It’s Independence Day 2010 — and many of us aren’t feeling quite as independent as we did a few years ago. At least a million people will lose their unemployment benefits this week as their eligibility expires and the Senate failed to pass an unemployment benefits extension.

The pressures of meeting a mortgage, feeding a family, paying taxes and staying afloat are obvious. Valerie Menowsky says some of the other impacts and frustrations of being less than fully employed are less visible.

To those co-workers loudly proclaiming how many days they have left till they fly the friendly skies to alluring places far away…To those friends complaining about trying to find time to pack for their Caribbean cruise…To those neighbors who are “getting psyched” for their trip to Hawaii by wearing colored plastic leis to the grocery store…ENOUGH ALREADY!  You ‘vacationers’, you ‘cruisers’, you “I have to go shopping for clothes to pack” people are particularly annoying right now.

Especially to us, the underemployed, or people who don’t get any paid vacation because we’re part of a pool of workers defined as “involuntary part time workers.” (Statistics)  We’re either professional people working in survival jobs at a greatly reduced salary outside our expertise, working two or more jobs to make ends meet or would like to work a 40 hour week but can only find part-time jobs.  According to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, almost 9 million people are employed part time for economic reasons because their hours were cut or they were unable to find a full time job. (Statistics) And to add insult to injury, Gallop reports that because we spend 36% less than employed workers or $48 per day instead of $75 we are negatively impacting economic recovery. (Marlar)

We’d be glad to pump money into the economy by purchasing airline tickets and new clothes for a vacation but most part time jobs don’t offer sick pay, health or vacation benefits so if we do take a few days off, we lose money which isn’t really the rest and relaxation we deserve.

So as millions of us suffer vacation envy as we watch you return all tanned and refreshed, please be grateful for what you have, take pity and don’t show us your pictures.  And we’ll greet your return as sincerely as we can with “I hope you had a nice time.”

Valerie Menowsky is an underemployed returning college student at the University of New Orleans.

Sources:  Gallup, Economic News Release/Employment Situation Summary (Statistics, Bureau of Labor).

The tables have been turned on the ratings business.

Predicting that “Nielsen should score big audience ratings on Wall Street,” the NYT thinks the private equity team which took the former VNU company private four years ago has done a good job — and will be rewarded with a successful IPO of up to $1.75 billion. Nielsen’s SEC filing says they plan to use the proceeds to reduce its $8.6 billion debt and “general corporate purposes.”

Here’s the “by the numbers” analysis of Nielsen’s numbers:

• Nielsen takes in about $4.8 billion in revenue each year from nearly 100 countries.
• In 2006,  former GE Exec David Calhoun and a group of private investment firms including Blackstone Group, The Carlyle Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts bought Nielsen from VNU for about $10 billion.
• Calhoun and company injected another $3 billion in capital into the business, buying up new properties like IAG, mobile measurement firm Telephia and video analytics company GlanceGuide. They also shed non-core assets like Nielsen EDI (sold to Rentrak) and a long list of venerable publications, closing Radio & Records and Editor & Publisher and selling Billboard and The Hollywood Reporter to e5 Global Media. According to the WSJ, Nielsen also cut 10% of their staff after the buyout.
• Nielsen earned about $1.3 billion last year compared to $879 million four years ago.

Where the NYT is bullish on Nielsen’s IPO prospects, a skeptical WSJ calls “bullsh1t.” Noting that Nielsen was acquired in a pre-Twitter and Facebook(-dominant) world where they now trail comScore in Internet measurement, the Wall Street Journal’s Michael Corkery blogs that “anytime savvy investors – such as KKR, Blackstone and Carlyle Group – are selling out in a volatile stock market — potential investors should be asking themselves why.”

At the end of the day, Van Morrison may have the last word on the success of Nielsen’s planned IPO.

In the song “Wild Night,” Morrison writes “…and all the girls walk by dressed up for each other.” If you substitute private equity firms for girls you get some insight into how The Street views Nielsen’s IPO. “An initial offering that comes close to doubling their money would also help dispel criticism that buyout firms are nothing more than undertaxed financial engineers,” says the New York Times.

If anyone has a reality show treatment called “Pimp My Ratings Company” in the works, this would be a great time to do some lunches.

