Breaking Down Ashton's "Killers" Contest - and Why I Should Be the Winner!

First, I'd like to say that I've been paying attention to Mr. Kutcher and his internet adventures for a while now -- mainly because he seems to be being quite crafty with his moves! I'm very curious if what he does will ultimately break a barrier or two that others have failed to pierce with regard to "taming the internet."

We know that some things with popular internet followings end up going "poof" when it comes to actually finding the PAYING audience -- notably, "Snakes on a Plane" and NBC's "Quarterlife." So I really hope that all the efforts Ashton is putting toward promoting his new film "Killers" actually pays off -- and proves that his wile is worthwhile.

And so I've followed his rather unique contest connected to the film, "Ashton's Killer Game." (Sometimes also known as "Killers Game.") An admirable and cute effort it is -- although did it succeed? It's really hard to tell if it's truly a marketer's master plan, or if it's just something Ashton cooked up on his own. There are no apparent "official rules" -- it's almost as if Ashton turned on a camera and said what occurred to him to match his objective. With a grand prize of offering to promote something for the winner to his audience of roughly 8 million souls on his Twitter and Facebook (actually, I'd assume there to be heavy overlap between the two sites) -- it's an unquantifiable value there; most likely not taxable -- sorta like saying "Here, I'll do you a favor if you jump through these strange little hoops I've concocted."

Bearing that much informality in mind, then it's perhaps forgivable if the contest veered away from a hard and strict format. Ashton dotted the internet with his little promos and tweeted "clues" to finding them -- but not so much like a scavenger hunt as it was, "Hey, go look over here, watch the same trailer you've seen before -- and then I'll shoot you." So in one instance he says, "Thou shalt not Vimeo," and his link leads you right to -- Vimeo. (So then, it seems, we actually SHALT Vimeo!) And I and a decent handful of his followers followed him here and there, and got shot.

On May 12, someone named "peanutbutder" posted a video on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayrwCcGiQ-U -- oddly titled "OMG! Ashton Kutcher's on ChatRoulette!" -- and this seems to be one of the first such "clue" videos. Ashton toys with his gun a bit, then points it at the viewer. "Don't move," he says. Then he states, "If this gun does not go off -- you have an opportunity to win!" And then he shoots the viewer (or rather, thankfully, a nice piece of plexiglas), adding "You lose."

Now it gets kinda interesting: In the description of that video, the poster further links us to: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150162806570184&comments where there is another video (also posted May 12) with further instructions! Ashton offers the following, verbatim:

"There's a key to this game. The 'Killers' Game. So across the beautiful internets, the world wide web, you will find trailers for the movie 'Killers,' they're everywhere. And behind one of those trailers somewhere on the web you'll find me... looking much like this, acting much like this... however in that particular video I will be holding my handy-dandy gun, not loaded... and you will survive. Now, if you're that lucky person to find that trailer first, or second or third or fourth or fifth or sixth or... tenth... YOU will, in fact, have an opportunity to win the game. I will send you directly back to this page, and I will have a specific code for you to input in the comment section behind the video that I will post on that particular day. And if you are the first person to enter the proper code in the comment section of that video, you will win the opportunity to send a message to all of my social media following, all 8 million people..."

Note that here, his instructions are quite clear: to enter the code in the COMMENT SECTION BEHIND THE VIDEO. He reiterates this -- "in the comment section of that video."

Interesting here that he mentions first, second, third, etc. -- however he does say this is "to find the video," which is not necessarily the first person to actually input the code! So while it almost seems to imply there could be more than one winner from that... he still specifies the first person to enter the code.

But wait, there's more! A little later, he says: "So, if you search the web, if you find the trailer that has me in the end, looking much like this, saying that you win... I'll give you the code, you come back here, input the code..."

Now by this, "back here" would logically refer to the page the viewer is looking at at that moment -- the page containing that particular video from May 12.

So, after paying good attention to his offerings from that point forward, I've watched that same trailer, have seen him ask Katherine Heigl to meet him for a drink, have seen them both married (seeming rather sudden after that cute meeting) and her suddenly discovering he's a spy, then discharging a gun by accident which still meets its mark by clobbering the woman threatening him... all of that, over and over again, followed by Ashton shooting me... over and over again.

Okay. So yesterday, June 13 at 10:12 a.m., he posts a simple message on Facebook, saying "#killerclue if you want to reach 8 million people, play tomorrow. play to win!" and then LATER THAT SAME DAY, he offers up on Twitter: "Every Killer has a code name Zulu149er #Killerclue http://bit.ly/9yEJhp" which link leads to... the winning video! You're supposed to watch said video for the clue -- however he puts it right there in the tweet, too.

Unfortunately -- I chose that moment to walk away from the computer and go to the bathroom. When I came back, the tweet was several minutes old! Hands shaking, I quickly clicked the link, watched the video start to load, and quickly forwarded to the latter section past the trailer -- okay, this time, he busts in before the end, so I back it up a bit -- and see him offer up the code and instruct us to go back to his main Facebook page and post Zulu149er "in the comment section on my last post." I barely noticed that he had his finger pointed, gun-like, ominously at the camera -- but thankfully he didn't fire! (Where was the handy-dandy gun he promised to have with him that was not loaded? Well, spies have some nifty gadgets -- so I guess his special "gun that looks like a hand" was what was not loaded.)

So I rushed over there -- and posted it. However by then, it seems several folks already had accomplished this. Notably the first person there to post it was one Ms. Tabitha Yutzy. Remembering the "second, third, fourth" element from the other video -- I still posted mine, although feeling crestfallen as I did so.

I moped around for a while; fixed a sandwich and a cup of ramen noodles and popped open a cherry Pepsi. I watched a bit of TV. Then, as my mind roiled and pondered the details of this contest -- and thought, "Hey, he said something different before!" And I went back to pore over the previous details. Sure enough, I found -- what I already mentioned above.

So I went to the actual "winning video" and looked at its pure presence, where you can see the comments (as opposed to the video poster's page that was linked to, where you can't), and saw that NO ONE had posted the "proper code in the comment section of that video." So I did! (This being through my user name on YouTube, "LachrymoseIntolerant.")

Then I remembered -- he'd ALSO said to "come back to THIS PAGE and post the secret code" -- namely where his Facebook instruction video was -- so I went THERE and posted it too!

So technically, according to clearly stated rules within his contest, I was the first to fulfill what was required in those two places. On top of being at least AMONG the first folks to post the code to his latest entry's comment section on his main page.

SO, Mister Kutcher -- Ashton if I may -- I WANT MY PRIZE!

And I think you should give one to Ms. Tabitha Yutzy as well.

Small bills, please! The local 99 cent store, where I buy my ramen noodles, won't take larger denominations.

And it would be further kindly if you'd follow me @Raaawb as well, so I can subject you to my own random thoughts along the way. And meanwhile, I do hope everybody out there goes to see your movie! So far, I've had the pleasure of seeing the first 13 minutes (or so) of it....

Thank you,

-- Rob Baker
http://www.twitter.com/Raaawb

Did Conan Fail?

For the past four years, I've been the producer of a late night comedy talk show very much like The Tonight Show, the Late Show, etc. -- although on a much smaller scale, of course. I don't know of many of these, and our goal was to ultimately bring it to a network. Toward that end, I successfully got us a meeting with the head of late night and prime time programming at NBC, and he actually watched some of our shows and then granted the meeting, which lasted 45 minutes! We noticed there didn't seem to be any other people haunting the halls there, hoping to also meet with him about succeeding Conan O'Brien on "Late Night" in 2009 -- and I had noticed no other contenders publicly stating they wanted that job in the press. This was before Jimmy Fallon was selected -- actually just days before. After our meeting, the exec was quoted in Broadcasting & Cable as saying he'd been "meeting with people" -- and I always figured our little meeting might have given him the impetus to make that statement. To my thinking, if any other candidate wanted that job -- he'd be actively campaigning for it. Even Jimmy Fallon was really cagey about saying anything. I even managed to get our show a bit of press in a few places, despite our show's host not being a well known public figure.

Of course, we didn't get that job -- Jimmy did. But I've watched late night since I was ten years old and first started watching Johnny Carson, and with this gig, I've been following things a lot more closely than I'd suppose the average person might have! So I have a few thoughts to offer as the dust settles on this current situation.

I just finished watching Oprah's interview with Jay Leno. As many others have done, she seems to have missed asking "just the right questions" -- although she didn't go terribly easy on him either. She just didn't get anything really new from him; anything that would have helped the people who are upset with him, to not be so upset anymore. I think there are at least three important areas of conversation that were missed -- which I'll get to shortly.

He explained his thoughts pretty much as I figured he might -- nothing new there. He tends to spin things somewhat unemotionally, generally offering "Oh well, that's just the way things go sometimes," as his usual tack. Now, I've always liked Jay, and even though I would have preferred Dave had gotten the Tonight Show back in '92 -- I could still cheer for Jay for his own triumph, getting it by just being "the nice guy" and doing so many of the right things to justify that decision. Hard for me to say he didn't earn what he got, when it's obvious it involved a lot of hard work and best use of his talents, and probably more than a little bit of being wily, to boot.

Dave finally DID successfully negotiate the Tonight Show spot with NBC -- but then decided not to take it when he realized it wasn't the "Johnny Carson" Tonight Show anymore, but it'd be more like he'd seem the bad guy for taking it away from the new guy after just 18 months. By then, he reasoned, the show seemed as damaged goods for one thing, and claiming it at that point seemed not a great idea either, public perception-wise. In all of this, Dave's decision now seems like it's relevant again -- or could be. No one seems to have actually evoked it for comparison now.

Oprah kept saying over and over again how she just couldn't understand the public perception. She cited some 96% of the people who took the poll on her web page as supporting Conan as host of The Tonight Show. But when she hears Jay, and when she thinks of it herself -- it's like, someone had his job taken away from him and was later offered it back. Why shouldn't he take it?

OPRAH DID NOT ASK THESE THINGS:

** (And I have not seen really ANYONE asking this:) If all acknowledged that the "Jay Leno Show" failed with regard to hurting the affiliates' 11:00 newscasts -- why does no one likewise credit this as also hurting Conan's Tonight Show?

** If Jay's concern, as he seems to spin, is mostly for "his staff keeping their jobs" -- why didn't she, or anyone, ask him -- What about Conan's staff, who should have been able to count on more solid footing -- and who all uprooted themselves to move to L.A.? Didn't Jay care about all those people, too? If The Jay Leno Show was "experimental" in nature -- that whole staff was fully cognizant that one year later, they may not still have those jobs. Conan's gig was supposed to be for years and years. (Jay's staff, most of whom had worked on The Tonight Show for years -- aren't they also carrying a great advantage for future prospects, especially since they all have friends in this town -- unlike most of Conan's staff?)

** Oprah mentioned Conan's letter to Jay about damaging the Tonight Show franchise by moving it to 12:05 -- but she really didn't ask him what HE thought about that. And his response to her mentioning it was -- "Well, the ratings were lower, wasn't it already damaged?" That, to me, was his worst answer of the entire interview. The lowest shot he could have taken.

Johnny Carson, by accounts I've seen, regularly brought some 15 to 17 million viewers to the table. Ratings figures are difficult to research online, particularly expressed in millions as opposed to ratings points -- but around 5 million seems to be the commonly accepted figure for Jay in recent years. I don't know how many he had from '92 to '95 until his upswing. Another source I found mentions Dave getting about 7 million viewers after he started his show on CBS.

NBC gave Jay plenty of time to build. They also gave Conan on "Late Night" a few years to build as well (even if grudgingly so) -- KNOWING FULL WELL that each man could not reasonably match his predecessor's success right out the door.

Here are some numbers from last week's Entertainment Weekly for recent performance of the late night shows against a year ago:

Jay Leno Show -- 5.4 million viewers; up 10% from his TS audience a year before. (Don't know the comparative average audience figures for last year's 10:00 dramas, though, to see how much Jay "lost" there.)

Conan's "Tonight" -- 2.5 million viewers. Up 27% from his "Late Night" audience a year before (although down 50% from Leno's audience a year before). He not only kept his own audience, but added almost a third to it!

Letterman -- 4.2 million viewers; up about 5%.

Nightline -- 3.9 million viewers; up about 3%.

Jimmy Kimmel -- 1.7 million; down about 5% (also loses 2.3 million viewers who tuned out after the half-hour Nightline).

Craig Ferguson -- 2 million; up 8%.

Jimmy Fallon -- 1.4 million; down 31% from Conan's average the previous year.

Conan had several obstacles in place, which NBC should have figured into their decision:

-- The new guy obviously won't get the ratings of his predecessor right away.

-- They debuted him in June, summertime, when viewership is traditionally lower.

-- David Letterman was now the senior broadcaster at that hour -- personally, I expected him to now start winning the timeslot, as many would then turn to him as "second choice" without Jay. Add to that, Dave's "scandal" which brought him much more attention.

-- THEN, they debuted The Jay Leno Show -- a very Tonight Show-like product -- so obviously many viewers would thus have their "need" fulfilled by that show. As I see it, one big appeal to "the host" is that he speaks for the country in ways -- audiences tune in to hear his take on the day's happenings. They like having that person there to spin things for them. They didn't need two of them! NBC counter-programmed The Tonight Show and hurt its viewership by doing this.

-- Add to that, the lower lead-in ratings from the Leno show, and thus lower lead-in ratings from the damaged local news shows across the country.

If you're just going by numbers -- then what should have been expected with a decent margin of error, should have informed the ultimate decision. Conan improved on his core audience by almost 1/3, DESPITE all these obstacles! And barely anything is made of Fallon's decrease in ratings... who also had Jay as lead in to give him a strong start out the gate. Why aren't they blasting HIM out of a cannon, too?

The logic in 2004, according to Kevin Reilly (then at NBC) -- "Late night talent is a rare commodity." Which is true. They really have no viable replacement for Jimmy Fallon at this point who could do better right away -- plus he was anointed by Lorne Michaels -- so they don't talk about that. I wonder how bad THOSE numbers would have to get? If "the numbers" are the most relevant to the Conan situation -- logically they should also be ready to can Fallon right about now, too.

If Letterman and Nightline together gained "only" about a third of a million viewers and Conan "lost" 2.5 million viewers -- where did the difference go if not to another channel? (I didn't also cite figures for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert -- but they, too, lost viewers from a year ago.) Part of the answer is probably -- to bed after watching Jay Leno at 10.

SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH JAY LENO?

I don't have a problem with him outright -- his humor is right; he was obviously successful before -- he may be successful again. I can't really fault him too much for wanting to take his old job back. BUT....

Through all of this, of course the memory of Johnny Carson is heavily evoked. When Johnny dealt with NBC, everyone knew who was in charge of those negotiations. You had the feeling they were scared to death of him.

Does anyone feel NBC is the least bit intimidated by Jay Leno? I doubt anyone sees that. NBC probably likes that very much, too. But -- the public perception of power is not seen as being in Jay Leno's hands. By being so passive and "going along with the bosses" -- he ends up looking like a cream puff. Before, he had tons of respect from the public as "the guy." He went along with the decision in 2004 and never said, "No, I don't like that idea! Go screw yourselves!" You can bet that they wouldn't have even dared asking Johnny Carson. Carson chose his own terms, and even if it's to believe he was "forced out" in some ways -- he dictated his own terms then, too -- and went out while he was at the top of his game.

Did Jay Leno take a bullet for The Tonight Show franchise? Maybe he did, long ago. But it was Conan who seriously took one now. He risked losing out on his dream rather than allow the show to be "damaged" by moving it to 12:05. He stood up for himself. He gracefully accepted the consequences. He more than earned the right to be that successor. Jay has never publicly acknowledged any admiration for Conan's bold stance -- nor even offered any opinion about it one way or the other.

As I'm sure is well known, too -- Jay's Tonight Show would lose a lot of audience as the evening wore on. Most would tune in for... guess what?... the first half hour. What was going to be left for Conan at 12:05? Note again the ratings above for "Nightline" versus Jimmy Kimmel -- audience drops 2.3 million at midnight. Something like this would be sure to happen with the 12:05 Tonight Show as well.

