Dave’s Take

For the majority of my life I’ve watched Public Service Announcements (aka-PSAs) on my television warning me of the dangers of everything from smoking to dropping out of school. Some of the most memorable PSAs are as burned into my brain as much as any book or movie I’ve enjoyed. Who can forget the anti-liter campaign featuring an actual Native American Chief with a tear in his eye as he witnesses the destruction of his land by litterbugs? How about the series of spots reminding viewers to wear their seatbelts featuring the world famous Crash Test Dummies? Every time I see an old Perry Mason rerun, I think of the powerful anti-smoking PSA made by William Talman shortly before he died of lung cancer.

Despite their effectiveness and backing from the National Ad Council, the American broadcast PSA has pretty much gone the way of the dinosaur. While once protected by law, the public service announcement of the 21st century is now mostly confined to paid placement. Thanks to the removal of regulations during the Reagan administration, television and radio stations are no longer bound by law to provide a certain percentage of their airtime for free to PSAs. Despite the proliferation of cable and satellite channels, the powers that be apparently find PSAs to be too intrusive to the profitability of broadcasters. And that’s a shame.

We need well produced PSAs as a daily reminder of the kind of important issues we are all too busy to think about or to teach others, including our children. A properly produced PSA can cut through clutter and can leave a lasting impression on viewers, especially young viewers. If anyone doubts this, they only need look to the cutting edge anti-smoking campaign that has been running since the big tobacco companies settled with the government. The “Truth” PSAs have been incredibly successful in cutting teenage smoking in the states that have funded their airing. The reason for their success? Truth. They don’t lecture or depend on the claims of exaggerated side effects like the ineffective anti-drug campaigns of the past. They show smoking like it is – a filthy, dirty habit that will eventually kill you.

Despite their success, the majority of young viewers will never see the Truth spots because their states elected to steal the tobacco settlement money they received and divert it to funding the daily expenses of government. This is just one more example of a bureaucratic blunder that has a direct and deleterious impact on the daily lives of Americans. The public needs to demand a return of mandated funding and airing of Pubic Service Announcements. They are a proven method of bettering our lives without having to reinvent the wheel.

Do you remember how broadcast pundits predicted what the future of television would be in the year 2010? How they proclaimed there would be a channel for everyone, regardless of their interests? How the utter abundance of cable and satellite channels would be so unlimited as to be profitable regardless of the specificity of their program’s topics? Well, it’s now 2010 and the pundits didn’t quite get it right.

Sure at first, during the 90s, the availability of hundreds of broadcast channels seemed to be headed in the “anything goes” approach, but then reality set in for everyone. Production companies came to the undeniable conclusion that you really couldn’t make money on simply broadcasting puppies all day, despite their overwhelming cuteness. Cable companies discovered people might like to watch a burning Yule log in fireplaces for an hour on Christmas morning, but that it wore thin the other 364 days each year. In short, in order to make money in the new millennium of entertainment you had to do what has always been done – diversify.

New start-ups like Court TV which were buoyed by early success of big trials like O.J. and the Menendez brothers felt like they had tapped into the collective psyche of America, only to discover that the day to day coverage of ordinary people’s legal problems didn’t generate the viewers they were lead to believe existed. After several years of struggling to build brand loyalty, they threw in the towel and renamed their network truTV. They also diversified their programming to include shows like Cops, Forensic Files, Operation Repo and the old standby, paid programming. Likewise, the Sci-Fi Network watered down their only science fiction programming along with a name change to the ambiguous Syfy so they could show anything they deemed money making. Even the big-brained enticing History Channel slowed down on smart shows and began broadcasting blue-collar shows like Pawn Stars and Axe Men.

Today’s broadcast landscape is not quite the utopia of targeted programming we were promised, but does it really matter? America is a diverse pot of stew and as a reflection of that diversity, so is our entertainment. For those who insist on topical purity in their viewing there’s always the Internet, where rumor has it cute cat videos are abundant.

As anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave for the past five years knows, smart phones are riding a wave of popularity unseen previously in the mobile market. According to a study by Rubicon Consulting, smart phone sales are on the rise and the demand for them will only continue to grow. Despite the recession and record unemployment, smart phone sales increased over 10% in 2009 and this year’s sales promise to drive smart phone penetration to over 33% of all mobile phone sales. And with those increased sales, comes the inevitable increase in the number and richness of mobile ads.

