There is a new wrinkle in America’s fall Sunday routine--a subtle phenonenon that illustrates how digitization and fragmentation is forever changing how we seek and use information.

It seems that fewer and fewer people just watch football anymore. Ratings are soaring and revenue is astronomical, but more and more fans are no longer content to spend a Sunday lazily gazing at their city's team on the tube--and Sundays now witness new routines and behaviors with multi-media.

Most Sundays, a group of friends comes over to my house. Even though kick-off is at noon for most games, we don't start watching until five or ten minutes after for late arrivals--and with TiVo this artificial tape delay lets us fast-forward through commercials (especially annoying ones).

My computer is in one corner of the living room and my buddy James is parked in front of it the entire time. His head swivels like a tennis fan as he alternates from the TV to the computer screen watching real-time stats from any of a handful of Web sites. Periodically, someone will ask him to check on a particular player's fantasy stats.

Matt usually brings his laptop and connects to my wireless network to do the same--but he's also betting on games as well, and the laptop makes it easier to hide his gambling from his girlfriend on the other end of the couch.

Everyone watches the ticker for updates on players on their fantasy team--and I mean everyone. I don't know a person under 40 that does not play in at least one fantasy league. Fantasy football is a $1.5 billion dollar industry (even though the most popular league services are free) and between 15 and 18 million people play.

My friend Greg watches from his living room in Cincinnatti, but is quick to dash off IM's and cell phone text messages of trash talk whenever the Bears do poorly or his New York Jets do well.

As much as we clearly rely on technology to enjoy a longstanding Sunday ritual, we're not really that cutting edge. We don't subscribe to the NFL's cable network, none of us have the ESPN mobile phone (despite its "new direction") made especially for sports junkies to get alerts as if it was their personal sportswire.

But some things are clear from a snapshot of any given Sunday:

1: A growing portion of consumers won't rely on one medium at a time for entertainment
2: Fantasy leagues for all major sports continue to grow with new "leagues" for celebrities, movies, rock stars, and more.
3: Fantasy leagues popularity represents new avenues to reach consumers (Tivo recently announced a service to manage leagues through their set-top box.)

In 50 years, entertainment technology that makes today's plasma set look like Marconi's radio will proliferate so that the line between being in your living room and being at the stadium will only discernable by number of folks in line at the restroom. Mass personalization will drive dynamic on-field advertising that is served up to TV audiences based on their preferences. Enhanced sunglasses can even alter these settings when you are at the live event. Innovative media companies will even hawk "limited ad experiences" where consumers pay premium prices in exchange for fewer commercials--for those that want to just watch football.

Americans are not happy with their federal government, and Tuesday’s mid-term election is expected by most experienced prognosticators to give Democrats a slim majority in the House, picking up between 20 to 35 seats.

Voters cannot seem to get over the Iraq War, President Bush’s low job ratings, Republicans’ self-inflicted scandals, opposition to stem cell research and our nation’s high budget deficit. The most conservative Republican voters are expected to stay home, Independents who do cast ballots are more likely to vote Democratic, and the Democrats smell victory and majority control of the House – something they have not enjoyed since 1994.

A bevy of Gubernatorial races and wide-ranging state ballot initiatives (from pot to slots) will turn out more Democrats at the polls, adding fuel to the fire for a return to power by Democrats in the House. Gambling, same sex marriage, voting rights for former prisoners, dove hunting bans, medical marijuana and inducements for voters to win money through a lottery are some of the issues for voters to consider.

The House is currently made up of 229 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent and 4 vacancies, including Mark Foley (R-FL) who resigned after the recent page scandal, former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) who was indicted, Bob Ney (R-OH) who pleaded guilty to inappropriate favors for lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) who was appointed to the Senate by former Senator and now Governor John Corzine.

One non-partisan pollster shows 349 of 435 House seats as either solid Democratic or Republican, so less than 100 seats even have a chance to switch party control. There are 11 open Democratic seats and 21 open Republican seats, where Members have resigned, retired or are running for other offices.

A mid-term election switch of 15 seats would propel the Democrats to a majority, and everyone is expecting this outcome. Potential Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has already pledged to bring civility back to the House. She wants to run the chamber in an equitable manner, proposing dozens of rule changes that would offset “the tyranny of an overreaching GOP majority.” Some of Rep. Pelosi’s proposed changes include allowing more amendments to bills on the House Floor, along with restrictions on trips by Representatives, no fundraising from January to June each year to focus more on business and less on getting re-elected, and the creation of an outside ethics panel to review future Member violations.

