Is broadcast television dying on the vine?

Posted on November 28, 2018 by bvanrysdam

Newspapers have long been seen as a dying medium, but it may soon be joined by broadcast television. The New York Times is reporting that viewership continues to fall. Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are snatching up younger demos left and right.

The Wall Street Journal reported more than 1 million consumers cut the cable in the past quarter (May-Aug. 2018), and moving to streaming services so what is going on? (Streaming services can include broadcast television and cable programming, but makes it harder to count the number of viewers) .

Much of the programming offered on broadcast TV these days are “re-boots,” shows brought back from the past that get a face lift (Murphy Brown, Hawaii 5-0, Will and Grace and show formally known as Rosanne). While this strategy worked for a while, it is becoming clear that audiences are looking for more.

Broadcast television can still tout franchises like Law & Order, and medical shows still are able to pull in decent ratings, but at much smaller audience sizes. Reality shows are also not immune from this trend. Dancing With the Stars has fallen by more than 31 percent this season and Shark Tank has loss of 33 percent causing us to wonder when the investor hosts bail on a sinking ship.

Re-boot shows that were relevant 20 – 30 years ago no longer fit the today’s millennial lifestyle. Take a look at what programs won an Emmy in 2018. While not a good way to measure ratings, cable outlets and streaming services dominated with wins which you have to believe is due to superior programs.

There’s another challenge for broadcasters. Long gone are the days when viewers only had two to three choices. Jack Benny ruled Sunday nights with enormous shares having President Kennedy quipping that he was too busy to watch most television but that he made the time to watch The Jack Benny Program each week.

There’s still some good news for broadcasters, it’s called football. The ratings for the week of Nov. 5, 2018, saw 6 of the top 10 programs tied to football programming (not just the games, but pre/post game programs). The rights to broadcast the games continue to soar, but so far, over the air broadcasters are able to hold on to them.

As we used to say in the biz, content is king or put another way “if you build it, they will come”.

War of the words

Posted on November 16, 2018 by bvanrysdam

There continues to be a blurring of the lines in the fourth estate. The most recent incident involves CNN reporter Jim Acosta who had his credentials removed after a testy exchange with President Trump. The White House claims Acosta made contact with an intern when he refused to give back the microphone. CNN has sued the White House in an effort to reinstate Acosta. A judge issued a court order to temporarily reinstate his pass, but it’s going to be tough for viewers (especially of Fox News) to accept Acosta can remain objective in his reporting.

This is not about whether or not the White House has the right to revoke a reporters credentials (I do in fact believe they have that right under the proper circumstances). There are other CNN reporters that have access to the White House, so it’s not like the entire news organization has been banned. My problem with all of this is when a reporter becomes part of the story.

Having reporters like Acosta appear on programs such as Anderson Cooper 360 puts them in a tough spot. Any time a reporter shows up on a talking head show, they run the risk of delving into the land of speculation which can lead them down the slippery slope of offering an opinion. Now he has become part of the story which in the minds of many, (myself included) casts doubts on his ability to be objective in his reporting.

And this issue is not exclusive to CNN. The White House promoted Fox News broadcaster/journalist Sean Hannity was scheduled to appear with President Trump at a campaign rally before November’s election. That immediately set off an uproar about journalistic integrity. Hannity later said he was broadcasting his show from the rally, but was not there to make an appearance, although when the president invites you up to stage, what are you going to do, say no? Even Fox News called it an “unfortunate distraction” and Hannity, who was advertised to appear on Fox News election coverage ended up being a no show.

I personally don’t consider Hannity a journalist in the true sense of the word. I also don’t find Anderson Cooper one either, but that’s okay, talk show hosts can play an important role in updating and educating their audience, but I do think we need to hold reporters and news anchors (not talking heads) to a higher standard and have them report the news, not be a part of it.

Saving face

Posted on October 29, 2018 by bvanrysdam

I’m Back (maybe)

Megan Kelly is in the news again. This time she stepped in it by saying it wasn’t racist for white people to darken their skin with makeup, as long as they’re portraying an actual person of character during a round-table discussion of Halloween costumes.

