Taking a cue from a recent article in the StarTribune about the new Northstar Commuter Rail (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/56664627.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU) I thought I would make some comments regarding what the editorial was talking about.
To summarize the article, the writer felt that Metro Transit has a challenge ahead of them in the PR department regarding the new Northstar Commuter rail that will start officially on November 16. The challenge is how to educate people on using the rail line, a mode of transportation that is new to the Twin Cities area.
Putting it simply, light rail and commuter rail can be differentiated by capacity and frequency. This is the issue that Metro Transit will have to deal with, come November 16. Light rail offers high frequency, but lower capacity (each car, like a city bus could probably hold 90 people safely, sitting and standing). When the Hiawatha line opened in 2004, Metro Transit did a great deal to educate customers on the use of light rail, which in 2004 was also new to the Twin Cities area.
The authority released pamphlets on "how to ride" the rail: from describing that fares were paid before boarding the train instead of fareboxes that you see on buses, to the frequency of the light rail, that at times, even surpassed bus frequency.
Here's the issue with the commuter rail that Metro Transit will need to work with. Commuter rail is about capacity, not frequency. Commuter rail is designed to transport a large number of people at an optimal time during the day - rush hour. Metro Transit will need to inform people that it is very unlike the light rail, in that, there won't be a train waiting every 7 1/2 minutes.
The article in the Tribune talked about Twins games at the new Target Field. The Northstar Commuter Rail will stop at an "intermodal" (several modes of transit, light rail, buses, commuter rail and the Cedar Bike Trail will converge here) station on the north side of the ballpark. Fans will need to understand that, the Northstar will not operate with the frequency the light rail does; so considering the Northstar as an option to a Twins game, might not be the option of choice, especially during the midday games, when the Northstar will only run one trip.
Also, remember this is the first run of the Northstar rail line. If the ridership surpasses the projections (the Hiawatha light rail has already surpassed ridership projections for the year 2030, after being open for only five years), the schedule may be adjusted to allow for more. Metro Transit had to specifically negotiate the schedule with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad - because the Northstar line will operate on tracks owned by BNSF.
Metro Transit could only operate at certain times, because the BNSF tracks are still very active. The transit authority did its best to operate to coincide with times that people regularly start work: 6:30, 7, 7:30, 8 and 8:45 am. Conversely, they did the same with the return trip times, running at 3:30, 4, 4:30, 5 and 5:30 pm.
Informing customers that the Northstar line will be used for what it was designed for, commuters, will be a big task for Metro Transit. It needs to be done. I'd hate to live in Big Lake (where the line will start) take a train down to a Twins game that goes extra innings, and lets out at 10:30, and there's no Northstar train to take me back.
Metro Transit did a great job informing this area about light rail. How to use it, the changes it proposed for other drivers (especially downtown), how often it ran, etc. I can only think that they will do just as good a job when the Northstar Commuter rail opens in November.
Subscribe To comPRehend
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
A&E buys Lifetime
Daily, I get emails from AdWeek about things that are going on in the world of advertising. It's one of several daily email newsletters I sort through once I'm home from work. Recently, one article caught my attention, "A&E acquires Lifetime."
I like this merger by A&E. I like A&E (Arts & Entertainment) television. I like their programming. A&E is the cable network where you can find shows such as Paranormal State (a personal favorite) and Intervention (also a personal favorite).
This merger also includes the Lifetime Movie Network, which has also produced some good, made-for-TV movies.
A&E also owns History (formerly The History Channel), which is a personal favorite cable channel in our household. According to the AdWeek article (found here: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3id9eac057de820fdc81d518e33fd20296) all three networks, A&E, Lifetime and History will remain "intact."
However, I wonder, with this merger, whether the female demographic of Lifetime will change. Lifetime has always been known as "Television for Women." With this merger, I am curious whether or not the female demographic will change.
Of course, there are other female-oriented cable channels. Women's Entertainment (We) and Oxygen! also have female-centric demographics. So, even if A&E does change the demographic a little, the type of programming for the female demographics won't disappear entirely.
