Hearst Building A Kindle For Magazines

Sure print media is declining as consumers prefer multimedia functionality. And Hearst has built a tremendous variety of content that can and must adapt to new technologies. Production of print content as well as its distribution is a labor intensive, expensive cost line on the budget and transitioning to electronic distribution can be very cost effective. Per Fortune, "According to industry insiders, Hearst, which publishes magazines ranging from Cosmopolitan to Esquire and newspapers including the financially imperiled San Francisco Chronicle, has developed a wireless e-reader with a large-format screen suited to the reading and advertising requirements of newspapers and magazines. The device and underlying technology, which other publishers will be allowed to adapt, is likely to debut this year."

For me, I don't think that Hearst should move away from its core competencies and become a manufacturer of an e-reader. And making a product that merely duplicates the Kindle does not seem the way to go. Yes a bigger screen would make sense, but can Hearst build it at a price point that would cause consumers to take notice. And a black and white e-reader is not how glossy magazines are meant to be viewed. Readers need to be in full color.

Hearst should instead partner with either Sony, who could use some help competing with the Kindle, or with Apple, who definitely understands what a product needs to do to gain market share. Heck, its an iPod on steroids! Or simply remain neutral and allow subscriptions regardless of the reader the consumer chooses to use. For content creators like Hearst, that is perhaps the best solution of them all.

Netflix Is Really Serious About Streaming-Only Subscription

Should cable operators and pay TV programmers like HBO and Showtime be worried about Netflix. At a monthly subscription rate at half what cable charges, a Netflix subscription could be economically better and equally as enjoyable for the movie fan. Currently, "Netflix passed the 10 million subscriber mark earlier this month and during its last earnings call Hastings said “millions” (emphasis on the “s” there) of subscribers had used the service." I wonder during that same period if HBO and Showtime have grown or seen attrition. As Netflix creates pricing options for the casual to heavy user, it can be a welcome change to the high price of premium content.

So how should HBO and Showtime compete. Competing with their own streaming content is one option. Adding mobility to the mix so that a subscriber can access their premium stream away from the home is another. Pushing its original and exclusive content is a third means. And revisiting its pricing models in the face of competition is another. Otherwise, Netflix is bound to take business away from HBO, Showtime, and other movie networks. I mean would you rather watch a movie on TV with commercials or streamed through Netflix without.

10 reasons to buy a Kindle 2… and 10 reasons not to

Boy the Kindle sure looks like a great product and Jeff Bezos is everywhere talking up its virtues. This article provides compelling reasons why to buy one and compelling reasons why not. For those early adopters, the Kindle represents the next device that will be a must have for anyone who reads books, magazines, and newspapers. And it is very green, saving our trees.

At the same time, it is at a price point that will slow down that adoption. At just under $400, it will take quite a lot of e-book purchases to offset the cost of the printed product. If an average e-book is $10 and an average hard cover book is $18, the incremental $8 savings means that you have to buy 50 books to break even. Before I do, I expect at least to see a Kindle 3 or Kindle 4 released!

Will function beat cost; will customers flock to the Kindle because it is futuristic and despite the cost. We will soon find out. For me, at this high price point, I may still wait another generation. I too like the feel of the printed material in my hand.

Why Do So Many People Still Search for Hula

Is Hulu really a great brand name for the NBC Fox online venture. It would be fascinating to see how many times it is mistyped in the search as Hula instead of Hulu. Google rightly asks if you really mean Hulu. If I had only bought the Hula.com web site, I could have made a small fortune. Hulu has quickly grown and certainly more people are becoming familiar with its name. One day it may make for an interesting case study. A great aggregator of content, a crazy name.

If Cable Companies Start Streaming...

Except cable companies are already streaming web content, today, to our computers. If cable companies negotiate rights with programmers to stream content to the TV set, what really does that mean? Today ESPN sells a web based product called ESPN 360 that is only available through cable companies that license it for web access. Verizon customers get it, Comcast customers do not.

