The Internet-to-broadcast series "quarterlife"

So it seems a TV show can be repurposed on the web, but a web show should not be repurposed on TV.

Why NBC is continuing to run the series, even on Bravo, seems odd. Lick your wounds and move on.

Enough said.

blinkx Survey of TV and Online Video Habits Reveals Surprising User Behavior

Back on February 20, I wrote a blog that said that web video watching was not a zero sum game. This survey, backed by Blinkx and Harris, confirms that users are indeed media multitaskers who can enjoy their TV viewing experience and surf the web at the same time. The question left unsaid is the value of the advertising on each media and how can it break through to the user with so much distraction.

Previously, the TV advertiser had to contend with bathroom breaks, but now web surfing interrupts the ability to take in the ad message. Can an ad break through this clutter. The Super Bowl and Oscars on TV have been used as events to premiere new spots, but for the average show, has the web further reduced the effectiveness of TV advertising?

Some Survey Highlights:

-- 78% of adults who watch television use the web while doing so

-- 35% report doing so often or always

-- 62% of double-dippers surf for content related to what they're
watching
-- 40% of them look for products/services that appeared in or were
advertised during the program they're watching

-- 39% of them look for upcoming/related events

-- When it comes to watching video or television content online,
twice as many online adults typically watch full-length television
shows, movies, or sporting events, as compared to user-generated
content (25% vs. 13%, respectively).

-- When it comes to finding Internet video content, consumer behavior
is almost equally divided between search engines and users going
directly to content owner Web sites.

The challenge remains, how does a piece of video find large viewership and how do you effectively monetize its viewership to make a profit. If the ad community does not find the cost of advertising effective or efficient, new ways to monetize must be discovered.

ESPN is the Master of MultiPlatform Content

Cynopsis Digital did a terrific job outlining all the ways ESPN will cover its Masters coverage in April.
Multiplatform features include:
- ESPN360.com: video coverage of Par 3 contest on April 9, 3-5 pm ET
- ESPN.com: live "look ins" of the action, video highlights, analysis, live blogging and chats, WAP-compatible scores and information
- ESPN Arcade: a putting game simulating the greens of the 11th, 12th and 13th holes
- ESPN Widgets: embeddable application providing scoring, news and video highlights
- ESPN PodCenter: daily coverage of Thursday & Friday play and highlights from all 4 days

To me this is the ideal use of linear TV and broadband. I'm sure they are looking at more mobile opportunities, and the opportunity to show more video on cellular. But it is clear, that the strategy is to augment the viewing experience across platforms, not simply be duplicative. It uses the strengths of each platform to enhance the linear viewing experience. I can't wait to watch!

Sports Illustrated Swimsuits Online Success

It has always been argued that a swimsuit edition does not belong on a sports magazine. But the winning formula used by Sports Illustrated to grow the print side of the business has clearly extended to new media. As the numbers suggest, online usage to view attractive models in skimpy clothing is a real winner. Now if only SI can find a way to keep these users to return; it doesn't seem to be the sports coverage so perhaps a second edition devoted to swimsuits in the Summer to furhter impact usage.

New York Magazine seems to understand what the user wants. They too used nude-like photographs of Lindsey Lohan recreating Marilyn Monroe poses to impact their print and online usage as well.

And while newstands can try to police usage, the web is much more difficult. And while it is hard to call these two magazines obscene, there is no formal group looking out for the public interest. I bring this up because of the recent fines of almost $2 mm against Fox TV stations that aired a butt shot from a repeat episode of NYPD Blue. That these stations get fined simply shows that there is a bigger issue at stake.

I do not think these fines are fair, nor do I think the Sports Illustrated and New York Magazine sites are obscene. It simply demonstrates that the changing landscape of the web has caused a very slippery slope to form. How one form of media gets fined while another with equal if not potentially wider access is not, shows that the FCC does not see how the world has changed.

Why are Cable VOD Rentals Just 24 Hours?

