Archive for August, 2008

Industry Rethinks Moneymaking Software Practice

Thursday, August 28th, 2008
Published: August 27, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO — Before they ship PCs to retailers like Best Buy, computer makers load them up with lots of free software. For $30, Best Buy will get rid of it for you. 
Skip to next paragraph 
Tim Boyle/Getty Images

Eric Fortuna, right, at a Best Buy in Illinois. For $30, his Geek Squad will eliminate programs installed by computer makers.

Christopher Pledger/The Daily Telegraph

Robert Stephens, head of Geek Squad, said of removing preinstalled software, “We’ll give consumers what they want.”

That simple cleanup service is threatening the precarious economics of the personal computer industry. Software companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars to PC makers like Hewlett-Packard to install their photo tools, financial programs and other products, usually with some tie-in to a paid service or upgrade. With margins growing thinner than most laptops, this critical revenue can make the difference between profit and loss for the computer makers, industry analysts say. If the programs are removed, the software makers gain no value out of the $2 to $10 they typically pay H. P. and others to install them on each PC — and PC makers miss out on their cut from revenue-sharing deals. But Best Buy, the nation’s largest electronics retailer, tells computer buyers that the preinstalled software, also known as bloatware, can clutter their machines and slow them down. “You’d be surprised how often consumers tell us to get rid of it,” said Robert Stephens, the head of Geek Squad, the technical support division of Best Buy that removes the software. He declined to say how many people were paying for the service, but said that “it’s going to increase in popularity.” The demand for the service, along with similar offers from Circuit City and other chains, reflects an outpouring of consumer frustration with the way that a brand-new computer can feel as if it is full of digital infomercials — even if those come-ons knock a few dollars off the PC’s price tag. The Web has dozens of do-it-yourself guides to removing such software, which, as one tutorial puts it, “turns your computer into a messy battleground.” Mr. Stephens said the personal computer makers should be worried about the demand for less cluttered computers. “No matter what manufacturers want, we’ll give consumers what they want,” he said. But he added that he believed computer makers would find different ways to profit: “While they may be scared by these trends, they’ll be O.K.” As it turns out, H. P., the world’s largest technology company, is already working on a fundamental change in the way it packages software on its new computers, and thus how its business model works. Stephen DeWitt, who oversees H. P.’s personal computer business in the Americas, said that starting next year the company’s new computers would point users to a Web site where they can buy and download games, productivity software and other programs. Revenue from the site will be split in some fashion among H. P., a retailer like Best Buy and the makers of the software. Mr. DeWitt said the change would cut how much software comes preloaded. Mr. DeWitt said this was happening because consumers were demanding something different, but also because the technology was now in place to allow downloading of software on demand. For now, he said, the benefits to consumers of the free software far outweigh whatever small slowdown it might cause. And he said Best Buy’s cleanup service was not pressuring H. P. to move to a new model. “There’s no tension coming from Best Buy on this — none,” he said. But in Best Buy stores in Northern California, there is clear evidence of the different agendas of Best Buy and the computer makers. The stores display two H. P. computers, identical except that one desktop is cluttered with software icons from eBay, Quicken, AOL, Yahoo and others, while the other is entirely cleaned up. Best Buy workers use the display to promote the company’s $30 “optimization” service. Industry analysts said that the planned change in H. P.’s approach could well reflect Best Buy’s growing influence — and its ability to exact new concessions from computer makers. They said Best Buy has benefited from two key changes: the declining fortunes of competing retailers like CompUSA and some large regional chains, and the addition to its shelves in the last year of computers made by Dell and Apple. Bob Kaufman, a spokesman for Dell, said, “This is an evolving story and Dell is evaluating how it can best deliver software to its customers.” Best Buy’s offer to remove software began in 2006. But recently the toll its policies are taking has heightened considerably, analysts and industry executives say. “Best Buy’s sway is definitely growing,” said Matt Fassler, an industry analyst who covers Best Buy for Goldman Sachs. He said the company had good relationships with computer makers, and, while it wouldn’t seek to harm those relationships, “if they have a strong competitive position, it is incumbent on them to use it.” Mr. Fassler estimates Best Buy will have sales of $44 billion this year. Of that, $1.5 billion to $2 billion will be from the sale of H. P. computers, analysts estimated. One important question is whether the new model being developed by H. P. will be as profitable as the current one. Mr. DeWitt said he expected it to be more profitable. But A. M. Sacconaghi Jr., an industry analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, said the change could imperil H. P.’s profitability, in part because there is no guarantee that consumers will buy software offered through H. P. instead of another site. As software buying moves online, Mr. Sacconaghi asked, “what makes a consumer go to HP.com over Google?” He also says the challenge for personal computer makers is that they are losing control of what shows up on PC screens — a form of real estate that they have used to sell billboard advertising for software. “They no longer have that real estate advantage,” he said. “There’s a substantial profit pool at risk.” And there can be little profit to begin with, analysts said. The profit margin on many personal computers can be 5 percent or lower, depending on the model. The margins are slim in part because of intense competition that has driven down prices. In some cases, the computers are profitable only because their makers earn $30 or more for each computer for preinstalling the software, according to Shaw Wu, an industry analyst with American Technology Research. And J. P. Gownder, an analyst at Forrester Research, said, “For the average PC, that could be the entire margin.” Without the preloaded software, Mr. Gownder said, “it could put them in the red. That’s why they’ve become so addicted to it.” Mr. Stephens of Geek Squad says he agrees with H. P. that the future is in allowing computer buyers to choose and download what they want. But he said he believed Best Buy, not H. P., was in the best position to help people choose what works for them because, he argued, the in-store technicians are in closest contact with them. “Geek Squad agents have one thing over Apple and Microsoft engineers. We spend most of the day talking to people,” he said.
Tags:

