What is Missing in the Fiscal Cliff Debate – “Spending Cuts” are “Borrowing Cuts”

Photo Credit - Flickr Common

What the heck is wrong with the Republican leadership in Washington?  With all the brain power of politicians and their staff, why can’t they understand what fiscal cliff negotiations message is most important and would make the debate, and what is at stake for America, much more clear to the average American whether a Democrat or a Republican?  Even “no spending cuts” Democrats would take heed.

With every $1 spent by Washington now having 40 cents of it being borrowed, most likely from China, the message should be “Spending cuts are actually borrowing cuts.”  Even the most ardent far left liberal understands that message whether they want to admit it or not. 

Any American, at any income level, drowning in credit card debt or payments owed to a payroll loan store can comprehend the real danger of owing more than one can ever pay back without painful routine spending cut choices and a lower standard of living necessity.   Ask any of these Americans which one is in the stronger position – the lender or the borrower?    

The simple message that really counts, without the political one-upmanship, is the U.S. is spending more money than it has, even with a tax hike on the rich.  The proposed tax hike on the rich will bring in revenue that pays for the federal government spending for approximately 8 ½ days.  So, after a little over a week, at current spending levels, the U.S. is back to borrowing to continue current spending levels.  Only spending, or borrowing, cuts can turn the country around.        

There are also the dangers we have already seen in our country depending on China as an example to keep a government lifestyle of spending too much intact.  The Obama administration refused to declare China a currency manipulator just a couple of days ago.  C’mon now, is there any intelligent American, on either side of the political aisle, who would not say China has been manipulating their currency, especially against the dollar, for years?  This goes to the heart of unfair trade practices in fact with the U.S.   

In addition, the U.S. has refused to call out the Chinese government for human rights abuses for several years now fearing they would stop buying U.S. debt.  We have become a nation of political hypocrites in having the strength of our moral convictions.  We now ignore human rights abuses, because our politicians have put us in the deplorable position of needing to ignore them. 

Those whose human rights are abused in the world depend on the moral power and possibility of a strong U.S. influence to eradicate their suffering.  The ability to call abuse out is a vital first step in eliminating it. 

In today’s Obama/Romney lunch, the White House relayed the focus was on “America's leadership in the world and the importance of maintaining that leadership position in the future."  If the U.S. must hesitate to condemn human rights abuse, are we truly in a leadership position in the world?  Even the Democrats with their compassion for the poor and disenfranchised in societies should be able to get behind this reality for a better world.                    

This is not a partisan issue.  The majority of Republicans are just as guilty as the majority of Democrats in not wanting to have any real spending, or borrowing, cuts.  Politicians having money to give out ensures maintaining political control and power.  It is good public relations with an eye toward the next reelection campaign donors.  Politicians from both parties want to go back home to their districts or states and tout the money and projects they are responsible for funding to special interest groups.  

The fiscal cliff debate has been positioned as one of Republicans wanting to cut spending for the poor while maintaining low taxes for the rich, and the Democrats wanting to protect the poor from spending cuts and rightfully expecting the rich to pay for government for all.  This positioning does nothing but benefit politicians.  It does not benefit Americans today or tomorrow.     

The truth is the fiscal cliff debate should be about paying for the deficits that have been run up and cutting borrowing with interest to maintain a government lifestyle well above our means and economic health.  That is something both parties and Americans need to put into the fiscal cliff perspective. 

A “national borrowing count” should be added to the ever moving national debt clock.  This illustrates what it means to maintain current spending levels today as well as raising any debt ceiling levels in the future.        

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook.  Join her on Thoughtful Women.

Is Morph Syndicate’s “C3” model Networks’ best programming bet for television’s evolution?

Photo Credit-Flickr Common

We have seen technology changes the standard business model in all industries sooner or later.  In 2012 it is sooner for the television industry in meeting the evolving demands of consumers and advertisers. 

Consumers time shift by watching television programs via DVR, the Internet, and mobile phones.  They expect video-on-demand and video-on-the-go to meet their needs. Consumers want more programming choices and access options in entertainment models. 