It probably took the internet less than a millisecond to explode into outrage. Kelly first apologized in an eternal email to co-workers writing “I realize now that such behavior is indeed wrong, and I am sorry. The history of blackface in our culture is abhorrent; the wounds too deep”. Kelly then also offered an on-air apology.

Now I am not a fan of Kelly and never found her to be that interesting, or that good of an interviewer, but admit to being a little surprised at the reaction of NBC executives. Does anyone remember the forgettable “White Chicks”? Two African American actors (Shawn and Marlon Wayans) go undercover in an abduction case, disguised as the two spoiled white daughters of a tycoon, Brittany and Tiffany Wilson. Other than being awarded a Razzie as the Worst Picture in 2005, White Chicks did not create the outrage Kelly received for simply thinking it was OK for different races to mimic each other.

Is there a double standard? Some will argue its offensive because blacks suffered terrible injustices at the hands of white people and who’s to say that’s not true, or that it’s not fair to feel that way.

Did she say it with hate in her heart, or simply ignorant of the deep hurt that thinking that way can cause someone to be offended. I wonder how many other white Americans understood how African Americans really felt about this. I also wonder if the reaction would have been the same if it someone other than Kelly had said it.

Perhaps in the end this was not about blackface, but more about NBC executives trying to save face and find a way to get out of what appears to be a bad programming decision/contract with a host whose popularity is lukewarm at best.

We’re on the road to nowhere

Posted on June 28, 2018 by bvanrysdam

How did we get here? That’s a question that’s being asked more and more. Where has civility gone? Have we come to the point where people are so tired of feeling bad that they feel the need to lash out at others?

I attended a recent conference that featured Evan Smith from the Texas Tribune. He spoke about how, as a society, we are choosing to get our information from sources that think like we do. Consider yourself a conservative? You’re probably watching Fox News. Lean more liberal? You are probably turning to CNN for your news.

The problem is that you are only getting one side to story that may have several (meaning even more than two!). Americans are not looking to get information to learn something, but rather looking for someone to validate their own beliefs and that’s where the trouble starts.

Doing this leads us to thinking we don’t need to compromise because there are plenty of people who think like we do right? Why should we give in, let the other guy deal with it. This leaves us running in place for the most part because nothing gets done (which actually could be a good thing).

Here’s something else to remember. While the right is getting their information from Fox and the left from CNN, there is a common denominator between both media giants, they are driven by profits which means, just like politicians, they play to their base (or audience).

I am not suggesting it’s #FakeNews, but than again, it’s not very good coverage of the news either.

Who is minding the store?

Posted on September 19, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Computers and big data are getting smarter and smarter, but are we relying on them too much?

Bogus ads and fake news on Facebook are getting people’s attention. Being able to super-target a consumer down to age, gender, location and web browsing history is a marketers wet dream, but a question of who is minding the store is starting to be raised.

There is currently an investigation underway to determine if the Russian government tried to influence the recent presidential election, but there is even a darker element to targeting certain groups of people that defies common sense.

ProPublica, an investigative news organized reported on how Facebook’s automated ad software allowed them to target people interested in ‘Jew hater’, ‘History of why Jews ruin the world’ and ‘How to burn Jews’. The Houston Chronicle’s Chris Tomlinson tested those targeted groups with his own ads which Facebook approved within 15 minutes.

Facebook eventually removed those options after it was brought to their attention, but the question remains, how could that have been an acceptable target demo to begin with?

Buying ads on social media that are automated allows companies to keep profits high and costs down, but at what cost? Free speech is protected by the First Amendment, but do these companies really want to be known for promoting and profiting from these messages?

Disinformation is nothing new, Tokyo Rose was a fabricated name given by Allied troops in the South Pacific during World War II to all female English-speaking radio broadcasters of Japanese propaganda. The soldiers knew it was fake, but in today’s social media world, it’s getting harder and harder to spot them.

What responsibility does Facebook have? In the end, not much unless you are fan of credibility. Letting the consumer figure out what’s real and what isn’t does not sound like a solid business approach. Your friends might not stop posting, but companies might have second thoughts of having their ads next to a Jew hater ad.

There is another dark side to this automation without human oversite. During Hurricane Irma, people were scrambling to evacuate Miami. Travel websites starting jacking up fares that were $547 to over $3,200. Price gouging? No, just a computer doing its job of seeing high demand for an item and pricing it accordingly. Again, removing the human element from the equation.

