Ending A Series: CBS Cancels Jericho

Mostly because network executives had taken to touting the online success of Jericho for several months, fans still seemed uncertain as the Nielsen-owned Hollywood Reporter broke the news today. CBS is canceling Jericho. The story was confirmed by E! Online.

The ending chosen by CBS next Tuesday will wrap up the season's story line, closing what has been a yearlong challenge with plenty of trials and triumphs for the fan base that convinced CBS to give its show another chance. The outcome, as mentioned on Wednesday, seems to line up lock step with the five reasons being considered to let the show go.

"'Jericho' is unique because the fans saved it — watching it on the Internet and streaming and iTunes downloads, all those things that are not being counted," The Hollywood Reporter cited executive producer Carol Barbee saying in a recent interview. "That's what 'Jericho' will be known for."

She's right. Jericho fans have plenty to be proud of, especially their efforts in doing what most said could not be done — winning a short second season after it was cancelled the first time. While some rumors persist that Jericho may move elsewhere, it seems unlikely that a move would produce a show that resembles the original.

Still, Jericho fans are not ready to give up. They are currently assessing what to do next. One thing they need to avoid, in my opinion, is campaigning other networks like fans of the The Black Donnellys (TBD) did last year.

While the hearts of TBD fans were in the right place, campaigning to move a show from one network to another is a more daunting task, even more unlikely, and further fragments any campaign. If Jericho fans campaign for a move, any campaign needs to be aimed at CBS.

I will give credit to CBS for not waiting until next Thursday to confirm the cancellation, though it might have been better to share the news with fans first. Doing so would have demonstrated that it is starting to understand social media. There is still more work to be done there. Obviously.

Making Connections & Divides: Social Media Relations

Yesterday, Steve Rubel, author of Micro Persuasion, pointed to a pair of surveys that may be significant to public relations professionals. While both surveys include too few respondents to be considered an accurate measure on their own, they do mirror conversations I've read about the subjects.

Does their public relations firm do a good job identifying the specific interest of individual bloggers and sending them relevant information?

• Only 52 percent of the public relations professionals asked said yes.
• Contrary, 65 percent of the bloggers asked the same question disagreed.

If there is any hint of accuracy to the survey, it suggests that public relations practitioners may be creating the same divide between themselves and bloggers as some have between themselves and journalists. Maybe the division is occurring because public relations practitioners tend to spend more time talking up each other than developing relationships with bloggers. (That, by the way, is what bloggers tell me.)

The second survey, with the same participants, seems to mirror another discussion point that I’ve seen it come up from time to time: Paying for posts.

It is okay to compensate bloggers for writing about my clients, but it is not up to me to tell them to disclose the payment.

• Not one public relations professional thought it was okay to pay for posts.
• Contrary, 48 percent of bloggers thought it was okay; 16 percent were neutral.

What strikes me as odd about these survey results is that public relations practitioners who blog often take a stand against pay per posts, even with disclosure. Yet, some who maintain blogs write reviews about their clients.

The first survey was published in PR Week as part of APCO Worldwide’s new “The State of Blog Relations” blog, which defines itself as a “pioneering Web initiative aimed at capturing and analyzing thought leadership in the blogosphere.”

I don’t know; these questions have been asked for years. However, what I do know is that social media is being applied in some odd places and convincing some to draw odd conclusions.

Also from Rubel, recently, was the addition of advertising social media feedback mechanisms on advertisements. Although many praised the post in the comments, I think it’s one of the most ridiculous ideas ever.

Why? For two simple reasons. The CNET and AOL Network ad platforms allow non-customers to offer feedback on ads. Depending on the advertiser, this non-customer feedback may influence advertising that resonates with customers. That could lead to some dangerous conclusions.

Have we so soon forgotten the lessons learned from Miller when it attempted to target microbrewery beer drinkers with ads aimed at them? Not only did non-customers NOT buy Miller, but the ads alienated Miller’s core blue collar consumer. The net outcome was a lot of awards for the advertising agency, and one of the best ad campaigns, not for Miller, which footed the bill, but for its rival Budweiser, which quickly captured the alienated Miller drinker.

