I recently spent a weekend at the beach with some friends and when we weren’t eating or doing beachy things we did what most people do. We watched some TV. I was a bit excited cause this was cable, and I’ve been without it for 6 months! I watched some sports, awesome. Cable still does this well. But after that I began to skip around to some old favorites. The History Channel. Discovery. Spike, Nat Geo and others. When my wife was around we watched Food Network and HGTV. There was something familiar about the whole experience. All too familiar. We had been away from cable for half a year, but we had seen most everything that was on. And a lot of it we didn’t particularly care for the first time around. This is a testament to two things: 1. How much we used to watch TV and 2. How little programming was actually being produced.

Now to the point. My theory is this: Programming, as we all know, is paid for by advertising. Most advertisers are in search of bigger audiences.  Even if it’s niche they want bigger niche. To deliver this cable channels began to concentrate on creating and consolidating programming that draws a larger super specific audiences all the time. The result is usually a decrease in programming variety, quality, and in some cases quantity.

Cable channels try any and everything out there to draw ratings just like network TV. The difference is when something (anything) works they just simply make more programming like it and it takes over the channel and they marginalize or abandon lower rated stuff.  Then they found out who is watching and market their channel as the Men 18-35 channel, or the women 40+ channel, or whatever it may be.  They don’t stand for anything except what is popular. Advertising is focused less on specific shows and more on specific channels. And since the most coveted audience by an advertiser is a younger crowd, for many (not all) channels the only prerequisite was that it appeal to younger people. Thus we’ve gotten less cerebral, more lowbrow and more homogenous ADD programming from channel 1 to 1000.

In this pursuit channels have often sacrificed their establish brand presence in pursuit of ratings, even if it means changing what they stand for (or simply ignoring it). Most notably may be MTVs departure from Music in the late 80s, but they certainly aren’t the only ones. Despite the channel’s name or implied content they try out most any type of programming. Once a program begins to draw even the slightest bit of ratings more shows like it are produced and the channel becomes known for that type of show. TLC may be the worst offender here. So much so, that I believe they could easily rebranded to be the Sideshow Network.

This tactic works. It draws a specific audience. The problem is that it’s too specific and the programming suffers. The channel looses diversity in it’s programming. Reality programming usually pops up because it’s cheap to produce, but even that is too much to keep up with 24 hours of programming so the same crap just gets recycled. Even worse is that some channels totally loose sight of their initial programming genre in search of ratings, a phenomenon thats come to be known as channel drift. This can really alienate long-time viewers.

Let’s look at the History Channel. I used to love it. It used to feature, well history. But now the majority of the time when you tune in you’ll find reruns of reality shows that have little to nothing to do with history like Ice Road Truckers, Pawn Stars, Ax Men, Monster Quest and other heinous crap. Even before I dropped cable I quit watching it. And I know I’m not the only one that feels that way.

Even if this type of programming model is working right now, which it is, I don’t believe it will be able to sustain itself for much longer. It seems at some point there will be too many channels and the ratings will be so low the cant afford to stay afloat. We’ll start to see cable channels drop off like magazines have. Especially when people start dropping cable for cheaper forms of entertainment via the Internet. Maybe then it will reconsolidate and the diversity of programming and general quality will increase. As for now I see little reason to go back to cable. My only problem is figuring out how I will watch Mad Men this summer. One of the last great things on cable. Ironically a show about advertising.

So what do I watch?

For those interested, I’ve in lieu of cable I have been watching more network TV. I get great HD programming with an antenna. I do miss the DVR, but many shows are available online. We also have a Netflix account and we watch a lot of streaming movies and shows as well as one DVD by mail for $8.99/mo. Occasionally when I want to see something on cable, like sports, I might tune into something on Justin.tv. But that probably isn’t legal. Oh, and I read and exercise a little more.

The reason for my supposition is the recent influx of TV shows featuring families like the critically acclaimed Modern Family as well as the all-too-real The Middle. They point to the fact that we want to see how the family is doing. Today’s families may not look like the Waltons, but like the Depression-era brood, these shows have their own unique blend of chaos, forgiveness and laughter.

Modern Family and The Middle, in particular, deal with issues so current and relevant that as a parent, I don’t feel crazy, I feel befriended. Not since the Bradys and the Partridges have I wanted a TV family to live next door. Even the newer dramas are revolving around family, case in point, Brothers and Sisters, The Good Wife and Parenthood that debuted this week.

