rocheyadegar-blog - Tumblr blog

[rocheyadegar-blog]

Eyes on Hulu

“Danny...they’re the new kid on the block; they’re going to back this series to the hilt.” insisted a friend, as he persuaded Daniel Wilson, the [now] executive co-producer of the new hit, “The Handmaid’s Tale,” to strike up a deal with Hulu. 

Hulu bid to partner with the producers, who had rights over the story they wanted to produce, from a book written by Margaret Atwood published in 1985. Everyone is very excited about the series that is said to reflect contemporary politics, striking a cord with audiences. 

What is most interesting about this production and partnership is that it revived a production company that had “gone dark.” The executive producers, Daniel Wilson, 87, and Fran Sears, 70, had to familiarize themselves with the new digital landscape they never fully experienced. The article reporting on their comeback highlights how much has changed over the past few decades within the television industry. Who would have thought that this classic story would be brought to audiences via a streaming service? Times have certainly changed.

The prestige of the story, “The Handmaid’s Tale” coupled with a rather fitting cast and high quality production is definitely doing wonders for Hulu. It is suspected to drive subscriptions... in fact, I couldn’t resist myself. Last night I signed up for a free trial to get glimpse of what this “must-see” show is about. 

Well done, Hulu. 29 days from now you’ve got my 7.99/ month.  

source: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/business/media/how-hulu-and-the-handmaids-tale-revived-2-careers.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftelevision

[rocheyadegar-blog]

The Genius of Insta & Snap: Mobile Motivations to Attain Micro-Fame (Attention Merchants, Response II)

They key to Instagram and Snapchat is that they are social networking sites that a) revolve around the natural but culturally amplified impulse to “spectacle the self” and b) are mobile based platforms. The former reason is one that has manifested in many forms (as pointed out by Wu) tracing back to painted portraiture in the Victorian era. The latter, however, is where the money is at. 

The recent phenomenon of “perpetual contact” that was introduced by pagers and evolved into smartphones is the notion that our devices are always on and always on us. In other words, that we are always reachable, but more importantly, that the “web” is always in reach. The value in this accessibility is that it affords more screen-time [usage] on [of] digital media platforms, which  translates into more opportunities for commercial/ sponsored apps, like Snapchat and Instagram, to push ads.

Both Snapchat and Instagram have not only cultivated a habit or ritual of checking, as AOL did with their “you’ve got mail” or Facebook with their validating “likes”... but they have also tapped into the “in-between” moments that truly ad[d] up  (pun intended), especially in commuter populations with short attention spans, always looking for some sort of stimulation. Waiting in elevators, rides on the subway, in the bathroom, under the dinner table, any time, any place, you can bet that users are scrolling and/or tapping through news feeds, otherwise known as paths well-traveled, with plenty of [digital] “billboards” along the way.

The two social networking platforms have managed to gravitate eyeballs to their designated “spaces” more often then not. They tempt users with photo-centric communication based in a simple interface, and above all, are always there, in the most mundane of times, to fiddle and fidget with, with the chance of always receiving some “love,” some views, or some form of attention back. 

From a business perspective, their futures lie in maintaining this habit, nurturing the compulsion to “check-in.” But how? Perhaps according to Wu, in terms of blurring the lines between “the watcher and the being watched” their future lies in this emergence of lower rankings on “the list.” As the emergence of the D-list represented a closing in on the gap between the famous and the ordinary, Instagram and Snapchat’s networks will continue to close it in further. And perhaps these platforms and their potential to make fame seem so close, so attainable, will motivate users to continue to use them with the hope of achieving their own “micro-fame.” Until, the day comes, where as Wu quotes Warhol, “everyone will be famous to fifteen people”...However, I’d say considering the hyper-connectivity of the web and the rate of globalization, everyone will be (and debatably in younger generations already are) famous to their own degree.  

[rocheyadegar-blog]

Facebook’s VR - A New Realm of Unreality?

A margarita and several tacos deep, my friends and I began a “friendly,” two hour debate over perhaps an unanswerable but rather thought provoking question, revealing all too much about the normalization of virtual experience and connectivity within the past few decades... “Is the internet real?” 

