Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

The Dangers of Bifurcating Your Business

How advertising is destroying TV network news

January 2008 By Denny Hatch
10
Get the Flash Player to see this rotator.
 

In the News

2007 Ratings: World News Tops Nightly News
For the first time in 12 years, ABC’s evening newscast is #1 in Total Viewers and the A25-54 demo. “World News with Charles Gibson” beat “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams” by just 90,000 Total Viewers and just 60,000 A25-54 viewers in 2007. In total viewers, “World News” is up 4% year-over-year, NBC is down 13% and CBS is down 6%. “Nightly” had a strong fourth quarter, topping World News by 130,000 Total Viewers. So, for the year, here’s how it breaks down:
Total viewers: ABC: 8,390,000 / NBC: 8,300,000 / CBS: 6,440,000
A25-54 demo: ABC: 2,580,000 / NBC: 2,520,000 / CBS: 2,010,000
Household rating: ABC: 5.8/12 / NBC: 5.7/12 / CBS: 4.5/9
—Posted by Chris Ariens, Media Bistro TV Newser, January 4, 2007
In 2007, ABC News and Charles Gibson squeaked out a victory over Brian Williams on NBC. Both left Katie Couric of CBS a distant third.

When Charles Gibson was a host on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” I liked his loosey-goosey, laid-back demeanor and obvious ease as an interviewer in front of the camera and bantering with Diane Sawyer.

With the switch to ABC’s “World News Tonight,” where he replaced the urbane, upbeat Peter Jennings, Gibson seems to have purposely changed his “Good Morning America” persona. At first he became the kindly country doctor of my childhood—Hop Allison—who used to make house calls.

Lately I find Gibson to be a doleful presence, presiding with all the charm of a funeral director over a program that has morphed into a handmaiden of Big Pharma. The anchor presides over a cavalcade of advertisements for prescription and OTC drugs and other health-related wares while tossing in a little news to give some legitimacy to this seedy enterprise.

Could your business also be a victim of bifurcation—like a big bird flying in ever decreasing circles until it disappears up its own cloaca?

Background
The greatest American newscaster of the modern era was Walter Cronkite. When my father was alive, watching the “CBS Evening News” was a nightly ritual.

Weekday evenings at 6:29 p.m. during the 1960s and ‘70s, my father would glance at his watch, put down his scotch-and-soda and go turn on the television set. “Time for Walter the Cronk,” he would say cheerily.

Everybody loved Walter Cronkite. He was revered as “the most trusted man in America.” Combining seriousness and charm, he was dubbed “the only honest face on TV” by Art Buchwald.

“Walter Cronkite’s consistency and integrity transformed television from a novelty into the primary news source for millions of Americans,” wrote Dan Rottenberg in American Journalism Review. “During Cronkite’s 19-year tenure as anchor of the CBS Evening News, his trademark sign-off, ‘And that’s the way it is,’ became more familiar to many Americans than the Lord’s Prayer.”

This was the heyday of network news, and “CBS Evening News” was the gold standard. It garnered a huge audience of blue-ribbon viewers hungry for information, and provided a platform that enabled top-drawer advertisers to move the right stuff into the homes, offices and garages of the right people.

Cronkite retired in 1981 after 19 years. The accession to his anchor chair by the sweaty—and ultimately discredited—Dan Rather started the long downward spiral of network news.

Today all three of the network news programs are on the skids. Penetration is a paltry 25% of what it was a quarter century ago. Here are the current numbers:

Total Network News Viewers (% of Population)
1980: US Population 221.8MM
CBS 18.5MM (8.3%)
NBC 17.4MM (7.8%)
ABC 15.9MM (7.2%)

2007: US Population 301.2MM
CBS 6.4MM (2.1%)
NBC 8.3MM (2.8%)
ABC 8.4MM (2.9%)

According to the Gallup Organization, the current network news anchors enjoy vast name recognition across America: 84% for Katie Couric, 78% for Charles Gibson and 77% for Brian Williams.