The election of leaders in the 110th Congress and proposed rule changes will set the tone for business over the next two years in the House. The slim majority that will be held by Democrats will allow the “Blue Dog” Democratic bloc to control the balance of power on many issues. Blue Dog Democrats are social and economic conservatives and centrists in the United States Democratic Party. The Blue Dog Coalition is a reference to the "Blue Dog" paintings of Cajun artist George Rodrigue of Lafayette, Louisiana; the original members of the coalition would regularly meet in the offices of Louisiana representatives Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes, both of whom had Rodrigue's paintings on their walls (and both of whom later switched to the Republican Party).

The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1994 under the 104th Congress as a way for more conservative Democratic Members of Congress to have a unified voice in Congress. It currently has 37 members.

Another development to watch for after the election is political party switching that might alter the landscape. Majority-minority numbers are significant for Committee assignments, the legislative agenda and the ability to override Presidential vetoes.

Democrats are not as smug about the election in the House as to be measuring for draperies in their newer, larger majority offices, but the nation’s mood for change in the House is very real.

Michael Fulton joined GolinHarris in 1988 after working 10 years for two Members of the House, and he heads up our agency’s Government Relations Practice.

The election today will bring a few new faces to the United States Senate and a few more Democrats, but it takes more than that to change an institution that was designed to resist change, trends and flashes of political pique. The Republicans have held the majority in the Senate since 1994, except for a short period of time when, in 2001, Sen. Jeffords of Vermont changed parties and gave the majority to the Democrats - who promptly handed it back to the Republicans two years later.

So what happens? There are 33 Senate seats that will be decided today: 17 Democrats, 15 Republicans and 1 Independent (the aforementioned Jeffords of Vermont). A few of the Senate's characters will be retired today. Democrats are poised to take seats in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Strong Democratic contenders are challenging the GOP hold of Senate seats in Missouri, Montana, Tennessee and Virginia. And an appointed Democrat in New Jersey struggles to hold his seat against a young, charismatic Republican steeped in NJ politics. One thing is for sure. The Democrats will not win all of these seats. They will win 2 of those last 5 for sure and maybe a third. So, even if they hold New Jersey - the Republicans will maintain a narrow 51-49 majority.

Why can’t the Democrats capitalize on an unpopular war that is inextricably tied to an unpopular President and a Republican party awash in scandal? It takes more than a few key issues trending in one direction to nationalize an election. Despite the Democrats best efforts this is not a national election. Tip O’Neill said that all politics is local and you will see that on display today – in spades. Ohio and Pennsylvania, both to be lost by Republican incumbents, are not surprising states to find strong Democrats - look how close the presidential election was there in 2004. More importantly in Ohio, GOP politics has become a sewer of corruption and that, combined with an uncharismatic, unpopular incumbent will give the Democrats a sure victory in that state. Pennsylvania is a blue state with a very conservative Senator who has high negatives and who finds himself running against a moderate, pro-life Democrat who is the son of a well-liked former Governor. No national issue there either.

The majority in the Senate is important, to be sure, but it has a different significance than the majority in the House. Arcane Senate filibuster rules give the minority party a strong hand in deciding the fate of legislation - it takes 60 votes to get anything done. So the majority party sets the agenda and decides the floor schedule, but they don’t rule with the absolute authority of their House colleagues. In recent history the Republican moderates who cross over to vote with Democrats outnumber the conservative Democrats who move to the right. In practical terms this means that either there will be utter gridlock and nothing gets done - we've seen many examples of that in the last few years. Or, there is room for compromise and strong leaders on both sides of the aisle can forge consensus agreements.

And in that latter scenario is the key to Republican salvation. As much as they need a majority in the Senate, they need a strong leader who has the perspective and skills to drive a bipartisan agenda and legislate. The marriage of convenience between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives’ that was consummated in the early 1980’s is falling apart. As soon as the divorce is final, the new Senate leader can work with the fiscal conservatives and the moderates to carve out middle ground that will bring about consensus.

