Entries Tagged as 'tv'

your super bowl advertisements all in one nice tidy package

Super Bowl Ads Preview

A tip of the hat to my voice over friend Bill Pryce who noted Advertising Age’s summary of the 2010 Super Bowl ads for folks like me who were actually in the studio during most of the game (and not complaining about the bidness either).

pretty darn funny

2010-super-bowl-logo

In case you might have missed it during the Super Bowl….

P.S. Here’s a little story about how the promo came about from Late Show EP Rob Burnett.

why not think like a broadcaster?

NBC_logo_allrightsreserved

I watched with interest the Charlie Rose interview with NBC/Universal President Jeff Zucker who has been heavily invested in the programming debacle of the network’s entertainment division. Of most recent note was the late night changes forced by the failure of The Jay Leno Show in prime time.

So many opinions and rehashes of what was taking place at NBC have been published or put on air and I’m just a voice over guy and a broadcaster at heart…there’s not much I felt I could add to the mix.

Then, I watched the Zucker interview and I saw the nexus of this decades old problem in his answers. Thirty minutes of back and forth with Zucker’s use of the word “obviously” so numerous as to make it a drinking game – but I felt I saw the crux of NBC’s problem so clearly right away.

Going back to 1993, 2004 and through today, the decision makers at NBC, up until only recently owned by General Electric, were thinking like business people. They made their NBC decisions primarily based on profit and loss as if their network was the equivalent of a household appliance or a light bulb.

What Jeff Zucker (as well as his predecessors) and the brass at NBC were and are NOT doing was thinking like a broadcaster first. Broadcasters too care very much about profit and loss but they consider the audience first – what will appeal to the people buying our products?

How does that work? Let’s look at the Leno/O’Brien issue.

In 2004, a person who thinks like a “broadcaster” does not approach their longtime leader in the 11:30 p.m. time slot (by a pretty sizable margin) and say to him “Jay, we don’t think you can keep this rating momentum up much longer even though you are still #1, so we’re going to fire you from this job in five years time and put another host in.”

No, a broadcaster lets the audience decide on who stays and who goes and if the broadcaster wants to hedge their bets, they sign their current host to a 2-3 year contract, a shorter leash.

Carson always did one year deals in at least the last ten years of his NBC agreement.

Ah but what about the other host who is gaining in popularity, how do you deal with that? After all, you grew that host from the ground up in some very shaky times early on and now he owns his time slot at 12:30 a.m. and is ready to bolt to maybe ABC, maybe at 11:30. You negotiate with the 12:30 host a right of first refusal for the 11:30 spot, should it come open, add money, other incentives and hopes he takes it. If not, you let him go.

Yes, the 12:30 host could become a big star and formidable competitor on another network in the way CBS was able to establish its own late night franchise in 1993. But those negotiations were also not handled by broadcasters…and what you are reading about in the papers today is, in my opinion, at least in part a direct result of the Carson / Letterman / Leno debacle of the 90’s.

Today NBC sons (Zucker / O’Brien) are paying for the sins of their fathers (Bob Wright / Warren Littlefield / Jay Leno with Helen Kushnick) because the succession that everyone who was a true broadcaster knew should take place at NBC then (Letterman taking over for Carson when Carson announced his retirement, did not. The GE executives didn’t like having to deal with Letterman who was not a pushover.

David Letterman and Conan O’Brien think like broadcasters (as did Johnny Carson before them) and have for the most part been revenue builders (Conan’s Tonight Show was always going to need time as did Jay’s broadcast when it started). Carson, Letterman and O’Brien all knew what the Tonight Show meant to viewers and the broadcasting industry.

Bob Wright, Warren Littlefield, Jeff Zucker and certainly Jay Leno did not and do not think like broadcasters. Two are strictly corporate in their thinking and one is solely a joke teller, a comedian. Jay did very well in the ratings, did what he was told by the corporation and that got him fired twice…a broadcaster would had more self-respect…sooner. They all saw the Tonight Show as a show that makes money and entertains.