Shares Rally as Oil Continues to Fall

Saturday, August 9th, 2008
Published: August 8, 2008
In what has become a familiar pattern on Wall Street, stocks surged Friday, a day after falling sharply. The immediate impetus for the rally appeared to be a big drop in commodity prices, including a 4.1 percent fall in crude oil, which settled below $116 a barrel for the first time since early May. The dollar also continued to gain strength, rising 1.7 percent against a basket of six major world currencies. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index rose 30.25 points, or 2.39 percent, to 1,296.32, its biggest one-day gain since April. The Dow Jones industrial average was up 302.89 points, or 2.65 percent, to 11,734.32; the Nasdaq composite jumped 58.37 points, or 2.48 percent, to 2,414,10. In recent weeks, the stock market has swung between strong rallies and steep drops. The S.& P. 500 has moved by at least 2 percentage points on 6 of the last 25 trading days since July 4. By contrast, there were only two days with 2 percent changes from the end of 2003 to the end of 2006. Despite all the sharp moves, the S.& P. 500 index rose just 0.3 percent from July 4 to Thursday’s close. Friday’s jump increased that gain to 2.7 percent. Some analysts say the volatility indicates that investors are increasingly uncertain about the economy. While they are encouraged that oil prices have fallen more than 20 percent from a high of $145.29 in early July, the housing market and the economy over all are still showing significant weakness. Earlier on Friday, Fannie Mae, the government-chartered mortgage giant, slashed its dividend after reporting a $2.3 billion quarterly loss. “Strictly from a psychological standpoint, it tells you that there is not a lot of conviction,” said Barry L. Ritholtz, chief executive of FusionIQ, an investment firm in New York. “Fund managers that are hot to buy one day, turn around and sell the next.” But others see reason to hope the market may have bottomed in mid-July and is starting a slow and hesitant rebound. These analysts note, for instance, that recent economic and housing reports may be bleak but the data is often better than expected. Home sales appear to be flattening out, though at a very low level, and in some regions home prices have edged higher during the spring and summer seasons, when home sales are at their highest levels of the year. “When you get that steady trickle, the market builds on that,” said James W. Paulsen, chief investment strategist for Wells Capital Management. “In between, what takes the market down is not economic reports. Sometimes it’s straight company reports, other times it’s spreading of rumors and fears.” Another trend that may be contributing to the volatility are reports of increasing weakness in Europe and Asia. On Friday, a report showed that Italy’s economy unexpectedly shrank in the second quarter. Earlier, reports showed weakness in Germany, Japan and Great Britain. Even Chinese government figures have suggested that growth will be a few percentage points lower this year. Such news has contributed to the drop in oil prices. Oil settled at $115.20 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange Friday. Other commodities also fell sharply, with wheat falling 6.7 percent and copper closing down 2.4 percent. In a report titled “Calling a Top,” analysts at Lehman Brothers wrote on Friday that oil prices had peaked, citing among other things lower demand from developed economies. Analysts suspect that slower growth could force the European Central Bank and the Bank of England to start lowering short-term interest rates, which are significantly higher than the Federal Reserve’s benchmark funds rate of 2 percent. That anticipation — coming the day after both central banks decided to leave their key rates unchanged — pushed up the dollar, which earlier this year fell to its lowest level since the currency was allowed to float freely in the 1970s. One euro now buys $1.50, down from $1.53 on Thursday. The yen fell to 110.24 to the dollar, from 109.45. If investors around the world believe the dollar will strengthen further, they may be moving some of their money into American stocks, said Douglas M. Peta, market strategist at J.& W. Seligman & Company. “All of a sudden investors have come to the conclusion that Europe and U.K. may be in worse shape than the U.S.” Still, weakness in Europe and Japan would not necessarily be a good thing for the United States, because American exports have become an important counter to the problems in the domestic housing market and helped keep the economy growing in the first half of the year. Another abiding challenge to the stock market and the broader economy alike is access to credit. Even as stocks have rallied, the credit market remains sluggish, with few new deals coming to the market and worries about defaults spreading to auto loans and credit cards. The KDP high-yield index, which tracks yields on junk bonds, climbed this week to its highest level since early 2003. Mortgage interest rates are near 12-month highs as investors worry about the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “It’s tougher for individuals or corporations to have access to the credit markets,” said Steven M. Rogé, a portfolio manager at R. W. Rogé & Company in Bohemia, N.Y., who is skeptical that stocks have bottomed. The recent big moves in the market have also come at a time when trading volume has been relatively low, a phenomenon that is more common in the summer, said Jerry Webman, chief economist at OppenheimerFunds. When volumes are low, a few momentum traders can more easily drive markets up or down significantly, he said. “I would be cautious about overinterpreting any of the up days or down days this week.”
Floyd Norris contributed reporting.
Tags:

