Cable, Disconnected
During a recent conversation with a deeply respected colleague, I was taken aback to hear him say that many television providers have “contempt” for consumers. Certainly that would explain the less-than-satisfactory channel selection, the sometimes-iffy customer service, and the prices that inch up like pounds over the holidays. Then yesterday, I read Ryan Lawler’s well researched article on the shedding of cable customers in Q2 of this year. Clearly, cord cutters are no longer just those who are raging against the Industry Machine. The 47 comments (and counting) by visitors who add detail to Lawler’s conclusion illustrate how quickly the cable operators’ value proposition is breaking down.
Many of the comments railed against the available line-up. The various “packages” offered by almost all of players only make sense when you look at their cash flow. Operators use popular channels to bootstrap “minority programming”: shows that appeal to a small but enthusiastic audience. In order for me to receive BBC America, I also have to buy a bunch of channels aimed at little kids, outdoorsy types, and what some networks think of as women (although who these women are remains a mystery to me). With Netflix, Hulu, iTunes and others continuing to expand their libraries, it’s become easier for viewers to build a highly personalized a la carte menu. So I expect to see more subscribers at least downgrade their accounts. Theaters have widened their audience by offering flex tickets and mini subscriptions. Why can’t cable find a cost effective way of doing the same?
Service complaints were featured in many of the comments to Lawler’s piece. I know the speed and quality of my provider’s signal never came up when I was picking out my new equipment. I suppose I’m ready for whenever they get around to sending 1080p at 120Hz , if I live that long. At least my TiVO is easy to use and does what she’s told. My poor parents, on the other hand, have a box rented from their operator. They are on their 5th in less than a year, having experienced problems ranging from the remote not working to the picture freezing. And they get dinged with a $75 charge for every house call. They pay for several premium packages, so by Lawler’s account they should fall at least somewhat into desirable customer territory. Additionally, they are too uncomfortable with the internet to go the wireless route, which in my opinion would make them even more within cable’s target market. It’s hard to tell from the outside whether this is a training or procedural problem, but it’s obviously a gap in good, smart customer service.
As for the cost creep, I agree with those who used words like “sneaky” in their descriptions. The name of my service keeps changing. Each time it’s rechristened, a few more dollars are added to my bill. My friends who bundled their phone and internet with their cable are getting hurt even worse. A few are paying double their initial fees. On this subject, I’m going to bang the same drum I’ve been playing since I launched this blog. If more of this money went back into developing high-quality content and picture or any clear indication that we were benefiting, I think there’d be less complaining. But what most folks see is a huge increase in cheap-to-produce reality shows, leading many to conclude there’s nothing on television anyway.
My reaction to all of this is mostly sadness. We are living in tough times when television should be enjoyable, affordable, and shared. Yet, when I look at the careers page of the most popular providers, I don’t see any positions advertised that indicate cable is making a purposeful attempt to (dare I say) connect with its customers. I am prepared to say that at the very least Comcast, Time Warner and their brothers and sisters don’t understand us very well. Whether this ignorance stems from “contempt” or just living in a cave too long, in practical terms, makes no difference.
The Killing: Who Didn’t Do It
I don’t want to write a piece about The Killing, if for no other reason than I hate calling further attention to this drama. But even though the last episode aired over a month ago, I’m bothered by the troublesome way the network and the producer handled themselves. Given recent articles in the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly, I am not alone. For background, I recommend reading Tim Goodman or Tim Goodman or listening to Tim Goodman. (Have I ever mentioned that I really love Tim Goodman?) To summarize, this freshman series was a murder mystery without a conclusion (although one will be provided sometime in Season 2.) Certainly there are loyal fans who will tune in. Generally, though, AMC is in the uncomfortable position of having to stand firmly behind a show that’s experiencing backlash from all corners.
1) Your marketing should be based on your true product, not on glamourous spin. The mistakes made with The Killing began the moment AMC decided to build their press releases almost exclusively on the positive response in Europe to Forbrydelsen, the Danish program on which The Killing is based. Each season of Forbrydelsen ends with the killer being revealed, and the implication was the same structure would be used to craft the American version. The network’s executive Charlie Collier recently told Entertainment Weekly that it was never their intention to misguide the public. That may be true since Senior VP Joel Stillerman divulged at today’s TCA panel that the network didn’t know that showrunner Veena Sud wasn’t going to reveal her killer. Certainly, I know zero people who weren’t expecting a solution. Now no one behind the scenes is sharing information about Season 2, not even to reveal which actors have been signed to continue their characters. So audience expectations are still being mismanaged.
