Anchors away.

This week, the New York Times reported that CNN US is a brand in trouble. All but one of its news shows, “Anderson Cooper 360” are experiencing double-digit ratings losses.  Cooper’s losses are single digit. Although, worldwide, CNN will generate a record $600 million in operating profits this year, for it’s parent Time Warner.

But declining audiences directly impact future earnings. So, why is CNN in decline? FOX News and MSNBC audiences have also dropped, during the current lull in the presidential campaign, as candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich bowed out. But those networks should recover as the political machine gains steam during convention season.

On the other hand, CNN viewers tune in for breaking news. That’s the backbone and lifeblood of the news brand that captures 57 cents per cable viewer. When there are oil gushers in the Gulf of Mexico, war stories, twisters in tornado alley or plane crashes and railroad disasters, people instinctively tune in to CNN. Once a crisis or big story dies down, they’re free to channel surf, and that leaves CNN struggling to recoup ratings.

FOX and MSNBC offer political red meat for conservatives and liberals, respectively. Since, CNN is somewhere between those two on the political spectrum, they’re viewers are neither as passionate nor as loyal. That’s why interviewers like Larry King were anchors of the network. King was key to filling the gaps between news spikes. Once he retired, CNN went adrift.

Anderson Cooper is an intriguing fellow. A little like a hairless cat, he’s worth a look or two, but has no real gravitas based on essential experience toiling in the field. That’s not due to a lack of travel. I’d love to have his frequent flyer miles he’s piled up, jetting from story to story. But being somewhere to witness a happening, doesn’t mean you’re in the trenches, day in and day out. The late Peter Jennings lived in Beirut and London for years earning his stripes by really covering watershed events like the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes. Cooper leapfrogged to the anchor desk on his mother’s family name. That’s fashion icon Gloria Vanderbilt, as in the Vanderbilts. It’s not uncommon to see Cooper reporting on silly topics looking for laughs at the end of his broadcasts.

Soledad O’Brien, Erin Burnett and Piers Morgan are CNN’s latest efforts to boost their prime time viewership when there’s no news to break. As for O’Brien and Burnett, they’re competent, but too young and inexperienced to command authority. Morgan was a judge on “Britain’s Got Talent”, the UK version of “American Idol”. He also had a career with Rupert Murdoch’s British media machine. Not exactly a Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley.

CNN is continuing to grow its network of international bureaus, which builds on their core newsgathering strength, and should make them even tougher to beat to breaking news.

These days, there are few real network news anchors who can draw an audience on their own merit. Maybe Brian Williams at NBC. Maybe.

CBS tried to make Katie Couric a newswoman. She sank like an anchor, but the similarity ended there. An anchorwoman or anchorman’s credibility doesn’t come from a furrowed brow or even grey hair. A 35-year-old can be a legitimate news source if he or she works hard enough while climbing the ladder.

My advice to CNN is to mine their team of correspondents and develop primetime programming around them. Give Piers Morgan an extended vacation and try some real news people in the anchor chair. Rotate reporters in and out according to the topic or the specialty. Middle East reporters interviewing terrorism experts. Financial gurus covering economic analysts. And Anderson Cooper probing fashion, Hollywood and high society. He’s comfortable in that arena and could probably break an actual story or two.

Anchors aren’t made; they’re tempered by the heat of life in the trenches. And they’re only as heavy as the news they cover, day after day after day.

The worm turns

I love apples. Both the kind you eat and those you click.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m keyboarding this blog on a MacBook Pro. And we own five other Apple products including an iPad my wife, Ellen, rarely puts down. We also have an AppleCare contract and have received prompt, friendly and consistently excellent service from technical support.

Although I enjoy these devices and how they work, I’m not crazy these days about the way the technology company is behaving. And I’m not just talking about the exploitation of workers in foreign countries.

The most valuable company in the world is also allegedly continuing to set new standards for greed right here at home.

This week, the U.S. Department of Justice launched a lawsuit against the Cupertino, California company alleging collusion with five book publishers. Apparently, Apple set prices for e-books at its iTunes store and required the publishing companies to pay a 30% commission on every virtual volume sold there. Plus, they demanded the book business not sell e-books at lower prices through other Web retailers.

