Attracting Viewers - online PR

Attracting Viewers

James L. Horton

David Sensabaugh is a TV executive with a problem. His network is bleeding
viewers and not just because of the quality of reality TV, sitcoms and dramas it
offers. Prime time viewing has plunged for all networks in recent months.
Nielsen had recorded nightly new viewership lows for network TV series among
18- to 49-year-olds, the group most desired by advertisers. Even cable networks
had lost two percent of viewers in the same time period. TV executives realized
that television viewing habits had shifted and other than live sports, there was a
long-term trend away from appointment viewing.
Media commentators were giving no comfort. One related his experience with
TV watching that was enough to ice the enthusiasm of the most positive
programming executive. This fellow reported he had watched exactly two
minutes and one second of live television during the month of May – the
Kentucky Derby. The previous month, his total viewing was the Masters Golf
tournament on CBS but he was playing with his iPad at the time, which allowed
him to select players and holes to follow. The commentator also has a Digital
Video Recorder filled with shows to see eventually, an on-demand queue of
movies and other entertainment and a Web-enabled TV set that allows him to
access Netflix, Hulu and Apple TV.
In fact, online viewing had risen 46 percent in the previous year while live ratings
for network programs had declined for 14 consecutive quarters. In addition, DVR
penetration was approaching 50 percent of American homes, while half already
had video on demand, and Nielsen estimated there would be 350 million Web-
enabled television devices sold globally by 2015. Predictions for the health of
broadcast TV were lower than they were after the advent of cable, which offered
hundreds of channels to distract viewers from network fare. This did not include
the impact of video games and consoles that lured away youth who before might
have watched teen-focused programming.
Network TV could still could get mass audiences nationwide for special events
like the SuperBowl but for everyday programming, it no longer had an edge over
its competition. Audiences had fragmented into splinter groups based on likes
and dislikes. While network TV was continuing to pull in billions in the annual
upfront advertising time sale, it was behind cable TV and there was an ongoing
watch for the time when media buyers demoted broadcast TV to just another
medium.
Sensabaugh knew the statistics, and he knew that time was against network TV,
but he had a job to do, even if it was managing a decline in audience share over

Copyright 2012, James L. Horton 1

the next five years. His job was to build as much audience share as possible for
the programming schedule of the network – a difficult task made all the harder
because the network was buying fewer episodes of even hit shows and frequent
repeats were driving away viewers even sooner.
He met with his team to go over the publicity efforts. There had been the annual
programming unveiling with press kits, advance DVDs and presenters in
Hollywood that was attended by hundreds of financial analysts, reporters and
critics. It had gone moderately well. There had been a number of guest shots on
TV talk shows with budding stars and starlets. The network had promoted its
own stable of performers on late-night TV. There were quick inserts and
promotional squibs billeted for sports programming as was usual. Newspapers
like USA Today had done articles on what they considered to be the most
promising new series. His network had managed to get two new sitcoms into
features.
Yet, it was not enough. There was so much clutter and competing programming
that what worked for 50 years for broadcast television was now looking hoary
with age. The network had some time ago created a major presence on the web
where shows were promo-ed. Each show had its own Facebook page. Some
actors and actresses were active Tweeters, or at least handlers were on their
behalf. They were placing trailers on YouTube to create buzz, a step that was
moderately successful.
“What else should we be doing?” Sensabaugh asked. The team members
regarded him silently then his web manager spoke.
“There isn’t much left.” The others around the conference room table nodded.
“Skywriting,” cracked his manager of media relations.
“Don’t laugh. I’d do it if we could build share,” said Sensabaugh.
“We are heading in the wrong direction,” said his marketing publicity manager.
We aren’t going to get mass audiences back. We’re fighting for a larger share of
a smaller pie. Maybe we should accept that and change our business model.”
Sensabaugh regarded her then said, “I agree with you but that is above our pay
grade. We’ve got to fight for what we can get until the higher-ups determine what
to do.”
“What have we done with viral?” asked the writer.
“We’ve tried viral video several times without much success,” said the web
manager. “It comes off as too commercial. It’s the same with direct mail. And
our Facebook pages suck.”

Copyright 2012, James L. Horton 2

The web manager was known for his tart opinions, but he had a point. Facebook
pages for the shows were little more than promos for the next episode and there
was little involvement. The social medium had become a push and not an
interactive one.
“We don’t have a budget to make the pages more interactive,” said Sensabaugh.
“You know that.”
The web manager did know that. He had complained several times before about
the situation without effect.
“What else can we do?” asked Sensabaugh.

###
Questions for discussion:

1. How do you manage a permanent decline in a market?
2. Would the network be better off if it started treating audiences as splinter

groups and develop greater interaction with them?
3. Has Sensabaugh made a wrong decision by following orders to build

mass share for shows?
4. What would you do?

Copyright 2012, James L. Horton 3