The real creator behind NBC was Grant Tinker

                                                                                             July 20, 2005
Dear Editor:
      Your recent column on Fred Silverman's legacy at NBC (Television: There at the creation: Fred Silverman) was far from accurate. The true person who you should credit with the NBC's record primetime superiority is Grant Tinker. It was Tinker who was brought in to save NBC from its disastrous slide into the network cellar and who provided the basic building blocks for the network's rise.
  For example, although, as you note, Silverman was the one who green-lighted "Cheers," it was master-programmer Tinker who stayed with the show, despite it ranking dead last after its initial year. The Tinker years saw a steady increase in solid hit shows, which became the basis of NBC's 20-year reign.
  What is not widely known is how Tinker returned to NBC (he had formerly worked in the network's programming department before going on to found MTM Productions with his then partner and wife, Mary Tyler Moore). 
   As things happened, Bob Aaron, former head of NBC daytime programs, who had worked with Tinker, got the idea one day that what the floundering network needed was Grant Tinker at the helm. Aaron picked up the phone and called George Fuchs, an EVP at RCA (then the parent of NBC), and suggested the idea. The response was "Why would Grant want the job, he's happy at MTM- but why not give it a try." With the go-ahead, Aaron made the call, and to NBC's pleasant surprise, Tinker was just in the mood for a change.
  Without the Aaron phone call, no Tinker years, and, most likely, no two decades of NBC dominance.

William L. Whitely
President
Broadband Broadcasting System

The writer responds: You are correct in pointing out that Grant Tinker deserves credit -- along with the late programmer Brandon Tartikoff -- for overseeing NBC's rise to No. 1 for two decades on Thursdays. I certainly wasn't attempting to diminish Tinker's contribution, though I perhaps understated my position in writing: "But no less important, Silverman left a legacy of talent. They were executives he had nurtured, such as Tartikoff, who with Silverman's replacement, Tinker, took the Must See TV foundation and built it into a 20-year institution."
  In fact, Tinker, Tartikoff and many other people who built and oversaw NBC's "Must-See TV" legacy have been rightly credited for doing so over the past two decades in countless publications, including Media Life Magazine.
    Missing from virtually all these accounts, however, is Fred Silverman's contribution to "Must-See TV." As I stated in my article, it was Silverman who first focused on building up NBC's Thursday nights with comedies and a drama, including, among other things, "Hill Street Blues." Which, curiously, was produced by Tinker's MTM Enterprises.
   The full story of NBC's 20 years at No. 1 on Thursdays is a long one, with many details frequently overlooked. The point of my article was simply to highlight Silverman's often overlooked contributions to it.
--Kevin Downey

Yet more in defense of those who sell ad space

                                                                                             July 8, 2005

Dear Editor:
   Re: "Media folks: Too many reps don't get it: Big beef: Time-wasters who don't know their job."
   The above article is so one sided.
  You need to take this story further. Give reps a chance to speak. We know the big agencies have the power, and they know it too. It’s easy to sit back and say beg, go fetch. That is why reps act they way they do.
  In the middle of the article, “The harder you work for my client, the stronger reward you will receive,” wrote one respondent. “It's not up to me how much of a share you get on a buy. That will be determined by how hard you work for it. Oh, and stop asking me what your share is because I will never give it to you!”
   That’s pathetic! Yes, reps should do their homework and agencies should work with sales reps to let them expand on ideas that the agency may not even know exist with that rep and could ultimately really help the client . Isn’t that who we really work for? 
  I have come across media buyers in agencies who do not really know their own client and could care less who I am. Most agencies even on your first call will not return your call. This leads to more calls to do your job.
   And, when you go to the client directly, LOOKOUT. 
  Someone from the agency will call you then and tell you to back off. So where do you turn if you are representing a great opportunity and you can not get anyone to return your call or know if they even saw your proposal. Many times it goes on someone’s desk as deadlines pass. E-mail has been somewhat successful. Thank God for e-mail.
   Let’s not abuse our “powers” in the position we hold…

A sales rep in Florida


Perhaps why people skip the awards shows

                                                                                             July 12, 2005
Dear Editor:
   Toni Fitzgerald is right on with at least four  of the five "should be" Emmy nods ("With Emmys upon us, the undeserving: We tell you who shouldn't get nods (but likely will)")
   I haven't watched "Veronica Mars" as much as the other programs, so I'll take her word for it.
     But the same actors are nominated each year until the next "break out" hit forces them to be dropped. 
   That might be what drives people away from awards shows.