In Obama Campaign, Big Donors Are a Major Force

Wednesday, August 6th, 2008
Published: August 5, 2008
In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far. But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size. Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers. While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Mr. Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the United States Senate. He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago prior to the 2004 Senate race, and once elected, set out across the country starting to cultivate some of his party’s most influential money collectors. He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children. The fruits of his efforts have put Mr. Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million raised by President Bush’s network of Pioneers and Rangers in contributions of $1,000 or larger during the 2004 primary season. Given his decision not to accept public financing, Mr. Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his general-election campaign and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee. An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry. The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James A. Torrey, a New York hedge-fund investor; and Charles H. Rivkin, chief executive of an animation studio in Los Angeles. “It’s fairly clear that this is being packaged as an extraordinary new kind of fund-raising, and the Internet is a new and powerful part of it,” said Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. “But it’s also clear that many of the old donors are still there and important.” The care and feeding that top Obama fund-raisers have received underscores their significance to his campaign. Members of his National Finance Committee who fulfill their commitment to raise at least $250,000 are being rewarded with trips to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Finance committee members participate in conference calls with top campaign officials every other week. The fund-raisers meet quarterly, often with Mr. Obama dropping in. He lingered after the most recent meeting in June in Chicago, telling his staff he wanted to thank every person in the room. Some fund-raisers who knocked on doors for Mr. Obama in places like Indiana, Iowa and Pennsylvania got to spend time with Mr. Obama backstage before and after speeches on primary nights. His fund-raisers invariably say their support for him is not rooted in any kind of promise of access, but rather their belief in him. “This is about Barack Obama and changing the direction of our country,” said Jonathan B. Perdue, a business consultant in Mill Valley, Calif., who has raised more than $250,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaign. Mr. Obama has pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists or political action committees registered with the federal government. But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge-fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Mr. Obama at a time when their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington. Kenneth C. Griffin, chief executive officer of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, has collected more than $50,000 for Mr. Obama. But Mr. Griffin, whose $1.5 billion in income in 2007 made him one of the country’s highest-paid hedge-fund executives, has given generously over the years to Republicans as well, and he recently helped to hold a fund-raiser for Mr. McCain. Citadel has spent more than $1.1 million, dating back to 2007, in lobbying against higher tax rates for hedge-fund gains. (Mr. Obama has supported the higher tax rates.) Similarly, Paul Tudor Jones, a billionaire hedge-fund manager from Connecticut, has raised more than $100,000 for Mr. Obama. But he also gave to Mr. McCain, to Rudolph W. Giuliani and to Mitt Romney. Mr. Jones, who has given more than $900,000 over the last decade to federal candidates and political organizations, helped form a trade association that has fought hedge-fund regulation. Many fund-raisers sit on the campaign’s array of policy working groups, getting a chance to weigh in on policy positions and speeches. Mr. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of Mr. Obama, leads the technology working group. Fund-raisers from private equity and hedge funds sit on Mr. Obama’s economic policy group. Despite Mr. Obama’s image as a newcomer, many of his bundlers are Democratic Party stalwarts, including people who were some of the top fund-raisers for Senator John Kerry in 2004. At least 58 of them appear to have personally made more than $100,000 in contributions to federal candidates and committees over the last decade. Updated bundler lists released recently by the McCain and Obama campaigns show that they have similar numbers of high-dollar fund-raisers. The Obama fund-raising operation is meticulously organized. Bundlers are assigned tracking numbers, and the finance staff sends them quarterly reminders of how they are doing in meeting their goals. “There’s no price for admission,” said Alan D. Solomont, a top Democratic fund-raiser in Boston who made his fortune in the nursing home industry and has given more than $1.5 million to Democratic candidates and causes. “We value every donation and every donor equally. But we are a performance-based organization. We want everybody to feel like they’re included, but at the same time we’re not here to have tea together.” Mr. Obama began courting many of his fund-raisers soon after he burst upon the national scene with his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Mr. Solomont, a major fund-raiser both for Mr. Kerry and for Bill Clinton during their presidential runs, received a call on his cellphone in February 2005, a year after Mr. Obama’s election to the Senate, from a member of his staff who asked if he would like to get together with Mr. Obama. They met for Chinese food in Washington the following week, and Mr. Obama scored points with Mr. Solomont when he pointed out that they had both been community organizers earlier in their careers. “I’ve been involved in politics a long time,” Mr. Solomont said. “Nobody’s bothered to know that about me.” Early that same year, Mr. Obama attended a dinner in the Bay Area for about 20 major Kerry supporters. The dinner was organized by Mark Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who was Mr. Kerry’s single biggest fund-raiser, after Mr. Obama’s staff members contacted him. Several of those on hand, including Mr. Gorenberg and John Roos, head of a Silicon Valley law firm, became among the earliest and biggest check collectors for Mr. Obama’s presidential bid. In 2006, Mr. Obama became a vice chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, giving him the opportunity to campaign across the country and to cultivate other potential benefactors. When his book “The Audacity of Hope” came out later that year, his staff members organized book parties at the homes of major Democratic donors. In December, Mr. Obama visited the New York office of the billionaire investor George Soros to court a roomful of high-powered Democratic fund-raisers, hoping to lure some of them away from Mrs. Clinton. Not everyone was swayed, but Mr. Obama won over Orin Kramer, a hedge-fund executive from New Jersey, and Mr. Wolf, the UBS executive, both of whom are now among Mr. Obama’s biggest fund-raisers. Mr. Obama signed on as his finance director Julianna Smoot, who had led fund-raising for Senate Democrats and, before that, for Senator Tom Daschle when he was majority leader. With guidance from Ms. Smoot, a key part of the campaign’s fast start was its success in scooping up top former Kerry fund-raisers, including Lou Susman, a Chicago investment banker who was Mr. Kerry’s national finance chairman, and Kirk Wagar, a lawyer in Miami who became Mr. Obama’s finance chairman in Florida. Even so, the initial meeting of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee, held in Chicago the day after he officially announced his candidacy, was a relatively small affair, numbering about 75 people. Penny Pritzker, the billionaire heiress to the Hyatt hotel fortune whom Mr. Obama asked to become his finance chairwoman, challenged the group to double in size. The number of bundlers ballooned quickly. The Obama campaign made important inroads among affluent people under age 45, including Silicon Valley engineers and hedge-fund analysts, many of whom had not been on the political radar screen. Donations in June, the latest month for which Mr. Obama has disclosed his donors to the Federal Election Commission, illustrate the double-barreled nature of the campaign’s fund-raising. Mr. Obama brought in nearly $31 million in contributions of less than $200, his best month for small donations. But he also collected more than $12 million in contributions of $1,000 or more, the most since the first half of 2007. The share from large contributions appears poised to increase, as Mr. Obama has stepped up his fund-raising schedule. “In 2007, the campaign relied on the tried and true methods like fund-raisers, for both large- and small-dollar donors, with the candidate or his surrogates, and the Internet largely financed it in 2008,” said Kirk Dornbush, the president of a biotech firm and a top fund-raiser in Atlanta. “When you combine the traditional fund-raising methods with the continued online contributions, you have a very, very powerful fund-raising engine.”
Tags:

Media Outlets Are Seeking a Campaign Bounce of Their Own

Monday, August 4th, 2008
Published: August 4, 2008
This year’s presidential campaign has drawn more voter interest than any other race in generations. For mainstream news media, however, capitalizing on that interest has been hit or miss, though not for lack of trying.
Skip to next paragraph

Senator Barack Obama was asked about Senator John McCain during a taping of “The Situation Room” on CNN in May.

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

Some magazines with the candidates had only a modest increase in sales.

Cable news ratings have risen sharply, with record viewership for debates and growing numbers for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Sites including MSNBC.com and CNN.com have set new records for views of online videos. A trade association for newspapers has placed advertisements telling campaign managers that “newspapers deliver voters.” But many media companies are struggling to translate campaign coverage into repeat readers and viewers — or revenue. The presidential primary debates had little lasting impact on TV ratings, and some magazines say that issues with candidates on the cover show only a modest bump in newsstand sales. More noticeably, the broadcast networks’ evening newscasts — the traditional standard-bearers of television news — have been unable to stop their long-term ratings declines, even during the hotly contested primaries. The newscasts on NBC, ABC and CBS had an average combined audience of 23.7 million viewers from January to June, down 2 percent from the same time period in 2007. That decline came despite expensive efforts to remain competitive. The networks have produced special series about the candidates and kept reporters on the campaign trail. Most recently, Brian Williams of “NBC Nightly News,” Charles Gibson of “World News” on ABC and Katie Couric of the “CBS Evening News” all traveled with Senator Barack Obama as he toured the Middle East and Europe, yet household ratings for each of those three newscasts were flat compared with the previous week. Jon Banner, the executive producer of “World News,” suggested that the ratings, especially during the slow summer months, might have slid further were it not an election year. He added that the heightened interest in the election can benefit many media entities without taking away from others. “It’s not a zero-sum game,” he said. It is true that the amount of news Americans consume has grown over the last few years, as has the number of news sources. The lineup of Web sites, newscasts and publications that jockey for attention and advertising dollars continues to expand. Three months before the election, one clear winner of the cycle so far is The Politico, an upstart news organization founded in January 2007. The Politico, with nearly 70 editorial employees, publishes a 26,000-circulation newspaper three days a week in Washington, D.C. But it is Politico’s round-the-clock online news reporting and analysis that have made it a must-read for a large audience outside the Beltway. Politico.com averaged 2.5 million unique visitors a month in the first half of 2008, more than all but 13 American newspapers, according to Nielsen Online. The Politico has benefited from profound changes in the way people get news, according to Jim VandeHei, the executive editor and co-founder. People look for news far more often during the day, they are far more likely to seek multiple sources as well as favorite bloggers and writers, and they are far more interested in watching video online. “The difference between ’04 and ’08 is like walking into a different century,” he said. “Virtually everybody who comes to us also goes to The Post or The Times or Drudge or Yahoo or Google. Having a sole source of news — those days are over.” A spring poll by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 17 percent of Americans learn about the campaign via the Internet on a typical day, more than double the number that did in the spring of 2004. But traffic on Internet news sites has grown steadily for years, making it hard to say how much of this year’s rise is attributable to the election. (Nor does it mean that online publications are translating page views into dollars. Politico still gets most of its revenue from ads in its printed newspaper, placed by interest groups hoping to influence the paper’s powerful readers.) Charlie Tillinghast, the president of MSNBC.com, said he believed that at least part of his site’s success is election-related. In December, weeks before the first primaries, MSNBC.com’s traffic surpassed the 30 million visitor mark. It has held up since then, attracting 37.6 million visitors in June, when the final nominating contests were held. For news Web sites, the most significant change from 2004 is the amount of video being consumed. Compared with previous election years, “the video players are better, the video quality is much better, and the overall user experience is vastly improved,” Mr. Tillinghast said. “It’s actually a pleasant experience, whereas before, users suffered a little pain to watch online video.” On YouTube, the Internet’s most popular video site, political commercials are far more popular than news reports. John McCain’s recent ad tying celebrities like Britney Spears to Senator Obama has been viewed nearly 1.5 million times. Cable news has been a huge beneficiary of the campaign cycle. An analysis of Nielsen ratings by Turner Broadcasting, the parent company of CNN, shows cable with a 58 percent share of all news-viewing on television, up from 50 percent in 2004. (Page 2 of 2)     As the nominating contests played out in the first half of 2008 and the cable networks showed two dozen candidate debates, CNN had, on average, 32 percent more 25- to 54-year-old viewers than during the same period in 2004, while MSNBC (starting from a much smaller base) averaged 73 percent more. The Fox News Channel showed a 17 percent decline compared with the same time period, but still had more viewers than the other news channels.
Skip to next paragraph
Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press