Now, the god of all things cyber, Google is once again breaking new ground by designing ways for publishers to run bigger, more dynamic Google ads for smart phones equipped with HTML capabilities. Utilizing the newest smart phones, including the iPhone, Palm Pre and Android, Google based advertisers can now send and post ads featuring images, music and more characters than their predecessors. Where are these ads hiding, waiting for some unsuspecting mobile surfer to download their ilk? They are being imbedded in search engine results pages and free applications, forcing users to view them in order to get their requested information.

Not only are mobile searchers getting hit with these cutting edge annoyances already, but Google has guaranteed their numero uno position by engineering new advertising units that can be imbedded directly into all mobile apps without the need for special mobile landing pages. These are already in play with most iPhone free apps, but how long until they are a mainstay with paid applications? Personally, I don’t mind passive ads on free downloads, but when I shell out cash for something, I definitely don’t want to have to view any ads or promos when I use the program. I will also avoid any apps that carry ads that will feature music and video to annoy me. Will advertisers listen to people like me? Doubtful, but who knows?

Pity the magazine publishers. It seems no matter what their strategy, people just don’t want or need their product any more. Blame it on the Internet; blame it on the economy; blame it on the proliferation of style over content, but don’t blame the decline in magazine subscriptions to rising prices. Despite the majority of pubs lowering their subscription costs, customers simply aren’t buying their rags at any cover price.

A recent survey of the top 344 magazines revealed that despite a decision by nearly 75% of the publishers to reduce their per-copy subscription price, paid subscriptions continue to decline. According to the study recently completed by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, cheaper magazine prices have failed dramatically to spur sales. Even when major titles like US News & World Report, Newsweek and Time all cut their rates to a mere 75 cents a copy, readers still weren’t interested.

I firmly believe the magazine biz is absolute proof that pay walls will never work for the vast majority of Internet content. Like magazines, news and opinion websites simply don’t have the timeliness or unique content to merit additional charges. After all, when was the last time you really read any “news” in Time or Newsweek that hadn’t been analyzed to death by TV pundits and other web-based sources? Exactly.

—————————–

It appears that the downward spiraling economy is taking a toll on another fabric of society – the jury pool. The Los Angeles Court Systems are complaining of a new and highly disruptive trend in seating citizens for jury duty – the economics of service. It seems that the California courts are having a difficult time in finding people who can afford to take the time off jury duty can require. And not only are those being asked to serve attempting to beg off on hardship clauses, they are becoming more militant in their persuasive techniques.

In a recent case involving a civil suit regarding a severe emotional distress case, potential jurors not only asked to be excused, but once denied that out, decided to yell their objections from the actual jury box. The case in point involved a decorated Sheriff’s deputy suing a supervisor for duress over alleged gay lifestyle charges. Two jurors who were denied dismissal due to economic hardship, forced their own dismissal by one stating in open court, “I think severe emotional distress is what is happening in Haiti. I don’t think you could have such distress from that.” Their spontaneous outburst spurred the rest of the jurors to express their doubts loudly as well, forcing the judge to dismiss the entire pool and try the case himself.

In another case involving asbestos damages, 66 of the 107 prospective jurors were excused for purely financial reasons. They simply couldn’t afford to take the time off work and had no choice but to decline the request. Even under the threat of a $1,500 fine, a lot of Los Angelinos are refusing to honor their $15/day duty. Experts maintain that even if California raised their jury pay to the whopping $40/day they’ve been trying to get for decades, it would make little difference. Apparently Justice is broke as well as blind in California.

The latest twist in the battle of mobile search engine evolution is the ability to apply local targeting. This technology permits smart phone apps to not only recommend a great restaurant (or whatever else you are looking for) located in your present area, but to deliver ads or reviews for that venue instantly. Already in the game are Yelp, Foursquare and Gowalla, along with the goliath of the industry, Google. Its new Near Me Now and Latitude are cutting edge and promise to grab more market share than all the others combined.

Before Google counts its chickens however, it might want to check out what the little guys are launching to compete. Recently, two daring whippersnappers have teamed up to shake up the mobile search biz and industry insiders think they may be on to something. Loopt, the social networking service that allows users to locate any of their friends’ locations instantaneously via detailed mapping; and Mobile Spinach, the Northern California-based mobile coupon distributor are changing the local targeting landscape by offering the first phone apps allowing for local businesses to offer instant coupons and promotions to mobile surfers.