Cathleen Looze
VP/Media Director
Meyer & Wallis
Milwaukee

More on a better way to cope with ad-skipping

                                                                                             July 11, 2005
Dear Editor:

Re: "Fast-forwarding through fears of TiVo"
   I read with great anticipation and interest the article by Kevin Downey, "Fast-forwarding through fears of TiVo," only to be greatly let down. Here I was expecting the holy grail to be revealed; how do we punch through the “skip the commercial” syndrome?
    The answer seems to be “compelling creative!”
   The study done by Magid & Associates indicates that when a program is fast-forwarded, people have to watch the screen more intensely to see when the program restarts. Therefore, fewer cut-shots, as well as big and bold graphics, will punch through the scan lines as the spot whizzes by.
  I hate to tell you this, but we figured this out at my station, WTVJ in Miami back in the early 80’s when the VCR came on the scene. We resisted the temptation to use flying graphics, squeeze-boxes and quick cuts, and instead created straightforward promotional spots that sold the goods regardless if the audience watched in real-time or in fast-forward mode. As a result, our promo spots got noticed against heavy competition. We were #1 sign-on to sign-off, and in all key dayparts. We must have done something right. But only now the research discovers this technique?
   If everyone is so concerned about the topic, why not buy a :30 spot and have nothing but a Bud Light logo up full-screen the entire time? You certainly would see THAT during fast-forward. You’ll also put a lot of creative people out of work.
  But alas, the research is still talking about “fast forwarding.” Has no one gotten hold of a modern-day DVR that actually SKIPS recorded content altogether by increments of 1-minute and greater? How do you work your advertising around THAT?
   Perhaps we’ll find out in another 30 years, when more research is conducted.

Bob Chernet
VP Creative & Marketing
Viewmark
Denver

A better way to cope with ad-skipping

                                                                                             June 30, 2005
Dear Editor:
   Regarding "Fast-forwarding through fears of TiVo," June 30:
  Concerning the notion that the way to counter fast-forwarding is to make spots so that they work best at fast-forward speed: Engineering TV commercials to function more like an outdoor board is a backward-logic solution and a waste of the medium's capabilities that will do more to make commercials annoying at regular speed than it will to increase overall viewership and comprehension. 
    As for willingness to stop and go back, it's probably overstated, since the adoption curve is so steep right now. Once they get past the curiosity stage, users realize that it's a time-consuming hassle to even find the beginning of a spot again. 
   A better solution would be for the ad community to let TiVo know that they would support a small change to the software to make commercials individually skippable, and therefore individually viewable, by touching a single button. 
    Viewers can then make their decisions to opt in or out based on all-around better--not distorted--creative.

Cece Forrester
Chicago

In defense of sales reps: They do get it

                                                                                             July 6, 2005
Dear Editor:
   I would have to strongly disagree with your depiction of media reps regarding trade publications.  ('Media folks: Too many reps don't get it: Big beef: Time-wasters who don't know their job.)
   When I started selling advertising 23 years ago, almost 75 percent of the advertisers used advertising agencies. As a fairly successful publisher's rep handling publications targeting design engineers, mechanical contracting, and the oil & gas industries, only about 25 percent of our business is coming from ad agencies today.
  Most of the reasons why so many of our accounts are in-house reflected the same problems voiced in your article. Ad agencies did not know the products, market or competition and did not know the publications as they should have and wasted too much time getting things done.
  Most of the solid print salespeople do not fit the profile of this article. They try and get the biggest bang for the advertiser's buck. The more value we bring to the advertisers, the better the chances of making the schedule or staying on the schedule.
   But from our side of the desk, most ad salespeople feel pretty much the same way about ad agencies. Too many buyers do not read the publications, analyze or spend much time trying to compare them. The entire process all too often is reduced to "Give me your lowest rates (And no short rates if canceled) and lots of value-added. Email it too me because I am putting the schedule together in the next 17 minutes."
  Too many buyers have a "Don't call us, we'll call you if your book made the schedule" approach. And that's unacceptable. If we don't get the business, we have publishers who expect us to find out why so that we may bring a better book to the table down the road. Send us an email if you do not want to talk about it.
   As to too many phone calls or messages, either tell the rep when to expect an answer and save everybody some time and/or tell them yes or no when they call and they'll stop hounding you.

Denis O'Malley
Nelson & Miller Associates, Inc.
Irvington, NY

How to deal with reps who don't do their jobs
                                                                                              July 6, 2005
Dear Editor:
     Re: Reps who don't do their jobs. Here's a suggestion. Call them off.  Get on the phone with all the retard rep's managers and say, "Don't have them call on me any more."
   I guarantee you the bad reps will be weeded out and those who stick will work their butts off to keep you happy.  As much as it pains me to say this, some reps are useless.  Let's fight them off so the rest of us can justify our paychecks. 

Marcy Kettler-Thibault

Beef: Buyers who hide behind their phones
                                                                                              July 6, 2005
Dear Editor: 
   Having been on the sales side and now the buying side, you should take a survey of AE's to see what they don't like about their client calls. 
   When I see that "pesky phone calls" tops the agency list, I know from experience that MOST buyers hide behind their voicemails when they could just update their reps with status of buys

Gary Fiset
Promotion Marketing
San Francisco

Media buyer's advice:  A call returned saves six
                                                                                              July 6, 2005
Dear Editor: 
    Wow, seems harsh. I get just as annoyed as anyone else with some of these reps but if buyers would take the time to call back the person after one phone call & be willing to talk with them for even 10 minutes, they wouldn't be getting six more after that.

