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…

Why don’t books carry ads?

My hol­i­day enter­tain­ment was watch­ing an end­less cara­van of rain clouds cross the skies of a Bre­ton pen­in­sula. As an occa­sional diver­sion, I read a French guide book from 1909. Its pages were full of ads for grand hotels with casi­nos and spas where auto­mo­biles could be hired and fun could be had. All just five years before the Great War.

It wasn’t the hind­sight that got me think­ing though. It was the ads. Book sales are on the up. More people than ever are pub­lish­ing books. Why no ads? If advert­isers want to go where the audi­ence is, why aren’t they nest­ling in the pages of Lem­ony Snicket or Ian McE­wan?

I asked someone in the pub­lish­ing biz. The integ­rity of the book, they said. The book as object. An advert­ising free space. Well, I can see that argu­ment for the Lindis­farne Gos­pels, but for vaca­tion reading?

Surely it has to come. Wouldn’t a couple of pages in a Harry Pot­ter be worth some­thing to someone? Don’t pub­lish­ers talk to advert­isers? Maybe you could offer cheap books with ads and expens­ive books without, and see which ones people preferred…maybe it’s already happening.

How television made money

A brief account of how net­work bosses make money from Dan Lyons at For­bes, aka Fake Steve Jobs:

What the fuck is a tele­vi­sion net­work? It’s a sys­tem of affil­i­ates designed to help carry a broad­cast sig­nal across the wide con­tin­ent of Amer­ica on air­waves and into tele­vi­sion sets owned by mil­lions of people. In essence, you are in the dis­tri­bu­tion busi­ness. In the second half of the twen­ti­eth cen­tury you had the great good for­tune to be gran­ted a kind of lim­ited mono­poly over the dis­tri­bu­tion of a very valu­able com­mod­ity. There were only so many air­waves, hence only so many net­works. There were way more advert­isers than there were chan­nels to carry their advert­ising. So you sat there with your choke-hold on the garden hose, con­trolling the flow of pro­gram­ming and get­ting fat­ter and fat­ter and fatter.

It was a won­der­ful sys­tem. For you any­way. Except that it had one huge flaw. Which is that for you guys, the middle­men, to get rich, you needed to fuck over the people at both ends of the value chain — the con­sumers who had no choice in what they watched and spent years being fed moun­tains of dog shit, and the pro­du­cers of con­tent who were at your mercy and had to nego­ti­ate with this tiny num­ber of net­works who oper­ated, let’s be hon­est here, as a kind of cartel.

It’s over now. Your busi­ness model was a his­tor­ical anom­aly built on scarcity of a valu­able resource and the will­ing­ness of a small group of net­work oper­at­ors to not slit each other’s throats and to col­lab­or­ate in exploit­ing the con­tent producers.