Thursday February 12th marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. Considered by most historians as the greatest American President, Lincoln was also the first President to grasp the benefits and power of telecommunications.

Barack Obama has been an avid admirer of his fellow Illinoisan Abraham Lincoln. Obama had announced his candidacy for President on Lincoln’s birthday in 2007 at the Old State Capitol Building in Springfield, the location of Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech. One of Obama’s favorite books has been Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. The books’ central theme was that Lincoln had appointed most of his Presidential rivals to his cabinet, including William Seward for Secretary of State. Nearly 150 years later, Obama named Hillary Clinton to run the State Department. His connection was further solidified when Obama was sworn in as President using the same Bible Lincoln used in 1861.

There is another parallel shared by the author of the Emancipation Proclamation and the first American President of African descent. Both were “early adopters” of technology and used them frequently for political gain and to get information. Originally considered an unsophisticated westerner, Lincoln was fascinated with new technology (Lincoln is the only President to be granted a patent), whether it was the latest in weaponry, hot air balloons, railroads (he had paved the way for the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869) or the telegraph, which was first used in 1844.

According to Tom Wheeler’s book Mr. Lincoln’s T-Mails, Lincoln almost immediately saw the advantages of the telegraph. His historic debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858 crystallized his position on slavery and were carried almost instantly around the nation, paving the way for his Presidential run two years later. In Harold Holzer’s book Lincoln at Cooper Union, the westerner travelled to New York City in February 1860 with a historic speech that solidified himself as a serious Presidential candidate. The speech contained the famous last sentence, “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” The elegant prose was not only designed to impress those in attendance at Cooper Union, but also to electrify the country via the telegraph. After Lincoln was nominated, he invited his Vice Presidential choice Hannibal Hamlin to meet him, the time and place was decided by the telegraph. Lincoln notified his choice for Secretary of War Simon Cameron (another rival) with a telegraph message, followed by a formal letter. Lastly, as Wheeler’s book points out, Lincoln used the telegraph as a personal news service throughout the Civil War as well as an opportunity to give military strategies and suggestions to his field commanders. Lincoln’s assassination was known to millions at a speed unheard of because of the telegraph.

Like Lincoln, Obama has also shown a keen interest in technology. Among Obama’s campaign advisors included Eric Schmidt the CEO of Google and Chris Hughes a co-founder of Facebook. One of Obama’s campaign promises was the creation of the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer. The cabinet level position would ensure that the government maintains a state of the art infrastructure and increases cyber security.

During the campaign Obama welcomed new technologies unlike any of other candidates. This strategy was especially effective in reaching young voters. For example, the design of Obama’s website was considered a major success. The website was easier to navigate and encouraged voters to receive more information on the candidate. Another asset was continually updating the website. Throughout the campaign, Obama’s website had consistently more unique visitors than any of his rivals.

Besides the website, the Obama campaign also welcomed other aspects of the Internet. For example, Obama’s social network attracted 3.5 million “friends”. They optimized paid search so that anytime anyone searched for “Barack” or “Obama”, the campaign website appeared. Obama was only one of two candidates to use online sponsored listings.

Obama’s technology reached its climax in August 2008, when, according to Nielsen, 2.9 million people received, via text message, Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running mate. Supporters were invited to text VP to 62262 to be the first to know. This was considered the single largest mobile marketing event (and not to different from what President Lincoln had done). Despite the strategy, the media had discovered of Obama’s choice before the text message was sent.

Since his election, Obama’s interest in technology has continued. He fought with the Secret Service to keep his blackberry, although it is restricted for security reasons, making him the first President to have one. His proposed economic stimulus package included a campaign promise to make high-speed Internet access available across the United States.

Technology is another similarity between Lincoln and Obama. Lincoln used and understood the telegraph as a powerful communications vehicle in the 19th century. In all likelihood, if Lincoln were campaigning and elected President in the 21st century, he would recognize the assets that modern technology would bring to him and to the country.

admin Technology Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama, New York, Technology

badgate TV Appearances

obamamania

admin TV Appearances Barack Obama, Obamamania

In February, the broadcast networks air three of their highest-rated specials, the Super Bowl, the Grammy Awards and the Academy Awards, in what would typically be the “sweeps.” The only problem is that this year, February sweeps have been delayed to accommodate the transition to digital TV on Feb. 17, which apparently will now most likely be delayed until June 12 (the February sweeps in 2009 will begin on March 5). The other major problem? Two of these shows, the Grammy Awards and the Academy Awards, have been in a ratings tailspin.

Last year’s Academy Awards were reportedly the lowest-rated in 39 years, attracting only 32 million viewers (live plus same day), and marking a decline in viewing for the fifth straight year.

