In praise of the ending of HBO's 'The Sopranos'

                                                                         June 11, 2007
Dear Editor:
Re:  'The Sopranos' ends, not with a bang

Nikki Finke definitely does need to cancel HBO.  If she didn't consider this 'Sopranos' ending to be one of the most brilliant pieces of writing/directing in TV history, then she should stick to watching broadcast primetime.

Skipping ads is a matter of pressing the right buttons

                                                                         May 8, 2007
Dear Editor:
Re: "Here's a thought: DVRs are not all bad: Viewers have to watch an ad to zap it, which is better than the alternatives, such as leaving the room, argues a USC professor "

Not necessarily. 

With my Dish Network DVR I can use the feature that allows me to skip forward by 30 seconds. I may see the first 1.5 seconds of each ad I am skipping.

 But with a bop, bop, bop (you get the picture), I’m back to my program.  Yes, I feel guilty every time I skip ahead.

Mary M. Price
Director of Media Planning
Brand Media
The Richards Group
Dallas

Please note, syndication is not one market but many

                                                                         April 16, 2007
Dear Editor:
I am very suspicious of any data that puts all of syndication in one bucket and then attempts to draw any reasonable conclusions. The syndication menu is so diverse from popular first run to off-net repeats.

Is anyone surprised that viewers are more likely to tape first run programs than repeats of repeats of repeats? Off net programming does make up a sizable slice of the syndication pie.

But syndication is no different than cable and network television. The story is different by property, by network, by target audience, etc. etc.

Julie Friedlander
Associate Director of National Broadcast
ICON International, Inc.
Stamford, Conn.

The solution to the Don Imus problem is with the networks

                                                                         April 11, 2007
Dear Editor:
Re: Don Imus nappy-head remark.

No one is deluded into thinking his remarks were tasteful. Most of his remarks aren't. His words have slammed many groups, and I don't find that admirable.

Yet, interestingly enough, we find that many tune in with enthusiasm to him and other shock jocks. At least Imus is active in charity works, which is in his favor. That, of course, does not make what he said okay.

I don't think it is necessary that he be the one "hanged" for inappropriate remarks. Maybe we can just clean up the airwaves in general.

Networks will find it to their advantage. I think our society is on overload when it comes to nastiness, filthy language, and all the rest that goes with it.

Maybe the networks can reward humor without the disgusting qualities, create higher standards, and stick with it, and ultimately help make our country better while making money.

Hmmm...that's a thought.

Karen Gross
KMG Marketing Services
Florham Park, NJ

It’s difficult to present and negotiate given these circumstances. The agencies need to better address these opportunities and create a more fluid system for analyzing these types are buys.

Debora Stein
Landon Media Group
New York

Hurray for 'Naked Brothers Band' and Nick

                                                                         Feb. 9, 2007
Dear Editor:
Regarding 'The big buzz of 'Naked Brothers Band' I am an avid viewer of Nickelodeon, thanks to my daughter. This show got an incredible amount of on air promotion, as much or more than any show has ever gotten on Nick.

How do we know that the online component was the reason the program launched so well? The music video from the show also got tremendous on-air exposure.

My daughter actually thought the show was over-promoted on air (she’s trained by me). I am happy to see Nick with another winner.

Good for them and the kids business.

Julie Friedlander
Associate Director of National Broadcast
ICON International
Stamford, Conn.

The Prince of Super Bowl and his famous guitar

                                                                         Feb. 7, 2007
Dear Editor:
Of course it was intentional! He’s Prince!
We all saw the end of "Purple Rain" and what that guitar was able to do. I thought he was fantastic.

Mary M. Price
Brand Media
The Richards Group
Dallas

Cheyanne Boyd
Trenton, N.J

Even though most media outlets are not discussing "ER's" media slide, I am starting to notice a significant impact on the business. Media buyers are once again voicing concerns about the show's health, and it feels like this discussion is going to have an impact on "ER's" attractiveness during the next upfronts.

My question: Why isn't this discussion about "ER's" failing health as public as discourse was earlier about its short-lived and possible over exaggerated resurgence?

Katrina Hundy
Cincinnati

                                                                         Jan. 14, 2007
Dear Editor:
Re: 'Rachel, help me, this rep is a real jerk (Media Life, Jan 12,2007)

The “Rep is a Jerk” question brought back memories!

