CoCo and the Online Campaign

New England hasn’t seen an upset like Scott Brown’s win since Superbowl 42 – and much of the credit deservedly goes to his campaign’s ability to harness support from Republicans across the country through online organizing and remote phone banks. Compare that to the other online campaign making news lately: the “I’m with CoCo” movement supporting deposed Tonight Show host Conan O’Brien.

While O’Brien cleverly positioned himself to the People of Earth, the online effort to build support has not been effective – even though it has translated to angry mobs descending on NBC affiliates calling on O’Brien to keep his current gig.  The shortcoming?  The online movement – which appears largely viewer-generated – isn’t focusing on activities which will affect NBC’s bottom line.

Scott Brown’s online efforts were all geared to mobilize voters and volunteers who could drive more voters to the polls.  Outside of fraud and cheating, winning more voters is the easiest way to win an election.

NBC counts votes in two ways: ratings and, more importantly, advertising dollars.  A more effective CoCo Movement might target Tonight Show advertisers, warning them of boycotts.  A well-publicized action against a current Jay Leno sponsor might be a good shot across the bow.

Johnny Carson’s old chair is not “The People’s Seat.”  Rallies and large Facebook groups may snag short-term media attention, but NBC feels like they can win more “votes” with Jay Leno behind the Tonight Show desk and until the CoCo movement translates into viewers and dollars, nothing will dissuade them.

But they’re so progressive…

As Massachusetts becomes the hub of the American political universe, Politico notes that, win or lose, Martha Coakley’s struggles raise some questions:

Before the votes are even counted, her fellow Democrats have compiled a list of reasons why Martha Coakley has struggled: anemic retail politics, a blind-eye to shifting momentum and an inexplicable appearance on a sports talk radio show that led her to misidentify a Red Sox star.

There is truth to them all. But they also gloss over an obstacle that has received far less attention – a glass ceiling that remains almost impenetrable even in the Blue state of Massachusetts.

Sexism?  In that haven of progressive politics?  In the home of John F. Kennedy, and one of the homes of Robert F. Kennedy?  In a state with so many institutions of higher learning?

Massachusetts is my adopted home state, and I loved it for the six years I lived there.   Surely, these allegations are wholly inconsistent with a rich history of tolerance in the era of Democratic dominance in Massachusetts.

Why, just consider Boston’s reputation for appreciating its athletic representatives.

Conan the communications expert

Conan O’Brien may not be the host of the Tonight Show much longer, but he could have a second career in media relations.   Aside from being funny and smart, his statement this week has set the terms of NBC’s internal debate: either he remains the host of the 11:30 Tonight Show franchise, or he leaves NBC.  It cites not only the 55-year-old history of the program and it’s Mount Rushmore of hosts, but he mentions the effect on the programs after him.  He makes the case that keeping his show at 11:30 is best not only for him, but fair to everyone on the NBC schedule, making him a sympathetic figure.

The statement frames the late night drama that’s unfolding as a choice for NBC between Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien – which is a savvy move for O’Brien.  The landscape is different now than when NBC chose Leno over David Letterman to replace Johnny Carson out in 1991.  Letterman and Leno both had appeared to have decades of television ahead of them – which has proven true. But while O’Brien is in his late 40’s, Leno is 60.  The question for NBC isn’t just who hosts the Tonight Show in March 2010, but who hosts it in 2015?  (The Green Bay Packers can empathize – they had to go through the same decision with Brett Favre.)

O’Brien’s statement essentially painted this picture for NBC: Choosing Leno now means that in five years, the network could be looking for someone to man the Tonight Show desk in a crowded late-night field that includes Letterman and O’Brien.

Incidentally, it also spiked his ratings.

UPDATE: In what could be considered a self-serving blog post, a blogger for CBS News points out that O’Brien’s statement also sets the stage for a legal battle over breach of contract.

Google: booking it out of China?

The big technology news today is that Google is threatening to leave China, leading to a wave of speculation on what that may mean for both the gatekeeper of internet information and the Chinese economy.

On the surface, Google has said this is about human rights and cyber attacks – which are likely, at least, factors in their decision. But this isn’t the first time Google’s China operation has been in the news in the last few weeks.  Recall that Google’s efforts to make all books available online has run afoul of copyright holders in China (as it has here in the States) and even spawned a lawsuit.  Negotiations on what Google would pay the authors of the works it scanned and made available to search users were subsequently put on hold.

While Google’s exit strategy is a good way to draw attention to human rights, in the end it may be a way to beat the Library Cops.

(Disclosure: I have worked in a minor role on projects involving Google’s book settlement in the past, although I do not now.)

And now, the lovely Massachus-ettes!

From the cradle of the American Revolution comes the news that Scott Brown raised $1.3 million in the last 24 hours (in response to a money bomb request) while his Democratic opponent misspelled “Massachusetts” in her TV ads.

