For $3, I would have posted this earlier

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

The entire readership of this blog emailed me about the story that the Associated Press may try to charge a fee for their displaying their news content early.  (Thanks, Mom.)  At first, this seems dumb – trying to delay access to online content sound like trying to put toothpaste back in a tube – once it’s out, it gets everywhere.  But this is less about re-inventing content distribution than it is about recognizing what AP CEO Tom Curley calls an “enviable moment.”

A year ago, relevance meant the top result on a Google search – and doing whatever Google said you had to do to make that happen.  In general, that’s still true.  But since Microsoft is serious about making their Bing search engine a serious competitor to Google, that means that both Google and Bing must be more mindful of that their search results deliver content which is relevant.  If Bing’s news aggregator is posting AP stories before Google News, that’s one more reason for users to move over.

For the AP, it’s not a long-term business strategy – but it is a chance to take advantage of a brewing search war.

Baseball returns to Richmond

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The San Francisco Giants’ AA ballclub is moving to Richmond.  Since they used to be in Norwich, Conn., this move actually brings them closer to the big club.  And CNBC is working with the team to adopt a new name.

The team is leaving Norwich even though their home, Thomas J. Dodd Memorial Stadium, has had $1 million in renovation work done over the past five years.  Which means they will love The Diamond in Richmond.

Cheetohs are delicious

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The news that the Federal Trade Commission has instituted new rules for blogging almost made me spit out the delicious Diet Dr. Pepper I was enjoying – and I was enjoying it, since it tastes so much like Dr. Pepper it’s hard to believe it’s a diet drink.  Bloggers now must report any in-kind gifts or samples they receive for reviews.  This is a good business practice for any blogger looking to build credibility – though mandating it makes for an inconsistent public policy.

A few years ago, when I worked in PR, I was tasked with promoting a documentary about leftist ideology (which was so bad it doesn’t deserve a link).  As part of the launch, we held a media screening, leading to an internal discussion about serving alcohol.  (Incidentally, the argument was not on the morality, but the expense.)    The argument that won the day is that members of the media won’t come out to a reception without booze because other, similar events would serve them.  Reporters expect freebies.

Relating that back to the FTC’s new rules, does that mean a blogger sitting at that screening, munching on a dish of Orville Redenbacher’s delicious, movie-theater butter-flavored popcorn and sipping on a tall, smooth lager from Yuengling – America’s Oldest Brewery – would have to report these niceties, while the reporter next to him would not?

The FTC rules seem to make a distinction, and are clearly meant to snuff out pay-to-post schemes the way the fast-acting ingredients in Maalox snuff out heartburn and indigestion.  Like anything, though, the results will not be found in the wording of well-meaning regulations but in the enforcement. If the FTC has set up a structure where blogs will be treated like billboards while print newspapers are handled like non-profits, it’s a serious infringement on freedom of the press.

Old Dominion, new commercials

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The Republican Governor’s Association is going on the offensive in Virginia with this ad against Creigh Deeds – and using the video which could be the key moment of the campaign:

The commercial is marginally effective, but doesn’t do justice to the original video in which Deeds flounders in technicalities for three minutes.  Interestingly enough, though, is that Deeds has not answered the charges that he will raise taxes or that his transportation plan is still under construction.  Bob McDonnell acknowledged questions about his views on women in the workplace and answered them with commercials featuring the women closest to him.

Speaking of which, when not trying to drop Mark Warner’s name, Deeds continued his attempts to re-frame McDonnell as a reactionary with this commercial (which is likely not seeing as much airtime in more rural pars of Virginia but has been hitting the DC market):

This is more effective than his past attempts to re-invent McDonnell because it actually uses McDonnell’s spoken (and recent) words rather than a 20-year old thesis.  As Matt Lewis observed a couple weeks ago, the lack of video to underscore the writing meant the thesis wouldn’t become the “macaca moment” of the 2006 campaign.

Unfortunately for Deeds, all this ad really does is remind people that McDonnell is pro-life.  Trying to turn the race into a referendum on abortion is probably not a winning strategy – and not the strategy he had probably intended, either.

When will The Today Show win its Pulitzer?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

Every few weeks, it’s worth double checking: Dialing up the NBC News website to double check if they still list The Today Show as a news program.  They do, and each morning Today proudly boasts that it is a production of NBC News.  Maybe one of those infomercial disclaimers about paid programming would be more appropriate.

Today’s top story this morning covered the affairs and the extortion scheme David Letterman admitted to last night.  That’s surely not an aftershock of the bitter divorce between NBC and Letterman back in 1993.  More likely, it’s a thinly veiled attempt to keep the Tonight Show from hemorrhaging viewers to the other show inspired by Johnny Carson.