On the very first TV buy I made, in 1979, one of the reps acted to me just as Anonymous and Annoyed described. Upon realizing just how awful he had been, I quickly neutralized him by calling him on it.

But I never forgot it. Ten years later, when I was the head of the buying group, he phoned me to say he was going to be calling on the agency again (after a number of years out of the market). We had a perfectly pleasant business relationship.

However, I called his manager and told him that under no circumstances would that rep ever call on our agency again and do to other young buyers what he had done to me.

In my experience, taking a misbehaving rep to coffee and having a heart-to-heart is way too “enabling” and personal. You could spend most of your working life doing that!

You need to focus on the fact that this is business. Bad business behavior means lost business for his stations.

Tell him exactly and specifically how you expect all of your reps to conduct business. If he does not comply immediately, call his manager and explain that he must be taken off your agency because his service does not meet agency standards. Provide specific examples. And immediately tell your boss what you have done and why. He will respect you for it

Carol Lewis
Founder
Riverton Media
Raleigh, N.C.


With unruly reps, insist that your boss support you

                                                                         Jan. 14, 2007

Dear Editor:
Re: 'Rachel, help me, this rep is a real jerk (Media Life, Jan 12,2007)
The problem is not her or the rep. It is her boss. He must take the stand that the rep will deal ONLY with the buyer!

If the rep knows that he must deal with her and that her boss will not let him go over her head, things will change immediately.

She must demand that her boss back her up - period - end of story!!!

Bob Quaglia
Planning Manager
GonzoMedia, Inc
Dallas

Granted, the Person of the Year has always been as much about promoting Time magazine as it has been about the designee. And this year has been no exception, with Time receiving immense publicity around what many perceive to be an unorthodox choice. Many of the pundits have panned the selection.

But over the holiday break I had the opportunity to read the issue in full. Many of the examples cited of this new “digital democracy” are in and of themselves unimpressive; but taken in aggregate I can begin to see the basis for Time’s selection.

My personal choice leading up to the announcement – YouTube founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim – are covered via an extensive profile in the magazine. One could argue that from the basis of Time’s coverage in the issue that they have a legitimate claim to Person of the Year.

But I’m beginning to understand why it’s not just about YouTube or MySpace or other user created networks. They are nothing more than a delivery mechanism. It is innovative technology, but none as an entity are creating content nor are they driving the national (or web) dialogue. In the larger scheme of things video diaries, self-produced entertainment, personal bloggers and social networks – regardless of how many friends one has – are unimportant. These are mere examples of a new means of personal expression.

It’s important for you but it’s generally not important for me as a consumer of news and information.

The true catalyst for making “You” the Person of the Year is the speed of access to information and video technology. Some examples given in the issue include the exposure of the Mark Foley emails, the Michael Richards comedy club outburst, and Iraq combat footage taken by soldiers on the ground.

Now in the most dramatic example, this past weekend we see video footage of Saddam Hussein hanging that was captured by cell phone camera (apparently taken clandestinely by a senior Iraqi official).

What’s interesting about this video is that by including sound, the entire event is transformed completely. We now can hear and view the execution as it occurred and bear witness to just how confrontational the event was.

Five years ago, we would only be able to see the event in the way others wished us to view it and that would be the end of it. But not so in 2006 and beyond – the world is one large media provider.

I think Time got it right. Congratulations “You”. Well deserved.

Curtis Smith
Advertising Media Services
GlaxoSmithKline
Member of ANA Print Committee

What's really wrong with the American sitcom

                                                                         Oct. 25, 2006
Dear Editor:
Your article ( "Year of the rapidly evaporating sitcom") lists high quality dramas, the rise of reality shows and increased competition from cable and alternative media as reasons for the form’s dire straits.

May I suggest another painfully obvious one that didn’t seem to rate a mention.

How about poor writing featuring one-note, unlikable characters no normal person can relate to and a juvenile obsession with sex jokes?

There’s certainly not a “Frasier” or “Everybody Loves Raymond” anywhere in sight in the new crop of sitcoms so it’s not like shows of comparable quality are failing. Just a thought – but maybe its not the sitcom form that’s the problem but out-of-touch Hollywood writers.