The difference between the two schools of thinking makes all the difference in this dispute.

Bob Wright and Jeff Zucker are businessmen in the mold of General Electric even in spite of Zucker’s ascension through the broadcast world –listen to his quotes in the Rose interview. Does Zucker ever refer to these programs as broadcasts – are his programming ideas based on what the audience wants or rather what makes a good economic business decision? His “risks”, that he often refers to in the interview, seem much more shareholder driven rather than audience driven.

1. Audience 2. Bottom Line – not the other way around.

My belief is if Zucker (or his predecessors at GE) truly considered the audiences’ wants first (in the way broadcasters think), Zucker would still be able to fulfill his duties to shareholders (television IS a business yet it is beholden to the viewer first and foremost, not the stockholder). But it was Zucker, Bob Wright, Warren Littlefield and General Electric’s inability to put the audience first that ultimately has led to GE getting out of broadcasting. General Electric (and their by its leadership at NBC was never able to divert its eyes off of its stock value momentarily and put its customer (the viewer!) first.

None of this makes any of the NBC players mentioned here (past or present) bad people. They are all talented and smart. But they are not smart like broadcasters and for that one reason, they are or have been ill-suited for their positions.

This chapter has pretty much been written…and what I have proposed here is what the participants past, present and future can learn from it.

But it’s never too late to adopt a new (or in this case old-school) way of thinking. After all, NBC is the National Broadcasting Company.

dave roberts retires from broadcasting

<em>Dave Roberts (Dave Thomas) on WKBW-TV's Rocketship 7</em>

Dave Roberts (Dave Thomas) on WKBW-TV's Rocketship 7

Who’s Dave Roberts and why does his retirement coming up on December 11, 2009 have anything to do with this blog?

Well it has nothing to do with this blog really other than I have been a fan of Dave’s for many years and that’s why I am writing about it here.

A native of Buffalo, NY, Dave has worked in broadcasting for 56 year and for the last 31 years he has worked at WPVI-TV/Philadelphia (ABC 6). He worked there with another Buffalo turned Philadelphia broadcaster, the late Gary Papa.

But during some of those 56 years, he worked in Buffalo, NY at WKBW-TV during its heyday. Specifically as I was growing up he hosted a morning TV show called Rocketship 7 and a morning game show called Dialing for Dollars with the semi-retired Nolan Johannes.

The reason this is so memorable is because it was the first time in my memory I recall a TV personality leaving a market. I was in 8th grade and kinda thinking there might be something for me in this radio and TV thing. But I never considered that people moved around.

Dave’s was a pretty good move — to the number 4 market in the country at a well respected station. In addition to his broadcast legacy (and folks, there are fewer and fewer people who can legitimately claim that title) Dave is also the father of the Buffalo-born actor David Boreanaz.

So congrats Dave on a stellar career. Here is a quick summary of Dave’s broadcasting career.

“we’re all starving, so be quiet…”

no_money

So my voice over compatriot Rich Brennan in New York observantly posted on the Yahoo Voice Over Message Board an ad he saw recently on Joel Denver’s truly great radio webzine (recently and beautifully redesigned) All Access.com (the following ad is no reflection on Joel, or his fine site at all):

Need 2 male voices-Ages 30-50
Production company looking for male talent ages 30-50 to do voiceovers for small and medium market radio and t.v. Must have access to a professional studio Mon-Fri and be available at least one hour per day. We pay $7 for each dry unedited v/o regardless of length. (One word, one line, :15, :30 or :60)Please send :60 unpolished raw demo to voice4radio@comcast.net.

No professionally mixed demos. They seem to be rather misleading.

Deadline to submit demos is October 8, 2009.

Rich added this resonating comment:

SEVEN DOLLARS????

