Medialawcounsel's Blog

My step-dad once told me that the problem with newspapers is that they’re not entertaining and that the problem with tv is that it’s all entertainment. He died before social media and Nancy Grace appeared on the news landscape, yet I can imagine both would give him fits because one entertains in the name of media and the other is media in the form of  personal entertainment. For Ms. Grace to devote every show to a discussion of Casey Anthony’s murder trial is no less remarkable than, say, my local Fox affiliate devoting part of every newscast to reading viewers’ Facebook and twitter posts. However, if you think that both Nancy Grace and Facebook are creations of a media-hungry world, you would only be partially correct. In part,  though, they were both created by the media itself. I do not say this lightly or with disparagement. I work in the media and recognize that while the medium may be the message, the platform is almost always the messenger.

Nevertheless, what we create–like Dr. Frankenstein’s Monster–we must feed. And Casey Anthony is one of those creations. Almost every major television news organization covered every movement of her trial every single day. So did a good number of entertainment outlets, opting to forego at least some of the Hollywood gossip in favor of true crime story that might beat the usual celebrity voyuerism in the ratings. Further, the tweets and Facebook posts about Casey Anthony were not just plentiful–they were abundant. We in the media took a defendant and made her a celebrity. Nancy Grace does 5 shows on Ms. Anthony and it is pursuit of justice. Nancy Grace does 60 shows and she makes someone she does not like famous.

And Casey Anthony’s fame is different from the infamy of O. J. Simpson and Charles Manson. O. J. Simpson was already hugely famous when he went to trial. Among Manson’s victims was an actress in fame’s backyard. Casey Anthony was a person with no connection to anything famous whatsoever. But that is over now. Like Joran Van Der Sloot before her, it is possible that as many people worldwide will know the name Casey Anthony as do the name Nancy Grace. I am not picking on Ms. Grace. Like most, she is trained to do what her producers tell her. I am not picking on producers. Some pay my bills and I need them to go for the ratings. I am merely illustrating that television–even programming in the name of news and journalism–cannot make the distinction when granting fame. Call some of it infamy if you like but Casey Anthony has a story to tell and a lifetime in which to tell it. It hurts my heart that poor Caylee Anthony will have no time for hers.

Also like Nancy Grace, Casey Anthony will have book deals and tv appearances.  Much, much different than Ms. Grace is the probability that there will be many more books and tv shows about Ms. Anthony. You can’t blame the courts for this and you can’t blame–at least not completely–tv for it. We have to shoulder the burden ourselves. We treated Casey Anthony like a celebrity. We talked about a person we did not know. We tweeted about her. We watched her every night. We judged her. We flipped the switch. She sat up. She will not be taking her meals in the prision library. She will be feeding at Amazon.com and the old laboratory of our living rooms via network, cable and tweet.

I have been getting more questions than ever about reality tv deals. Often I am asked if I think the genre has oversaturated its medium. I don’t think so. But not for the reasons you may think. Yes, viewers trend toward an insatiable appetite for voyeurism, schadenfreude, and nose-pressed-against-the glass observation, self-validation and envy. Yet with television such as always been the case. It is easy to forget that the first “reality” shows were game shows–they dominated the networks in the 1950′s. And, in some ways, they still do. “American Idol” is a game show with the contest being performance. So is “Celebrity Apprentice.” Admittedly, the judging can be subjective–with the same old claims of rigging. Remember the Van Dorens and “Quiz Show?” Yet audience is only one factor in show development.

The other is cost. Cost is the main reason I think reality tv is here for the long spell. Simply put, it just costs a lot less to make a typical reality production than it does a “dramatic” one.  Actors and production can burn a lot of money. Reality tv relies heavily on relatively unkown talent and and “outside” producers. Often filmed in states that allow for producer rebates as incentives to lure production from NY or LA (and the collectively bargained union requirements), “docudramas” have a much more manageable per-episode budget.

What you get for the cost is a lot better too: younger audiences. Schooled in living quasi-public lives of Facebook and twitter,  the young have an affinity for this kind of “reality.” It is a major quality of the demographic. Ask any marketing expert and you will find out that older consumers are less likely to switch or try new brands–of anything– including tv content and what’s advertised as part of the programming feed.

When I hear someone say so-and-so is “so dramatic,” I put on an unofficial casting agent badge. Drama these days just seems so “real.” And, as long as we are willing to pay for it effectively, it will be.

Rick Sanchez’s departure from CNN has as much to do with thoughtful social media as it does with thoughtless slurs. Mr. Sanchez’s many twitter and Facebook faithful were created while he was on the station payroll. Thus, the question arises as to whom “owns” those followers. I leave the arguments on both sides to the theorists–and there are some good ones either way. Regardless, the solution is contractual going forward. Any “employment” agreement for a media figure should now spell out clearly what happens in case of division. My own opinion is that platform cost and personality goodwill are separate issues. One of the main costs of doing business in the talent industry is a sort of assumption of market loss for investment in talent when talent is fired. If you don’t want to lose the followers, don’t fire the talent. If the punishment warrants such loss, proceed. Media is personality driven. And personality is a brand, more licensable than acquired. That’s a common-sense business model that we who develop media should assume.

I can’t escape the impression that social media best illustrates the difference between direct and indirect monetization in the media business. Direct money creates a pay-to-play experience. An indirect proposition utilizes free media in an effort to drive consumers to pay elsewhere–restaurants, professional services, the box office, music downloads and the like. Why care about the difference? For me, because the media business has long operated on a “you get what you pay for” equation so far as advertising in concerned. And brand development has always been a major goal of advertising. Maybe this is where personal, service and product branding separate. Free media seems pretty strong for the personal–in a way sort of a bulletin board system for “it’s always good to get your name out there.” Services are a little bit tougher to evaluate. I mean, peddling to an existing need is a walk through–but it is convincing consumers of that need that’s key. Ever see drug commercials on tv? They do a pretty good job of convincing you to need some that stuff. Hjgh dollar all the way around. Tell the truth: when you sign on to FB or twit you already know you need the shoes with the red soles, don’t you? And, the third mention, product, is how that works best as the example shows. This is where I miss John Wayne the most. As far as I know, he never created a line of boots. But I would have loved to have seen the brigades of “like” badges for them in 79 languages.