Benton RSS Feed
TANGLED NET
[SOURCE: National Journal 7/8, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
A long piece on the Net Neutrality debate by one of the best reporters on the beat. Net neutrality is about the rules of the road for the information superhighway -- and whether, some day, traveling in the fast lane will require paying a toll. Because of the convergence of television and telephone service into digital transmissions, the outcome of the battle will affect all aspects of communications. Net-neutrality advocates -- Google, Microsoft, and the other tech companies -- say the telecom companies (the Bells) and the cable industry shouldn't be permitted to control the Internet through discriminatory pricing in which their business partners enjoy a huge competitive advantage by gaining access to the wires into homes and offices. The telecom and cable guys -- the neutrality critics -- counter that “net neutrality†is just a fancy way of saying that the government should regulate the Internet. They say, let the free market, not Washington, reign.
http://njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-GMDB1152648438194.html
Tangled Net
TV AD MARKET PRIMED FOR PAY-FOR-POD; MOVE WOULD MARK HISTORIC SHIFT
[SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Claire Atkinson]
This year's $9.05 billion upfront may well be the last negotiated on the basis of program ratings as the TV-ad business embarks on one of the most radical shifts in its 65-year history. Broadcasters are preparing to junk the age-old metric of charging on the basis of who watches the programs and begin charging advertisers based on who watches the commercials. Execs at three of the big networks believe next year's upfront will be negotiated with commercial ratings, and Mike Shaw, president-sales and marketing at ABC, which raked in the biggest upfront ad haul this year, thinks it could happen even sooner, in the scatter market, well ahead of next year's marketplace. "Commercial ratings are going to be the new big thing," he said. "It has huge implications for the TV industry, based on return on investment and return on equity."
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=110363
* Shaw: ABC Ready to Sell Now Using Commercial Ratings
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10028...
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=110363
NIELSEN PLANS TO TRACK VIEWERSHIP OF TV COMMERCIALS FOR FIRST TIME
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brian Steinberg brian.steinberg@wsj.com and Brooks Barnes]
Nielsen Media Research, the firm that calculates national television ratings, plans to answer one of advertising's most pressing questions: How many people actually watch TV commercials? In November, Nielsen will begin for the first time to provide formal ratings for commercial breaks, a move with far-reaching implications for the fast-changing media world. Both TV networks and advertisers expect the new Nielsen ratings will show that viewership declines noticeably when a program breaks for commercials. A particularly big drop could fuel advertisers' push for changes in how ads are incorporated into shows, reinforcing demands for fewer or shorter ad breaks and lower ad rates. It could also accelerate the flow of advertising dollars out of television to the Internet and new digital media. Any softening of ad prices would be a big blow for the nation's TV networks and their parent companies. Media stocks overall have been depressed in recent years as technology has whipsawed the industry. Many big advertisers have already cut back on traditional TV spots. General Motors Corp., for example, says its spending on 30-second prime-time commercials declined by 50% in the five years between 2000 and 2005.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115258347955103007.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
(requires subscription)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115258347955103007.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
POLLUTING THE BLOGOSHERE
[SOURCE: BusinessWeek, AUTHOR: Jon Fine]
[Commentary] Ted Murphy founded an interactive ad agency called MindComet and also runs a side business that pays bloggers to write nice things about corporate sponsors -- without unduly worrying about whether or not bloggers disclose these arrangements to readers. (A scan of relevant blog searches strongly suggests that, often, they don't.) He is launching PayPerPost.com, which will automate such hookups between advertisers and bloggers and thus codify a new frontier of product placement. Advertisers pay to post details about their "opportunity," specifying, among other things, how they want bloggers to write about, say, a new shoe, if they want photos to be included, and whether they'll pay only for positive mentions. Bloggers who abide by the rules get paid; heavily trafficked blogs may command premium rates. Those seeking to subvert PayPerPost from within can't: No pornographic or "illicit" content is accepted. Thanks in no small part to bloggers, this is an era of increased media transparency, and many shifty dealings between the business and editorial sides have been exposed. An undisclosed PayPerPost placement on a little-seen blog isn't the most egregious thing out there, but it's far from honest. Media may be more transparent, but the line between authentic editorial and paid placement is still often smeared, and defenders of disclosure can feel, like the proverbial buggy whip company, that they're terribly outmoded. Things being what they are, I should mention that no buggy whip association paid me to say that.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_28/b3992034.htm
Polluting The Blogosphere
SIX-FIGURE FINES FOR FOUR-LETTER WORDS WORRY BROADCASTERS
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Frank Ahrens]
Last month's tenfold increase in broadcast indecency fines has sent radio and television stations and media giants scurrying to protect themselves, as the cost of uttering a dirty word over the air has turned a minor annoyance into a major business expense. The new law is a boon for companies that make time-delay machines for broadcasters, which are designed to catch offensive language before it hits the airwaves, and a potentially powerful reason for performers, directors and producers to take their talent to cable and satellite outlets, where federal decency standards do not apply. Other repercussions from the escalating crackdown on broadcast indecency: On-air personalities at one radio giant are contractually obligated to pay indecency fines if they say anything that causes their stations to be penalized. Lawyers at another radio company are advising superstar deejays on what material to avoid on air. Public television, still puzzling over a March fine for a Martin Scorsese-produced documentary, is sending periodic legal advice to its member stations. One stand-up comedian took out an indecency-liability policy on himself. Another said he was forced to sign a waiver before he went on the air at a radio station, promising to pay any indecency fine that might result from his appearance. Broadcast companies are taking further measures protect themselves by training their talent and cutting them loose at the first sign of trouble. Radio giants such as Clear Channel Communications have adopted "zero-tolerance" policies for on-air personalities, meaning that they can be fired for offensive language even before an FCC fine is levied.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR200607...
