Modern Media Barn: Thoughts

As the Saints head finally to the Superbowl, a fever has whipped through the South in support. Saints colors, shirts and cheers are commonly worn in justified pride. Key in the décor is the phrase “Who dat?” – short for a traditional cheer “Who dat say dem going to beat dem Saint?” All the support of the team is fantastic to the National Football League (NFL). However, the league now wants its cut of Who dat merchandise. Letters have been sent by the NFL to several people marketing Who dat merchandise – primarily t-shirts – to stop doing it without license from the NFL.
Fans and venders are appalled at the idea that the long standing phrase has been taken over by the seemingly distant NFL. “How can they claim ownership of something that has been around for so many years without them?”
Thus is the making for the misunderstanding. In this post, I will attempt to clarify reasons on both sides – so hold your horses.
First, local venders and the media misunderstand the law. Trademark is NOT about originality. It is about association – particularly the association built by a company to an image. For example, Apple computer did not invent the actual apple. It simply used the existing concept to promote its business. The Saints did not invent “who dat?” However, everyone agrees it refers to the Saints. Thus, the phrase, when associated with football belongs to the Saints – and thus the NFL.
Second, it is not some distant NFL that is enforcing the law. It is the Saints protected by their legal arm enforcing the law. They have just kept the enforcement at arms’ length by using the NFL.
Third is the real nut of trademark, workproduct. Did the Saints ACTUALLY promote the use of “who dat” in association with the team? Did they buy advertisements using it? Did they sell merchandise with it? And most important, where is this officially licensed merchandise? If the NFL cannot or will not supply the products in sufficient quantity and timeliness, they should not be allowed to cry when others do. As one vender was quoted in the Lafayette Advertiser, “I do not mind paying royalties, I just don’t know who owns [it]…”

Usually, I read just for work and sometimes just for fun. However, my idea of fun is sometimes not what others would think.

Recently, I have been wading slowly through the book Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger.  Undoubtedly, the book would have been headed for the academic backroom (and never hit my electronic bookshelf) had it not been for the fact that Ratzinger had not become Pope Benedict XVI.

To be honest, I am only about only about one-third of the way through the book.  It is not what most people would call “fun” reading so far. Since it is still early in the book for me, it is possible that the book will become a joyful romp through the life of Jesus but somehow I doubt it.

If I had thought about it, I would have expected what I found.  Ratzinger was a well known theologian and the book reflects his strong academic tradition.

Now most of you know that I am a quantitative researcher.  I have been lock in that tradition despite my respect for all means of research. However, I have never been able to understand the correct way to describe the methodology of a quantitative analysis.

Now, I have an excellent example.  Ratzinger lays out the parameters of his study including the relationship between the religious faith and the historical figure.  Further, he deals with the difficulty of nexus between the placing the original language of the Bible context and the belief in an everlasting meaning.  Naturally, he includes his major influences and how the book can be used.

If someone needs a similar discussion of qualitative analysis, I can suggest the introduction of the book.  Overall, I am pleasantly surprised by the academic rigor, thoughtful discussion, and realistic insight within the book.  It is not easy but worth it.

Rachel Re made a very good point in the attached link. 

Re on FOX

In this, she points out that it is unfair complain that FOX expresses opinions or comments about the news. She, rightfully, points out that the media has been doing this for years. She points out that the reason FOX should not be considered a legitimate news outlet is that they are in the business of creating news events — especially those events that consistently attack one side — in this case Obama and the Democrats. This is one of the best points I have seen. More than any “news” outlet in the past, FOX campaigns counter to the sitting president. In addition, any thinking person has got to recognize the bias in the FOX news presentation.

Now, while most know that I disagree with FOX and their biased view of the world. I wish to discuss the validity of most of what they do.

In these days when facts are highly perishable comodities, the 24 hour news service must do more. Offering opinion, even overwhelming bias is a service that can serve a valuable function. In many parts of the world, biased news operations live confortably — even profitably — next to one another. If we accept it is the funtion of the media to draw an audience, FOX has done its job. If we had more biased services like FOX, news people would have more than enough work and people would likely increase there consumption of news. We would have to look at multiple sources just to know what is really going on. In this age of cheap and easy news, it is harder to NOT hear the news than ever before and I firmly believe the American market could effectively deal with the multiplicity of services and opinions.

The ONE thing I must chide FOX. “Fair and Balanced,” “No Spin Zone,” and others wear on this service like a child trying on their grandparents clothing. If FOX would simply stop what I believe to be false advertisng, I would see them as a legitamate part of the political and news landscape. However, until that time, they sit in my eyes as liers and I do not take my news from known liers.

When I heard about the “Internet Freedom Act” my immediate reaction was that it did not have much to do with freedom. I was right. The act seeks to restrict my freedom to receive the internet content I choose. It will stifle innovation and contribute to the further consolidation of the media. In short, it is one of the least freedom inducing act to be introduced in a very long time. 

Now I admit, just the term “net neutrality” sound boring enough to make me want to switch channels. However, that is the point. Net neutrality simply requires that the companies who provide internet capacity do so fairly to all content providers. The concept is rooted in the long standing concept of common carriers. Simply stated, the common carrier must supply service without discrimination on a first come first serve basis. Examples include telephones, ferry boats, and electric services. Now, I admit it gets more complicated when rules you have to define who asks for what and when but the idea is fairness to all. Net neutrality makes the same demand on internet traffic.

