Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

Let the countdown begin! Although many of us already see antennas and "rabbit ears" as extinct, in 362 days (as of today) this will hold true. On February 18, 2009 the DTV transition (digital TV) will occur, switching from analog to digital broadcast television. 

So what does this mean to you?  All-digital broadcasting will not only improve picture and sound quality, it will offer "multicasting."  This will allow broadcast stations to offer several channels of digital programming at the same time, while as with analog, they could only offer one. This means even more fragmentation for media buyers (ugh). The transition to digital will also open up airwaves for public safety and emergency communications like police and fire departments.

After the 17th, anyone who has an analog set and relies on an over-the-air signal will need to make a switch.  According to Nielson Media Research, 13 million households have television sets that can only receive analog broadcasts and are currently unprepared for the transition. 

You do not however need to ditch your old television, just get a digital to analog converter box. They sell from $40-$70. The government has issued a coupon program that just became available, worth $40 towards a converter box.

So this is great right? I get way more programs to choose from, no more "rabbit ears", and the government is going to give me a coupon to cover the cost of a converter box! 

Sounds simple, however this is a really profound and expensive change to this medium. This is likely to impact the economy in a big way. The National Association of Broadcasters announced plans for a $697 million dollar campaign to educate consumers about the digital broadcast transition. 

Will millions of people run out to Best Buy to upgrade their TV's? And if so, what are they going to do with their old TV sets?  As I was writing this post thinking through the possible implications this change will have, a new article popped up from my Google Reader about how much e-waste this change may potentially create.

Even with the efforts to educate and prepare the public for the conversion, this will most likely affect the elderly and low-income population the greatest. These households will be unable to afford cable or satellite, and may also have a difficult time purchasing the more expensive converter boxes.

For many advertisers and media buyers, this could result in a shift in media dollars. Ratings may drop in these areas, and we may see broadcast dollars targeting low-income households move to other mediums such as direct mail. 

The outcome of this conversion is still unknown, however February 09' will creep up fast! Will you be ready?

Charles McGrath, in his Feb 17 New York Times article, points out that while National Public Radio's listenership is growing, PBS television, he believes, has seen it's best days, and may perhaps be no longer relevant or necessary.

I couldn't disagree more.

We now live in a climate where local printed newspapers are in sharp decline, and where the cynical irony in Fox News Channel's name and slogan goes unchallenged. Even my parent's nightly network news broadcasts have devolved into 15 minutes of entertainment interspersed between 15 minutes of drug company commercials. In this climate where journalistic integrity and high standards are the exception rather than the rule, it seems to me that shows like the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, NC Now, and Frontline are now more important than ever - certainly not less.

Despite years of siege by politicians who seem to prefer the tractibility and journalistic abdication prevalent on Britney-obsessed cable news outlets - and make no mistake, their issue with PBS is the news - PBS television remains one of the only places to get trustworthy news on television.

As McGrath points out in his article (the title is sharper than the content of the piece itself), the answer to whatever woes PBS television may be facing is more public funding, not less. It seems miraculous to me that PBS can, on pennies, continue to do what Big Corporate Media seems unable to do with all it's billions of dollars. In truth, perhaps the absence of billions is the secret of PBS' success. But while we wait for more public funding for PBS television, that miracle has an earthly foundation.

Guys with guns, girls with attitude, cops and cyborgs – this is the world of G4. The relatively new Comcast cable network bursts with adrenalized pop culture programming for dudes 18 to 24.  The emphasis is on gaming, but the digital warriors and hottie hostesses aren’t what really makes G4 compelling.
 
The real action is G4’s attempt at a kind of convergence.  The network pushes a platform where television, the Web and social networking come together in one complete, cohesive experience. At least that’s the goal I discovered when I recently went inside the workings of G4 for a project.
 
The bet here is that young (and young-at-heart) TV viewers want a more interactive TV experience.  Or, as the network puts it, “TV that’s plugged in.”
   
Take “Cops.”  The syndicated warhorse is part of G4’s programming roster, but it’s not your big brother’s version.  Now, on “Cops 2.0,” while you watch the boys in blue bust bad guys, you can answer on-screen text questions via email.  Or just read along with the scroll at home.  To the query, “How would you react to a stabbing?” a viewer came up with this useful remedy: “I would put chicken mcnuggets in my wounds.” (And to think McDonald’s is getting such a bad rap from the public health community.)
 
On the newsy “Attack of the Show,” the hosts toss the TV audience to commercial and then go right to a stick-cam which keeps the action alive via a feed on G4TV.com.  Also on the Web site you’ll find polls, the day’s hottest viral videos and opportunities to send webcam questions to show hosts for use on-air.  During Nov. 6’s “Election ‘07” stunt, you can vote for what show you’d like see next, thereby taking control.
 
And that’s the key issue – control.  TV networks used to assert absolute power (they programmed every minute) with viewers mostly being passive (voting, in a way, by watching or not, but primarily just sitting and taking it).  That model, the thinking goes, wheezes closer to oblivion every time someone logs on to YouTube.  
 
The next generation of programming has to find ways to engage an audience which won’t accept a passive role and may not even be able to focus like their parents did.  Television, once the big kahuna, is now just one more noisy, blinking toy in a mix crowded with games, the Web, text messages, iPods etc.
 
For cable networks, this new reality is an opportunity.  Cable is more niche than broadcast and so can be more nimble and responsive.  If it can break out ratings wise, G4 has the potential to set a new level of expectation.  But breaking out will probably require some kind of big bang – a programming development with more mass appeal and a higher level of content quality.  Wouldn’t it be great if that pop somehow came from a viewer, inspired to brilliance by the ability to talk back to his TV.

With the constant articles and talk of DVR’s and video online, the question remains.  Are consumers seeing my ads?  
 
Television reps are quick to point out the impact Satellite Radio is having on local radio formats.  My response is always the same. “How is that different from the effects of DVR’s?” I’m always surprised at their reaction – as if they didn’t expect me to ask.
 
Networks are expanding their viewership by offering full episodes online.  How is this affecting their share on TV? Isn’t it safe to assume that people are just watching more TV?
 
No matter how you slice it, people still love TV. While primetime has always been ‘appointment television’, and still very much is - viewers now have the flexibility to watch what they want and when they want.   Buyers are understanding that consumers are getting their TV ‘fix’ from many angles.  We need to also understand that it is equally important reach them from just as many angles.
 
A banner ad online may not offer the same emotional affect that a 30 second television spot does, but it offers interaction with the viewer.  The viewer may be more engaged while watching an episode of Heroes online, than he would have been by watching it at its regular time on TV.
 
People are still watching TV and online video exposure is only going to continue to grow.  I don’t think that the segmentation of consumer behavior should be thought as a negative hurdle for buyers. If anything, it gives us more ways to reach them. Referencing article form Joe Mandese at Mediapost.

Early in the network premiere week, it looks like the sitcom writers have discovered social media. Prime time characters are now talking about blogs, their MySpace pages and Google alerts.
 
You’d think this would open up interesting new plot lines or story angles. Not so.
 
Instead, we’re getting flat-footed jokes followed by canned laugh tracks.  “I’m putting that in my blog!” is the new comeback.
 
In primetime, social networks are now the domain of nerds. “I have a 112 friends in MySpace,” says one geek in Big Bang Theory. “Yeah, but have you actually met any of them?” quips his equally geeky friend.
 
I read today that Microsoft is considering taking a stake in MySpace. If MySpace is now the joke of primetime television, I think Microsoft missed the window.