The next biggest story?  Chicago’s failed bid to land the 2016 Summer Olympic Games.  That’s a lot of free advertising for whoever televises that event – which has been NBC for about 21 years and figures to be NBC again in another seven.

Wizards find one less excuse for losing

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The Washington Wizards are streamlining their 250-page playbook – and adding more information at the same time.

At the start of training camp this week, each player received an iPod with a pre-loaded playbook.  In addition to standard diagrams of each play, the iPods were loaded with videos – to demonstrate the plays – and schedule information.  As the season moves along, coaches will use the iPods to distribute scouting reports and other updates.

This use of technology made me think about the applications to political efforts – and reminded me a little bit of the portable DVD players used by Rep.Patrick McHenry when he ran for Congress in 2004. Way back then, door-to-door volunteers delivered video messages from McHenry to voters.  In 2010, those volunteers might be armed with a personal video message, voter history, precinct walking sheets, polling locations,and megabytes of other information which is constantly being updated – literally in the palms of their hands.

Just as all the technology in the world won’t win a campaign without a good message, the Wizards can’t rely on gadgets to crack the 20-win barrier.  But given last year’s results, it can’t hurt.

Why’d you make a commercial like that?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

For those of us in the Washington, D.C. media market who spend our evenings enjoying local news followed by the power hour of Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy, this Creigh Deeds commercial is very familiar:

It is, obviously, an attempt to throw Bob McDonnell’s 20-year-old words back at him – and since Deeds’s other strategy is a crippling inability to give straight answers, the strategy is sound.  This commercial is almost laughably bad, though – and not just for the forced lines, stereotypical feminists, awkward pauses, or the final line – “Why did you vote that way?” – being blurted like a Valley Girl’s question about when the mall opens.

It’s clearly geared toward working women in Northern Virginia, but if all professional women in Northern Virginia were as angry as the women in this commercial appear, there would probably be a lot more men walking around maimed.  The actors are confrontational – which wouldn’t be a problem if the commercial was being watched by McDonnell.

Unless an independent voter already shares their rage, chances are this commercial will not convince them.  A more persuasive – and effective – method of conveying righteous indignation would have been to show these women with families, or to feature younger professionals in their early 20’s.  That would have helped independent audiences to connect with the women.   Their demeanor was way off, as well: media trainers will always suggest you smile whenever you are on camera, because it will help viewers identify with you more.  It’s difficult to identify with someone who is shouting at you.

The Deeds campaign could also have used humor intentionally: “Bob McDonnell’s thesis – A Caveman Could Do It.”  Thay’ve put together a pretty funny commercial as it is – but I don’t think that was the intended effect.

There’s no app for that

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

Apple has rejected a proposed iPhone application because it is, as ReadWriteWeb reports, “politically charged.”  The app in question helps advocates for nationalized, single-payer health insurance organize and make an impact – or it would, if anyone could download it.

There are plenty of people who would disagree with the app’s goal.  But, as with any speech, the answer is to respond in kind – perhaps to create another app that helps people organize and speak out for a patient-driven health care system.

Apple has every right to reject any app it wants.  That may not be the best business decision, though.  Part of the iPhone’s appeal is it’s ability to be the Swiss army knife of mobile devices through the various applications.  By rejecting political applications, Apple is cutting out a large segment of potential users.  (And incidentally, the Obama campaign released a similar app about a year ago to help mobilize voters and volunteers.)

If this move was an attempt to avoid political controversy, Apple couldn’t have gotten it more wrong.

Other than politicians, does ANYONE vote?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

As the Post’s Chris Cillizza notes in his coverage of the California Republican primary, Meg Whitman is a non-voter.  Join the club.

It is somewhat amazing that a political outsider, such as Whitman, can’t easily and fearlessly answer for a lack of showing up at the polls.  Instead, stuck behind the concept that it isn’t ok to skip an election, she called the voting records errors and told reporters to “go find” the proof of her claim.

But not voting is not a crime – in fact, it’s a fairly regular occurrence for many and an honest response could have spoken to those who feel disillusioned with government.  “I didn’t vote because I didn’t feel like there was a reason to,” she could have said.  “Like many Californians, I felt left behind by politics as usual.  Finally I decided, enough is enough – I can’t sit by and let the career politicians hijack the government that’s supposed to represent me.”

And she could go on – the first draft writes itself.

This strategy does have a major flaw: owning up to being a non-voter may help a candidate appeal to a large demographic, but they are precious little help in elections… after all, they don’t vote.