LB's Rambles

Ignoring the Obvious

I have to agree with Jeff Jarvis on this one: sending 15,000 reporters to the political convention(s) is stupid.

I've pretty well been ignoring the convention this week (and expect to do the same for the Republicans next week) for precisely the reasons outlined in Jarvis's article and in many of the comments on his post. I'm old enough to remember when conventions WERE important, a chance to watch the political system in action - warts, smoke-filled rooms and all. Candidates would be chosen - really chosen, not crowned. Politicians would fight over issues, positions, rules, platforms and all the real inner workings of politics.

Not any more - it's all marketing, spin, counter-spin, and the glorious irrelevancies breathlessly repeated and reported by perhaps 14,900 of those 15,000 "journalists." I used to be one of them; I'm relieved to be out of that rat-race.

Olympic Measures

Think a lot of people will be watching the Olympics? NBC clearly does. And not just on television. So the NBC measurement folks have come up with a very good idea: experiment with ways to measure that on-line, off-air exposure. According to Bulldog Reporter's Daily Dog, quoting from the AP, NBC research chief Alan Wurtzel is calling it the "billion-dollar lab."

Measurement has always been a problem for the online world. TV has ratings systems, and - whether or not you accept their accuracy - those systems have been accepted for years as reliable indicators of audience size. Web video doesn't have that same kind of system. Check out the story linked above for details on the NBC plans. A lot of us who are interested in better ways to measure video will be watching to see what NBC comes up with.

Where Do You Get Your Business News?

So here you are with a business news story, and you want to reach the widest possible audience. Gotta get into the WSJ, right? Or the NY Times Business section?

Or maybe you should be spending more time concentrating on online resources. MediaPost's Media Daily News quotes Forbes.com and Gartner as saying that a growing number of affluent decision-makers are using the web as their primary source for business news. The key finding:

In the last four years, the number of C-level executives who consider the Internet the most important and influential source of business info rose from under 50% in 2004 to 67% in 2008--roughly seven out of 10 executives.

As the article points out, that's more bad news for newspaper publishers - who probably don't really need more bad news. But it's a major point for those who have business news they want to get out in front of those C-level executives. And it's another reason why PR and advertising agencies which still don't get the web are increasingly looking like dinosaurs headed for the tar pits.

The Thing That Would Not Die

First the good news: according to MediaPost, the New York State legislature has gone home, effectively killing a proposed measure that would have forced advertisers who want to send out targeted ads to potential clients based on their web usage to (a) notify said clients that they were being targeted and (b) give them the opportunity to opt out.

Now there's nothing wrong with opt out systems, though personally I prefer to require people to opt in instead, which gives them even more control. There's a lot wrong with trying to legislate it rather than relying on the industry to police itself or relying on consumers to exercise a minimal amount of responsibility. There's even more wrong with trying to legislate it on a state-by-state level. That leads to the kind of nonsensical regulations we see embodied in the superfine print on every credit card statement - you know, "In Ohio, Arkansas and Peoria IL, this rate shall be capped at 31.5%" - the kind of thing that brings happiness to lawyers and does diddlysquat for the rest of us. How is a web advertiser supposed to make sure that - say - potential clients in New York are notified of point "A" while California consumers are warned about "B"?

Even more to the point, as far as I'm concerned, is that I like targeted advertising. Really. I don't ever want to see another ad for "Ciali$" or another piece of illiterate porn spam that is bulk emailed to everyone, but if I'm web-surfing looking for information about cameras, I don't mind if Canon or HP or a big photo store lets me know that they've got camera specials running now. For that matter, it's easy to ignore the ads I don't care about. I've had plenty of practice.

I said, that was the good news. Now the bad news: the bill's sponsor says he'll be back to keep pushing his act whenever the legislature reconvenes. Guess he's planning to run for re-election as a consumer champion. As Sam Goldwyn used to say, include me out. If only I could opt out of hearing from politicians as easily as I can opt out of advertising...

Brokaw to "Meet the Press"

NBC has decided to have Tom Brokaw anchor "Meet the Press" through the November election, filling the late Tim Russert's seat.