In fairness to Apple, the alleged price-setting efforts were in response to Amazon’s parasitic relationship with the publishing business. Amazon has been slashing book prices. According to a Bloomberg News interview, Amazon is allegedly selling books at a loss in hopes of driving bookstores, competitors and eventually publishers out of business. If book prices get low enough, publishing print versions won’t be a viable business model. Authors will be forced to deal directly with the likes of Amazon and sell only e-books.

Publishers allegedly crafted the Apple arrangement to fight back against price deflation. The Feds and 15 state attorneys general say consumers have paid millions of extra dollars for popular books. Three of the five publishers settled and two agreed to pay $51 million in restitution to book lovers.

All of these twisted tactics spell trouble for the creative minds that generate the content for books, newspapers, magazines, movies and other media.  As the value is artificially deflated and middlemen divert profits to their pockets, there’s less revenue for those who actually invest in media. The media companies and their creatives are being bled.

Apple’s 30% commission is based on an agency model. In other words, rather than buying the books wholesale like other retailers, or even selling them on consignment, they insist on nearly one-third of the price paid at the Apple store. And they’ve extended this to all sales generated at their App store, including subscriptions, as well and all sales made from within a company’s App bought at the App store.

In that sense, they’re setting prices by imposing a mandatory 30% premium rather than allowing the market to decide the value and price of a product. On the other hand, a bookstore would typically buy merchandise at the wholesale price and then sell them for whatever the market would bear. That way, a great book would bring the top asking price and a bore might sell at rock bottom.  The market rules. But at Apple, in every case, they get 30 pounds of flesh.

You can’t really blame Apple though. They saw the gap in the thinking of media companies and are simply exploiting it.

Consider this. In most cases we pay extra for convenience. Whether it’s the high-priced groceries at the gas station; the surcharge on carryout food orders; handling fees for sports and theater tickets or the shipping costs for mail order or Web purchases. Shopping the easy way has a price and it’s often steep.

Why is it that so many media companies gave away online access to newspapers and magazines for free? Think about it. In most cases, the new media version of a publication or creative asset is more robust and valuable than the old school version. For example, newspapers offer video and galleries of photos online. You can also easily search and e-mail articles and assets to friends and family. Yet, many publishers allow you to enjoy online media with all its extra perks for free. Makes no business sense.

Now, after giving away first-class journalism online, publishers like the New York Times are trying to train readers to pay for it. As they should. And advertising is more measurable online than in any other medium. It’s worth more.

In the 20^th century, radio and television began under free access business models. But advertisers paid top dollar in the golden age of radio and TV to buy share of mind of consumers who invested in radios and TV sets. However, over time, both have evolved into pay models, with satellite radio offering broad programming and excellent reception wherever we go. And cable TV provides hundreds of channels plus on-demand access to first run movies that cost less than theater tickets. But you pay at least the $29.99 monthly teaser rate for satellite or cable TV. And those current box office offerings are extra.

Simply put, you get what you pay for and if it’s convenient, you typically pay more. Getting your favorite journal or show delivered to your desktop no mater where you are in the world, anytime day or night is the ultimate convenience. And it should not be free. Giving away journalism and entertainment is costing jobs and may eventually destroy the media industry as we know it.

All the recent legal haggling with Apple and others couldn’t have come at a better time.

In early April, a consortium of leading magazine publishers announced they would batch 32 major titles for online subscriptions. You get all the monthly magazines at the all-you-can-read price of $9.99 per month. For $14.99 you receive both weekly and monthly titles. An unbelievable deal.

The consortium, called Next Issue Media, includes publishers like Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, Time Inc. and News Corporation. Some of the popular titles in the bundle are The New Yorker, Time, Vanity Fair, Better Homes and Gardens, Elle, Esquire, Wired, Fortune, People, Real Simple and Sports Illustrated.

You might say magazines are going cable, except this subscription model requires no extra fees for the premium content. It would be like getting HBO and Showtime thrown in with your local channels, ESPN, AMC and The Big Ten Network.