Having given away the store on their websites, newspapers are talking about going back behind a pay wall.  It didn’t work before, so, of course, it will work this time.

Few seem to be discussing the broader picture of how the internet has changed the way people use newspapers.  It’s more than simply substituting electronic delivery for the carrier throwing the paper through your rose bushes.

Except for a handful of news and political junkies, consumers of print newspapers read no more than one or two papers a day.  So far, nearly all pay models seem to assume that internet users follow this same pattern.  They just want their daily New York Times or Washington Post fix, and now they get it for free without paying that annoying subscription fee.  Force them to pony up and they will.  Well some will, but many won’t because of a changed usage pattern.

Henry Ford did more than build lots of cheap cars for people.  He freed them from having to go downtown on the trolley company’s schedule.  The internet frees me from having to rely on one or two newspapers, regardless of how good they may be.  I can read a columnist I like in the L.A. Times, catch an editorial cartoon in another paper and a backgrounder on energy policy in a third. I’ll be happy to pay a reasonable rate for the news and features I read, as long as I can read them from whatever publication strikes my fancy today.  Tomorrow I might want to sample a different one.  News grazing might be a good term for it.

Maybe the club model would work.  Many of us have belonged to gyms or clubs where our membership entitles us to privileges at associated facilities in other cities.  So let’s say I subscribe for internet access to The Boston Globe, paying about what I would pay for a print subscription.  But my subscription also gives me access to the Web content of The New York Times, the Journal-Constitution from Atlanta, the Chicago Tribune and dozens of other papers across the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and other parts of the world who are members of a subscription co-op.

Now that I would pay for.  But I don’t want to be limited to one or two online newspapers just to avoid a hunk of dead tree being thrown through my rose bushes.  C’mon publishers, you can figure out how to do this.  BMI, ASCAP and SESAC collect fees for music rights owners from thousands of radio and TV stations and other venues, and they started long before the invention of modern computer-based accounting systems.  Find a way to shift the money around, and I’ll be happy to pay for my news nibbling.

Paul Rule is President of Marquest Media Research.

See also: Thinking Outside of The Polybag, Cynopsis Weekender, November 2005

Journalists are taught to write in an inverted pyramid getting the most important who, what, when, where and why facts into the first few sentences. PR peeps embrace a similar philosophy, however their idea of the most important info always includes the client’s name and company, eventually getting around to whatever the press release might be about. Consequently, every press release gets rewritten by any journalist worth their salt.

It’s particularly ironic considering how many PR people started their careers as journalists, probably cursing the PR people for how lazy they are and how poorly they wrote. (Does this just prove that what goes around, comes around?)

At one time, the journalists were the sole gate keepers of public opinion. Today things are different. If public relations people can’t place a story on the front page of the Times, you can still blog, tweet and comment your way to viral nirvana.

Unfortunately, the PR peeps need to talk about their client doesn’t trump consumers’ need to speed read what they want. And make decisions in a fraction of a second about what’s interesting and clickable. The online paradigm — where only a headline or the first sentence of a press release is exposed in a news reader for a RSS feed — probably won’t engage the reader before the space is exhausted.

Here are some examples:

New City, NY – County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef, Gordon Wren, Jr., Director of the County’s Office of Fire & Emergency Services, and members of the County’s volunteer firefighters’ community today unveiled…

or…

Clear Channel Airports introduced exciting changes to Oakland International Airport with
a new advertising program featured in both terminals.

or…

Privately held Noble Investment Group (“Noble”), a leading sponsor of private equity real estate funds and an integrated lodging and hospitality operating and development organization,
today announced…

Still awake? (Probably not.) The point is that EVEN if flacks succeed in getting their release into your newsreader the chances are slim and none that consumers will click. Unless you are the competition to the company sending out the release.

Recently, someone new to the PR business asked my advice about creating effective press releases. I cited the public communications gospel of Neil Greenberger, the press guy for Montgomery County, MD and a former Washington Post sports writer. “Rule #1 is make it easy for journalists,” says Greenberger. Write a good lead in your press release and make the story interesting. If it engages the journalist, they will eventually read down to the second paragraph to find out more about your client.