John Kennedy
New York

The missing logic behind Air America

                                                                             Oct. 17, 2006
Dear Editor:
Why does anyone assume that the Air America listener was even remotely similar to the NPR listener?

What substantive, accepted research was there to support this "insight?"
Tell me again why just because Air America was liberal in content, the listener base was supposedly intellectual, upscale, etc?

This sort of fractured logic was another one of the contributing factors to the "network's" demise. Everyone involved with Air America was assuming a great deal and justifying nothing. You don't spend a client's money on guesses.

Mike Lynn
Director of Integrated Media
Storandt Pann Margolis
LaGrange, Illinois

'Studio 60's bigger problem is alienating Middle America

                                                                             Oct. 17, 2006
Dear Editor:
I think Toni Fitzgerald story about "Studio 60" ("NBC's 'Studio 60' tumbles to new low") misses a key weakness in the program.

I don’t think the ‘inside Hollywood’ aspect of the show is nearly as big a problem for audience retention as Aaron Sorkin’s relentless attacks on Christian evangelicals and red state conservatives.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m no Bible thumper myself, but there is a significant percentage of the population that is. Why should these people be expected to continue to tune into a program that insults their intelligence, regards them as uneducated hicks, and displays a general disdain for flyover country in general?

If the characters in "Studio 60" were fighting to produce a quality show that would appeal to middle America, middle America would tune in. "Studio 60" is about producing a TV show that finds middle America an embarrassment.

Tim Hess
South Sioux City, Iowa

With time-shifted viewing, overnights are less reliable
                                                                         March 31, 2006
Dear Editor:

    As DVRs have empowered the consumer to time-shift their viewing habits, I would suggest that the overnights underinflate the numbers for "American Inventor."
    This poses a problem for both agencies representing clients and the networks. Are advertisers paying too much for time-shifted viewing?
    Would discounting recorded content be unfair to the networks? Will the consumer zap the commercial content when viewing the time shifted program?
    This is not your old media planning/estimating game anymore. Much is at stake for both sides of the fence, and on many, many fronts.

Paul Benjou
Director of Client Services
Mediaplex
New York

Cargo reader's beef: GQ swap doesn't cut it
                                                                March 28, 2006
Dear Editor:
     Despite the fact that I am not in the demo they were trying to reach, I thoroughly enjoyed Cargo.
    What disturbs me, however, is Conde Nast's plan to replace it with GQ for current subscribers like myself. This is odd since they have a title, Men's Vogue, which caters to a similar audience with similar features.
     GQ is an overblown adfest with articles (when you can find them) so boring they should be required reading in sleep clinics (along with the New Yorker, The New Republic, and National Review).
    Give us a similar magazine, or give us back our cash!

Richard D. Perez
Executive Director
ALPHAMEDIA

One-sided  coverage of Stern's 'Letterman' visit
                                                                                         March 16, 2006
Dear Editor:

  I am a daily reader of your web site and I was disappointed with this article  ("Howard's midnight belly flop on 'Dave"). 
   It failed to mention the fact that CBS did not promote Stern's appearance whatsoever. 
    Usually, when they want to attract more viewers, they promote the upcoming show by saying who would be on. They only mentioned Carrie Underwood and not Stern. I am a Siirius listener so I knew he was going to be on.
    Belly flop? Yes, it was but let's be clear on why this happened.

Liz Palato
Media supervisor
Italia Partners
Burbank

The editor replies: True, the network did not promote Stern's appearance but it was widely reported in the media, and virtually everywhere. 

You missed the full story on FHM's ad pages
                                                                              March 15, 2006
Dear Editor:

   Your article "Big chill: Men's titles in a major ad sag" by Heidi Dawley (March 14, 2006), refers to FHM's year-to-date ad page performance but fails to include a vital piece of information regarding FHM. In 2006, FHM reinstituted our January/February double issue, which is polybagged at the newsstand with the FHM calendar, traditionally one of our bestsellers of the year. The decision to publish a double issue at the beginning of the year gave our retailer partners a monster selling issue, our readers a must-have editorial supplement, and our advertisers guaranteed bonus circulation. 
   Because we published a Jan/Feb 2006 double issue and last year published separate January and February issues, the comparison of ad page totals from this year to last year provides a false reading of FHM's recent ad page performance. FHM's December 2005 issue closed with 122.73 pages for an increase of 24 percent. Overall, FHM closed 2005 with a 3 percent increase in ad pages, one of only a few titles in the men's category to show an increase in ad pages year over year. Currently, FHM's March 2006 issue carried 79.4 ad pages for an increase of 7 percent over last year. 
    FHM's ad page performance, unlike many of the magazines in our competitive set, has increased with each calendar year. And we anticipate the same positive ad page gains in 2006. 

