13 posts tagged “television”

I heard a report on NPR today, mildly lamenting the end of Kodachrome. Then I recalled this article from the Daily Gazette hailing the return of vinyl. Finally I remembered two segment from All Things Considered pointing how the advent of digital television means we'll no longer have "snow" or TV repairmen. What ever will we do?

Let's set aside the fact that I happen to think film offers photographers more control over their craft than digital cameras and that the digital television change over is a solution in search of a problem. For a moment I just want to think about why we have nostalgia for "old" technology.

I feel like every week I hear someone lamenting the end of some tech (or aspect of tech) that lost its usefulness long ago: Polaroid, NES, the VCR (or even Beta Max), slides, the eight track, the cassette tape, CDs, floppy disks, the answering machine, the rotary phone and the almost endless death march for the bound book.

These seem to share a common meme: thing X is in decline and some people are trying to hold onto it; thing X is almost gone and there are a few avid fans left; last of the thing X closes/is produced and we all now need to reflect on the "hole" in our national culture and what thing X represented to "a generation" of people.

Enough already! As you may have picked up from my Twitter rants, I have come to abhor absolutes, especially when they relate to "progress". No one thing is so great that it's essential to our national character. Nor is any one thing so great that it will be the last thing we every need. I am sure no one EVER thought we would have phones that were not tethered to Ma Bell. I now have one that is smaller than a pack of cigarettes (remember those) that is "pay as you go".

Anyone who knows me will agree that I do love nostalgia, so this post may strike some as odd. But I get nostalgic for people, places, experiences, food, drink, cigarettes (remember those), music and cultural. I don't get a warm fuzzy for the type of film that I used as a kid or my floppy disks.

Can we all just get over ourselves and enjoy the fact that a lot of things are better and easier now? And you know what? Some things are worse and harder, but that is what technology does: it giveth and it taketh away. And this being America, it is often the will of consumers that drives the birth and death of tech. So let's all just calm down and enjoy the brave new world.

Rant over.

UPDATE: Boing Boing joins in on the Kodachrome funeral. Please people, get over it.

Televisionary posted a in-depth interview with Sci-Fi President Dave Howe to discuss the network's plan to change its name to Syfy this summer.

You all know that I think this is a boneheaded move (and I am not alone in this opinion). I do respect Mr. Howe for facing the criticism head on and going to talk to the press (including a well-known TV blogger).

But, I have to say, that I am not impressed with the case Mr. Howe tries to make, which seems to boil down to a few key points:

• Re-branding is hard
• No one is ever totally happy when a name changes
  
• Syfy was the least bad option they cam up with
  
• Re-branding is hard
• New names are limited by the availability of URLs so you often have to invent a new word
• Syfy tested better than the other finalists
• Did I mention that re-branding is hard...and subjective?
• The channel is not abandoning it core base

Yes, re-branding is hard, so you have to really think abut WHY you want to do it before you pull the trigger. This quote by Mr. Howe is very telling:

"I think the honest answer to that actually is that we didn’t come up with a name that we liked any better than what we’ve gone with which was Syfy,"

Right, so Syfy was the "least bad" option. But then you have to ask the question, why make this change in the first place? Howe give some very thought out answers to this question which go back to the network's sense that they need to expand thier base and expand their image. And he really trys to sell this notion in the interview.

Here's what I bet went down: someone at Sci-Fi (or NBCU) decided they HAD to change the name (lord knows why). So they went off, hired Landor and paid them seven figures (no joke). Then at the end of this long, "subjective" process (and it is), they realized that no "normal" words (like the other finalist, "Beyond") would clear trademark or maybe they tested poorly. But they had to do SOMETHING, they just paid one of the top brand identity firms in the U.S. a ton of cash to come up with a new name.

So they picked the "least bad" option, bit their lip, came up with a good sales pitch and went for it. On various scales, this happens ALL THE TIME in my buisness. Is it dumb? Yes. Will it continue? Yes. Why? Because you can't just turn around and say "whoops, we should not have spent all that money".

So today's lession: if you are going to re-brand, make damn sure you know why you're doing it and be prepared for the worst.

 

Dear Entertainment Professionals,

No doubt you serve an essential function in this world. You have given us parents access to hours of (relatively) low cost, (somewhat) educational materials that we can buy at just about any store and use over and over again to entertain our children (often with limited guilt).