Advertisers want increased access distribution and micro-demographic targeting options.  Networks need to meet these industry evolution demands with the balance of their own lower risk and lower cost model realities to remain viable in today’s entertainment world.  Investors are looking for technology and business concept advances to be aligned with trending that really matters and enhances the bottom line.        

The new media model has a lot of evolutionary standards to meet.  Beverly Hills based Morph Syndicate is on the leading edge with its “Closed Creative Collective” (C3) branded production model and proof of concept original digital series programming.  Networks and advertisers are leaning forward and taking notice.  Consumers will take notice too as Networks produce more original digital series programming in the very near future.    

Morph Syndicate is owned and run by the partners Matthew and Athena Ashburn.  Matthew is a visionary and a Media Entrepreneur.  He has authored several models in the business of Branded Content Production, Advertisement Distribution, Ad Campaign Clustering, and Digital Content Programming. 

Starting with authoring the production model known as C3, Matthew is leveraging creative and managerial talent with current media technologies to produce original content of all types: Commercials, Broadcast Quality Content, Feature Films, etc.  He is the Co-Creator of the original sci-fi digital series “20 Dollar”, a 21st Century “Twilight Zone”, with first season distributed. He has also just launched the first episode of season 1 of the original family/comedy/magic digital series the “Funniest Faces Show”.

 Athena Ashburn is an award-winning actress, producer, and writer.  She has produced award-winning feature films associated with studios including Weinstein Company, MGM, HBO, First Independent Pictures, and Roadside Attractions.

Athena served as co-producer on Emilio Estevez’ epic ensemble piece, “Bobby“, which was nominated for “Best Picture” at 2007 Golden Globes. Currently she is Executive Producer with Informant Media ("Crazy Heart" - Oscar winner) on the feature Film “Brundibar“, based on a true story slated for a 2013 release.

With networks reorganizing to meet the 21st century consumer demand from network to cable and Internet, Matthew explains the top three ways the C3 model facilitates this evolution.

“Our ‘Closed Creative Collective’ is a comprehensive media production model, utilized in producing original entertainment and advertisement programming keeping with the industry standards for broadcast quality.  Utilizing the C3 model provides a cost reduction of 30% to 50% to current Network or Cable production cost structures.”

“The C3 business model allows our clients’ media strategies to relate to a new paradigm, which has been coined – Constant Programming.  This simply is based on the computation of audio/video content distributed across all devices and delivery platforms at any given moment to consumers globally.”

“C3 puts Networks and advertisers in the ‘Digital Content Market’ immediately and efficiently.  C3’s offers Networks a branded production model, the means for producing sustainable price-points, limitless amounts of genre content, and delivery across all channels.  Advertisers have the capability to produce an unlimited amount of commercials for enhanced visibility.”

Matthew adds, “C3 creates more jobs in the entertainment industry by developing a two tier system that opens up the current one tier entertainment model.  Programming is directed by the Networks in line with current quality standards, but there is a more constant development of programming which can be concept tested first in a digital only medium before moving to the Network programming or can be slated up front as programming meant for alternative distribution only.”

It is easy to see C3 has a huge potential for niche programming to bring new audiences to Networks, new efficiency for advertisers, and more job possibilities for talent.  Will consumers see more independent type programming in all shows – drama, comedy, children, political, educational, etc.? 

Matthew perceives, “Yes, the C3 model produces an expansive amount of genre and niche original content by highly talented creative and managerial professionals, thus providing a business model for funding and pricing accordingly to market demand across digital media markets.

He expands, “The C3 model is a paradigm shift from ‘Large’ TV productions to a model of less expensive, more efficient, and faster to market productions which are inherently going to have that "Independent" look and feel, with the break- away successes as clearly having a mass market appeal.  The content and production quality will remain the same or better, for the C3 production model is designed to produce the bench-mark of ‘Broadcast Quality’ programming at consistent rates not previously capable in quality and quantity.”