Kristin Arthur
Senior Media Buyer
Moroch
Dallas

'Welcome to the Neighborhood' deserved to air

The NFHA has prevented a wonderful opportunity for television viewers to see why we do, in fact, need a Fair Housing Act. ('Welcome to the Neighborhood.' (Not.) )
I am so disappointed that the ABC program won't air. This show would have helped to bring these ongoing discrimination problems to blazing light.

Nancy Haynes
Collins, Haynes & Lully Advertising
Charlotte, N.C.

On the matter of bull, you've got us all wrong

                                                                                             May 12, 2005
Dear Editor:
    The recent article written by Toni Fitzgerald entitled “Talking Bull: The Hype Over Bull Riding” was both inappropriately opinionated and cleverly spun to paint the PBR in an ill light. 
   While we are uncertain why the author chose to make this unwarranted attack on the PBR, I would like to present a few facts to dismiss some of the extremely biased information that was presented.
    The author based the entire article on the premise that PBR was a “minor sport” that had “appoint(ed) itself the next NASCAR”.

1. PBR has never positioned itself as “the next NASCAR”, promoted that agenda or used references that imply anything of the sort. The author suggests otherwise which is a fabrication of her own accord.

2. The author uses that entire fabricated premise and a biased spin on isolated facts to launch an attack on a sport she clearly knows little about. We would prefer not to be compared to any other sport and be judged solely on our own merits and accomplishments.

3. The only time PBR has publicly compared itself to NASCAR was at our April 2005 Sponsor Summit where we correctly identified ourselves as roughly one half the size of NASCAR in terms of fan base. We provided a comparison of 15 sports in all, NASCAR was simply one of the sports referenced. We also stated very clearly in that meeting that we had a long way to go to join the ranks of the six sports that are larger than PBR is today.

    The author rightfully cited 743,000 homes as our largest rating to date on OLN for a single cable broadcast. She then compared that to an NBA regular season basketball game, the Ironman Triathalon and NCAA gymnastics on network television to support her claim that PBR was not worthy of the media attention we are receiving.

1. PBR has a television broadcast package with a mix of both network coverage on NBC (seven or eight events each season) and cable coverage on OLN (all non-NBC events aired first run and re-airs of NBC events).

2. The author chose to use household delivery, not rating points, to compare a single cable broadcast on OLN (~62 million homes) to network broadcasts on NBC and CBS.

3. A more appropriate comparison would have been any one of PBR’s broadcasts on NBC or our three year network average HHLD rating of 2.0. When reviewed in the appropriate context, PBR’s network ratings easily outperform the Ironman Triathalon and the NCAA gymnastics. Perhaps the author should have either used our network events as a comparison or researched how the other programs have performed on cable.

4. PBR’s network average of 2.0 has been sustained over three years and twenty network televised events. The Ironman Triathalon and NCAA gymnastics are specialty programming aired once a year. Our ratings performance is even more impressive given the difficulty of sustaining performance over multiple broadcasts.

     The author suggests that, “PBR's best hope is to rise atop the small hill of niche sports that includes soccer, bowling, Pax's Real Pro Wrestling and just about anything on ESPN2.”

1. PBR has already risen to the top of, and significantly exceeded, what the author describes as “niche sports” in terms of fan base (those who watch or attend). PBR had more than 16 million fans who watched or attended events in 2004 according to Scarborough Sports Marketing. PBA (bowling) had 12 million and soccer and Real Pro Wrestling fewer than 10 million.

2. PBR is far and away the fastest growing sport in the United States. According to Scarborough Sports Marketing, PBR grew at a rate of nearly 52% from 2002 to 2004 with the next closest sport it terms of growth being the PBA at less than 12%. All other sports measured, NASCAR included, had growth less than 3.62%.

     The author cites our increases in key demographics and suggests “the sport is rising from next to nothing, so any gains seem impressive, at least until you look at the actual number of viewers.”

1. PBR had television viewership in excess of 100 million across more than 500 hours of television in 2004. The comparison that was made by the author was on a single cable broadcast from 2005 compared to 2004 data. With viewership of more than 100 million it is hard to make an argument that we are “rising from next to nothing.”

2. With roughly 500 hours of television annually, PBR is one of the most prolific sports on television. While our individual broadcast rating may not be the most impressive data to the author, we would actually encourage her to heed her words and “look at the actual number of viewers.”
   