Will an internet stream of a linear network be superior to the current headend stream that consumers access today through their set top box. Will it bring better picture and sound, will it improve navigation and trick features, will it better enable interactive capabilities? Will an internet capable set top box be superior to the current assortment of boxes that connect today to the TV set?

Or does an authorized internet stream of a linear cable channel enable me to watch my TV on my laptop away from my home as well as inside it. Is it meant to compete with Slingbox so that your primary cable subscription can travel with you out of home through the web.

I am intrigued that cable is exploring internet carriage of linear networks, I just don't see how it prevents customers from still bypassing their cable box and just maintain a broadband stream to watch content through the web. Will content companies create exclusive content, like ESPN 360, that makes the cable stream of content more preferable and easier to view than the current means? And will it be done as a means to stop defection from cable service or as a means to incremental revenue. In today's economic climate, the latter may not be reasonable to consider.

SAG and AMPTP Still Can't Agree On A Deal

An agreement that should have been approved still seems bitter and antagonistic. It seems that SAG would have agreed to the terms presented had the AMPTP left the terms at three years. But a four year deal caused the SAG deal to vote 73% - 27% against approval. Clearly, a four year term puts the SAG union a year after the term expires on the other union contracts. To AMPTP credit, they are trying to avoid giving the unions the leverage of having all their terms expire simultaneously in order to present a more unified block the next go around. Could this deal be concluded with a three year term; unfortunately, "no new meetings are scheduled. It would take 75% assent from voting SAG members to authorize a strike vote."

The unmistakable truth is that advertising revenues are declining and new media has not created a model that presents that much incremental revenue. With so much uncertainty ahead, a shorter term deal makes sense for SAG. AMPTP clearly does not want all its deals expiring in the same year. It is time for all actors to unite under one union as a means to the end. SAG and AFTRA are jointly negotiating with the advertising industry; a taste of what a combined union might be like.

The Cable Companies' Plan To Take Down Hulu

A little more information on how cable will keep customers. One opportunity is hi def streams via cable instead of standard stream through the computer. Another potential means to keep customers, only measure streams of non-cable content. And a third means may be in building a library that is much more diversified and easier to search and navigate. Can cable do it? It certainly is in content companies best interest if their is more revenue opportunities available.

Cable Operators Continue Internet TV Talks

If you can't beat them, join them; cable operators may just allow the set top box to access internet programming. Per this article, operators are talking with NBC, Viacom, and Time Warner to enable video customers to secure distribution deals on this new platform. "The cable providers are looking to stave off defections by "cord cutters," a small but potentially growing segment of consumers procuring video content on the Internet and other non-cable sources." My question is how do these deals stop this defection. Unless these deals become exclusive and this same content is unavailable outside this distribution deal, nothing stops the consumer from continuing to defect from cable. In fact, it only encourages a faster adoption of internet viewing, causing more defection from cable subscription.

Along with this access to internet viewing on cable set top devices, what else is cable bringing exclusive to the relationship to the viewer that they can't get elsewhere. If cable can provide a fee to creators for this carriage as a means to build a walled garden experience, then maybe free web content may go away, only to be made available to homes that buy a cable and broadband monthly subscription. Otherwise, internet access by cable simply is a me too experience, replacing VOD with internet streaming. And what else gets affected -could it further erode local cable spots, VOD advertising, and even disrupt the linear model? How can cable monetize an internet stream through the set top box? Hopefully they have thought this through.

DVD sales plummet, Blu-ray unable to save the day

What does it really mean when DVD sales are falling. While prices have dropped, the unknown for me is whether the units purchased have dropped as well. I'm guessing they have too. For my family, I definitely have purchased less DVDs. When the kids were younger, many of my purchases were family-themed product, knowing that we would be watching these same films over and over again. And while movies are nice to own, I tend to first check out films on VOD. I can't think of a film that I need to own in my library. Perhaps people have gotten tired of filling up rooms with discs and might be more inclined to purchase digital copies that can be shared and moved among devices. I'd certainly rather bring a flash drive into the car for the rear DVD player than keep a dozen discs on the floor or in the door compartment.