 Matthew interprets how he sees new technologies being mainstreamed in the entertainment industry with the C3 media model, “The leveraging of technology is best utilized for production and distribution of entertainment and advertisement programming, thus media conglomerates and advertisers will gain the competitive edge with strategies delivering a ‘Constant Programming’ approach to interconnecting the consumers experience to an exponential revenue model across all devices and platforms.”

There are major differences between the TV pilot parameter for the traditional model and the C3 model for the Networks that work in their favor.  Matthew proposes, “The Networks TV pilot model is a ‘High Stakes’ game with budgets in the multi-millions, Morph Syndicate is bringing to market the C3 branded production model for efficiently producing a high quality and quantity of entertainment and advertisement content. We provide clients with entertainment and advertisement production strategies across devices and platforms, so to provide price-points sustainable on a per devices and platform revenue model, with competitive media products and services that fully monetize digital entertainment.”

How is a show pitch different and alike?  Athena summarizes, “We pitch to clients once an negotiated budget is in place and the formulation of a media strategy is defined. We then present several Intellectual Properties in the form of shows, movies, and commercials with choices from the best qualified C3 branded productions. The clients are presented with an array of project variables in order to produce their most optimal media strategy.”

Athena continues with the benefits of the C3 model leveraging risk to reward by developing more entertainment talent at a lower cost and risk, “The old school MGM studio talent model is alive with the implementation of the C3 production model in a good way.  Included in this model is the discovering of actors, writers, directors, etc. and bringing them to market without the inherent risk and rewards associated historically with the Hollywood revenues model.”

“The value creation comes from our people and their proficiency and synergy.  They individually and collectively bring to our clients’ projects with a resulting market advantage defined by each of the specific C3 branded productions. We evaluate each creative/management persons for their skill sets within a rating system of Core, Median, and Standard for the use in the assignment and/or placement within a media project.”

The talent in the various entertainment Guilds must welcome a business model that expanses their possibility for work, especially in a slow moving economy.  Matthew agrees, “As an entrepreneur my heart is connected to my ambitions.  C3 creates a viable business model for the digital content market and provides market growth and sustainable jobs.”  Athena adds, “We are confident the amount of talent currently ‘sitting on the side-lines’ being placed in highly skilled jobs with industry rates varying from Guild enacted and/or market acceptable contractor rates, offers the talent and their perspective Guilds a means not previously available to them. “

  

Morph Syndicate is an innovator, and Networks will benefit from its new ‘Minor Leagues to Major Leagues’ strategy.  Matthew notes, “C3’s early low cost structure and vetted audiences approach with quantifiable analysis benefits Networks as well as advertisers for their early involvement with ad campaigns and ad buys associated with the shows. The success rate for original programming will increase with the business model for shows to find their respective niche markets as competition expands the ‘Breakout’ shows to the major markets.”

Matthew expounds, “Advertisers benefit mostly by media conglomerates adopting the "Constant Programming" approach to interconnecting the consumers experience to an exponential revenue model across all devices and platforms.  With this evolution to programming, advertisers have a paradigm for strategic campaigns being more efficient with the capability for numerous versions and subsequent placement buys into niche markets with intersecting points across devices and platforms.”

He summarizes, “The digital media markets are currently with ‘one foot in the past and one in the future.’ C3 places both feet firmly in the present.  Networks are able to secure a sustainable market system redefining digital content by the retooling of the production model.”

Consumers and investors are positioned to be the most positively impacted by a paradigm shift that takes full advantage of television’s evolution.  And that is the best bet for Morph Syndicate, a company which is not afraid to lead with a new concept and business model that embraces television’s evolution with innovative and effective Network programming models and investments.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter and Facebook.  Join her on Thoughtful Women.

Which TV news source will you be tuned into for election results?

Photo Credit-Flickr Common

Excitement is building to a fever pitch on both sides as the final day of voting and the official day of the 2012 presidential election culminate on November 6.  Candidates President Obama and Governor Romney are making their last trips to battleground states known for deciding tight elections. 