Two out of the three of us argued that of course it is real, as we inhabit it and it organizes society’s relationships and all. We even argued for its physical manifestations, the infrastructures in place from underwater cables, to the energy-sucking data hotels that house the not-so-natural “clouds” we’ve been lead to believe store our information, and the carbon footprint of each text message sent. However, our opponent was more than adamant to argue that no, this does not, and can not constitute as “real.”

Daniel Cooper’s perspective (sited below) seems very much in agreement with my friend, utterly frustrated with the illusions of the “internet utopia” fostered by “the web” and social networking sites; if only he were present to even out the sides of our debate “teams” that evening.  When reporting on Facebook’s version of social virtual reality, Cooper rants, “Spaces [Facebook’s VR platform] falls into the same trap that so many other platforms have over the years: assuming that people want the digital world to be a surrogate for the real one.” He continues on to highlight the discrepancies between the two experiences, “real” and not, including the digital avatar that is meant to embody our online presence as well as the headsets used to teleport us into the VR “space.” It is all and all, frankly put, “fake people in a fake place.” 

Cooper’s insistence on this faux reality may be breaking through my stubborn perspective that the internet does in fact exist - because how daunting to deny the existence of a realm that has bled into the most personal and defining aspects of our lives. But even more so, he has got me questioning... is the fact that Facebook could develop these technologies a good enough reason that they should? Will VR actually advance our interpersonal relationships in ways unknown? Or does it demote human connectivity in the process of further obfuscating notions of “the real”?  

If you happen to come to a conclusion of sorts... please #LetAGirlKnow, preferably in person.  

source:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/19/facebook-spaces-social-vr/ 

[rocheyadegar-blog]

Rumor Has It

Apple might buy Disney............. WOAH. 

Phone companies & media conglomerates had been setting new mating standards within the big business realm... until recent whispers on Wall Street opened up pandora’s box. It seems that tech companies, as big and bad as Apple, might be flirting with media congloms too. 

According to Variety’s article, Apple would take over Disney for $200 billion-plus (AT&T bought Time Warner for 84.5). The main benefit, of course, is that acquiring Disney is a way for Apple to “diversify away from hardware without diluting the strong Apple brand.” This merger would be next level... but even so, I don’t support it. The bigger the company, the more sketchy. America is already having a power trip with Trump in office waving his pom-poms for big business. Neither Apple nor Disney need to grow in size [or power]. When I think corporate America, I think DATA... and Apple x Disney would have WAY too much. The amount of consumer insights + control of the market the two would have together is sketchy indeed. 

Most are skeptical about whether or not this merger will actually happen; as I mentioned, it is very much a rumor. But the possibility has hit headlines for sure. 

source:

http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/apple-disney-acquisition-rumor-1202029827/

[rocheyadegar-blog]

TV Tryna Play Catch Up in Target Ads.

Variety’s article, “Turner, Viacom and Fox Debut ‘Open A.P.’ Ad-Targeting Plan to Broader View” is about just that. Tell you more? ... Sure. 

Digital media has been killing the advertising game because they are better able to depict demographics, helping advertisers promote products to target audiences. TV has been struggling - competing for ad spots with digital, because while they have scale they lack in the targeting demographics department... that is, until now. TV is tryna catch up, and here’s how. 

Open A.P. is a new platform “that allows advertisers to use a standard set of data sets when trying to figure out where to reach narrower consumer targets such as first-time car buyers, expectant mothers or avid moviegoers [using] set-top box data from comScore as well as ratings and consumer information from Nielsen as part of their offering.” 

Why is this important? According to the article, “striking deals based on more narrowly defined audience characteristics allows the companies to get paid for viewership, no matter the screen in question, and might even let them charge a premium for finding an advertiser’s most likely consumer base.” Can you say, “ca-ching?” 