If more public relations people followed this rule, the Web would be a better place. Or at least a more interesting read.

Dave Zornow is editor of MediaNewsAndViews and co-publisher of NyackNewsAndViews, a hyper-local community news site in Nyack, NY.

Dr. Edward Maibach says when it comes to global warming there are six America’s. And not all of them are hot on the idea of global warming.

Presenting findings from the segmentation study, “Global Warming’s Six Americas” at the Changing Climate, Changing People summit in Los Angeles on November 8, Dr. Maibach says Americans fall into six distinct segments regarding their attitudes toward global warming.  A little more than six in ten are concerned about the issue.

Among the 63 percent that are “interested,” respondents cluster into Alarmed (19%), Cautious (20%) and Concerned (22%). But for every six Prius driving, Latte-sipping tree-huggers there are more than a few “Greenhouse Gas Enthusiasts.” The Doubtful (16% ), Unconcerned (12%) and Dismissive (11%) comprise 37% of all survey respondents.

How has this effected media? Since “concerned” responses outweigh “nonconcerned” by almost a 2-to-1 margin, it’s no surprise that TV tinged with a touch of green keep sprouting up. Here’s how these groups break out in regards to news programming:

• The Alarmed: This segment is most likely to “enjoy keeping up with the news” (63%). These are heavy news consumers; about double the rate for average Americans from such sources as: NYTimes.com, WallStreetJournal.com, USAToday.com. Interesting to note that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report also come up high on their list. Best way to reach this group: wide range of news media.
• The Concerned: Members of this group are also active users of the news media, but to a lesser extent vs. The Alarmed…heavy viewers of the comedy news programs as above, somewhat above average CNN.com, FoxNews.com, and MSNBC.com visitors. Best way to reach this group: various news channels -print, TV, and websites
• The Cautious: More likely to “trust the media to deliver the news accurately”. These are heavy TV viewers and get their news predominantly from TV. They have high viewership rates for the morning news shows (GMA, Today Show, etc.) and latenight shows such as Letterman and Leno. Best way to reach this group: TV is default media here.
• The Unconcerned: This segment is most likely to be regular newspaper readers, not national papers like New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, etc. They are also above average ABC News and CNN viewers, below average news magazine, morning news, comedy news, and late night shows. Best way to reach this group: local newspapers/mainstream TV.
• The Doubtful: Higher than average mistrust of news media but appear to have a diverse diet of news media (radio, TV, online), higher than average use for FOX News and magazine websites such as Newsweek.com. Best way to reach this group: conservative leaning media commentators.
• The Dismissive: highest distrust of news media, most likely to watch Fox News Cable and listen to AM talk radio, less likely to us search engines such as Yahoo and Google. Best way to reach this group: FOX News and talk radio.

Using a national telephone survey of 1,980 respondents, The “Global Warming’s Six Americas” study was a conducted by researchers at Yale University, Gallup, and the ClearVision Institute in the summer of 2007.

Sources: Center For Climate Change, Changing Climate, Changing People

I go to work every day. I pay my rent, my bills, my taxes and my car insurance. I just signed up for AAA. I am – for all intents and purposes at least -a respectable adult. Okay, so respectable might be pushing it a bit. But, the point is that I am an adult. No ifs, ands, buts, or breaks on my car insurance, about it.

But, there are still some things that can reduce my checkbook-balancing, multiple-bill-paying, two-laptop-toting, butt right back into the ruffled mini-skirts of my middle-school-era youth. Movie musicals. Now & Then. Perfectly melted ice cream sundaes. Saturday morning cartoons.  Seeing Shannon Doherty and Jennie Garth sipping milkshakes at the Peach Pit on the new incarnation of “Beverly Hills 90210.” And, of course, puppies.

One Sunday afternoon, in an effort to rouse ourselves from the lethargic funk of a long weekend spent drinking, dancing and watching “Heroes,” my best friend and I decided to get in some cardio with an impromptu shopping trip on Melrose. About halfway through our long, hot, session of retail aerobics, we stumbled across a neon oasis called The Puppy Store. Bright lights, thumping bass and rack upon rack of stylish canine couture greeted us upon our entrance.