 The goal is a network that allows the interconnectiveness which created the vast resource of the internet. Yes, out of the freedom has come chaos but out of the chaos has comes the paradigm shifting services of YouTube, iTunes, and Amazon.

 What is the alternative? Here we need to understand the portal — the most profitable legitimate online business and the clear future profit centers. Google, Yahoo, AOL, and others don’t produce content as much as they direct users to it. These portals are the functional equivalent to the broadcast television networks NBC, ABC, and CBS.

 Then there are the lowly internet service providers (ISP). These companies provide access to the internet but (other than AOL) have not become anything more than a marginal portal. This is where the Internet Freedom Act enters. Without net neutrality, the ISP will have the power to force you to use them as your portal but even more powerful.

 The company you choose as you ISP will have the power to block or slow access to unfavored services and redirect you to others. While the ISP could use their power to block dangerous sites, anyone who thinks financial deals would not affect choices is seriously misguided.

 An admittedly ridiculous telephone corollary: You call your friend but the phone company redirects your call to a telemarketer “chosen for you.” I guess I did not want to call Walt after all.

 In the end, the only freedom in the Internet Freedom Act is the freedom for additional media consolidation.

I remember, back in undergrad days, attending a lecture by Brian Wilson Key and his warning that hundreds of advertisers were practicing ‘’subliminal seduction.” Proponents of subliminal advertising believed that messages could be encoded below the threshold of recognition and still have an effect.
It might have started with cutting a single horrible frame (1/24 second) into a horror film to increase effect. The alternative was to cut an image of Coke and popcorn to increase sales. There were many others — most claiming some level of success. Of course, most doing the trials had a vested interest in its success. In the early 1990’s, an East Lansing, MI department store would randomly make non-subliminal but unexplained announcements which suggested store security was closing in on a shoplifter. A store employee admitted to me it was all theater.
Key took a different route. He tried to find subtle images worked into commercial advertising. His argument, “Why would advertisers do all this work if it did not pay?” In these pre-Photoshop days, if intentional, it would have been a lot of work.
The result placed Key squarely between a prophet and a dirty old man. He had to spend a LOT of time looking at images and seeing some pretty disturbing things: the orgy in a Denny’s placemat, skulls in ice cubes, and beautiful but subtly disfigured models. He maintained that the famous poster of Farrah Fawcett was made even more popular because her hair spelled out the word, “sex.” Funny, as a boy of a certain age at the time, I would have been sold by the swimsuit or the much less subtle nipple. For those reading this today, you must extrapolate to 1970’s standards.
As a student of broadcasting and psychology at the time, I tried to embrace the idea. However, I never could really get behind it. At that time, it was too difficult for the payoff. Today, it is difficult to see how the subtle images could compete with currently overt images. At best, I accepted that a subliminal message MIGHT cause a person to adopt a behavior they were inclined to do anyway (e.g., buy popcorn or not steal).
I go through this whole history lesson to set up my next entry — the new ‘’subliminal.” I would apologize for leaving you hanging but I have read this blog.

Is it time to demand honesty from our public officials and further demand that the media start fact checking accusations.  It is no secret that I have no great love for the Bush administration.  So I will start with the admittedly controversial stand that throughout the Bush administration and continuing to the anti-Obama effort, clarity and honesty have taken a back seat to getting people emotionally involved. At the same time, traditional news media have lost ground to outlet that offer a strong stream of “commentary” with their news product.  In effect, we seem to be in the waning days of honesty from political organizations and unbiased reporting.

The question from a business perspective is, “why?” or even “Is this good business?”  For years, the major media outlets have lived on the concept that they offered clear, unbiased report of the days activites.  There have always been accusations but as long as everyone was a little unhappy with the media, the reputation survived. Now, it has almost become cliche to talk about the bias of mainstream media — even by the mainstream media.  What has changed?

Well, clearly competition and instant communication makes for a new business environment.  Once your know a fact, the value of that fact drops significantly.  Therefore, how do you get continued viewership, and continued revenue in an environment where your audience is getting most of its basic information elsewhere?  How do you motivate the audience to continue to watch/read/consume your product?

It seems clear that the media — particularly the highly competitive cable, and online media — have gotten the first part down.  Opinion and commentary have become the value added to keep an audience that can turn away?  It is infact good business to stir public opinion to keep the public interested.

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago between an editor, a professor, and a working reporter.  After the attempt to debunk “death panels.”  The media outlets were accused of bias.  In effect, the people would rather learn more about the lie than learn the truth.

When are we going to hold everyone accountable for the truth?  When can the media return to the days when the truth was their value-added?

I was shocked to receive a letter from Dr. Barry Litman yesterday.
Barry did know me and I recently sent him a card.
However, I was shocked he was nice enough to send me a letter.

The letter was dated December 19th but because of a change in office and
the forced holiday vacation, I did not receive it.

I later learned Barry died on December 26th.

For those that do not know.
Barry had an extraordinary mind for economics — particularly media economics.
While I was never lucky or wise enough to work with him,
he was someone I truly respected.
In a real way, he was a model for how a professor should act – but not dress.
He was driven, inventive and dedicated to his best students.

The last line of his letter was his true legacy in my mind.

“I am very proud of all our former MMPHD students and the careers they have followed. I hope I have helped them along while they were here.”

God bless him on his way.