Right on, Alan Wurtzel!
                                                                             December 19, 1999
Dear Editor: 
          I was interested to read Alan Wurtzel's comment in Dave Lindorff's  article on 12/13 --"What we need," says Wurtzel,  "is some sort of passive system because not everyone in a household is as responsible  about pushing the button every time they watch."
           Right on! I suggest you look at our speech at the recent ARF workshop  week -- "Effective TV planning: Will the real qualitative factors please  stand up?"  At the end of that speech we summarized by reiterating the  need to get the passive meter moving!
       This is the first "amen" I've heard   from the broadcaster side.  I'd like to hear him and his peers at the   other nets (broadcastand cable) publicly encourage the Nielsen folks at  their next client meeting.

Bernie Guggenheim
Dale Coons
Campbell-Ewald
Warren, Mich.

cc: A. Wurtzel, NBC

Don't knock 'Millionaire'  
                                                                                 December 3, 1999
Dear Editor: 
       I don't understand the purpose behind Horizon Media's downplaying of the ratings success of  "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" ("Our Hats Are Off To Millionaire But How Significant Is The Victory?, today).
        The fact is, we are purchasing TV inventory in today's marketplace. Just because a 15 rating wouldn't have been worthy of attention 10 years ago is meaningless. Does that mean Horizon wouldn't recommend the show today? 
     As NBC's Alan Wurtzel noted, even a show with a rating as "low" as a 10 is a prize nowadays. While the Horizon analysis provides some "fun facts," the subject of fragmentation has been with us long enough that I think savvy media professionals are well aware that ratings aren't as high as they used to be.
        Why not focus instead on the startling success of the show and the implications it will have on future programming decisions by the broadcast networks?  Useful research needs to focus more on the present and    future if it is to have the greatest utility for clients.

Rob Frydlewicz
VP Media Research
FCB
New York

Decline in NBC primetime  
                                                                                November 17 1999
Dear Editor:                                     
      I read Andrew Wallenstein article regarding the shifts (and I agree, smart shifts) at NBC.  ("Ancier orders bold revamp of NBC's primetime lineup," today.)
    I thought, however, Mr. Wallenstein exhibited too much self control in his reluctance to editorialize some of the shows being shifted! He mentions the poor performance of "Suddenly Susan," "Veronica's Closet," and "Jesse," yet was far too generous not to mention that these shows, all of which underwent cast and storyline direction changes this season, have really deteriorated in quality.
      Granted, "Jesse" has never really illustrated the promise NBC had given it, but both "Susan" and "Closet" were strong performers:  "Susan" was a semi-surprise success, and "Closet" was touted by all the experts as the "one to watch" coming into the 97-98 season and was the top- rated freshmen series of the season.
         "Jesse's" loss of the characters of the goofy brothers and the appealing father took away any charm the series had to begin with.  "Susan's" writing and story lines are just plain weak this year and the new characters are just not gelling. 
    And while  Kirstie Alley's whining is tolerable when balanced by strong characters like Kathy Najimy and Ron Silver (whose underutilized talent was a shame last season), opposite the insipid character of June, portrayed by Lorri Bagley, the show becomes  just plain juvenile and unintelligent.
         The fact that these shows are "notching record lows" is understandable, they are delivering poor quality.   And if  "Closet" doesn't do something about its writing, nothing, not even a stronger lead-in, is going to save it!

Catherine D'Azevedo
The Leslie Agency
Greenville, S.C .

Defending the NAACP

Dear Editor:                                           November 13, 1999
         I read the article on NAACP Big 4 boycott.
         The sad thing is that you believe that the NAACP has no power.  The programs in the fall line up and previous seasons have not reflected the masses of the ever growing diversified nation.  Their is power of people.
        And, the people are tired of the same oldexcuses given by these 40-50 year old angloTV executives.  If they think that the NAACP can't rally a successful boycott, then they  must live on a street called Melrose Place.

Pamela Adkins

Big kickup in Atlanta

Dear Editor:                                           November 10, 1999
        As a media director who logged on to Access Atlanta's site last week ("If the web's future is local, AccessAtlanta may be that future," Nov. 10) I'm taking a guess that the spike in attention was due to good PR and marketing.
    The site had the Atlanta Journal print an article on the fact that you could watch the Pandas arrive, download a free Panda screensaver and send free Panda postcards. I logged on after seeing it in the newspaper. I sent postcards to friends in three states who also logged on...and so on.
     It goes to show that even the net does not operate at its best in a vacuum. It was the combination of clever content and cross promotion that helped to produce the traffic.
       I agree with your article that this does show the importance of local content on the web.

