quarterlife crisis?

“Quarterlife,” the first Web-based drama to air on network television, has been canceled by NBC after a dismally rated first episode but will move to sister cable channel Bravo, people close to the show said on Thursday.

The highly touted online series about a group of young artists bombed in its NBC debut on Tuesday night, drawing the network’s lowest ratings and smallest audience for that time slot in at least 20 years, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Ouch.
Let’s be honest - ‘quarterlife’ was doomed from the start.  It was designed for MySpace, to be distributed on the web, but it ended up on television instead.  The subject matter was specific to the web.  The production style was suited for online.  Everything that Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick, the Emmy-winning producers of “thirtysomething” and “My So-Called Life” had put together was geared towards an audience of 20-somethings who get their content primarily (if not entirely) online.

So why did NBC buy the program and put it on TV?  My guess is because they thought they could make more money with advertisers, get a larger viewing audience to tune in, instead of log on.  They were wrong.
There is an audience out there that wants to see a well produced drama about 20-somethings.  Some are still watching television regularly, and maybe NBC will find success putting ‘quarterlife’ on one of its more targeted cable channels (though I would guess not in this case).  You see, the majority have found other ways to get their entertainment: through the web, on their mobile devices like cell phones and iPods, and within social networks (which, while online, have a whole different way of operating).
NBC should have known that, the evidence of this shift in how people get and share information is not hard to find.  I think they did know, and they chose to ignore it.
TV networks haven’t found a good reason to break their old habits and old models.  They still make plenty of money doing things the wrong way.  And they get pressure from advertisers, who don’t understand that times have changed either, to keep doing things the same way they always have.  Networks like NBC, and their advertisers, will probably make money this way, the wrong way, for a few more years.  But, the audience is changing and their (our) expectations have changed dramatically.  The networks, and their advertisers, must radically change their activities and recognize that a new world requires a new way of operating.  Until they do, you will see them fall flat on their faces time after time, just as they did in the case of ‘quarterlife.’
Stay tuned, I guess…

Public Media 2007

I spoke on a panel Friday morning at Public Media 2007, the Interactive Media Association’s annual conference.  The conference brings together the folks from the public broadcasting (radio and TV) communities who are focused on interactive (read: online) communications.  While the public broadcasting community has been an innovator in many ways online, the conference was appropriately focused on figuring out how NPR, PBS, and all their member stations and partner groups could make the leap from being public broadcasters who have operations online to being leaders in the broader public media space, and leveraging technology to do that.

Here is a quick excerpt from the conference overview on what was driving this discussion:

For one thing, all media is taking a digital form and “public service publishing” has expanded dramatically–if you extend the definition of public media to any individual or organization creating and distributing media “in the public interest.”  Technical advances and innovations have eliminated barriers to entry. The cost of audio and video production has spiraled downward. Podcasting and media aggregation sites, where you don’t need a license to distribute audio and video, now reach millions of desktops and iPods.  With ubiquitous blogging software, everybody can be a journalist, a critic, a pundit at a cost of no more than $20 a month. 

The speed of this change has been nothing short of revolutionary.

I sat on a panel entitled “Leveraging Social Networks” which promised to answer the burning question: “How can public broadcasting stations can leverage social networks to increase engagement and build audience?”  The panel was moderated by Vinay Bhagat, the Founder and Chief Strategist of Convio and featured Dick McPherson, a consultant to the public broadcasting community, Heather Holdridge from Care2 and David Woodrow from Gather.com.

I was generally disappointed with how the conversation was framed.  The easy way to think about social networks is to look at the existing technologies in the field and figure out how to use them.  In other words, since MySpace has more than 50 million users, they must be a place we can go looking to engage our audience.  Or, since more than 65,000 videos are uploaded to YouTube every day, we should be uploading our shows because that’s where the marketplace is headed.  There is not enough consideration about why these properties may or may not be valuable and not enough thought about what makes online social networking function successfully.