"To be sure, Blu-ray is growing -- up 250 percent since 2007 -- but it still represents less than 3.5 percent of the overall market. Analysts now wonder whether Blu-ray will be able to pick up steam fast enough -- or if the future has already been handed over to online downloading and streaming alternatives. With companies like Netflix rushing into streaming as quickly as possible, that certainly seems like a strong possibility."

And Now Hulu Pulls Shows Off Boxee

First it was TV.com, and now Hulu will be taking its content off of Boxee. The problem is that the cat is out of the bag and it's hard to take a step back. Once content became accessible outside the confines of traditional TV, consumers were able to choose where they wanted to watch. That freedom of on-demand, coupled with the chance to receive this same content at a lower price meant that the old business model may not withstand the onslaught of new technologies. And who could lose - cable companies who depend on subscription revenue, DVRs who can be replaced by on-demand streams, premium networks that charge higher rates for newer movies, and TV networks that depend on eyeballs to charge high ad rates.

And while Hulu may lose eyeballs from restricting where its content can be streamed, customers are still seeking out alternatives to cable for their viewing pleasure. Why pull Hulu from Boxee? "One theory: Boxee makes watching video from sites like Hulu a lot like watching cable. As we noted a few hours ago, Boxee/Hulu means that paying $80 a month for cable TV is no longer necessary for some people. It also means we don't need to watch TV shows (and ads) live, or even fast-forward through them with our DVR." Comcast has already felt the effect of broadband viewing; while internet subs are growing, TV subscribers dropped in the fourth quarter.

Hulu may think it is stopping the drip from becoming a flood; today, the vast majority still watch content through cable or antenna. Boxee and devices like it that play video through the web onto the TV, are not going away. It may make it harder to watch Hulu on your TV set, but consumers are changing their viewing habits. I still believe that cable is the preferable way to watch content; cable companies need to step up and improve their set top box, their DVR and VOD functionality, and their access to web video so that its access to content remains most desirable.

Hulu vs. TV.com - Are They Really Rivals

Hulu is owned by NBC and Fox while CBS owns TV.com. And like broadcast channels, each is a platform for professionally produced content. In the world of TV, a series on one channel would never appear at the same time on another, but in the world of the web, the same content could be found on multiple sites. Till now. Hulu has taken its content off TV.com. "It's the first bit of powder to fly in what promises to be a feisty battle between the two Web TV destination sites." Have we gotten to the point where content doesn't have to be everywhere and viewers will build brand preference to sites that contain the content they prefer. "Hulu got a huge bump in September and November being the main place to find Tina Fey's SNL Sarah Palin impersonations on the Web." Why share that audience with your competitor; the viewer is likely to watch more than one video, why not keep them on your preferred platform.

TV survived with multiple broadcast channels each offering unique content. The same should hold true for the big video platforms. Each is defined by its content, Hulu as the home to NBC and Fox produced content, TV.com to CBS and CNET content, You Tube to user generated content. As their content libraries grow and with it their brand value, consumer will seek them out when tuning in to web videos.

So are Hulu and TV.com really rivals? Or are they each ultimately competing with cable companies for access to the viewer. In a separate article, the real question is "When Will Comcast Need To Worry About Hulu?" Younger customers are preferring a broadband connection to a cable line. Technology has changed the rules. Just as these same consumers have dropped landlines for mobile, cable may face the same dilemma. Last quarter, Comcast lost almost a quarter of a million subscribers. Did they go to telcos like Verizon and AT&T, or did they simply drop the cable portion of their subscription. Cable's triple play - cable, phone, and broadband - deals with two services that the younger consumer no longer desires. The broadband connection may be all that matters. How will cable survive? Can they still offer unlimited access for a monthly fee or will the broadband bill star to resemble a utility bill - like electricity, gas, and water - measured strictly by usage. As content moves off cable to the web, this may be the only means to stay profitable.