The Politico, a news organization started by John Harris, above left, and Jim VandeHei, has benefited from the campaign.

MSNBC.com is offering interactive graphics.

Record-breaking spending on political ads has helped local TV stations, though it only partly offsets a slump in the general ad market. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, the likely nominees, are each spending about $6 million a week on television ads, mostly on local TV in battleground states, particularly Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. During the prolonged primary season, many more local markets enjoyed a taste of campaign advertising dollars. “Local stations were seeing primary money late into the season that had never seen a dime before — states like South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina,” said Jack Poor, the vice president for marketing at the Television Bureau of Advertising. Among magazines, Newsweek, where the campaign is a bread-and-butter topic, reports that issues with Senator McCain or Senator Obama on the cover have been among its best sellers, but that is not saying much, because its sales do not vary greatly based on cover photos. Rolling Stone and Us Weekly also had moderately higher-than-average sales with their Obama covers. The audience for newspaper Web sites rose sharply this year, even as the printed papers continued to lose circulation. Nielsen figures compiled for the Newspaper Association of America show that in an average month in the first half of 2008, 66.3 million Americans visited a newspaper Web site, a 12.2 percent increase from the first half of 2007. Again, how much of that growth stems from the campaign, and how much from factors like better video on those sites, is unclear. Newspapers still get less than 10 percent of their ad revenue from the Internet, so vast online audiences do not mean financial success. With so many outlets covering the campaign, standing out is hard, but some are still trying. The British Broadcasting Corporation is renting a bus and intends to drive across the country between the conventions and the election. Other outlets that do not regularly feature political news are trying to cash in on the election interest. In the July week that “Access Hollywood” showed a four-part interview with Mr. Obama’s family, the entertainment show had a 20 percent increase in viewers. Senator Obama’s family has also been featured in Us Weekly and People magazines. Attention like that has led to accusations from the McCain campaign that Senator Obama has become the media darling of the election, raising the question of whether mainstream media outlets risk longer-term declines if they are seen to favor one candidate. For instance, ratings for MSNBC, which has been singled out by the McCain campaign as being pro-Obama, have risen, largely because of Mr. Olbermann’s program. “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” has had its audience of 25- to 54-year-olds double in the last two years. The audience of “Hardball With Chris Matthews” has also jumped significantly. Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC, said that the election is emblematic of a larger shift away from broadcast news and toward cable, a trend that he expects will keep viewers tuning in after Election Day. “More and more, the news game is being played out on cable,” he said. Single broadcasts, however, do not seem to have any aftereffects. After Mr. Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC’s Sunday morning show, moderated an April debate between Senators Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, they were widely criticized for emphasizing scandal over substance. But neither the debate nor the harsh criticism that ensued seemed to affect ABC’s ratings. The numbers for “World News” edged up in the days after the debate, but soon returned to normal.