Mari Carswell
Vice President Media
The Hauser Group
Savannah/Atlanta

Hey, that's my nephew!

Dear Editor:                                           November 10, 1999
          Great story! ("Nine powerful reasons why so many new TV shows tank: JWT's Liebmann on how to create a bomb, " Nov. 9).
         I've known Gregg since he was born (he's my nephew); it's nice to see him quoted as an expert!

Doris Appelbaum
President
Appelbaum's Resume Professionals, Inc.

You guys blew it

Dear Editor:                                           November 2, 1999
         The October 18th issue of Brandweek ran an editorial about Ford's plan to buy a global "Roadblock" TV ad.  I am deeply disappointed that Media Life Magazine has never mentioned this in any of the daily e-mail's that were sent out.  This is the type of editorial that Media Life Magazine should be writing about, instead of the editorials profiling every new show this fall and whether they will make it to mid-season.  Most good media people check out the new shows during the season before they buy it (or at the least get a write up from the local station).
       Missing this story was a major mistake on Media Life Magazine's part.
    I was disappointed to learn that you missed such a major media story because I use your website for research and to keep on the latest media information without reading every industry trade publication (no one has that much down time).
      Thank you for allowing me to express my concern and frustration over this.

Cheryl Paiva
DW Group
Portland, Maine

Unimportance of stickiness

Dear Editor:                                                    November 1, 1999 Just a brief note to suggest why stickiness might not have a reflection in ad prices ("The importance of being sticky,"   (Sept. 1).  The majority of web adverts are designed to attract   click-throughs to other sites.  If this is the case, an advertiser should   prefer sites that are actually LESS sticky, making it more likely for a   viewer to click-through to their site.  Just an opinion.

Joel Haber
New York

Praise for Wallace, again

Dear Editor:                                                    November 1, 1999
     I enjoyed Mr. Wallace's piece immensely this morning ("Requiem for a lightweight).  Well written. 
      Also:  Media Life's morning email never fails to catch me with at least one item of interest each day.  I value and appreciate your service.

Richard Riccelli
Riccelli Direct, Inc.
Boston

Great review of B. Smith

Dear Editor:                                                    October 27, 1999            Bravo!
        Don Wallace did a superb editorial wrap on B. Smith's premiere issue vs.  Martha Stewart's Living.
        While I do not necessarily agree with his belief that the country is
moving demographically in the direction of B. Smith's editorial bent, I  applaud his non-toxic, humorous and light hearted approach.
     The jury on the viability of B. Smith's mag is still out. But rest assured  K Mart shoppers, Martha's sure to KO this upstart.
        Oh---Don....If you want to restore that kitchen table, Martha can help.

Paul Benjou
Senior VP / Media
DraftWorldwide
  New York

Tributes to Karen

  Dear Editor:                                                    October 25, 1999
       Thank you for the tribute to Karen Ritchie.  I worked for Karen at Campbell  Ewald, and was part of the founding team at GM Mediaworks.  I am proud and  count myself fortunate to have been among her "students."  I firmly believe that everyone who ever had a meeting with Karen is now doing his or her job better.  Some may have left the meeting a little more humble, but Karen challenged you.
      Not that it was always fun.  I'm now in sales, and I recently got a zinger from her along the lines of "you should know better,   Betsy."  And I should have.
      Sadly, there were too few opportunities for people to let Karen know what she meant to them.  To thank her for her guidance and fairness.   Well, hundreds did so by their presence at her funeral.  It was overwhelming, and her family's eulogies inspirational. 
           There was never a better champion for the power of the print medium, and Karen's influence will continue to affect the industry for a very long time. 
 
Betsy Connolly
Heth & Associates
Detroit
                                                                                             October 22, 1999
Dear Editor: 
      Thanks to Media Life and to Maureen Garry for publishing such a rich tribute to Karen (Remembering Karen Ritchie, Oct. 22.)
      For those of us a bit outside the scope of the Detroit community, reading it was being at a wake-- enjoying fond memories of a treasured colleague-- confirming what you felt inside and why you felt it.
     On occasions that I've gotten to work with Karen on industry panels, client projects, etc., I've always admired her and been grateful for her presence in our business.  Now that she's left us, I guess I'll need to step up my game another notch to be sure that her presence and values stay with the media industry.
       Again, thanks for doing this piece.