The shows embrace their family-ness. The Modern Family website has a family scrapbook and a family tree. This week, the Hecks of The Middle went on a road trip to a spelling bee. Both show are affirming and uplifting, all while shrinking the jeans or thinking up punishment for shooting a sibling with an air-rifle pellet.

To quote The Middle’s mom Frankie Heck “People end up in places they don’t want to be because of two things, drugs or kids.” If you don’t have kids, this may seem like nothing. To those of us in the throes of it, it is our reality.

If you’d like to check out episodes, I recommend Modern Family episodes: Fears, Fifteen Percent and Fizbo. The Middle: The Bee, The Yelling or Valentine’s Day.

Both shows offer a great take on today’s moms and dads. Interested to see what Parenthood brings to the party.  Let me know what you think.

AdAge’s Bob Garfield doesn’t think so. But Bob seems to take pleasure in being the curmudgeon of advertising. If you haven’t seen this campaign on the air, then take a look. I’ll have to admit, this brutal honesty and self-awareness caught me off guard. Sure, I was curious to see if they really made their product better. But more importantly, I empathized with the brand. Not just the brand, but the people behind the brand. Call me naive, but I think they actually humanized the brand.

Focus group poop

We all know how it feels to have our work pooped on, whether the criticism is deserved or not. Those of us who have had our work scrutinized, misinterpreted, and rewritten by a focus group have a unique appreciation for the reaction of the Domino’s chefs as they listen to the feedback about the cardboard crust and the sauce that tastes like ketchup. Of course we can assume that these reaction shots of dejected chefs were staged for this spot, but the emotion has got to be real.

Transparency chic

Transparency is the new black. So many brands are attempting to at least look honest and accessible by letting everyone peek behind the curtain. Even our government is getting in on that action. When you go to the Pizza Turnaround website, you’ll see real time tweets about the new pizza and the campaign. It seems to be unfiltered. I saw plenty of negative comments, but the majority seem to be supportive and appreciative.

Insight that can’t be ignored

When a brand is as plagued by negativity and bad luck as Domino’s, you can’t pretend everything is fine. A “new and improved” message would have been a yawn. I think this was the only move left for this brand. And because I now feel something for them, I hope it works.

A recent study and article posted on Ad Age not only confirmed what I’ve found myself doing more and more over the past few years but revealed that a whopping two thirds of Americans use a computer at the same time they watch TV. Not only that, but about one third of consumers reported using a computer—correspondingly, being online—50% or more of the time they watch TV.

Similar to what we discovered in the online segmentation research Trone recently conducted, these online behaviors and usage are not drawn by age. It’s not only your younger generations who are Facebook-chatting each other as So You Think You Can Dance plays in the background. Even older demographics are on their computers 36% of the time their TVs are on.

There are other various interesting bits around this recent study. For example, women are more prone to multitask with the computer and TV than men. In the table below, you can also see a breakdown of top actions performed online while watching TV. Notably, only 13% of consumers report visiting online content that’s related to what they are watching on TV.

This presents brand marketers some new opportunities and challenges when it comes to reaching and engaging consumers. The computer-and-TV multitasking behavior is just one of the many rising examples of consumers living between online and offline worlds on a day-to-day basis. As media technology advances and integrates at accelerated rates, we must not only aim to incorporate cross-platform campaigns, but unmass our messages through the growing streams of media vying for consumers’ attention.

• Hulu is free!
• I am sure to see the whole show.  Sometimes my dvr cuts off the last couple of minutes.
• From my research, it sounds like there are few interruptions.
• I don’t have to worry with programming any recordings or managing conflicts.  

I’m excited to see if this will help save me some money!  Please leave some feedback!

Finding the truth.

Contrary to public opinion, truth and advertising go together perfectly well. You could even say that an ad works only if it rings true for the consumer. If your message is unbelievable, then your ad certainly fails.  But the details of the execution matter too. When something like casting, location, or dialog is a little off, people notice. They might not get your message at all because they’re too distracted by the part that doesn’t feel right and they’ll be quick to call it out.

Getting it wrong.

I hate to pick on any spot because I know how many forces can be working against you, but this Sea World spot fails on a fundamental level. They put these lofty beliefs in the mouths of kids and it makes me think they have no idea what children are really like. Have you ever heard a kid say, “I believe that fun is a renewable resource?” It fails the truth test.

Getting it right.

This Chef Boyardee spot an example of  an execution that is built on truth. Part of what makes this spot work is good acting, but the mom-dad-kid dynamic is totally believable. It all seems true to me.

Finding something true to build on doesn’t mean it has to be a traditional slice-of-life ad. In this Denny’s spot, themed “Breakfast has been taken over by the machines,” they start with the truth that machines—by virtue of not being human—are insensitive.

Try out these criteria next time you’re judging creative work. I’ll bet you find that if it’s interesting and meaningful, and it’s based on a simple truth, you’ve got a good ad.

Ad geeks everywhere can stop holding their breath. Matthew Weiner finally worked out a deal with Lionsgate TV and AMC for two more seasons. Yay! Apparently it took Lionsgate a while to get over the sticker shock as Weiner was asking for 6 million dollars (4 million more than the last contract).   AMC ended up putting up some of the money to make it happen. So, with more money and a bigger budget for the show let’s hope he can deliver.  The word is, a contract was signed in time for the third season to start on time this summer.  Assuming the show progress from the first two seasons, we should start out in 1963. There are a lot of interesting things that happened in ’63 and if season 3 is anything like season 1 and 2, national (and international) affairs will likely be a backdrop for the drama to play out.

A few things that happened in 1963:

• Racial tensions continue to escalate. Martin Luther King Jr. delivers his I have a dream speech.
• The US starts sending troops into Vietnam in an advisory role.
• The pope dies.
• President John F. Kennedy is assassinated.
• The space race continues

As for the advertising, who knows. Maybe Don will try to sell the world on TaB.

If you go to crashthesuperbowl.com, you can view the top five spots in the Doritos contest. The site is well crafted, easy to navigate and loaded with content. The treasure here is not just the top five, which are obviously done by truly talented individuals or companies, but the gallery of all entries submitted. Here’s where the real marketing genius lies, hundreds of films devoted to making a hero out of Doritos. The majority are amateurish, simply-not-good commercials that only exist as a testament to a brand that knows how to create not just brand loyalists, but true fanatics.

And this idea is the strategic nugget at the core of the marketing effort. Sure Doritos will air a spot on the Super Bowl that was created by an average citizen, supposedly. But it took an agency to help guide the brand down this sophisticated, media aware, consumer-centric path.

Forgive my giddiness, but it is the best time to be in this business of advertising. Because the NFL and the networks, this year NBC, conspire to create the one must-see TV advertising event, which is wrapped up around a football championship game at the highest level of football championship games. It’s a guy fest! With beer. And beer ads. And the point is: everybody’s watching, not just guys.

So I can be at a party during the game, watching the game but talking, laughing, eating chips and salsa, and then the commercials come on and the room gets quiet. I listen as people chop off their sentences, or shush the person talking to them in mid joke, to turn and watch what major advertisers are putting on the screen for their enjoyment. And then they instantly render an opinion on the likeability of what they’ve just witnessed.

Occasionally someone will ask my opinion. But these days it seems that everyone is a marketing expert during the High Holy Day. They all know how much an ad costs for 30 seconds. Reuters has told them here. They all know what works and what doesn’t. USA Today has taught them that with their Super Bowl Ad Meter. See last year’s results here. Some even know how to do commercials themselves, as Doritos proved a couple of years ago. Thankfully, that trend remained a fad.

With all this attention, you’d think advertisers would be nervous. It’s almost as if the game comes second, and the commercials come first. With those expectations, do you dare air a mediocre spot? Do you risk your brand’s likeability and reputation and run an old spot? Or one that is judged to be inappropriate? Or simply not funny?

At $3 million a pop, it’s a risk. But for us at home, it’s the best free entertainment we’ll see on the tube. I love this time of year.

Between the Mythbusters/Bones/Monk-athons there was an inordinate amount of weight loss commercials. And what timing, too! I’m sure there are millions of people around the world that made resolutions and what better time to get them interested in a new product or service.

Most of these commercials were for meal delivery services. They’ve got their target demographic: people who made resolutions but are still sitting on the couch—they want their weight loss delivered to them!

Bravo wasn’t so subtle. They just ran 14 hours of The Biggest Loser.