2) Breaking with tradition doesn’t necessarily make you an artistic genius. Sud claims to have been “fascinated” by her “novel” process. But well executed slow-burn writing has to captivate the audience, not just enthrall the writer. Instead, we were sent down blind alleys and forced to snort a boatload of red herrings. Contrary to Sud’s assertions, not all disappointed viewers were seeking the basic procedural which wraps up neatly in 60 minutes. I loved Murder One, which had the misfortune of being knocked off in the ratings by the real-life O.J. Simpson trial. It was leisurely paced, but never lost excitement. I count The Wire among the best television I have ever seen. While many questions posed in year one weren’t answered until year five, each season felt complete and satisfying. In this case, the plot stalled and many viewers have simply stopped caring where it’s headed.
Why? The artistic tools Sud chose were developed to find the killer/solve the mystery. Not doing so is akin to using a chainsaw to smooth out the edges of an antique hutch. The ending felt less like a cliffhanger and more like an “incomplete” in English Comp. A mystery writer friend of mine, A. E. Tyree, shared, “The actors did a great job, but in service of what? I don’t mind people moving outside the rigid structure of a specific genre, but if you didn’t want to solve the murder, make your show a character study about an obsessive female detective, not a murder mystery/police drama. There is such a thing as stepping too far outside a genre.”
3) Never talk down to your audience in public. Sud has added fuel to the post-finale fire by talking down to displeased viewers. In hindsight, AMC should have provided her with some media training. Without our eyeballs, bills don’t get paid. Publicly at least, they must stand by her; It’s critical to their lineup that The Killing be a success. With Mad Men delayed and The Walking Dead’s budget crunch costing them a strong showrunner, the network is hurting. Maybe when the profits are counted, the powers behind this exercise in frustration will make the necessary changes. Surprise us, sure! Shock us, even better!!! Leave us empty handed, we’ll reach for the remote. DVD sales are likely to be weak given the season’s lack of resolution(s) and some Emmy voters have gone on record saying they withdrew support for the program (although thankfully not the actors). I don’t believe in development by mandate, but I do believe in wise creative leadership. This talented cast and poor dead Rosie Larsen deserve a product worthy of the initial buzz.
Netflix and The Evolution of Our “Must See” TV
Netflix used to be the boyfriend I wanted to marry: incredibly varied, courteously attentive, and fair to his very core. Then the email arrived announcing their 60% price hike. Now they’re just the guy I’m going to cheat on the first chance I get.
Anyone who has read my blog for a while knows that I believe that all providers of television content should be contributing to the production pipeline. In my piece on the high cost of drama, I talked about a show that was canceled in part because much of the audience was watching on Hulu. I knew that Netflix couldn’t go on charging so little and keep its selection broad and current. I just thought they’d do a better job of laying some public groundwork and establishing a more obvious collaborative relationship with the production community before handing the audience a bill. I also anticipated that they’d offer some reward to those of us who signed on for both DVD and streaming services now, even though one relies on the unreliable post office and the other (at least at my house) conks out at intervals and doesn’t have that much in it at the best of times.
Some critics have remarked that Netflix should have expanded their streaming library and made the service more reliable before raising the cost of a combined subscription. Others have suggested that an incremental raise would have captured less negative attention. Based on media reports, they cannot improve that side of their business until enough of us fork over the additional money. And time is of the essence. Several of their studio contracts had already expired or been drastically reduced before last week’s big announcement.
In fact, for the first time in three years, I recently called customer service to complain about the content. I had been indulging in an encore viewing of Showtime’s The Tudors when suddenly every other “disc” was pulled. Episodes 1-3 and 7-9 of Season One were still available, but I’d have to get the DVDs for 4-6 and 10. The streaming then picked up again with episode 4 of the second season. Henry was onto a new wife and a large number of supporting characters had been separated from their heads. Among other things (like extreme annoyance) this meant I couldn’t recommend one of my favorite series to any friends who had streaming-only plans. It seemed a downright goofy move to make with a program that was no longer on the air. Obviously, the person on the other end of the phone didn’t have any decision-making power, but she did share that they were having multiple problems with Showtime. Criticism was particularly vehement about the abrupt disappearance of Dexter. More money would likely restore this premium content to the lineup.
