Find an editor, please

September 28, 2000

Dear Editor:
    I've not said anything up to this date about your obvious need for an editor, but your latest offering has to be one of the most blatant offenses to the English language.
      I'm alluding specifically to one of your News Shorts, entitled, "We Was Wrong, We'll Try Harder." (Hollywood to DC: We was wrong, we'll try harder today)
     Please, please take a few minutes to find a copy editor who will catch such obvious blunders.

Lori Lewis
Haworth Media
Minneapolis

The editor replies: The vast majority of our grammatical lapses are unintended. This one was not.

Race, markets and prosperity

September 15, 2000

Dear Editor:
      I read with interest your article on African-Americans in today's Media Life Magazine  (Common sense over clichés: Marketing to African-Americans, By Robin L. Stanton. ) 
     In my opinion, the writer misses a critical point.  When the economy is bad, people coalesce around ethnicity for the purpose of gaining a large piece of the pie.  
     In excellent economic times, the circulation of money is reaching a broader segment of the population, thus providing opportunities to participate in many aspects of the culture. 
      Therefore with these many choices it becomes harder to categorize the "African-American" market because the need to act in "concert" as a monolithic group is not there. 
       As a prime example, remember the lack of a sustained call for boycott when the issue of diversity in Hollywood was center stage last fall.
        So you may be searching for a target that is moving faster with every growth quarter and at this point in the development of this society may never return to a monolithic category, even if there is an economic downturn.

Sheryl P. Simons
Philadelphia, PA.
M.B.A. - The Wharton School

Dot.com shakeout is quite real

 September 13, 2000

Dear Editor
    I disagree with the conclusions of today's article, "Dot.com ad spending is still brisk, so hold yo' tears."
    Comparing 2Q 2000 to 2Q 1999 isn't relevant.  The huge surge in dotcom spending was second half of 1999.  Compared to that, the spending is way way down heading into second-half 2000.   
   I'm getting fire-sale calls from radio, outdoor and online reps every single day.  And all of them are bemoaning the current spending levels.   Magazines and TV folks also confirm the dropoff.
     Rates across the board are much much lower than prior to the market dip.  Demand has definitely slackened far more than your article implies.
    Also, 4Q is bound to be down as well, given how few clients are likely to be out there spending tens of millions of dollars to drive relatively small online sales this Xmas season (as was epidemic and widely criticized last fourth quarter). 
    You have to be buying right now to realize what a difference a few months make.  It's gone from an extreme seller's market to a moderate buyer's market in most media.  In some media (including online), it's a full-blown fire sale.

Kimber Sterling
Media Director
 Butler, Shine & Stern
Sausalito, Calif.

Thirtysomething and nothing to read

 September 6, 2000

Dear Editor:
   I was just wondering, who was the person behind the dumbing-down of Glamour? It wasn't Deborah Fine, was it?
      If so she should be whipped, then fired. 
      I was overseas for two years, and although I admit I may have possibly come back stateside two years older and a smidge wiser, my favorite (by default) women's magazine is now Sassy For Twentysomethings. It is repellant to read and the few intelligent features (Women in Washington, etc) stick out like sore thumbs about to bitten off by a giggly rabid dog. 
    Ugh, I hate it! Isn't this audience being served by Mademoiselle? 
       I'm too young for that 40-something mag (can't remember the name), too single for Good Housekeeping, too intelligent for Cosmo, too self-indulgent for SELF.
    Where do I go?  
    I make money, I buy things, I'm 33 and I read, vote and think.
    Surely someone wants my demographic?
     Before I cancel my subscription (a waste even at $15 a year) I'd like to complain. How do I do that?

Martina O'Boyle
Atlanta, GA

Value of flex time for media bees

 September 5, 2000

Dear Editor:
          Several weeks in July Media Life Magazine conducted a poll to media professionals about what, besides money, would influence them to take a job. 
     I was very interested in the results of that poll. My research shows that the final tally registered the single most popular factor, other than money, was that of flexible scheduling. All inclusive in that being telecommuting, job share and flex time.
    It is obvious that a large percentage of media professionals desire these benefits and yet perusing your classifieds, not one ad lists any of these "perks."
      How sad that the companies looking for people looking for work won't think out of the box when it comes to the workday. Seems the old adage is true:  "If I don't see you working, then you must not be working."
    Sure would be great if you could remind these companies how important these scheduling issues are to us worker bees. It is, after all the 21st century. 
      If a company placing a classified ad should offer any one of these benefits, perhaps you could highlight it or give it it's own heading. Bet those ads that use this technique get more response than any other.