Liberty Beats Out Echostar for Sirius

The famous line in The Godfather, "It's not personal, just business" may not apply here. Clearly Sirius did not want to be ruled under Echostar and John Malone clearly wants to beat Charlie Ergan. And so, " Liberty Media Corp. will invest $530 million in financially struggling satellite radio company Sirius XM Radio Inc., the companies said Tuesday." As a shareholder of both companies, I am thrilled that my Sirius stock isn't completely worthless, although at pennies per share, it's not worth what I bought it at. As a Liberty shareholder, I'm not sure it's a good deal either.

Sirius faces too many challenges, a bad economy, a dropping auto industry, heavy competition from free radio, the web, and now iPhones and other cellular devices. Is there enough exclusive content to deserve a subscription or does the pricing policy need to be revisited.

And what happens when the next debt payment is due. Will Liberty still be there to drop more good money after bad. Are there synergies for Liberty to make the sum of the two companies more valuable than its individual parts. Liberty may have won the contest but was it only a booby prize.

Can Sirius Be Saved?

Was it just a year ago when the FCC finally agreed to let Sirius and XM Satellite merge. While the FCC thought they were preventing a monopoly, perhaps they were simply causing the destruction of an industry. If the FCC had allowed the merger sooner, would there be a different ending than the one being threatened, the bankruptcy of Sirius XM. WIth a debt payment due and Echostar buying up notes as a strategic move to gain the business post bankruptcy, will a white knight emerge. And will that savior be Liberty? And will it really matter?

For Mel Karmazin, either choice may be prove disastrous. "The Sirius XM boss is trying to decide -- as soon as today -- whether he'll take the satellite radio giant into bankruptcy or risk selling a significant stake to Malone and Ergen. Either way, he could end up kicked to the curb." That is, he could be forced out of his job, for essentially driving shareholder value into the ground. The consumer may have stopped embracing satellite radio and if that is so, it is the most difficult challenge to overcome.

I Want My Free TV

Despite the Government delaying the digital transition till June, some broadcasters are still moving forward with plans to switch over from their analog signal on February 17. As this opinion demonstrates, it is not that easy to simply plug into a digital converter box and enjoy free TV again. Are antennas capable of receiving these new signals? Are people really expected to go back on their roofs and re-position them? Or will they simply turn off. This transition may prove that it is not as simple as one might think.

"And this might be how we greet the digital television future: without television."

Fox TV’s Gamble: Fewer Ads in a Break, but Costing More

How do you stop people from fast forwarding or leaving the TV during the break, fewer commercials. That is Fox TV's latest strategy and at the very least, their heart is in the right place. Sure the ads cost more, but if they are watched and not skipped over, it could be worth it. The concern to me is whether the consumer will return to their old ways and watch the show without using trick features. Is :60 short enough for the viewer to not rush to fast forward anyway. And because Fox is the exception, not the rule, will viewers fall into old habits. The good news is that Fox tells the consumer that it is only a :60 break.

But is it working? "Fox says the shorter commercial breaks keep viewers more engaged and improve brand recall for advertisers. Viewers are also less likely to change the channel or fast-forward past the ads — but not to the degree that Fox would have liked. Perhaps more important, the network does not appear to be recouping all the costs of the experiment. It is unclear whether Remote-Free TV will be back next season." Obviously there is a cost return benefit and the premium charged may be too expensive to justify the spending for advertisers. It's kinda like paying more for a larger box only to discover that the packaging hides the fact that what is inside is equivalent to what was in the original size package.