I agree with those who say that Netflix is unlikely to lose many customers over the new fees. Folks will growl and grumble to be sure; then they’ll remember that a movie in the theater costs $11 and put things in perspective. But I also think the company greatly miscalculated how much the rate increase would erode the loyalty people have to their brand. No one can feel it’s fair to pay so much more next month for exactly what they received last month. I expect many viewers to more actively explore other options among Netflix’s growing field of rivals. We can no longer depend on them for a certain level of behavior, so they’d better not depend on us. How would we have taken the news had they also granted us exclusive access to Something Special once they moved to an exclusively streaming model: their ultimate goal? Something, anything for helping them regain their competitive edge. I’d have felt more like a tiny investor in their future and less like an insignificant serf forced to support my lordship’s castle expansion. For an enterprise famous for skating to where the puck is going to be, Netflix has taken what strikes me as a huge public relations misstep.
Market Research: When a Stranger Calls
Market Research is an indispensable tool for finding out what goods and services people actually buy and use. Many of my clients depend on well-conducted market research to help make their business decisions. I, therefore, participate enthusiastically when I have something to say about a company. Just ask the good folks at Lucerne (makers of yummy dairy products for Safeway) or any of my small local theaters how thoroughly I answer their questions. I do not, however, trust telephone surveys and after a recent experience I like them even less.
Somehow my unlisted phone number was randomly selected by Scarborough Research, a nationwide media research company that gathers information on radio, newspaper and TV preferences. As a research firm, they do not have to abide by the terms of the FTC’s Do Not Call list and were entitled to ask me to participate in their survey. But they continued to call me — usually at dinner or bedtime — even after I told them 1) I do not participate in telephone surveys and they should remove me from their list. 2) I work in media and do not feel comfortable answering surveys about my industry and they should remove me from their list. 3) They were disturbing me by calling during dinner/at bedtime and they should remove me from their list. 4) They should attempt to do something biologically impossible while simultaneously removing me from their list!!!
The final straw was having an interviewer tell me that the calls could stop if I completed their survey. My answers might trigger my removal from the list, she claimed. It seemed impossible to me that this technique could be a valuable tool for securing statistically reliable information. I understood that I was potentially a typical sample of the households in my neighborhood, but it should have been clear from my reaction that there was little chance I’d give my honest opinion, much less represent others.
In desperation, I contacted the Council of American Survey Research Organizations, CASRO, for help. Their policy is clear. Respondents to survey research should be:
a. willing participants in survey research;
b. appropriately informed about the survey’s intentions and how their personal information and survey responses will be used and protected;
c. sufficiently satisfied with their survey experience;
d. willing to participate again in survey research.
Since I was obviously none of the above, CASRO followed through promptly and thoroughly. My name and number were removed from Scarborough’s database. A week later, I received a follow-up from the Better Business Bureau that included a letter to me from Scarborough Research. The new piece of information it contained was that the interviewers who had called were not permitted to touch the database. When I had asked them to remove me from the list, they literally couldn’t. As my favorite market researcher Jean Durall put it, “I’m sure it makes sense that interviewers (who come and go) should not have access to the sample lists. But, it does not make sense that there is no procedure for reporting issues that come up in the interview. Stupid, stupid, stupid.”
My thoughts exactly. It is my sincere hope that the leadership at Scarborough Research will review their procedures so that they tap only willing representative households and get a clear vision of viewing, reading and listening habits. Otherwise, they are in danger of collecting garbage data created by busy people who just want to be let off the phone. If my neighbors claim they all want to drop USA Network (a personal fav), I’ll have no one to blame but myself. Frankly, I’m just relieved that dinnertime is mine again. There’s some Lucerne sharp cheddar calling my name.
Locale as Character
With more shows failing to make it beyond their first season, the television industry is looking for a new hook. Customary cops and doctors are out; stewardesses and Playboy bunnies are in. Conventional genres are fading; parallel lives and time traveling are coming into their own. With everyone still seeking out the next Lost-level phenomenon and searching for a little Mad Men chic, perhaps it is finally time for producers to weigh the value of locale.