Scheduled to roll out first in San Francisco, their new service will give local merchants the ability to immediately interact with people who are 100% demographically guaranteed to be interested in their product or service. Imagine being able to not only locate reviewed recommendations of a requested product or supplier, but to receive a mobile coupon good for that business immediately. If any local entrepreneurs needed another reason to cancel their Yellow Pages ad or their Sunday circular coupon budget, this is it.

Well almost. The one fly in the ointment is Apple. Last week, the makers of the Macintosh sent notice to mobile app designers everywhere, warning that future applications with local targeting abilities will not be allowed for the iPhone or iPad. This not only hurts firms like Loopt immediately, but with over 25% of the smart phone market, they can control the entire landscape of the market. Design engineers are wondering what the “think different” people are planning to release on their own. Once again, Steve Jobs has the world awaiting his whim.

Regardless of what Apple does, local targeting is here to stay. Soon, every consumer GPS system and smart phone will incorporate this new technology in one way or another. The only question remaining is whether Apple will play well with others or stay in their own sandbox.

Since the inception of the Internet, pop-up ads have been the bane of surfers. Reacting to their customer demands, most IPs instituted apps that precluded pop-ups from ever loading on most computers. Problem solved? Not quite. As anyone who uses the web on regular basis knows, a new form of pop-up has slowly infiltrated the net, especially on video-laden sites. What is this new source of viewer frustration? The dreaded invention known as the pre-roll video ad.

The video pre-roll ad is the latest effort to monetize the deluge of short video clips loaded millions of times daily from people around the globe. As anyone who has watched the cute piano playing cat or the evolution of dance guy knows, the pre-roll ad is mandatory and annoying. How annoying do viewers find these intrusions? According to a new study by the online analytics firm, TubeMogul, almost 16% of video viewers will abandon a site rather than sit through a thirty-second video ad. Even the shorter fifteen-second ads are turned off by almost 10% of potential viewers. Clearly, consumers do not see the value of wasting even a half a minute for the chance to see the latest darling video on the web.

Personally, I not only resent the fact that I am forced to watch a commercial for a product I may or may not ever use, but I really hate pre-rolls because the majority of them are technically unwatchable. I cannot count the number of times I have waited for a pre-roll spot to load, only to discover the final version jerky and loaded with audio that never syncs. Is this the best that top advertisers and their agencies can produce? It’s like the TV networks deciding that to increase viewership, they are going back to broadcasting in black and white.

I especially resent mandatory pre-rolls on news and magazine sites, where I have been forced to turn to other sources for information ruined by pre-rolls. Apparently, I am not alone in this belief, as the TubeMogul study discovered a full 25% of news and magazine viewers will not suffer through an imbedded spot. Apparently the beleaguered mag biz will need to keep trying other revenue streams to continue operations.

As someone who was once sued for $1 million in a ridiculous (from my point of view) non-compete suit, I fully understand the reasoning behind the somewhat paranoid behavior of issuing non-compete contracts. I understand them, but I don’t necessarily endorse them. On one hand, companies need to protect their investments in both products and personnel. On the other, slavery has been against the law with good reason since 1865 (which is how a lot of people view non-compete clauses in employment contracts). They argue that any restraint of employment is tantamount to indentured servitude. Regardless of who’s right, the number of firms using these legalized career binders is on the rise and with it, so is contract litigation.

The latest high profile case to hit the news is one involving a marketing executive from Starbucks who left for the sweeter pastures of Dunkin’ Donuts. In their suit, Starbucks alleges that former employee, Paul Twohig violated his 2004 non-compete clause by accepting a similar position with one of Starbucks’ biggest competitors. They further imply that as result of his new position, Mr. Twohig was directly or indirectly responsible for Dunkin’ Donuts increased competition with Starbucks through aggressive campaigns like the “Dunkin’ Beat Starbucks” taste-test campaign. (I guess they believe that prior to Mr. Twohigs’ arrival, no one at Dunkin’ thought to challenge the market dominance of Starbucks). Really?

As any contract lawyer will tell you, the successful enforcement of a non-compete clause depends directly upon the state in which it is filed. Starbucks is obviously aware of this reality and chose to file suit in Washington as opposed to California, where such suits have proven difficult at best to win. As I mentioned earlier, I was once sued by a previous employer in California, where thankfully, a brilliant judge dismissed it before it ever saw the light of day.

Before you may jump to the conclusion that I was a backstabbing ingrate, allow me to explain the circumstances of the suit. I held a position as Creative Director at a Los Angeles advertising/marketing agency in the 90’s. That agency specialized in direct response campaigns, moving millions of dollars in products ranging from Ginzu knives to sports and beauty merchandise via infomercials. I left their employ for a similar company in Northern California. Thirty days after my departure (which was done without any hard feelings) I was slapped with a million dollar non-compete lawsuit. At the time, my net worth was somewhere in the low four figures, so after the initial shock wore off, I laughed ‘till my sides hurt.