Tags:

Media Outlets Are Seeking a Campaign Bounce of Their Own

Monday, August 4th, 2008
Published: August 4, 2008
This year’s presidential campaign has drawn more voter interest than any other race in generations. For mainstream news media, however, capitalizing on that interest has been hit or miss, though not for lack of trying.
Skip to next paragraph

Senator Barack Obama was asked about Senator John McCain during a taping of “The Situation Room” on CNN in May.

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

Some magazines with the candidates had only a modest increase in sales.

Cable news ratings have risen sharply, with record viewership for debates and growing numbers for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Sites including MSNBC.com and CNN.com have set new records for views of online videos. A trade association for newspapers has placed advertisements telling campaign managers that “newspapers deliver voters.” But many media companies are struggling to translate campaign coverage into repeat readers and viewers — or revenue. The presidential primary debates had little lasting impact on TV ratings, and some magazines say that issues with candidates on the cover show only a modest bump in newsstand sales. More noticeably, the broadcast networks’ evening newscasts — the traditional standard-bearers of television news — have been unable to stop their long-term ratings declines, even during the hotly contested primaries. The newscasts on NBC, ABC and CBS had an average combined audience of 23.7 million viewers from January to June, down 2 percent from the same time period in 2007. That decline came despite expensive efforts to remain competitive. The networks have produced special series about the candidates and kept reporters on the campaign trail. Most recently, Brian Williams of “NBC Nightly News,” Charles Gibson of “World News” on ABC and Katie Couric of the “CBS Evening News” all traveled with Senator Barack Obama as he toured the Middle East and Europe, yet household ratings for each of those three newscasts were flat compared with the previous week. Jon Banner, the executive producer of “World News,” suggested that the ratings, especially during the slow summer months, might have slid further were it not an election year. He added that the heightened interest in the election can benefit many media entities without taking away from others. “It’s not a zero-sum game,” he said. It is true that the amount of news Americans consume has grown over the last few years, as has the number of news sources. The lineup of Web sites, newscasts and publications that jockey for attention and advertising dollars continues to expand. Three months before the election, one clear winner of the cycle so far is The Politico, an upstart news organization founded in January 2007. The Politico, with nearly 70 editorial employees, publishes a 26,000-circulation newspaper three days a week in Washington, D.C. But it is Politico’s round-the-clock online news reporting and analysis that have made it a must-read for a large audience outside the Beltway. Politico.com averaged 2.5 million unique visitors a month in the first half of 2008, more than all but 13 American newspapers, according to Nielsen Online. The Politico has benefited from profound changes in the way people get news, according to Jim VandeHei, the executive editor and co-founder. People look for news far more often during the day, they are far more likely to seek multiple sources as well as favorite bloggers and writers, and they are far more interested in watching video online. “The difference between ’04 and ’08 is like walking into a different century,” he said. “Virtually everybody who comes to us also goes to The Post or The Times or Drudge or Yahoo or Google. Having a sole source of news — those days are over.” A spring poll by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 17 percent of Americans learn about the campaign via the Internet on a typical day, more than double the number that did in the spring of 2004. But traffic on Internet news sites has grown steadily for years, making it hard to say how much of this year’s rise is attributable to the election. (Nor does it mean that online publications are translating page views into dollars. Politico still gets most of its revenue from ads in its printed newspaper, placed by interest groups hoping to influence the paper’s powerful readers.) Charlie Tillinghast, the president of MSNBC.com, said he believed that at least part of his site’s success is election-related. In December, weeks before the first primaries, MSNBC.com’s traffic surpassed the 30 million visitor mark. It has held up since then, attracting 37.6 million visitors in June, when the final nominating contests were held. For news Web sites, the most significant change from 2004 is the amount of video being consumed. Compared with previous election years, “the video players are better, the video quality is much better, and the overall user experience is vastly improved,” Mr. Tillinghast said. “It’s actually a pleasant experience, whereas before, users suffered a little pain to watch online video.” On YouTube, the Internet’s most popular video site, political commercials are far more popular than news reports. John McCain’s recent ad tying celebrities like Britney Spears to Senator Obama has been viewed nearly 1.5 million times. Cable news has been a huge beneficiary of the campaign cycle. An analysis of Nielsen ratings by Turner Broadcasting, the parent company of CNN, shows cable with a 58 percent share of all news-viewing on television, up from 50 percent in 2004. (Page 2 of 2)     As the nominating contests played out in the first half of 2008 and the cable networks showed two dozen candidate debates, CNN had, on average, 32 percent more 25- to 54-year-old viewers than during the same period in 2004, while MSNBC (starting from a much smaller base) averaged 73 percent more. The Fox News Channel showed a 17 percent decline compared with the same time period, but still had more viewers than the other news channels.
Skip to next paragraph
Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press