But, if I may: can you please stop with the f-ing over-produced, overly complicated menus?

I am sure that many of you, especially in the production and design teams, are younger. Maybe you don't have kids yet. And maybe telling people that you produce kids DVDs is a real hit at parties (hell, I'd love a job like that). It must be a very cool job with a lot of interesting meetings. And, I bet that when you came up with that idea to have Bob the Builder talk at the kids for a minute before the menu comes up you (or your boss) thought "the kids will LOVE this".

Here's the thing, the kids really just want to see the episodes. They don't need to see the five trains on the Thomas DVD introduce themselves BEFORE we can even pick an episode to watch. And they don't need to see Bob go through the checklist of extras (games) BEFORE they can pick one to play. (I'm talking to you HiT Entertainment). And while including ads for other DVDs is fair game (this is America after all), surely you don't need me to sit there and skip through each one in order to get to the main menu (hey, Viacom/Noggin, just let me hit MENU).

An aside for the childless who read this: imagine if everytime you put in a DVD of your favorite film or TV show, the four main characters animated in and told you about the different menu choices leaving you with NO WAY TO SKIP THIS. It is maddening, espcially when said DVD may be (and often is) the ONE thing that a child wants RIGHT NOW. Do I really need cross promotion when faced with a temper tantrum?

In closing, I urge you to, I don't know, do a focus group with some parents and ask them if these over-produced DVD menus give them a positive or negative "brand expirience" with your products. Oh wait, I'll save you $40,000 in research fees: THEY HATE IT.

Thank you for your time.

Side note: Em bought Fraggle Rock DVD for MLTU today. I asked MLTU what the Fraggles looked like and she said "The Muppets". My kid rocks.

Beyond Imagination: Sci Fi to Morph Into Syfy

Sci Fi will undergo a transformation that will render its new name as Syfy beginning in July. Which is pronounced the same as... Sci Fi. Its tagline? "Imagine Greater." And the cabler's familiar Saturn logo will now be a more "down to earth" rounded three-dimensional font that doesn't immediately signal to viewers that it is a science-fiction destination.

I consider Sci Fi to be one of the worst run networks on television. They have consistently sliced and diced the seasons of Battlestar Galactica so that the plot has been dragged out for years longer than it needed to. In addition to BSG their programming includes a few other minor hits (like Stargate and Eureka) and reruns of various Star Trek incarnations.

But the real gems in their line-up are the Sci Fi Original Movies which include, and I am not making any of these up, Spring Break Shark Attack (premiers 3/22), Pterodactyl, Bats: Human Harvest, Flu Bird Horror, Lake Placid 2 (because the first one was SOOO good) and Wraiths of Roanoke just to name a few.

So what does a 16 year old cable station, with little understanding of how to create science fiction programing, cultivate a hit or treat its core audience with any respect do when its flagship show is about to go off the air? It "re-brands" in the most confounding way possible. Really, "Syfy"? WTF? Here is the "marketing jargon" explanation for this change:

"While continuing to embrace our legacy and our core audience, we needed to cultivate a distinct point of view with a name that we could own that invites more people in and reflects our broader range of programming," said Sci Fi president Dave Howe in a statement. "Syfy allows us to build on our 16 year heritage of success with a new brand built on the power that fuels our genre: the Imagination. Syfy ushers in a new era of unlimited imagination, exceptional experiences and greater entertainment that paves the way for us to truly become a global lifestyle brand."

At my last agency we use to play a game called "Bulls**t Bingo" -- basically see how many B.S. words come up in a speech or press release. Let me tell you, this sound bite is loaded with marketing B.S including "legacy", "core audience", "cultivate" and "point of view". If you pay Landor millions of dollars to go from being "Sci Fi" to "Syfy" then either they need to be fired or you do. Does a cable network really need to be a "global lifestyle brand"? And what the frak does that even mean?

Do you even know your customer at all? Here's a hint, they like science fiction (AKA "sci fi"). No one will even be able to pronounce "Syfy". No one who doesn't watch your network now is going to START watching your network because of this "new" name. They are going to look that the name, not be able to pronounce it and think "what is that, some foreign language station?" Really the only lack of "imagination" is the networks inability to understand the genre and its fans.