At first, I was so distracted by the racks of stuffed puppies and their adorable accoutrements that I didn’t even notice the wall in the back of the store. There, garish in the fluorescent lights and shaking with every boom of the bass, sat a small collection of caged puppies. Their tiny cages barely containing their even-smaller frames, the poor things barked, wailed, and generally looked on plaintively as stylish shoppers tapped the glass, checked out the thousand-dollar price tags and wandered on down Melrose – leaving the poor things behind to suckle sadly at their little water bottles, paw pathetically at the walls of their cages, and generally do all the things that makes the helpless so heartbreaking.

Now don’t get me wrong – I love to shop. Purses, shoes, jewelry, clothes – if it’s on a rack, there’s a good chance I’ve probably caressed it, coveted it, and come up with a million reasons why I totally deserve to buy it. But, as much as I love to scour the racks, I hate the idea of living things displayed as merchandise. The whole thing made my stomach churn. And, in true Web 2.0 fashion, it sent me straight to Google.

There’s a wealth of information online about all things animal rights. But, I couldn’t seem to get a straight story on The Puppy Store. Of course, their website brags about how humane they are. And how their puppies are inspected by vets every week, bred by USDA certified breeders and only fed organic food and purified water. But hey, climate controlled cages are still cages. And when the store has cages that are less than a third the size of the ones at the pound, it makes you think twice.

So then, I went to Yelp. It turns out The Puppy Store gets some pretty dismal reviews – along with a history of selling really sick puppies. It is also the same place that turned Paris Hilton away a few months ago because she was trying to ‘impulse buy’ a puppy. Sure, the media applauded them.  But turning Paris Hilton away in front of the flashbulbs, and then proceeding to spill the story to every tabloid that would talk to you, is as good of a publicity stunt as any – something any savvy Angeleno with business sense on bustling Melrose would certainly consider.

Still, I couldn’t find any concrete proof that yipping puppies or yelping customers added up to anything more than the bad feelings human beings get when they see something cuddly that is caged.

Things were so much simpler when I was a miniskirted middle-schooler.

I’m more confused now than when I first found the puppies crammed into the back of the bright orange Melrose storefront.  I guess there are some things the Internet just can’t clear up. Like your conscience after seeing a wall full of caged canines.  And here I thought Google was infallible – or at least as indestructible as Kelly Taylor and Brenda Walsh’s friendship. Thank god, or at least the CW, that at least one of those truths is still self-evident. ##

In March of 2007, media giant Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube in response to the very common practice of users uploading copyrighted television shows. Around the same time, comedian Demetri Martin lampooned the lawsuit on The Daily Show with hilarious postmodern poignancy. As the show’s resident “youth correspondent,” he ironically and perfectly summed up how young people view streaming video content on the internet.

“The only thing I like better than watching a TV show is watching it smaller and blurrier,” Martin exclaims in the video. “What’s next? Are we gonna have to start paying for music, too?”

My current demographic — Men 18-34 — first experienced free copyrighted content after the serendipitous marriage of two technologies in the late 90s: peer-to-peer internet file sharing (read: Napster, Kazaa, etc.) and rewritable CD drives. Suddenly, young people learned, through friends and experimentation, how to navigate the 21st century bootleg market with amazing ease and efficiency. Anyone familiar with a PC could make a free mix CD of their favorite songs, while more tech savvy teens obtained new albums and movies sometimes months before they saw wide release. The sphincters of RIAA and MPAA officials across the country tightened at an alarming and unprecedented rate.

Even as we grew up and got hit with litigation in our college dorm rooms, the vast majority of users still flippantly dismissed, and continue to dismiss, control efforts by parent companies the way that Martin does in his segment. The whole situation is funny because young people realize these implacable facts: entertainment consumption has changed, the new technologies are here to stay, and media companies have to evolve.

Many major companies like ABC and Showtime have slowly accepted and adapted to the paradigm shift by allowing select content to be seen on their websites. CBS did an excellent job providing streaming coverage of this year’s NCAA basketball tournament with their “Madness On Demand” service, and ABC even plans to offer shows in high definition. These major concessions, paired with the proliferation of popular streaming media sites directed specifically at television and movies like Joost and Hulu, beg the following question: will television as we know it die like the dinosaurs?