Steven Thompkins

Smart play in the 'Survivor' game

August 16, 2000

Dear Editor:
     Kudos to Mike Burnett for his mis-information campaign.  (Shorts: "'Survivior" producer in web prank'') It was only a matter of time until someone tried to break the secrecy and leak the winner of the "Survivor" contest. 
      I believe ABC even went so far as to send people to the resort where the CBS crew stayed during taping to gain information on the outcome.  
    Is it so difficult for us to wait 13 weeks to find out who wins the grand prize?
      Or are the other networks simply so desperate that they will try anything to foil a success?

Matthew Galewski
Senior Media Planner/Buyer
BVK/McDonald
Milwaukee, WI

That Wallace guy--again

 July 31, 2000

Dear Editor:
     Don Wallace's article critiquing Gourmet magazine ("Reichl on a (lobster) roll, but is Gourmet half-baked?") seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  
    How many errors can you find in the following?
     " Gourmet shows it's essential middle-brow aim here.  Even the           hyperbole of Mr. Gold fits right in.  Give the hicks what they want: a      verbal prestidigitator straight out of Monty Python, and a recipe for    salmon on the barbie.
      "The travel sections opens with a black and white photo of
Liguria to illustrate the Least Heat-Moon piece.  It's okay, Moon's done his homework, and he tries for a bit of edge.  But Liguria's coast has that  "Talented Mr. Ripley" feel, which makes it seem dated.
       "Then again, the Midwestern readers are probably still getting over
 Matt Damon as a bisexual.
       " The juice pops appear as bright color relief.  Blue Martini ice pops,  Mango Daiquiri ice pops, why didn't we have these when I was a
tyke?
       "The following piece on Peaches is pretty, too.  But the Peach,           Prosciutto, and Goat-Cheese Pizza would not have gone over well in    Long Beach ca. 1965.
      " Now, of course, I would be game.  Peach Soup?  I'm you're man. "
      
      I appreciate the article.  I don't appreciate the sloppy editing, orwriting, or whatever the reason is for the above.  If you're going to criticize, make sure your position is a strong one.  Remember the Bible?  "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
    Just my $.02.

Lydia Sugarman
CEO/Co-Founder and Editor-In-Chief of Girl Groove
New York

Presumption of guilt

July 27, 2000

Dear Editor:
    I don't believe it was ever established that Ron Goldman was Mrs. Simpson's lover. O.J.: Katie and Barbara, you're really bad.
     If I'm correct, you owe both families an apology.  

Curt Schleier

So much for Wallace's expertise

July 24, 2000

Dear Editor:

     In today's article Grisham's Flaw: Oxford American ought to be artful, MLM's magazine critic Don Wallace makes a number of bold yet unsupported general statements, most of which aim at being critical.
      I understand that this is an opinion piece, so a certain amount of unproven opinion should be expected. Readers like me accept it, to a degree, as "expert opinion."
      This happy order breaks down with statements like the following:
      "But there is another kind of the patron out there: those monsters of marketing who seek to leverage their success. They tend to have one name. Oprah. Martha. (We are not counting that wanna-be Oprah known as Jane.)  
     Wanna-be Oprah known as Jane? I admire the nice, musical ending here, but Jane has almost nothing in common with Oprah's new magazine, which is properly titled "O."
    Isn't it embarrassing when your writers/experts undermine their own credibility?