Photo Credit: AP

And it’s not just those two high-profile award shows that have suffered audience erosion annually. Virtually every other annual award show is undergoing the same fate.

Last year’s Academy Awards were reportedly the lowest-rated in 39 years, attracting only 32 million viewers (live plus same day). This marked the fifth straight year the Academy Awards reported a decline in viewing. ABC has dropped the cost of a thirty-second commercial to $1.4 million for 2009 (from $1.7 million). The Oscars will also accept movie ads, with certain restrictions, for the first time.

The Grammy Awards have not fared much better, averaging only 17.2 million viewers, among the lowest in years. The audience for the Grammy Awards has also been in a steady downward spiral. In 2008, the Grammy Awards telecast was 3 hours and 40 minutes, the longest since 1992.

Not just Grammys and Oscars
The decline in award shows is not limited to the Oscars and Grammys. Many other award shows on broadcast TV have suffered their lowest or near-lowest ratings in 2008 or 2009.

For example, the 2008 Primetime Emmy Awards drew only 12.3 million viewers, a drop of 33% since 2005. The audience levels were comparable to the 1990 Emmy Awards, the least-watched in history. The 2008 Daytime Emmy Awards followed suit, attracting only 5.4 million viewers and a measly 1.2 rating for adults 18-49. (While honoring daytime TV, the award show airs in prime-time, most recently in June.) The Tony Awards, one of the lowest-rated award shows on TV, continues to suffer from poor audience levels. The 2008 show generated only 6.3 million viewers, a slight increase from 2007 but a drop of 18% from 2006. The Tony Awards averaged a paltry 1.1. rating among adults 18-49.

While the writers strike wreaked havoc with the 2008 People’s Choice Awards and Golden Globe Awards, the audience for both award shows in 2009 did not bounce back from 2007. The ratings for the 2009 Golden Globes were the lowest since it moved to broadcast TV from cable in 1996. Total viewers were down 24% when compared with 2007. The 2009 People’s Choice Awards averaged 9.4 million viewers. The audience for the award show has been in steady decline before reaching its nadir in 2009.

Recent drop
The audience delivery of other award shows such as the American Music Awards, ACM Awards and CMA Awards have actually held in recent years. Nonetheless, the ratings have not held compared with just a few years ago.

What has happened to award shows? Besides the obvious answers such as the continued fractionalization of TV, the shows are too long, there is a glut of award shows on broadcast and cable, many of the nominees televised are too obscure, and too much time is spent on the less-prestigious categories. There are also some other factors to consider.

The award shows are becoming passe with the changing tastes of viewers, especially younger viewers. Award shows, similar to beauty pageants, have been on TV since the early days. While there are still beauty pageants on network TV (e.g., Miss Universe, Miss USA), they are also reporting the same steady audience erosion that many awards shows have recorded. The once top-rated Miss America pageant has even moved to cable after an abysmal showing in 2004.

Audiences getting older
The current median age of award shows proves younger viewers are less interested in these types of shows. Many now have a median audience age of above 50, and are getting older each year. The most recent airing of the Primetime Emmys had a median viewer age of 52.1, the Daytime Emmys was 58.4, the People’s Choice Awards 50.8, the Tony Awards 61.3 and the ACM Awards was 54.7. Other award shows are at the very high end of the key 18-49 demographic, including the Academy Awards at 49.5 and the CMA Awards at 49.9. Only the 2008 Grammy Awards at 45.2 (up from 38.2 in 2004, however) and the American Music Awards at 40.2 fall comfortably within the desired demographic for marketers.

Award shows now face competition from the surplus of reality programs on TV. Award shows too are, at the root, unscripted or partially unscripted competition shows, not too dissimilar from “Dancing with the Stars,” “American Idol” or “The Apprentice” (to name only a few). This was brought to light humorously during the 2008 Primetime Emmy Awards, when Jimmy Kimmel announced that “the winner for the most outstanding host of a reality show or reality competition show is … going to be revealed when we come back after this break.” For the record, Jeff Probst beat out Heidi Klum, Howie Mandel, Ryan Seacrest and Tom Bergeron to win the Emmy in the new category.

Today performers have become overexposed by celebrity magazines, entertainment-news shows and cable networks, as well as the internet. The everyday movements (some can be embarrassing) of high-profile personalities are followed like never before. Hence, an appearance on TV award shows is no longer the novelty it once was.

Highlights are on web, anyway
If the only interest viewers have in award shows consists of “Who won?” “What was said?” and “What did they wear?” then the web can provide them with all those recaps or reviews almost immediately, instead of watching several hours of the program on TV.