I'm curious to see, when the merger is finalized (the article does not mention a specific closing date), what changes A&E will bring to Lifetime, good or bad.
Thanks for reading.
I like this merger by A&E. I like A&E (Arts & Entertainment) television. I like their programming. A&E is the cable network where you can find shows such as Paranormal State (a personal favorite) and Intervention (also a personal favorite).
This merger also includes the Lifetime Movie Network, which has also produced some good, made-for-TV movies.
A&E also owns History (formerly The History Channel), which is a personal favorite cable channel in our household. According to the AdWeek article (found here: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3id9eac057de820fdc81d518e33fd20296) all three networks, A&E, Lifetime and History will remain "intact."
However, I wonder, with this merger, whether the female demographic of Lifetime will change. Lifetime has always been known as "Television for Women." With this merger, I am curious whether or not the female demographic will change.
Of course, there are other female-oriented cable channels. Women's Entertainment (We) and Oxygen! also have female-centric demographics. So, even if A&E does change the demographic a little, the type of programming for the female demographics won't disappear entirely.
I'm curious to see, when the merger is finalized (the article does not mention a specific closing date), what changes A&E will bring to Lifetime, good or bad.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
A 3rd jersey for the Minnesota Wild?
A ha, finally. an issue I love to write about: sports and corporate branding.
It has been announced that the Minnesota Wild (NHL) will unveil a "third" jersey to be worn this season. The unveiling will happen next Sunday at the Minnesota State Fair. There are speculations about what the jersey might look like. One can be found here: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Wild%20green%20jersey/puckdrawn/Concepts/MinnesottaWildConcept.png, and another can be found here: http://www.wildpuckbanter.com/2009/08/new-wild-jersey.html.
This is an interesting concept to me, sports teams have been using "alternate" jerseys for many years now. Some have been successful, and others have been total flops. However, the Wild had an alternate jersey a few years ago. The jersey seen here: http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354.
What happened was, the NHL had switched jersey manufacturers. The league contracted with Reebok and their new Edge line of jerseys. The "Rbk Edge" was a custom-fit jersey, which was supposed to supply better comfort for players. And, the NHL made a rule that teams had to scrap whatever third jerseys they had, and couldn't unveil a new one for two years.
The Wild kept their white jersey, and opted to keep the red "alternate" jersey http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354 and got rid of the original green sweater.
Here's what bothers me about the red sweater they kept. The logo on the front. In my estimation, a good and respectable corporate brand, should not have to tell you what it is. You will notice that the words "Minnesota Wild" surround it. Earlier in the franchise's history, the words "NHL Hockey" even appeared on a secondary logo the team was going to use.
If you see the logo for GM, you know that it's for General Motors. They make cars. The company does not need to put "auto manufacturer" on the logo. If you see an oblong "G" surrounded by a green and gold oval, you know that logo is for the Green Bay Packers. They don't need to put "We play football in Green Bay" on the logo. Let's not forget the Golden Arches. These are respectable, reputable, trustworthy corporations, that do not need to label what they are, or what they do, to get the point across.
I feel the Minnesota Wild made a mistake when choosing what sweater to keep. The Minnesota Wild have some of the best merchandise sales, if not the best merchandise sales in the National Hockey League. The only problem, most people can't figure out what animal the head belongs to, that you see on the front of the jersey. Is it a bobcat, cougar, a panther? No one knows. But, they DO know that logo.
On the other hand, looking at some of the concept drawings people have conjured up in their minds (the ones with a script font "Minnesota"), many sports teams in all professional leagues are putting the city or state of origin on their road jerseys.
Personally, I think the Wild should ditch the red jersey with the circle "Minnesota Wild" surrounding the cougar head (I'll call it a cougar). The Wild have made a name for themselves in the National Hockey League, in their ten years of existence - on the basis of their enormous fan base, merchandise sales and team ownership.
I feel that it is in the best interest, not just of the Wild, not just of sports teams, but of all corporations, to do their very best to cultivate a corporate brand, a corporate logo that is immediately recognizable - without being told what it represents.