Chuck Murphy
The Media Edge
San Francisco

 The pity of TV baseball

July 20, 2000

Dear Editor:

   One factor that's frequently -- heck, almost always-- overlooked in discussions of televised baseball is the fact that it is NOT a TV-friendly game. Don't get me wrong, I love baseball, yet am never satisfied with its portrayal on TV.
    The very attributes that make baseball attractive to true fans also reduce its small-screen appeal: The low ratio of players to playing surface reduces the camera's ability to keep viewers fully informed on
player positions, which are situational and vary from batter-to-batter
and in some cases,  pitch-to-pitch.
     Instead, we get the "pitcher-batter" shot -- 90 percent of which is waiting on the delivery.
    Is the first baseman holding the runner on? 
    How much of a lead is the runner taking off of second? Is the infield at double-play depth? Is the center fielder shallow or deep?
    Right fielder guarding the line or shaded toward center?
     All of these and other factors -- and their countless permutations -- affect pitch selection and location, whether the coaches will call for a hit-and-run, a bunt or an attempted steal, where the batter will try to place the ball (yes, there are still a few dinosaurs around like Tony Gwynn and Hal Baines, who don't swing for the fences in every at-bat).
    The TV camera does a poor job of showing them and, in most cases the announcers (Tim McCarver, Joe Morgan, Vin Scully, Ralph Kiner and Bob Costas being just a few notable exceptions) seemingly think we don't care to know and would rather fill "dead" time between pitches talking about how the bullpen catcher is taking a red-eye flight home after the game to see his new baby born.
    Sadly, television has taken a beautiful, thoughtful sport and made it appear boring to the world. Then they want to know why nobody watches.

Gerard Farrell
Baseball Fan

Chicken Little logic

July 10, 2000

Dear Editor
      Re: Today's lead article: Shudder! Here comes the magazine shakeout. This reads like pure sky-is-falling "Chicken Little." 
     While some magazines have folded this year, your prediction that half will go under over the next few years is preposterous hype. Only a relative few magazines failed to survive the Great Depression (when "doom" was predicted), and the advent of television (when "doom" was again predicted).
    Now the same "doom" warnings are thrust at magazines due to: (1) the explosion of the internet, (2) the consolidation of newsstands; (3) the weakening of subscription "stamp sheets";' and (4) the potential loss of tobacco advertising. True, this is serious stuff. but hardly enough to kill have the magazines in the U.S. "universe." I note:
-- The internet is still a long way from overtaking magazines for readers and profitability (just look at the problems that Salon is having);
 -- Newsstands are less vital to magazines than a generation ago;
-- "Stamp sheet" circulation has generally been considered wasted by advertisers, except for the women's-service and other "mass titles, so it is better for most publishers not to use "sweepstakes," etc.: and
-- Tobacco is an unimportant, or "non-category" for most titles.
      You are right to raise concerns, but only a recession worse than the 1930s will bring your "Chicken Little" conclusions.

Steve Cohn
Editor-in-Chief
Media Industry Newsletter

The editor replies: The story did not say half of all magazines would go under but rather reported that one estimate had more than half of the magazines of the U.S.  closing, a quite different thing. In truth, no one knows how many magazine will go under.

Offensive characterization of blacks

July 5, 2000

Dear Editor
   I would like to point out that while your story, "Surprise, magazines outreach TV in many demos," was of interest I found this particular comment to be rather offensive.
    "Indeed, Frydlewicz says magazines outreach primetime television among all age demos except for adults aged 55 and over, and the biggest edge is among blacks, whom conventional wisdom suggests are less educated than the general population."
    It may be my misunderstanding but I thought the article was about magazine ratings topping those of television.  Not the fact that it is surprising that Blacks have high magazine readership (yes, we can read). 
    Unfortunately, there are many Americans who would have this as their "conventional wisdom."  However, to make such a broad-based assumption and then print it as fact is offensive and just plain disrespectful - even if it was coming from Mr. Frydlewicz's study.  As an African-American, I am saddened to see this type of stereotype upheld - especially in our line of business. 

Simone Davis

Better editing, please

July 5, 2000

Dear Editor
     I would like to comment that I found the article "Surprise, magazines outreach TV in many demos" rather non-PC & would like to recommend that these are more sensitively edited in the future. 
     I don't think that comments such as "blacks, whom conventional wisdom suggests are less educated than the general population" are very progressive or have any place in our society.
    I'm sure that I won't be the only person to respond in this manner as I was extremely shocked to read the language in this article.