   We are not trying to defend a position that the PBR should in fact be deemed “the next NASCAR.”  As stated, we have never promoted such an agenda and we would prefer to be judged on our own merits. 
    However, our sport is the fastest growing spectator sport in the United States over the last two years and that is indisputable. In our short twelve years, we have come farther, faster and sustained growth better than any other “niche” sport in the modern era.
    We feel that warrants at least an accurate presentation of facts when comparing us to other sports and entertainment properties. Perhaps we should reevaluate this topic in 40+ years when PBR has been around as long as NASCAR has been today.
   One last note. The author categorizes the PBR as “rodeo sport”. If she knew anything about the PBR she would know that we have never positioned ourselves as rodeo and we never will. We are bull riding and bull riding only, the toughest sport on dirt!

Sean Gleason
Chief Operating Officer
Professional Bull Riders, Inc.

As viewers mature, so too should programming

                                                                                             May 12, 2005
Dear Editor:
    My question to those making the discovery that this age group is not showing up in the viewer numbers is this: With the boomers getting older, and this group having fewer children, just what did they expect?
   Here's a thought. If the average age is going up, maybe some of the programming will want to grow up with them.
  This doesn't mean "old fogey" programming, but "Fear Factor"-type programming isn't going to do it.
   They really need to pay better attention to demographics, maybe?

Karen Gross
KMG Marketing Services
Florham Park, N.J.

You're right on about the decline of 'Star Trek'

                                                                                            May 12, 2005
Dear Editor:
       Your assessment of the end of “Star Trek” was right on the money. As a loyal viewer of the franchise since grade school, I cannot tell you how disappointed I have been with “Enterprise.”
   First, the producers made a FATAL mistake in the casting of a well-known actor as a lead in the series. Unlike every other incarnation, the choice of Scott Bakula, who gained fame in “Quantum Leap,” made it impossible for fans to believe him as captain of Enterprise. Previous incarnations went with little-known, or "below the radar screen" actors (Shatner, Brooks, Stewart and Mulgrew) who could make an impression in the role without drawing comparisons.
   Second, the fans were repelled at the "rewriting" of Star Trek history. While it was fun for us veteran viewers to hear and see references to the original series, most of us had a hard time accepting that the technically advanced starship we saw would "evolve" into the cardboard cutouts of the original series. Trying to go back and rewrite history, even if it is fiction, is the same as the many fatal attempts to remake classic movies. They never turn out better.
   Finally, UPN’s young demographic demanded a different kind of Trek, and this one was not it. I have written Paramount many times, suggesting that they made a mistake not doing a series I'll call “Starfleet Academy.”
  Set in the same century as “Voyager” and "DS9" the show could focus on young recruits and appeal to the youth factor by examining coming of age 200 years from now. Now THAT might wake up the numbers!
   I am sorry to see such a mighty franchise limp off into the sunset. I hope and pray it will be revived with new vigor in the future.

Richard D. Perez
Executive Director
Whitney, Powers & Associates
Norton, MA

Too glowing a take on barter advertising

                                                                                             Dec. 17, 2004
Dear Editor:
      I read your article today on barter advertising (Commentary: Please, a bit more respect for barter). This article was not explained in full and came across as pretty subjective/biased.
    The issue that clients and buying agencies have with barter is that you don't have control over the quality of the inventory or timing of when it runs.  That wasn't mentioned at all, and the reasons I cited are typically the main reasons people don't use barter.   

Sue Laks
Media Director
Harmelin Media
Bala Cynwyd, PA 

Our need for real news is greater than ever

Dear Editor:
    While those of us in the business of crafting media plans pay rapt attention to ratings, one thing in this excellent article ("Television: How TV has changed over 40 years") stands out in my mind:
   "TV News, though in cases excellent, modeled itself to some degree after radio, where its roots were, but it followed the leading papers for guidance in its coverage of national events."
   Are we now in a mode where newspapers are following television's lead, which is now all about ratings? 
   Television news was never meant, as Paddy Chayefsky once pointed out, to be part of the ratings race but as a public service to keep its audience informed. We Americans have many more broadcast-network and local station hours devoted to news than 40 years ago. Entire cable networks now exist that weren't dreamed of then and we remain, as a nation, less informed about the world even within our own borders than our brethren in Europe.
   We have run amok in our commoditization of the news when we devote more hours to the Scott Peterson trial than to the economy to pander to viewers' appetite for scandal and when The Wall Street Journal has sections and features it would have thought frivolous 40 years ago in order to maintain its readership.
   Sitcoms and dramas should be the sugar we get after the medicine of news. Television networks have the power to create viewer interest in anything they choose to; an interest in hard news (vs. News Lite) would be efficacious for all of us.

Sheila Clemett
Carat USA
New York

Teddy Ebersol had a mother, too

Maria Garvey
Media Manager
Delfino Marketing Communications
Valhalla, NY

Stick it to ABC for its 'Housewives' towel stunt

Dear Editor:
    The question is not who was hurt by Monday Night Football's sexploitation spot ("Don't cry in your towel for the NFL"), but rather who should be hurt. The answer is definitely ABC.
   By your rendition of the events, ABC misled the NFL with respect to the contents of the intro. It may also have misled the Eagles. The network's objective was solely to use the R-rated spot to boost ratings of the "MNF" and "Desperate Housewives."
   As a result of such conduct, the NFL should clearly punish ABC by awarding its "MNF" contract to NBC, which reportedly is in the hunt to get back into the professional football biz. For its part, NBC so far has remained above the battle over indecent programming.
    The NFL can therefore show its support for responsible programming by moving the "MNF" franchise to the peacock network. There's another decided advantage to such a move. It will also limit the ABC-ESPN ever-growing sports rights monopoly, which some observers are finding troubling.

William L. Whitely
Chairman
Media Ethics Project

'Ryan' flapdoodle: America, get a grip

Dear Editor:
   People in America need to get a grip. 
    The F-word is so common in everyday life that many people use it without taking notice. The value of the movie ("Saving Private Ryan") and its meaning are what's important.
    And what about when these same people are behind closed doors? Do we think they do not use the F-word?
    I think too much time is spent "B"-essing about the mundane, inconsequential things and not enough thought is given to what really matters--in this case a movie about a family of sons who go to fight for America and one by one are killed in action. 
   The mission: saving Pvt. Ryan, his only son left alive. Take that home and mull over it!

Lillie Roman
Media Supervisor, Multicultural Media
Carat Multicultural/Carat USA
New York

Fast Company's editor: You diss us unfairly

Dear Editor:
     As a long-time journalist and a short-time editor, I really have to wonder: What are you smoking at Media Life?
     First, there was the Aug. 3 story based on an open web site survey that advised our new CEO to close Fast Company. The piece flunked the journalism ethics test, even violating every Journalism 101 standard for fair and accurate reporting.
   Your reporter failed to seek comment on a critical story, failed to report the response rate or total responses to a survey, and your site failed to limit survey respondents to “media planners and buyers.” In short, your methodology allowed our competitors to complete a survey intended for a different audience.
   Now there’s the latest story on our company’s layoffs in which your reporter inaccurately suggests that G&J is for sale and that Fast Company’s “woes worsen” ("Paint a big red 'For Sale' sign on G+J; Read 80 job cuts as move to boost curb appeal.")
   Let me set the record straight. Yes, ad pages are down in a very tough market. That’s true for most magazines. They are down, in part because we refuse to give pages away or sell pages at the cost of production as some of our competitors in the business category have done.
   Truth is, we’re very much alive and well and kicking ass. Every sign of editorial vitality at Fast Company is highly positive and has been for the past 12 months. Our circulation is strong. Our newsstand is up.
    Our reader engagement, measured by letters and emails, is at record levels.
   So are our media impressions, the number of times other media quote our writers and editors and mention our work. We’re winning prestigious awards for our journalism and our design. And we’re gaining critical praise from other journalists who find much value in what we do.
   Indeed, there are precious few magazines that have struck an emotional connection with their readers. Fast Company is one of them. We still have a fan club, the Company of Friends, which is more than 9,000 members strong. They meet in cities around the world and use our magazine as a starting point to share experiences and stories. Another web site measuring brand loyalty shows that Fast Company is among three magazines that have most connected with their readers.
   The other two titles? The New Yorker and National Geographic. That’s damn good company.
   Finally, we are owned by a global organization, the largest publishing company in Europe. G&J and its senior executives have consistently and clearly stated that they are firmly behind our magazine. They also have stated that there is no plan and no intention to sell G&J USA.  As much as one competitor would like to see us gone, that is not in the cards. 
    And next time, call me. I believe in speaking to other journalists, especially if I can set the record straight and prevent the spread of misinformed speculation.

John A. Byrne
Editor-in-Chief
Fast Company
New York


The editor replies: Nabbing John Byrne from Business Week to edit Fast Company was a big win for G+J, and Byrne is quite right about the loyalty of the title's readership. It was one of the reasons the magazine fetched such a high price when Mort Zuckerman sold it to G+J.
    What's not true is that Fast Company's ad pages are down as part of an industry trend. Consumer ad pages have been rising, and that is especially so among business titles after several very tough years.
    As Media Life reported last week, the business category is rebounding, and smartly, with pages through August up 8.2 percent and reported revenue up nearly 15 percent.
    Against this trend, Fast Company's pages are off dramatically, at minus 26 percent, and that's against what was a very tough 2003. Of the nine business titles tracked by Media Life, only one other is showing losses in pages, the Harvard Business Review, which is down 7.8 percent. Fast Company's direct rival, Business 2.0, is up 14.4 percent.
    Fast Company has two things going against it, and one is brute history. The magazine came earlier than the so-called New Economy titles, such as the late Industry Standard, and it was never really one of them. It was a real magazine with real readers that advertisers wanted to reach. But Fast Company got caught up with those titles in the dot.com boom and became forever grouped with them. And it went down with them when the New Economy crashed.
     The question after, when there were just two left, Fast Company and Business 2.0, was always: Whither the ex-New Economy titles? What reason is there for them now? 
    Business 2.0 has the protective coloration of its Time Inc. parentage, which effectively moots the question. By contrast, Fast Company dangles in the open, a title now stuck with a label it never deserved but paying a harsher price nonetheless.
     But Fast Company also suffers mightily because of G+J and the ousted Dan Brewster, and the issue addressed by Media Life has been whether G+J can ever come back from that damage. It's not only a fair question, it's an obvious one being asked all throughout the magazine industry.
    The writer contends Media Life did not seek comment on the story prior to publication
    That is not true. A Media Life reporter called and was told by G+J PR people that there would be no comment or statement on the report that the company was eliminating 80 jobs. Yet that same day CEO Russell Denson was quoted in the New York Post commenting on the layoffs.
     Media Life reporters consistently call G+J for comment, only to be told that none will be forthcoming. Denson was called for the earlier story Byrne is objecting to. That call was not returned, and in response Media Life ran the poll asking readers to advise the new CEO on what he must do to turn G+J around. Their advice: Shutter Fast Company.
     Without being overly critical of G+J's PR staff, I'll note for the record that reporters' calls to PR people at Time Inc., parent of Business 2.0, are always handled very professionally. They provide data where they can, they arrange interviews where they can, they don't attempt to control stories, they don't consciously misrepresent. They don't presume that if they decline to cooperate Media Life will then not do the story. They are pros.
     Byrne contends that top G+J executives firmly stand behind G+J USA and have no intentions of selling the U.S. operation. These are the same executives, I'll note, who stood firmly behind Dan Brewster as he was marching off to court against Rosie O'Donnell and backed him firmly through two circulation scandals.
    While this speaks loads for their resolve, it does not speak well of their common sense. At this stage, certainly, the credibility of any statements they may make about their intentions for G+J are suspect. Certainly the last thing they'd say is that they're out shopping the company.

Fact: The Sun-Times came forth on its own

Dear Editor:
   Toni Fitzgerald misses an important distinction between The Chicago Sun-Times and the Tribune newspapers in her article on our circulation woes. 
   Newsday and Hoy got caught by their auditors and their customers.
   The Sun-Times did not. 
   New management at The Sun-Times discovered the problem, stopped it, and reported it. Sun-Times customers learned of our circulation problems from a press release issued by our parent company, Hollinger International. A day after we made our public disclosure, Newsday and Hoy acknowledged that they, too, had an issue. 
  I don't want to minimize the distance we must cover to regain the reputation for integrity and truthfulness that we covet. But for us coming forward voluntarily was an important first step in setting down that road, and we regret to see it misreported. 

John Cruickshank
Publisher
The Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago

The editor replies: As widely reported, the Sun-Times did indeed come forth on its own to report circulation abuses,  whereas those of  Newsday were first revealed in a lawsuit earlier this year. But yesterday's story was not about the origins of those revelations but about how our media department readers view the abuses, and in that context all three papers--The Sun-Times, Newsday and sister paper Hoy--were discussed as a group. The writer did not misreport the story but simply a left out much of the background, which Media Life has reported in earlier stories. 

Please, ease up on USA's 'The Dead Zone'

Dear Editor:
  I don't often write letters to web sites, but you've pushed me over the edge with your consistently negative comments about USA's "The Dead Zone." 
   In today's issue of Media Life, on the very same page you use words like "free fall" and "flame out" in reference to the "Dead Zone," your rankings indicate it was the 11th ranked cable show against households, and 7th against Adults 25-54. 
   Maybe that's not headline news, but it's far from ratings disaster. Last year you ran a headline along the lines of "Dead Zone in Death Throes." I'm all for a good play on words, but clearly, you were wrong, as the show was renewed for a summer flight, and is now in its third season. Because of this kind of negative reporting, ad agency colleagues of mine who read your site think that the show is in the trash. That's just not true.
    While it is true that the show struggled when USA ran it in Winter 2003, it does just fine in the summer. And by all other reports in the press, USA is pleased with its performance.
   You may not be a fan, personally, of the show, and that's fine. (Obviously, I am.) But please, look at your own data before you give the impression to your readers that this show is in the same ratings-league as "Peacemakers." That's just bad journalism. It's hard enough to keep quality shows on the air without this kind of unwarranted bashing. I'm not asking for fluff pieces, just fair and accurate reporting.

Roberta Haber
SVP, Media Director, Relationship Marketing
Hill, Holliday
Boston

The real problem behind the circulation scandal

Dear Editor:
   Re: Paul Benjou’s suggestion (Commentary: "Rethinking the mire of circulation audits; Call for a system delivering more meaningful data.") 
    Let me take a wild guess at the truth here. Years of revenue pressure on print media has produced an environment for unprecedented cheating. At the same time, ABC's margins have been squeezed and their service product has suffered. The result is a classic recession phenomenon…more crooks, less-equipped cops.
   Your suggestion would cost a fortune. Who would pay? 
   Buried in your piece is the bigger issue. All media disciplines have suffered as profit margins have been squeezed. Media today is about minimizing operation cost--namely the tools, resources and talent needed to do advertising and media work things right. This is a downward cycle that drains all facets of our industry. 