The kids were bored on a Saturday afternoon and the weather was cold and wet. A perfect opportunity to watch a movie. The choice was to get in the car and head off to the movie theater or stay at home and watch a movie on demand. What was not in our decision process was to get in the car and go to the store and rent a movie. Financially, a day at the movies for a family of 4 can approach $50 with popcorn. A movie on demand, $5. And if we had gone to the video store, about the same.

We chose the movie on demand. As the economy appears to enter a recession, I would expect more families to opt for their living room than the movie house. And while it was financially more pleasant, it was not as easy to watch. First, it took a few times to get through the on demand menu because of contention on the line. Second, we were interrupted an hour into the movie the dual DVR feature began recording two shows and our on demand movie stopped. Third, the movie was saved, but did not know where we stopped and so we had to slowly fast forward an hour. That trick feature took 10 minutes and made me wish that VOD worked like a Tivo and could advance in 15 minute increments or like a DVD and fid the correct scene. Fourth, and last point, the movie, while inexpensive was only available for 24 hours while a video rental of the same price has a much longer rental period. While adults tend to be fine with a single viewing experience, kids like to watch shows over and over again. It is hard to believe that a longer rental period could not be made available for movies, especially to further compete with the video rental experience.

Now of the four issues, while the 24 hour rental is irksome, it can be bypassed in a kids world by buying the film say on a Saturday afternoon and watching it again on Sunday morning. For the kids, they feel like they got the multiple viewing. What might make me reconsider the video rental experience is the scene selection and flexibility to access points in the movie. Perhaps cable should worry about Netflix or Apple overtaking them.

CBS and NBC to offer more TV shows online

It is becoming abundantly clear that the broadcasters are throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. NBC has Hulu and CBS has been working with Joost, but they still feel the need to complicate the web by putting the same content on multiple sites. Now classic shows can be seen on multiple websites and one must wonder what the strategy is behind this move. Does it make access to shows easier to find, does it increase visibility of the content, does it improve revenue models, does it grow usage?

Perhaps the confusion is that the questions that should be asked are: How is the potential viewer likely to find these shows? Do they haphazardly "turn the channel" to hulu or nbc.com and as they thumb through the categories and lists, find something that appeals to them. Do they see a promotion on NBC TV or nbc.com that pushes them to another site? Do they have an interest in a particular show and use a search engine - Google, Blinx, Ask.com, etc to find the link to the show? Do they watch an online clip on You Tube that pushes them to watch the entire episode someplace else?

I think that full length episodes should be associated with the network's website. Search engines inside that site should easily and quickly guide them to the show; and they should be also embedded inside a relevent website that people might expect to find such programming. Star Trek for example, makes sense to be inside the Sci Fi site, which is part of NBC.com total search.

But to me, Hulu duplicates what NBC.com should be doing on its own. Rather they should devote this kind of site as promotion with links to full episodes. Yes, these sites aggregate content across multiple networks, but they do little to enhance the brand value of the content back to its linear TV counterpart. It lacks the synergy to enhance the experience. So in the above example, the value of streaming Star Trek, should also remind the user that similar great sci fi programming is on the Sci Fi Channel. Hulu does not do that; connecting a show through its particular TV network does.

Now I must say that I think Hulu's platform is very slick and I enjoy the user experience; my point is that as a website, it stands alone and does little to engage the user to the core brand or to create a positive transference between the show and other similar shows on the channel. And while the argument may be made that it was developed as a destination site and to compete with You Tube, it does not explain why nbc.com could not have done the exact same thing.

Did Greed Kill the TV Ad Model

A simple enough question as advertising effectiveness on TV has been hurt - by falling ratings, by more fragmentation of TV choices, and because of the DVR. I believe that broadcasters have killed the golden goose of TV by adding more minutes per hour to a show, reducing the time spent inside the show and increasing viewer dissatisfaction with the growing number and length of breaks. As non-programming minutes have grown per hour, viewers have hit their wall and began seeking alternatives. One was the development of the DVR to literally skip over commercials; another, was to keep the pc in the same room as the TV and switch attention during commercial breaks from the show to other interactive applications. I believe if audiences were less bombarded by the number of ads and breaks, the DVR would not have become the necessary tool that it is to stay engaged with TV's content.