As the case developed, I learned the basis for the non-compete allegation was based upon my previous employer’s unreasonable belief that I used proprietary information gleaned from them for the benefit of my new company. This was confusing to me as I was unaware of any proprietary information given to me. During discovery, it was finally divulged that the info they had provided to me was how to write and produce effective television and radio campaigns. This was ludicrous, as I had been working in TV and radio for several years prior to my job with them.

Needless to say, after proving my past production experience to the court the lawsuit was thrown out. My writing and producing abilities were not company secrets. Still, it was a valuable lesson about signing any kind of a non-compete. A lawsuit started for $5,000 can end up costing the defendant $100,000 regardless of its merits. Thank goodness I was working for a firm that stood behind me and paid for my legal expenses. One can only hope Dunkin’ Donuts does the same for Mr. Twohig.

Television in the 21st century has become much more complicated and confusing than Philo T. Farnsworth ever imagined: digital versus analog; HD versus traditional resolution; LCD versus plasma; cable versus satellite, etc., etc., etc. After decades of offering only one significant improvement, (color versus black and white), today’s TV offerings are almost too much for the average Joe to handle. Just as my elderly next-door neighbor finally decided to go with a flat screen, James Cameron and his ilk have muddied the broadcast waters again with his latest marketing gimmick, 3-D TV.

Driven by the overwhelming success of Avatar, Cameron is now determined to increase his payday by licensing his proprietary 3-D technology to DirecTV, spurring a fast track launch slated for as early as June. Utilizing the buzz of the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas, DirecTV giddily announced its intentions to bring funny colored glasses to living rooms everywhere. The satellite programmer not only publicly proclaimed its intention to broadcast in 3-D, but also disclosed its partnership with Panasonic to develop and release sets based upon its 3-D Viera hi-def platform.

Lest you think 3-D TV will suffer from lack of programming, it won’t. Already, several big name networks have jumped on the new bandwagon, including CBS, NBC, FOX Sports, ESPN, Discovery, MTV, TBS and HDNet. While sports programming is the obvious first choice for the new platform, insiders insist that one day in the near future the majority of network programming will be offered in a PPV 3-D format. Even 3-D Camcorders are ready to roll out at the eyebrow-raising price of $21,000. (But who can place a price on the next America’s Funniest Home Video’s 3-D crotch shot winners?)

All this leads me to wonder if we really need or want our idiot box content delivered in a way that will make us want to hurriedly duck under the couch to avoid a Jeter line drive to center; or to suffer from the massive anxiety a Jack Bauer water boarding session would deliver. As one of the few people left in the galaxy to have not seen Avatar, I am curious as to why 3-D television would be worth the investment. Added to the cost and confusion are the problems associated with having to wear cheesy spectacles for hours at a time. How can the coveted 18-34 demographic multitask on their laptops while squinting through colored lenses?

It will be a fascinating experiment to see how the 2010 MLB All-Star game does when it’s broadcast in 3-D on FOX this summer. God knows this useless spectacle could use some pizzazz, but I don’t know if 3-D is the answer.

Considering how much product is sold in the fourth quarter, it’s amazing to me how generally weak this year’s Christmas spots are. Maybe the majority of creative types are as burned out on the present economy as the rest of America. All I know is that 2009 holiday advertising has left little to talk about. With my disappointment clearly expressed, I now present my second part of the best and worst in holiday TV advertising.

Deserving of Santa’s Best:

1. Amazon Kindle: Great use of step frame editing. I like the playful attitude and catchy theme song. How much holiday advertising this sold-out product requires is debatable, but this campaign should help brand the product as fun and functional.

2. ESPN Sports Center: Okay, the latest amusing offering from ESPN is not technically a Christmas spot, but the sight of Arnold Palmer making an Arnold Palmer is too funny to not praise. ESPN has consistently produced funny ads. Here’s to hoping the trend continues in 2010.

3. Verizon: The accuracy of these Apple bashing spots may be up for debate, but their ability to amuse and attack at the same time is not. I especially like the broken toys spot. And judging from Apple’s response, they must be meeting their objectives.

