More exposure not helping Limbaugh brand
Good thing Rush Limbaugh isn't running for office—not even for chairman of the Republican National Committee, notwithstanding recent White House efforts to cast him in the role of that party's leader. In an Ipsos/McClatchy poll released this week, a non-landslide 11 percent of respondents expressed a "very favorable" opinion of Limbaugh, with another 19 percent "somewhat favorable." Nearly half the respondents offered an opinion that was either "somewhat unfavorable" (13 percent) or "very unfavorable" (33 percent). One is inclined to envy the 21 percent who didn't feel in a position to offer an opinion one way or another. In addition to not running for office, Limbaugh probably shouldn't quit his day job to become a polling analyst, either. His own Web site offers a transcript of a broadcast in which he characterizes the survey as having determined that "about a third of the American people have a highly favorable opinion of me." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, will try to remind Limbaugh of the unfavorable tally by putting up the billboard shown here in his home base of Palm Beach County, Fla. It's the result of a DNC contest spurred by Limbaugh's comments that he hopes President Obama fails. —Posted by Mark Dolliver |
|
Published on March 13, 2009 | Permalink
| Comments (4)
|
Breaking news: TV not that great for babies
Confirming what most of us probably knew all along, researchers at Children's Hospital in Boston and Harvard Medical School have concluded that having babies and toddlers watch TV and DVDs won't make them any smarter. They report that products like Baby Genius, Brainy Baby and Baby Einstein "have no benefits" in terms of educational value. They do greatly benefit the folks who make and market the merchandise, of course. Dr. Michael Rich, a co-author of the new study, tells CNN: "At the very best, they steal time from much more productive cognitive developmental activities." I can only assume he means video games, online social networking and blogging, which is how most of us adults fill our idle hours. We also watch a lot of American Idol, but that can't hurt grownups, because our brain cells are already dead. Am I right? Photo: texasgurl on Flickr. |
|
Published on March 5, 2009 | Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Paying bloggers for coverage: a good idea?
In social media, you can buy a Twitter background, or get your name into an iPhone app, or slather yourself all over a YouTube clip. But it's all fun and games until you whisper the phrase "sponsored post." Companies paying bloggers for coverage remains a taboo in many circles, as research firm Forrester learned this week after publishing a report called "Add Sponsored Conversations to Your Toolbox." The $795 write-up (which admittedly I haven't paid to read) encourages companies to consider buying up positive coverage from respected bloggers. ReadWriteWeb responded by calling the practice "a dangerous and unsavory path for new media and advertisers to go down." (I agree, though I find it strange coming from a blog that features sponsored posts.) As Brian points out on Adweek.com, this paid-blogging approach is often recommended for smaller, "low-buzz" brands like mufflers or batteries. And yet the case studies usually focus on companies like Disney and Kmart. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with giving bloggers free samples, even if the products are pricey. But when there's a direct quid pro quo for coverage, you've got a recipe for eroded credibility on both sides. That said, I know plenty of hardworking bloggers who subsist on paid reviews and other sponsored projects. It's not a clear-cut issue, but I do know one thing: If the folks at Forrester are serious about their stance, they should have tried to pay guys like me to cover the report. But if you notice, they didn't have to. Photo: voxeros on Flickr. —Posted by David Griner |
|
Published on March 3, 2009 | Permalink
| Comments (5)
|
I guess young people can handle the 'Truth'
A new study by researchers at RTI International claims that the "Truth" national youth anti-smoking campaign prevented 450,000 youngsters from smoking from 2000 to 2004. During that time, the campaign spent $245 million on television advertising. That works out to $544 spent on each successful intervention. According to the American Legacy Foundation (which funds "Truth"), this saved society "between $1.9 and $5.4 billion in medical care costs." Which is an impressively large estimated range, brought to you by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a study that was partially funded by ... the American Legacy Foundation. Personally, I thought the new "Truth" commercials (you know, with the singing Disney character rip-offs?) were better at warning kids about the effects of LSD than cigarettes. But maybe I'm wrong. There actually is a sunny side of "Truth." Via Ypulse. —Posted by Rebecca Cullers |
|
Published on February 13, 2009 | Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Yes, there's a football game on Sunday, too
Who will Americans be rooting for to win the big game on Sunday? The answer may depend on whether they're real football fans. Among the public in general, a USA Today/Gallup poll finds respondents split almost evenly, with 31 percent preferring the Cardinals, 29 percent the Steelers and the rest indifferent. Among people who identified themselves as pro-football fans, though, the Cardinals beat the Steelers by three field goals (44 percent to 35 percent, with the rest not having a preference). If the Cardinals get creamed, as many people expect, does this mean disappointed football fans will tune out early? Advertisers who bought time late in the game will certainly hope not. —Posted by Mark Dolliver |
|
Published on January 30, 2009 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Study: ads actually make TV more enjoyable
The ad industry has long felt besieged by DVR technology, which has given more and more TV viewers the ability to fast-forward through commercials. But what if the viewers are actually the big losers in this trend? What if commercials actually make TV more enjoyable? Counterintuitive as it sounds, that's the conclusion of a recent report in the Journal of Consumer Research. "Six studies demonstrate that, although people preferred to avoid commercial interruptions, these interruptions actually made programs more enjoyable," the research summary states. A wide range of tests found that people consistently liked a show more when it was interrupted by commercials, regardless of whether the ads were good or bad. "Watching a single program without a break led to the enjoyment dropping in the second half," the blog Ars Technica writes in its comprehensive report on the study. "Adding a commercial eliminated this plunge." Photo: spike55151 on Flickr. —Posted by David Griner |
|
Published on January 15, 2009 | Permalink
| Comments (2)
|
How kids prefer cartoon characters to look
If you're planning on rolling out a kids' campaign with an animated character this year, you might be interested in Kidscreen's three-part series on children's TV viewing habits. The series covers recent research by Dr. Maya Götz of the International Central Institute for Youth and Educational Television in Germany. Part one is boring and expected, pointing out that male leads overwhelmingly outnumber female leads in kids' TV shows around the world, and that most female characters are overly sexualized with unrealistic body proportions. But part two may surprise you. When Dr. Götz gave over 1,000 children between 3 and 12 years old a choice of three different versions of the same female cartoon character, 70 percent of girls and boys chose the naturally proportioned character above the ones with a thin waist and a chubby waist. Turns out boys and girls also both prefer to see characters who are kids themselves (as opposed to adults). Part three of the series focuses on the character genre preferences of boys, noting that less is more when it comes to dialogue for little boys. So, choose a monosyllabic, average-looking 8-year-old, and you'll have it in the bag. —Posted by Rebecca Cullers |
|
Published on November 5, 2008 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
