Or the CBS Colbert Report, perhaps

What does the future hold for CBS Evening News? For that matter, what’s the future have in store for any network newscast? As David A. Andelman of Forbes.com notes, the typical viewer of CBS Evening News is “somewhere north of 50 years old (probably considerably north) and has been watching it since Walter Cronkite (remember him, kids? Probably not) was in the anchor chair.”

That’s not the demographic most TV networks are looking for. As Andelman speculates in his recent column, “The CBS Daily Show With Jon Stewart”, things might look much different in the near future.


[T]oday’s pared-to-the-bones CBS could save quite a lot more money by going The Daily Show route. First, comedy writers earn a lot less than senior producers or correspondents on a network evening news show. You might want to hold on to a few such correspondents and producers just in case the pope dies or the president gets shot or there’s some other history-altering moment and you want do something more elaborate than simply poke fun at it, as Jon Stewart does so effectively on Comedy Central. Still, you don’t need to have a whole regiment of correspondents, producers and camera crews suited up and ready to go 24/7.

Moreover, The Daily Show even has the beauty of being owned by Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, which owns CBS.

Finally, you don’t need to jump through hoops to find creative means to keep this whole infrastructure humming along profitably. That’s because there won’t be any such infrastructure.

Turn The Morning Show over to the entertainment division, which does cooking shows and movie promos better anyway. Sunday Morning, 60 Minutes and Face the Nation can continue to totter along on their own without a whole bureau system and news infrastructure. I mean, they’re not even located in the main Broadcast Center on West 57th Street, though without that huge news operation to house, they might be able to move back into the home of the mother ship and save CBS a bundle on off-site rental costs.


news, media, CBS


Light blogging lately…but for good reason

You may have noticed a slight drop in the quantity of blog postings around here lately. That’s due to a number of factors — my general laziness being the predominant one. But in my defense, I’m also on a deadline crunch. I’m writing an article about the future of the news media for Currents magazine, published by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), and I’ve been up to my ears researching what the experts and futurists have to say and conducting a couple of interviews.

I’ve found some interesting stuff online about the future of the news media, especially as it pertains to the concept of citizen journalism. Here are a few I found especially helpful.

  • Future of PR. This is a wiki for discussions about, well, the future of PR, among those in colleges and universities interested in the subject. It’s facilitated by Dan Forbush of ProfNet/PRNewswire. Dan and others in the wiki have assembled a host of good information about where things are headed in PR, marketing and media.
  • The American Press Institute Media Center‘s Digital Think site. This is the digital storytelling link I pointed to last Friday. Lots of good stuff there; much to assimilate.
  • We Media — the website for last October’s We Media conference, put on by the API Media Center. This is a good site about citizen (or participatory, or peer-to-peer, or grassroots, or open-source) journalism, and it links to a good 66-page primer (PDF) on the topic. The book is now two years old and slightly dated, but it is well researched and fairly well written. The authors wax a bit pedantic in a couple of the chapters, but overall it’s a good start for anyone interested in grassroots journalism.
  • Journalism.org, creators of the annual State of the News Media report.
  • EPIC 2015 — a dystopic vision of the future mediascape, and the eeriest Flash movie I’ve seen in some time. Definitely worth the eight minutes if you’ve got the time to spare. The first couple of minutes rehashes the past decade, but after that, this vision of the future is very 1984-esque. I’m interviewing one of the creators this afternoon.

    There’s much more, but those are the highlights.

    Now all I’ve got to do is pull all this research together in 1,500 words. Piece of cake. But the blogging will probably have to be put on hold while I mix the cake ingredients.

  • blogging, citizen journalism, Internet, news

    Yours, Mine, and Ours

    Something that should be required reading for everyone involved in marketing higher education: Yours, Mine, and Ours: How Simplicity and Transparency Are Building the Web 2.0 is a white paper prepared for Dartmouth ‘s web publishing services by Chris Boone of Hypsometry. This paper provides an excellent overview of the interconnectedness of the web and how it challenges our standard modes of operation. We can’t control this medium. At best, we can manage parts of it and influence other parts.

    Link via the Future of PR wiki.

    Blogs, branding, Computers and Internet, higher education, Internet, Marketing, Media, public relations, PR

    The new Carnegie classifications: peer-to-peer assessments?

    The Carnegie Foundation unveiled its new classification system on Thursday, Nov. 17. To anyone outside of higher education, this doesn’t mean anything. To those of us who make our living marketing colleges and universities, however, the new system matters. It could dramatically affect how we are viewed — and reviewed — by our peers, prospective students and those ever-important publications that rank our colleges and universities.

    As Inside Higher Ed newsletter reports, the new classifications, “if used properly … might just help colleges identify true peers and look for weaknesses that need fixing.” That would be great. If the classifications are used properly. But many of us in higher ed are probably more interested in hearing how U.S. News and World Report plans to use the new Carnegie Classifications to assemble their categories for rankings. In the past, U.S. News used the old system to come up with such rankings as “national universities” (doctoral-granting) and the various specialty schools. But these new classifications are more complex. Maybe, if we’re lucky, they’re complex enough to render some of U.S. News‘ approaches to rankings meaningless. (I can dream, anyway.)

    “While colleges will no doubt continue to boast about their rankings in various places, [Carnegie Foundation President Lee S.] Shulman and other Carnegie officials said their hope was that the range of comparisons would encourage colleges to find true peer institutions and then learn from them. And a college might find that it has one set of peers in undergraduate curriculum and another for transfer rates.”

