Wolf Tracking

For the first time since 1952, no incumbent, (President or Vice President) will be seeking the oval office in 2008. Fresh faces are running and major changes have occurred in news coverage. Major cable news networks have tried to brand their networks as “political media centers,” places where everyone can turn to for the latest breaking news on the 2008 presidential election. We say time flies and sometimes when watching these cable news channels I have to remind myself that it is only August, 2007. To compete with one another, the cable news networks reached out to both political parties to plan, host and televise pre-primary debates in various battleground states throughout the country. Debates have been exciting when its five weeks out from the general election, but debates in general normally follow the same old routines. A moderator, typically a television anchor, puts together numerous questions, posing them in no particular order to the candidates on stage. The cable news networks knew that they had to get creative with their debates. One network stood out. That was CNN. CNN put forth a “YouTube” debate platform, where everyone and their mothers could submit a video question for the candidates and the CNN staff and crew would pass them onto the candidates and disseminate it to the TV audience as well.

CNN turned over a new leaf in presidential debate productions. We are moving toward an engagement age and CNN saw that and embraced it. Viewership was 2,622,000. CNN said the Youtube debate was “the biggest audience since measurements began in 1992 for a cable news debate of those between 18 and 34, the demographic most coveted by advertisers.” Watching the debate I saw a number of classic as well as sensitive questions. One of the best YouTube questions and overall moments of the debate occurred when a man in his said, how will you protect my baby? At first nothing was in the screen except him. So my assumption was that he was talking about protecting youth or education. All of the sudden, I saw him grab something in the corner of the screen. It was an M16. Though shocked, I was eager to see not only the looks on the candidates’ faces, but the responses they would give to this unexpected video question. They did not dodge the question. They had straightforward answers and that is when I knew that CNN had succeeded. CNN embraced the social media, extending an opportunity to anyone with a computer and video computer camera to finally have a chance to get involved in the political debate. That guy put a face on a very sensitive question about the right to bear arms, forcing the candidates to not dodge a response to the image just put up on television screens not only for them to see, but for the viewers at home to see as well. For years, the 18-34 demographic has gotten a reputation for being “highly uninvolved” in the political process. CNN’s YouTube debate re-defined the debate forum and successfully engaged its audience, but more importantly opened the door for more people like you or I to become more engaged in the political process, something that social studies teachers and parents have been urging for years.

Yesterday, Merv Griffin passed away at 82 years old.

Known as the “inventor” of television games shows, Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune were Mr. Griffin’s brainchild. His death comes at an interesting time…some many are calling a television game show revival.

What traditionally was TV “fluff” geared towards the early bird dinner audience, TV game shows have experienced a renaissance period in the past few years starting with Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, which averaged a jaw-dropping 27.9 million viewers during its 2000 heyday.

Today, there are an abundance of game shows appearing on primetime TV. NBC’s Deal or No Deal and Fox’s Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? averaged 14.8 million and 12.5 million viewers, respectively, last season. This summer has already spawned two more breakout hits: NBC’s The Singing Bee and Fox’s similarly themed Don’t Forget the Lyrics! And there’s more to come, with the Power of 10 and Crosswords set to debut.

All of these shows are cash cows for the TV networks. Taking very little money to produce, they can be geared to a very specific demographic – mainly 25-45 years old household purchasers.

According to Ellen Seiter, author of Television and New Media Audiences, people simply like watching others win, and love watching them lose. Also, she adds, game shows are universally accessible, meaning you don’t need to be invested in the program every week or day, making them “ideal for group or workplace” viewing.

Of course, today’s game shows also include audience feedback – polls, contests and enter to be applications available via social media – further bringing viewers into the show. For example, on Deal on No Deal, you can text in your choice of lucky cases to win $10,000. You can also play the game online.

Ultimately, with the death of Merv Griffin and traditional TV game show production, the door opens for the next generation.

I am not an avid gamer. I’ve dabbled into the world of Grand Theft Auto and Ultimate Fighter, graduated from novice to “knowing what I’m doing” while playing Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero, and of course my Wii Bowling League had me ranked in 3^rd place at the end of our recent season. But, just as with any industry, especially in entertainment, unless we’re a part of the insider group, consumers only begin to build buzz about new products and look deeper into an industry when press coverage spills out of only trade and into mainstream and social media.

