Month: October 2006

The cable industry has worked to prevent ownership diversity. People of color and women own practically nothing in cable TV—neither systems nor programming channels. Nor do many of cable’s CEO’s come from diverse ethnic backgrounds. The cable lobby has fought against all policies that would promote diversity—including rules that would help ensure a more open broadband video Internet.

So why would so many civil rights groups support the cable lobby’s attempt to thwart FCC rules requiring an open network (via a new pending rule prohibiting proprietary set-top boxes)? Coming to cable’s aid, notes Broadcasting & Cable magazine was the Black Leadership Forum, representing almost three dozen groups. Siding with the Forum in comments to the FCC were the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Urban League and the Southern Christian Leadership Council. Civil rights groups were joined by “limited government/free market” organizations such as Americans for Tax Reform, Reason Foundation, Institute for Liberty and Americans for Prosperity. Also arguing against the rule was the NCTA, Comcast and Verizon. We note that Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are supporters of the Black Leadership Forum.

The pricey lobbying and PR shop flacking for the Forum and the other groups—LMG—told reporters that opposition was based on concerns about consumers having to pay a few dollars more a month for open boxes. That is absurd, of course. What’s really going on is a continued cable lobby (and Telco) power grab. They don’t want any competition—just a box and a network they can fully control. [We wonder who actually paid LMG’s bill].

Siding with the cable and phone lobby will not bring the U.S. the kind of diverse and equitable electronic media system we desperately require. Such support is shortsighted, at best. At worse, it is another setback to ensuring a democratic media system in the digital age.

Source: “NAACP Opposes Set-Top Integration Ban.” John Eggerton. Broadcasting and Cable. Oct. 2. 2006.

We missed this report from yesterday’s MediaPost. A “key new partnership” for PBS is with Arby’s. The fast-food chain is sponsoring the new PBS kids program “Fetch.” Apparently Fetch’s host–a dog named Ruff–will be used in Arby’s “children’s meals promotion.” Ironically, Fetch is also sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF)–they will have to help give grants to those who wish to fight against the fat delivered by Arby’s!

Even if Arby’s offers healthier food choices, we think the point is this. Yes, PBS is hungry for funds. But they are making bad funding choices. Junk food ads aren’t the way out.

PBS officials better watch a re-run of Frontline’s “The Persuaders.” Each day, there is another trade article on how PBS is embracing commercial marketing. Today, it’s MediaBuyerPlanner which reports that the non-commercial network is “offering sponsors increased exposure through integrated buys that include product tie-ins, the internet, podcasts, and longer-form sponsorship messages.”

We think PBS officials need a wake-up call. They believe that the public doesn’t really care about its drive towards greater commercial marketing–on TV, its websites, and other digital services. Let ’em know that they are dishonoring the mission of public broadcasting. Email PBS ombudsman Michael Getler. Track down PBS Board members and tell them to reverse course. Send a message to your Congressperson (those still in office!) that they should prohibit PBS and NPR from running advertising–online and off.

Source:  PBS Increasingly Open to Ads.  Oct. 3, 2006

PBS isn’t sliding—it’s running down the slippery slope of advertising. Here’s what Advertising Age reported: “”For marketers with $1.5 million to spare, PBS is co-branding video shorts, or interstitials, to promote the flagship documentary series “American Experience.” The video shorts, which will run nationally, will mark the first time PBS has allowed advertiser-tagged interstitials to appear on its public-broadcasting affiliates. In addition to having their names attached to the 12 short program segments illustrating historic moments in American history, sponsors will be offered a podcast presence. And while PBS certainly limits what an advertiser can do on its stations, the sponsorship group is sweetening its deals. The premiere sponsor of “American Experience,” for example, will be featured at a screening at the Sundance film festival and will get exposure at a branded screening event in New York. Ms. Hertz said PBS had become much more responsive to advertiser needs in recent months, and she said the network can get spots on and off air much more quickly than before. “We are much more flexible,” she said. “Something other than 12-month sponsorships are up for discussion.”

Such commercial moves require greater reflection from PBS President Kerger and the board. We know money for programming is tight. But a short-term `let make an ad deal’ mentality won’t fix the problem. Articulating a serious programming presence (online and off) might.

Source: “Toyota Drops Out of `Antique Roadshow’—PBS Sales Group Is on the Hunt for Sponsors.” Claire Atkinson. Advertising Age. September 25, 2006.