One last marketing secret I'll let you in on: when you have to say things like "The testing we’ve done has been incredibly positive" that means that your testing showed that you were about to make a colossal frak-up, but its too late and you have to cover your a** before the launch. And if your focus groups respondents are saying "If I were texting, this is how I would spell it" then you have the wrong people in your focus groups.

Thanks NBC/Universal, you've given me one less station I have to watch. By the way, if you are done with the domain name scifi.com can you please give it to someone who will actually use for, I don't know, something remotely related to science fiction?

Thanks to Televisionary for covering this.

Stuff White People Like: #123 Mad Men

Mad Men is a TV show on cable with low ratings, multiple awards, critical praise, and full seasons available on DVD. It’s no surprise white people love it.

Yes, yes, we white people love "critically acclaimed" TV that no one else watches. We love shows that are deep in subtext and have long, involved story lines. And shows that a shot with a single camera, those are the BEST.

I have not really followed SWPL, but I have to say, I am so not surprised they picked Mad Men as a target.

Thanks to A Mistake for sending me the link. I am going to finish watching another white people favorite now.

Justices Say Evidence Is Valid Despite Police Error

In a 5-to-4 opinion, the court upheld the federal conviction of Bennie Dean Herring, who from the court records appears to have been very unlucky as well as felonious in his conduct. In upholding the conviction, the court’s majority came to a conclusion that will most likely please those who complain about criminals going free on “technicalities” and alarm those who fear that the high court is looking for ways to narrow the reach of the exclusionary rule.

What does it say about me that the first thing I thought when reading this article was "Hmmmm...I wonder how long before this is used as a central plot point on a Law & Order episode"?

Holy crap, American Gladiators is awesome! I have been not so secretly awaiting the return of this show for almost a month now and it has not disappointed me. This has all of the camp of the original and I LOVE IT.

I love that Hulk Hogan is a host, I love that they have kept most of the original games, and most of all I love the fact that the cheese factor has been turned UP and not DOWN. I feel like I am back in High School. Someone put on a Pearl Jam album and pass me a flannel shirt.

that I am actually looking forward to the new American Gladiators?

It feels wrong, but at the same time it feels so right. I mean Hulk Hogan is going to be the host!!!

The 90s are back baby!

I wonder how much money and productivity American businesses will lose today due to workers discussing The Sopranos final episode?  Someone has to have a website about this.

Being in advertising I may have a skewed view of this (we LOVE TV in my biz).  But how about this fact: I don't even watch the show (never got into it) and about 45 minutes of my day has been spent listening to conversations about it (in meetings), listening to reports about it on the radio (see below) or reading friend's blogs that mention it. I bet by the end of the day it will be at least an hour. Come on Marketplace, don't let me down, here is a story for you.

As a side note, I have to take issue with NPR.  At the bottom of the hour on Morning Edition today they ran a whole story about "spoiler alerts" and how it would be impossible for anyone to avoid knowing how The Sopranos ended. In this report they did not give away any details about the final episode. But then, in the 8 AM new summary, they basically recapped the entire final five minutes of the show. 

Is that some sort of sick NPR media joke?  One minute: "don't worry, we're cool, we know you don't want to know the ending"; 20 minutes later: "by they way, Tony was..." I was pissed at them and I don't even care about the show.  Bad form NPR.

Rosie O'Donnell announced today that she would be leaving "The View" after only one year. 

Now Em watches the View and from time to time I admit that she plays me some of the funnier moments, especially those times when Rosie goes head to head with former reality TV star and current NFL wife Elisabeth (Filarski) Hasselbeck. Watching Rosie poke holes through Hasselbeck's recycled right wing rhetoric is like watching a bear knock around a trapped bunny.  Hasselbeck never stands a chance against Rosie and boy is it fun to watch.

I am not surprised by Rosie's departure, she is more of a solo act than part of an ensemble.  Adding her was kind of like having Neil Young join Crosby, Stills and Nash. CSN worked well together, they had a killer first album.  But Young was an outsider (a Canadian) just like Rosie (a lesbian). He always had the option to run off and play with Crazy Horse, and she has her blog where she can sound off on whatever she wants. Cults of personality that big don't always fit well in a group.

So Rosie is the Neil Young to Barbara Walter's David Crosby. That would make Joy Behar the Steven Stills and I guess Hasselback would be Graham Nash. 

Good-bye WBH&O and good luck Rosie.  Welcome back WBH.