It has been announced that the Minnesota Wild (NHL) will unveil a "third" jersey to be worn this season. The unveiling will happen next Sunday at the Minnesota State Fair. There are speculations about what the jersey might look like. One can be found here: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Wild%20green%20jersey/puckdrawn/Concepts/MinnesottaWildConcept.png, and another can be found here: http://www.wildpuckbanter.com/2009/08/new-wild-jersey.html.
This is an interesting concept to me, sports teams have been using "alternate" jerseys for many years now. Some have been successful, and others have been total flops. However, the Wild had an alternate jersey a few years ago. The jersey seen here: http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354.
What happened was, the NHL had switched jersey manufacturers. The league contracted with Reebok and their new Edge line of jerseys. The "Rbk Edge" was a custom-fit jersey, which was supposed to supply better comfort for players. And, the NHL made a rule that teams had to scrap whatever third jerseys they had, and couldn't unveil a new one for two years.
The Wild kept their white jersey, and opted to keep the red "alternate" jersey http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354 and got rid of the original green sweater.
Here's what bothers me about the red sweater they kept. The logo on the front. In my estimation, a good and respectable corporate brand, should not have to tell you what it is. You will notice that the words "Minnesota Wild" surround it. Earlier in the franchise's history, the words "NHL Hockey" even appeared on a secondary logo the team was going to use.
If you see the logo for GM, you know that it's for General Motors. They make cars. The company does not need to put "auto manufacturer" on the logo. If you see an oblong "G" surrounded by a green and gold oval, you know that logo is for the Green Bay Packers. They don't need to put "We play football in Green Bay" on the logo. Let's not forget the Golden Arches. These are respectable, reputable, trustworthy corporations, that do not need to label what they are, or what they do, to get the point across.
I feel the Minnesota Wild made a mistake when choosing what sweater to keep. The Minnesota Wild have some of the best merchandise sales, if not the best merchandise sales in the National Hockey League. The only problem, most people can't figure out what animal the head belongs to, that you see on the front of the jersey. Is it a bobcat, cougar, a panther? No one knows. But, they DO know that logo.
On the other hand, looking at some of the concept drawings people have conjured up in their minds (the ones with a script font "Minnesota"), many sports teams in all professional leagues are putting the city or state of origin on their road jerseys.
Personally, I think the Wild should ditch the red jersey with the circle "Minnesota Wild" surrounding the cougar head (I'll call it a cougar). The Wild have made a name for themselves in the National Hockey League, in their ten years of existence - on the basis of their enormous fan base, merchandise sales and team ownership.
I feel that it is in the best interest, not just of the Wild, not just of sports teams, but of all corporations, to do their very best to cultivate a corporate brand, a corporate logo that is immediately recognizable - without being told what it represents.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Rare, yes. Impossible, not really.
Sorry it's been so long since I wrote. Of course, I haven't had too much to write about, at least that I could think of. Until yesterday that is.
Hopefully, everyone made it home OK after the surprise tornado that hit Minneapolis yesterday. The National Weather Service has now confirmed that it was in fact, a tornado. It was all over the news yesterday, and even WCCO having a piece about the myth of, "tornados don't hit urban areas."
They certainly do. Yesterday's storm in Minneapolis may not have been as catastrophic as it could have been, but other downtowns in metro areas across the country have been much less fortunate, and just in the last few years. 1999, a massive F5 tornado tears through downtown Oklahoma City. In 1997, a tornado touched down near downtown Miami.
A tornado ripped through Fort Worth, TX in 2000. Just last year, a tornado tore through downtown Atlanta in March. If that wasn't unusual enough, a tornado had NEVER touched down in downtown Atlanta prior to last year's storm, which happened amidst the SEC college basketball tournament. And, stranger still, several years ago, a "microburst" hit downtown Salt Lake City. A funnel cloud that disappeared as quickly as it came down, but not before doing some small damage to the area, including the Delta Center (now the Energy Solutions Arena).