Last night, for instance, American Idol was a 2 hour show. Great family entertainment, yet filled with way too many ads. Luckily, I was able to start the show with my DVR and skip those too long breaks. Not good for the advertisers, but more satisfying viewing by me and my family. And yet, I still was able to recall key sponsors integrated into the programming of the show. Branded entertainment can be less invasive when done well and more effective use of dollars.

The same ad problems will happen to the web and VOD advertising as pre-rolls and overlays disrupt the content and cause the viewer to create new remedies to avoid them as well. A short form video can't have a :30 pre-roll each time. The viewer will disengage quickly from multiple views. Overlays remind me of snipes on the bottom of today's tv network programs, but at least they seem to be able to be clicked off.

It is okay to earn money through advertising; the point is that sometimes less is more and when you get greedy, you will lose everything. Gecko's quote from Wall Street is not true, Greed is not good.

Web Viewership Not a Zero Sum Game

This week's Multichannel looks closely at the effects of the writers strike on TV viewing. And makes an interesting point, that web video usage may have risen, but not at the expense of TV. And even with the writers strike two months in, January TV viewing still did well with reality programming and sports. Cable continues to impact broadcast viewing, perhaps even more than the writers strike did, by being able to carve up smaller pieces to reach individual interests.

Most interesting, according to Multichannel, "the splintering of the viewing audience among hundreds of TV channels and innumerable Web sites had already been in play before the strike started Nov. 5. The effects of the strike only really became noticeable, one top cable-research official said, when broadcast networks began running out of fresh episodes of hits like ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy."

We live in an age of multitasking and the ability to do many things at once. Most recently, that ability has become noticable with TV and web usage. The TV is on in one corner of the room, or perhaps even on one corner of the screen, while attention switches from show to web clip to blog and back to TV show again. And as most tv programming has become what I like to call low involvement viewing, it takes little attention to catch up to plot lines on the big tube.

I once worked on a research project that compared low and high involvement viewing to advertising effectiveness and the general results were that the higher the engagement, the higher the recall to the spots. It becomes much harder to multitask during a high involvement show. Still in today's world, younger viewers are more quickly able to move between online and tv engagements; that is to watch a high involvement show like Heroes, then quickly switch to the website and blogs during the commercial breaks. As the TV and the pc exist in the same room, those kinds of multitask relationships will only get stronger and web usage will grow, but not at the expense of broadcast or cable TV programming.

The Writers Strike Has Changed Network Programming

Will the networks change their programming models or are old habits hard to break? Some believe that networks have learned their lesson finally and are reshaping their models, buying less pilots, premiering new programming around the year and not just in the Fall and Spring, and following the cable model of multiple programming showings throughout the week. And why make all these changes - To assure that the viewing public watches these shows and their costs can be recouped.

But under this model, the networks would need to actually create more tv shows not less. They will have to spend more money for more pilots and than commit more of them to a large enough number of shows. As VOD and websites like Hulu become vast libraries of shows, the old model of rerunning shows will not work. Once networks begin to monetize them on these other platforms, their linear tv schedules need to become populated with more original content or will see declining ratings. And so when networks like NBC announce that they are producing fewer pilots it goes against the logic of their future endeavors. They should be announcing more shows being produced to capitalize on the additional inventory needed to fill all this space.

And to the discussion of upfronts; as the writers strike has left the networks without new product, it is hard to imagine the value of upfronts this Spring trying to sell old programming as new again. You can't sell the shinola unless the sh*t exists. It's hard to believe that any of the networks have enough new programming in the mix to sell the sizzle. Get your programming house in order, than take it to the market. Agencies are tired of empty calories, make the effort to show the beef.

Pirates Online - a new interactive social network

The power of the big entertainment networks to push cross platform appeal of new content. While niche internet networks are fun to watch, one wonders if they can ever reach enough views to effectively monetize. Sites like Funny or Die may boast Will Ferrell, but is it enough for people to remember to bookmark it and check back frequently for new shorts. Out of site, out of mind.

