Cynopsis: Weekender: Joost Aims for The Living Room, But Faces Big Hurdles

I read with interest today's weekend edition of Cynopsis by Daisy Whitney on Joost. While I think Joost has the potential to be the aggregator for all the best digital video on the web delivered to your screen, I don't expect it to replace cable operators "as their primary entertainment platform"; rather, I expect that Joost will only support the cable experience.

Cable programmers may provide "channels" or "videos" to the Joost platform, but they will never allow them to replace the revenue model that cable currently offers. Unless technology enables Joost to offer content directly and Joost is paying a fee comparable to cable for access to the same content that cable currently receives, the programming will be more additive to the current experience.

My expectation is that a company, like Comcast or Time Warner or through their partnership iN Demand, acquires Joost and adds the platform to the functionality of the cable box. The consumer than accesses all of this content regardless of the screen, either from the pc or the big TV screen, and even mobile phone. Yes phone, because the triple play will soon be the quadplay (fourplay is not a good marketing term.) And to cable programmers don't give away the farm; offering programming to all these endpoints provides great leverage for keeping license fees competitive.

On The Lot

Yes, I am watching Fox's On The Lot, although I do TIVO it first so I can fast forward past the fodder to get to the best stuff. The show has great potential. First, it synergizes short form video on TV with the web, and offers great potential for video uploading, social commenting, and revenue potential.

My concern lies mainly with the show on TV. The latest 2 hour show on Monday had more time devoted to clapping and a meaningless host, than on the filmmakers, the judges, and the films. There is no reason to have a host or audience; other than turn a half hour show into 2 hours. And folks like me will fast forward to get to the meat of the show. Perhaps when the show reached the final 6 people could an audience care, but for now, the live element actually works against the show.

Carrie Fisher could act as both host and judge and Gary Marshall needs to stop with the sexist remarks. What makes the show work for me are the videos. Watching them and getting the judges comments. I would like that the show had continued to cut the group to 8 or 10 people with only the judges deciding, then bring in the viewer vote for the final group. I also would like to get the judges to talk more about what they liked and didn't like.

The TV show could push the website more, especially in providing more complete analyses from each judge. Also an opportunity to present better definitions of some of the technical language that the judges use - i.e. insert shot, long lens, etc. I would have modified voting in the later rounds where viewers ranked the top 10 directors and their work. A more interesting perspective which would also differentiate it from the voting procedure on American Idol. There are some amazing films coming out of these young directors; I'd love to use the excess time from clapping and inane host remarks and replace it with more footage of each director in pre and post production getting their film to final cut.

The show has great potential and does a great job synergizing the linear element of TV with the on demand and interactive element of the web. Keep tweaking it and let folks share these videos across other websites, the audience will come to On The Lot.

NY:MIEG Panel: Silicon Alley 2.0

Bill Sobel has created a terrific media information and networking group called NY:MIEG, that each month provides panels that delve deep into the understanding of learning in this new media environment. Less than 1 year old, this group has grown rapidly and I have had the pleasure of experiencing three of those monthly meetings. Each panel is filled with an esteem body of knowledge offering their own insights into this brave new world.


Earlier this week, the panel assembled explored New York's "Silicon Alley" and the relationship between large and small companies. Panelists included Sean Morgan, CEO Critical Mention, Scott Meyer, CEO, About.com, Cliff Sobel, President/CEO The Phoenix Group, Mark Zimmerman, Managing Partner Z Team Media Advisors, and Fred Seiber, Founder NextNewNetworks. And the moderator was Nina Ziv, Academic Director Polytechnic University.

A fast paced hour, the discussion than moved to breakout sessions. In previous panels, open Q & A would follow. Bill continues to test winning formulas, but regardless, he bats 1000% in getting top notch leaders in the industry to speak to his group. And attendance fills the room.

My key takeaways from the panel:
1. In Large vs Small, large tends to win in the long run in that the big fish tend to eat the small fish. Larger companies have the capital to make the financial mistakes and buy out smaller companies to gain their expertise.
2. Big fish try to behave like small fish but have a difficult time maneuvering and being flexible to change. Small fish lack the muscle, hoping the dollars don't run out first. Small firms are nimble, large firms have more resources.
3. Regardless of size, companies should challenge their employees to make an impact and they should pay off when those achievements are met.
4. To win in the digital landscape: build early adopters, know who the incumbants are and stay nimble to keep the lead, remember that sometimes competitors can become partners, build direct relationships, and have fun.