Later this week, we will have more on the Senate and House results, winners and losers, and the issues to watch for in the early days on the next Congressional session.

The blogosphere had a decent showing this past election. Netroots, that intersection of the Net and grassroots mobilization efforts, had an impact on the Senate seats in Montana and Virginia as well as other races. And everyone from media to regional registrars looked to the web for real-time reporting of ballot fraud and electronic voting issues.

What seemed to be missing was that genuine sense of on-line passion we’ve seen in years past when the blogosphere and Netroots were hardly a twinkle in Howard Dean’s eye. That sense of mass political mobilization and the political social networking that the Deaniacs started in 2004 wasn’t there this time around.

Arguably that’s because we were in the netherworld of a mid-term election and burning issues like gay marriage were replaced by something as important yet complicated as healthcare reform.

Where we saw the blogosphere ready to flex its muscle was in the happy dismantling of fumbling politcos who left themselves wide open for a good old digital whooping. From Mark Foley to George Allen, the blogosphere had a field day with wayward nominees.

YouTube was the common factor in much of this chatter, simply serving up savory soundbites like Allen’s “Macaca” line or Foley’s previous comments on, uh, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. And post-election, YouTube continues to be the stage for verbal miscues like Rush Limbaugh’s MOL admission of lying to avoid a conservative election crash.

The lesson for professional communicators: Anything you say can and will be used against you on YouTube and across the blogosphere – whether it’s archived statements like Foley’s or off the cuff gaffe’s like Allen’s.

It’s long been known that everything a leader says is on the record (how about Jimmy Carter’s “I’ve committed adultery in my heart” remark way back with Playboy?) and that the microphone is always on (remember Bush #1’s “Kicked a little ass last night” reference to his debate with Geraldine Ferraro?).

But now those blunders can be repeated in real time and over and over and over again. In the hundreds of millions courtesy of consumer media replay sites.

It’s all a metaphor for comms and the executives we represent and counsel. We want our spokespeople to be spontaneous and quotable, fresh and authentic, but it can come at a price.

If you’re going to say it, say it right, say it true. Or don’t say it at all.

The world is watching, literally.

The most recent data released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations showed that newspaper circulations continue to decline. In fact, the latest figures are the steepest drop in at least 15 years. The overall average dip was 2.8% over the same six month period last year, with the LA Times leading the pack with an 8% decline -- which makes you wonder why so many people want to buy it.

The New York Times reported a drop of 3.5%, but also stated that the number of people who read the paper online now surpasses the number who read the print edition.

Although online revenue only represents a small portion of the company's overall income, it does point to an interesting conclusion. People haven't lost interest in the news; they just want to get it from different channels.

Perhaps the secret word for the future is "repurposing" -- finding new ways to deliver existing content.

A new company called Critical Mention is trying it with TV. They are creating an online database of news broadcasts from the top 50 markets that can be monitored as soon as they air by companies or PR firms. They even send you an email alert when your product or company is mentioned anywhere in the world with a link to the actual clip. This sounds like a handy service for multi-national communications departments.

They are also compiling customized clips with ads attached to be streamed from various websites like little TV channels. So if you have a website that focuses on racing, you can broadcast race results from around the country.

The future is still about content. The question is really about all the ways to deliver it and make money in the process.

Before I worked in PR, I worked in the music business. For a few years, I managed a record label in the Midwest that only released vinyl albums. Like many other baby boomers, I have lived through 78s, 33s, 45s, 8-tracks, cassettes, and CDs.

Now I am witnessing the demise of Tower Records, whose huge store two blocks from my home in Chicago is going out of business. And I am going to miss it.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Luddite. We have four iPods at my house. One for me, my wife, our daughter and our 8-year-old son. I am even thinking about getting one for my dog so he won't get bored on long walks.

But downloading songs isn't quite the same as flipping through the bins at Tower, checking out the new releases and perusing the cool-looking album covers, which online are the size of postage stamps.

I am sure that in the coming years record stores will go the way of drive-in movies (which I also miss) and we will receive all the latest recordings electronically and they will sound just as good. But it won't be the same as standing out in front of Tower at midnight waiting for the new Bob Dylan album.