This week, the Electronic Entertainment Expo, better known as E3, kicked off in Santa Monica – the event where enthusiasts of the gaming entertainment world get super geeked up for sneak peeks and launches of new consoles and software.

The heavy hitters, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, who I will refer to as the Gaming Gods, lead the annual event with anticipated genius. In past years the E3 event was known as somewhat of a spectacle, including massive laser light shows and mammoth sized booths at the Los Angeles Convention Center packed with sound systems and “booth babes”. This year however, E3 was split up between multiple Santa Monica and Los Angeles venues. The reasoning was to bring the focus back on the games and less on the “show” (Many of us PR folks wouldn’t agree with this move, but hey what do we know, right?!?). Microsoft dared to be different by staging their press event at a high school amphitheater – why?

A recent CNN article summed up that PR effort quite nicely “With the format for this year’s event designed to cut down on the number of rabid gamers who would inevitably sneak their way into the convention center, what better way to keep prying teenage eyes away from what you’re eventually going to be marketing to them in the Fall than by setting up at the one place they wouldn’t be caught dead near in the middle of July?”.

So what’s being discussed at this years event?

• Microsoft is introduced its highly anticipated XBOX 360 game, Halo 3, the first person shooter conclusion to the Halo Trilogy.

• Microsoft also announced that they are partnering with Disney to bring the studio’s library of films to the XBOX Live Marketplace. Microsoft says that with the expansion into the video-on demand marketplace, they expect to expand their online community to 10-million members by this time next year.

• And of course for the Madden lovers, New Orleans Saints star running-back Reggie Bush helped show off this year’s edition of EA’s Madden ‘08. The word at the expo is that Bush might be just as good with an XBOX controller as he is on the field.

Even though E3 toned down the production of this years event, consumers are still in a chatter this week about what “The Gods” have cooked up for electronic entertainment junkies. Closing my point about the importance industry events can be for building brands and creating buzz, even while subtracting lasers and babes. Game on.

I’ve never been as obsessive about video games as most of my friends, in fact I’ve never bought a video game console. It’s not that I don’t like playing video games, I can get as addicted as the next guy once you hand me a controller or Wiimote. I just haven’t seen the need to spend hundreds of dollars to get a console and library of games that I’ll probably ignore within five years.

There are millions of people just like me who haven’t seen the need to keep up with latest video game consoles, particularly as the competition to attract hardcore gamers with graphics and elaborate roleplaying scenarios made the games too complicated for casual players to enjoy. That’s why Nintendo’s strategy to get out of the graphics rat race and simplify their games was such a brilliant stroke - rather than compete directly with Sony and Microsoft for a limited market, they broke down the walls of that market and went after all the neglected fans like me who prefer simplicity.

Last week at E3, the premier video game event of the year, Microsoft made a few announcements that show they’re not going to let the Wii keep all the unconventional gamers for themselves. This includes adding family-focused games like “Scene It?”, complete with less intimidating controllers. But the announcement that caused the most chatter was their partnership with Disney to offer 35 movies for download through the Xbox.

It’s no secret that the Xbox’s endgame is to become the central item of a full entertainment system in the digital home, and in that quest Microsoft will find itself butting heads with numerous media heavyweights. Cable giants such as Comcast and Time Warner are currently the main source of television entertainment in the home, and will fight tooth and nail to squash “over-the-top” threats to their position from Xbox, Apple TV and Vudu.

And what is there left to say about the PS3? It’s been a rapid fall from grace for Sony, who had astounding successes with the first two Playstation consoles but now can’t seem to find customers outside of the diehards who waited in line for over a week to get their calloused thumbs on a $600 monstrosity. As with the Xbox, the PS3 had a higher purpose for its parent company: tipping the scales of consumer favorability towards their Blu-Ray standard for hi-def DVDs. Yawn.

So do any of these changes make a skeptic like me actually want to buy my first video game console? I’m actually more intrigued by the news that there’s a new version of Mariokart on the way, complete with a wireless “Wii Wheel” to play the game, than the prospect of adding a third device into my home that can play movies. In other words, Nintendo is the only console manufacturer that doesn’t see their device as a stepping stone to larger media ambitions, so it’s no surprise that the Wii has proven to be most popular with today’s consumers. I hope it’s not too late to add it to my wedding registry.