So far, the results are positive. "Last fall Nielsen IAG, an ad research company, analyzed the effect of fewer commercials and found that brand recall was 22 percent higher for 'Fringe' than for 'prime time’s most involving dramas.' Shorter breaks are also resulting in somewhat less skipping of commercials, according to Nielsen." Perhaps it can be possible to retrain the viewer that shorter breaks don't require skipping. Hopefully the test is expanded to all prime time shows.

Charter Cable Files Chapter 11

Goodbye old debt, so long shareholders, welcome to the new and hopefully improved Charter Cable. "Charter Communications said Thursday that it has reached a deal in principle with certain debtholders in a restructuring that will reduce its debt by $8 billion and result in the St. Louis-based MSO filing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition." And while their is less debt, there is still debt. Financial results indicate improved revenues, but will it be enough to sustain them. Telco and satellite competition, lower advertising, could put Charter again in a bad situation. Is this new life short term or just a precursor to a pending merger with another cable operator. I believe the latter is most likely.

DirecTV Owner Said to Seek Deal for Sirius XM

Is Direct TV, through its owner Liberty Media, interested in obtaining Sirius XM Radio? Are there synergies that make this a good merger Sirius clearly has subscribers, mainly through deals with the automakers, but are these subscribers here for the long haul and can they be merchandised with Direct TV. Perhaps there are other reasons at play. There seems no love lost between John Malone, who heads Liberty, and Charlie Ergen, who leads his competitor Echostar. "Mr. Ergen and Mr. Malone are longtime rivals. In the past they have discussed a possible merger or joint venture to cut costs, but those talks stalled over antitrust concerns in 2002. Mr. Malone’s involvement with Sirius may just be a ploy to make a takeover by EchoStar more expensive, analysts suggest. If that is the case, Mr. Malone would be taking a page from Mr. Ergen’s playbook — EchoStar has been known for becoming involved in potential mergers to drive up the price a rival must pay."

Let's assume the former that there are synergies at play that could be mined with the merger of a radio and cable satellite company. Beyond marketing opportunities, could there be technical efficiencies that could save the radio business. Howard Stern, in a Reuters article, believes that satellite radio is a viable business and can survive."'I'm not concerned. I think satellite radio is great and will be a successful business and it will survive,' he said." As of today, Sirius has a large debt payment due, so timing is everything. Who controls Sirius may simply determine Howard and Sirius' future

Is Content Still King In A Bad Economy?

In this week's Time Magazine, they wonder if content has dropped from its lofty perch and is no longer king of the hill. Relegated to "pauper" status, content is now available for free on the web, without subscription, admission, or incremental cost to the consumer. Who needs to buy Time Magazine when it's articles, like this one, can be read for free on the web; the same holds true for newspapers. No need to buy music CDs or DVDs, Apple sells songs for under a $1 and some sites are capable of sharing these same songs as well as movies and other videos for free. Some folks are even stopping their cable subscription to get their content streamed through Hulu and other sites instead. They are indeed paying less.

While the internet has brought great convenience and speed to the consumer; it also let the proverbial cat out of the bag when it enabled free content to rule. It will become much harder to retrain the public to pay for content looking ahead. Need an example, look at Sirius. On the verge of bankruptcy, Sirius has had trouble growing fast enough to make a profit. Who wants to pay for music content when free radio, ipods, and even HD and wireless choices are more preferable. Sirius' exclusive content was not enough to build a sustainable business.

Perhaps the economy is also partly to blame for this downgrade in content value. As consumers find ways to cut back, non-essential purchases stop. People make due with less and rely on what is most valuable to them. Content may still be king, it just may not be worth as much. "No one knows to what extent content will be "re-valued" as the economy improves. The newspaper industry may not be able to get any of its value back. Magazines may face the same problem. To the surprise of many, some of the more valuable content, like expensive feature films, may only make a great deal of money in theaters. The yield from VOD on the internet sales and syndication on the Apple (AAPL) iPod may turn out to be extremely modest. The largest media companies are making the case that the only reason their asset values have dropped is the economy. That case may not hold up."

