|
Right on, Jeremy S.
December 19, 1999
Dear Editor:
Your site is really coming along. The stories are well written and timely. Keep up the good work.
Kudos to your writer Jeremy Schlosberg. I keep noticing that the stories I enjoy the most are always his. Give this guy a raise and hold onto him.
Andrew Lein
VP Account Services
The Palisades-Media Group
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 risqu 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 risqu 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
Thanks for the compliment
September 25, 1999
Dear Editor:
Thanks to Jeremy Schlosberg for his compliment in the article "Weather sites storm the web gainers chart" (Media Life, Sept. 24, 1999) You see, he was referring to me when he said, "Whoever was responsible for securing that generic URL [www.weather.com] deserves a promotion."
The weather.com domain name was officially registered at the InterNIC on August 9, 1994. As senior vice president of new technologies at The Weather Channel, I had no doubt that it was important to secure that domain name. But I couldn't have predicted that half a decade later nearly a million people a day would access it
After 14 years at the cable network and a total of 30 years with its parent company, Landmark Communications, I retired in 1996. So I won't be receiving the recommended promotion. But I take great pride in the
remarkable web site created on top of the simple domain name weather.com by the people in the weather.com division of The Weather Channel and I appreciate Mr. Schlosberg's kind words.
Alan Galumbeck
Atlanta, Georgia
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
Out of Context
August 25, 1999
Dear Editor:
While your Tuesday coverage of a new partnership among Nokia, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and News Corp One was welcomed by all, the strength of that partnership and our new marketing alliance could not have been forged without the successful contributions of Nokia's agency, The Richards Group.
The Richards Group has proven an active and adept participant in all creative, media planning and execution of this relationship on behalf of our partner, Nokia. It's unfortunate that one of the quotes attributed to myself in Tuesday's early edition of your story did not reflect the true context of the statement involved, and yet to your credit, it was responsibly changed when brought to Media Life's attention. I thank you for that.
The bottom line is that, lacking the contributions of any of our new friends and associates at The Richards Group, a partnership like this one could not exist. While it's impossible to "unring the bell" as it were, to whatever extent I might bring the real depth and relevance of The Richards Group's contributions to light through this letter, I ask that you please provide it the attention and prominence it so rightfully deserves
Mark Stroman,
Vice President, Worldwide Promotion
News Corp One
Jane & Conde Nast
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
Reporter has it wrong
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
August 9, 1999
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
Oh, really?
August 4, 1999
Dear Editor:
Quoted from your search engine article: Over at Lycos, executive vice president Ron Sege sees little need for search engines that can comb through the entire web. "We are focused on relevancy, we're not focused on cataloguing the entire web," he says.
I think Ron means irrelevancy. Lycos has been useless since its recent makeover. He should get rid of Inktomi and return to his old spyder. He also should return to numbering results.
And I'm really annoyed that my site www.r2trade.com has been dropped from the Lycos database. This after speaking to techies and repeatedly resubmitting my url. By the way, I cannot recommend that clients advertise on a site that frustrates its users to the degree that Lycos does, since they are less likely to click on banner ads at sites that result in negative web experiences.
I dare Ron to respond to me directly.
Roy Moskowitz
CEO
Reciprocal Results
New York
About George
July 21, 1999
Dear Editor:
Will Hachette trim George from its stable?
Consider the fact that the magazine ranked 154 out of 154 top monthlies in ad pages year-to-date for the August issue and 178 out of 178 when you add in weeklies and bi-weeklies.
I think the writing on the wall is perfectly clear.
As a business , George is failing and Hachette is not known for its benevolence (nor does it have much patience) for loss-leaders. Above all, [Hachette CEO Jack] Kliger is the consumate business professional.
What would YOU do?
Paul Benjou
Associate Media Director
Draft WorldWide
New York
Love your mag
July 20, 1999
Dear Editor:
Wow, I have really enjoyed getting media life mag since its inception. It's become one of my best resources. Because I'm so busy I don't have a lot of time for reading trade magazines, but with MLM I can access what I want quickly. The articles are always interesting and timely. Keep up the good work!
Lisa K. Kidwell
Media Director
Bridge Integrated Communications
Loopy Lycos
July 19, 1999
Dear Editor:
Why can't Lycos concentrate on being a search engine? Instead its search results have become irrelevant and bizarre and my site and the site of most of my competitors have been dropped.
They do not do close to the job Yahoo does as a directory and rely on Inktomi, the worst thing that has happened to those using search engines as a spyder. (Yahoo's results have suffered since they've switched to Inktomi as well.) Inktomi often views legitimate content as spam and kicks sites off its indexes for such.
I seriously doubt that a porno site will use the key words "corporate media barter" as spam to get listed.
Its sister engine Hotbot also suffers from Inktomi disease. Hotbot at one time used to be the best search engine. After they switched to Inktomi their results became pathetically absurd. However, CNet, which if I am not mistaken owns a stake in Hotbot, continues to rank Hotbot the best search engine every year. This has caused me to lose confidence in CNet as a legitimate news source.
Even search engines that usually give mostly relevant results such as Northern Light have screwed around with their results to the user's detriment. They used to display 25 results at a time, now they only show 10. This means if what you are looking for is not among the top 10 results you have to spend more than twice the search session downloading as you previously had.
Roy Moskowitz
CEO
Reciprocal Results
New York
'Buffy" review
July 15, 1999
Dear Editor:
I am extremely impressed with the article on Buffy part II. I think it is really well written and captures the show's poor choice of editing completely! Bravo!