The measure of advertising seems much more simple to me. Did people click on the ad, visit the store, perhaps buy the product? And, if you are really curious how customers feel about your advertising, wouldn’t it be smarter to ask them as opposed to asking everyone, including people who are so outside of your demographic that it just doesn’t matter?

You know, “because we can” doesn’t always measure up as the right answer. Misapplied research can cause more damage than it's worth.

Skewing Young: Is Advertising Forgetting Audience?

A recent BurstMedia survey reveals that advertisers, especially those trying to reach audiences online, might be missing the boat. The survey alludes to the idea that the majority of Internet users ages 45+ believe online content is focused on younger age segments.

• Only about half of respondents, ages 35-44, believe Web sites are designed for them.
• Only 36.9 percent of respondents, ages 45-54, believe Web sites are designed for them.
• Only 19.9 percent of respondents, ages 55+, believe Web sites are designed for them.

Ya think? Advertising has been trending younger for some time now, online and off. Online it’s evident, mostly because of the mistaken notion that Internet users are all young. Sometimes its because designers are designing in a bubble, with little thought to their audience. Sometimes its because advertisers are skewing too much toward the medium with little or no thought of people.

The reality is that everybody is online; More than 80 percent in the U.S.

One of the most recent polls conducted by Harris Interactive last Nov. estimated that 97 percent of Americans with a computer is online (hat tip: Gary Gerdemann Peritus Public Relations).

In fact, when you compare the online population with the total population in the United States, the columns are proportionate, with the exception to those ages 65+. In addition, Internet usage has increased from seven hours per week in 2002 to more than 11 hours today.

While prevailing social media theory tends to ask companies to bend their message for technology, the BurstMedia survey is a reminder that tools do not dictate messages. Brand relationships exist between the company and the consumer. Technology is only a means of delivery or engagement.

Currently, 12 percent of the population is the 65+ group. By 2050, this age group will comprise 21 percent of the population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

In addition, this demographic will be well versed in online technologies and usage, requiring designers to consider content organization and ease of use much more readily than they do today. It makes sense.

Given the amount of demographic and psychographic information advertisers and marketers are pulling from the net, one would think they would apply it online ads. Or maybe not. We hear the same complaints about broadcast advertising and programming too.

Waiting Games: Jericho Season 3?

With no official word from CBS, fans of the cancelled, resuscitated, and now on the bubble show, Jericho, are taking no chances. For several weeks, they have been writing letters and hoisting up banners of the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag that appears in one of the episodes of the second season. No more nuts yet.

Many critics have warmed to the show, but maintain it’s unlikely to see a third season. Some are even campaigning for faith in the rating system and against renewal, despite saying they like it.

The latter criticism came after Patrick Keane, vice president and chief marketing officer for CBS Interactive, speaking Monday at MediaPost's OMMA Global conference in Hollywood, used Jericho as an example of how online audiences can have a positive impact on a show, especially because online viewership doesn’t cannibalize the broadcast audience.

The online video audience for one episode of Jericho boosted the show's TV ratings by almost a full point: from 4.2 to 5.1.

Even for those who have never seen the show, the significance is in that it represents the transition for television. As cross-convergence seems eminent, Jericho provides a glimpse into just how forward-thinking networks can be, if they want to be.

With two different episodes — one that offers closure and another that provides a cliffhanger — CBS can justify a Jericho renewal as easily as a cancellation. Enough so that I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess. See for yourself…

Five Reasons To Keep Jericho

• Fans are engaged, watching episodes and embedded ads over and over.
• The online audience continues to grow, with ample consumer evangelists.
• Even with less-than-stellar ratings, the rating are better than many other shows.
• It’s a leading program among the network’s growing online inventory.
• There were notable flaws in engaging the fan base that saved the show while CBS continues to get up to speed on how to best engage online fans. There is an opportunity to do it right with a third season.