Yet the number of Americans that tune in to watch these celebrities is minuscule and shrinking. This would indicate that something is seriously wrong—either with the anchors themselves or network news.

How Advertisers are Destroying a Business Model
During the week of the New Hampshire primaries, I tracked sponsorship of the leader—”ABC’s World News Tonight,” which ran a total of 74 commercials over five evenings. Of those, 64 commercials, or 86%, were illness-, drug- and health-related. Even the food products (Healthy Choice, Swanson natural broth and Progresso) were pinned to health benefits. The top five categories:
1. Pain (6 products): Ester-C (2x), Requip, Aleve, Advil, Icy Hot and Bayer (3x).
2. Constipation (5 products): Danon Activa, Amitiza (4x), Miralax (2x), Afrin and Phillips Caplets.
3. Lungs/Breathing (4 products): Spiriva, Advair, Delsym Cough Syrup, Mucinex (2x)
4. Male Penile Problems (4 products): Flomax, Cialis, One-a-Day Men, Levitra.
5. Cardio (3 products): Vytorin (3x), Centrum Cardio (2x), Plavix (2x)
(See the illustration below for the complete list and number of insertions.)

Not only are these products hyped, but also the FDA requires that ads for prescription drugs include a solemn reading of all potentially dangerous side effects. A sampling:

FLOMAX
Only your doctor can tell if you have BPH, not prostate cancer. Common side effects of Flomax are runny nose, dizziness and decrease of semen. Upon standing, a sudden drop in blood pressure may occur, rarely resulting in fainting. So when starting Flomax, avoid situations where injury could result. If considering cataract surgery, tell your eye surgeon you’re taking Flomax.

VYTORIN
Vytorin is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. Tell you doctor right away about unexplained muscle pain or weakness, which may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. Certain medicines or foods may increase your risk of getting this serous side effect. Simple blood tests are needed to check for liver problems.

REQUIP
Requip may cause you to fall asleep or feel very sleepy during normal activities such as driving, or to faint or feel dizzy when you stand up. Tell your doctor if you experience these problems or if you drink alcohol or take medicines that make you drowsy. Side effects include nausea, drowsiness, vomiting and dizziness.

CIALIS
Tell your doctor about your medical conditions and all medications. Ask if you’re healthy enough for sexual activity. Don’t take Cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, because this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. Don’t drink alcohol in excess with Cialis. Side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. To avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help if you experience priapism—an erection lasting more than four hours. If you have any sudden decrease in vision, stop taking Cialis and call your doctor right away.

The Dangers of a Bifurcated Business
Virtually all businesses attempt to achieve synergy—a seamless meshing of the various elements and divisions that presents a simpatico front to the world. In synergistic businesses, space ads, direct mail, television commercials and Web presence never contradict one another.

The exception to this corporate philosophy: the media.

In the world of newspapers, magazines and television news, a “Chinese Wall” is mandated to exist between editorial and advertising.

To editors, content is pure. Advertising is dirty (even though it pays everybody’s salaries).

As a result, editors are fiercely protective of their turf and any attempt by advertisers to influence content is considered a heinous crime against the integrity of their journalism.

In the case of network TV news, the content crowd is given a series of editorial time slots into which they can present the day’s happenings in words, pictures, interviews, remotes and file footage. It is complex, highly intense work. And for the most part, they do a good job.

Wrapped in the heady worlds of war, politics, social issues, the environment and international relations, the news people have no interest in the advertising side of the program and are purposely oblivious to it.

The result is bifurcation, whereby the media are driven by two halves—editorial and advertising—each with its own agenda.

What the viewer gets is a dose of news followed by doses of advertisements for drugs and other products that deal with our most intimate bodily organs, functions, fluids and excretions—all designed to play on our innermost fears.