On the other hand, big companies like DIsney can push new web sites and upcoming programming. This morning, while my kids were watching Disney, a promotion came up for a new social web site based on Pirates of the Caribbean. First a ride, then a movie, then a sequel, then a DVD and a gameboy game, and now a social network. And while it is being pitched as free, the user gets the offer to upgrade to a paid subscription in order to avoid seeing ads. Either way, Disney has found another way to make money off the brand. My son begged me to sign up and spent the hour exploring Jack Sparrow's world. Luckily I felt that the social networking elements were limited and certainly of much less interest to my 8 year old son. He likes the virtual sword fighting and exploration of the town. The site offers a week of ad free play so I will have to report back how the ads effect the game or the depth of the content. For now, we'll stay with the free play.

Playing in a virtual world based on a movie experience, seems far more interesting than a second life that tries to mimic real life. If users are going to play in a virtual world, the more fantastic the better. And Disney's ability to promote and build excitement by being everywhere - on TV, on the web, in the movies - and to promote easily across multiple platforms. It is the challenge the niche networks, the small fish, will contend with, how to get noticed when the big fish have so many resources at their fingertips.

My Damn Channel Presents Wainy Days

The web expands your programming choices - while I believe long form programming is best viewed through a bigger TV set, the mobility offered by pc, ipod, and phone lets you catch up with your programming when it is most convenient to you.

Short form programming, "snack food", is great for consumption on the web. I've just discovered Wainy Days on My Damn Channel. Funny stuff. I hope you enjoy one recent episode with special guest, Paul Rudd.

Two Late Night Shows React to the end of the Writer's Strike

Networks Plot Course - How to woo back viewers

Im tired of the same old stuff on TV. The writers strike took away my favorite shows and made me quickly tired of reality shows. My Tivo is empty with nothing new recorded for me to watch; I gravitate to news and sports, at least that content is fresh.

The learning curve is that shows don't necessarily have to premiere in the Fall. It's not when a show starts, but the quality of the product and its stories that appeal to an audience. And it will become harder to build shows that appeal to large audiences as the growth of distribution, cable channels and new media platforms, further splits the audience into smaller parts. Still there is a need for fresh and new to get back the viewers that have left TV for other choices.

If I could program a network, I would strategically select shows that appeal to various audience demographics and plot out marketing strategies to reach them. And I would use TV, VOD, mobile and pc to gain interest and desire to become a loyal viewer to each new series. TV networks react to trends. One channel creates a medical show, and the others follow at the same time with a duplicative series. I would want to program the network that leads, rather than follows the pack. Missing from today's line-up today, I propose the following new series: 1) a Western - a la Broken Trail and starting a new life in the old west; 2) a Variety series - hosted by former American Idol talent with professional talent - individual acts as well as comedy and singing skits; 3) Historical series - life in 18th or 19th century - with classic family drama; 4) Family comedy series where a job change forces a family to move, from the NYC to Midwest, and the challenges when small towns don't have the same issues and neighbors act different; and 5) a Sci Fi series - perhaps Star Trek Academy or time traveler focused. That would be my wish list to woo back viewers.

Hulu Expects to Add More Content Providers

For those that don't mind watching television on their pc, content aggregation is important. Hulu, recognizing that content is king, is furiously working to add more partners, like Time Warner and Viacom, to their mix. And to increase their reach with Hulu's placement inside AOL.

More is better, not just from more suppliers, but also depth of inventory from existing content providers. Refresh is key to satisfy the unquenchable thirst of small screen viewing. For the heavy user, more is necessary to keep them returning to the Hulu site. But do you take the old content off to satisfy that user; what of the new viewer, just invited to the site, who still values the current material. How content gets refreshed and rotated affects the value for the new and old user.

And at what point should Hulu become the distribution point back to the big screen TV. Allowing it to interface throught the cable box to choose and stream VOD on the HD TV set. Will this content look good on the new HD sets? Or should Hulu make a separate version of its product for VOD consumption through the cable box. Would the consumer pay for access? Would its advertising model work to enable it to be a Free On Demand service? Ubiquitous distribution of all this content on big screen and small; to me that is what would make Hulu especially interesting but it would certainly upset the syndication apple cart.

Net neutrality, without it, broadband takes a giant step back

There once was a day, not long ago, that consumers paid their phone bills based on the length and distance for each call. Wanted to call NY to CA, wait till night to get the lower rate. Start the timer and don't talk too long. I recall a Brady Bunch episode where the dad installs a pay phone in the family room to offset the costs for all the phone usage and to teach the kids that the phone calls cost money to make. Today, we get charged one low fee per month, unlimited calls across the US and Canada.

Broadband access never asked for a per byte usage charge; rather, it asked for a low fee for unlimited access for broadband use. But as demand grows and file sizes grow expedentially, cable is concerned that it can't handle the flow of traffic. Comcast's solution was to restrict high volume downloads from sites like Bit Torrent; Time Warner's idea was to charge consumers on the usage levels of their broadband activity. Both plans may cause consumers to seek competitors willing to provide unlimited service. While higher download and upload speeds can be priced at a premium, usage pricing and restictive access would be a huge step back.

The telcos must be hoping though that the cable companies push the usage model; telcos would have the competitive edge to push that their systems do not interfere with the flow of internet traffic. Rationally, it does not seem wise for cable to push against net neutrality or usage pricing as it could widen the competitive gap between cable and telco. Unfortunately, no one ever said this was a rational business.

Can there ever be another Golden Age of Television

Assuming the writers strike ends as planned, some shows will go back into production, some will be halted till fall, and others will finally get the official cancellation notice. As producers ponder a changing economic tv production model, the choices they make will determine the shows we watch. Decisions may soon be made to commit to a season worth of shows even before a pilot is produced and tested. No extraneous production of pilots unless there is a serious commitment to air the series. Would the Seinfeld show gotten through this vetting process under this new economic model? Many felt it was too New York and wouldn't play well outside the major cities. It took 3 seasons before it became the monster hit it evolved into on NBC. Today, producers seem to lack the patience to keep a show on air.

The Golden Age of Television was filled with stars, variety shows, great dramatic series, and notable writers creating great characters and developing endearing and enduring stories. Today's shows, tend to push the boundaries of bad taste, more concerned with real life sad sacks than telling great, compelling stories. Comedies are crasser, dramatic series are simply more explicit soap operas.

I miss the shows of my youth and find it hard to find a show that the whole family can enjoy together. I miss the variety shows that showcased professional talent, not the amateur shows on today - Carol Burnett, Flip Wilson, Ed Sullivan, et al. I miss the guest-heavy series - Love Boat, Fantasy Island, Love American Style, et al. I miss the comedies - Lucy, Cosby, Cheers. I miss the dramatic series - half hour and hour - that weren't just ripped from the headlines, but told impactful and character studied stories. I miss the classic western, the medical drama (that didn't seem to alweays put a baby in danger in every episode!), the sci fi adventure that didn't make the special effects the story but let the story influence the special effects.

The writers strike is ending; the business model seems to be turned upside down. But the product can still improve. Reality programming is a bandaid, but the real health of TV is getting back to our roots of what made television great!

What SAG should learn from the Writer's Strike

In just a few months, the SAG contract expires and a strike vote could be authorized. Hopefully the experiences from the writers strike will impact those discussions and how it should proceed. The writers strike most likely cost everyone but the producers more income than they could ever possibly recoup from their agreement. In lost wages, the elimination of projects, the cuts in new productions, and the limited revenue from new media. Unlike the DGA, the writers chose this path rather than try to negotiate months ahead of the expiration of the contract. SAG should follow the path of the DGA and start now to discuss their agreement and agree that as a course of action, a strike vote is not the best course of action. The entertainment landscape has changed and a strike cannot produce a greater victory.

The real shame is as the producers place more emphasis on reducing costs than enhancing the creative quality of the medium, cheaper shows will become the norm. That means less numbers of writers per project, lesser stars attached to projects; cheaper labor, lower budgets, and more monetization push. Networks will turn to more branded entertainment, ie the Texaco Theatre, and heavier product placement in the scripts of each show to make these projects more worthwhile. Change is inevitable; the writers strike hastened it and a SAG strike could just kill it once and for all.