Giddy with the good news, Republicans may be setting themselves up for a big disappointment in next week’s special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s seat – and if expectations are not managed,that could affect the media chatter on cable news over the next several months.

Though the idea of a red flag rising up in a blue state is appealing, Republicans must remember that this is an “against-the-spread” race – so a margin of defeat within 5-7 percentage points is as good as a win.  And followers of national political trends shouldn’t assume a state’s voters will see things the same way.

After all – the Kennedys weren’t a legacy at Harvard because they could spell.

When the Superbowl isn’t the Superbowl

A few years back, the late Mark McCormack – a key figure in the sports marketing industry and, by some accounts, the basis for the character Jerry Maguire – wrote an excellent business book, Never Wrestle With a Pig.  It outlines various rules for succeeding in a professional career, one of which is to prepare for what McCormack calls “your Superbowl” – a key event which puts your talents on display.  For a campaign, that’s Election Day, for a conservative organization looking to make a splash, it might be CPAC.  In the big brand advertising world, the “Superbowl” was, well, the Superbowl for decades.

In what is a telling sign of the evolving media landscape, big brands like Pepsi and GM are sitting out the Superbowl this year.  Even as ad prices tick downward slightly, Pepsi chose to invest $20 million in a social media campaign instead.

In many ways, corporate advertising is becoming more like a political campaign.  Successful political operations use broad-based communication – like TV and radio ads – to raise name recognition, but as election day nears they focus on contact with individual voters with targeted messages (those solidly in a candidate’s camp are reminded to get to the polls on election day, while those identified as being on the fence are coaxed onto one side or the other).

Pepsi is the second-best selling soft drink in America.  That’s a great spot to be in – it means selling an awful lot of soda.  But it also means that there are plenty of people who, no matter what, aren’t going to buy your product.  Pepsi could get in front of millions upon millions of pairs of eyeballs with a Super Bowl ad, but would those eyeballs be attached to tongues which desire Pepsi?  Or would their entertaining commercials be laughed at and talked about by people who, at halftime, would still reach for a Coke?

Pepsi first claimed to be the choice of a new generation in commercials which approximately one generation ago, but more recent branding has labeled Pepsi as “forever young.” Their advertising strategy has evolved, too (though they surely hope the comparison of Will.i.am to Bob Dylan isn’t congruent to the comparison of their new strategy to their old one).

Sine we’re all wondering, there’s still no word yet on how all this affects Bud Bowl…

NPR’s (unnecessary) mea culpa

NPR has sort of apologized in a post by their ombudsman for the controversy drummed up by this cartoon:

The cartoon drew the venom of conservative commenters for both its use of the loaded term “tea-bagger” and the fact that it was summarily dismisssive of the tea party movement.  And though the cartoon has an undeniable ideological bent, the real problem here is not with NPR.  There are two issues at play.

First, conservatives in the Tea Party movement have not found a way to own the term “teabagging.”  There are ways to do so, but they require an attitude adjustment (or, some might say, an attitude problem) that many establishment conservative movement organizations are unlikely to accept.

Second – and more importantly – is an important aspect of all conservative cries of media bias.  Consider this reply from an NPR staffer:

“Would it be nice if there were other Web-original cartoons from other perspectives to run with Fiore?” said [NPR News Executive Editor Dick] Meyer. “Sure. We think there are and we’ve been looking for a while in fact. And I think criticism that we don’t have a conservative cartoon is certainly legitimate and reasonable.”

The problem isn’t really that Mark Fiore made a cartoon that skewers the right, it’s that the right isn’t in a position to skewer back.

Taxing creatively to subsidize creativity

A government report in France has proposed taxing internet advertising to subsidize creativity:

France could start taxing Internet advertising revenues from online giants such as Google, using the funds to support creative industries that have been hit by the digital revolution, a newspaper reported on Thursday… The levy, which would also apply to other operators such as MSN and Yahoo, would put an end to “enrichment without any limit or compensation,” newspaper Liberation quoted Guillaume Cerutti, one of the authors of the report, as saying.

The reasoning, apparently, is that internet giants provide a bridge between users and free content – reaping  rewards through advertising dollars while content creators are left out in the cold.  While those content creators should have the right to control access to their products, this scheme doesn’t come close to doing that; it does, however, limit internet platforms that more creative artists might use to gain exposure.

Google has it’s problems, but no one can debate that their business model is creative.  Google monetizes free stuff – from search to email and calendar applications to information tracking – by collecting information at every step of the way and using it to fuel a highly targeted and personalized advertising platform.

The ill-conceived subsidy outlined in the report, on the other hand, taxes that money to funnel money to the music industry.  In other words, the report lays out a system that rewards content generators who aren’t creative enough to figure out a way to monetize their product.