The changing model for music may also have an impact on the Grammy Awards and other music award shows. Today people can easily listen to any song and watch any music video on demand via the internet or MP3 player. This negates the purpose of appointment viewing required with award shows and the aura of watching a “live” performance.

That said, award shows will probably not disappear from the TV prime-time landscape the way Westerns and variety show have. (Although several award shows such as the Billboard Music Awards, the Blockbuster Awards or the American Comedy Awards no longer air on TV.) Award shows are live and less likely to be time-shifted, despite declining ratings. They still deliver higher ratings than most regularly scheduled shows. They can still win their time period and could even be the top-rated show of the week. But there’s no denying that award shows are not the blockbuster events on TV that they use to be. The Oscars have been called “The Super Bowl for Women.” These days “The Super Bowl for Women” is the Super Bowl.

badgate Television Award Shows, Digital, Television Ratings

Over the past few months, a new phenomenon has been happening with marketers and Barack Obama. Never before has a sitting (or even former) President become the image of a brand or his campaign phrases or book titles become a slogan for a product. Some politicians however, like Bob Dole and Ed Koch, have pitched a product in a commercial, but it was after they had retired.

For example, Ben & Jerry has unveiled a new ice cream flavor called “Yes, Pecan” with the President’s image on the container. Hence, the President joins such flavors (based upon real people) as Ethan Almond, Cherry Garcia and Wavy Gravy. A detergent company is now using the slogan “The Audacity of Soap”, based upon the title of the President’s second book. Ikea furniture has begun to use the phrase “Embrace Change” and Southwest Airlines is now using “Yes You Can”, both expressions were used by repeatedly by Barack Obama throughout his campaign. Pepsi Cola’s new logo is conspicuously similar to the emblem Obama used in his campaign. The new logo, however, is similar to their previous logo.

No sitting President has been so popular with marketers that they have taken the unprecedented step of attaching onto his image and words to help sell their products. Attorneys have been working to develop guidelines to protect the President and the office of the Presidency, but there is little they can do to prevent advertisers from using the image or the words of the President.

The branding even extends to the President’s family. The Ty Inc. company created two new beanie babies, Marvellous Malia and Sweet Sasha, after the names of the President’s two daughters. The White House claimed the company was exploiting private citizens for marketing gains. Ty has retired the two dolls, which purposely had little resemblance to the “first daughters”. The First Lady Michelle Obama has quickly become a fashion icon. Fashion designers (many up and coming) of her outfits have clearly benefited from the free press. Even J. Crew has profited, after Michelle Obama mentioned she was wearing a J. Crew outfit on a Tonight Show appearance. When the two daughters wore J. Crew for the inaugural, the company’s website crashed from too many users. Even the President has been a fashion icon. In Rome, at a recent fashion show there was an outfit that featured the image of Obama with “Change” written on underneath it.

Similar to previous inaugurals, there were T-shirts, key chains, buttons and coffee mugs with the President’s image that sold for hundreds of millions of dollars. Barack Obama however, is also an ideal image for a brand; he is trustworthy, recognizable, and without a hint of scandal. Obama is also ideal because he is young, charismatic and is a devoted family man. As an icon he is also very affordable (unlike Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan) and his image and words can represent stability in uncertain economic times, similar to using a company’s CEO as spokesperson. Since these are many of the attributes that marketers are looking for when using a celebrity spokesperson, it is not surprising that Obama’s have been used by a company.

The phrases and images used by marketers are based upon an extraordinary marketing strategy Obama used that combined traditional media such as radio, direct mail and television with e-mail, social networks and search. Another factor was that his main message of “change” never varied throughout the campaign. These strategies elevated Obama from a relatively obscure freshman Illinois Senator to a global icon in just two years. Hence, by using Obama’s well-known and successful campaign phrases it helps a brand rise above the noise level with an already familiar slogan with consumers.

There is a downside, though. A primary reason why marketers do not use politicians for ads is politicians have opponents and can have lots of them. Despite the euphoria expressed by millions at his inaugural, Obama received “only” 53% of the total votes cast and 58 million had voted for Senator McCain. The approval rating of Presidents can also fluctuate. While Obama’s is currently in the mid-60’s it is sure to change. For example, the approval rating of President Bush swung by nearly 70%. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the approval rating of President Bush approached 90%. By the time President Bush left office it had dipped to nearly 20%.

The usage of Obama by marketers coincides with the honeymoon period or “100 Days” that all incoming Presidents have with the public. As time goes by and the newness wears-off, marketers are likely to drop the image and words of the President and move on to another promotion and ad campaign. It is doubtful that these companies will use Obama’s image or words by this summer.

badgate Marketing Barack Obama, Obamamania