In the Oprah interview, Jay expressed slight concern over what Conan would think when he was offered the 11:35 half hour show. He asked, "Do you think he'll go along with it?" They replied they were 75% sure he would. Did Jay seem to care when he later found out that Conan WASN'T okay with it? Not at all. Did Jay ever say to anyone whether he cared if the franchise was moved into "tomorrow" at 12:05? I don't think anyone even asked him that question.

Does anyone think for a moment that Jay figured he would no longer BE the top rated host five years later? Didn't anyone think he would keep playing to win? Didn't it make sense that he might like to "go out on top" as Johnny Carson did? What happens now -- does he keep going until his ratings start to droop, or worse -- keep going and never get them back again? How long does he continue? To the end of his current two year contract, which is already partially used up? Wasn't part of the thinking supposed to include the length of time Conan would have kept the show going -- which would be arguably much longer than Jay will at this point?

What happens after Jay Leno? Does this make Jimmy Fallon the next "heir apparent"?
Oh, please, dear God, no. No. No. No!

In my opinion, the BEST thing that could have happened is that Jay could have said "NO" to NBC. He could have demanded out of his contract and taken it to the public. He always says he loves a challenge -- so why wouldn't him going after the Fox late night show at 11:00 be just the perfect thing for him? Then he'd have audiences CHEERING him for taking a stand, and cheering for his success in the new venue! His staff would still have jobs, he'd have his challenge, and he'd keep his head held high with public adulation swirling all about him for doing it. He'd have a tremendous position of strength to pioneer a late night franchise for Fox where others have failed. Then, he wouldn't be the guy who seems to be taking another guy's dream job away from him -- even if it "wasn't his decision" to do it, it was certainly within his power to choose. NBC didn't give him the chance they promised with his 10:00 show, so he'd be able to appear the injured party. He'd be hand-in-hand with Conan in that regard, and the public would be cheering both men -- still booing NBC, but probably not as much! Jay Leno's move to Fox would be seen as triumphant. His return to The Tonight Show -- there is nothing triumphant about that.

People talking "the ratings" as the reason Conan is no longer on The Tonight Show, seem to be forgetting that they weren't going to cancel him -- and they DIDN'T cancel him. They were going to keep him -- but in that jerked-around version of it. If they were GOING to cancel him due to ratings -- they should have cancelled him, AND Leno at 10:00, AND Jimmy Fallon as well -- throw all these poor-ratings bums out! But, they didn't cancel him. Conan called the terms; he wasn't about to lie there and be screwed and keep a smiling, happy face while it happened. He did what Johnny Carson would truly have been proud of. Meanwhile, Jay takes over a "damaged" Tonight Show -- no longer the successor to Johnny Carson, but the successor to Conan O'Brien -- the guy he could have championed and stood up for.

The people rallying for "Team Conan" aren't rallying for a particular humorous sensibility. They are rallying for what they see as "character." In their eyes, Conan is "the guy," and many have clearly declared that Jay is no longer that guy. He's now an heroic figure who stood up and fought for what he believed in; the man who has waxed so eloquently about "The American Dream" which he has come to represent to so many. How deep does that sentiment run across the country? Hard to say. By default anyway, Jay is now going to be the guy in that job -- and he won't be hindered by poor lead-in ratings from a 10:00 "Jay Leno Show."

Whatever Conan does next WILL be triumphant. If he goes to Fox and doesn't end up beating Jay in the ratings -- he'll still be pioneering that network's own franchise and will most likely succeed enough for them to be happy about that.

I've been a fan of both men for many years, and I feel very proud of Conan right now. No, again I can't really "blame" Jay per se -- but I do feel very disappointed in him right now. Just look at his jovial announcement of his eventual retirement from 2004 -- how he agreed with and could see the necessity of the plan; how he stood behind Conan as his successor; how he saw the show as a dynasty with the passing of the torch and all; how he doesn't see himself doing the show into his 60's, how much he wanted to avoid ANY animosity, and how he plans on keeping the show at number one and going out on TOP -- and see if you don't feel that disappointment, too.

Jay's 2004 Announcement