Five Reasons To Let Jericho Go

• The ratings are just not there; no matter how flawed the system.
• The fan base did not meet Nina Tassler’s condition of more live viewers.
• The fans were never able to develop solidarity or sustained buzz.
• The network met its commitment to deliver a wrap-up with seven episodes.
• There are too many financial limitations to give the show the budget it needs.

Of course, there is also the possibility that network executives at CBS have secretly acquired a taste for nuts. But that is purely speculative.

The real questions CBS might ask is what kind of network does it want to be. Is there an opportunity to take the lead position as an online content provider? Is Jericho the right show to help usher in a new era? And can it preserve this fan base to help lift up new original content in the future?

Everything tells me that the network is split on the decision. Rumors suggest that CBS may be answering these questions as early as today. The clock is ticking and the worst thing the network could do is keep its decision a cliffhanger. Maybe part of the answer lies in non-traditional thinking: Jericho has helped boost other CBS and CW programs online and provided more brand recognition for the network than broadcast ever did on its own.

Playing In The Road: State Needs PR Help

Sometimes elected officials are only as good as their advisors. One wonders what Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons’ advisors were thinking recently, allowing the governor to address the crisis surrounding the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, almost a full month late, without the most basic facts, and without any sense of empathy for those affected.

Instead, he came out against the media, criticizing them for their “buffoonery” in covering the health crisis caused by the Endoscopy Center and downplaying the roll of majority owner Dr. Dipak Desai, despite mounting public testimony that Desai and other doctors directed nurses to employ unsafe practices.

John L. Smith, columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, lists dozens of mistakes made by the governor today. Smith likens him to a clown, with a rubber nose and oversized bow tie. David McGrath Schwartz of the Las Vegas Sun called it a crisis response dance.

Papers across the state have published similar reviews, likening the stunt to playing in traffic. It hardly matters that the governor regretted his words the next day.

“My intention was to be sure that people were not fearful of seeking medical care because of the intense media coverage, it was a poor choice of words and I regret it,' Gibbons had said, referring to “buffoonery.”

He might regret them even more. After several members of the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners revealed ties to the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and recused themselves from any investigation, Gibbons called for their resignations as well as that of the board’s executive director. Some publicly stated today that they have no intention of stepping down. Maybe they sense the obvious.

But this post isn’t about the governor. It’s about communication.

If the intent of the communication was to instill confidence in a health care system under fire, the better message needed to be about 180 degrees different. What could it have been? Here is a five-minute solution, painfully better than the one delivered over the weekend.

• There is a health care crisis; empathy for those affected
• That any Nevadans (regardless how few) are affected is not acceptable or tolerable
• There are many excellent doctors doing their best to help statewide
• There is a cross-agency investigation being undertaken by the state
• A task force is making recommendations to ensure it does not happen again
• Board members with conflicts of interest might ask themselves if they can meet their obligations to the state
• But above all, if you or a loved one is affected, it is important for you and your family to be tested. It’s the right and responsible thing to do.

In addition, the state could have recognized several medical facilities that are offering educational seminars to help people who need to be tested. And, it could have urged Nevadans to give blood. Donations at United Blood Services’ five fixed sites have dropped 25 percent since the crisis began in early March.

That is the message the state needed. Instead, the wrong message had the opposite impact. It has further shaken the citizens’ confidence in the center, in the health care system, and in the state.

It didn’t have to be that way. Crisis communication 101 suggests that you never adopt someone else’s crisis as your own. Or, in other words, no brand is so invincible that it belongs playing in the road against oncoming traffic while cursing at delivery boys when they drive by. You know, they don't ride bicycles anymore. Someone might get hurt.

Proving A Recession: Bear Stearns?

There are two kinds of people who have a higher propensity to get into car accidents. Those who never think they will and those who always think they will.

Bear Stearns was driving too fast for its own good, lending over 30 times the value of its $11 billion in equity. There was bound to be an accident. The question being asked now is how many other firms were driving just as fast as this global investment banking, securities trading, and brokerage firm, founded in 1923.