(requires registration)
Six-Figure Fines For Four-Letter Words Worry Broadcasters
LOCAL TELEVISION ACT: STATUS OF SPENDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
[SOURCE: Government Accountability Office (GAO-06-858R), AUTHOR: McCoy Williams]
In December 2000, the Congress passed the Launching Our Communities’ Access to Local Television Act of 2000 (LOCAL TV Act). The act created the Local Television Loan Guarantee Program and established the LOCAL Television Loan Guarantee Board to finance projects to provide access to signals of local television stations to households in areas with limited or no access to such signals from a commercial, for-profit satellite service or other multichannel video provider. The program authorizes the board to approve loan guarantees up to 80 percent of loans, totaling no more than $1.25 billion in aggregate; however, since inception of the program, no loan guarantees have been approved and the program has not been utilized. Section 1006 of the act requires that the GAO perform an annual audit of the 1) administration of the provisions of the act and 2) financial position of each applicant who receives a loan guarantee under the act, including the nature, amount, and purpose of investments made by the applicant. In April 2005, the GAO issued the required annual report covering fiscal year 2004. Since there continue to be no loan guarantee recipients for GAO to audit, this report primarily addresses whether program administration during fiscal year 2005 satisfied the provisions of the act. Since fiscal year 2002, GAO has reported annually on the administration of the LOCAL TV Act as required by Section 1006 of the act. Since inception of the program, no loan guarantees have been approved and there are no current or anticipated budgetary resources available for future loan guarantees. On December 13, 2004, the board authorized closing out one of two existing contracts. The other contract expired on December 31, 2005. Fiscal year 2005 administrative costs totaled about $6,500. Given that the President’s Budgets for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 both pointed out that the unobligated budget authority for this program had been rescinded and the administration was not proposing additional funds for this program, GAO reiterates the previous matter for congressional consideration to rescind the balance of the appropriation for administrative expenses. In oral comments on a draft of this report, the board agreed with the GAO report.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-858R
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-858R
MARTIN'S MISSTEPS PUT FCC OFF GAME
[SOURCE: TVWeek, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has a large, unwieldy agency to lead. Going forward, with a major rewrite of media ownership rules looming, he should learn from past missteps and err on the side of deliberation.
http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=30152
(requires free registration)
http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=30152
HOUSE TO VOTE ON BILL TO CURB ONLINE GAMING
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Jim Puzzanghera]
After nearly a decade of trying, Congress appears ready to deal with Internet gambling, a phenomenon that has grown dramatically in recent years as millions of people from college students to retirees log on to play poker or wager on sporting events. The House is set to vote today on a measure -- part of the Republican leadership's election-year "values" agenda -- designed to choke off the flow of U.S. money to poker and other gambling sites, most of which are based overseas, because Internet gambling is illegal in the United States. The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to Internet gambling sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-gamble11jul11,1,...
(requires registration)
House to Vote on Bill to Curb Online Gaming
INTERNET POKER COULD NET US BILLIONS IN TAX: STUDY
[SOURCE: Reuters]
Regulating Internet poker could bring the U.S. government some $3.3 billion in taxes annually, according to a study to be released today, ahead of an expected debate over legislation to ban online gambling. Income taxes on winnings from Internet poker alone -- which is estimated to have attracted $60 billion in wagers worldwide in 2005 -- could amount to $2.5 billion each year, according to the study commissioned by the Poker Players Alliance, a group calling for the regulation of online gambling. "The majority of the revenue that's generated would be from reporting of poker winnings," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the group. The study also said that a 1 percent user fee on online poker transactions would generate another $800 million to $1 billion in revenue per year for the U.S. government. The U.S. Justice Department says a 1961 law that forbids interstate telephone betting also applies to the Internet, making it illegal for the industry to do business in the country.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID...
WHEN MEDIA AIMS FOR BALANCE, SOME VIEWS AND FACTS GET LOST
[SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Dante Chinni, Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism]
[Commentary] Balance is one of those issues that seems simple on the surface, but gets more complicated as you look at it more deeply. As a concept, it is often trumpeted by outlets that profess to be objective. The problem, of course, is that balance doesn't necessarily lead to getting the story right. In searching for an easy way to explain the news in a limited space, journalists too often reduce issues to their most rudimentary forms. This is true on debates ranging from gay marriage (a for-or-against argument with little talk of what rights gays should have) to when troops in Iraq should come home (stay or "cut and run" even though both sides are talking about when reductions should occur) and everything in between. The extreme points of view on those issues may be actual positions, but so are the many nuanced views that live between them and get less coverage. In other words, despite its prominent place in many media debates, "balance," as it is usually understood, is often not particularly useful in journalism. All opinions and points of view aren't equal when one digs into the facts and "both sides" leaves a lot of sides out.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0711/p09s01-codc.html
Media Balance