Integrated into many of the commercials are grisly side effects recounted by unctuous voice-over announcers who make sure we do not miss the possibilities of:

Bowel Movements — Gas — Vomiting — Limp Penises — Leg Cramps — Headaches — Nausea — Decrease in Vision — Backaches — Four-hour Erections — Dizziness — Runny Nose — Decrease in Semen — Unexplained Muscle Pain — Sudden Loss of Blood Pressure — Gambling Urges — Fainting —Liver Problems — Chest Pain — Trouble Urinating — Drowsiness — Sexual Urges — Diarrhea — Prostate Cancer — Cataract Surgery — Falling asleep while driving — Upset Stomach — The need to see a doctor right away!

You are socked with one of these grisly litanies four to six times in the course of the half-hour broadcast.

In addition, virtually every network newscast has at least one health-, illness- or accident-related feature, thus pandering to Big Pharma and all their other core advertisers in the field of sickness and health.

Particularly grim was ABC’s five-minute segment on the eve of the New Hampshire primaries that covered 24 hours in the emergency room of Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Among the many horrors shown was vintage black-and-white footage of people crying to remind us that John F. Kennedy was taken to Parkland after his head was blown apart by an assassin’s bullet. We were told a new patient arrives in the Parkland ER every four minutes and the waiting time to see a doctor is 10 hours.

By the end of every program, Charles Gibson’s signature sign-off—“And I hope you’ve had a good day”—sounds positively lugubrious.

The Dwindling Audience for TV Network News
This massive hyping of all these drugs and their side effects has its own side effect—grossing out normal, healthy folks who have abandoned network news in droves, opting to get their news via cable, satellite and Internet.

At the same time, this unholy procession of depressing ads serves to feed the neuroses of what appears to be the core audience: 23 million hypochondriacs consumed with morbid curiosity about sickness and bodily functions—their own and those of others.

On the evening of January 7, Charles Gibson proclaimed that he was presenting a special edition of the program with a single sponsor and limited commercial interruptions. That sponsor turned out to be Pfizer and the two commercials touted a Web site, www.mytimetoquit.com, devoted to helping people quit smoking. The ultimate product was Chantix, a nicotine inhibitor.

The only reason Pfizer would buy out the entire “ABC’s World News Tonight” production is if demographics showed that the core audience was made up of a huge percentage of smokers—neurotic people happily making themselves sicker.

My bet is that if you innocently ask the typical TV network news viewer, “How are you,” the answer will result in a tedious 25-minute inventory of ills, pains, adverse reactions to drugs and descriptions of recent doctor visits.

Do any other network programs have worse demographics than the evening news?

Curiously, in 2006 Charles Gibson whined to the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Gail Shister about the ads on his news program. “When you put on ads mostly for medicines, you’re saying, ‘We want an older audience.’ I would like ads that say, ‘We have a younger audience here.’”

Shister’s retort, “Not likely, Charles.”

Katie Couric told New York Magazine’s Joe Hagan that she hoped her audience was made up of “people who are interested in the world and want to stay connected.” Then Couric added:

But truth be told, I don’t know if those people are in front of the television at 6:30 at night. I hope those that are will find our program compelling, but I don’t quite have them in my mind’s eye.

Now you know who they are, Katie.

Take a good look at your disappearing audience. You, Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams are not the problems.

It’s the bifurcated model you’ve been saddled with. The two halves of your business don’t communicate and, in fact, have contempt for each other.

You’re in a lose-lose situation.

Takeaway Points to Consider:

Regarding Your Business
* Is your organization synergistic—presenting a simpatico front to the world in terms of advertising, promotion and PR?

* Or is it bifurcated? Is a renegade element at work—a division, sales rep or employee blogger—with a separate agenda that is changing how you want to be perceived by prospects, customers, clients, stockholders, the media and from within?

Regarding to Whom You Advertise and What You say
* TV advertising is not about selling stuff to viewers. It’s about individual programs assembling an audience of like-minded viewers and selling those viewers to advertisers—and guaranteeing their numbers.