    No doubt college presidents and deans nationwide are putting the Carnegie Foundation’s website through the wringer today. The site is crashing as we blog.

    education, higher education, Carnegie

    10 new brand rules — and what they mean for higher ed

    Simon Williams of the Sterling Group has come up with a list of 10 new rules of branding. You should read the entire article. But just in case you’re in too big a hurry, here’s Williams’ top 10 list — with a bit of commentary from me about how these rules might pertain to marketing and branding in higher education.

    1) Brands that influence culture sell more; culture is the new catalyst for growth. Colleges and universities influence culture — from sports and entertainment to the element of prestige that comes from holding a degree from a particular institution. The more prestigious and influential a college or university, the more it influences the culture, and the better its chances of “selling” to prospective students, alumni, research partners, etc.

    2) A brand with no point of view has no point; full-flavor branding is in, vanilla is out. This is a big problem for many colleges and universities. We all talk about our “tradition of academic excellence,” “caring faculty” and so on. It means nothing. Let’s put some attitude in our marketing copy.

    3) Today’s consumer is leading from the front; this is the smartest generation to have ever walked the planet. Prospective students and their families aren’t just relying on the college viewbook for their information. They’re finding third-party views online, via the college rankings guides, and elsewhere. They’re more savvy than we give them credit for, and they have a very sensitive BS detector.

    4) Customize wherever and whenever you can; customization is tomorrow’s killer whale. Customized degrees, perhaps? No more one-size-fits-all academic programs? Why not have students customize their classes — complete them at their own pace?

    5) Forget the transaction, just give me an experience; the mandate is simple: Wow them every day, every way. The college experience is one of the stronger benefits of the college brand — assuming the experience is good, that is. Colleges and universities are as much about the experience as about the education.

    6) Deliver clarity at point of purchase; be obsessive about presentation. With so many colleges and universities these days, we must become obsessive about why we are the preferred choice.

    7) You are only as good as your weakest link; do you know where you’re vulnerable? Ouch. Lots of weak links in higher ed — too many to list here.

    8) Social responsibility is no longer an option; what’s your cause, what’s your contribution? This is a tremendous opportunity for higher education, one of the greatest causes of all.

    9) Pulse, pace, and passion really make a difference; had your heartbeat checked recently? The pace of change in higher ed is glacial. Face it: most colleges and universities are based on a model from the medieval days. Can our old institutions keep pace?

    10) Innovation is the new boardroom favorite. Higher ed should innovate with new curricula, new degree programs, new methods of delivering education.

    Link via brandXpress

    branding, Marketing

    In branding, KISS rocks

    That’s KISS as in “keep it short and simple,” not the band that made me want to rock and roll all night and party every day back in high school. But KISS the rock band knew what every branding pro understands: POA. (That’s the power of the acronym, for those of you not in the know.)

    In “Alphabet branding,” Derrik J. Lang of AP’s news service for the under-35 demographic, asap (yet another acronym), points out that marketers are giving our alphabet’s 26 letters quite a workout.

    “Thanks to the modern boon of branding,” writes Lang, “letter combinations are now imbued with meaning far beyond the kindergarten catchalls of ‘A’ for apple and ‘Z’ for zebra. Tons of time and money is spent rejigging and reimagining corporate word jumbles so at-home audiences regurgitate the appropriate feeling.”

    In the marketplace these days, it seems ‘X’ is for extreme, ‘W’ is for hip, ‘I’ is for technology and any amalgamation can mean something entirely different — no matter what it actually stands for.

    “In the good old days of naming, you named your company for what it did,” said Martyn Tipping, president and director of brand strategy for big-time marketing firm Tipping Sprung. “So if you sold business machines internationally, you’d call yourself International Business Machines. Your name described what you did and everyone was happy.”

    But “IBM” is much, much easier to say than “International Business Machines.” So is “3M” instead of “Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing” and “AARP” rather than “American Association of Retired Persons.”

    Training the public for this initial recall, Tipping says, requires “millions upon millions of dollars” and “years and years of sustained investment.” His firm does just that for companies such as Dell, Verizon and Gillette.

    It seems many universities have a built-in advantage with this branding name game. At the University of Missouri-Rolla, where I work, we’re doing all we can to brand ourselves as UMR. It’s worked for USC, UCLA and countless other campuses, so maybe it’ll work for us.

    branding, marketing

    Profs: don’t sacrifice high-touch for high-tech

    Memo to faculty: Your students want you to be tech-savvy, but don’t get carried away.

    That’s the message of a survey (pdf) of 18,000-plus college students, conducted by the Educause Center for Applied Research. The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required) reports:

    College students want faculty members to use information technology, but students nevertheless hunger for the human touch in courses as well, according to a new survey of 18,039 freshmen and seniors at 63 institutions.

    Forty-one percent of the students said they preferred their professors to make moderate use of information technology. By comparison, 26 percent said they preferred only limited use, while 27 percent sought extensive use.

    “They really want to see it balanced,” said Robert B. Kvavik, an associate vice president of the University of Minnesota who worked on the survey. “They value the interaction among themselves and with faculty, and they don’t want technology to get in the way of that.”

    “The students see technology right now as supplemental rather than transformative,” said Mr. Kvavik.

    Students in the survey most commonly said that convenience was the primary benefit of the use of technology in courses. They cited “connectedness” second.

    Full story (subscription required).

    education, technology, Internet, web