This is all fine and dandy, but what’s most interesting in this situation is that the three big boys[or girls] gathered together to make this work. Turner, Viacom and Fox can thank digital media for turning their “rivalry”, if you will, into a new bromance. Its cute for now, but feels weary to see these competitors “on the same team.”  As proclaimed by the ancient proverb, all it takes is a common enemy to make a friend(s)...Or is it? 

source: 

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/turner-viacom-fox-open-ap-advertising-digital-targeting-1202026262/

[rocheyadegar-blog]

No Math Skills Needed To Solve This Problem: Pepsi + Kendall Jenner + “Protest” = FAIL

We can all take a moment to let out a communal “oiy ya yoi.” Maybe even repeat three times. And sigh. 

What is going on with the world? How could a company like Pepsi be so far removed from the discourse of decency, basic ethics, and an elementary understanding of what is appropriate? I can only imagine the brainstorm drafting the ideation for their recently released, highly controversial ad. Wow. 

“Good” intentions definitely still reap horrid results and don’t taint the severity of consequences nor levels of sympathy. This is something Pepsi learned the hard way. Their ad, adopting and adapting a scene from Black Lives Matter protests, not only undermines, but in its essence as an ad, seeks to capitalize off of the prevalent activism in our country. During a time when protesting is a dominant form of resistance and action, this is unfathomable. In the ad, protesters are trendy, they’re smiling, they’re jolly. This is not to say that protesting is not a “positive” act, but especially in regards to the Black Lives Matter movement, this “fine and dandy” attitude is not that which reigns and is not that which makes a difference. In fact, the ad does a perfect job at demonstrating how vastly misunderstood activist methods [and hardships] are - simply through the their projections that are so far off from reality. The distaste reveals the privilege of the “creatives” sitting behind their desks or on the production set. That privilege is only dramatized by the fine choice of Kendall Jenner, an icon of [white] privilege and the “American dream” as its star.

The critiques can go on, and on, and on, and on [and on and on and on....]. But from a “business of media” standpoint, there is a great lesson to be learned from Pepsi’s mistake. One is that of representation, which I have discussed time and time again in these blog posts. And the other is that of boundaries and sensitivity relative to the current political climate. The two are very much related, because knowing one’s place is not exactly easy when they do not have any access to outside perspectives. The fuss over this ad is not merely its content, but the fact that it was approved and made it as far as it did. CLEARLY, Pepsi has a representation problem within their ads teams. CLEARLY, those people do NOT know their place and have a blurred sense of what is appropriate. There must be standards for what is considered “fair game” or “ethical” for commercialization. Heightened police brutality and persisting racism in our country leading to protests happening left and right should not be foolishly mistaken as an opportunity to sell a product... or as good PR for a model/reality TV star. 

Sipping from a can of Coke, America has us shaking our heads, yet again. Oiy ya yoi. 

Source: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/opinion/a-pepsi-commercials-lesson-for-advertisers.html

[rocheyadegar-blog]

“TV’s Dead Zone”

Variety’s article “TV’s Dead Zone: How the Cable Sector Is Killing Off Struggling Networks” opens up saying, “overcrowded channel lineups are getting gutted in the skinny-bundle era.” This is true. As we have discussed in class, particularly referencing Bob Backish’s new cut-back strategy at Viacom, companies are starting to focus [pretty much solely] on more established, well-performing networks as opposed to less popular niche ones. And apparently, Viacom is not the only one. According to the article, A + E was planning on making similar moves with their FYI channel, riding on the trend that speaks to the struggle the cable sector is experiencing, ultimate forcing them to cut off some limbs to salvage their business. 

“So many of these networks do less than 100,000 viewers in total-day average; there just aren’t enough eyeballs to support them. But they’re taking money out of the ecosystem,” says Coleman Breland, distribution president for Turner Broadcasting. Put this way, its clear that these underperforming channels are not only hurting their parent companies, but the industry as a whole by lingering in their low numbers and withholding potential viewers to strengthen perhaps better performing channels………. or lend more eyeballs to streaming services, deepening the grave they have already been digging.  

