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.

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