Feeling just a little too cheery the other day, I decided to indulge in a Wallander marathon. This is the British police drama based on a hugely popular Swedish series of books. While the downbeat stories weren’t exactly my speed, the look and feel of the show were among the best I’ve ever experienced. The key: their decision to treat Sweden as a central character and shoot on location in Ystad.
I don’t know all the sacrifices they made in order to keep the cast and crew away from home for four months and still stay within their 12 million dollar budget. Whatever the bargaining and the trade-offs, the outcome was worth it. The light and (more impressively) the dark are exquisite. You can’t fake Scandinavian midsummer. The natural surroundings are both brilliant and threatening. There’s a field of rape that practically steals the opening sequence and a strip of coastline that has some explaining to do. Being in an unfamiliar place also gave the design team tremendous freedom. The dated decor and unusual spaces supported the heavy weight of the mysteries being explored.
There are a few examples of American series that have embraced locale with inspired results. The events of Friday Night Lights are defined by the authentic small town backdrop made possible by shooting on location in Austin and Pflugerville, Texas. The eye popping color of Miami gives Burn Notice extra heat. Contrast these with The Killing, in which the producer appeared to be trying to recreate the neighborhood communities, rivers, forests, and fields of Seattle by having it rain every other block in Vancouver. The lack of honesty in the setting made the entire production feel even more like a con than the disappointing story structure.
Bringing in locale as a character has one more creative advantage. You can shoot in any direction and everything still looks fitting. How often have you seen a program with incongruent architecture or landscape that takes you out of the mood? You may be able to fake it for a block or two, but you can only go 360° when you’re surrounded with the real deal.
While I hope many of the companies behind the upcoming season will weigh the importance of where they shoot, I am particularly interested in attracting the attention of J. J. Abrams. His new project picked up by FOX for midseason is centered on Alcatraz Prison. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Alcatraz is here in San Francisco. I could walk there if it wasn’t for the water. And nothing looks like it or like the surrounding area. Not Los Angeles. Not Michigan. And definitely NOT Vancouver. And there can be no arguing that the locale is a character. Heck, it’s the title character for goodness sake. So please, come up, talk to the production community here and make this your home base. Take a lesson from the achievements of Wallandar and your own iconic Lost, which would not have worked as well away from an island setting. Follow your own advice given just last week on The Daily Show and listen to your material. I promise it won’t be enough to mix a cable car bell into your soundtrack.
When Content Discovery Discovers Us
Content discovery in television has been much in the news now that everyone from Samsung to Google has gotten into the act. I have a TiVo and simply love the Wish List feature. I can put in my favorite actors, directors and others and it turns up all of the programs involving them that are airing in the next two weeks. (Thanks for that Timothy Olyphant movie, by the way.) With a little more care, I can build a custom keyword search to find, for example, all the cooking shows featuring chocolate cake.
Less rewarding, but not unlikeable, is the TiVo Suggestion feature. In theory, it uses my ratings of one to three “thumbs up” (a green button on my remote) as well as data analysis of viewing patterns to find additional programming that I might enjoy. It hasn’t pointed me towards any new shows in fourteen months. At first I thought perhaps it, too, considered this a lackluster season. But looking back over the two years I’ve owned the TiVo, only three of these Suggestions were eventually added to my Season Passes. Many of the rest left me scratching my head and wishing that TiVo and I could have an actual conversation: “‘Rules of Engagement’? Really? What did I say to make you think that?”
With such obvious room for improvement, I’ve been following the development of Smart TVs and set-top boxes with extreme interest. Many are now combining the type of preferences and ratings I’ve described with recommendations from other people. Only two of my friends have exceptional TV taste and they already ping me when necessary, but I can see the appeal of this component. And of course, most of the search tools now gather entertainment not just from traditional networks and cable stations, but from online and other VOD sources, broadening our options. With the field of possibilities ever widening, I look forward to the day when the algorithms and reviews can regularly help me uncover more programs I really enjoy. Couch time is precious.
