Using the media to change opinions [Code of the Woosters edition]

Before broad­cast­ing, people read to one another to pass the time. Scary thought, eh? Embed­ded in pop­u­lar fic­tion are examples not only of the prac­tice, but also of its use in influ­en­cing an audi­ence. Take this example, from P.G.Wodehouse.

The devi­ous spin mer­chant is, of course, Jeeves who sug­gests its employ to effect a mar­riage between a young Mr. Little and a wait­ress called Mabel:

The method which I advoc­ate is what, I believe, the advert­isers call Dir­ect Sug­ges­tion, sir, con­sist­ing as it does of driv­ing an idea home by con­stant repe­ti­tion. You may have had exper­i­ence of the system?”

You mean they keep on telling you that some soap or other is the best, and after a bit you come under the influ­ence and charge round the corner and buy a cake?”

Exactly, sir. The same method was the basis of all the most valu­able pro­pa­ganda dur­ing the recent war. I see no reason why it should not be adop­ted to bring about the desired res­ult with regard to the subject’s views on class distinctions.

If young Mr. Little were to read day after day to his uncle a series of nar­rat­ives in which mar­riage with young per­sons of an inferior social status was held up as both feas­ible and admir­able, I fancy it would pre­pare the elder Mr. Little’s mind for the recep­tion of the inform­a­tion that his nephew wishes to marry a wait­ress in a tea-shop.”

Are there any books of that sort nowadays? The only ones I ever see men­tioned in the papers are about mar­ried couples who find life grey, and can’t stick each other at any price.”

Yes, sir, there are a great many, neg­lected by the review­ers but widely read. You have never encountered ‘All for Love,’ by Rosie M. Banks?”

Destruction. Creative, or just destructive?

Three things had me think­ing, as I re-read Old Media Seek To Know Google Not Just Fear It:

The genius of Google has been to couple search and advert­ising more effect­ively than any­one else. Its key word and con­tex­tual ad place­ments — mim­icked by other Inter­net com­pan­ies — have been nib­bling away at the rev­enue base of tra­di­tional print and broad­cast media as advert­isers shift more of their budgets online.

And then:

In seek­ing to bal­ance effi­ciency with tar­geted reach, advert­isers will turn to niche ad net­works … help­ing agen­cies reag­greg­ate frac­tured audi­ences while not sac­ri­fi­cing tar­geted environments.

Advert­isers are going to look for fil­ters that say what’s good and what to trust and not to trust…”

And finally, I thought of some­thing I ori­gin­ally read in the old, bath­room friendly New Yorker (none of whose ads — alas — mean any­thing to me), by Michael Specter :

We have to be care­ful not to rush from denial to des­pair,” John Elk­ing­ton told me … He believes there is a danger that people will feel engulfed by the chal­lenge, and ulti­mately help­less to address it.

We are in an era of cre­at­ive destruc­tion,” he said… “What hap­pens when you go into one of these peri­ods is that before you get to the point of recon­struc­tion things have to fall apart. XXXXXX will fall apart. I think XXXX” — a com­pany that Elk­ing­ton has advised for years — “will fall apart. They have just made too many bets on the wrong things.

A bunch of the insti­tu­tions that we rely on cur­rently will, to some degree, decom­pose. I believe that much of what we count as demo­cratic polit­ics today will fall apart, because we are simply not going to be able to deal with the scale of change that we are about to face. It will pro­foundly dis­able much of the cur­rent polit­ical class.”

The only thing is, of course, Elk­ing­ton isn’t talk­ing about the col­lapse of the media at all, but about the auto­mobile industry and cli­mate change.

The democratic medium…

From Tom Abate:

Sum­mar­iz­ing a report from the Inter­net Advert­ising Bur­eau in con­junc­tion with Price­wa­ter­house­Coopers, Media­Post writes:

“Inter­net ad spend­ing remained con­cen­trated among the top 10 sellers online, which accoun­ted for 70 per­cent of all money spent. Ninety-one per­cent of all ad dol­lars online were spent with pub­lish­ers in the top 50… Search (41%), banners/display (21%) and clas­si­fieds (17%) con­tin­ued to account for the highest per­cent­age of ad spend­ing online … while search increased its share and banners/display ads remained con­stant, the pro­por­tion of online budgets alloc­ated to clas­si­fied ads dropped 3% from the first half of 2006.”

So let me just tell you what the IAB just repor­ted. Not only are old media los­ing ad rev­en­ues to new media. The rev­enue flow­ing to new media is remain­ing con­cen­trated at the top. The tens of thou­sands of ser­i­ous blog­gers, the mil­lions of other web­sites, they’re all suck­ing hard, but suck­ing wind when it comes to revenues.

Tell me: how does this rev­enue pic­ture equate to a more demo­cratic media?

Endless amusement…

Rosie Boy­cott (one­time–Indie editor) got dumped from Hell’s Kit­chen last night.

With her final words, she sum­mar­ised the dif­fer­ence between run­ning a news­pa­per and a res­taur­ant: in a res­taur­ant you want to serve the same piece of lemon tart every night, on a news­pa­per you want every story to be different…it keeps you end­lessly amused.

What an unwit­tingly per­cept­ive ana­lysis of the qual­it­ies required by good edit­ors — the need for end­less amusement.

If you really want end­less amuse­ment, then Tues­day night Hell’s Kit­chen was advert­ising for view­ers in the Lon­don Paper, a News Corp. freesheet. Oh, the irony…paying for atten­tion in some­thing that’s being given away. Show spon­sors MFI had their logo in the very corner of the ad. Marco Pierre White replaces Gor­don Ram­say and casts a raddled shadow over the whole gamey show.

O tem­pura, o morelles…