Tentative Deal with Writers Reached

It appears that a deal has been struck and will be voted on by the WGA this evening. If approved, the strike will be over and TV can start production again. Most likely, the evening talk shows, The Tonight Show, Late Night, Jimmy Kimmel, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report will start fresh shows on Monday. For scripted series, the delay to fresh shows are still months away. But the landscape for TV has been forever changed.

The Networks will become much more efficient in their spending on shows. Commitments will be made with tighter budgets attached. Should a show make it to pilot form, it will move quickly to series. If a show doesn't perform on network, watch it pop up on cable and vice versa. Don't be surprised to see Psych, Monk, or even Mad Men repurposed on network. A series will complete its 13 episode minimum regardless of its initial rating cause the expectation is that it will be repurposed across cable and the web, to assure it finds a profit. And vertically alligned businesses, like NBC with their hands in each of these distribution points will do especially well. They can effectively spread the risk and increase the return from each of these productions.

At the same time, reality shows are starting to show their age. Survivor's latest adventure recently scored its lowest ratings. Deal or No Deal has gotten so desperate, half the briefcases have to contain $1 million dollars just to keep the viewer's interest. And even American Idol has looked beatable. As fresh content comes back to TV, the ratings for these reality shows will suffer further. The writers strike has gotten them to wear out their welcome.

To me shows like Saturday Night Live will prove even more lucrative to the new model. It generates both short form and long form content for the web (for example all the digital shorts) , it provides a testing ground for actors and writers (Conan O'Brien was a writer on SNL, Tina Fey a writer and performer who was able to create 30 Rock for NBC, the show has been re cut to an hour and syndicated to E!, and it creates commercial parodies, best of's and political specials that are repurposed into prime time specials. It created a DVD of its first 5 years so most likely more will come. Prior to the strike, the guest host was Brian Williams, NBC News anchor who post appearance saw the ratings for NBC News rise. Its been an effective medium to promote other shows as well. And during the strike, various shows and specials filled the prime time air. In short SNL is the golden goose to NBC. It creates original content that can be merchandized and monetized across multiple distribution points. Try doing that with Deal or No Deal!

Convergence at the Super Bowl

Big game this weekend. The Super Bowl proved just that and it wasn't all about the play on the field. It also was the chance to highlight the most creative advertising. It was the day to turn off your TIVO or your DVR. And from discussions with friends, it led to future talk around the water cooler. Even more fascinating, these same ads made their way to the web, heck Fox's broadcast reminded viewers to go to My Space to watch these ads again and again. Sites like AOL have these spots as well and ask the viewer to vote their favorite. It seems the younger audience didn't mind leaving the action of the game to immediately relive the commercial online.

Welcome to convergence, interaction, and social media all rolled up in one. Digital doesn't replace TV viewing, it augments it, it invites discussion and debate, it enables the user to relive the experience. And in its ultimate form, it will find away to circle the user right back to the TV to enjoy the experience on a big screen environment.

Strike shows fatigue factor

Writers aren't the only ones feeling the fatigue. With so little new or worthwhile to watch on TV, viewers are moving away from their favorite TV networks to find other sources for entertainment. With so little new to watch in scripted series, I find myself watching more news programming. Thank goodness for an election year for interesting dramatic programming!

When historians look back on the aftermath of this strike, I believe they will come up with the following conclusions:
1. The writers union lost more money from the strike than they would have ever earned.
2. More jobs and business were lost than incremental revenue earned. Thus the SAG, DGA, and WGA all lost business. And jobs went to more non-union businesses. (look at the latest programming deals coming out of Canada)
3. Renegotiations need to begin well before a contract expires and a strike should be viewed as the very last possible recourse.
4. The strike enabled the AMPTP to turn their business model upside down by reducing the number of pilots they commission, reducing the extravagance factor from upfronts, commissioning scripts to go right to production and airing across available broadcast and cable networks to maximize its revenue potential. The result, greater cost efficiencies.
5. The entertainment industry will see a measureable downturn in spending as fat contines to be cut and boondoggles are turned away. The strike will have effectively killed the golden goose.
6. VOD usage will become the real revenue growth through advertising and subscription.