Amie Deutch
Associate Publisher 
FHM
New York

Read your history: Doping was outlawed years ago

                                                                                          March 15, 2006

Dear Editor:

     Re: "The deeper scandal in baseball doping."
    In that column, it is written: "Bonds has done nothing wrong. He didn't break the rules. This bears repeating. It hasn't been said enough: Steroids were not illegal when Bonds was allegedly doping up in the late '90s and early 2000s. Steroids were not truly, meaningfully outlawed until a year ago."

These statements, I am afraid, are incorrect. While it is true that Major League Baseball did not institute a drug testing policy until after the 2002 reason, MLB did have a policy against the use of anabolic steroids as early as 1991. That policy provided that the "possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited," and that "[t]his prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription." The policy continued that "Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game." See Memoraudm from the Office of the Commissioner to All Major League Clubs Re: "Baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program" (June 7, 1991). 

For further information, I direct your attention to an article entitled "The
Memos: A Ban Ignored" by Tom Farrey, that ran, I believe, in the December 22, 2005 edition of "ESPN the Magazine." The online version of that story provides a link to scans of the 1991 MLB policy in question.

David Harlow
Washington

A la carte: Not a panacea but a bad idea

    Echoing concerns expressed by Toni Fitzgerald ("A la carte's back, and hard to swallow," Media Life, February 10), it is hard not to recognize that the a la carte cable programming debate has become an emotional issue fueled by special interest groups convinced that a la carte is a quick fix to the TV indecency problem. 
    Some politicians, too, are ready to foster that conclusion.
     As a Christian organization, The Inspiration Networks share a concern about the declining moral content of television programming. However, it is clear to us that a la carte is not the panacea some people think.
     In reality, the a la carte debate is far more about philosophy and politics than practical solutions. There are many unanswered questions about the nature of an a la carte world. 
    Will consumers be able to choose from all available networks, or just a few? Would independent networks like ours receive equal treatment? 
   Who will be the gatekeepers, and who decides what networks would be offered? 
   What are the pricing structures and options? From the cable operator's perspective, how can I deliver a variety of content at an affordable price under a la carte? 
    Today there are organizations, like ours, that are dedicated to providing quality, "decent" programs. However, a la carte could negatively impact these networks and actually make it more difficult to produce viable family-oriented programs.
    We have been able to grow in part because our networks have been part of widely distributed multi-channel packages offered by cable systems. Millions of new viewers, who would be otherwise unaware of our existence, are exposed to our network and programs. While the debate about a la carte is dominated by concerns of preventing undesirable programs, the reality is that it would have a negative impact on networks with "desirable" and family appropriate programs. 
    Unlike broadcast stations and networks, cable operators are not mandated to carry cable-exclusive channels, like our networks. Therefore any a la carte legislation could severely damage the optional distribution of our networks.
    Would a la carte save consumers money? We seriously doubt it. We believe that a la carte could force a scenario that would cost consumers more. Networks (even some that provide family programming) may even be forced out of existence in an a la carte environment. 
    It is particularly surprising that so many conservative organizations who normally oppose government intervention are embracing a government-mandated system like a la carte. 
    In the new, emerging world, technologies like video on demand and DVRs are increasing consumer control, making it easy to create or access safe, on-demand menus of stored programs for families and children. Several effective parental control mechanisms are also already available. These are marketplace-driven solutions that empower people without government interference.
    Do any of us really believe that these kinds of government controls will save consumers money? Create more efficient media access? Solve the "indecency" problems?
    For these reasons, and more, a la carte is a bad idea and the Inspiration Networks are opposed to such government intervention and legislating how products and services are marketed.

John Roos
Senior vice president of Corporate Communications & Research
The Inspiration Networks 
Charlotte, NC 

How love of money and approval has hurt society