News: The Brand Illusion
News: The Brand Illusion
Submitted by Gary Goldhammer on Sun, 05/21/2006 - 5:15pm.The Big Four are no more.
According a recent survey published in Ad Age magazine, only one in four 12-to 34-year-olds can name the four major traditional broadcast networks: ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox (sorry CW, you’re not in the club yet.) What networks can they name? MTV, Cartoon Network and Comedy Central. It’s enough to make you wonder how we still have a Republic.
The most popular activity for this group is going on the Internet, with TV watching coming in fourth. In other words, they watch YouTube more than the “boob tube.”
The survey is interesting but not terribly surprising. If you tell a teenager about a great story he should read in the newspaper, he’ll ask you for the URL. The Internet, TiVo and IPods have expanded media choice and control, yet they have also homogenized differences among television networks, newspapers and radio. On the Internet, all media looks the same.
But there is another reason for the devolution of media brands. Yes, the Internet and time-shifting devices have played a part in the loss of brand luster and identity. In terms of news, however, the issue is not so much one of content overload or “brand killing” technologies like RSS.
The problem with news is that most network news programs and newspapers are going after that same audience of 12-to-34-year-olds. And in trying to stand out, the news media end up being the same – running the same stories, with the same angles and same opinions, vainly trying to appeal to and retain the same audience by not offending or challenging them.
Journalists like to say, “If it bleeds, it leads.” But in today’s environment of news as profit machine, there is now a just as important corollary: “If it pays, it plays.”
Brands “Interrupted”
How is an 18-year-old supposed to tell the difference between the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times when he reads an article via his MyYahoo page? Other than the name or logo, there is no real difference.
The Los Angeles Times is now a newspaper by committee, having replaced voice with an illusion of balance. The Times is a brand interrupted, no longer sure of its own place so instead it is trying to appeal to everyone while offending no one – or a least no one with the disposable income coveted by advertisers.
The same is true for the “Big Four” broadcast networks – and let’s throw in CNN for good measure.
What makes a CBS news story different from an NBC story? Where is ABC without the tenacity of a Ted Koppel? CNN wasn’t making enough money being CNN, so it decided to become Fox and add the kind of vitriol necessary to meet the demands of modern broadcast news – namely, just shout louder than the other guy. It’s sad to think that the same network that gave us Bernard Shaw and John Holliman now gives us Nancy Grace and Lou Dobbs.
No wonder people refer to any news organization as “the media” – that’s what happens when you go from “brand” to “bland.” I’m not sure if this trend is a credit to capitalism or a discredit to the American news consumer, but either way, it is a harbinger of the future of news.
(Cross-posted from Below the Fold.)
Technorati Tags: 
- Login to post comments
- 1026 reads
Once again,
Gary gets it right.
'On the Internet, all media look the same.' I believe I said something like that on the old J-Log. Something to the effect of how readers and users see the battle between independent blogs and established media as a family fight.
i'm not sure i agree, soonerboomer
That is - I don't think most people even know there are alternatives yet. Or, at least not a lot of them. The differences between the two operations, i think, will be obvious once they know about the independent alternatives.
that's why the star press won't do a story on me. i just wish the editor would admit to that. i guess if i was him, i wouldn't want to admit to it either. heh. ;)
also, thanks to Gary for more good thoughts on the future of news...
OK, I counted to 10 ...
... before I replied on this. And I will admit to holding out a slight chance that the media of the people -- run on an economy and scale different from traditional mass media -- will distinguish themselves as ongoing conversations and collective, self-renewing knowledge bases of current news and events available as clear and preferable alternatives to their mainstream counterparts.
But that still leaves open the question of whether they will be seen as such. I'll make no prediction, but I will point out some tremendous obstacles for the vast majority of media consumers.
The first is the most obvious, and that is the idea that all media are generally owned by vast corporate entities -- and what outlets aren't soon will be. This probably is an important point upon which public or citizen journalism can and must distinguish itself, and the ability at least to make that part of its message is not in question. What is in question is whether the case will be accepted as proof, which relates to another obstacle.
Ironically, it relates the instance you bring up -- that the Star-Press won't do a story on you, regardless of whether it would reinforce its standing as an honest journalism enterprise.
News consumers are not completely unsophisticated; they are aware that news organizations can be and are likely to cover, not cover or modify coverage in order to protect a more or less vested interest. Scale and marketing do not matter in this regard.
They are aware that anything a public journalist can do, the mass media can duplicate, and they understand that the marketing appetite of mainstream media is such that they can and will try any approach to get their attention.
That's the game: To get attention. That's the entire agenda of the media (forget liberal politics; that's incidental) -- to get people to look and keep them looking.
And people know that, even if they still tend to get confused about politics.
Sadly, there isn't going to be any sharp line drawn so that corporation-owned, mainstream mass media can stand on one side and honest, independent working public journalists can stand on the other and no one could be misidentifed.
So the best chance is the individual, and that brings us to another obstacle. We must admit the honest, independent, hard-working public journalist will face a host of expectations that touch on every human aspect from the professional to the moral.
I know I don't have to tell kpaul about them; he lives with them every day. But for the benefit of others: complete honesty, moral rectitude, rigid objectivity, an agenda-free approach to coverage, and, frankly, the ability to be everywhere at once and know all things, and the commitment to share all that knowledge at no cost.
But even if you meet each expectation squarely, that doesn't mean at least a few people out there won't think you're only a cat's paw for some media conglomerate. It's not your fault. People have seen too much to dismiss the possibility.
sorry, soonerB
that i haven't gotten back with you yet. have some web design gigs i've been working on to raise some funds for MFP. also, on the MFP front, i've come to a lot of realizations and am working on a big, big story that might scoop a lot of papers in the area. more on all this later tonight, tho, perhaps. thanks for commenting. i appreciate it.