The Politico, a news organization started by John Harris, above left, and Jim VandeHei, has benefited from the campaign.

MSNBC.com is offering interactive graphics.

Record-breaking spending on political ads has helped local TV stations, though it only partly offsets a slump in the general ad market. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, the likely nominees, are each spending about $6 million a week on television ads, mostly on local TV in battleground states, particularly Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. During the prolonged primary season, many more local markets enjoyed a taste of campaign advertising dollars. “Local stations were seeing primary money late into the season that had never seen a dime before — states like South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina,” said Jack Poor, the vice president for marketing at the Television Bureau of Advertising. Among magazines, Newsweek, where the campaign is a bread-and-butter topic, reports that issues with Senator McCain or Senator Obama on the cover have been among its best sellers, but that is not saying much, because its sales do not vary greatly based on cover photos. Rolling Stone and Us Weekly also had moderately higher-than-average sales with their Obama covers. The audience for newspaper Web sites rose sharply this year, even as the printed papers continued to lose circulation. Nielsen figures compiled for the Newspaper Association of America show that in an average month in the first half of 2008, 66.3 million Americans visited a newspaper Web site, a 12.2 percent increase from the first half of 2007. Again, how much of that growth stems from the campaign, and how much from factors like better video on those sites, is unclear. Newspapers still get less than 10 percent of their ad revenue from the Internet, so vast online audiences do not mean financial success. With so many outlets covering the campaign, standing out is hard, but some are still trying. The British Broadcasting Corporation is renting a bus and intends to drive across the country between the conventions and the election. Other outlets that do not regularly feature political news are trying to cash in on the election interest. In the July week that “Access Hollywood” showed a four-part interview with Mr. Obama’s family, the entertainment show had a 20 percent increase in viewers. Senator Obama’s family has also been featured in Us Weekly and People magazines. Attention like that has led to accusations from the McCain campaign that Senator Obama has become the media darling of the election, raising the question of whether mainstream media outlets risk longer-term declines if they are seen to favor one candidate. For instance, ratings for MSNBC, which has been singled out by the McCain campaign as being pro-Obama, have risen, largely because of Mr. Olbermann’s program. “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” has had its audience of 25- to 54-year-olds double in the last two years. The audience of “Hardball With Chris Matthews” has also jumped significantly. Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC, said that the election is emblematic of a larger shift away from broadcast news and toward cable, a trend that he expects will keep viewers tuning in after Election Day. “More and more, the news game is being played out on cable,” he said. Single broadcasts, however, do not seem to have any aftereffects. After Mr. Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC’s Sunday morning show, moderated an April debate between Senators Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, they were widely criticized for emphasizing scandal over substance. But neither the debate nor the harsh criticism that ensued seemed to affect ABC’s ratings. The numbers for “World News” edged up in the days after the debate, but soon returned to normal.

Tags: