Why you SHOULDN'T watch your favorite shows on-the-air (or cable)

If you REALLY want to help a TV show you love, don't watch on the networks (including cable). Watch a (legal) streaming feed or DVR.  Why?

TV series live and die by the ratings, but many people do not realize that weekly ratings that lead to cancellation or renewal are only collected from the top 50 markets (cities) in the country.

On top of that, only a random sample of homes with "people meters" actually get counted, and then are project statistically.

So, if you live in a big city, but do NOT have a people meter, you don't get counted.  If you live anywhere else you do not get counted...if you watch your show over-the-air or on cable, that is.

On the other hand, ratings today take into account how many people streamed or DVRed the show in the seven days after the network/cable broadcast.  When you stream or DVR the show you DO get counted.

(Of course, this means streamed legally, or DVRed with a system that can "phone home" to report your viewing.  Bootleg copyright infringed streams, downloads, and old-style home video recorders don't get counted.)

The reality is, there are some shows that get twice or more as many views via legal streaming/DVRing than they do in the network/cable feeds. This is particularly true when you look at certain desirable demographics, like 18-49-year-olds. A three-times increase is not unheard of.

Because these streaming/DVR viewers still get commercials, the networks make money from every commercial you see, and profitability and return on investment is what gets a series renewed, or canceled if the return is too low. 

So the "broadcast plus seven" ratings are influential, and streaming/DVRing allows you to contribute to the ratings of the shows you like.  Or, if you still like the context of gathering for the broadcast at a specific time, watch the live feed but make sure you also stream it again, at least once, before seven days are up.

(Of course, this does not address original series from Netflix, etc, that are never on the broadcast and cable channels.  They are not counted in any ratings, other than the company's internal tracking of hits, downloads, and streams, which they rarely reveal.)

So again, of you REALLY want to help your favorite shows, make sure you stream them at least once in the seven days following the original network/cable feed and add your ratings into the renewal calculations.

What I'm Looking for in Star Trek Discovery

I have largely been avoiding the studio/network hype about the new Star Trek series. But I have very clear ideas about what I am looking for, and what don't want to see.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I watched the very first broadcast of Star Trek in the United States in 1966.  I have seen every Star Trek episode and movie, and read quite a few of the books.

I know first hand WHY Star Trek became so popular in the 1960s and 70s -- its unique spirit of hope for a positive future, coming in a time characterized by summer-long race riots in major cities, a military draft sending young men off to die in what was widely considered to be a unjust war, and of course the country trearing itself apart over Watergate. This social context is mostly lost on young people watching the old episodes today.

In many ways, Star Trek functions as a modern myth.  It is a story told time-after-time, with variations each time. But the underlying message of hope, ethics, diversity, and professional behavior always remains (at least when Trek is done well).  These are the things that will determine how much I like what I see in "DSC."

So here are seven things I want, or do not want, in the new Star Trek series when it premiers this coming Sunday:

1.  I want to see professional officers treating each other with respect, even when under duress. The recent avalanche across the media of unlikable characters doing unethical things to each other leaves me totally uninterested.  It is called "Dystopian" storytelling, because it represents the opposite of the "Utopian" ideal society.  It is lazy storytelling and does not belong in Star Trek, in my opinion.

2.  I don't care if the starships and sets don't perfectly fit the feel of being a decade before the Original Series Enterprise. Because Discovery is basically "retelling the myth" the producers are allowed to employ modern production design, in my opinion.  But I will like when there are resonances.

3.  I want thoughtful, nuanced scripts that have subtle layers of meaning, and do not depend on unlikely coincidences to advance the plot. One of the things that long-term fans want most, I think, is solid stories that aren't filled with plot holes.  this is why many are unhappy withe ht J.J. Abrams movies - the plot holes.

4.  Oh, and bad guys need to make sense. Too often in all the media, bad guys are bad just for the sake of being bad. On the other hand, Khan was such a powerful and popular villain because we COULD clearly understand the circumstances that led him to hate Kirk.  I like nuanced antagonists with motivation that makes sense.

5.  On a related note, Klingons have been done to death in Trek.  Given that we have them yet again, I do not want them to be cardboard.  Theirs is a rich culture with both positive and negative things in its history. I hope they come cross as more than aggressive jerks.

6. When they do reference characters from The Original Series, like Sarek or Harry Mudd, I want them to feel like the same characters, even though they are played by different actors.  Don't "reimagine" them.

7.  I must say that the highly detailed continuity of Star Trek appeals to me. I do not mind DSC filling in gaps, but I really don't want the producers contradicting something that is well established in on-screen Trek, just for expediency.  All science fiction includes world building. This world of Star Trek is already rich and complex. I want DSC to work within it.

So there you have it -- what I am looking for in the new incarnation of Star Trek. I understand that I am too old be in the target demographic CBS is looking for with this new series.  But that doesn't mean that I am not entitled to evaluate how closely the network is supporting the long-term "brand identify" of Star Trek.

The Psychology of Colors

I tell my marketing communication students that every detail of the communication between a business or organization and its constituents must reinforce the fundamental positioning and brand promise of the organization. This includes the colors used in visual communication.

My friend and former student Rhea tweeted a link to the infographic at the bottom of this page, reminding me of a design course I previously taught in which we addressed the meaning conveyed by colors.  It shows why businesses select the colors used in their logos and marketing materials VERY carefully.

Take oil company logos, for example.  Many of them make strong use of red to signalled power, energy, and boldness. Blue represents trust and loyalty, and the white stands for cleanliness and purity.  Gulf's orange represents nature, confidence, and innovation. These colors support the image the company want to project, or at least did in years past, when the logos were created.