This hit to the cable industry is said to be fostered by the “big jolt in the pay-TV arena: the rise of low-cost streaming -channel packages.” We all already know that. The question remains, aside from continuing to invest in their digital platforms, how will the traditional media companies, in this case cable companies, compete with Netflix and other streaming services for niche audiences? 

At the rate this is going, it seems the big fish are surrendering. They have been accepting their losses in niche areas and are choosing to focus on their well performing channels/ networks instead. Again, Viacom is a prime example, as even RuPaul’s Drag Race has been moved from Logo to VH1(which is not even part of the core six networks Viacom is shifting all focus on)… we can predict what that means - bye bye Logo. Switches like these will slowly but surely begin to speak for themselves. For cable companies’ sake, hopefully eyeballs will wander to the sister networks who survive (like Logo viewers being lead to VH1). But that’s only best case scenario. It is more likely than not that eyeballs will wander in a rather predictable direction (…cue increase in streaming service subscriptions). 

Source:

http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/overcrowded-cable-sector-esquire-spike-fyi-1202012647/ 

[rocheyadegar-blog]

Project Diamond Keeps Diversity Measurement Records on the DL

Project Diamond is an initiative created to measure  diversity on TV in order to resolve representation problems within the British TV Industry - particularly in response to complaints regarding a lack of representation of black and minority ethnic people in the creative industries. Their website bio reads, “It’s time to ‘switch the lights on’ to diversity in the UK TV industry. Diamond has been created to provide detailed, consistent and comprehensive monitoring and reporting of diversity in a way that has never been achieved before.”

“Project Diamond is a golden opportunity for positive change within our industry...” exclaimed Ellie Peers, the WGGB’s acting general secretary, “...but only if there is transparency.” And there’s the catch. According to The Guardian TV writers have threatened to boycott this diversity measurement project because they refuse to reveal their measurement records. Writers and others in the industry are frustrated by the fact that they do not have access to the data they need to help them solve the existing representation problem. Without the records, they are unable to identify who has a diverse crew and who does not, and with that cannot work to improve.

It is quite a shame and overall counter productive to go as far as to track representation and then be unwilling to expose the distinctions between the remarkable from the average and of course, the unacceptable. The standards need to be set - and they need to be known, at least within the industry, in order to foster a hierarchal sense of who is doing it right. There is no bad competition when it comes to competing for better conditions and equal opportunity. I hope the writers [and others] continue to demand more from their creative superiors and peers as well as reachers within the industry to work towards further diversifying employment that will be better equipped to produce well rounded and more “authentic” representations in TV programming. 

sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/10/tv-writers-threaten-to-boycott-diversity-measuring-project 

http://creativediversitynetwork.com/diamond/

[rocheyadegar-blog]

The New York Times Ad for The Oscars

Truth is... this ad is worth watching. The New York Times bought an ad spot for one of the most-watched events/ shows in America outside of sports, The Oscars. As discussed weeks ago, while digital advertising is so popular due to its ability to reach target audiences, there’s not much like the scale of advertising on TV, let alone during an event known to attract so many eyeballs to TV screens. In the midst of the fake-news phenomenon of our day, The Times made it a point to admit - "The truth is hard...to find...to know...more important now than ever.” 

This is true. However, Avi Dan, a contributor to Forbes, is rather critical of their approach; and while he may be a bit harsh I think he has a fair point. He argues that this ad, in its particular spot, is only preaching to the choir - similar to Hilary Clinton in her presidential campaign. Most audiences who watch The Oscars are very much aware of the importance of independent press & most likely either have subscriptions to the Times or at least read their articles here and there. The coast-to-coast love of the media industries - between LA/ Hollywood and NYC may give many snaps to this ad - but they are not those who need to jump on the bandwagon. Dan contrasts the NYT campaign with one from the Washington Post titled, “Democracy Dies In Darkness.” Dan raves that it’s “smart and concise. It is inclusive and defines journalism’s role in a way that all can understand and support.” 

