aimed at pre-tweens need to have a doll with a cell phone?

Which brings me to my next observation: Is Hollywood so out of new ideas that we need to bring back old ones with a twist? I am talking about bringing back shows like "Password" and "The Dating Game" and others from my youth. Not that I mind, don't get me wrong. It's just that I would hope that somewhere, out there, in the vast abyss that is the creative genius, that someone, anyone, would be able to come up with something, well, new.

Then again, you are reading the diatribe of a girl who couldn't understand what all the fuss was about when it came to the Smurfs or "American Idol." Then again, I have been a closet Hello Kitty and "Family Feud" fan for years — so maybe I do know a little something about franchises that last.

Soul & Salsa

I was having breakfast with a dear friend and colleague this week when the topic turned to television (go figure!). Now understand the characters in this play — myself (you all know) and this gentleman, who is in the 55-65 demo, white, extremely educated, and comes from a television background. His words to me were as follows: “The only scripted show I watch is ‘Lost … there is nothing on television for me.” An interesting statement that was then followed by some smart remark about him entering the Andy Rooney phase of life.

Anyway, the conversation then turned to his child, who is a grown-up, and also works in television. Let’s call her Annie. Annie is a news producer. She works for an affiliate. She has now been tasked with a show called “Soul & Salsa” in the morning slot, because the affiliate is in what is generally referred to as an emerging Hispanic market and sees the opportunity in “speaking” to that group. The rub: the audience of this particular affiliate is predominantly white, female and older.

What is wrong with this picture? Why do we insist on leaving valuable audiences behind and hunting for new ones that, in some realities, do not exist? What is the mania that the industry has created for itself about rebranding, retargeting and reprogramming itself for the ever-elusive “new” audience?

Here are two things I know to be true: 1), the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is usually sound advice; and 2), something a professor in some business class utters to a bunch of over-caffeinated students: instead of trying to be Coke, why not be the best Pepsi that you can be? Get it? And don’t even get me started about the Sundance Channel.