I agree…that fee is absolutely insulting; a reflection of how poorly some people view what voice talents do professionally. So I decided to respond to the ad in my own way. This is my complete,and I thought, fairly restrained response:

—– Original Message —–
From: “Peter K. O’Connell”
To: voice4radio@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:50:30 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: VO needed

$7.00 per voice over?

I hope your employer offers you more professional compensation than
you are proposing to the voice over community in your ad.

peter k. o’connell :: audio’connell voice over talent
+01 716 572 1800 :: www.audioconnell.com

Hurling insults back when you’ve been insulted didn’t work in the school yard and it doesn’t work now so (as those who know me will agree) my response was tame even by my own standards. I thought just by offering a little perspective that this might let this person know that the fee was really bad.

And I did get a response, albeit unsigned, (which I’m assuming is because of this producer’s shame for lowballing this job):

> From: voice4radio@comcast.net
> Date: October 1, 2009 10:27:26 EDT
> To: “Peter K. O’Connell” > Subject: Re: VO needed
>
> Hahahahaha…listen sweetheart…we’re producing these ads for $15 for small market stations who can’t afford $150 spots..nor do they have the staff on hand to do their own production..so the next time you wanna be a smart ass, think before you speak..$7 is definitely enough for our talent. And since I posted this ad yesterday at 5pm..I’ve received hundreds of demos from guys who are fine with the ‘compensation’..These are people who manage their own production companies, who work in large markets and have incredible voices..(they’re just wanting a little spending money on the side)..like the rest of us. And these days, in radio…we’re all starving, so be quiet..

Which was followed up by his/her second response (still anonymous of course):

> From: voice4radio@comcast.net
> Date: October 1, 2009 10:34:40 EDT
>
> To: “Peter K. O’Connell” > Subject: Re: VO needed
>
> PS…Yeah, I checked out your website..You’re ‘one of those’….(I won’t comment..I’ll just leave it at that)..lol..

Because I’m really not sure what this person meant, I’ll have to assume that “one of those” means “professional voice over talent” or “someone who actually makes money in voice over”. It’s true, I am “one of those”…oh the shame I bear!

Are there people in the voice over industry or radio who are so desperate to put food on the table that they’ll gladly take a $7.00 voice over job (which, minus the 5 cents for printing the invoice and getting an envelope and an additional 44 cents for postage actually only equals $6.51)?

Possibly as no one is immune despite their best efforts, but I doubt any true starving is going on within this circumstance. Even if it were, most media professionals I know would be smart enough to know that they could easily avoid starvation by grabbing one of the many minimum wage jobs featured in the paper each week. Is it an easy living? Heck no but it’s a more realistic financial opportunity than snatch and grab voice jobs.

I think any responses this anonymous “producer” received were more likely responses from people WANTING to be professional voice talents or PRETENDING to be professional voice talents. Since it would seem quality is not a requirement for these producers or obviously the client, then those folks might indeed grab the glory of that $7 spotlight. But they are so sadly devaluing their professional worth (even as a newbie) for such a gig.

It’s a hard, long road ahead for these folks if they think they’ll create a career, let alone a professional reputation from $7 jobs. It’s their decision but I do feel very badly for them and they might not fully understand why.

I know, however, how much I don’t know. Mine is not the only opinion on this producer’s position (or that of the voice talent willing to take a lowball gig.

So tell me your thoughts…it’s OK to disagree with me; just provide your prospective. Or if you agree with me, your perspective is also welcome.

Is my logic flawed? Am I being an elitist?

Discuss.

another emmy for hillary

<em>Hillary Huber Wilson - 2009 Primetime Emmy Awards Announcer</em>

Hillary Huber Wilson - 2009 Primetime Emmy Awards Announcer

Not an actual award for Hillary Huber Wilson but rather another year serving as primary announcer for the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences 61st Annual Prime Time Emmy Awards.

You can check out some of her photos from the event here.

By all accounts, the show was a critical and ratings success. I only caught part of the show but Hillary sounded great. Well done!