Sean Morgan offered an interesting prediction near the end...he forsees the newspapers becoming the largest video creators. It certainly seems a necessary extension of their core business. It will be intersting to look back in a few years to see the results!

My Crystal Ball

Back in the early days of cable tv, a number of networks tried tried to entertain its audience with short form programming: E!, Comedy Central, Bravo, IFC, and others. And in each case, the lesson learned was that television audiences preferred longer form programming and so did the advertisers associated with it. These networks and others changed to traditional half hour and longer programming blocks with regularly scheduled hours to promote, find, and keep its audience.

So will short form video programming work on the internet? To a certain extent, it is an ideal way to find an audience, but is that audience large enough or segmented enough to find the advertisers to finance it. Today, it feels a bit like a fad. I say the lesson learned from TV is that it will not last. It seems to me that when things finally settle down, the following scenario will occur regarding video entertainment:

1. Viewers will still go to their TV to watch long form programming.
2. The cable box will talk with the internet and the DVR and on-demand features will be easily managed by pc, mobile, and/or remote control. Any TV in the household will have access to programming saved for later viewing.
3. The cable box will enable more social networking in real time with the programming being watched on the box. Blogging about our shows will stay strong.
4. Comcast, Time Warner, and other distributors will each partner with (or purchase) an internet video platform (Joost, Maven, Blinkx, etc) to integrate with their technology and help manage a positive consumer experience.
5. New laptops and other handhelds will wirelessly communicate with their cable box.
6. Short form programming will still be seen on the web so as to easily share the best of the best video programming. Extra programming - associated with long form content (i.e. Heroes extras, etc) will remain, but again accessible to suit the user experience across ALL devices - TV, pc, mobile.
7. Many other short form programming, not connected to a network type format will either fade away, or combine into longer form type programming. And those that remain will be done for fun, but not for profit.
8. All digital video will be watermarked and traceable to its source; companies will heavily prosecute illegal video sharing activity.
9. New word "transferability" - what you purchase on cable (NFL, MLB, Concerts) will be available on your multiple devices: cable tv, pc, mobile. We are a mobile society and want our programming to follow us. And advertisers will pay for those synergies.
10. NBC brings back Must See TV on Thursdays!

So that is my prediction, for whatever it's worth. Put it in the envelope, hide it for 5 years, and re-read - let's see how many of these points come true.

Microsoft buying aQuantive/Razorfish

So get your scorecard out - Microsoft buys Razorfish, Google buys Doubleclick, Yahoo buys all of Right Media, WPP buys 24/7 Real Media, and the list continues to go on. But where are the cable companies with all this activity going on all around them. Are these companies acting or reacting; Is there a strategy behind this spending spree. With the exception of Time Warner, who has AOL doing some small international acquisitions, Comcast is quiet. Some have speculated that perhaps Comcast has their eyes on a prize, a major search engine portal. So with this flurry of M&A activity, one wonders when the next announcement happens. I expect sooner than later.

XM Suspends Opie and Anthony for 30 Days

XM Satellite, while not subject to FCC scrutiny, has suspended the radio team of Opie and Anthony for 30 days for sexual comments made about a number of prominent female figures. First of all, I've never listened to them, though I've heard of their on-air antics. I'm assuming when they signed up with satellite radio, they believed it would finally free them from FCC rules, fines, and censorship. And yet it hasn't. Howard Stern must be paranoid by now. Having been fired before, they must have thought they had a lifetime, get out of jail free card, with satellite radio. And so they must be feeling like a brick hit them in the side of the head: Why should they be suspended; folks buying satellite radios are making an added choice to listen to them, no matter how inane it might be. I say, wake up!

We've stretched the boundaries of decency and openness so much that perhaps it is time to be more pc and pullback. Still, groups will argue both sides of this point, the right of expression and the right to respect others. The line has grown hazy over time and even pay radio can't protect its stars from public opinion. Perhaps it is time for simple common sense to prevail; if you wouldn't like it said about you or your loved one, perhaps its best to say nothing. And in the case of Opie and Anthony, people pay for good entertainment, not cheap laughs. Like Don Imus, you are being paid a lot for your talents and abilities to entertain on radio, work harder to earn it.

Cable Tiers

As more cable customers choose to get the set top box with VOD and DVR capabilities, they tend to get additional channels on a digital tier, in addition to those channels available on the basic level of service. Digital cable penetration continues to grow, with some markets seeing more than 60% penetration.

