Measure The Tragedy Difference: Imus vs Virginia Tech
Last week, much of the nation's conversation focused not on the War in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not on the fired U.S. Attorneys controversy or Karl Rove's "accidental" deletion of key email documents related to the firings. Not how the cellphone may be the cause for the dwindling bee population around the world. Labels: Big Media, broadcasters, Cable TV, college students, Control, Coverage, Government, Imus, Media, Media Influence, News, Outrage, Politics, Radio, Rutgers, Shock, Tragedy, TV, Virginia Tech
Or even the O'Reilly/Geraldo verbal fight.
Instead, media -- and even personal conversions among friends and coworkers -- were fixated on the Don Imus scandal.
At first, his broadcast corporate owners were forced to suspend his national radio and simulcast cable TV show for two weeks.
When the uproar refused to die down (and the ratings on news channels kept going up), Al Sharpton's interest group cranked up the pile-on pressure, leading major advertisers to drop their advertising sponsorships. Once this happened, the end was inevitable. MSNBC and CBS Radio both were forced to cancel his show entirely and send the I-Man back to his ranch to contemplate the error of his ways and consider a possible retirement for his 30-year-plus Hall of Fame broadcast career.
The lesson learned?
Big Media has lost control of their content.
(Well, actually, they lost it years ago...but Big Media desperately tries to maintain their grip with the remaining fingernails they haven't nibbled down to nubs.)
Broadcast content no longer is something that just dissipates after its aired. While most listeners or viewers treat broadcast content as disposable, someone is recording...ready to exploit both excellent content as well as potential gaffs in judgement in order to satirize, criticize, reinterpret, spoof or simply to use as a base argument in the fight against social injustices.
Should the nation have been so transfixed on this issue? Was this naval-gazing really necessary? Will it actually create social change...or will our short attention spans just move on like society tends to move on after every scandal?
(Anna Nicole and Britney was so two months ago.)
Were the Three Nasty Words (which were nasty, wrong, and over the line of taste, respect and manners) aimed at the Rutgers University women's basketball team deserving of Tragedy Coverage?
Because feelings were hurt, did this deserve National Outrage?
No.
Does racism suck, does bigotry and misogyny exist and should we stop prejudicial injustice?
Of course.
Does this country need to make Improving Social Harmony Between Races, Classes, Genders and Ethnicities a national and governmental priority requiring regular conversation and debate in order to move forward and heal past and current injustices?
Absolutely.
This is a Presidential job. It requires Presidential leadership. And it should be a permanent job responsibility.
What deserves National Outrage?
What deserves 24/7 Media Tragedy Coverage?
The shocking, awful and criminal catastrophe Monday morning on the campus of Virginia Tech, resulting in the deaths of 32 innocent, gunned-down victims.
We have two examples of college students being attacked in the last 2 weeks. One group of students were verbally attacked through the crass use of three disparaging words during a radio/TV show those students never heard live on-air. They had never listened to nor watched Imus before this scandal. Their hurt only came after other's made them aware of it. After other's exposed and pushed forward the issue.
This attack did not change the documented and permanent result that the Rutgers is this year's NCAA division 1 women's basketball semi-finalists.
On the other hand, another group of students were physically and mortally attacked by a fellow student packed with heavy weapons and apparent mental issues. These 32 students were murdered in less than two hours of real terror.
This is the story deserving national, interest group, parental, academic and media outrage. Everyone is and should be outraged and saddened. This is real Tragedy.
There is a clear and obvious Tragedy difference in these events.
One is the violent weapon of words, stupidity, bad manners, disrespect and spin. Yes, it was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, brought to attention and fixed; apologies needed to be (and were) made. The other is actual violence, shaking the foundations of trust and security on our valued institutions.
Which event is the real tragedy?
The world wants to know where America stands today, what American values remain essential and true. America needs to heal. It does not need more violence.
Violence should not be the American brand.
There is real anger and frustration in our society. We all play a part in finding a solution.
What lessons will we learn from these two very different issues, these different tragedies?
And how will the media choose to influence pop culture and political action?
posted by Unknown @ Tuesday, April 17, 2007,
,
Radio For Sale: The End of Radio Station Super-Sizing
Labels: Acquisitions, Big Media, Consolidation, For Sale, Future of Radio, Media Trend Watching, merger, NAB, Post-Telecom, Privatization, Radio, Radio Stations, Sell, Super-sizing
Radio's been hot on the selling blocks lately, with more than two thousand station transactions in 2006 in the U.S. The last time that many stations were sold off was back in 1997.
The difference?
Then: consolidation merger mania. Now: The post-consolidation end of super-sizing.
Clear Channel leads the "For Sale" movement spinning off lesser market properties while trying to go private. Spanish-broadcasters Univision did go private last June for almost $13 billion. Infinity shed about 35 stations in the past 6 months. Bonneville station swapped with Entercom. And, most recently, Citadel completed its 18-month financial journey purchasing ABC Radio.
The last time radio saw this amount of selling action was right after the Telecom Bill of 1996, which changed all the owership limit rules, spurred fast merger and acquisition consolidation and created super-sized radio groups.
Back then, market values for stations soared as groups raced to get "big" as fast as possible...all in the name of increasing radio's competitive position for ad dollars against other media (or so we were told), damn the consequences.
Ten years later, stations are selling again...but the motivation is different this time around.
"Less is more" might really mean "cluster/group right-sizing".
