Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Without Trump – Is Late Night Television Struggling for New Jokes?

For four years, just about every talk show host and comedy show had a fresh supply of almost daily content. The unfiltered comments, gaffes and chaotic ongoings in the White House offered up a steady stream of material for jokes, monologues and coverage. But those days are over. Does Joe Biden's calm presidency and his capable administration mean a deficit of humor for the country’s comedians? UMW’s Dr. Stephen Farnsworth was recently featured in Variety Magazine about his perspective on the current state of late-night political content. Viewers are likely to continue to expect a robust political discussion. “In Washington, the political divisions are as intense as ever, and so it seems that there would be a ready audience for a continuing focus on political humor in late night,” said Stephen Farnsworth, co-author of the 2019 book “Late Night With Trump: Political Humor and the American Presidency” and director of the Center for Leadership and Media Studies at the University of Mary Washington. “The environment may not look all that different post-pandemic.” June 14 - Variety Magazine Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a sought-after political commentator on presidential politics. He has been widely featured in national media, including The Washington Post, Reuters, The Chicago Tribune and MSNBC. Dr. Farnsworth is available to speak with media any time. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.

What does Meghan Markle's explosive interview say about how the Royal Family and British press treats women of color?

It was hyped, promoted and delivered a ratings bonanza for CBS. Oprah Winfrey’s exclusive, no-holds barred interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, left many aghast by her revelations of mistreatment, constant abuse in the media and even Meghan's experience of racism when it came to the status, security and skin color of her then unborn son. Even the day after, Oprah, praised for her masterful interviewing skills, is still revealing excerpts that shine a brighter light on the situation. The Duchess of Sussex claimed the press team that would defend the royal family "when they know something's not true" failed to come to their defense. Winfrey asked Prince Harry if he hoped his family would ever acknowledge that the differences in treatment were over race. "It would make a huge difference," he said. "Like I said, there's a lot of people that have seen it for what it was… like it's talked about across the world." The people who do not want to see it, Harry claimed, "choose not to see it." March 08 – CBS News The interview has the public discussing racism and misogyny and how these are playing out in the Royal Family dynamics and the British press. And if you are a journalist looking to explore this issue, then let our experts help. Dr. Adria Goldman’s research explores the intersectionality of race, gender, culture and its connection to communication and media. She enjoys examining media’s impact on perceptions, construction of identity, social relationships and belief systems. Dr. Goldman is available to speak with media regarding Oprah Winfrey's interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry and what it means when it comes to race, royalty and what impact it may have on the couple and the Royal Family moving forward. If you are looking to arrange an interview, simply click on her icon now to book a time today.

Villanova Expert Reflects on Historic Number of Golden Globe-Nominated Female Directors

For the first time in the Golden Globes Awards’ history, three women were nominated for best director. "We went from barely getting one in a category to a majority," said Teresa Boyer, EdD, founding director of Villanova University's Anne Welsh McNulty Institute for Women's Leadership. But why are we seeing this change in narrative in 2021? "One wonders if this is in response to the pushback from so many past years, a growth in dogged pursuit of success of the women in the field or a change in both how we may have viewed movies and television in the past year," said Dr. Boyer. "While likely all of the above, one would think that the way we viewed our screen-based entertainment, with the majority being streaming activities, might have allowed audiences to explore films they would not have been as likely to pursue in the traditional 'group-goes-to-a-theater' method." Not only is there more to watch using streaming services, but online platforms could also allow for more diversity in options. "When we have the opportunity to choose anything we like, without being beholden to others in our social groups, we may find that the directors’ lenses are a better match to those of their audience." Increased options could also help more people see themselves represented on screen. "There is a reason why we say, 'representation matters.' For young women and people of color with an interest in the field, being able to see people who look like them lauded in the most highly prized mainstream award ceremonies sends the message that they too are welcome... and their leadership potential is not limited. It may also open the eyes of their peers and others in the field who previously discounted the value of their work and potential based solely on their perceptions of who should be making films."

Villanova Professor Discusses the Presidency and Future Use of Social Media

During his presidency, Donald Trump heavily utilized Twitter and other social media platforms as a key communication mechanism. But President Joe Biden’s use of social media will likely look very different according to Villanova University political science professor Matt Kerbel, PhD. “I think we’re going to see a return to something resembling normalcy in the way President Biden communicates with the public and runs his office,” says Dr. Kerbel. “President Trump was singular in his ability to use Twitter as a mouthpiece for his unfiltered thoughts because that was his brand and the basis for his campaign and presidency. Social media was an extension of his personality and a forum to amplify his message.” But President Biden’s campaign did not follow the same strategy. Dr. Kerbel predicts his social media use will vastly differ: “I expect President Biden to use social media to communicate his message of unity and publicize his plans and accomplishments. Expect a return to routine press conferences and planned media events along with social media outreach resembling what we’ve seen from the transition team.” Dr. Kerbel is an expert on political communication, including how politicians or political parties utilize traditional and new media. Due to his experience as a television and radio writer, researcher and author, he is frequently interviewed regarding politics and the media. He also writes political analyses for his blog, Wolves and Sheep.