But British Petroleum uses green, signalling health, nature, and prosperity, with shades of yellow for optimism and happiness, and white for cleanliness and purity.

See also how the symbolism of these colors reflects how BP wants to be seen today? NOT as polluting and reaping windfall profits but rather as safe, clean, and worthwhile?

Colors are a powerful tool for conveying meaning in visual communications.  They are "subtext," or meaning below the surface, and connotations.  But the meaning is still there, serving the desired brand image of the company.

(The colors and meanings in the infographic are for Western culture.  In Eastern, culture, there are some differences.)

Next time you look at a favorite company's logo, check to see what meaning the color(s) convey.

The original post is at: 

https://iconicfox.com.au/2017/07/27/colour-in-branding-infographic/

Star Trek Discovery

Star Trek Discovery premiers next month and I have largely been avoiding the growing hype from CBS.  But I will be interested to see how they fit this series in to established Trek continuity and the overall Star Trek "brand."

This series is acknowledged to be set a decade before The Original Series.  Way back in the early stages of production development, Brian Fuller said it revolves around an event that has been mentioned, but not seen on screen.  I have been wondering what that event is.

There have been indications that Discovery is set in the context of a cold war between the Federation and the Klingons. There have been allusions in previous Trek to conflict between the Klingons and Starfleet in the years before Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise.

The inconclusive Battle of Donatu IV would have taken place around ten years before Discovery (mentioned in The Trouble with Tribbles).

Kirk once mentioned having seen what Klingons do to occupied planets - organizing slave labor camps, eliminating all freedoms, confiscating goods, and taking hostages (Errand of Mercy).

Kirk was in his early 30s in The Original Series, making him barely out of Starfleet Academy ten years earlier, or maybe even still a cadet.  Of course, his reference to having seen what Klingons do does not necessarily mean he was on the scene in person.

So, that's about all we know about the Klingons a decade before The Original Series.

Somewhere in there was also the Battle of Axenar. It would be an interesting choice to incorporate this battle, given that one of the semi-copyright infringed fan productions purports to tell the story of Axenar.  I don't think it is definitive that the Klingons were involved, but they may have been.

And of course, the "decade before The Original Series" time frame puts it right at, or just after, the Enterprise's first visit to Talos IV (as seen in the Cage and The Menagerie).

It is also interesting that one of the main characters is apparently Spock's adoptive sister, although he may have moved out of the household of Amanda and Sarek by the time she came along.  Of course, Spock went for at least 20 years without mentioning a half brother (Sybok) so we can't assume that he would have mentioned an adopted sister.

I have a great dislike for the dystopian stories that are so common today, which I have described as "unlikable people doing unethical things to each other."  This cold war storyline COULD go that direction, but I hope it doesn't.   I hope that when they say they are being faithful to the vision of Gene Roddenberry about characters being professional and respecting each other, they are telling the truth and not just making empty claims.

Guerrilla Tactics for Corporate Tax Cuts

From The Intercept

The billionaire Koch brothers have plans to plant questions and comments at August congressional recess town hall meetings to make it appear that there is a grassroots demand for lower corporate taxes.

That's according to a confidential plan obtained by The Intercept, reported in this story. (The Intercept is the site that released Edward Snowden's documents about NSA hacking.)

Such guerrilla tactics are not new in politics. Over the years, there have been plenty of examples of paid rally attendees and planted questions -- more times than you can count, all across the political spectrum.

Sometimes the politician (or staff) does it, to make the politician look good or get a foot in the door for a prepared answer. Sometimes it really is to persuade the politician. But sometimes the goal is to allow the politician to JUSTIFY voting the way certain lobbyists and campaign contributors want.

"Every place I went this August, people were encouraging me to support cutting corporate taxes."

See how this helps justify voting a certain way?

But it's also hard to NOT see this underground campaign in the context of "back home" political events earlier this spring, in which activists hammered away on progressive social causes -- so much so that some Republicans were scared away from holding public events at all.

Don't get me wrong -- most politicians are honest, hard working, and devoted to serving their constituents. But they can also become seduced by power.  If you want to serve your constituents, you need more and more power, such as better subcommittee and committee assignments. To get those, you need to be seen as supporting the party leadership. And that means voting for litmus test legislation, like repealing the Affordable Care Act.

If you're going to vote on a controversial bill like that, it helps to have a strong rationale for WHY you voted the way you do. And that's where the guerrilla questions and comments at public events come in. When "constituent" questions go the way the politician wants, it's great. When they go a different direction, the politician resorts to avoidance.

To counter this kind of tactic, advocates for the other side need to keep turning out in force and keep countering the guerrilla operatives.

Distorted News

There has been a lot of talk recently about fake news in social media.  There is some, deliberately intended to deceive, but the much bigger problem is advocacy cloaked as journalism, that distorts the story in order to advocate a particular political or social agenda.

Here are some examples of recent headlines that are probably NOT news:

       It's worse than you think

       The electoral system was rigged — for Donald Trump

       Trump releases seven-point health care reform plan . . . and it's excellent

The secret is understanding whether the source has an editorial bias.  MUCH of what we see coming down our news feeds is actually advocacy for one side or the other.

How do you tell?  It's really not hard.  If the headline or story contains a value judgement or opinion that is NOT attributed to someone, it is advocacy, not journalism (even if it resembles a news story).

The only things that do not need to be attributed in journalistic writing are facts that are "widely known or easily verifiable."  But in promotional writing using journalistic style can stretch this "widely known" criteria to the breaking point, making for the subtle implication that "everybody else knows this but you."

The complicating factor is that you can't just base your evaluation on the publication or website.   Many legitimate news sources also carry editorials, guest columns, and other opinion pieces.

You have to make an article-by-article evaluation!