Instead of station sales creating mega radio groups, radio is scaling back by selling off to smaller groups...or even to brand new small groups. This brings more competition back into radio and creates more-manageable operations, especially in the unrated, small-sized, and mid-sized markets.
Radio needs this retro trend of ownership diversfication, which hopefully can attract fresh creativity and innovative content ideas that work.
Meanwhile, station groups in Canada are being sold off, too...with Astral making a play for Standard and CHUM going to BellGlobal...but there's a difference between radio in Canada and the U.S.
Now that we've entered the post-consolidation phase, what did the last ten years bring to radio? There are a small few who made a ton of money, some who made a little and then there's the overwhelming majority -- people who lost gigs and careers (and money) as well as radio listeners who gave up, moving on to different (better) media choices (or, at least away from commercial radio and over to either NPR or new media forms of radio).
Radio remains important and profitable. This new active buy/sell phase is good for radio, leading to smaller major radio groups (as opposed to massive, complex-to-manage divisions).
With all these recent station sell-offs, what bodes for radio's future? Will it improve quality? Minimally, the gap between executive management and the content will shrink somewhat (that's good). Will radio reinvest in creativity and real (not just financial) innovation? Going private and having radio less beholden to Wall Street is also a good thing. But what about that elusive increase in radio's share of total advertising dollars?
And what about radio's issue fighting against the proposed XM/Sirius merger when radio is trying to get its own house in order?
The chart below shows the amount of station selling activity last year:
BIAfn reports:For the first time since 1997 radio station transactions reached levels above 2,000 in 2006, according to the first edition of BIA Financial Network’s quarterly Investing In Radio® Market Report. The breakdown of 1,544 station sales in radio markets (as defined by Arbitron) and 562 unrated areas last year (compared with 1,613 and 637, respectively, in 1997) [led by the proposed privatization of Clear Channel Communications]...demonstrate an interest in the purchase of small market stations as long term investments.
Is radio making a U-Turn? Is old school sanity returning to radio? Was the consolidation run-up just another merger mania cash grab? Did radio watch "Super Size Me" and decide it needed to reduce to "get healthy"?
Will former radio leaders run out of the industry due to consolidation find new opportunities to return and reinvest? Will Wall Street continue to downgrade radio? Is the unretirement of Dan Mason a sign of things to come for the industry?
So what is the future of radio? There will be lots to discuss at next week's NAB show in Las Vegas April 14-19.
posted by Unknown @ Sunday, April 08, 2007,
,
Content Matters...But Distribution Rules In Media
Labels: Big Media, Content, Distribution, Google, Jointblog, Media Trend Watching, New Media, Time, Traditional Media, Viacom, What's Next, YouTube
Distributors are the ultimate media gatekeeper.
When Time magazine named "You" as its 2006 Person of the Year, it attracted mixed critical response. Some thought it was brilliant, others thought it was a cop out. Whatever. That editorial decision did announce something fresh: one of traditional media's pillars of print media acknowledged the cultural significance of today's digital new media reality.
2007 has delivered major changes within Time, including mass job cuts, retirements and restructuring as well as a new delivery date (Fridays instead of Mondays). It's also brought about many design updates and content adjustments, intended to tighten up the partnership between the weekly magazine and the daily updates of Time.com.
Among the subjects Time features more is a regular look at "what's next" in consumer tech and media, which grabs this media trend watcher's attention.
This week's "Curious Capitalist" writes that "Google Gooses Big Media" (wha?...what exactly does that mean?...has Big Media's butt been pinched?). For a traditional (mainstream, or MSM) print media publication to say "The search giant rewrote the rules of distribution and selling ads...The big movie, TV and print outfits may never catch up" is startling.
Why?
Well, first of all, they're admitting Google is now the leader steering media's growth -- not the TV, Print or Movie industries (and, by its absence, certainly not radio).
Secondly, while it's good news one of the biggest mainstream media publications in the world acknowledges new media's (and specifically Google's) importance in the total media mix...this "news" arrives several years late.
Lastly, Time Inc's viewpoint seems completely opposite of Viacom's effort to turn YouTube into SueTube.
The article does drive home excellent points, especially how it puncture's the tired adage that "content is king"."Content is king." It's a phrase uttered repeatedly by media executives making the case that the movies, music, TV shows, books and journalism their companies produce are the core of their business.
Yes, content matters...but that's a bit of a smoke screen. Distribution of content is what's always mattered. The owners of printing presses since the 17th century. The owners of radio towers and transmitters throughout the 20th century. The same has been true for the record/music industry, the TV industry, the cable industry...and now the top domains online.
It happens to be a dubious claim. Sure, movies, music and TV shows have value...But they alone have never generated the huge, reliable profits that keep investors happy and pay for midtown-Manhattan skyscrapers. No, the big money in media has always been in distribution.
Sometimes the media companies do this distributing themselves -- big media have long been defined by their ability to make sure their products are displayed prominently there. "The historical media play," says consultant John Hagel, "is having privileged access to limited shelf space."
Extending content value through syndication rights and efficient distribution "pipelines" (or "networks" or high-speed wireless linkages, etc.) is really where it's at. Always has been...and it continues to be that way.
The trend: Mainstream media is still slowly figuring out new, better ways to marry its traditional media distribution system with its online distribution opportunities. As archaic copyright rules over content control evolve (such as DRM), will regulations tighten or relax? The battle over the next 5 years will be fierce and worth watching.
What do you think?
posted by Unknown @ Sunday, March 18, 2007,
,