While I typically LOVE anything new, especially mobile phones, I won’t be one of the millions of people who are expected to switch from current cell phone providers to AT&T (I’m a Sprint customer), trade in their current mobile devices (I have a Blackberry 8703e) and plop down more than $499 for a new Apple iPhone – today.

According to Apple and AT&T, the iPhone is expected to be a “revolutionary new mobile phone that allows you to make a call by simply pointing your finger at a name or number in your address book, a favorites list, or a call log. It also automatically syncs all your contacts from a PC, Mac, or Internet service. And it lets you select and listen to voicemail messages in whatever order you want - just like email.

Personally, I don’t feel the need to be that cool AND I’m not going to spend such an insane amount of money customizing my service plan. I mean, who wants a basic iPhone without all the bells and whistles. It’s like buying a Cadillac Escalade without the rims!

I’ve also heard that there are very slow Internet speeds and some issues with the keyboards. Of course, to be expected with the first-generation release of this product.

But let’s switch gears on the product aspects to talk about the sheer media frenzy of it all.

Talk about dominating the news, media and pop culture. This iPhone is being written about, blogged about, talked about and Googled more than when news hit that Paris Hilton was prematurely released from jail and then sent back to the slammer crying.

Case in point, when I Googled Paris Hilton there were approximately 71,200,000 and when I Googled the Apple iPhone, it took the lead with 72,900,000 results in 0.9 seconds. Ok, granted this is not a true numerical calculation since we’re off by fractions of a second – but I know you get my drift.

My advice to anyone considering buying the iPhone on Friday is this:

• Read the product reviews; just check out this Reuters article in InformationWeek.
• If you’re not a current AT&T/Cingular customer, contact your mobile provider to ask about early termination fees (my early termination fee through Sprint is $250).

There has been a moment in every Internet voyager’s life, where you have asked yourself, ‘I wonder what the Internet has to say about me’. We have all done it, sheepishly looked around to make sure no one is watching and typed our name into Google, waiting on the edge of our seats until we realize the only thing that is published on the Internet about us is our name on the ninth grade honor roll. There is even a new play called I Google Myself that deals with this very phenomenon. And while the play appears to be a manufactured drama about a man trying to find the meaning of life through an Internet search, it reflects a very human instinct—the instinct to locate ourselves in the ever burgeoning world of new media and technology, to question how we fit into the ever expanding web of knowledge and information that is available to us. But as our access to this web grows, we cannot help but ask the question, is there any privacy in the world of the Internet?

Based upon the growing number of social networking sites, it appears that privacy is the last thing that Internet users want—this is an age where you can search for your ex-girlfriend on Facebook, or look up your blind date for Wednesday night on Myspace or read your neighbors Blog posting. And it is exactly this voyeuristic desire that has lead to a new spawn of information data bases, like Stalkerati a website that searches all social networking sites and creates a profile of the person being searched. That’s right… it is the ultimate Internet stalking site. While the appearance of this type of database may seem alarming and invasive, is going to one site to do “Internet stalking” any different then spending time searching up old friends and foes on Facebook and Myspace? The site boasts itself as “a little hack” put together in two hours in order to eliminate going to various networks in order to track someone down, however it somehow feels much more invasive and foreboding…especially because the creator uses the world “cyberstalk” to describe his vision.

It is one thing to sign up for a service that allows you to create a profile, and quite another to be subject to random searches from a third-party source—but where is the line drawn? And do we as Internet users who voluntarily sign up for networking sites have a right to police this type of activity?

This type of access to information however, does not stop or even start with “little hack” sites like Stalkerati, it extends to the big bad wolf of search engines, Google. And even sites like Google do not eschew our privacy anxieties. Recently some 27 countries from the European Union have launched an investigation on exactly how Google stores its user information. And this concern is not unfounded. Google surveys and stores the words visitors’ type into its site, and also tracks surfing behavior between websites searched. And while this is different then providing personal information it comes dangerously close to painting an intimate picture of the user. This lack of Internet privacy is not just alarming because any hacking capable stranger can find information about our favorite websites, movies, or personal photos, but because as The Wall Street Journal notes, this access to information does not stop there. In a recent article about Internet privacy Jason Fry, assistant managing editor of the Wall Street Journal Online and fellow Blogger writes,

“Property deeds, marriage and divorce records, court files, motor-vehicle information and tax documents are increasingly being digitized, and contain a wealth of information that few of us would want online: Social Security numbers, birth dates, maiden names and images of our signatures. Local governments have rushed to put those documents online for a decade or so, often without scrubbing them of such information. And that’s made them potentially fertile ground for busybodies, stalkers and identity thieves. ”