Speaking as both a “youth” and as a correspondent, the future of our TV and movie consumption hinges on the balance between two very simple aspects of viewing: quality and expediency. When people my age watch video on the internet, we sacrifice a lot of quality for an even higher level of convenience.

If someone tells you about a show, and you can count on the Web for that show’s whole first season on your computer literally two minutes after typing in its name on Google. A cheap college student will always be willing to wait out a couple ads-or dodge some spyware downloads-as long as the content they reach is legit and they don’t have to pay for it.

However, as long as guys have the time and equipment to watch the game or the babes and explosions of Sin City in glorious HD, then television as we now know it will live on at least a little longer. Computer hardware simply hasn’t caught up to plasma televisions in that respect. Video on Demand services offer HD quality and one-click expediency, but their “pay to play” business model sends most of My Generation back to their laptops. Most guys I know will shell out for a sweet entertainment system and some choice DVD’s, but they are less likely to pay for VOD on their TVs.

Once television proper or the Internet manages to maximize both of those all-important aspects, we will see a real change in how we watch the boob tube.

I’m the first to admit it, my earliest memories of seeing the paparazzi in my hometown of Malibu are paradoxical at best. As a child, I used to play at the Malibu Country Mart playground – located in a central shopping area, it was definitely home to the higher-end equipment as far as local sandboxes and slides went. My dad was working at Hard Copy at the time, and he made it his policy not to accept paparazzi footage shot at that particular playground. And yet, while he was protecting his daughter’s right to play in a place unfettered by the photog’s flashbulbs, it was only because of his job as a producer on a major tabloid television show that we lived in Malibu at all.

Such is the paparazzi paradox. On the one hand, the prolific paps are reviled – and rightfully so – for the invasive and often dangerous tactics they use to get the perfect, profitable picture. On the other hand, most of the entertainment industry depends on tabloid journalism for publicity and profits. And, there is nowhere where the twain take each other on quite like in Malibu.

Just look at last weekend. Most Angelenos were escaping the record heat by hitting whatever body of water was closest. And, for many of us, that meant the beach, and specifically, the big stretch of sand and sea along the Malibu coast. But, while most people were looking to lay out and let off some steam – literally – there were clearly a contingent of paps who were not content to kick back and cool off. Sure, they were combing the sand, but not for seashells.

Instead, they went looking for yet another shot of a shirtless Matthew McConaughey soaking up the sun and surf. And, apparently, they went looking on the private beach known locally as Little Dume – a place so private that even when we used to hold high school parties there, we would still need someone with a key to get to the keg.

There’s plenty of video of what happened next, but basically, a group of local guys got fed up with the photogs, and a confrontation ensued. Footage of the whole incident, along with details of the new ordinance Malibu officials are currently drafting to deal with the increased influx of paps to these parts. You see, the thing is that when it comes to day-to-day life in Malibu, In Touch is honestly rather out of touch.

Malibu is a small suburban city, just 27 miles long, that is more oriented around families than fame. Sure, the population of almost 13,000 has more than its share of screenwriters, producers, directors, composers, musicians, actors, lighting technicians and the like. But, my immediate neighbors also include a retired cop, a number of firefighters, a teacher and a contractor. So, when a group of paparazzi jumped out of the bushes to catch Pam Anderson at her kids’ Saturday afternoon soccer game, they also managed to scare the living daylights out of my poor little brother, who happened to be playing goalie at the time. And, when Britney Spears was spotted getting frozen yogurt at the local Ben & Jerry’s, it was my frizzy, frazzled former co-worker there whose unflattering picture appeared in the background – much to her chagrin.

So, as much as my journalistic background makes me want to fight for the freedom of the press at all possible costs, there is a big part of me that wants to protect the people I love from the frenzy of flashbulbs. Sure, celebs ask for the added notoriety when they commit to their careers, and yes, we in the entertainment industry all depend on the terrible tabloids to make and maintain everyone’s fame and fortune. But, I do believe there is a line to be drawn, and I think it makes sense to draw it around actors, actresses, musicians and maybe even reality stars who are off the clock, off the carpet and (trying to stay) off the camera.