Deserving Coal:

1. Kay Jewelers: Generally, I find the majority of jewelry ads to be mediocre at best, but the holiday Kay Jewelers ads are beyond bad. The worst one is the “Storm” ad, where a couple clutch each other as they watch a thunderstorm in their winter sweaters. First of all, a thunderstorm in December? Really? Secondly, get better copywriters and actors. The guy’s line about “I’ll always be here for you” is both melodramatic and poorly delivered. Next time, try some snow and competent talent. Why anyone would think of shopping in a Kay store after viewing this fiasco is well beyond me. (By the way, the Jared’s ads are almost as bad.)

2. AVATAR: Okay, while the reviews have been mixed on this $300 million flick, depending on whether the reviewer focused on the technology or the script, their ads need no debate – they suck. While they are running several different versions, they all feature the most over used line in the history of film, “We’re not in Kansas anymore.” No kidding? I was under the impression that the entire mid-west is infested with blue-skinned fairies shooting bows and arrows. If this movie proves to be the blockbuster it looks to be, James Cameron should be praised not for technological advances in film production, but for his ability to overcome a horrible ad campaign.

3. Pharmaceutical Ads: Whether it’s for men’s sexuality, restless legs or female bone degeneration, drug ads have got to be stopped. It’s a wonder how we all got by not knowing the brand names of drugs to ask for prior to the ruling that allowed these predatory ads to air. While most don’t feature a Christmas theme, they all need to be eliminated from the public airways. Let’s not forget, Santa is not licensed to fill our stockings with prescription drugs – bummer!

Here’s to hoping 2010 brings a stronger economy to all and better creative to holiday campaigns. Happy holidays and may your New Year bring you health and happiness.

It’s that special time of the year, when ads ranging from brilliant to horrible invade our TV viewing. In keeping with the holiday spirit, I thought I would share part one of my naughty and nice TV ads list. First, the nice ads — I find these spots both fun and effective for their clients:

1. Radio Shack: Last year, Radio Shack witnessed its stock price drop almost 60%, motivating its brain trust to fire their old agency and bring some new blood on board. Now rebranded The Shack, by Radio Shack’s new broadcast agency, Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners, their holiday TV ads are a bold change from their previous predictable offerings. With Circuit City a mere memory, The Shack thinks the retail electronics door is wide open. While I love their new ads, I don’t believe they offer enough to make them a player again. When was the last time you shopped at The Shack? Still, they are doing as much as they can with what they’ve got and I really dig the I’ve Got a Laptop spot – grade: B+

2. Target Stores: Their new holiday offerings are produced by their in-house agency based in Minnesota and are a successful blend of humor and price point branding. I think they are consistently creative with their TV campaigns and this year doesn’t disappoint — grade: A-

3. Identity Guard: While I have no real use for their service, I must admit that I find their TV ads amusing and to the point. With ads like “Sandals”, their agency, SmithGifford has combined a unique blend of humor and hysteria that gives the viewer a jaded, yet somewhat realistic view of how some online purchases can be usurped by the bad guys — grade: B+

Now, time to name a few campaigns that I find both ineffective and hard to watch:

1. Geico: Talk about schizophrenic! Geico Insurance has produced some of the most creative and at the same time, the most horrendous ad campaigns in the history of television. Since they do not employ sales agents, Geico is totally dependent upon TV ads to sell their product. What kind of research they compile that directs them to splinter their brand in so many different directions is beyond me, but apparently it must work (judging by their frequency). In any event, I find their latest effort featuring the clueless boss to be among their worst, ever. Grade: F

2. Cadillac: First, allow me to disclose that I drive a CTS, but wouldn’t have if I had to glean my desire from their latest and most frequent batch of TV ads. While their rebranding efforts have lowered the average age of a Caddy driver from their 70’s to their mid-50’s, I’ve had enough with the “we’re all so hip” spots. Not only is the message redundant, but they play so often it appears GMC has dropped all other vehicle advertising and is a now one car shop. Stop the madness now — Grade: D

3. Levis: Despite the critical acclaim given to these spots from egocentric film makers, I find the Levis’ Go Forth ads pretentious and off-target. These are the kind of ads directors win awards for and clients go broke over. The handheld MOS shots of half-dressed twenty somethings running around in bad lighting is silly at best and head splitting at worst. How they expect these inept Fellini wannabes to move jeans is beyond me. Is is too much to ask a pants ad to actually show the product? Grade: D-

These are the first part of my holiday TV ad review. If you have any favorites or haters, please feel free to forward them on to me. I’ll post my second part review next week. Until then, happy holidays and may your TV ads always be entertaining.