Both papers deserve a pat on the back for their efforts, though the Washington Post’s branding may have catered better to the cause. Regardless, of the content, I bring up this The New York Times x ABC x The Oscars endeavor to draw attention to an example that embodies the intersectionality of several industries we are focusing on in class. In the aims of seeking attention and spreading awareness, we see a crossbred product of the press using TV as a medium to send a message during a national event surrounding film & the arts. In a time where as the ad states, “the nation is more divided than ever,” I think both Avi Dan and I would agree that it’d be nice to see how [and if] less expected collaborations will take shape to disseminate points of view to those who would not encounter them otherwise. We need to get better at communicating with our fellow American counterparts, because after all, [hopefully] we are all on the same “team.” 

source: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/avidan/2017/02/27/why-the-new-york-times-ad-on-the-oscars-missed-the-mark/#263133c7d653

[rocheyadegar-blog]

Attention Merchants Now & Then: The Same But Different

The early rise of TV networks NBC and CBS mirror the rise of Google and Facebook in that they have mastered grabbing consumer attention using the contemporary medium of their time. From radio to TV, and now from desktop/laptop to mobile - these attention merchants know (or knew) how to work with what they’ve got (or had). Anyways, the fact that they are both masterminded attention merchants is the most obvious and overarching parallel. However, their models still differ radically. 

TV networks provided a platform and service to disseminate content they produced by themselves. Not only was this costly but it had to “guess” or gauge what wold “work.” It’s also worth mentioning that a chunk of the content that they were producing themselves was loosing them money (i.e. sustaining content).  Whereas Facebook and and Google merely (remarkably) provide the platform/template for their users to populate with their own content - literally making users simultaneously consumers and producers of content on their platforms. [Sarnoff’s “we’re the pipes” approach in selling hardware (TVs and radios) slightly resembles this - but I would consider that parallel to be stronger with a company like Apple as opposed to google or Facebook.]  Google and Facebook’s user/producer relationship is unique in that users [appear to] have more control over what they consume because they take part in producing it (even more so on Facebook) ... yet at the same time, there is a stark limit to that control - that being a increasing loss of control over one’s privacy and true ownership of self-produced content. 

Issues TV networks faced in their earlier phases also resemble issues Google and Facebook face or were facing, such as juggling between being a public service and a business (this is more of a struggle for Google, I’d think). As the networks matured (at least a bit) they faced a new struggle, what Tim Wu refers to as “the attention merchant’s eternal dilemma: too little advertising and the business can’t grow; too much advertising and the listening [consumer] grows resentful and tunes out.” Do I really need to flesh that out? I mean - even YouTube is currently struggling to figure out what to do about their skippable ads. 

From a cultural perspective, in the company of some moral panics of course, TV networks brought families together, per se. TVs (and radios) were shared (usually 1 per home) and thus, viewing was a shared experience. On the other hand, the internet, housing both Google and Facebook, is typically operated 1:1 - one phone/tablet/computer:person.  Now, digital media giants have gained heat for distancing families and people in general from one another. However, regardless of the viewing, together or alone, TV networks and today’s media giants shamelessly invade the home/ our daily lives with persistent ads. Our attention is always being sold and we are always having things sold to us - sometimes, without even knowing it. Whether that is pure genius or blatantly messed up isn’t for me to say, but if I were to... I’d suggest the latter. 

[rocheyadegar-blog]

The Path Less Traveled: Podcast to TV

“Three cavalier brothers from West Virginia are the latest to try that less-traveled trail” Neil Genzlinger writes in his TV Review, “Advice From Three Modern Stooges” in the New York Times. And what might that be? Brining a podcast series to screens on TV.  While this is an untraditional route, it does seem like quite an interesting jump. This audio web series, “My Brother, My Brother, and Me,” revolving around brothers giving advice to ridiculous questions like “How do I get my wife to let me get a pet tarantula?” is being translated and ringing in the visual to further bring its series to life. And apparently, they’re not the only ones taking this fairly unique hike. The article also cites another podcast to TV show, “Maron,” that took the less scripted/ more improvised “without-a-net feeling” of a podcast that may be a little all over the place on the screen but still does the trick; viewers are into it. While the review of the show itself certainly did not seem high star, Genzlinger does applaud the brothers for doing “a commendable job of translating the deadpan quirkiness of the podcast to the small screen,” and for my purposes, that’s pretty much all that matters. We all know that original content is raging right now; people are producing stories in various formats all over the web. And here we see yet another possibility of appropriating content into different formats. I am curious to see who follows this lead - and am keeping my eyes open for perhaps a higher rated podcast series that also nails this translation. There may be some big[er] dollar signs in podcasters’ futures if they get acquired by big networks. I guess we shall see if/when they do. 