When someone is sunning on the sand, shopping at the supermarket, strolling with their kids or playing at the playground, they should get the benefit of basic human treatment and be taken off the tabloid radar. After all, how many shots of a shirtless McConaughey or a sweats-clad Pam Anderson does the American public really need to see? There must be more interesting or, dare I say it, important news going on in the greater world, right?

Yes, it’s time to draw a line. And, if a group of local guys are willing to let their beer guts be broadcast around the world as a means of literally drawing that line in the sand, then I can’t say I don’t support their intentions – if not necessarily their all-too-aggressive actions.

See also: LA Times

• 5/9, Malibu turns to Ken Starr to help get paparazzi under control
• 6/23 2nd Paparazzi Brawl in Malibu

All of them knew about the digital transition. And they were aware they didn’t need to care because they were cable or satellite subscribers. Very impressive.

But there’s research that says there will be hell to pay next year. Last February Nielsen counted The Great Unwired and Unaware at 13 million households. And there are another six million TVHHs with second sets that will not cross the digital divide.

Nielsen’s large survey results backed up my small survey study in February (yeah, I found that scary, too! :>)

Nielsen found that adults over 55 are better prepared than younger households; and Whites and Asians are more ready than Blacks. More Hispanic households still rely on analog, over-the-air broadcast television than non-Hispanics. Over 10 percent of households would have no access to television signals if the transition occurred today.

In Wilmington, NC, almost 9 out of ten TV viewers in an NAB poll said they were aware that analog TV was going away. We’ll get a better idea of if they “get it” this September as the FCC has authorized this market to switch out early. If people run amuck in the streets yelling “I want my (analog) TV,” we’ll know that trouble is around the corner for the rest of the country in February 2009.

Who will be affected will tell us alot about how the media will report the situation. Most of the people who are likely to wake up and have no television in the lives next February are downscale and probably don’t speak English. That’s sounds very uncaring and cold. But it’s basically what will go down when rabbit ears years end next Winter.

And how will this affect things? Not very much. Because, regretably, unless you are a network that targets these viewers (Telemundo? Univision? I see you cringing in the corner!) these aren’t audiences for which you can charge a premium. Highly desirable, young, trendy, upscale — not! And for most broadcasters, there may not be enough of them to matter.

After a year of broadcasters flooding the airwaves with PSAs (maybe they should have adapted a more aggressive slogan, like “Go Digital Or Die”) and the government offering coupons to purchase converters, these groups aren’t getting the message that their TVs Will Be Toast.

Perhaps what this group needs is a grass roots, broadcast sponsored coalition to look after this mostly minority group. Maybe something with a snappy name like Don’t Count Us Out. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

We downsized earlier last year moving from our home of 13 years to a smaller space. Packing necessitated a through re-examination of our family’s possessions.

We found a lot of stuff we didn’t need, but we also found a few gems we didn’t know we had. Like a July 1967 edition of TV Guide. The feature story, “CATV: Four Letters That have Rocked Broadcasting” was promoted on the front cover with the teaser, “Coming: An Electronic Pipeline to Every Home.” The only mention of the word cable in the article was in a reference to the NCTA trade association.

Primetime programs in the Summer of ‘67 included The Twilight Zone, Batman, Lost in Space, Patty Duke and The Beverly Hillbillies. There was a Bob Hope Special on Wednesday night that ran opposite Green Acres. A box around the word COLORpreceded program descriptions that featured that “technology.”

The article offered some eye opening optimism for cable’s future.

“The beauty of CATV…is no technical limit to the number of channels…as engineers are working on systems providing 20, 30 or more.” With 1800 systems serving about 2 million subs, cable promised to offer advanced services including electronic newspapers, shopping, teaching, voting, gas and electric meter reading, library research, mail delivery and emergency warnings.

In 1967 broadcasters were split on cable’s potential – some seeing it as a threat and others welcoming the media as a way to improve reception in fringe areas. During a period when broadcasters owned 29% of all cable systems, the Bell Telephone System, prohibited from operating systems, wanted to get into the business by building and leasing systems to operators. And the Supreme Court was poised to rule on CATV’s use of copyrighted material without paying royalties.

A lot has changed since 1967. Shows like Star Trek and Bewitched are no longer prime time programming. Many are now available on cable, 24/7. ##