Local TV Stations Face a Fuzzy Future

This article in the WSJ couldn't be more timely. Local television stations face the same threat from cable and now the internet. It has been getting a large share of its ad dollars from the auto and bank industries and is suffering as each of their media budgets have shrunk considerable. Their local news is threatened by web coverage as well as cable news networks, both national and regional, has led to less eyeballs. We now have a DTV conversion that will potentially cause some households to stop receiving TV signals and simply make the local broadcaster just another cable type network.

"Now, with their viewership in decline and ad revenue on a downward spiral, many local TV stations face the prospect of being cut out of the picture. Executives at some major networks are beginning to talk about an option that once would have been unthinkable: eventually taking shows straight to cable, where networks can take in a steady stream of subscriber fees even in an advertising slump." How does the local broadcaster survive? Cut costs, exclusive content, build stronger local brand value?

It is not all doom and gloom. "Local TV stations won't vanish overnight. Networks' parent companies still own some of the largest stations, giving them a possible incentive to preserve that slice of the business. And while their profits are down, the vast majority of stations are making money: Local, regional and national businesses, like car dealers and retailers, spent more than $20 billion on local TV-station ads in 2008, according to some estimates." Still it is about watching the trend and the arrow is pointing lower. Local broadcasters must find away to adapt and re-grow its stature in the community and its brand preference. For those owned and operated stations, a strong parent will be helpful; for others, the challenges will be higher.

Can the Long Tail Survive Or Will It Just Fall Off?

Web content faces an interesting dilemma...itself. As consumers seek more choice among more distribution paths, new viewing options are cutting into and perhaps killing traditional models. Where syndication once enabled broadcasters to recoup costs and achieve profitability, the traditional placeholders, local TV broadcasters, have been replaced, first by national cable networks like USA and TBS, and now by online sites like Hulu and Joost. And in these latest models, the demand is growing, but the revenue models don't offset the losses from traditional models. And so if revenues can't grow, costs must be cut. The big companies can ride out this storm, the small guys can not.

As more content flows from the broadcasters and deep-pocketed producers, armed with more money to promote their awareness and value, what is left for the niche on-line content creators to do. Add to this scenario that advertising dollars have dried up, can this fragmentation of content survive for long?

The answer is no. Some of these long tail content creators will be bought by the big fish. Others will lose their VC dollars and withdraw. Fragmentation only inevitably leads back to segmentation. Let history be your guide to predicting this future. In too many instances, the many turn into the few. Just look at the cable operator as one example. Less than 15 years ago, there were many cable operators across the country; but size does matter and cost efficiencies mean that you must get larger and let economies of scale improve your cost efficiencies. Today, the cable industry is perceived more as an oligopoly, a few powerful cable operators cover the entire country. The same holds true with programming. Where there were once many independent networks existed, acquisition and merger have led to most cable networks represented by few companies.

And so the long tail cannot remain viable; it must either combine with other content providers to gain bigger share or it will simply become too costly to maintain. VC money can only go so far and at some point they will demand a return on their investment. How soon will this happen? It seems that the pace has quicken and it wouldn't surprise me to see major changes within 5 years. Regardless of the time frame, it is going to happen.

Kindle 2.0 Has Arrived

Amazon announced today that the next generation of Kindle is ready for release and will be available by the end of the month. And like the Model T before it, it still comes in only one color, white. Still, it seems to have improved in speed, functionality, design, and storage. And while it its price point hasn't changed, it may still be priced high for assuring that supply meets demand. At about $360 for the device, and a poor economy, does the consumer see it as another hi tech toy or as something more. Is there enough content to satisfy this niche of a reader? Unlike the iPod, I don't see anyone using one on the train when I commute into the city. Will this next generation model be the replacement to print or is there something else on the horizon?