Yesterday's storm ripped through a neighborhood not too far from my office. Matter of fact, a good portion of the damage was just on the other side of 35W from us. At about 2pm, on what was just a normal day, our power went out. It had been raining steadily all day, but nothing prepared us (or anyone for that matter) for what was to come. We heard reports that a tornado was somewhere in the area.
As we moved downstairs, then the sirens decided to sound. Add to that, a belated birthday party, in a darkened basement with just a few candles and a flashlight. Everyone, including myself, on cell phones trying to get the latest from family members. It truly was a day to remember.
Incidentally, I remember the last tornado that touched down in that area, in 1981. I was all of 3 years old, but I remember that day vividly. We lived in a four-plex on Garfield Avenue South in Minneapolis. I vaguely remember hearing the EBS sound on TV, our power went out, and we went downstairs. The tornado hopped over our four-plex, but did some damage about four blocks from us. This was the same storm that took the roof off of Har Mar Mall in Roseville.
Funny, we spent all of August 18 talking about Brett Favre. How quickly the news can change. Oddly enough, the last time a big sports story happened in the Twin Cities, another incident took it's place shortly after. Kevin Garnett was traded to the Boston Celtics on Monday, July 30, 2007. Two days later, the 35W bridge collapsed.
Hopefully, everyone made it home OK after the surprise tornado that hit Minneapolis yesterday. The National Weather Service has now confirmed that it was in fact, a tornado. It was all over the news yesterday, and even WCCO having a piece about the myth of, "tornados don't hit urban areas."
They certainly do. Yesterday's storm in Minneapolis may not have been as catastrophic as it could have been, but other downtowns in metro areas across the country have been much less fortunate, and just in the last few years. 1999, a massive F5 tornado tears through downtown Oklahoma City. In 1997, a tornado touched down near downtown Miami.
A tornado ripped through Fort Worth, TX in 2000. Just last year, a tornado tore through downtown Atlanta in March. If that wasn't unusual enough, a tornado had NEVER touched down in downtown Atlanta prior to last year's storm, which happened amidst the SEC college basketball tournament. And, stranger still, several years ago, a "microburst" hit downtown Salt Lake City. A funnel cloud that disappeared as quickly as it came down, but not before doing some small damage to the area, including the Delta Center (now the Energy Solutions Arena).
Yesterday's storm ripped through a neighborhood not too far from my office. Matter of fact, a good portion of the damage was just on the other side of 35W from us. At about 2pm, on what was just a normal day, our power went out. It had been raining steadily all day, but nothing prepared us (or anyone for that matter) for what was to come. We heard reports that a tornado was somewhere in the area.
As we moved downstairs, then the sirens decided to sound. Add to that, a belated birthday party, in a darkened basement with just a few candles and a flashlight. Everyone, including myself, on cell phones trying to get the latest from family members. It truly was a day to remember.
Incidentally, I remember the last tornado that touched down in that area, in 1981. I was all of 3 years old, but I remember that day vividly. We lived in a four-plex on Garfield Avenue South in Minneapolis. I vaguely remember hearing the EBS sound on TV, our power went out, and we went downstairs. The tornado hopped over our four-plex, but did some damage about four blocks from us. This was the same storm that took the roof off of Har Mar Mall in Roseville.
Funny, we spent all of August 18 talking about Brett Favre. How quickly the news can change. Oddly enough, the last time a big sports story happened in the Twin Cities, another incident took it's place shortly after. Kevin Garnett was traded to the Boston Celtics on Monday, July 30, 2007. Two days later, the 35W bridge collapsed.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Good-bye "Uncle Walter"
I'm sure we've all heard by now, an icon in journalism passed away yesterday. Walter Cronkite, a man to whom the term "anchor" was coined, died on July 17. He was 92.
Watching the news yesterday, I heard a snippet about the term "news anchor" and it was a term given to Cronkite when he covered a political convention for CBS.
