Digital Destiny

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.

The English-speaking world’s preeminent public service media group just signed a “memorandum of understanding” with Microsoft. The “Beeb,” as its sometimes called, is transforming itself into a cutting-edge digital service. It is embracing the ethos of social media, Web 2.0, in order to establish meaningful interactive links with users/viewers and creators. The BBC understands that its public service mission requires it to offer and connect to all forms of media, including blogs, user-generated video, mobile, broadband, etc. What is likely to emerge will be a model for public service digital telecommunications.

But while we understand why an interest and alliance with Microsoft is tempting, we think it also raises some troubling questions. Microsoft’s new business model is about unleashing all of its resources—Windows Live, Messenger, Massive, etc.—to promote targeted advertising. Microsoft is using its content and software resources to track and pinpoint eyeballs for commercial purposes. BBC new media director Ashley Highfield, who just met with Bill Gates, said that “Microsoft is not just a key supplier to the BBC, it is also a key gateway to audiences that the BBC needs to reach.”

We think this could lead the BBC down the wrong road, allowing it to become another way the public is sold to marketers. The BBC should beware becoming a digital advertising Trojan horse for Microsoft.

Also see: Why the BBC and Bill Gates need Each Other. Steve Busfield, MediaGuardian. Registration required.

BBC press release.

The leading advertising trade group, AAAA, is worried about the industry’s image. According to Advertising Age, it has hired “one of the country’s largest PR firms to conduct a public-image campaign on behalf of the business.” Ad industry leaders hope to “stave off negative headlines” by using the same flackery shop which represents McDonalds.

The announcement by the American Association of Advertising Agencies coincides with what’s known as “Advertising Week.” There are dozens of events and conferences in New York City this week, as marketers and advertisers engage in a love fest about the power—and future of marketing. The new AAA PR campaign led by Golin-Harris plans to proactively place positive stories with reporters. No doubt they will have an impact, given that most news outlets have embraced many of the same problematic and disturbing digital marketing tactics. Make no mistake—AAAA members and their brand-focused clients are largely determining the future of broadband media.

But the ad industry can’t hide the fact that their plans not only threaten our privacy, but also undermine our quality of life. Using the power of the new media to get all of us, individually, to consume more cars, fast-food, drugs, etc. will help bring us a world further out of whack.

In the opinion of this blogster—the Ad industry won’t have an easy PR ride.

[Source: “Just Make it Stop: 4A’s Hires PR Help. Matthew Creamer. Ad Age. Sept. 25, 2006]

A few words here in response to the endless missives coming from Mr. Cleland about network neutrality—via his blog at Netcompetition.org. Mr. Cleland was once known for his in-depth, informed and passionate analysis about the intersections between technology and policy. But now Mr. Cleland has become, shall we say, outright dyspeptic. He is convinced—we assume sincerely—that network neutrality advocates are either greedy monopolists themselves (Microsoft) or monopolists in the making (Google). Mr. Cleland and others conveniently claim that the battle over network neutrality is just a digital food fight among giants.

But we want to make it clear, again, what the network neutrality fight is about. It’s having a U.S. digital media system where all forms of content can conveniently and affordably be created & distributed—to TV’s, PC’s, and mobile devices. Network neutrality is a policy where access to content doesn’t depend on the whims of the owners of your network, operating system, or e-commerce provider. It means maximum freedom in the broadband era, an enhancing of our democracy. That includes the right to receive any kind of content you want—now. In the not too distant future, the ability of programmers and political leaders to effectively communicate ideas will depend on their access to the “triple play” distribution system. The battle for network neutrality is to ensure we have no digital gatekeepers—including AT&T, Comcast, as well as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, etc.

Mr. Cleland’s backers wish to control that future—otherwise they would have to content themselves with only the (considerable) revenues from fair-minded distribution. Comcast, AT&T and the others all want to be King of the broadband domain. But in a digital democracy—there shouldn’t be lords of the realm, only citizen/users/creators.

So, as we go off for a few days to the place where they are also helping decide the future of our broadband system (Advertising Week in NY), we ask that Mr. Cleland pause and reflect. We hope he will join us in saying, “A curse on all your houses—those that wish to domineer and overly profit from a media system that belongs to all of us.” Imagine—a broadband environment run on behalf of all the people.

The telephone broadband giants—AT&T and Verizon—say they are stepping up efforts to scuttle the local cable franchising process. According to Light Reading, they “are working hard at the state level to push statewide franchises into law…” While the phone lobby hopes that Congress will pass the Stevens/Barton/Rush telecom give-away bill this session, they acknowledge that they were blind sighted by the fierce support for network neutrality. “For many of us it’s just been really frustrating,” says Jeff Brueggeman, AT&T VP of regulatory planning and policy in Washington.” As noted in Light Reading, Brueggeman told a conference that he and his colleagues didn’t see the net neutrality log-jam coming. So that’s why they plan to continue state-by-state, to secure laws that preempt the ability of local governments—and their citizens/residents—to ensure broadband services really benefit the public.

Both Stevens and Joe Barton made statements yesterday urging Congress to pass the law. Hopefully, they will fail. Their bill doesn’t really provide for video competition. It just sets the stage for a more powerful broadband monopoly.

But, we want to discuss localism for a moment. There has been a long-standing federal policy that our electronic communications system is supposed to empower and serve local voices—real communities. Much of the current debate on the FCC’s media ownership rules involves effectively defining and ensuring such localism. But there has been no more meaningful policy supporting localism in the electronic media than cable franchising. For whatever its flaws, it provides the only real opportunity for actual community members to play a key role shaping multichannel broadband systems (including ensuring local programming needs).

We hope that with a new Congress—assuming the Barton/Stevens/Rush conglomerate give-away fails—will look anew at the role of localism in the debate about Telco broadband video service. Meanwhile, further state pre-emption [already passed in Texas, Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Virginia, and New Jersey -with California soon to also formally approve] must be vigorously fought.