It is for these very personal reasons, that the increasing access to information from the smallest scale of sites like Stalkerati, to the conglomerates like Google, is alarming. Because how do you selectively control information that is all just out there, in the great unknown abyss of the Internet? As the network of social media grows, and we excitedly gather a greater level of knowledge and social connectedness, we are also charting a new territory—a territory ripe with questions of where our desire for unlimited access ends and where our personal privacy begins. This is just something to ask yourself the next time you do a little Internet spying.

The increase in the number of reality television programs over the last five years has been quite dramatic. We’ve seen everything from new game shows to talent contents, to makeover efforts. But have you read this description of a reality show? A “dying” woman, suffering a brain disease has to choose who gets her healthy kidney among three contestants in need of a transplant. From the looks of it, this was not going to be your average reality show.

Produced by Endemol NV, the creators of Big Brother, the program was entitled, “The Big Donor Show” and was picked up by a Dutch television station. Three days before airing, it was revealed that the whole thing was a hoax. Though the show was labeled distasteful and unethical and didn’t take off in an “airing” sense, it did take off in a “conversation” sense. Reality television has changed the way we interpret television entertainment and more importantly changed the way marketing messages are relayed to the consumer.

Reality TV has been such a gold mine for companies and advertisers. Viewers have made stronger connections to these reality stars. Anything that the reality star uses, the viewer has taken stronger notice of as well. Stronger connections have allowed the unveiling of each new reality television show the opportunity for differentiated and targeted branding. This is what drives the conversation. Multiple dialogues get created among the targeted audiences. Buzz is generated and companies are effectively getting their messages across while successfully adapting to this changing television landscape.

So what was so different about this reality show in terms of engaging consumers? The show would have shown the harsh realities of life and yes, it would have come off as unethical, but the idea of influencing the consumer remained the same, it just went with a very risky topic. Just like in every other reality show, a product was indirectly trying to be sold, in this case, donor programs. The show created multiple forms of dialogue and resulted in viewers calling into the local health centers and Googling kidney websites. It was reported that thousands of people started downloading donor forms. Though off the beaten path in their show production, the producers’ ability to engage consumers was quite a success in this ever changing media environment.

After years of widespread rumors, we watched as Steve Jobs unveiled Apple’s iPhone during his Macworld keynote in January, an announcement that took the mobile and consumer electronics industries by storm.

While the infamous Consumer Electronics Show was underway, in a brilliant marketing ploy, Jobs completely swept the thunder from all of his competitors (who at the time were undoubtedly clamoring for the attention of David Pogue, Walter Mossberg, and the like) as his announcement incited “iPhone-mania.”

As Jobs promised, the iPhone should be ready to ship later this month, and six months since his speech, Jobs’ wonder-phone is still making headlines as fever builds for the big debut.

So what’s all the hype? We all have a cell phone, a music device, access to the Web, right?

Apple’s marketing muscle.

Jobs has driven one of the most impactful marketing campaigns in modern history, successfully building expectations for what some have called “the God machine” as iPhone hysteria is beginning to reach levels usually reserved for the newest video game system at Christmas time.

Despite the device’s lofty price tag – $600 – both Apple and AT&T (exclusive service provider) have received more than one million inquiries about the product’s availability.

Well, for all those eager consumers, the answer’s here. Continuing its aggressive marketing strategy, Apple confirmed it will release the iPhone on June 29 through a series of commercials on Sunday promoting the combination mobile phone and iPod music player.

The company’s promotional strategy has employed a clever mix of traditional television ads (such as those we saw this weekend), well-timed announcements (any recollection of a CES product announcement?) and stunts only the elite few playing in Jobs’ sandbox can pull off. During a recent appearance at a technology industry conference in Southern California, Jobs teased the audience by pulling an iPhone out of his pocket and quickly slipping it back in.

Typical of Jobs’ impressive track record of executing ingenious marketing programs (iPod did pretty well, huh?), his timing again seems perfect this time around. Apple appears to have entered the mobile market at precisely the right moment in technology and consumerism to merge computers with phones.

Most analysts believe that Apple will easily exceed its initial goal of selling 10 million phones by the end of next year. Investors seem to agree – Apple’s stock has skyrocketed due to speculation and excitement over the iPhone in recent months.