I kicked things off with a presentation (here is my iMA Presentation) that framed social networking and new media in a broader format.  My point was simply that social interaction online, and social networking more specifically, has been happening for a long time in many different formats — and innovations in technology will only expand on that.  Successful communities are built and fostered online not because of the technology that facilitates the interaction, but rather its the content and experience that people create and share that drives interest.   Public media organizations need to think strategically and creatively about what they produce, how if they want to truly engage their target audience.  I think I resonated with the audience, but honestly am not sure.

Dick McPherson followed me and challenging the audience to focus on specific goals they wanted to achieve online (i.e. build community and membership, not raise money) and broadly about how to creatively execute on those efforts.  Heather and David offered case studies about what works within their networks. 

Now, I do not mean to disrespect either Care2 or Gather.com, both of which I think are terrific organizations and both of whom were well represented by my fellow panelists, but they are only two of the dozens of options currently available to consider.  I am not a big fan of presenting personal case studies on panels because it should be obvious that I would biased towards the things that I have done.  That was the case with both Gather.com and Care2, who have been working with public broadcasting groups to build out social networking efforts.  It just seemed to me that the message of the panel was too much about how public media groups could use those two platforms and succeed.  Maybe they are the best two networks for public media.  Or, maybe the public radio community should be looking at more examples, and more opportunities.  I don’t know, but most people probably left that room thinking about launching Gather.com groups or launching petitions through Care2 and not enough of them were considering all the other venues available to them.

I did make one point at the end that was good, and I think resonated.  A woman in the audience asked for our opinions on how many social networks should a station target and what kinds of resources should they put into the effort.  A good question.  However, in asking the question, she referenced ‘us’ (meaning the station) and ‘them’ (referring to the audience members who would be part of the community).  After everyone else had offered specific answers to her questions, I jumped in, adding something to the effect of: Its very important for you as an organization, for your staff, your talent, whoever, to see themselves as a part of these communities.  You are not separate.  It cannot be us vs. them.  Most likely, the reason that your audience might be intererested in joining and contributing to a community that you organiz is the same reason that you, as a staff person at one of those stations, work so hard to make it successful.  Its about the content, its about the experience, its about your contribution to our society.  If you see yourself as separate from that community instead of as a part of it, you are missing the boat.

I got a lot of nods, and a pat on the back from one of my fellow panelists for making the point.  I probably sounded a little righteous, but maybe that helped get the point across more effectively.  I enjoyed being on the panel and would love to help the public media conversation move forward to where it desperately needs to be, but I am not sure I was able to broaden the perspectives of anyone in attendance with respect to the framing of a conversation about social networking.

Thank you to Teri Lamitie of WGBH in Boston for the invitation.  I very much enjoyed the conversation and I hope that I was able to contribute some interesting thoughts to the discussion.  Please invite me back to do it again.

Superbowl Weekend Reading

(I will be part of a team of experts organized by the Boston Ad Club offering thoughts on the Superbowl advertising this weekend.  Some of our comments will be posted on the Boston Ad Club’s Superbowl Advertising Blog.  This post also appears there).

The weekend of the big game has finally arrived!  The Ad Club has pulled together a crack team of advertising and marketing experts to offer comments on the advertising that will play on Super Sunday.  We are making final preparations, reviewing our play book, stretching out, etc.  What’s my role?  I will offer insights and thoughts into the use of new media in relation to the advertising. 

To help set the tone for my part of the conversation, I have pulled together a quick list of articles from the past two weeks about the role that New Media will play in this giant advertising spectacle.  Here is a little weekend reading for you:

New York Times: Colts and Bears and Kevin Federline (February 2, 2007) 

Key excerpt: “Now, thanks to the Internet, Super Bowl commercials are like gifts that Madison Avenue tries to keep on giving. As soon as the game ends, video clips of the spots are posted online, on the Web sites of sponsors like fedex.com; the networks that broadcast the game like cbs.sportsline.com; and Internet media companies, among them ifilm.com, msn.foxsports.com, sports.aol.com and youtube.com.”