Akeelah Kuraishi 

We're not an insert

June 28, 2000

Dear Editor:
    I enjoyed reading your article "Access pretties up for the Sunday papers " but wanted to make one clarification. 
    Cachet is a monthly magazine - not an insert - targeted to successful suburbanites nationwide. 
    We have found that the most efficient way to reach this audience, which meets our demographic criteria, is by circulating the magazine to affluent suburbs through selected newspaper distribution routes.
     As you very perceptively pointed out, Cachet's in-home day is Friday, not Sunday, when inserts are distributed.

Peter Hagen
Publisher

Dr. Laura is right on

June 28, 2000

Dear Editor:
Dr. Laura is right on the mark. No apology should be sought. None is required. (Media Life, Defiant Dr. Laura- Oh, why am I so misunderstood).

Kenn Hustel

In defense of 'Sports Night'

June 28, 2000

Dear Editor:
    I disagree with Andrew Wallenstein, who danced on the newly dug grave of "Sports Night." (Media Life,  G'night, 'Sports Night' and good riddance)
      True, sometimes it was a bit sudsy with the office romances. But, with an office full of bright, young, attractive single people, office romances will happen (I've heard they even happen in offices where married people work!) and to not portray them would be unrealistic.
       In a world where "The King of Queens," "Survivor" and "When Animals Attack!" become hits, don't kick a show that had a talented cast, fast-paced, witty dialogue and wasn't afraid to demonstrate it had signs of intelligent life.
     There are scores of easier targets to hit.

Ed Katz
Principal
Cashman & Katz Integrated Communications
Glastonbury Conn.

Wallace's problem with women

June 26, 2000

Dear Editor:
       Don Wallace's review of Marie Claire rubs me wrong in many ways.  (Media Life, Marie Claire: The 'I want' magazine w/o foreplay)
       I don't feel strongly one way or another about the magazine, but I do feel that his writing is inappropriate. 
      I'm sure he is a qualified media critic, but his attitude about women comes through a lot louder than his "critique" of the magazine. 
    Wallace challenges Sharon Stone's commentary of other women's appearances, yet he sure comments again and again on Ms. Stone's.  
     What has he against monkfish??
      "Real" people are gruesome?  Eventually the subject matter invokes the "gag rule" for him, but he finds plenty to comment on in the fashion pages.
    Really, it isn't very enlightening to hear about what Wallace thinks about the models.
     The magazine does spend a good six pages on hair, but it also spends more pages covering the concerns the reader may have that aren't appearance-related, including life coaching, job interviewing, the HIV positive women who thrive as parents, etc. 
     Yet Wallace decides the hair piece will be "devoured."  He must think we live in a world where women should not be concerned about such things, unless someone like him is in danger of seeing the less than ideal arrangement of strands!
     I guess what bothers me is that he has his cake (or monkfish, in this case) and eats it too! 
     As a middle-aged male with a 14-year-old son, he seems to be out of the life stage and, obviously, off gender to address the magazine from the reader's standpoint. 
     How could he?  He apparently doesn't want to, and he gives no disclaimer.  He's too busy gagging. 
     As I mentioned, he may be a qualified media critic, but I think he might want to back away from the opinions he gives on the way the women ("real" models and celebrities) look, and put his values aside (free nail polish isn't good enough for him?) before he offers up a credible "critique" of any kind.

Lauren Johnson
Aspiring media critic (Just kidding)
San Francisco

On difficulties of buying the web

June 26, 2000

Dear Editor:
       Welcome to the media paradigm of the 21st Century. They said the same thing about radio, TV, cable, you name it.  (Media Life, Why buying the web is such a headache)
     After 15+ years in traditional media sales (oddly enough that was in radio & TV) I moved to the internet.
      Yes, there is a lack of standards for audience measurements. Yes, it is confusing to buyers with a traditional media background.
       But there is no fundamental difference in the end result, branding a
product for top-on-mind awareness with the consumer.
       You would think this was brain surgery. All too often buyers gauge the success of their buys on CPMs and CPPs when the success of a campaign needs  to be evaluated by the ROI. Selling this new media is an incredible amount of work because so much time is needed in educating the buyer who has been thrust into it from radio, TV or print . To develop a campaign that is beyond banner takes more work than trafficking spot numbers on an insertion order.
     I have been fairly successful because I have been able to bridge the
disciplines between the two worlds, and good communication is always required when transacting business. 
     I have found that many so called internet advertising support organizations have not been adequate at fulfilling their responsibilities in this arena. Instead of embracing the traditional media methods, they have pressed to reinvent the wheel. This just polarizes the buyers and sellers in a quagmire of misunderstanding.
     Oddly enough, advertising agencies are the worst part of the problem. They actually believed that building a web site was the best way to advertise their clients on the internet.
      I think you will see these problems begin to see resolution as more professional account executives enter the online environment.
      Currently there are very few. Needless to say, advertising is advertising. Let's just get it straightened out and move on.

