Dear America Part 1: Media Networks Please don’t be so angry. You’re angry for the wrong reasons. As a firestorm of rhetoric ravishes our airwaves, I’m struck by the overwhelming anger in all of it. Everyone has a different opinion, but they all seem equally furious. While anger may be a natural reaction in our present environment, it isn’t helpful, insightful, or progressive. Understanding why we’re experiencing these feelings is a step toward further discussion of real value, the kind of discussion that fixes problems rather than causing new ones. I’m not expressing an opinion on the facts of “State of Missouri vs Darren Wilson;” I’m expressing an opinion about why so much negative emotion permeates so little constructive discussion. Media Networks I want to start with our news coverage and why it exists the way it does. Which of the following do you believe is the more accurate statement: A) Telecommunication networks are mostly controlled by personal ideologies and political agendas B) Telecommunication networks are mostly controlled by business goals and practices C) What’s a telecommunication network? I get my news by carrier pigeon. If you answered C, please stop reading. I’m wasting your time, and you’re already stuck behind a lot of it. Many, many angry people answered A). It fits many observable facts, and it makes people angry. Let’s explore this in greater detail. Telecommunications networks make money from the sale of advertising time and space. A successful telecommunications network must be able to compete with others, and this means they must have a suitable quantity and quality of advertising spacetime to sell. What does this mean? If you’re an advertiser, you measure the value of advertising in two ways: numbers and demographics. In this case the quantity of an advertising option corresponds to the number of people that will see the ad. The larger the number, the more valuable the ad space becomes. This means that it is a good business practice for a network to reach large numbers of people. The second way to measure advertising value, demographics, measures the quality of the advertising. This means collecting information about the composition and nature of the number of people who will see an ad. This is no less important than advertising quantity. If you pay to advertise aftershave gel to an audience that is 99% female, then you have likely wasted your money. The gender of the audience is quality, while the size is quantity. Both factors determine the value of the adspace. Now that we’ve established that differentiating advertising audiences is important, ask the following question: If you want to advertise a Toyota Prius, what political affiliation do you want the audience to have? What about a Dodge Ram? Hunting equipment? Water pipes? A campaign ad? For each product, you are likely able to identify value differences in the shows, channels, networks, and websites you could potentially advertise through. You will obviously pay more money to advertise your product to a smaller audience, if you can be reasonably assured that the audience is of a demographic that will enjoy and purchase your product. As a result, it is a good business practice for telecommunications networks to cater to specific audiences, thereby dividing the public into market segments that are better suited for specific products and ads. Now imagine you are a telecommunications network. Are you going to provide a single set of neutral programs that appeal to the largest audience possible, or are you going to provide separate and distinct content for different political and social groups? Which option positions you to offer higher quality advertising space? The answer is clear. I think now if we revisit the original question about the control of telecommunication networks it also becomes clear that they are primarily governed by business decisions. It’s not political ideology that makes a media business “lean right” or “lean left” in most cases; rather, this happens automatically from seeking to make more efficient use of a business’s limited resources. Perhaps this isn’t a reason to be less angry, but it is a reason to be less angry at specific people. It isn’t fair to attack someone for running a good business, thereby feeding their family and placing college degrees in the hands of their children. If we have a problem with the way the game is played, then we need to change the rules. In Part 2, I’m going to talk about the actual content of news coverage in more detail. Maybe it’ll make us less angry with that too.
Posted on: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 00:15:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015