For those financial experts and media outlets that have been predicting a recession for more than two years, they say everybody. Maybe they are right. Some say it’s the accident that singles the market has already bottomed out.

Regardless, the severity of the Bear Stearns sell off cannot be underestimated. Had it not been for JPMorgan Chase and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stepping in late Friday with a financial rescue package followed by an announcement that JP Morgan would acquire Bear Stearns, some say it would have shaken the foundation of global financial markets.

It also provides a hint at just how much of the economy is based on perception.
JPMorgan is paying about $2 a share for a company with a book value of $84 a share, despite trading for as little as $30 per share at the close on March 14. Bear Stearns shares fell $26.32, or 87.7 percent, to $3.68 today.

Last month, after a Reuters reporter asked Bernard Connolly, global strategist at Banque AIG in London, to hypothesize what the U.S. could do to stave off a “depression” as great as 1930s. Some people speculated that he was predicting another Great Depression because that’s how the story read. I didn’t see it that way.

However, I did start to wonder. How much influence does media and social media have in creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, eg. if you yell fire in a room, people tend to react as if there is a fire, even when there is not a fire.

So I asked the question online and off: To what degree is media/new media/communication influencing consumer confidence and possibly contributing to a recession?

Most answers point in same direction. While the importance of consumer confidence varies from modest to extreme, it seems mainstream media may have less, not more, influence on the public. Perhaps that’s why two opposite answers both ring true at first blush.

“The influence of the self-fulfilling prophecy is all-powerful, and is one of the most insidious dangers that we face as a media-driven society,” offered Richard Telofski, president of The Kahuna Content Company, Inc., who recently wrote about the importance of consumer trust during a recession.

“A recession is a fundamentally economic event, fueled by a number of factors each with a different weight,” offered Nevada State Senator Bob Beers. “Communications rapidity is one, but not a major one. Or, in other words, a recession happens regardless of the amount of attention it gets.”

In truth, most discrepancies between media perception and economic reality are tied to definitions. Newspapers tend to define a recession as a decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more consecutive quarters; whereas the National Bureau of Economic Research tends to define it as the time when business activity has peaked and begins to fall until it bottoms out.

The difference is enormous, which is why it always appears as if the media calls for a recession long before most economists, and most economists seem to call it after the fact. But does it even matter?

Yes and no. This time around, it seems obvious that the housing/mortgage market was a major catalyst for an economic slowdown, especially in cities where the new housing market plays a significant economic role. However, media coverage in some markets may have deepened the troubled.

For example, as a resident of one of the worst housing markets in the country, with prices falling about 15 percent over the last 13 months, it’s easy enough to see some correlation. The reporting may have contributed to the speed that investment homes were quickly put up for sale, adding even more inventory to already overly-saturated market with a high disposition for non-performing subprime mortgages and overbuilt new home market. It was clearly not the cause, but added fuel to the fire, much like the sell off of Bear Stearns stock.

Equally interesting from the answers I received was the suggestion that media has a predisposition for negative news whereas social media would be more inclined to report a truthful personal impact. Even if that were true, one wonders how much opinion can be trusted and by whom. Ask different people and you’ll always get different answers.

According to the results of a Harris Interactive poll, consumer confidence seemed resistant to media predictions despite the crisis, depending on age, region, and household income.

• People in the South are more optimistic (35%) while those in the East are least optimistic (24%).
• People with a household income of more than $75k are more optimistic (46%) than those earning than $35k (34%).
• People ages 18-43 (46-50%) are more optimistic than those 44+ (38%).

These numbers do not overwhelming point to optimism on any level, but it’s interesting how different demographics respond to the same question. In addition, it seems more likely people will be able to find what they are looking for: there are ample experts who advise on opposite ends of the spectrum.

For most companies, however, it makes little sense to launch preemptive scaling, wait it out, or hedge guesses against the growth. Those actions can create self-fulfilling prophecies when the fundamentally economic events occur, not unlike an accident.