Nick Ascheim
Lapse of logic
July 8, 1999
Dear Editor:
The billboard market rankings recently published in Media Life are comparable to usage index rankings (an index of 100 is average and a 200 index is twice as likely etc.). A magazine with a usage index for a good or service of 500 may be a fantastic vehicle for marketing that particular good or service. However, if its circulation is only 50,000, it can not replace a publication
with a 120 index and a 5 million circ. Therefore it is asinine to assume that Atlanta is a more important outdoor market to buy than NY or LA based on cost efficiencies as the report indicates.
Its also interesting that the report comes out of Atlanta. Coincidence, I think not.
Roy Moskowitz
CEO
Reciprocal Results
New York
Taken for a ride
June 17, 1999
Dear Editor:
Boy, did you get taken in by Media Passage! ("A web service makes buying newspapers a breeze," ML, June 17,1999)
Does a placement service have to only get one account as a testimonial to make your article legitimate? Your article made one order-one bill newspaper advertising placement services seem like a new idea by Media Passage. It's the holy grail that all agencies have been looking for! C'mon, did you buy into all this?
In fact, state press associations have been providing this type of
service for many more years than Media Passage. Only state press
associations can accurately and efficiently provide quotes, placement, verification and OOOB service for virtually ALL newspapers in a given state, region or nationally.
Also, state press associations are owned by these very newspapers that Media Passage only places in! State press associations have the direct pipeline to the key personnel at each newspaper and the relationship with their papers and other press associations that makes the whole process run smoother. State Press Associations (known as Ad-Net America) provide
planning and placement free of charge to agencies and will always find the best rates available to any advertiser.
It's a shame that McCann-Erickson is willing to shout the praises of a single organization when some of their own planners have used press associations themselves!
The insinuation that all competitors to Media Passage are now lining up to follow suit is just plain inaccurate. In fact, some of Media Passage's promotional literature even claims that NAA's attempt at online placement (the NICC, Newspaper Information Communications Center) is simply a copy of Media Passage's software! Did you talk to NAA or any state press association
about this? You might find another viewpoint would add some credibility to your article.
Online placement might be the wave of the future if an agency knows the EXACT papers they wish to place in, but what about that special customized knowledge needed by media planners in unfamiliar markets? How will online placement help these people make an efficient and customized buy for his or her client in this case? They will ultimately call that state's press association!
Be careful about companies that are using you as a promotional vehicle and believing everything you read without thoroughly researching. Did you get a chance to talk to many newspapers about their opinion of Media Passage?
If you would like more information about the FREE service offered to agencies by Ad-Net America (state press associations), feel free to call me at (301) 352-0600. You may also call Sue Kelly at Mid-Atlantic Newspaper Services (717) 703-3042, George White at New Jersey Newspaper Network (609) 406-0600, Gary Gagne at New England Newspaper Association (978) 744-8940 or
Dean Ridings at Florida Press Service (850) 222-6401.
Thank you for your time.
Chuck Boteler
Advertising manager
MD-DE-DC Press Association
Bowie, Md.
Great part of the day!
Dear Editor:
Your news is so immediate, you might call it "Media Live." As a broadcaster of some 40 years, managing radio and TV properties as well as on-air, sales, ad nauseam, I have seen my chosen field attempt to destroy itself. Any kind of dignity, by and large, has given way to sensational episodes of self-gratification from network big wigs. Oh, for the refreshing, edifying, down-to-earth attitude of Frank Stanton & Bob Woods of CBS, Harry Truman of USA (the REALLY BIG show!) that seemed to listen to real people and acted for their best interest.
Your article regarding cable today (6/4) was no surprise at all was it? Network television of today emanated from the lifestyle of Hollywood itself, one that glitters in that arena, but it isn't playing in Peoria like they thought. Cable serves as an entertaining escape to reality.
I like the free-flowing articles in Media Life. I'm enjoying a quick education each morning in television, outdoor, radio, newspapers, etc.
You are to be complimented on a daily newsletter that was obviously derived from a lot of thought, discussion and good planning. I'm sure that you want to be regarded as a successful link to all media. You are. I look forward to it. Thanks!
Dean Ward
Uncle Mel's ambitions
Dear Editor:
When will it end?
Uncle Mel [Mel Karmazin, chairman of both CBS and Infinity Broadcasting] has at least a demographic monopoly in most radio markets as it is. Now the outdoor acquisition [of Outdoor Systems] further limits competition. Although so far Mel's ambitions of buying NBC has been laughed at, don't count it out. Five years from now, who knows? One day CBS/Infinity/TDI will own almost everything worthwhile. Actually, more dangerous than their acquisitions to competition is their ownership of the CBS Promotion Group, which is functioning as a buying service, purchasing both CBS-owned media and non-CBS media. This is like Interrepublic owning a TV or radio station.
I own a media barter company that has as a client a company using the CBS Promotion Group as AOR. They've said the rates I was paying, not charging,in New York, were much higher than they were. Interestingly enough, the cpp they were quoting were much lower than any CBS-owned station in the market charged.
Roy Moskowitz
CEO
Reciprocal Results
New York
Reading our stories
Dear Editor:
Just wanted to let you know how pleased I am to receive Media Life.
I have printed three stories so far this week to pass on to my boss and other “higher ups” – your content is excellent and the story ideas are right on the money. Thanks so much – you’re doing a great job!
Sandy Pochapin
Newton, MA
Thoughts on 'Buffy'
Dear Editor:
I think it was a good idea to cancel the ''Buffy'' show. We have gotten to where we don't watch it because it is not entertaining any more.
TV has gotten out of control, as well as the movies and even cartoons (Japanimation - I don't allow my younger kids to watch it) - violence is not entertaining to A LOT of people. If we continue to portray violence as entertaining what do we expect to happen?
If we have gone so far to the left, then some of the cures may appear to be to far to the right. I just hope that by pulling us to the right we will once again end up in a neutral middle.
Mary Foster
Atlanta, GA
|