ClickZ: A Level Playing Field for Superbowl Ads (February 2, 2007)

Key excerpt: “This year, advertisers buying spots during Super Bowl XLI are frequently posting those ads online before they’re broadcast to try and create buzz. And one group of self-proclaimed “Web 2.0″ companies has formed to create spots that ride the wave of Super Bowl advertising — without actually advertising in the Super Bowl.  Knowing they couldn’t afford a standard Super Bowl ad, six start-up firms challenged each other to come up with Super Bowl-style :30 spots and upload them to a YouTube channel at SuperDotComAds XLI.”

iMedia Connection: Make Sure Your Website is Ready! (February 1, 2007)

Key excerpt: “Almost one third (30 percent) [of people surveyed] will visit the company’s website, and that same number (31 percent) will look for the ad online to view again. Marketers should make it easy for these people to find the ad by giving it a prominent position on their corporate website homepage. Without providing this kind of easy access to the advertisement, marketers will risk losing visitors to those sites clearly dedicated to Super Bowl advertising, such as Google Video or AOL. Along with providing access to the TV ad, these online destinations also provide message boards, voting and other community features.”

AdWeek: Snickers to Extend 30 Second Spot Online (January 30, 2007)

Key excerpt: “Masterfoods plans to extend the life of its 30-second Snickers Super Bowl spot via a microsite that will feature player reactions to the commercial and alternate endings. Up to three such endings will be posted, along with the version that will run during the game…. Masterfoods declined to provide the full spot before the game but a clip of the first five seconds is viewable on the microsite, www.SnickersSatisfies.com, which went live today.”

Washington Post: $2 Million Airtime, $13 Ad (January 31, 2007)

Key excerpt: “The YouTube Effect has crept into television’s mightiest showcase for advertising: the Super Bowl. For the first time, viewers of the biggest football game of the year, Sunday’s Super Bowl XLI on CBS between the Indianapolis Colts and the Chicago Bears, will see at least four ads that were created by amateurs, rather than by high-end ad agencies. For advertisers, consumer-created content is a cost-savings bonanza. Advertisers are paying more than $2.6 million for the most expensive 30-second spot in this year’s Super Bowl, up from $2.5 million last year. Just to produce a top-level 30-second ad can easily cost more than $1 million. A commercial produced by an amateur, by comparison, can be had for the price of a plane ticket and a trip to the game for the winner and some post-production cleanup for the ad itself.  For the ad creators, it’s a shot at the big time and an end run around traditional barriers to appearing on advertising’s biggest stage. Indeed, it could be a career starter — more than 90 million viewers are expected to tune in to the Super Bowl.”

And a few more…

Ad Age: Measuing Bowl ROI?  Good Luck (January 29, 2007)

Survey: Sports Marketers Choose New Media Over Superbowl Advertising (January 29, 2007)

ClickZ: Very Different Superbowl Predictions (January 26, 2007)

MarketWatch: Moving the ball, beyond the Super Bowl broadcast (January 29, 2007)

Wall Street Journal: In Web Polls of Super Bowl Ads, Now A Word From the Sponsor’s Sponsor (January 29, 2007)

These are just a sampling of the articles that are out there.  But, I think you get a sense that the media is thinking the use of new media may just be the biggest story around the Superbowl advertising bonanza this year.

What are you thinking?

- By Brian Reich.  Brian is the Director of New Media for Cone Inc.

Must See TV

I have set my Tivo to record tonight’s episode of Scrubs.  Why?  Because they will be presenting an all-musical episode and have enlised Jeff Marx and Robert Lopez, the creators of “Avenue Q,” the Tony Award-winning musical featuring puppets singing about Internet pornography and other perplexities of life, to help write/score it.

The New York Times previewed the episode yesterday.  The Seattle Times (via the Contra Costa Times) and the Boston Globe have done the same today.

Scrubs is one of the most subtly brilliant and yet underappreciated shows on television.  If you have watched before, you know this episode will be hilarious.  If you haven’t watched before, now is your chance to get hooked.

Hey Tommy, I will be watching!