Makes sense to me. Brokaw is pretty widely respected - justifiably so, I think - and his stint at NBC News has included a number of appearances at "Meet the Press." The real question, I suppose, remains: who will anchor the show after the election? Brokaw? One of the cable stars? I think those of us who care about the news business hope it will be someone with enough news smarts to bring off a balanced, tough, fair and intelligent show.

Calling PR Triage Agents!

The Congress of the United States appears to be desperately in need of better PR help. Despite a stream of favorable press releases issued every day from 535 congressional offices (not to mention committees, full organizational releases, etc.), the Gallup organization finds the lowest congressional ratings ever for ANY American institution among the American people. 12% of those surveyed express a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress as an institution. Oh, that's down from 30% in 2004.

By contrast, 71% express those high confidence levels in the military.

26% even have that same faith in the presidency as an institution. That's more than double the Congressional rating.

So, Nancy and Harry, how's that new leadership thing working out?

Hat tip: JammieWearingFool via Instapundit

Flying the Unfriendly Skies

As I'm sure you've heard me say before, customer service matters. These days, it's one of the most important considerations in business, because people who are treated badly by a company tend to spread the word to their friends and acquaintances.

The latest example comes from the airline industry. According to the Bulldog Reporter's Daily Dog, J.D. Powers and Associates finds that, for many customers, lousy customer service outweighs other negatives such as new charges and higher air fares.

Now I usually fly Continental (because I live near their Newark hub), and I'm happy to see that Continental and Alaska Air rank high for service among the larger, established airlines. Nice for me, since they're easy for me to fly.

But if I had to choose among some of the other big carriers who are now offering second-class service at top-drawer prices, I'd be pretty damned unhappy. And my unhappiness, wherever possible, turns into lost business. As I've said many many times before, when choosing among airlines, who are you more likely to believe - the company's ads or your unhappy friends?

Battle of the Ad Dollars

Online advertising is attracting billions of dollars in advertising, and most forecasters see that number growing exponentially over the next few years. But - as I suspect everyone is fully aware - the amount spent online remains a tiny fraction of most advertisers' budgets, particularly the big consumer companies like Procter and Gamble.

The Washington Post has a fairly good summation in a new story which reviews the state of play of online and offline advertising. I think it's a good summary for anyone who wants to keep up with the latest developments. But I was struck mostly by the amount of advertising attached to a story about the relative scarcity of online advertising. Clicking on a link to the Washington Post story first brings up a full-screen ad for (in my case) HP. Fair enough. Click to dismiss the ad and the first page of a three page story comes up - with a large display ad on the right side of the page. That positioning (with, of course, different ads) is repeated on each page of the story.

The ads I saw certainly didn't appear to be targeted, and I suspect that's a function of all the privacy hoo-ha. I'm on record in many places as preferring targeted ads - I'd rather see notices about things that might interest me. And I suspect that this is the direction in which online advertising is headed - although nothing much is said about it in the Post article. I don't mind if companies know I appear to be interested in something they sell - and try to tell me about it.

Yes, it would be nice to have a share of the billions spent by Procter and Gamble on advertising. But companies trying to reach huge masses of consumers may not get the kind of audience or response they need until they learn how to target specific groups of consumers for specific products. That's the kind of advertising that does well on the web.

UPDATE: to add Hat Tip - MediaPost

In Fairness to the AP...

As a followup to my last item below, this story continues to develop. As such stories will, it has taken on something of a life of its own.

In fairness, there are two newer, lengthier posts you ought to read - a well-thought-out comment from Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine, and a longer one with very valuable background about the controversy and its background - and why the AP's point of view has been misrepresented - from Robert Cox, the president of the Media Bloggers Association.

Bias Observed

Bias may be in the eye of the beholder, but when a majority of those beholders see bias, maybe it's time to agree there's a problem somewhere.

A new Rasmussen survey finds that only 17% of voters believe the media try to offer unbiased election coverage. 68% believe that reporters play favorites.

And three out of four voters think the media have too much power and influence over elections.

As a long-time reporter (and short time PR person), I find those results extremely disturbing and damning. I don't think that constantly repeating "No no, we're all objective here" is going to solve anything. And if the mainstream media want to remain in the game, then some rethinking is going to be necessary. Voters aren't as stupid as some in the media seem to think.

Hat tip: Instapundit