source: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/arts/television/review-my-brother-my-brother-and-me-seeso-mcelroy.html 

[rocheyadegar-blog]

Disney Cuts Ties With Famous YouTuber PewDiePie

They say if you hang around trash you start to stink; both Disney and YouTube know it’s true and try their best to keep it fresh. (Cue stinky situation…) PewDiePie is the online alter ego of 27-year-old Swede Felix Kjellberg, who last I checked, has 53,492,271 subscribers on YouTube. He was killing the YouTube game, breaking viewing records on the video-sharing platform… until he decided to hire people to hold up a sign saying “Death to all Jews” in a video. There is no need to discuss the obvious absurdity of this decision (creative or not). What is worth discussing, however, is the response he got from Disney, who cut off all ties with Kjellberg immediately. Of course, network-talent partnerships are formed and broken all the time for brand/reputation management (I mean, who would have guessed that Hannah Montana would become a sex/drug icon). Yet, this case feels different and certainly gives rise to a new[ish] moral panic.

Kids spend A LOT of time on YouTube. Many subscribe to and religiously follow celebrity Tubers, and in the end of the day,  parents can’t fully supervise what their kids are watching. A huge part of this ‘issue’ is that there is no guarantee that the quality of content or talent on the platform is held to an appropriate or kid-friendly standard. Unlike talent casted on traditionally produced shows aired on TV or housed on Netflix, YouTube stars do not go through a thorough selection process (which lends to why the platform is known to be so democratic). YouTube stars publish their own content and build an organic following, thus, they are credited as attention-worthy based on their visible fan base (the quantity of video views and subscriptions they ‘earn’). 

Here we see the politics of self-made internet celebs - the power they get through their reach and attention retention - and the potential to disseminate [threatening alt right] ideals to unsupervised young audiences. Disney set an exemplary precedent to keep YouTube trash at arm’s length - as did YouTube cancelling PewDiePie’s second season on the platform. Nonetheless, YouTube will have to keep this and related incidents on their radar. As a proudly democratic platform, how will they continue to deal with the alt right (or extremists of any kind) using their sharing service as a vehicle to propagate ideals that pose a threat to the very democracy they strive to embody? The company will continue to encounter the classic crossroads of free speech vs. the need for censorship. We’ll have to stay tuned to see how they navigate this ethical dilemma.  

sources:

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/pewdiepie-racism-alt-right/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/magazine/youtubes-monster-pewdiepie-and-his-populist-revolt.html

[rocheyadegar-blog]

Is Banking on Super-Producers Closing the Door on New Talent?

Peak TV, Peak TV, Peak TV… it’s still a major fuss of the industry, and the conversations around it - its trends, struggles, successes and all continue. Two weeks ago I discussed ads on peak TV. This time around, let’s talk about the actual series and some potential struggles brewing within the networks’ ring of broadcast TV. 

As per Variety’s article “Can New Voices Break Through in Pilot Season Dominated by Familiar Names?” there is evidently some concern regarding the massive name dropping trend of super-producers in series coming out on the “big four″ networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX). They are banking on true-hit-makers to keep audiences coming, but as the article warns, this should be done with much precaution. 

“When you go through the grids of show creators or producers attached, it’s the obvious names coming up over and over again,” a source explained to Variety. How is this a problem? I mean… really, is that even a question? It’s an issue all industries face; while maintaining faith in already successful talent, networks (in this case) sacrifice their capacity to embrace and encourage new talent. It’s impossible for new names rise to the top when super-producers keep hogging showtime. 