Is hospital advertising actually good for our health?

Hospitals and healthcare organizations in the U.S. spend $1.5 billion on advertising every year. It’s a topic that provokes lively debate and a certain amount of controversy. Medical bodies, policy makers, and scholars alike question the ethics and efficacy of using (constrained) budgets to promote hospitals to patients. Diwas KC, professor of information systems & operations management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School, and Tongil Kim, an assistant professor of management at Naveen Jindal School of Management in Texas, conducted a large-scale study of hospitals and patients in the state of Massachusetts to better understand the impact of hospital advertising. What they found is striking: Not only does television advertising work, it significantly drives demand, attracting patients living far from the hospital and beyond its regular area. And that’s not all. KC and Kim discovered that limiting hospital advertising or imposing an outright ban, as some groups have called for, might actually have serious negative effects on patient healthcare. “There has been a lot of discussion about banning advertising over recent years because of uncertainties around wasting money and resources,” KC said. In the paper “Impact of hospital advertising on patient demand and outcomes,” KC shows that there is a correlation between the amount spent on TV advertising and the quality of the hospital in question. Healthcare facilities that invest more in advertising tend to be “better” hospitals, he adds; they offer higher caliber care and services and, as such, they see much lower patient readmission rates—a key quality metric in healthcare. To get to these insights, KC and Kim looked at more than 220,000 individual patient visits to hospitals in the state of Massachusetts over a 24-month period. Among the data they collected were things like hospital type, location, and dollars spent on advertising. Patients were documented in terms of medical conditions, insurance, zip codes (to determine residence), and median household income. They were able to contrast those hospitals that invested in television advertising and those that did not. With the former, they uncovered a significant uptick in patient visits, with people coming from far further afield. This was particularly true of wealthier patients. Then there’s the question of patient outcomes. Here the data showed unequivocally that it’s the high-quality, low-readmission hospitals that advertise more—something that KC attributes to the natural tendency to get “more bang for the advertising buck when the quality of your product or service is better.” As for banning advertising, this would negatively impact these hospitals, he argues, limiting their ability to attract patients. It could also lead to an increase in population-level readmission rates. “Patient readmission rates are one of the key metrics along with mortality rates that tell us how well a healthcare facility is working,” said KC. “If a patient gets discharged but has to come back to a hospital in, say, 30 days, unless it’s a chronic condition or ongoing treatment, it’s a good indication that the patient didn’t get the level of care they should have the first time.” Indeed, “when we looked at all of the data, we found that the hospitals where there were fewest revisit rates were those that advertised more,” he said. KC finds that a blanket ban on hospital advertising could lead to an extra 1.2 readmissions for every 100 patients discharged. It’s a significant and “surprising” finding. And one that should inform the debate around healthcare advertising spend in the U.S. “There’s also the idea that this is a zero-sum game because if a patient doesn’t go to hospital A, they’re just going to go to hospital B—the one that advertises more—splitting the pie in different ways but not increasing that pie,” KC said. “What our study finds is that yes, advertising does draw patients away from one facility and towards another, but that the latter generally delivers better patient outcomes,” he said. “So, there is a social welfare benefit right there that suggests that you should not ban hospital advertising. There are real health benefits in allowing [advertising] to happen.” If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic - then let our experts help. Diwas KC is a Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. He is an expert in the areas of  Data Analytics, Operations, and Healthcare. If you are interesting in arranging an interview - simply click on his icon to set up a time today.

Playing dirty in 2020 – but does negative advertising actually work in elections?