Major League Baseball has launched an ad campaign featuring Tommy Lasorda, former Dodgers manager and baseball ambassador, traveling the country to encourage people to watch the playoffs.  Brandweek explains:

The effort, using the theme “Real fans don’t hide in October. They celebrate it!” was created by McCann Erickson, New York. It includes three TV spots, print, radio and MLB’s most “extensive postseason online media buy,” according to a league official. Spend was put at $10 million by MLB. That includes 12% devoted to the online element, about $1.2 million.

TV will run through October during games on Fox and ESPN, as well during sports and entertainment programming on cable networks. Print includes Sports Illustrated, USA Today and Baseball America. Radio includes ESPN and XM Satellite. Internet buys include AOL, the New York Times Web site and various sports destinations.

In addition…

MLB.com will host “Tommy pages” where fans can get “tough love” advice from Tommy, send e-condolence cards to fans whose teams have been eliminated from the 2006 postseason, and download free TV brackets.

The campaign is targeted towards fans in cities where the teams did not make the playoffs.  I represent three of those cities myself — Boston (where I live), Washington, DC (where I am a season ticket holder), and Seattle (where I grew up — the Mariners remain my team of choice).  I don’t need an advertising campaign to convince me to watch the playoffs, but I applaud MLB’s efforts, and the creativity (and interactivity) that they are using to encourage others to watch.

Roddick vs. Pong

Its US Open Time, and that means lots of creative tennis themed TV commercials.  I was watching the USA Network (don’t ask) and saw one for American Express featuring Andy Roddick vs. Pong in a tennis match.  In a related ad, viewers are invited to see if they could beat Pong in a tennis match.  Log on to http://www.stoppong.com/ and see how good you are.

TV Boss

All three major television distributors — broadcast stations, cable networks and satellite services — have united for the first time in a media campaign to educate parents on how to block objectionable programming from their children, as cable and satellite outlets fear that the government crackdown on broadcast indecency will spread to them.

Check out the website.

The Washington Post writes up the campaign here.

I like the simplicity of this campaign.  Too often these PSA campaigns, and their web components in particular, are too complicated or try to be too cool.  The blocking of content that people find objectionable is about personal choice — give people the option to pick what they want to watch. More importantly, for a campaign like this to succeed, the TV industry must give actually give parents the tools to block content they find objectionable.  They have successfully done this. 

Once this education campaign gets a foothold, the government should back off and let the television industry make whatever shows they want.  They’ll learn their lesson if the viewership goes down when the sex and violence goes up (so far that doesn’t seem to be the trend - with Sopranos, CSI, and others out there).  They won’t if the punishment is more fines and public embarassment.  The television viewing audience can show the TV industry what kind of shows we want to see on TV by blocking, or not blocking, what we find appropriate.  And in the end, the system should sort itself out.

Happy watching!

Americans take a break from TV

This little tidbit came in over the wires this morning (via the Seattle PI):

America must have gone to the beach. Last week was the least-watched week in recorded history for the four biggest broadcast networks.

CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox averaged 20.8 million viewers during the average prime-time minute last week, according to Nielsen Media Research. That sank below the previous record, set during the last week of July last year.

It wasn’t entirely unexpected. The week that includes Independence Day has the fewest viewers of the year, or close to it, because rerun season is in full swing and the public is consumed with outdoor activities. As well, there aren’t any new summer hits to entice people.

There is a big difference between ‘fewest viewers of the year’ and ‘least-watched week in recorded history.”  Moreover, the trend is clearly heading in that direction with records being set, and re-set, for the lowest audience over the past two years. 

Personally, I watched the final few games of the World Cup last week — probably spent five hours in front of the tube on July 4 alone (I watched the second semi-final game on July 5th via broadband connection from my office) — and I would definitely have watched new TV shows had they been available.  Would enough of society have joined me in watching if a network decided to put the effort into making and promoting it?  I don’t know, but I would think in a time of declining television viewing, increasing reliance on DVR and other similar technology, a little experimentation by the networks wouldn’t be terrible.  And if they don’t want to put something on TV, why not produce a show and make it available for viewing on the web?