Cronkite's last broadcast on CBS was in 1981, to be succeeded by Dan Rather. So, for me, the only real knowledge I had about him was from what I heard from my parents and others. I was aware of the broadcast in 1963 when he announced the death of JFK. Matter of fact, I watched a five minute segment of that very broadcast on YouTube recently.
On the numerous newscasts last night, it was mentioned that the early bulletins of the JFK assassination were audio only, and the first broadcast interruption was during "As The World Turns" - which to me seemed ironic. The reason that the first bulletins were audio only is because they were waiting for a camera to warm up.
I was in high school when first I started hearing a great deal about Cronkite. I think he, and his legacy were just a couple of the many reasons I gained an interest in broadcasting and journalism.
Matter of fact, when I first started Brown College for broadcasting, I tried to think of my "hook." The phrase that I would use to close my mock broadcasts. I almost thought about using Uncle Walter's: "And that's the way it is." I didn't - that was his trademark. I needed to find something else. And on his last broadcast in 1981, he closed with, "And that's the way it will be."
The world of journalism has lost a true icon. Other anchors will come and go - but in my opinion, none will quite match the integrity that Mr. Cronkite brought to the TV medium.
Watching the news yesterday, I heard a snippet about the term "news anchor" and it was a term given to Cronkite when he covered a political convention for CBS.
Cronkite's last broadcast on CBS was in 1981, to be succeeded by Dan Rather. So, for me, the only real knowledge I had about him was from what I heard from my parents and others. I was aware of the broadcast in 1963 when he announced the death of JFK. Matter of fact, I watched a five minute segment of that very broadcast on YouTube recently.
On the numerous newscasts last night, it was mentioned that the early bulletins of the JFK assassination were audio only, and the first broadcast interruption was during "As The World Turns" - which to me seemed ironic. The reason that the first bulletins were audio only is because they were waiting for a camera to warm up.
I was in high school when first I started hearing a great deal about Cronkite. I think he, and his legacy were just a couple of the many reasons I gained an interest in broadcasting and journalism.
Matter of fact, when I first started Brown College for broadcasting, I tried to think of my "hook." The phrase that I would use to close my mock broadcasts. I almost thought about using Uncle Walter's: "And that's the way it is." I didn't - that was his trademark. I needed to find something else. And on his last broadcast in 1981, he closed with, "And that's the way it will be."
The world of journalism has lost a true icon. Other anchors will come and go - but in my opinion, none will quite match the integrity that Mr. Cronkite brought to the TV medium.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Newspapers being cut, and now newscasts?
Sorry it's been so long since I wrote.
Continuing with the theme from my last post, I read an article today on AdAge.com about WNBC in New York, which is cutting its 5pm newscast with a "lifestyle and entertainment show."
The change is being made to accomodate viewer trends, which the article cites as including other programming (movies and reruns of "popular shows"), cable TV news and, of course, the Internet.
But, a lifestyle and entertainment show? Isn't daytime TV filled with that kind of programming? Programs such as The View are as commonplace on daytime TV as informercials. I love the Internet and all the other means in which to obtain news; but I'm also an old-fashioned kind of guy who likes to see a good newscast every now and again.
Especially a 5pm newscast - as I've been at work all day and need to get caught up. Sure, after I get home from work, and my timeslot at the gym, I'll hop on Google News and check some news, stocks, and the like; but mostly the time is spent going through a day's worth of email.
I'm used to 5pm newscasts. I'm used to the workday starting early and ending early (I'm a 7 to 3 guy). My guess is that it's probably a safe bet that most New Yorkers are still at the office at 5pm, and work until 6 or later; or are on the subway coming home, and a 5pm newscast wouldn't reach alot of people.
I just think WNBC could have filled the time slot better, than putting in a type of show that is seen almost all day long; who needs another one?
The full article can be read here: http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=137546
Thanks for reading.
Continuing with the theme from my last post, I read an article today on AdAge.com about WNBC in New York, which is cutting its 5pm newscast with a "lifestyle and entertainment show."
The change is being made to accomodate viewer trends, which the article cites as including other programming (movies and reruns of "popular shows"), cable TV news and, of course, the Internet.
