Dave’s Take

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.

How bad is the recession hurting local television stations? Pretty bad apparently, as evidenced by WNEM, a CBS affiliate in Saginaw, Michigan. To combat sliding sales the station decided to take a page from the region’s dying newspapers and add a previously print only feature to its programming – obituaries. That’s right, WNEM is the first TV station in the country to broadcast deceased viewers names and photos on their airwaves.

For the reasonable sum of $100, the station will run the dearly departed’s name, photo and full-length obituary during the their morning and noon news shows. The televised obits refer people to their website, http://www.obitmichigan.com, where complete information about the services, etc. are listed. Finally, an Internet tie-in that really provides added value.

The Meridith Corporation, (the station’s owners), expect to expand the concept this year by including the programming on its other stations. They firmly believe that the more stations that carry the feature, the more comfortable the public as well as funeral directors will become with the concept, leading to more earnings. With the daily death of more news dailies, the TV obit may be the way of the future. With local TV sales down on average more than 27% for 2009, you can bet that more broadcasters will be looking for other ways to cash in on the economy.

In fact, the idea for televising obituaries didn’t come from management, but from the community. “I got some phone calls and Emails from people who just said, ‘If we can’t get the obits in the newspaper every day of the week, is there anything you can do to put it on TV?’”, stated Al Blinke, WNEM’s VP/General Manager. After some initial research, the station assigned some sales staff and techies to the idea and soon it was reality.

Just how profitable televised obituaries will prove to be remains to be seen, but at least it’s a new slant for local stations. Any new revenue streams are a sight for sore eyes as far as local broadcasters go. Perhaps they could get some press for offering a free obituary to something that truly needs it – The Jay Leno Show.

In a previous blog, I lamented the fact that the FCC and FTC were woefully inept at keeping proven liars off our paid airwaves. Who hasn’t viewed claims made in TV infomercials and commercials that we know is nothing short of pure, unadulterated B.S.? We don’t need to be scientists to realize most people are not going to lose 150 pounds on Jenny Craig (despite what Marie, Valerie and Coach Shula claim). We also don’t need an advanced degree to know that most drug ads are deceiving at best and outright dishonest at worst. Or that despite being good people, most men will lose some or all of the hair, eventually. No, what we need is a government agency with the competence and motivation to run these charlatans off the air. And now, thanks to new FCC guidelines, sanity may have finally arrived in the crazy town that is endorsement advertising.

Beginning December 1st, all advertising endorsements will be subject to a logical smell test – one that is obvious to everyone but the thieves. Starting then, anyone who makes a claim as to a service or product’s effectiveness will have to prove it. This is significant; because no longer will the old, “Results may vary” in 2-point used car font suffice to let the liar off the hook. Now, they must make claims that are typical for all users and not just the ones that had a million dollar reason for succeeding. Are you listening, Jared? The only consistent exemption to this law would be for humorous endorsements, which must be presented in a way that is “obvious to the viewer.” (I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, just about all of these shills are clowns).

Not only must any beneficial product claims made be proven, but all endorsers must disclose their relationship with the advertiser. I believe this clause was inserted to combat all of the bloggers and Internet “reporters” who make unchecked claims about everything from Rogaine to Yoga. Bloggers will now be forced to admit that their video games and Buffy t-shirts are freebies from their corporate pimps. This rule will also apply to endorsements given over social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. How they’ll enforce potential violations is beyond me, but I welcome the opportunity (and threat).

Crooks, er critics of the new rules claim not only are they a violation of free speech, but will be impossible to enforce uniformly. They argue thresholds have yet to be established, thereby leaving a gray area, especially in trade-outs. When does a blogger or endorser have to reveal they received the product or service for free or at a discount? Will getting a free $3 coupon trip the endorser disclosure act? Yes, there are still lots and lots of details to be worked out and that’s what the courts and public input are for. I’m just glad that I don’t have to wonder if the Ablounger really will take six inches off my waste while I sleep.