But how well has Apple managed the public’s expectations of the iPhone’s performance?

First generation iPods had a host of problems and bugs that were quickly fixed in subsequent generations, but excitement for the music player at the time was nowhere near that of the iPhone today.

It will be interesting to watch how Apple rolls out the product and harnesses its marketing prowess to circumnavigate the bumpy road that will surely follow.

By now, everyone has heard of the on-air brouhaha between Rosie O’Donnell and Elizabeth Hasselbeck on The View last week. At first glance, there’s not much to talk about, right? Republicans and democrats debating politics again…

Beyond the questionable fact that this firestorm happened during May sweeps (hmmm), the interesting part of this story is Rosie O’Donnell’s online commentary.

Almost immediately after the show, Rosie started answering reader inquiries on her blog and called into question her return to the show before it was publicly announced that she would not be fulfilling the final three weeks of her contract.

In the days following, Rosie went on to post poems, research and commentary supporting her point of view, and two videos. The first video, set to the tune of Cyndi Lauper’s Sisters of Avalon and entitled “True Colors 2007,” featured a quasi-sentimental scrap book of Elizabeth, Barbara Walters and Rosie.

On Saturday, three days after the incident, Rosie openly discussed her “shock” at the show and its producers for “split screening” her and Elizabeth in the heat of the argument. She also responded to rumors on her trashing her dressing room, confirmed that a colleague drew a mustache on posters of Elizabeth when leaving the studio, and said that she’s never worked harder on being someone’s friend than with Elizabeth. Oh…and did I mention that she is openly drinking alcohol during this post?

Using her blog, not only did Rosie comment on industry speculation, she added fuel to the fire by making it personal. Rosie sensationalized the story further and continued to generate headlines. Media across the nation showed images from her blog and even excerpts of the videos picured above.

If she hadn’t continued to comment, especially in the unique manner that she did, the story would have been over by Thursday. It’s a situation that shows how new media can be used to anyone’s advantage…for any personal or professional gain.

Over the past week, baseball fans in all markets thrilled to Interleague matchups that are designed to bring teams together that would only play each other in the World Series under normal circumstances. It exposes up-and-coming players to a larger audience, and gives the fans more action to follow throughout the season. Earlier this year, it looked like Interleague series might be the only way a lot of fans could see their favorite teams, especially if they play in a different media market.

Just as Spring Training was drawing to a close in March, the nation’s cable operators, the office of the Commissioner of Baseball, and even Congress were all involved in a bitter standoff over which carriers could broadcast out-of-market games. In a nutshell, MLB would only allow operators to carry baseball’s complete games package, Extra Innings, if they agreed to deliver the year-round MLB Channel (a long-delayed project that could be described as a glimmer in Bud Selig’s eye, at best) to all of their subscribers.

To the dismay of many fans, DirecTV agreed to a 7-year, $700 million deal that would give them exclusive rights to Extra Innings, so any fans that follow an out-of-market team would be forced to get a dish and subscribe. At the 11^th hour, MLB went back to negotiations, and finally struck a deal with all the major cable providers. While I understand the league’s need to maintain the value of its property, the fans that they fought so hard to win back after the 1994 players’ strike might get fed up if squabbles over TV rights become the norm.

One factor that went surprisingly under the radar during the whole affair is the relative shelf life of the product – in this case, region-free live sports broadcasts. With a host of exciting new distribution technologies on the horizon, Major League Baseball and other content providers would be wise to pull down the walls surrounding their content, and concentrate on driving revenue by advertising to a much larger audience.

Affordable, novel hardware like the Slingbox and Apple’s iTV makes moving online content across multiple devices a snap. Convenient living room access to a world of entertainment, sports and news broadcasts means content disputes, like the one baseball fans got mired in, will go the way of the dodo.

It doesn’t end with hardware, either. The rapidly-evolving IPTV space will deliver an unprecedented amount of content to a global audience – so the national pastime can find new fans in South Korea, while viewers in South Dakota can check out this “cricket” they’ve heard so much about. Smarter ad models that match out-of-market program with local advertising, and incorporating sharper demographics targeting, will ensure that programming remains valuable in its appeal to a broader, global audience.

When content is free of bonds like subscriber-only access and territorial lockout, everybody wins. Play ball!