Still, the consumer will pay for these channels and the NFL no doubt has a formula for their sports tier that gives them total revenue equivalent to access to basic cable. They lose the right to claim potential access to a larger number of viewers. But in this day of digital where actual viewership may replace the Nielsen sample, it may not matter. Those digital boxes in your home will report all the info it can on members of the family, room the tv is in, and what you watched and how often you channel flipped. Big brother is here.

So, does the NFL really lose; actually, maybe the customer wins. Now you can decide what you want to watch and how much it is worth to you. Economics at play.

clipped from www.multichannel.com New York Supreme Court Rules Operator Can Place NFL Network on Sports Tier

ABC, Cox Bar Ad Skipping in Video on Demand

Dear TV Viewer,

Just wondering...if you missed your favorite TV show or you forgot to DVR it, would you rather watch it with the fast forward feature disabled, forcing you to watch the commercials, or would you pay a fee to watch the show without any breaks? I pick none of the above. As long as the cable companies don't disable my DVR FF features, I'll be more vigilant with my recordings. Except for a sporting event, I rarely watch any show live; instead, we skip through the commercials and get right to the show. It's the best way to watch our favorite TV shows! American Idol figured it out - they create a Ford commercial with the contestants - the best kind of product placement. My question regarding the commercials apply to the local broadcaster in each market. Will the VOD broadcast show include the local broadcaster's commercial as well?

I have a great idea for the broadcaster, especially when they show movies on their network, offer for a fee the uncut version of the movie, without commercials. While you own the window to those titles, show us the movie the way the director intended. I might just pay $.99 to watch that.

Sitcom, Dead or Alive

I just read the WallStreet Journal article on Betty White and it got me thinking. "You know the secret of good comedy?", and before you have the chance to answer, the reply would come back way too quickly, "timing".

That was the beauty of Jack Benny. He was the master of timing. He never rushed a joke, he never forced a laugh, it was real and he made it his. Johnny Carson brilliantly "borrowed' that timing on the Tonight Show. Johnny, like Jack, watched the joke play out; even though others got the laugh, it was always their show. Jack's schtick, the cheapskate, never grew tired. The laughs may have been at his expense, but they were genuine. Even today, his comedy stands the test of time. Jack with his assortment of crazy characters, Rochester, Mary, Phil, Don and others had the joke, but it was always Jack's show.

So why are today's comedies so stale and forced. Few will still be remembered and easy to laugh with the way the Jack Benny Program did. Seinfeld has the potential to endure; it continues to feel relevent and funny years after it stopped producing new shows. And Jerry, like Jack, surrounded himself with the assortment of crazy characters. They acted, he reacted. And while Kramer, George, or Elaine may have done something hilarious, it was always Seinfeld's show. Jerry must have learned that from Jack.

But the sitcom has been dead on tv and it's time for someone else to learn these age-old lessons. Is there room on tv or will the next place for this breakout hit be the web; who knows. I just know, its time for another great sitcom!

Cablevision to go Private

Seems my crystal ball was working on Tuesday when I speculated that Cablevision would use the sale of the Rainbow Sport nets to try and go private again. Will the minority shareholders approve? Despite the lingering question, how much is Cablevision really worth, I think that this time, the sale will go through. Then wait a year and watch for the Rainbow Networks to be sold next.

Cablevision Selling pieces

Is this the beginning of the end for Cablevision? Sell off pieces and use the money to make a more attractive offer to go private. Will the Rainbow Networks be next? Charles Dolan may not want to stay in the cable game much longer and it is no secret that Jimmy prefers the Knicks and may be longing to own the Yankees. The one thing is sure; with the Dolans, you never know what they will do next.

clipped from www.mediaweek.com Comcast to Acquire Cablevision's Stake in Sports Nets Anthony Crupi APRIL 30, 2007 - Comcast has agreed to acquire Cablevision’s stake in two regional sports networks for $570 million in cash. Under the terms of the deal, which was announced by both parties Monday morning, Comcast will snap up Cablevision’s 60 percent interest in Fox Sports Net Bay Area and its 50 percent interest in Fox Sports Net New England. The latter transaction gives Comcast full control over FSN New England; the remaining 40 percent stake in the Bay Area RSN will continue to be held by a News Corp. affiliate. Once the sale of the RSN assets is finalized, Cablevision will no longer have a stake in any sports properties outside of the New York DMA.