The main stream media, cable media, and social media have been relentless in the pursuit of shaping the election discussion and voter perception. The print and online media pundits have been writing for months highlighting what issues matter most to voters in this election and what advantages and disadvantage each candidate possesses.

Each campaign’s spokespeople and surrogates are confidently predicting their man will be the winner. 

Voters are a bit fatigued with what has seemed like the longest election season in decades.  They have been bombarded with a non-stop ad war by both candidates.  Over seventy million Americans watched the four debates.  Many have been watching the results of endless up and down political poll results. 

Americans are on the edge of their seats waiting for the vote to uncover who will lead America the next four years in the White House and whether the U.S. Senate will remain in a Democrat majority.

Most of the United States will be glued to television sets or the Internet tomorrow night in great anticipation of the election results of each of the fifty states that determine which Electoral College votes go to Obama or Romney.  More than likely, many will watch late into Wednesday early morning hoping to go to bed knowing which candidate reached the victory number of 270.

Which television news source will you be watching for election coverage?  According to Public Policy Polling, more than likely it will be Fox News if you are a Republican and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) if you are a Democrat. 

PPP conducted a poll of 700 likely voters from January 13^th to 16^th.  The polling was conducted by telephone interviews, and the margin of error is +/- 3.7%.  PPP is a Democratic polling company, but the poll was “not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization.”

“PPP's 3rd annual TV news trust poll (2011 version here, 2010 version here) finds that Fox News tops the list for both the source Americans trust the most and the one they trust the least.”

PPP notes, “Fox is the most trusted TV news source for 34% of voters, followed by PBS at 17%, CNN at 12%, ABC News at 11%, CBS News at 8%, MSNBC at 5%, and Comedy Central and NBC each at 4%.”

PPP further details, “This year’s poll finds a year-over-year increase in trust for every news outlet tested in 2011. PBS is up 2 points, NBC +6, CNN and Fox News + 7, and CBS and ABC experiencing a +5 jump in trust from 2011.

“When asked which news outlets they trust the most and least of all on the list, Fox News tops both most trusted and most distrusted at 34% each. PBS came in as second most trusted with 17%, CNN at 12%, ABC at 11% and no other outlets breaking double digits. When asked which outlet they trust the least, voters again cite Fox News at 34%, followed by Comedy Central at 16%, MSNBC at 15%, CNN at 11% and no others breaking double digits.

“Across the ideological spectrum, majorities of liberals and moderates trust ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and PBS. Moderate voters also trust MSNBC (49/27) and even Comedy Central (36/34) by a small margin. “Somewhat conservative” and “very conservative” voters trust only Fox News, with moderates distrusting by a 28-55 margin.”

“Democrats trust everything- except Fox News. NBC does the best with them at +50 (67/17), followed by PBS and CNN at +49 (66/17 and 65/16 respectively), ABC at +38 (57/19), CBS at +35 (58/23), MSNBC at +33 (56/23), and even Comedy Central at +4 (36/32). Fox News comes in at -36 (25/61).”

“Republicans meanwhile don't trust anything except Fox News. PBS comes the closest to breaking even among non-Fox outlets, although not very close, at -30 (26/56).  It's followed by CNN at -49 (18/67), MSNBC at -51 (18/69), NBC at -52 (17/69), CBS at -54 (17/71), ABC at -56 (14/70), and Comedy Central at -59 (12/71). But Fox News comes in at a stellar 73/17.”

One thing is for sure, the U.S. appears to be polarized regarding everything the past few years – politics, political parties, the 2012 election, the President, the Federal Reserve, Congress, health care legislation, tax policy, energy policy, environmental regulations, labor unions, the stimulus, the bailouts, government spending, government borrowing, government debt and deficit, fiscal cliff, entitlements, and reform.

With so much division, it is no wonder, which television news voters will be watching for election results on Tuesday night will reflect the political divide and polarization as a whole in the U.S. too.

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook.  Join her on Thoughtful Women.