Former ABC executive Mark Pedowitz will take over as president for The CW Television Network, replacing Dawn Ostroff, the network's most senior executive since it launched in 2006. The two partners of the CW -- CBS Corp. and Warner Bros. Entertainment -- jointly made the announcement. The network was started from the remains of the WB and UPN five years ago. Pedowitz will have a larger portfolio than Ostroff, responsible for all programming, advertising sales, marketing, distribution, finance, research and publicity. He will take over this month. Ostroff is leaving the network to relocate to New York with her family. She will stay on through the current broadcast season, ending in May, to help with the transition. Pedowitz had been running his own production company, Pine Street Entertainment, since February 2010. Before that, from 2004-2009, he was president of ABC Studios, overseeing the shows "Lost," "Desperate Housewives," "Grey's Anatomy," "Ugly Betty," "Scrubs," "Army Wives," "Ghost Whisperer" and "Criminal Minds." He also held a number of business posts -- as executive vice president of ABC Entertainment Television Group, overseeing all business, legal and financial affairs for ABC prime time and Touchstone Television, as well as business/legal affairs for ABC Daytime. Pedowitz joined ABC in 1991 as senior vice president of business affairs and contracts. Nancy Tellem, the executive who oversees The CW for CBS, stated that Pedowitz brought the network "a strong and diverse background as a business strategist and production executive, as well as a track record of success in all facets of our industry." Bruce Rosenblum, president of Warner Bros. Television Group, added that Pedowitz was "the perfect executive to help us take the network to the next level."
The absence of big Olympics and political advertising will pull down local TV advertising revenue almost 10% in 2011. Local media research firm BIA/Kelsey is estimating that local TV advertising revenues will sink 9.8% to $17.4 billion, down from $19.4 billion in 2010. But online/digital revenues for local TV stations will climb 22% to $550 million. 2010 was the first year since 2006 that witnessed year-over-year gains -- improving 23.2% over 2009's deep recession-scarred performance, which pushed down local advertising revenues to $15.8 billion. For the better part of two decades, TV stations have been subjected to two-year cycles: soaring gains from Olympics and political advertising dollars in one year, followed by declines with their absence the following year. True to form, BIA/Kelsey estimates the local TV advertising market will recoup virtually all its 2011 declines in 2012, rising to $19.3 billion. Local TV-connected digital advertising will continue to gain strength -- a 15.8% hike to $638 million. However, research suggests that TV stations will not top the big $20 billion totals in recent years -- 2005 to 2008 -- before the recession hit anytime soon. The 2006 year was at an all-time high of $22.8 billion. By 2015, BIA/Kelsey projects local TV station advertising revenues of $19.5 billion -- virtually the totals of 2010. But it says local TV stations' digital advertising revenues will continue to climb, topping to $890 million. Local TV -- as with all broadcast TV -- continues to witness lower ratings. But business continues to be steady. Mark Fratrik, Ph.D., vice president of BIA/Kelsey, stated: "Even with some erosion of viewers, it was a strong demonstration that local television continues to show its value to advertisers by delivering the shoppers, voters, and influencers they want to reach." BIA/Kelsey says revenues for the overall local media advertising marketplace -- as defined by media that provides local audiences to all types of advertisers -- will grow at a 2.4% compound annual growth rate over the next five years, reaching $153.5 billion by 2015.
CIMM's Set-Top-Box Data Lexicon is a compilation of terms and definitions associated with Set-Top Box data and its measurement. This Word-A-Week column highlights a term and definition from the Lexicon to help forge a common language for Set-Top Box data usage and expedite the roll-out of the data for its many industry applications. Continuing on last week's theme of PVRs and DVRs, we now take a look at the range of DVRs available in the market today from those that are self contained boxes within the home (such as the TIVO box) to others that are accessed via the Set-Top Box or through a remote server. Here is a list of all types of DVRs currently available along with their definitions: DVR Viewing Through A StandaloneSee also: DVR CIMM DEFINITION : DVR Standalones are self contained digital recorders that compress multiple facilities into a standalone single box. An example is a TIVO box. 2 : Standalone also refers to units that are not acquired through an operator and can be used with different signal sources. (Source: TIVO) DVR Viewing Through Remote ServerSee also: DVR, Digital Video Server CIMM DEFINITION : DVRs located on a remote server which stores all recorded content remotely by the operator or service provider. These DVRs have all the functionality and flexibility of a DVR box or a DVR in a Set-Top Box without the in-home DVR hardware. NOTE - Currently offered by MSO Cablevision. DVR Viewing Through STBSee also: DVR CIMM DEFINITION : DVR capability available through a Set-Top Box. Subscribers to the DVR service are able to record video that can be viewed at a later time either linearly or with trick play. Please refer to the CIMM Lexicon online at http://www.cimm-us.org/lexicon.htm for additional information on these and other terms.