Jayne Spittler
Starcom Worldwide

The truth on Lou Dobbs  
                                                                                 October 21, 1999
Dear Editor: 
       I read your "editorial" in yesterday's online edition, "Will he or won't he? WSJ editor mulls leap to CNN."
       Your comment about persistent rumors is an accurate reflection of what's been reported regarding the head slot at CNNfn.
      But further down in the story, your opinion seemed to blur fact and fiction and in no way reflects the reality of today's situation.
      CNBC's aggressive climb in the ratings?  According to what?  CNN's Moneyline not only beats CNBC's Business Center in terms of household delivery by 63 percent, its late-night re-broadcast (11:30 p.m.) even beats Business Center's original early evening telecast!  Those are the facts and they are substantiated by Nielsen audience measurement data.
     "The evening news show (ie. Moneyline) was Dobbs."   Maybe for you.  But not for the advertisers, who sponsor Moneyline.  Not one single advertiser who sponsored Moneyline when Lou Dobbs was still on the show has since cancelled their commercials.  Indeed, 13 new advertisers have signed on since Lou Dobbs officially left.  The CPM's--or cost per thousand-- which Moneyline commands from advertisers, remains as high as ever--no decline whatsoever since the change in anchors.
     The "plenty of others" who you refer to as believing Lou Dobb's departure from Moneyline was a "loss from which CNN will not recover" are clearly not representative of either the viewers of the show or its sponsors.
     Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  I just don't recall where in the story you label the piece as your "opinion."

Mark Harrad
Turner Broadcasting Sales
New York

Sex, 'love and money'   
                                                                                 October 8, 1999
Dear Editor: 
        A question about Andrew Wallenstein's column about "Love and Money."
      Did he really congratulate CBS for finally airing a program that features a couple having sex in every episode?
      Let's look at the one of the quotes thatperhaps might have misled me: "Give the network some credit, though, for trying its first risqué show; the second episode features sex in an elevator. No one has had sex on a CBS sitcom since, well, ever."
     Sex in an elevator in a program that airs at 730 p.m. in half the U.S.? You get the impression from Mr. Wallenstein's column that this represents progressiveness on the part of the network. In an environment where networks are coming under fire from the public and from major advertisers for not providing enough "family-friendly" entertainment, and not reflecting the values of middle America, shouldn't journalists that applaud the airing of ever-more risqué programming take some of that heat also?
     Isn't someone like Mr. Wallenstein, who writes a review about a show and advances the view that only positive element of the show is that the network finally delivered a show that was a "mindless sex romp," accountable for pushing networks towards programming that is less and less family-friendly?
     The bottom line is that Mr. Wallenstein apparently thinks that CBS needed to air a show that featured sex, regardless of whether it served any other dramatic or entertainment purpose. And that, in my view, is the very definition of "gratuitous."

Jay Waters
VP-Associate Media Director
Luckie & Company
Birmingham, Alabama

The writer replies: 

Dear Mr. Waters:
I apologize if you felt I was advocating racy programming at an early hour but I was being facetious. Perhaps I should have made it clearer in the piece, but I was making fun of how buttoned-up all CBS shows are. Thanks for writing in.

Andrew Wallenstein

Dear Mr. Wallenstein:
     Thanks for taking the time to reply to my letter, but I must say, your reply simply reinforces the point I was making, and the one that mainstream America secretly suspects about the entertainment media in this country --that the media makes fun of those in the film and television industry who don't succumb to the desire to be rewarded for "pushing the envelope," which is critic-speak for showing just a little bit more sex than the guy on the next channel. Perhaps I was the one who should have been clearer, since it was perfectly  clear to me that you were making fun of CBS of having such buttoned-upshows.
     My point was: Why? What is wrong with a network having some sort of standard that is a notch above where the lowest common denominator is?
      Is the only possible path of progress for a network marked with milestones that note when it aired it's first "mindless sex romp," its first bare ass, its first full monty?
        Is a network subject to critical ridicule if it seeks another path? Is airing more shows with sex the only way that CBS can get professional critical respect from someone like yourself?
     There's a lot that's wrong with network television today, Mr. Wallenstein.  I don't see how making fun of a network because it has "buttoned-up" showsmakes anything better. Honestly, do you?

Jay Waters

The writer replies:

Mr. Waters:
      I think you're overstating my intention when I say I was "making fun" of CBS. In my mind, that phrase is not synonymous with ridicule or scorn; my only intention was to lightly tease the network. I share your concern over the direction of primetime programming, but I do not believe my comment about CBS in any way perpetuates this discouraging trend.