Bob Rose
Media director
Seiter & Miller Advertising
New York

Metro publisher: Your Diego done me dirty 

Dear Editor:
   Your reporter, Diego Vasquez, called me twice in recent days to inquire about reports that our hand distributors were roughed up by competitors. 
   I responded with what little information I had, unsure that there was a story in these vague reports and declining to identify the papers involved, other than to say that the incidents were occasioned by both paid and non-paid competitors. 
   So imagine my surprise to find Media Life publishing a story that insinuates that I’ve gone public with vague and unsupported accusations and that then lambastes me for failing to back those accusations up.
   It’s not the sort of journalism I would countenance at Metro, or at any of the Knight-Ridder or Tribune Company newspapers for which I’ve worked. I’d suggest Mr. Vasquez might be better suited for the Weekly World News than for an email newsletter that purports to cover the media business.

Henry E. Scott
Managing Director
METRO New York

The editor responds: Nonsense. If Scott were so unsure of his allegations, he should never have sought to see them published, as he did in Crain's New York. That's where Media Life first picked up the story. Charging your competitors with what is criminal behavior is a pretty serious business, and masking the allegations in vague language serves no one's interest. As Media Life reported yesterday, in fact the allegations were either cooked up or grossly exaggerated, at the expense of Scott's competitors no less, for the apparent purpose of gaining press coverage for the new newspaper. That's pretty shameless behavior on Scott's part. At the least, Scott owes his competitors an apology.  Diego Vasquez will be happy to accept one as well.

Real upfront story: From one corporate silo to another

Dear Editor:
   As the upfront approaches, I ask why the story of money moving out of broadcast and into cable really matters. 
    Of course from a planning (Reach/Frequency) perspective this is an important issue. There is no doubt that this presents a host of challenges and issues for the planning community.
    However, from a financial perspective, why does it really matter?
    The money is merely shifting from one corporate silo to another. The umbrella media company are largely unaffected from this shift.
    In fact, the smart ones have begun emphasizing volume, cross-platform deals to capitalize on this situation. 
   Advertising budgets are flowing from one corporate pocket to another, but they end up in the same wallet.
   GE owns NBC, Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC, Sci-Fi, Telemundo, Trio and USA.
   Viacom owns both CBS and UPN as well as BET, Comedy Central, CMT, MTV, Nickelodeon, Spike, TV Land and VH1.
   Time Warner owns WB, Cartoon, CNN, Headline News, TBS and TNT.
   Disney owns ABC, ABC Family, ESPN and Toon Disney.
   News Corp owns Fox as well as Direct TV, Fox News, Fox Sports Net, FX, Nat Geo and Speed.
   This list does not cover the smaller, emerging channels each of the corporations own, or even the other networks in which they hold minority stakes. 
   I think the heart of the story is how the shifting of cable budgets affects the corporate bottom line, not the inevitable shifting of dollars from broadcast to cable.

Andrew Ettinger
EarthQuake Media
New York

A la carte cable: A smart idea and long overdue


                                                                                              May 10, 2004

Dear Editor:
    Bravo to Senator John McCain and Rep. Nathan Deal for backing an idea whose time is long overdue, that being an a la carte cable plan. 
    For years I've wondered when the day would finally come when cable subscribers would be freed from having to pay for ESPN and their yearly price increases.  It looks like that day may be coming and it's about time! 
    Why should I have to pay for MTV or ESPN, if I really just want HGTV, E, and MSNBC?
    Why should I have to pay for Lifetime and E, if I'm an avid ESPN viewer?  I shouldn't and it's time to make cable give us what WE want.

Vicki Kiger
Marketing & Advertising Director
Archadeck
Richmond, Va.