* Before you advertise anywhere—on TV, off-the-page, via direct mail or on the Internet—it is imperative that you know precisely to whom you are pitching your wares.

* For example, never rent a direct mail list without knowing the original source of the name—the direct mail package, ad or TV commercial to which the people on the list responded. Study the offer, selling price, copy and design. If these elements are at serious variance with what you are proposing to send out, take a pass and look at other lists.

* Always advertise where your competitors advertise. If you sell drugs and moderately priced health-related items, TV network news might be worth testing. If your business is cars, vacations to the Caribbean or laptop computers, skip TV network news and look elsewhere.
 
10

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
James Mason - Posted on January 21, 2008
Denny:

Briefly, I'm not a "news fan" but I dearly loved Walter Cronkite, and watched him, faithfully, every night, until he retired. After him, the only News Anchor I really cared for was Linda Ellerbee (NBC News Overnight, the best news program EVER!). Why she didn't become a Media Icon is beyond me. That she is a Media Legend doesn't quite seem to be enough. Moving on.

I don't think it's just the networks, and I don't think it's just the problem of bifurcation. It's too many commercials, about stuff I don't care about, too many warnings that I won't listen to, and too much time, so that, not only do I go a'wandering off on a search for intelligent programming elsewhere in cablespace, but, now, the greedy, stupid network has given me enough free time (aka "commercial time") to be trapped by some clever cable channel counter-programmer who's smart enough NOT to program HIS commercials at the same time as the networks.

Add to the mix the fact that Congress, or the FDA, or both, who foolishly think that I'm too stupid to either read the warnings or ask questions of my friendly family doctor, mandating that each and every Pharma ad drain away precious seconds of my remaining time on earth with dire consequences that could, will, and/or shall befall me should I decide to recapture the "firmness" of my youth and whoop it up with my betrothed, and I start to wonder if life really IS worth living, no matter what colour this miracle pill is, and no matter what wonderful things it can do for me.

And network news is surprised that people are staying away in droves, to misquote Yogi Berra?

I know this is a waste of time, but, since the networks don't mind wasting my time anyway, let me make a proposal: Longer stories, shorter advertisements, shorter "stop sets," disclosures that say "talk to you
Dennis Mason - Posted on January 15, 2008
Nice piece, as usual! You and I are contemporaries (in age, at least), and frankly I am amazed that someone like you still watches the evening news. My wife and I quit the network news a few years ago, and the late evening (10pm in the Midwest) news as well. Instead, we watch the BBC news, which has no advertisers to serve. What we find is that if something really important happens in Chicago (where we live), it's on the BBC news. What we also find is that because the BBC does not have advertisers to serve, they are actually objective. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not against advertising. But I am for objectivity in news reporting. And I am finding it increasingly difficult to find. I would like to believe that the enlightened public feel the same way. And if I am right, that would explain the exodus from the network newscasts. The American public is a lot smarter than the networks believe.
matthew Magallanes - Posted on January 15, 2008
Denny: You are right on again. News shows have real value for viewers and they also entertain, so watching should be a good experience. The combination of the drug ads and the poor reporting is so depressing I simply have abandoned the medium entirely.
Robert Ehrlich, founder of DTC Perspectives, a trade magazine, reported spending on such ads "pays back from $1.30 to $4 and change per dollar invested." More recently as reported in Science Daily, (Jan 7. 2008) --A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry?s claim. The researchers? estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion. This 2004 data should be WAY under 2008 levels, with some estimates of over 100% increases since then.
A focus on short term sales goals is blinding the long term view on television news. Maintaining the integrity and quality of the news show is a lost cause without a long term view of the product. And it is only getting worse. Like the media companies, the drug industry?s addiction to consumer advertising to drive sales is siphoning off precious research dollars at a dangerous clip while increasing the cost of drugs for all. This will mean fewer new drugs in the future. In this case, both the drug companies and television are sacrificing their future by having a short term view.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
Michael Saray - Posted on January 15, 2008
Denny, I have enjoyed reading your newsletters.