Andrew Wallenstein

Dear Mr. Wallenstein:
     Well, we're at an impasse here. We both agree that you teased the network for their buttoned-up program,  but you don't see any problem with that,and I do. You obviously think I'm taking your comments out of the context of the article, which in one sense I agree that I am. However, you don't see how your comments fit in the larger context of the overall environment of the discussion about television programming.
     Anyway, let's move on. I'm prepared to see how you develop in future articles your "concern over the direction of primetime programming." If you really believe that, you'll write it, and if you don't, you won't. That said, I do appreciate you taking the time to write back twice to address my comments. I find that encouraging and refreshing, so thanks for your time.

Jay Waters

More trash from Dave    
                                                                                 October 1, 1999
Dear Editor: 
       David Lindorff's article "Behind AT&T's latest bid to gobble up America Online" (ML Oct. 1) is the most incompetent piece of trash I have come across in quite some time. It is littered with factual inaccuracies that even the rudimentary fact checking would uncover. For example, the author states that at a cost of $110 per share, AOL's market cap would be about $35 billion dollars. In actual fact, it would be more than three times greater. Where is this fellow getting this bad information?
      Worse, the entire tone of the article appears to have been formulated by AOL's public relations department. For example, the author erroneously states "AT&T wants to own the access to people's homes, and control the portal to the internet". This is straight out of an AOL propaganda brochure, and these ideas have been firmly rebuffed by practically everyone BUT AOL, including the FCC and numerous state and local governments.
Your publication will never be much if you keep producing trashy, one-sided "analyses" like this.

Paul Jacobsen
Rockville, Maryland

Dump Lindorff    
                                                                                 October 1, 1999
Dear Editor: 
       Mr. Lindorff should be immediately terminated for flagrant incompetence. In his piece he states that "$135 per share, which would represent a total of $32 billion."He then states that AOL has, "some 12 million users."First, AOL is valued at well over $100 billion. At $135 per share their valuation would be valued at close to $150 billion (a 5x error).    Second, they have almost 20 million subscribers.
     It is amazing to me that this kind of misrepresentation which required about one minute of due diligence was published and that there will be no repercussions to the author, editor etc. I hope that you will show the marketplace that your publication is concerned with accuracy and will not tolerate this sort of irresponsible and addle-brained reporting.

Bruce Pisetzner

The editor replies: Both writers are correct regrading the market cap of AOL and the number of subscribers. Media Life regrets he errors.

Not a geezer at 50, thank you     
                                                                 September 29, 1999

Dear Editor:    
        Am I the only one who was offended by the headline "Going After Geezers" (Sept. 29) on a story bespelling myths about the age 45+ audience? 
      Still active in  sports, still able to stomp through the woods with my fellow weekend  warriors, still sporting my own teeth and hair, this 50-year-old is far from geezerhood. 
      It would seem your headline writer was either being   cute to a fault or actually buys into the flawed thinking cited by David Poltrack.   Shame on you for letting it get by!

David Fox
Washington, DC

Not a geezer, either   
                                                                 September 29, 1999

Dear Editor
Mr. Fox from Washington, D.C. beat me to it (probably due to the three-hour time difference between the East and West coast) but I too am taken aback with the use of this derogatory term. 
      I'm a few years MORE MATURE than Mr. Fox and still actively working in the ad biz even after "retiring" from  one of the large networks.  I don't think this is beating the politically correct "horse" to death.  Talented writers should be able to be "cute" in their creative bent without insulting folks.   

Lee Hunt
Oakland, CA

Everyday blunder         
                                                                                       September 22, 1999
Dear Editor:             
       I really like your e-zine. I am nonetheless disappointed in the fact that you have erroneously used "everyday" as an adverb in your home page masthead.
       I knew Toyota's campaign would corrupt the English language.
It should read "every day." The word "everyday" is an adjective, period.
          "Everyday" people like to breathe "every day."
          He looked like an "everyday" kind of guy "every day" he came to work.
         I suppose my erstwhile anal retentive tendencies were activated most by the fact that your e-zine is otherwise "user-friendly" and very literate.

Bert Dean
Vice President, Marketing
Alison & Associates, Inc.
Augusta, Georgia

The editor replies: Dean is absolutely right. Such was the madness of the launch that we were rolling along for several weeks  before I noticed the error. How did that get there? I puzzled, before going on to more urgent matters. And there it has stood for four months, a constant reminder of how tough those first several weeks were. I was hoping to change it without comment until Dean's letter came. We will leave it up for one more day so readers can observe the point Dean is making and then we'll fix it.