And why isn't Apple pursuing this segment. They have the infrastructure in place and it could complement the iPod and iPhone line of products. Yet Apple is absent in this space while Amazon is making inroads in Apple's video and audio online business. How fast will this new Kindle sell out and will the consumer embrace it? Will know soon enough, the Kindle is in pre-order now.

Power to the :30

Maybe the 30 second commercial isn't so bad after all. As advertising budgets shrink and scale and measurement matter, media buyers have grown disenchanted with the long tail on the web and banner ads that don't get clicked. Interactivity remains the buzzword, and the :30 may just have the power to not only inform the viewer about its brand but to allow them to engage and interact with the product as well. "For example, at Cablevision we’ve developed the Power: 30 (SM), which uses the 30-second unit as the entry point into video on demand (VOD) and interactive television (ITV) channels dedicated to a specific advertiser, and provides marketers and agencies with addressable advertising and telescoping functionality." It certainly appears that this interactivity provides added value. It allows the consumer to take their interest to the next level and explore the ad message in more detail.

As a viewer, the biggest challenge remains switching from the linear content, where you have invested your time to watch a show, to view this advertising content. Whether it would be possible to "bookmark" this message for later interaction could provide even more value as well as consumer friendliness. I may be willing to watch a Disney Park message, but let me wait till after Lost ends. The web enables multiple screens to open and allows me to review my history and my favorites; the TV screen is less flexible at the moment.

Interactivity with ads through the television screen seems the next frontier to conquer. How quickly the consumer embraces this new accessibility and interaction determines its viability. The added value that interactivity brings to a :30 spot should intrigue advertisers trying to measure interest and action. TV is no longer a passive screen and cable has the ability to enable and foster this interactivity. The timing might just be right.

Wall Street Journal To New York Times, Subscription Model Does Work

According to Rupert Murdoch, there is still a subscription business, and the New York Times should follow the Wall Street Journal's lead and put its content inside a gated wall. If the old adage is true, you get what you pay for, free content only gets you so much; the good stuff has more value and should be purchased. And while the NYT generated more advertising revenue than WSJ, The added subscription stream that WSJ gets boosted their total revenue above the NYT. As the NYT is facing financial problems, following the WSJ playbook may just be a viable solution for them.

"We've already noted that the Wall Street Journal has half as much traffic as the New York Times, despite having an $80/year pay wall. Why? Because the WSJ implemented its subscription fee brilliantly: WSJ.com offers some content for free, and the whole site is still fully searchable by Google. Readers can access pieces of Wall Street Journal content for free all across the Internet. They can also access some free stuff on WSJ.com. If they want to read the Wall Street Journal, though, they need to pony up, and about 1 million of them do."

Those subscribers of the Wall Street Journal recognize the unique content that comes from its pages. And today, a million online customers seem to agree. The print edition will someday go away; but these customers are already being introduced to subscribing to a digital version; brand preference and value is being maintained as distribution models change. Perhaps the NYT should heed Murdoch's message.

House Passes Bill Pushing DTV Transition Date To June 12

Forget February 17. It never happened. The Digital Apocalypse was averted, for now; actually, for 4 months. Congress finally agreed to extending the date and now their is time to further educate, send out more DTV coupons, answer the questions, and reduce the confusion.

"Some stations have already indicated they are sticking with the Feb. 17 date. The FCC said it had heard from 276 stations to that effect, in addition to 143 stations that had already pulled the plug, and another 60 that said they planned to do so before Feb. 17. The FCC had pointed out that some of those 276 may change their minds once the date changed."

It's kinda like the band aid analogy - should we pull it off quickly and take the pain at once, or should we pull it off slowly to minimize the hurt and reduce the pain. As the pain may have proved too much for a portion of the country, this extension should help to ease the pain.

Study: Ads make watching TV more pleasurable

It's not that viewers like commercials, we just have a better experience when they are included in our shows. This unbiased study, according to the article, does not jibe with current habits. Was it taken during the Super Bowl? For me, that is the one time a year where the commercials are their most entertaining and buzzworthy. All other times, viewers are avoiding commercials like the plague, using their DVRs more than ever as well as VOD. In fact, I have found that the same shows on VOD have far less commercial intrusions than on live TV. This study needs more analysis to determine its validity.