I wonder, however, if we don't have a chicken and egg argument here. Given that the average viewer age for the news is over 60, are the drug companies drawn to this target because they are the ones who need their products the most?

I think it is a stretch to say that these mindless spots are what drives away the younger crowd. More important is that no one gets home in time these days to watch Katie and company. They simply get their news elsewhere.

And just for a laugh... My neighbor used to do a lot of creative work for the pharmas. She described the message as ...Utopian, the new pill blah, blah, and then your head blows up.

Michael
Rob - Posted on January 15, 2008
It's a bit of a chicken and egg - with the advent of cable news, the internet, and the growth of NPR, only older people are in the habit of watching the evening news. It's become a niche product. Many people with day jobs (i.e not retired) work longer hours and have longer commutes than a generation ago.They simply aren't home from work at 6:30, or if they are they are cooking dinner, driving the kids around, doing the work they brought home. The evening news is a dinosaur, but the news itself is not. It's a shame that the networks didn't recognize the future of cable news earlier. NBC did eventually get in the act but has never matched CNN, and then there's Fox, if you want to call that news. Meanwhile, ABC and CBS are not amortizing their news-gathering operations because they thought the evening news was their product, when it was really just the distribution outlet.
Trish Tickle - Posted on January 15, 2008
Interesting that you should be discussing the competing agendas of advertising and editorial. We have the opposite problem in Columbus , Ohio . In
November there was a big alternative newspaper write-up about the practice among local TV stations of using their news anchor people to do ?informational?
segments about a particular local hospital. One channel took $150K from Ohio State Medical Center; another took a comparable amount from a different hospital system in town. These segments look like a news segment, have the station?s news logo on them, and are played during news programming. The average viewer wouldn?t realize these were paid placements. News Anchors claim they are not paid extra, they investigate and write their own content, blah, blah, so they have not compromised their editorial integrity. Of course, the hospital gets to sign off before anything is aired. These segments are ?happy, happy? presentations of the ?treatment of the day? but honestly, this is misleading and the station ends up beholden to local big Healthcare.

So here are the two opposite ends of PR and advertising. When they don?t work together like your example, it ends in a branding mess. When they merge, as in Columbus TV news, they lose credibility and end up, oh wait, in a branding mess.
Bill Gohde - Posted on January 15, 2008
Thank God for PBS and NPR. Of course, there are newspapers...theyre quiet and require no muting. Besides, the current news programs report very little news and yet always manage to find time to promote upcoming shows.
News now is entertainment, pure and simple. Of course, then there is FOX...enough said.

Keep stirring the pot,
Bill Gohde, Seattle
Peter Hochstein - Posted on January 15, 2008
Part of the problem may be that advertisers are fouling their own nests, and the nests of the news broadcasters, with message overload.

Am I mistaken or were there fewer ? and longer ? spots per half hour news show in Cronkite's day? I seem to recall a time when most of copywriters were writing :60s.

When (roughly) ten minutes of every half hour consist of TV spots, two :30s to the minute, consumers hit a point of overload. Twenty spots an hour? Nevermind, I'll check out the news on my computer.

It would be an interesting experiment if the networks limited advertising to four or six spots per broadcast, and stayed with it for a few months until the word got out that you could watch the news on Channel X without having ads applied directly to your forehead, over and over and @$##!&! over again.

Maybe that would increase audiences. And possibly increase the effectiveness of the ads that did get aired.

Only a suggestion, but a testable one.
Robert Doscher - Posted on January 15, 2008
Denny:

Walter Cronkite is probably smiling as he sails in the warm waters of the Caribbean.