Cable vs. broadcast--the debate continues

                                                                           Dec. 23, 2003

Dear Editor:
   Not one but two articles in yesterday’s Media Life Magazine (12/22/03) continued to give credence to the irrelevant analysis of ratings data perpetuated by the Television Ad Bureau in their effort to differentiate local broadcast television from cable television.
     From story No. 1:  "Cable: Growing yet still way cheaper":
     "Yet while all of this is happening, cable faces another problem, a decline in its share as direct broadcast satellite services continue to make inroads... But it does impact local cable TV services, which in many cases are losing subscribers to DBS. The penetration of alternate delivery systems (ADS), which consists almost entirely of DBS, went up to 18.2 percent in November from 16.5 percent the same month last year. Wired cable’s penetration dipped to 67.4 percent from 69.1 percent in the same time period. The TVB reports that DBS penetration has now surpassed 25 percent in 59 markets."
   As we've stated each time the TVB releases reports about ADS penetration:
   1) Penetration does not equal viewership. Wired cable delivery continues to rise quarter over quarter, at the expense of broadcast stations (Ad supported wired cable audience (000)= 26.933 3rd Qtr 03 v. 25,798 3rd Qtr. 02; up 4.4 percent).
   2) Buyers can no longer ignore local cable television. They understand the need to buy targeted local cable homes as the only way to make up for the continued erosion of broadcast viewing. They must follow the ratings to cable.
   3) While it is true that it takes more cable spots to achieve rating point goals, viewers don't care about the delivery mechanism of their favorite programs. More and more viewers are developing relationships with cable's stronger consumer brands, making hits like "Queer Eye" and "Nip/Tuck" two of the most-talked-about programs this year.
   4) Schedules of lower-rated cable programs will cume to deliver a brand's reach and frequency objectives, without paying the inflated premiums for underachieving broadcast hits.
    5) Local broadcast stations are not carried in all satellite homes which reduces the coverage of local broadcast delivery through ADS.
    6) Market leaders will lose some share to smaller brands. Cable's huge investment in new technology (digital delivery, DVRs, VOD, broadband) will continue to win back digital subscribers.
      In the second article, "Like big crowds? Try network TV," the premise is that advertisers are able to select specific episodes of programs and specials to achieve the highest ratings. 
   It does not take into account the cost of these programs (such as the Super Bowl), which limit the number of advertisers who could invest in them. 
   It ignores the fact that advertisers buy packages of high- and low- rated programs. 
   It also ignores the fact that broadcast programs underdeliver cable homes and overdeliver broadcast-only homes while cable homes are typically more attractive prospects with more affluent and educated viewers.
   Your story reads: "One TV show can bring in viewers you would need to be on hundreds of cable shows to reach.
   "To affirm this point, the Television Bureau of Advertising has released its ranking of the top TV shows of the year through Dec. 18, including regularly scheduled programs (each ranked only once, by season average) and specials. A program appears more than once only when it was telecast at a time other than its regularly scheduled time.
   "Looking at the list of top shows of 2003, we see that ABC, the No. 4 network among adults 18-49 last season, finished with the top four draws of the year based on household ratings: the Super Bowl, the Super Bowl postgame show, the Academy Awards and the Fiesta Bowl, college’s national championship game.
    "Fox had five in the top 11, while CBS didn’t enter the rankings until No. 12 with the Grammys. NBC’s first appearance was for a February episode of “Friends” at No. 14."
    1) Advertisers do not buy a single program to reach their target consumers; they buy schedules. Today buyers need to buy local cable to offset the continued erosion of broadcast TV viewing.
  Viewers don't care if they are among a select few or the masses when they tune in to their favorite programs. Some of the most-talked-about programs this season have been cable originals.
   2) There is no longer a 'regularly scheduled' time slot. Programs are moved around night to night and at different times as the broadcast networks are trying to improve their failing lineups. Twelve of the top 100 programs are episodes of 'Friends'! Only two of the top 20 telecasts are not specials.
   3) In the 1992-'93 season, 67 percent of broadcast primetime programs achieved between a 5 to 10 A18-49 rating. In the 2002-3 season, 75 percent of programs achieved a rating between 0 to 5. Broadcast and cable ratings are moving closer together. We are living in an era of single-digit ratings.
   4) If you look at the data another way, of the top-ranked broadcast network programs, only the top 19 programs for the broadcast season yielded a household rating greater than a 9.0.
   It wasn't many years ago we wouldn't see programs very long delivering under a 10. On a persons 2+ demo, no broadcast program achieved a 10 rating. Those programs ranked No. 40 or higher achieved under a 4 rating. During the November 2003 sweeps, the six-network average P2+ rating was only a 2.9.
  5) Consumers are watching television, not broadcast and cable. Today's viewers are tuning to their favorite programs without regard to the delivery system. With 100+ channel lineups and electronic program guides, the channel a program airs on not an issue, nor is the size of the audience relevant to the viewer.
   In 2004 the Cabletelevision Ad Bureau will launch a major qualitative study to understand "how people use TV," differentiating between broadcast and cable. 
   Our pilot study showed over 60 percent of respondents didn't see a difference between sources on attributes like "appointment viewing," "less commercials," "remember the ads" and "programs that speak to me."
   And among those viewers that stated a difference, they were more likely to attach these attributes to cable rather than broadcast TV.
   Cable television is coming off its strongest year ever surpassing the broadcast networks in many areas including primetime share during a sweep month. Smart advertisers have been supporting cable and will do so even more in the future.

Ira Sussman
VP, Research
Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau
New York



Letters To The Editor from previous years:

• Letters 2003
• Letters 2002
• Letters 2001
• Letters 2000
• Letters 1999