A number of manufacturers are working on individual logins so that each member of the household can have his/her viewing behavior tracked separately. They emphasize this is so that they can continue to customize our “favorites”. However, the software will also be gathering data to feed to advertisers hoping to point us towards more potentially relevant purchases. A recent Videonet Report contains mock ups of many of the ways in which marketing might be knitted into the UI experience including banners, interactive content and codes that can be sent by SMS to receive promotional items. Watch the “Harry Potter” marathon this weekend. Oh, and consider this broom and mop in one. (Click here to read the report:http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/11eb0b66#/11eb0b66/24)
As excited as I am about the progress made, the increased flow of targeted commercials makes me uneasy. Last post, I discussed my unhappiness with jarring instances of product placement. Additionally, I already go a bit bonkers when a program I’m watching is “interrupted” by an animated promo for an upcoming event on the same channel. It’s like being on a date with someone who urges you to search Match.Com for a better boyfriend before you order your main course. So far, my TiVo only displays an innocuous easy-to-ignore bar when I pause playback, but surely this is the equivalent of a caveman’s tool compared with what’s in our future. The theory is that if the offering is suitably creative and enticing, viewers will go deeper. It’s only common sense to realize that this will continually up the game for the next advertiser. Soon I suspect we’ll be swimming in multimedia banner ads containing 3-D dancing beer cans with Betty White and puppies set to Vampire Weekend music. And the line between merchandising and entertainment will have gotten just a little thinner.
Product Placement: A (Fun) Necessary Evil
Last Sunday when I needed a game to bring to a group gathering, I found myself purchasing a deck of UNO cards at a local store. That this classic had been played on a recent episode of “Chuck” was not a coincidence. Product placements work when they are handled skillfully and “Chuck” has continually raised the bar ever since Subway moved into the mall near the Buy More. Traditionally, product placement is subtle; often the product isn’t even mentioned by name. But rather than any attempt to stealthily incorporate a brand, “Chuck” confronts the promotions head-on, usually with humorous results. (The round of UNO was used by the title character in a contest against a pirate/kidnapper in order to win a critical component of a lethal weapon.)
With the impact of traditional commercials on the decline, product placements have become a necessary evil. But no one ever said a necessary evil can’t be fun. I am appreciative when an advertiser not only helps to keep a show I love on the air, but manages to partner with them to display their wares in a way that is appropriate to the setting. For me, this not only means matching the product to the program content and the likely viewing audience, but also conforming the copy to the writing style of the production.
Here I must take a moment to speak directly to my colleagues in the The Writers Guild of America, the craft union that represents film and television writers. In 2005 they raised a collective voice against product placement claiming it amounted to little more than writing ad copy dressed up as storyline. They felt it cheapened their work and subverted government regulations. I do not support subliminal ads nor do I like it as a viewer when a character clearly veers away from his/her established nature in order to sell me something. When I heard Fi on “Burn Notice” say how delighted she was to own a Hyundai, I felt your pain. Her blurting out such an obvious plug broke the mood and rocked the world the writers had dedicated themselves to creating. I guess they were going for the budget sports car concept, but doesn’t she seem more like a classic Corvette to you? And I remember nearly busting a gut laughing when those starving folks on some “Survivor” or other gleefully received a chest full of snack chips and soda. No one can convince me they wouldn’t have preferred a heartier, more sustaining treat like an Omaha steak.
However, when I get the impression that the creative teams at the agency and the production company held a collaborative conversation, I do my best to support the results. As I keep mentioning, television is an expensive business and the money has got to come from somewhere. If a product placement concept works, I’m all ears. A recent episode of “Community” that took place in a faux spacecraft designed to promote KFC caused me to seriously debate the merits of regular versus extra crispy. The chicken chain allowed themselves to be taken over by the mood and viewpoint of the quirky study group and in my opinion upped the company’s credibility and their image. Actually, the Colonel has been a busy boy, also securing placement on “The Good Wife” and “Running Wilde” before playing a central role in last week’s “Breaking In”. This last one backfired splendidly. The team was responsible for keeping the secret recipe a secret, but despite their failure the leader continued to cling to a bucket until the next commercial break. The episode rang hallow, but it certainly wasn’t entirely the chicken’s fault.
I am aware that there are those in the media who completely disagree with me. In fact, several of the programs I have mentioned as favorites have been called out as among the worst offenders in other publications. I welcome the debate and I imagine the advertisers do, too. Ultimately, they’re just trying to figure out how to sell a little soap without ticking us off too much.
Remote Possibilities 