2020 has been a historic year – on so many fronts. And as the summer of an election year approaches – soon we will be inundated with speeches, policies, promise and advertisements for what might be the most hotly contested and divisive election on record. Political advertising comes in many forms. Social media will be the new battle ground but hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent between now and November in traditional areas like television, radio and print. As we all know, no one ‘wants’ to go negative. In fact, most campaigns make (and soon break) their first promise to run a clean and positive campaign. But usually, the inevitable happens and the ads go negative. Now that the June primaries are in the books except for the June 23 runoffs, the countdown to November’s election is underway. You’ll gradually see more and more political advertising. On the state and national levels, most of the pitches to date have been building up a particular candidate. Negativity has not been at the level of elections in the past. Look for that to change. It was true then and it will be true now. Writing ahead of the 2018 midterm election, a reporter for InsideSources.com, Andrew Solender, cited a study shedding light on why negative advertising is so prevalent in elections. Michael Lewis and David A. Schweidel of Emory University and Yanwen Wang of the University of British Columbia initially planned to look at using social media as a tool for predicting election results. But as social media rapidly became commonplace in elections, they shifted their focus to the impact and efficacy of negative advertising, a staple of elections. “For forever, voters have expressed disgust with the level of negative advertising,” Lewis said, “but we see a lot of it. So, [the question was] does it actually work?” According to the data their study produced, it does. But under certain conditions. Looking at correlations between the volume of negative ads and the vote shares achieved by U.S. Senate candidates in 2010 and 2012, the researchers found that “while positive political advertising does not affect two-party vote share, negative political advertising has a significant positive effect on two-party vote shares.” However, they also found that the source of the ads makes a difference in the ads’ efficacy, noting “negative advertising sponsored by PACs is significantly less effective than that sponsored by the candidate or party in affecting two-party vote shares.”  June 18 - The Times and Democrat The road to the White House, and just about every other elected office up for grabs this November will be under heavy scrutiny and lots of coverage. If you’re a journalist covering this topic – then let our experts help. Professor Michael Lewis is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Professor Lewis is an expert in political marketing and is available to speak to media – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.

Airing commercials after political ads actually helps sell nonpolitical products

About $7 billion reportedly will be spent this fall on television and digital commercials from political campaigns and political action committees, filling the airwaves with political ads many viewers dislike. Companies running ads immediately afterward have been concerned about the potential of a negative spillover effect on how they and their products and services are perceived. But new research from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business finds that the opposite is true. Contrary to mainstream thought, political ads instead yield positive spillover effects for nonpolitical advertisers. And this happens regardless of whether the political ad is an attack ad or not, who the ad supports, and whether it's sponsored by a candidate, political party or PAC. Political advertising accounts for nearly 10 percent of all U.S. television ad revenue. The findings are in the article "Impact of Political Television Advertisements on Viewers' Response to Subsequent Advertisements" -- accepted for publication in Marketing Science -- by Beth Fossen, assistant professor of marketing; Girish Mallapragada, associate professor of marketing and Weimer Faculty Fellow; and doctoral candidate Anwesha De, all from the Kelley School of Business. "Our investigations provide insights into the previously unexplored ad-to-ad spillover effects and, more broadly, provides insights into how political messages influence consumers," Fossen said. "Nonpolitical ads that follow political ads benefit through a reduction in audience decline and an increase in positive post-ad chatter." Using data for 849 national prime-time ads during the 2016 U.S. general election, the researchers found that ads airing after a political commercial saw an 89 percent reduction in audience decline and a 3 percent increase in post-ad chatter online. Their findings remained consistent when examining the effect by TV network and political party affiliation. "It seems reasonable to assume that Fox News viewers are more likely to be positively stimulated by pro-Republican ads than viewers of other channels," researchers wrote. "However, evidence from our data suggests that the positive spillover from pro-Republican ads is not higher and is nearly lower on Fox News viewership decline than when pro-Republican ads air on other channels." They found a similar trend when it came to advertising on MSNBC, whose viewers frequently identify with the Democratic Party and progressive causes. Mallapragada said the findings show that television networks and stations can leverage the positive spillover effects on subsequent ads by implementing differential pricing and systematic ad sequencing. Prevailing belief in the business industry has suggested that political ads on television hurt the effectiveness of subsequent ads. To illustrate this concern, during the 2020 Super Bowl, game broadcaster Fox isolated political ads from other paying advertisers in their own ad breaks, a decision that cost the network millions in ad revenue, because it ran nonpaid show promos alongside the political ads instead of commercials from paying advertisers. "The insights from this research enable advertisers to advocate for the inclusion of ad positioning in ad buys and, specifically, negotiate that their ads follow political ads," he said. "Our results may also encourage advertisers outside of the television context to experiment with advertising next to political content, an experimentation that may be especially beneficial for online advertisers given that they commonly blacklist political topics to avoid having their ads appear near political content." Editors: Contact George Vlahakis at vlahakis@iu.edu for a copy of the paper.