The Next Issue Media magazine App will reportedly work with the iPad, Android tablets, Kindle Fire and Nook. It will take about 12 months before the publishers officially make the offer.

Will they have to pay Apple 30% of every subscription they sell through the iTunes store? How will that impact their operations and business plan?

Imagine what would have happened to radio and TV if broadcasters had to pay RCA Victor, Motorola and Philco a 30% fee so the technology tuned into their programming. Even credit cards charge just a few percentage points commission for financing retail sales. The late Steve Jobs must have consulted the ghost of Hammurabi when developing his 30% taste of the business that passes his processors. I’m not talking about a commission on Apps, I’m criticizing the commission on subscriptions.

Apple and Google have created a double tax on the toll roads of the information highway. Consumers already pay fat fees through monthly charges for Internet access. Without the content that media companies create, iPads and other tablets are roads to nowhere, sleek looking launching pads with limited destinations.

My suggestion is that publishers prevent the technology giant, Apple, and others like Amazon or Google from worming in on their valuable content. How? Some technology writers are encouraging media companies to invest in developing Web-based Apps instead of those designed to run on Macs.

That way, they can advertise their amazing offer on the Web and have consumers connect there. Consequently, publishers would then be able to take a bigger bite of the apple for themselves — and the talented people who develop the content for their award winning media. 

Brand Madness.

On Sunday mornings we treat ourselves to a real newspaper. The New York Times in print.  Despite all the extras that come with electronic media, there’s nothing like the scale and flexibility of reading a real pub like the Times.

Jumping from section to section. Full-page, large images you can’t duplicate on an iPad or laptop.

And there she was this morning, on page 5. A gorgeous blonde touching up her ruby red lipstick and holding a vintage makeup mirror as she peered seductively out of the corners of her eyes.

Immediately, I thought of MAD MEN. Was this a promo for the show’s two-hour season premier tonight on AMC at 9 p.m.? She looks a lot like January Jones. 

I studied her beauty. Her long neck and the crisp print dress with an angular neckline descending from her shoulders to her bosom. Circa 1960’s.

Finally, I bothered to read the text. It was indeed an Estée Lauder ad for a new MADMEN collection of lipstick and creme rouge.

Wow! The way that woman looks tonight. This morning. Anytime. It  says we can make you feel like MAD MEN does. Now that’s branding. Simply put, it’s about style.

Without a word. Or a single note of a jingle. Not a glimpse of the logo. And the image told women it’s time to live like you're part of your favorite TV show.

Some marketers get so uptight they insist on following formulas for logo locations and taglines. They don’t realize that’s not what makes branding successful. It’s the aroma, the aura, the hum, the sixth sensation that defines brand character.

The old Apple logo was multicolored and lacked design just like their early products. When Steve Jobs reconnected with his company he brought a sense of flare to products and services that were just as sublime as the handsome silhouette of the current bitten Macintosh.

Now everybody’s trying to copy Apple. The same thing happens in television. ABC’s PAN AM attempted to fly in MAD MEN’s airspace but is struggling to gain altitude amid rumors it will be permanently grounded this May.

Lincoln is trying to draft behind MAD MEN’s high-octane leadership with TV ads starring John Slattery. Slattery plays the slimy advertising exec, Roger Sterling, on the hit show. But they couldn’t capture the iconic MAD MEN look like Estée Lauder did, and had to yack too much about Lincoln’s style and technology instead of suggesting it.

What if they had used vintage Lincoln cars and had “Roger” buying one at his New York City dealership, recreated to look like the 60’s?

Now that would say Lincoln luxury is an American icon like great advertising. But instead, the Dearborn ad men chose to emphasize their logo and features. They missed the point.

The carmaker could buy a ton of spots on tonight’s special AMC show, maybe even provide classic Lincolns for the driving scenes and still not bag the brand power they hoped. Because their cars haven’t been cool for a long time.

Lincoln should start with a vehicle design makeover before they try to rub shoulders with a leader. That’s what Apple did.

Gotta go. MAD MEN is on. And “Roger” just mentioned Oldsmobile.