Consumer generated content is taking over the world. Five of the top ten websites on the net are created by consumers. Wikipedia is by far the most popular source of information online with a market share approaching 20%, eclipsing traditional resources like the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Now consumers are creating ads too. For a while, netizens have been altering existing TV commercials for fun and replaying them on YouTube, often to the dismay of the advertiser. Tapping into this trend, some adventurous marketers, like Mountain Dew are asking their consumers to make the ads for them, which they will air online and on popular cable channels like MTV and Comedy Central. Nintendo asked MySpacers to create video vignettes demonstrating how they would play with the new Wii console.

For years, advertisers have spent millions in research to better understand their target audiences. Maybe now they can just skip that stage and ask their customers to make their commercials for them.

There is no doubt the quality will suffer dramatically but they may make up for that in authenticity.

What about a real cancer patient sitting at his kitchen table talking about how a new drug saved his life? Or a real housewife in a home video explaining why she buys Tide or shops at Sears?

People have been watching funniest home videos for years. Why not best home commercials from people who are passionate about their favorite brands? Getting a real customer to endorse a product in an authentic way is the true definition of third party credibility.

Everybody is talking about ABC's hit show Ugly Betty and I'm not surprised.

After all, Ugly Betty is based on the hit Colombian telenovela Yo Soy Betty La Fea. I actually watched the original telenovela religiously when it aired in the U.S. on Telemundo. It was and continues to be one of the best TV series I have ever watched.

Before U.S. viewers "discovered" Betty, the series has already been dubbed for 10+ other markets and has been adapted in 10 other markets.

What is interesting about this version is that producers and network executives adapted the story using a Latina Betty for a U.S. audience. Not only is it refreshing to see a show with a less-than-beautiful Latina character become the No. 2 show of the season with 14.2 million viewers, it also confirms why Betty has been a global success.

Simply stated Ugly Betty tackles universal issues important to people, particularly women, of all backgrounds -- acceptance, family, succeeding, etc. The fact that Betty is Latina doesn’t matter. The U.S. is after all quickly becoming a multicultural mainstream where hopefully a greater focus is placed on commonalities versus differences.

The Christian Science Monitor reported yesterday that since 1999 the U.S. Latino Muslim population has increased by 30% to an estimated 200,000. According to the article, many of the new converts are attracted to Islam because of curiosity, marriage or a common interest such as immigration.

What we know as "typical" Muslim and "typical" Latino is evolving. Given the heightened “cultural fusion” in our society nothing is "typical" anymore. People are becoming more open to experiencing new cultures, and in this case new religious beliefs.

The article is a cue to how we label and categorize consumers and target audiences. The “please select a box” approach to defining people will soon be a thing of the past. People are living “out of the box” and experiencing new cultures, new religions, new lifestyles. As communicators we need to evolve with the times. Let’s face it, cultural fusion is here to stay and multiculturalism will be the mainstream. Are we ready to communicate "out of the box?"

In our "Next 50 Years" booklet, we predicted that in the next decade Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) would become the staple of the PR industry. Based on recent developments, I don't think it will take that long. On a recent trip to China, I noticed that every multinational company doing business in that fast-growing market is engaged in some type of CSR program. Microsoft is providing computer training to laid-off workers. Kodak is providing scholarships to deserving young people from rural communities. IBM is creating learning centers in schools. And all of these efforts are getting coverage in the Chinese press.
Here in the US, the Wall Street Journal is running a weekly column on philanthropy, and the group Business for Social Responsibility created a special insert in the paper talking about the growing trend, with features on a dozen different companies.

On Monday, November 13, the New York Times ran their section on CSR under the title of "Giving." In that 40+ page supplement, they profiled a whole range of programs from Bono's Red to Pierre Omidyar’s Network.

Every company seems to be focusing more resources and attention on its contributions to the community. In the New York Times, one retail executive was quoted as saying, “Philanthropy defines us more than anything else.”

As more companies join this powerful movement, the competition for coverage will become more intense. Now that Warren Buffet has raised the stakes with his $30 billion contribution to the Gates Foundation, it will require greater commitment to attract the public's attention and with names like Angelina Jolie, Bill Clinton and Richard Branson grabbing the headlines, it will be harder for the average non-profit to break through the clutter.

As we move into the future, more media – online and off – will chronicle corporate contributions to society. Increasingly, PR's job will be to help corporations find the appropriate way to merchandise their good deeds, without commercializing their goodwill.