Lynn Bush
National Sponsorship Manager
N2H2, Inc.
Seattle, Washington

Even with problems web is superior

June 26, 2000

Dear Editor:
        It seems like you guys are going out of your way to trash the web as a medium (Media Life, Why buying the web is such a headache. )
      The arguments seem somewhat biased against the web, without showing both sides of the story.
     For years media buyers have been spending billions of dollars on Network TV based on a Nielsen sampling of very few.  Print buyers continuously question subscriber studies and the effectiveness of Simmons and MRI but still spend heavily in magazines. 
     Although there are still discrepancies in the web numbers, the web is still the only media that can actually count ALL users and often identify them and gauge their response and click-throughs (which interactive buyers still beat us over the head with).  
      Like all other media went through at one time, the web is still in the growing stages but it is here to stay, so media buyers better cooperate and work with the numbers and offer suggestions and solutions as the medium grows.

Rich Rasor
Northeastern Manager
CBS Sportsline.com

Talk about arrogance!

June 21, 2000

Dear Editor:
     I totally agree with your article "Why buying the web is such a headache." After calling a well-known website numerous times, I was finally transferred to a sales rep who came right out and said that they could not get us a proposal by our deadline and if that meant that they would not be on the buy, than so be it!!! 
    The arrogance of that rep, I could not believe it. 
     Most of the "proposals" have been spreadsheets and all the research and backup numbers I have managed to get has been like pulling teeth.
      It is comforting to hear that I am not going through this alone. I can only hope that for all our sanity, this situation improves.

Heather McCutchen
Director of New Media
Southwest Media Group

 Headline writer from another planet

June 21, 2000

Dear Editor:
      I've seen some misleading headlines in my life, but what planet was the headline writer on when he wrote the Dr. Laura banner? (What's the hubbub? Dr. Laura's gonna tank, June 20, 2000)
   The headline says Dr. Laura will tank. Author Andrew Wallenstein doesn't; he says it might not make it, but covers his backside by saying "that it's Schlessinger's game to win or lose." Bad enough with the headline, but the subhead goes even further. It is deliberately insulting, not informative.
    The essence of the article is that GLAAD and other free-speech hypocrites should chill out and Dr. Laura's program would die a natural death - maybe. He is aghast at their ignorance in not figuring that out.
       I am aghast at Mr. Wallenstein's innocence in the political world. The relationship between Dr. Laura and GLAAD, et. al. is symbiotic. They need each other to attract attention to their agenda in the marketplace of public discourse. Doesn't GLAAD use Dr. Laura to get stories written about them? And isn't Mr. Wallenstein writing about Dr. Laura because of GLAAD? Yes, they feed off each other.
     Mr. Wallenstein's innocence is understandable, though sad; the blatant falsehood and insulting nature of your headlines by those who give your publication the appearance of being written by GLAAD sympathizers is just unprofessional. Pity.

Kenneth E. Lamb
Editor
USPolitics.Net Weekly Web Action Update Newsletter
Washington, D.C.

Not so funny numbers

May 22, 2000

Dear Editor:

     Thank you for addressing the new media measuring discrepancy issue! (Not so funny numbers: A crisis of accountability, ML, May 22, 2000). This is a topic that needs to be discussed in depth and as a new media buyer, I am glad to have a source I trust explaining the ramifications. I'll be following this series closely.