Years ago when I worked for Sports Illustrated, the beer, wine, and liquor salesman had his annual advertising quota met by the end of January. Always the same brands with a few more pages of ads. It resulted in a nice bonus. Continuing on the proven course is always the easiest course Why change? It requires work.
Mike McCormick - Posted on January 15, 2008
Hi Denny,
Thanks for the info. I'm still astonished that any company advertises on TV anymore. I'll bet you and I could accomplish miracles in the mail with 1/10 of thsoe budgets.
Mike McCormick
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
James Mason - Posted on January 21, 2008
Denny:

Briefly, I'm not a "news fan" but I dearly loved Walter Cronkite, and watched him, faithfully, every night, until he retired. After him, the only News Anchor I really cared for was Linda Ellerbee (NBC News Overnight, the best news program EVER!). Why she didn't become a Media Icon is beyond me. That she is a Media Legend doesn't quite seem to be enough. Moving on.

I don't think it's just the networks, and I don't think it's just the problem of bifurcation. It's too many commercials, about stuff I don't care about, too many warnings that I won't listen to, and too much time, so that, not only do I go a'wandering off on a search for intelligent programming elsewhere in cablespace, but, now, the greedy, stupid network has given me enough free time (aka "commercial time") to be trapped by some clever cable channel counter-programmer who's smart enough NOT to program HIS commercials at the same time as the networks.

Add to the mix the fact that Congress, or the FDA, or both, who foolishly think that I'm too stupid to either read the warnings or ask questions of my friendly family doctor, mandating that each and every Pharma ad drain away precious seconds of my remaining time on earth with dire consequences that could, will, and/or shall befall me should I decide to recapture the "firmness" of my youth and whoop it up with my betrothed, and I start to wonder if life really IS worth living, no matter what colour this miracle pill is, and no matter what wonderful things it can do for me.

And network news is surprised that people are staying away in droves, to misquote Yogi Berra?

I know this is a waste of time, but, since the networks don't mind wasting my time anyway, let me make a proposal: Longer stories, shorter advertisements, shorter "stop sets," disclosures that say "talk to you
Dennis Mason - Posted on January 15, 2008
Nice piece, as usual! You and I are contemporaries (in age, at least), and frankly I am amazed that someone like you still watches the evening news. My wife and I quit the network news a few years ago, and the late evening (10pm in the Midwest) news as well. Instead, we watch the BBC news, which has no advertisers to serve. What we find is that if something really important happens in Chicago (where we live), it's on the BBC news. What we also find is that because the BBC does not have advertisers to serve, they are actually objective. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not against advertising. But I am for objectivity in news reporting. And I am finding it increasingly difficult to find. I would like to believe that the enlightened public feel the same way. And if I am right, that would explain the exodus from the network newscasts. The American public is a lot smarter than the networks believe.
matthew Magallanes - Posted on January 15, 2008
Denny: You are right on again. News shows have real value for viewers and they also entertain, so watching should be a good experience. The combination of the drug ads and the poor reporting is so depressing I simply have abandoned the medium entirely.
Robert Ehrlich, founder of DTC Perspectives, a trade magazine, reported spending on such ads "pays back from $1.30 to $4 and change per dollar invested." More recently as reported in Science Daily, (Jan 7. 2008) --A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry?s claim. The researchers? estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion. This 2004 data should be WAY under 2008 levels, with some estimates of over 100% increases since then.
A focus on short term sales goals is blinding the long term view on television news. Maintaining the integrity and quality of the news show is a lost cause without a long term view of the product. And it is only getting worse. Like the media companies, the drug industry?s addiction to consumer advertising to drive sales is siphoning off precious research dollars at a dangerous clip while increasing the cost of drugs for all. This will mean fewer new drugs in the future. In this case, both the drug companies and television are sacrificing their future by having a short term view.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
Michael Saray - Posted on January 15, 2008
Denny, I have enjoyed reading your newsletters.

I wonder, however, if we don't have a chicken and egg argument here. Given that the average viewer age for the news is over 60, are the drug companies drawn to this target because they are the ones who need their products the most?