NBC’s latest prime time entry, The Jay Leno Show premiered this week to higher than expected ratings of over 18 million viewers. The new show, which looks just like the old show (minus the desk), drew an audience of fans, curiosity seekers and told ya soers. The fans tuned in because they like the old shoe feel of the show—no real controversy, blue language or racy sketches. The curiosity seekers watched to see if Leno had the daring to break the mold of his persona and take a chance (which he didn’t). The told ya soers watched just long enough to be able to tell their friends and co-workers how right they were with the predictability of the new offering being a weak sister. Overall, not a real satisfying experience for any one.

As someone who can take or leave Jay Leno, I was more in the told ya soers boat. I was not surprised at the milquetoast look and feel of the new show. I had read enough about it to know that the chance of any new breakthroughs or pacing changes was pretty much nil. What did surprise me was how truly bad the writing and skit selection was. I thought that if nothing else, the four-month hiatus the writing staff and host took off would lead to some real solid (if not predictable) jokes. I was wrong. It was almost unwatchable. From the weak monologue to the absolutely horrendous car wash song bit, the jokes were few and far between. This lack of humor is however, just one of the reasons I hope his show tanks.

If the new Jay Leno Show is successful it will spell the end of adult dramas on network television. Because it can be produced for about one-tenth of the expense of a one-hour drama, shows like Jay’s will proliferate on all four networks. This will all but doom dramas, as they are usually aired in the last hour of prime time. Besides all the writers, directors, producers, grips, make-up artists and production assistants being put out of work by reality and variety shows, the success of jay Leno will help complete the slide into comprehensive script free programming. Do we really need or want more of this schlock? I think not.

Jay Leno is a talented guy who from all reports is also nice and deserving. Before his network sellout he was a great stand-up comedian, performing comedy in clubs over 300 times a year. I hate to actively root against his prosperity, but he has left me no choice. In the war of Survivor versus West Wing, I’m on the side of the guys who know how to act, not just react.

Everyone in advertising knows firsthand how this economy is killing our biz. Excluding the big three, (real estate, construction and automotive) perhaps no other profession has been as hurt by this recession as the advertising industry. Just about every agency in the country is struggling to stay alive regardless of their cost cutting strategies. With a drop of 8.5% in total ad spending this year, things are looking bleak. Unfortunately for traditional advertising, the news just gets worse.

The latest quarterly forecast from Publicis’ ZenithOptima Group only confirms what we’ve all been witnessing—traditional ad spending is in the tank, while online outlays continue to grow. Their latest report predicts Internet ad spending will expand 10.1% in 2009, a jump of 1.5% over their April forecast. Based upon current leanings, industry projections are for a 12.6% increase in 2009 online ad budgets, totaling to more than a respectable $56.8 billion. This represents an amazing gain of over two full points of worldwide ad share, with trending only pointing to more gains.

Next year, they predict online ad expenditures to exceed 15% of ALL advertising monies spent. What’s driving this expansion? Three words — Paid Search Advertising. With consumers increasingly on the lookout for bigger and better bargains, paid search advertising is expected to grow by a shocking 20% in 2009 alone. In addition to bargain hunters, new competition from innovations like Microsoft’s Bing is only making paid search advertising more competitive…and profitable.

And just who is giving up market share to feed this online growth? Surprise – it’s traditional advertising. 2009 totals are expected to show a 7.1% drop in TV ad revenue, followed by outdoor (-7.0%) and cinema (-4.8%). While these drops in spending are bad for their prospective industries, they are positively marvelous compared to those in the print media. Newspapers are expected to suffer an incredible 14.7% decrease in ad revenues this year, topped only by the 16.7% of losses facing magazine publishers. Future trends predict a rebound for the slicks business, but only doom and gloom for the rags.

What this all means to the advertising industry is still unknown. Are these numbers sustainable or just anomalies? Will online ads really deliver the sales and brand loyalty that television and print have accomplished? Will savvy consumers embrace online ads as helpful instead of intrusive? Who knows? All I know is that in advertising, you either embrace the future or learn a new profession.