Nancy Revell
Interactive Media Coordinator
Fry Hammond Barr Advertising
Orlando, Florida

Simmons clarification on Hispanic study

May 18, 2000

Dear Editor:

     Simmons wishes to clarify its position regarding the magazine audience levels published in the 1999 Simmons Hispanic Study (Faulty Hispanic data leaves Simmons red-faced: Researchers puzzle over why recent magazine numbers inflated).
   As many of the study subscribers know, the magazine levels for this study are higher than the 1998 Simmons Hispanic Study, but trend closely with prior years. Because of this difference, and in an attempt to the concerns raised by clients, Simmons undertook a major investigation of the data collection and data processing of this study, to try and understand why the levels are different than past years.
     At this time, we feel that the data we have reported is reflective of the numbers that we collected in the field, and that we see no reason at this time to retract the information. The investigation to date has not uncovered any problems in either data collection or data processing.
     We are continuing our efforts, and will report back to the industry, and our clients, as soon as we have final resolution.
This is the official position of Simmons.

Howard Shimmel
Simmons

Blame the preacher for Fox fiasco

February 24, 2000

Dear Editor:

       In my opinion, the greatest person at fault was the pastor who married this couple. 
     This alone sends a message that marriage is nothing more than a contrived union for the greedy and the sanctity of marriage means nothing. 
     How could this person, in good faith, marry this couple she knew to be together not for love, honor or companionship, but for money?     
       UNLESS...SHE was also making a great deal of money by providing this "service."
      It's all becoming too clear!

Michelle Baird
Novato, Calif.

Ugh, Fox and 'Marry a Multi-Millionaire'

February 17, 2000

Dear Editor:
      I agree - degrading, appalling .... ("Wedding Bells for Fox's 'Marry a Multi-Millionaire," ML, today) 
        This show is  just another example of what our society has come too.   Marry for the money;  let's teach the children this! 
       How  can anyone honestly say wedding vows to someone they  have just met?  Does money make everything all right?
    I must say one thing:  I do not have time to watch television and did not see  it,  but the show was talked about the  next morning at the office by several individuals--whatever makes the ratings.
      Just some honest thoughts.

Marsha Fales
Media Director
Norman Levy Associates
 Southfield, Michigan

Sophisticated?

February 10, 2000

Dear Editor:
     One has to wonder how sophisticated and deep the Gear readers are that the cover story model who would only bare for Gear is actually not yet 18 years old ("Such a mouth: Gear's Bob G. trashes his competitors just awful," Feb. 9).
     Didn't realize that Gear is for the jail bait crowd.

Dorothy Schatzkin
COO
Media Partnership, Norwalk, Conn.

So, where's the humor here?

February 1, 2000

Dear Editor:
       I see that college humor has attained the same level as it did during my college career   ("The Onion's slow emergence as America's funniest newspaper," Jan. 31)
     What's so funny?

Hal Chase
Arnold Communications

Helping out Dave

February 1, 2000

Dear Editor:
    Just wondering.
    Considering the mutual respect between David Letterman and Johnny Carson, is there any thought at CBS about getting Carson to sub for Letterman?
    Sounds radical, but it would be a safe choice for Dave, a likely ratings boost for CBS, and a chance to pick a substitute who truly had no desire to become part of the regular late night TV grind again.
    It might make a great story to run this up the CBS flagpole and see if anyone salutes.

Michael C. Sheward
Washington General Manager
Read-Poland Associates
Washington, DC  20005

Irked by dot.com story

January 24, 2000

Dear Editor: 
    I've got a couple of problems with this article.  (If dot.coms spend oodles on ads they must work, right? Wrong!, Media Life, Jan. 21)
      First, why kill the messenger?  Maybe it's the individual message or ad execution that failed to attract the target audience's attention.  I've seen many dot.com ads that fall short of either creating brand awareness (gee that was neat, but who was it?) or don't get me excited about learning more about the sponsor; not because the ad was on TV, but rather, (1) it was a bad ad, or (2) I had no need/interest in the product.
    Second, the drop in traffic for a number of sites.  Maybe the reason was seasonal...how many folks are likely to seriously look for a new job during the Holidays?  Or, maybe the ads attracted curiosity when they first aired (some in the target audience, some not?), then later maybe what we're seeing is traffic from interested shoppers/buyers.
   Also, as I remember it, there were substantial increases in the absolute number of dot.com ads in the fourth quarter, plus increased placements from brick and mortar adverstisers fighting for their share of Holiday spending.
    So maybe we need a bit more thorough analysis of the data before we conclude that media advertising is not effective for dot.com companies. As Jack Meyers points out in the article, AOL and Amazon might be big brands today, but not too long ago they also were just "brand wannabees.