How did consumers respond? They turned to social media to publicly shame companies for their practices (and to their credit, most responded). Until we learn to better humanize computers, we should be even more wary of what is being served to us in our feed.

The most watched music video of all time

Posted on July 11, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Gangnam Style is finally no longer the most watched YouTube video. The mega-hit by South Korean Psy was the most played video on YouTube for the last five years.

How popular was Gangnam Style? It broke the play counter and forced YouTube to rewrite the code, but now there’s a new No. 1; “See You Again” by Wiz Khalifa and featuring Charlie Puth.

“See You Again” has whizzed by Psy with an astonishing 2,896,978,257 views (at the time of writing). The song, released in 2015 on the Furious 7 Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, was commissioned as a tribute to the late actor Paul Walker.

A lot has happened since Gangnam Style was released. Obama was re-elected to a second term, Whitney Houston passed away, the Boston Marathon was rocked by a bomber, Pope Benedict XVI resigned, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went missing, the Winter Olympics were held in Sochi, Microsoft introduced Windows 10 and Donald Trump was elected president.

It is astonishing when you think about the number of times these two videos have been seen when you consider that 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute with almost 5 billion videos being watched every day.

Video may have killed the radio star, but today it looks like YouTube killed MTV.

What’s the frequency Kenneth?

Posted on July 6, 2017 by bvanrysdam

The Federal Communications Commission is considering whether or not to keep the main studio rule which requires stations to maintain “main studios” in their primary coverage area.

Organizations like the National Association of Broadcasters claim this rule is inconsistent” with listener and viewer expectations, and suggested that eliminating the rule would result in cost savings, better deployment of resources, efficiency and better service.

The broadcast industry, like many other industries, has seen massive challenges and change over the last few decades. Years of consolidation, debt and emerging technologies like the internet have forced to it to come up with new ways to remain viable and profitable.

Long gone are the days where powerful radio stations were owned by families like the Jones (who owned KTRH & KLOL). Those families were part of the fabric of the community, and while making a profit was important, so was service.

LPTV operator Venture Technology Group said “the purpose of the rules has been bypassed by technology,” but has it? I thought the purpose was to serve the community that the station was licensed to.

There is fear that broadcasting emergency information can be impacted. Can you imagine someone in Los Angles providing coverage of a hurricane that is headed toward Houston? There is also concern if you eliminate the main studio rule, you run the risk of losing places for talent to pay their dues and gnaw their teeth. It is very rare for someone to be an overnight sensation and make it to the major markets.

So where do new and aspiring broadcasters start? Internet radio? Pod-casting? YouTube? All are possible, but that begs the question, who needs a broadcast station to begin with.

Many feel the industry shot themselves in the foot when they opened the door to consolidation and allowed companies to own multiple stations in a single market. They might be shooting themselves in the other foot if the main studio rule goes away which will make it very hard for them to remain standing.

To tweet or not to tweet, that is the question

Posted on June 8, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Donald J. Trump likes to tweet. He has turned to Twitter to announce his Director of the FBI nomination, criticize his critics and his thoughts on why the ratings were poor for The Apprentice.

While pundits have been talking for days on how seriously people should take his tweets, there is another discussion taking place regarding the constitutionality of how he manages his Twitter account.

It seems @realDonalTrump has blocked several accounts that reply to his tweets with comments that are, shall we say, not very nice (and really, who could blame him?). Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them and there-in lies the potential problem.

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York sent a letter to President Trump, requesting he unblock certain Twitter users on the grounds it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They claim blocking the tweets is a form of suppressed speech in a public forum which is protected.

President Trump isn’t the first politician to block users, members of congress, governors and other elected officials have all blocked/deleted people on various social media channel. The problem, according to Deborah Jeon, American Civil Liberties Union legal director, is that many politicians are using social media in place of town hall meetings. It makes sense in the fact that it’s much easier to control the conversation.

Legal experts have said that President Trump’s tweets have effected public policy, hampering efforts to have his so-called travel ban become law. It has also been reported that many White House staffers learn of new initiatives by his tweets.

So where could this lead us to? Most likely that proverbial road to the courthouse.