“…turning to experienced producers with seasoned teams around them helps broadcasters mitigate risk,” the article continues, and we understand this. It’s true - it makes sense. But how can networks do a better job at achieving a healthy balance? It’s time to start investing more faith in the newbies… Shonda Rhimes and those within her ranking have already had their fair share. 

Source: 

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/pilot-season-shonda-rhimes-1201979580/

[rocheyadegar-blog]

Nickelodeon Taps Into Princess Profit (With A Progressive Twist)

Disney has earned their reputation for producing the most widely adored princesses, classic and all. And while they kick major butt in the market, the Disney Princesses have their fair share of critics who are discontent with their ethnic and gender stereotyped representations. It is 2017 as we know it, and both content creators and audiences are getting increasingly tired of the outdated and overdone damsel in distress narrative. And thus, Nickelodeon decided to take a stab at this money making story model with their very own progressive twist. 

Ladies and gents, meet Nella, the not-so-average, biracial Princess Knight! “The self-empowered Nella pushes boundaries, at least for television aimed at 2-year-olds, in the areas of race and gender” The New York Times reported this past Thursday. And as someone who has been working on this property for several months now, I can vouch that this is true. From her leadership to her awesome (and by no means ladylike) dragon call, Nella nails gender fluidity on the head. It’s also worth mentioning that child programming could always use diverse characters to further broaden representations within the television industry.

It is quite the time for this dynamic story being told, in the midst of what feels like an unbearably conservative climate here in the U.S.. I for one, have my fingers crossed for more Nellas in this world, both on and off the screen. I may be biased as a Nick Intern - but so be it. I, along with the people I work with, are very proud to introduce this progressive and diverse female character with a can-do attitude as a role model for young audiences and content creators alike. 

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/arts/television/nickelodeon-wades-into-princess-politics.html?_r=0

[rocheyadegar-blog]

Grab It While It’s Hot: Custom Content Scores For Ads On Peak TV

Peak TV is a steaming commodity, and everyone, especially advertisers, want a piece while it’s still hot. But how can advertisers be sure that they’re getting their fair share? Well, Viacom claims to have developed a strategy for picking the slickest slice of the pie, and here’s how. For starters, according to Brandon Garabowski, Director of Data Strategy at Viacom, there are two problems with the ways advertising campaigns are built for TV today. These large scale problems can be pinpointed to a. the projection of bias during data interpretation and b. target selection. The solution? An algorithm of course. 

“Algorithms are written by humans and are therefore subject to bias. We need to be using data to help us with the decision making process but not to make the decisions for us. That’s where our custom content score kicks in” stated Garabowski himself. So, how exactly is an algorithm expected to resolve the issues algorithms set forth? That’s what I’m wondering. 

According to Garabowski, the custom content score calculates the affinities of an advertiser’s target audience and creates a map of these affinities (for example: genre preferences, celebrity affinity, interests, and so on). This affinity map can surface contradictory data that can then be compromised to maximize both share and interest. So, it helps with the decision making process, but is not depended on to determine a definitive decision. While it certainly is a solution of sorts, I am still skeptical of how this approach makes sense. If advertising campaigns are criticized for added biases during the interpretation of data, then how is the solution to create a [proclaimed biased] algorithm that helps interpret biased results? 

That I do not have an answer for. What I can say, however, is that with growing numbers in a growing industry (with an estimate of 400 scripted series this year) algorithms do indeed seem to be here to stay. They may be built with biases, but then again, what isn’t? Am I letting this off too easy? Maybe. But for now I’ll say that by creating this method in which biases in an algorithm can be checked (by analyzing the created affinity map) is perhaps a step in the right direction. Perhaps results will be better refined. Perhaps. With that for now, the moral of the story: check yourself before you wreck yourself. We, well, advertisers, shall see how that plays out, with pie in hand. 

Stay tuned,

Roché 

Sources: 

http://v.viacom.com/tvadvertising-algorithms/?utm_source=012717_newsletter11&utm_content=tv-advertising-algorithms 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/08/have-we-reached-peak-tv/401009/