Frank B Siebrecht
VP Market Planning & Research
Bader Rutter & Associates
Brookfield, Wisc.

P.S....I do enjoy receiving your daily newsletter.


Also irked by dot.com story

January 24, 2000

Dear Editor: 
    I wanted to let you know that I enjoy receiving Media Life Magazine, and get very useful information from these emails. 
      However, I do have a problem with the way the article on "dot.coms spend oodles..." was written, as the headline is very misleading.  
    The headline makes it sound that all dot.com advertising is not working, yet in the editorial, the writer concludes that there have been mixed results (some companies have seen a decline in traffic, while others saw an increase).  The writer even admits, "It's hard to decipher much of trend from the data."

Sue Laks
Harmelin
Philadelphia

Check out Ruth, please!

January 18, 2000

Dear Editor: 
     The stories about Talk and George are all very well, but what I really
want to know is: How successful has the redesign of Gourmet Magazine
been under new psuedo-celebrity editor Ruth Reichl?
       The letters to the editor have been decidedly mixed on the subject (see November and December issues), and all the previously loyal readers that I've spoken to hate it. I've canceled my subscription, which I had had for 17 years (since age 17). 
     It's obvious that they are trying to attract new readers from among the Vanity Fair-reading, 25-year-old-workaholic, can't-boil-an-egg set, and it would be interesting to know if it's working, or if it's just alienating long-time readers.
     On the whole I love Media Life--keep up the good work.

Cariad Hayes
Oakland, Calif.

Andy got it wrong

January 10, 2000

Dear Editor: 
  It doesn't seem as if Andrew Wallenstein bothers to watch the programs he is reviewing.  In his article of today,  "Twenty One: Worthy Contender and a Crutch for Ailing Dateline," Wallenstein incorrectly states that contestants must answer 21 questions in order to move onto the championship round.  The program I watched yesterday featured contestants giving point values to categories.  If the questions was answered correctly they would receive that number of points.  The first contestant to reach 21 was the winner.
     I believe everyone would benefit from a little more research going into an article.  I hope to never read a review of a new ABC drama that takes place in an optometrists' office titled '20/20'.

Matt Galewski
Senior Media Planner/Buyer
BVK/McDonald

The write replies: Oops, I stand corrected. NBC didn't allow us to preview the program and all I had to go on was press info, which I apparently misunderstood. My mistake.

Editor's note: The story will be corrected in the archives. Media Life apologizes for the error and we thank Matt for pointing it out.

What about us, huh?

January 7, 2000

Dear Editor: 
    CNN vs CNBC -- Who's #1 in business news?  Think again! 
     In a recent December article, Jeff Bercovici wrote about the battle raging on between these two cable entities, but what he left out of the story is public television's Nightly Business Report, the original brand name in daily business news programming (and often imitated).  
    He obviously overlooked NBR's pre-eminent status among daily evening business news programs by making no reference to it in his article.  CNN and CNBC would like to pretend that NBR does not exist, but that's like ignoring an elephant in the room!  According to Nielsen, NBR has TWICE the daily viewers of Moneyline and Business Center combined. 
      Recent numbers indicate that NBR has an average of 1.2 million viewers to these two programs combined 496,000 viewers.  So with all the hoopla and hype about the above-mentioned battle, 21-year-old  NBR consistently draws more viewers from its 273 public
television stations than these programs combined can claim.  NBR may be a "mature" business program, but it's still going strong and steady. 
     It's also apparent that many more viewers prefer the half  hour of uninterrupted, straight-forward, hypeless business news and analysis on on Public TV's Nightly Business Report. 
    So who's #1?  
     Given these facts, we can only insist that in future stories on the television business news genre Media Life include Nightly Business Report, the leader, in the mix.  FYI:  Compaq Computer just re-upped its underwriting agreement for another three years, which will bring its association with NBR to 20 years by the end of the contract on Dec. 31, 2002. This is one of the longest running sponsorships in public television history.

Fran Schwartz
Manager, Public Relations
Nightly Business Report
Miami

Letters To The Editor from other years: