Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Values: Brand, Corporate & Bill O'Reilly's

By Spocko

I was very pleased and gratified to see the Spocko Method being used on Bill O'Reilly this week. (Up to 70 so far!)

Now he announces he's taking a vacation amid the sexual harassment scandal (My friend Jeff wondered where, "Thailand?")

I was thrilled to hear its principles, and some of the specific language I created over a decade ago, being spoken by Anita Hill on Saturday's Weekend Edition on NPR. (And no, it's not plagiarism when she uses my language, so bite me wingnuts.)

"I think the message is clear from advertisers as well as from consumers - direct consumers of the media that this is not tolerable, that the advertisers and consumers understand that they have a vested interest in this. The realization from advertisers, of course, is that the ads being associated with the show is not good for their brand. It's not good for their bottom line. And it also, perhaps, doesn't reflect their own business values internally." --
    Anita Hill, Brandeis University Professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies
Professor Anita Hill

I've been following the stories about this, and, believe it or not, reading the comments about it all week. I read them to understand what people who comment think about it and how they talk about it. What I'm pleased to see is that people on OUR side now understand what this action is and what it is not.

1) It is not a boycott
Even though the media keep trying to call it that, this is not about people calling up advertisers and saying, "I'm not going to buy your product or service unless you do X." (My friend Sara Robinson said when my method is used it should be called being "Spockoed," sadly it didn't take. Sometimes you just can't make fetch happen.)

2) This is about advertisers being alerted to what they are sponsoring, so they can choose what to do
As they get the whole picture, they can choose to leave or continue to sponsor the show. The key is to point out what they say internally about themselves, then they can decide. I would helpfully provide links to the appropriate sections on their own web page

3) This is about ALL of their stated values
What does their mission statement say? What do their HR guidelines say? If they are a public company, do they have corporate governance documents?Regulation that they are legally required to follow? Vendor ethics agreements? Core brand value statements? They can then answer the question: "Are we true to our values?  Is this what we want people to associate our brand with?"  Then, if what they are sponsoring doesn't line up with their own stated values, they can decide to make a change.

4) The advertiser is not the enemy, they can be an ally

When I was first writing advertisers I realized I didn't want to punish them for something they might not have even been aware of. This was because I knew the people who worked at these companies. They were my friends and colleagues. I also knew that threats from outside aren't usually appreciated. (Even from a beloved character from Star Trek!)  So first I wanted to them to investigate themselves and then make a choice. Some chose to stay, that's fine, it's a free market! (For example, the Glenn Beck show never lost their gold advertisers.)

If advertisers chose to leave, they would then have multiple reasons to give if questioned why. Part of this process is making it easy for people inside to explain to others why they made a decision. Having them point to their own values, guidelines and rules makes it easier.

Values Smalues. What's the Bottom Line?

I also knew that there are people inside companies who believed that while those stated values are nice on paper, the ultimate value is money. These people can only see how other values mattered if they can be shown they either increase the bottom line or, if not followed, would cost the company more money then breaking them can earn.

Part of the education process of the Spocko Method is to remind the company about how it talks to itself already, and what happens to morale and external perception when what they say doesn't match what they do. The HR, PR and marketing people understand this. But in many companies you will find people who look only at the stock price, or quarterly earnings as representative of value. For them it takes what the financial people call a "material event" to get them to notice.

You are seeing this right now with United. United’s stock falls 1.1%, wipes out $255 million off the airline’s market cap
Then these people will look to see if the event will have any long-term impact. (And for them long-term, usually means next quarter.)

You will find that when companies talk to investors they bury bad numbers using multiple generally accepted account principle techniques. Big media companies don't have to disclose details because they are so big.

You will never see a line item saying:
∞ Pay outs for Sexual Harassment cases from Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, Exec A, B, C, D, E and F)  Ω

 They might have a line item for hush money, but they won't call it that on the books.  You won't see the costs of: The private investigators digging up dirt on women or the people hired to plant the dirt in tabloids.

Last week on the Majority Report, Michael Brooks and Sam Seder commented on how Fox News corporate attacked O'Reilly's sexual harassment survivors, the ones whose cases they weren't able to seal with a financial settlement. Nasty stuff.

Fifth, the government is not violating O'Reilly's 1st Amendment rights
I had to keep reminding people on our side that advertisers leaving the show is not a 1st Amendment issue.  A sponsor deciding to not buy ads was not the same as the government making a law. (Ironically broadcast talk radio actually DOES have government regulations on what hosts could say, like profanity, the right-wing Christianist group Focus on the Family used it against Howard Stern.)

Taking The Fight To the Next Level

I said at the beginning of the Trump era that this will be a great time for activists. And it is. Sometimes it takes a monster for the village to awaken.

Part of the Spocko Method involves figuring out the next level of the fight. My friends at Color of Change did amazing work convincing 81 advertisers to leave the Glenn Beck show back in 2009/2010, then the effort stalled. I spent three months researching News Corporation Institutional investors and contacting them to point out that hours of prime ad space were not generating revenue. I suggested they ask their contacts when the show would return to profitability. I also researched and contacted financial analysts who covered News Corp and suggested they ask how this loss of advertising revenue is going to impact the earnings of NewsCorp.

Then I asked the question of Rupert Murdoch that any normal financial analyst would ask of a public corporation during a financial conference call, when what was an asset had become a liability.
"I know that you don’t break out revenue numbers for Fox News beyond the top line, but with 81 advertisers leaving the Glenn Beck show following the Color of Change action, the show now seems limited to in-house ads and gold ads. Do you have a time frame for how long Fox will subsidize the show until it to starts to generate revenue in line with its ratings? "
I wonder if some intrepid analyst will ask the same this quarter?

I also contacted the business press and suggested they dig a little deeper into this story. If Beck wasn't making money, who was subsidizing him? Was this coming out of News Corp's revenue or Murdoch's pocket? Was there a Roger Ailes slush fund? Also, how many advertisers have left?

I knew, from my previous experience, more advertisers leave that are willing to admit or I could confirm. This means a bunch of pissed off ad sales reps at Fox News weren't making money on the Glenn Beck show. They were happy to leak and like a sieve they did. The New York Times reported that as of Sept. 21, 2010,  296 advertisers had asked that their commercials not be shown on Beck’s show.  

I still didn't know exactly what that meant in millions of dollars, but it was more information to get to institutional investors. They would want to know "Who is paying for this money losing show and what are you doing to fix it?"
Here is a list of the top institutional investors in Newscorp

Coming next week, "What to do next with O'Reilly."