How blacks are portrayed
                                                                                               September 23, 1999
Dear Editor:
     Too bad Dave Lindorff, in an otherwise good piece ("Study finds blacks not whited out of primetime," Media Life, Sept. 23), chose to bury the most relevant aspect of the debate in the bottom third-quarter of the story: Namely, the manner in which the nets portray blacks and other minorities. 
         Reference is made to programs such as "NYPD Blue," "ER," "Touched by an Angel" and "Walker, Texas Ranger" and their inclusion of "well-drawn, multi-dimensional black characters" but with one exception "ER" virtually the entire remainder of the cast is white.
         Do "Blue's" Lt. Fancy and "ER's" Dr. Benton carry enough weight to counterbalance electronic minstral shows like "Martin," "Living Single" and other predominately black programs, which seemingly exist solely to perpetuate the negative stereotype of blacks as jive-talking, oversexed, crude and generally unsophisticated?
      Even worse than the networks is the NAACP's tacit complicity in choosing to challenge the networks not on this front, but on the basis of numbers. An uptick in the televised head count means little when so many of the heads are empty.

Gerard Farrell
Navasota, Texas

                                                                                          August 19, 1999
Dear Editor:
      While everyone is focusing on the opportunities to Conde Nast by including W in its stable and growing its market share, I think the acquisition of Jane is equally noteworthy.
       Now with Jane, Details and Wired to add to the more traditional Glamour (despite it recent foray into the now overt sex wars with Cosmo), Mlle and GQ, Conde Nast has a good hold on the doppleganger gen-x and gen-y cohorts by combining edgy and techno-savvy to the stable.  It's a very impressive consolidation strategy and I believe will bode incredibly well for Conde Nast.

Dorothy Schatzkin Higgins
VP Planning Director
CIA VSM Media
New York

                                                                                          August 11, 1999
Dear Editor:
       I am somewhat puzzled by the tone of today's article on cable/satellite subscribers ("So cable's stealing away network viewers, right? Nope."), particularly the part where it is inferred that broadcast executives would be pleased by the information.  I don't think that would be  true at all, and I think the article shows a poor understanding of the implications of the cable/satellite business.
         To that point:
1.  Generally the debate between cable and broadcast, and the only real battle, is over viewers.  The cable network executives, by and large, could care less about how viewers get their programming, whether it is by wire, microwave or satellite dish.   Satellite operators are hurting cable operators, who actually own the systems.   While some cable operators also own cable networks, many don't.  So the fact that cable OPERATORS are losing subscribers to satellite operators doesn't change the big picture, which is that more and more folks are able to receive cable programming, which makes the cable NETWORK executives happy.
2.  Growth in satellite broadcasting is actually hurting broadcast network viewership, due to the fact that if you get a dish you can't get network signals any longer, even distant ones, if you can pick up a network over the air.  At least if a home signs up for conventional cable they can continue to watch the broadcast networks, where if they get satellite instead, cable keeps them as a viewer but broadcast more than likely loses them.  Most satellite homes don't go to the trouble to install an over-the-air antenna, and switching back and forth between the satellite and the antenna is somewhat unwieldy.  Now that local affiliates are more zealously enforcing the rules about satellite subscribers receiving distant network feeds, the net result is that in more and more homes this summer networks are going dark.
      The bottom line is that NCTA represents a different side of the cable business than the CAB, and most of the debate over viewership has been between the CAB and the TVB.  For your reporter not to make that distinction, and to characterize some of the NCTA's statements as embarrassing (in the sense that they may be contradictory to what statements the industry has made about their viewership gains) is flatly incorrect. NCTA's statements actually support the statements about the growth of cable viewership, and are just one more reason why my clients question the wisdom of using over-the-air broadcast, especially spot TV, since everyone they know has a satellite dish.

Jay Waters
VP-Associate Media Director
Luckie & Company
Birmingham, Alabama

Defending PBS                                                                  

Dear Editor:
          While I agree that PBS has had major problems at the top over the years, the fact remains the same: PBS provides quality programming not merely for the cable-ready middle class, but more importantly for those families who would not otherwise have the opportunity to watch the Nature Channel, Discovery, Etc. It never ceases to amaze me when someone decides the best thing to do is to rid the airwaves of PBS. Why stop there? How about NPR? Let's stop any sort of non-commercialized entertainment and sell both organizations to Ted Turner or Warren Buffet. Then more advertisers like myself can really make some money and re-instate the "call to action" those families need to hear.
Sincerely,

Jonathan D. Bouman
Account Executive
Advertisers Workshop
Lake Placid, NY

• Letters 2001
• Letters 2000
• Letters 1999