But, a lifestyle and entertainment show? Isn't daytime TV filled with that kind of programming? Programs such as The View are as commonplace on daytime TV as informercials. I love the Internet and all the other means in which to obtain news; but I'm also an old-fashioned kind of guy who likes to see a good newscast every now and again.
Especially a 5pm newscast - as I've been at work all day and need to get caught up. Sure, after I get home from work, and my timeslot at the gym, I'll hop on Google News and check some news, stocks, and the like; but mostly the time is spent going through a day's worth of email.
I'm used to 5pm newscasts. I'm used to the workday starting early and ending early (I'm a 7 to 3 guy). My guess is that it's probably a safe bet that most New Yorkers are still at the office at 5pm, and work until 6 or later; or are on the subway coming home, and a 5pm newscast wouldn't reach alot of people.
I just think WNBC could have filled the time slot better, than putting in a type of show that is seen almost all day long; who needs another one?
The full article can be read here: http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=137546
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The future of local news
I looked through my daily email from the Public Relations Society of America - Issues and Trends - and found a neat little article about local news, and whether or not it's still proprietary.
The article suggests that though many consumers are now perusing the Internet, and other electronic mediums to get their news, there are segments of journalism that are still perceived as important. The quote du jour seemed to be this one, "The Pew report noted that audiences consider newspapers to be more valuable than before. In fact, news content has slightly increased in popularity during the recent months."
So it seems that journalism hasn't altogether vanished; but the article, written by Barbara Bry for the PRSA Tactics, also states that there needs to be a major change in the way traditional media distributes the news. If you think about how Twitter works, people who regularly use Twitter could find a piece of news, a press release or whatever - possibly quicker than they might be able to find it on a search engine, such as Google News.
Which leads to the main point of the article, that news is no longer proprietary, or exclusive. Bry mentioned bloggers who are increasingly putting forth news on their sites.
For example, yesterday, local news reports here in the Twin Cities brought forth a report about the new Budweiser Party Deck that will be constructed at Target Field - the new home of the Minnesota Twins. I frequent a blog at www.twinsballpark2010.com which, over the last three months or so, through pictures and guided tours from the blog's host, has suggested that something was going to be built out in the left field area of the ballpark.
So, it was really no surprise to me when I saw it in this morning's newspaper, or last night's 10pm newscast. This example seems to prove Ms. Bry's comments - that in order to be relevant, something will need to change in the way local news is presented.
Her full article, can be read here: http://www.prsa.org/supportfiles/news/viewNews.cfm?pNewsID=842348074
Thanks for reading.
The article suggests that though many consumers are now perusing the Internet, and other electronic mediums to get their news, there are segments of journalism that are still perceived as important. The quote du jour seemed to be this one, "The Pew report noted that audiences consider newspapers to be more valuable than before. In fact, news content has slightly increased in popularity during the recent months."
So it seems that journalism hasn't altogether vanished; but the article, written by Barbara Bry for the PRSA Tactics, also states that there needs to be a major change in the way traditional media distributes the news. If you think about how Twitter works, people who regularly use Twitter could find a piece of news, a press release or whatever - possibly quicker than they might be able to find it on a search engine, such as Google News.
Which leads to the main point of the article, that news is no longer proprietary, or exclusive. Bry mentioned bloggers who are increasingly putting forth news on their sites.
For example, yesterday, local news reports here in the Twin Cities brought forth a report about the new Budweiser Party Deck that will be constructed at Target Field - the new home of the Minnesota Twins. I frequent a blog at www.twinsballpark2010.com which, over the last three months or so, through pictures and guided tours from the blog's host, has suggested that something was going to be built out in the left field area of the ballpark.
So, it was really no surprise to me when I saw it in this morning's newspaper, or last night's 10pm newscast. This example seems to prove Ms. Bry's comments - that in order to be relevant, something will need to change in the way local news is presented.
Her full article, can be read here: http://www.prsa.org/supportfiles/news/viewNews.cfm?pNewsID=842348074
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)