The upfront season is underway and the cable hype has begun. As each network unveils its fall schedule and strategy, it generates a fair amount of industry press. Many of these stories don't focus on ratings, of course, because most cable networks don't have good audience stories to tell. This is one reason we're starting to see a number of dubious "studies" about which cable networks people like most, which have the most attentive commercial viewers, or which one's influence viewers the most to buy products. Most of these studies should be taken with a grain of salt (or less). They are the types of analyses we always see when there is nothing much to say about ratings. Year-to-year ratings seldom tell the whole story for cable, however. Keep in mind that there is often only one network (either ESPN or USA, depending on the season) that averages even a 1.0 rating among adults 25-54. Low ratings and small sample sizes result in flukey numbers being reported by Nielsen. If you look at three-year rating trends by cable network, they tend to be all over the place. Just because one cable network is up by 20% over last year, does not mean its ratings will grow next You need to examine two or three years of audience data to see what's really going on -- which networks are the most stable, which are really growing, and which ones tend to fluctuate from year to year. Looking at prime time from the fourth quarter over the past three seasons shows that only seven networks -- Adult Swim, BET, Bravo, ESPN, FX, History, and ION -- have improved their average adult 25-54 rating for two years in a row (I'm not including networks with under a 0.2 rating). Five of these seven are among the 15 top-rated networks (all but BET and Bravo). During the past two seasons, these seven networks have grown their ratings as follows : ION (+95%), ESPN (+34%), History (+33%), Bravo (27%), BET (22%), ADSM (+10%), FX (+8%). Of these seven networks, only three have moved up significantly in the rankings from two years ago - History going from 11th to 5th, ION going from 35th to 11th, and Bravo going from 26th to 17th. That's not to say these networks are stronger than the perennially top-rated USA, TBS, and TNT. But they are the only ones that are really growing among adults 25-54.
In TV land these days, it's not whether or not to bite the hand that feeds you -- it's the size of the bite. Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC's "The Last Word" took some 13-plus minutes to dig into not just Donald Trump's theoretical run for the presidency, but into NBC executives letting the glaring media attention on Trump get to this level. He is critical of the network that probably knows whether The Donald will make good on his big promise. O'Donnell is not Keith Olbermann when it comes to witty TV writing. But his attack on network executives is somewhat more severe than Olbermann's sometimes criticism of MSNBC and NBC News executives. Olbermann took NBC to task for its inconsistent policy when it comes to donations of political candidates by NBC on-air personnel. O'Donnell's concerns allude to Trump's seeming racisms and outlandish behavior -- that NBC executives should own up to whether this is just a publicity stunt or something more. Good journalism and commentary always keeps its church and state dimension intact-- not just with commerce but with any senior management decisions. Different from Olbermann -- who had the MSNBC time slot currently before O'Donnell -- O'Donnell has attacked NBC Entertainment executives, not NBC News executives. This isn't the first time on-air talent has taken shots at their management bosses. David Letterman has done this for years -- at the expense of both NBC and CBS executives. Letterman offers up more jokes -- mixing in more entertainment value. All that gives him a bit more leeway. No matter what, O'Donnell will never compete with the high water mark set by Charlie Sheen's rants against his bosses -- producer Chuck Lorre, CBS Corp. and Warner Bros. (To some that's what got Sheen fired). Then again, Sheen doesn't have his own CBS news cable channel program to vent. Now, we can only hope an MSNBC promo goes to another level: "Tonight on MSNBC's 'The Last Word'! Lawrence O'Donnell has a few choice words about NBC."
Is Donald Trump a "carnival barker"? Are his collective media appearances of late the stuff of a "sideshow"? President Obama seemed to suggest as much during a very brief press conference yesterday in which he attempted to put to rest the largely Trump-fueled frenzy over the validity of his birth documents. Perhaps the president was referring to other public figures who have been busily fanning the flames of this latest political controversy when he declared, "We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers," later adding, "We do not have time for this kind of silliness." But as I listened to him, the first name that came to mind was Trump. I'll leave it to others to determine whether such words apply to Trump's mission to verify Obama's personal history. I will assert, however, that they describe perfectly the Trump we have been watching this year on NBC's "Celebrity Apprentice." To give credit where it's due, Trump has made "Celebrity Apprentice" the must-see guilty-pleasure spectacle of the season. Make no mistake: It is pure, unadulterated trash -- but it is one of the few shows with any life on NBC's schedule, and it does generate money for a number of worthwhile charities, so it deserves recognition. And yet, as I watch, I find myself struggling to continually separate the three Trumps -- Reality Show Host/Producer, Business Titan and Possible Presidential Candidate (and, by extension, Possible President) - all the while wondering (and perhaps worrying) how much of the first soaks into the other two. Flanked by his adult children --- who never, ever challenge or contradict their dad -- Trump blusters, boasts and bulldozes his way through each episode, especially in those riveting board room confrontations, where it's celebrity against celebrity and Trump against all. I'd like to think that the boardroom segments of the show are expertly conceived and orchestrated by Trump to be exactly what they are - sizzling, exasperating, wholly engaging and a triumph of irresistible escapist entertainment. I'd also like to think that they in no way reflect how Trump and his executives conduct themselves in their real-life businesses. Consider the following: In the boardroom segments this season, we have seen Trump make inappropriate and irrelevant comments about the physical characteristics of two female contestants -- specifically, actress Lisa Rinna's lips and belligerent talk show personality Star Jones' behind. Try doing that during a meeting in your office without landing in Human Resources before day's end. We have seen Trump refuse to act on a complaint from deaf actress Marlee Matlin, who was made to feel demeaned on the job by another contestant (Dionne Warwick, a shocking study in unpleasantness) because she is unable to hear. Isn't that grounds for probation or a dressing-down by the boss? And how about that epic verbal assault by anger-management-challenged singer Meat Loaf against out-there actor Gary Busey? When Trump heard about it, shouldn't he have shown Meat the door? Go throw a tantrum and scream a few choice obscenities at a co-worker in the middle of your office and see what happens. And speaking of Busey, who suffered a severe head injury about 23 years ago and has for whatever reason acted in an increasingly eccentric manner ever since, was it right for Trump to use the word "moron" when talking to or about him? Discuss. Trump has also played fast and loose with the show's standards, firing LaToya Jackson because she might have been a weak player moving forward, rather than terminating the thoroughly obnoxious ratings magnet Star Jones, who, as ferociously controlling project manager, was 100% percent responsible for her team's epic fail in last Sunday's challenge. Of course, if he'd done that, we wouldn't have this week's titanic showdown between Star Jones and bombastic "Real Housewife" NeNe Leakes to look forward to, would we? We have seen questionable behavior on this show before. Trump has always enjoyed putting his contestants on the spot and goading them into attacking each other (or defending themselves, as he might see it). None of that ever really mattered. But this time, "Celebrity Apprentice" is playing out as people are seeking a deeper understanding of Trump's character, given his possible political aspirations. He's walking a very interesting line here. However things work out, if Trump tops off this season of "Celebrity Apprentice" by announcing that he intends to run for president, it will be one of the television events of the year. That will be a huge accomplishment for an aging franchise on a struggling network, not to mention a Titan of Trash TV.
Hulu couldn't do what Comcast's TV-based video-on-demand can: Offer current programs from all the broadcasting networks (including CBS, which Hulu doesn't have). Mind you, it isn't all current TV shows. Comcast's Xfinity TV On Demand service will have 32 of the top 50 network prime-time programs. And, as with other services, Comcast will offer only a few recent episodes -- four in Xfinity's case, as compared with five with Hulu. An interesting sidebar is that Comcast remains an equity partner in Hulu. But Xfinity is different, since Hulu is still predominantly an Internet service. Making matters more complicated, Comcast also has an XfinityTV.com Internet service. Why all the effort around just TV distribution? According to one Comcast executive, viewers like to watch "TV shows on TV." Hey, that's a refreshing and simple concept. This may seem like a half-step to the promised land of pure video-on-demand for every TV show on every receiving device known to viewers. Yet, right now, for those not completely digital savvy, for those with traditional Comcast cable service, this makes sense. With all the complicated stuff thrown at consumers, many people look to clarity. Comcast is trying to get to that. To my mind, Apple and its array of products -- iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, iMac, for example -- are marketed for that entertainment 'clarity' -- especially when presented on calming, easy-to-look-at white backgrounds with simple, easy-to-access functions. Now that Comcast is the only cable company offering current programs from all networks on a VOD basis, it would do well to build on its simple, easy-to-understand message. TV Everywhere? That's another matter, and not something consumers can entirely get their heads around right now. TV Everywhere gives Comcast customers free access to XfinityTV.com on any web-based device -- similar, but not exactly the same as its Xfinity TV On Demand service. Looking for those new digital clear entertainment services messages will keep consumers' minds from swimming in old-style TV static, which, in 2011, is still around.