And the award goes to … Georgia Southern University receives two Emmy nominations

The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Southeast Chapter has recognized Georgia Southern University’s Multimedia Development Center (MDC) with two professional Emmy award nominations. Nominated for the Emmy awards were Art Berger, Best Technical Director for Georgia Southern football, baseball and basketball, and Ben Powell, Best Technical Director for Georgia Southern basketball.  Berger, director of the MDC, said the nominations are a result of a collaborative effort among the student and staff team. The MDC’s mission is to provide students with professional opportunities and deliver excellence in media programming. Students working at the MDC receive hands-on experience delivering more than 150 live streaming events a year including commencement and Georgia Southern football. “We are very proud of our collaboration with Georgia Southern Athletics and our two Technical Director 2019-2020 Emmy award nominations,” said Berger. “These awards reflect the quality and the outstanding dedication of our students and our staff in delivering high-quality ESPN programming. We are extremely proud of our continued excellence in bringing Emmy level ESPN programming to Georgia Southern University.”  The MDC has previously received eighteen Emmy nominations as well as five professional wins including best director, best sports director, and best technical director, and two Emmy awards for best audio with the Georgia Southern Symphony. The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is a professional organization for individuals in the television and broadcasting industry. If you are journalist and would like to know more about this story - simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview.

Step aside Walking Dead – There’s another leading TV show being shot in Georgia now

When location scouts for NBC’s new television series “Council of Dads” combed Savannah for a realistic venue to shoot multiple hospital scenes, they knew they had found something special in the Health Professions Academic Building on Georgia Southern University’s Armstrong Campus. “I set up a visit, came and looked at it and I was floored,” said “Council of Dads” location scout and Armstrong Campus alumnus Anthony Paderewski. “I couldn’t believe it. Basically, you have a backlot for a TV show here. It was absolutely perfect for what we were looking for. So that being said, I went and I talked to the producers and I got some pictures. When I showed the pictures everyone was blown away.”  “Council of Dads,” which premiered March 24 and now airs on Thursdays, is based on the book by Savannah native Bruce Feiler, and developed by former “Grey’s Anatomy” showrunners Tony Phelan and Joan Rater, who also serve as executive producers on the series. The story follows Scott Perry, a father of five who, after receiving a cancer diagnosis, asks a group of friends to step in as father figures to his children in the event that he isn’t around to see them grow up.  “It’s an emotional family drama,” explained “Council of Dads” co-executive producer and producing director Jonathan Brown. “The idea is to try and be as real as possible. And the show is telling the story of a family and what it means to be a family in this day and age. It’s not just blood. The definition of family is growing, broadening with the types of relationships that are now included in a family. This is the story of one of those families that is made up of blood relationships, friendships, adoption and all those different kinds of things.”  The show filmed almost entirely on location in the Savannah area for five months. Several of the scenes take place in a hospital, and the set has to be believable, multifaceted and offer the right aesthetic for television. Primarily, the true-to-life setting allows the University to provide exceptional education and training opportunities to help students succeed while addressing the healthcare needs of the region. The Waters College of Health Professions, housed in the Academic Building and Ashmore Hall, is the largest undergraduate health sciences college in the state of Georgia, and the University’s allied healthcare programs represent almost one-fifth of all undergraduate healthcare degrees earned in Georgia.  “The use of the Health Professions Academic Building is validation that we are training our students for real-world health care settings,” said Barry Joyner Ph.D., dean of the Waters College of Health Professions. “The goal for the building was to simulate a hospital setting, and we have accomplished that.”  Are you a journalist looking to cover this topic or learn how Georgia and Universities like Georgia Southern are working with film and television industries – the let us help with your stories. Barry Joyner is the dean of the Waters College of Health Professions at Georgia Southern University and is available to talk about this latest project on campus – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today. 

Endorsements are in – but what will it mean for Joe Biden?

And suddenly, they’re all lining up behind Joe Biden. With the nomination in the bag, the former Vice President and now candidate for the presidency has been receiving ringing endorsements from former challengers like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and even his former partner-in-chief, President Barack Obama. It’s been said that endorsements aren’t worth the paper they are printed on if no one reads them, so why are these suddenly so significant? Has the DNC finally learned that a divided party can’t beat Donald Trump? Are these done to curry favor for future Cabinet spots and potentially a VP nod? And what took Barack Obama so long to get on side with his former Vice President? There are a lot of questions to be asked – and if you are covering American politics – let our expert help. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a sought-after political commentator on subjects ranging from presidential politics to the local Virginia congressional races. He has been widely featured in national media, including The Washington Post, Reuters, The Chicago Tribune and MSNBC. He is author or co-author of six books on presidential communication. His latest work, "Late Night with Trump: Political Humor and the American Presidency" examines the role late night television has played in shaping the perception of presidential politics. Dr. Farnsworth is available to speak with media and help with your coverage – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.