I think it is a stretch to say that these mindless spots are what drives away the younger crowd. More important is that no one gets home in time these days to watch Katie and company. They simply get their news elsewhere.

And just for a laugh... My neighbor used to do a lot of creative work for the pharmas. She described the message as ...Utopian, the new pill blah, blah, and then your head blows up.

Michael
Rob - Posted on January 15, 2008
It's a bit of a chicken and egg - with the advent of cable news, the internet, and the growth of NPR, only older people are in the habit of watching the evening news. It's become a niche product. Many people with day jobs (i.e not retired) work longer hours and have longer commutes than a generation ago.They simply aren't home from work at 6:30, or if they are they are cooking dinner, driving the kids around, doing the work they brought home. The evening news is a dinosaur, but the news itself is not. It's a shame that the networks didn't recognize the future of cable news earlier. NBC did eventually get in the act but has never matched CNN, and then there's Fox, if you want to call that news. Meanwhile, ABC and CBS are not amortizing their news-gathering operations because they thought the evening news was their product, when it was really just the distribution outlet.
Trish Tickle - Posted on January 15, 2008
Interesting that you should be discussing the competing agendas of advertising and editorial. We have the opposite problem in Columbus , Ohio . In
November there was a big alternative newspaper write-up about the practice among local TV stations of using their news anchor people to do ?informational?
segments about a particular local hospital. One channel took $150K from Ohio State Medical Center; another took a comparable amount from a different hospital system in town. These segments look like a news segment, have the station?s news logo on them, and are played during news programming. The average viewer wouldn?t realize these were paid placements. News Anchors claim they are not paid extra, they investigate and write their own content, blah, blah, so they have not compromised their editorial integrity. Of course, the hospital gets to sign off before anything is aired. These segments are ?happy, happy? presentations of the ?treatment of the day? but honestly, this is misleading and the station ends up beholden to local big Healthcare.

So here are the two opposite ends of PR and advertising. When they don?t work together like your example, it ends in a branding mess. When they merge, as in Columbus TV news, they lose credibility and end up, oh wait, in a branding mess.
Bill Gohde - Posted on January 15, 2008
Thank God for PBS and NPR. Of course, there are newspapers...theyre quiet and require no muting. Besides, the current news programs report very little news and yet always manage to find time to promote upcoming shows.
News now is entertainment, pure and simple. Of course, then there is FOX...enough said.

Keep stirring the pot,
Bill Gohde, Seattle
Peter Hochstein - Posted on January 15, 2008
Part of the problem may be that advertisers are fouling their own nests, and the nests of the news broadcasters, with message overload.

Am I mistaken or were there fewer ? and longer ? spots per half hour news show in Cronkite's day? I seem to recall a time when most of copywriters were writing :60s.

When (roughly) ten minutes of every half hour consist of TV spots, two :30s to the minute, consumers hit a point of overload. Twenty spots an hour? Nevermind, I'll check out the news on my computer.

It would be an interesting experiment if the networks limited advertising to four or six spots per broadcast, and stayed with it for a few months until the word got out that you could watch the news on Channel X without having ads applied directly to your forehead, over and over and @$##!&! over again.

Maybe that would increase audiences. And possibly increase the effectiveness of the ads that did get aired.

Only a suggestion, but a testable one.
Robert Doscher - Posted on January 15, 2008
Denny:

Walter Cronkite is probably smiling as he sails in the warm waters of the Caribbean.

Years ago when I worked for Sports Illustrated, the beer, wine, and liquor salesman had his annual advertising quota met by the end of January. Always the same brands with a few more pages of ads. It resulted in a nice bonus. Continuing on the proven course is always the easiest course Why change? It requires work.
Mike McCormick - Posted on January 15, 2008
Hi Denny,
Thanks for the info. I'm still astonished that any company advertises on TV anymore. I'll bet you and I could accomplish miracles in the mail with 1/10 of thsoe budgets.
Mike McCormick