"So if the findings are accurate, why don't people recognize that ads make TV more fun? The study authors have a few ideas, but no firm answers. One is that people don't study themselves -- you don't watch one show with ads, then the same show without ads, and compare the experience. Another aspect is that the ads act a point of contrast -- compared to the commercials, the programs showed study participants can seem more entertaining. And finally, the effect isn't universal -- sometimes ads do not make TV more enjoyable (for instance, if the tone of the ad completely clashes with the tone of the show), and those instances can skew viewers' impressions of ads in general."

The Super Bowl demonstrates that creativity can make ads enjoyable. Too much repetition can kill them. And too many ads between shows can break down the whole ad model.

Charter Cable Close to Bankruptcy

Cable operator, Charter Communications is inching closer to bankruptcy. The fourth largest cable company missed their debt payment and the buzz is that a bankruptcy filing is imminent. The next question is even more uncertain, is this a reorganization under Chapter 11 or a liquidation under Chapter 7. What would the other cable companies prefer to occur; that is, which is easier for them to pick up their pieces. Clearly Time Warner and Comcast are most likely to go after their systems, with Cablevision possibly looking at their Connecticut property.

The cable industry has grown up very quickly, from many operators covering the US to just a handful managing larger and larger regions. And where cable was once the only real game to many networks and clearer signals, the rise of satellite and telco into the competitive fray, and the push from IP programming through broadband bringing more competition, cable is at a new crossroads. With one less big player in the hunt, the need for more cost efficiencies by cable operators will be even more important. Charter may soon be gone, but what hurt them could be hurting the other cable players, too.

Netflix verse Cable Television

It seems the high cost of cable television, combined with a recessionary economy, is the perfect recipe for innovation. Netflix has seen the future and recognizes that the DVD may support the business model today but must adapt as viewership patterns change. Streaming content provides the immediacy that DVD mail delivery cannot match. That domain has been where cable and satellite and now telcos have found their revenue growth. But the higher costs for HBO and Showtime, as well as for VOD buys may have finally opened up an opportunity for Netflix to expand into cable territory.

The article suggests that "Netflix be prepping a deal with HBO? The $9.99/month price tag sounds about right -- cable companies typically charge around $12-$13 a month for HBO service. Or could this be preparation for a deal between Netflix and the upcoming Viacom-MGM-Lions Gate 'Epix' Network, with Netflix asking its customers about "HBO" because Epix has no brand awareness yet?" I don't believe HBO would make this deal with Netflix and hurt their relationships with cable. HBO is currently owned by Time Warner, a major cable player. It seems much more likely that this partnership best serves Epix. Cable is crowded with HBO, Showtime, Starz, and Encore and all their multiplexed services competing for eyeballs. It may be too crowded for Epix to jump in this pool and make an impact. It makes far more sense for Epix to partner with Netflix to stream over their devices. That would be great news for Roku , Blu-ray, Tivo, X-box, and other devices that receive Netflix streams. And at a lower price point, cable subscribers unhappy with these current relationships may simply downgrade to not only save money but get a potentially larger volume of movies to choose.

Cable must begin to see Netflix as a real competitive threat. One that can be overcome, but requiring cable to rethink its set top box.

I Have President Obama's E-Mail Address

For those lucky few that have his e-mail address and have access to his ear, or better yet, his blackberry, are truly in his inner circle. It is simply excited to know that this President is more connected to the real world and the opportunities of social networking. While i doubt he has time to twitter or Facebook, President Obama clearly has a grasp on communicating. His blackberry obsession proves the need to remain "connected" and the importance of relationships. Do I have his e-mail address, no, but I am thrilled to know that he is part of this generation and embraces technology.