The Future Is Cable Not Broadcast

More cuts at WNBC as its movie critic Jeffrey Lyons is following Len Berman out the door. In fact the focus is no longer news as their Live At 5 news program may be replaced with general entertainment, low cost programming. "Rumors are currently swirling at WNBC-4, NBC's flagship station in New York, that executives at NBC Universal are considering the creation of a daily 5 p.m. lifestyle show that could debut on affiliate stations around the country as early as the fall of 2009."

At some point, news will leave the broadcast air and be exclusively on cable, whether national with CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or regional with News 12, NY1, and NBC Nonstop. Perhaps soon we will rely on the local High School to supply cable with a local news program too.

Broadcast is passe and cable is where the money is. Recently, Jeff Zucker has commented that they would be very interested in acquiring more cable networks. The future is cable and the web and that is how broadcasters will make up lost broadcast revenue dollars. Research shows that the next generation of TVs will have direct internet access. "Worldwide shipments of consumer-electronics devices capable of supporting Internet video are projected to rise by nearly a factor of five from 2009 to 2013, according to research firm iSuppli." If that is the case, cable companies as well as cable programmers should be concerned that subscriber revenue will fall as consumers stop buying cable to get programming on their TV. Will consumers accept broadband rates to double to offset that lost revenue; probably not likely. And that will lead to another quantum technological leap as another new distribution choice will likely emerge.

Time Warner to split off AOL

The great merger of 2001 failed. AOL bought Time Warner, withered and is now being separated from the content company. Synergy did not work! It seems that content and distribution just doesn't go together very well. First Time Warner separates from its cable distribution side and now its portal side. Perhaps as a stand alone business, AOL has more flexibility to reshape itself and succeed.

AOL's future success is in the content it creates, it's email and build other products and services. The business of dial up has been lost as broadband connections from telco and cable have become the primary means to access the web. Can AOL survive on their own? I wish them well.

Where's The Beef, NBC

I want my...I want my NBC (no, not MTV), but you get my drift. What has happened to one of my favorite networks. I was a huge fan of so many NBC shows, Cosby, Friends, Seinfeld, Hill Street Blues, LA Law, St. Elsewhere, Cheers, the list goes on and on...until now. It's primetime programming is in a shambles. The Must See TV Thursdays franchise is long gone, and cost decisions are now more important than creative ones. And so, "NBC set a low-water mark of historic proportions for TV viewership last week" according to Nielsen.

It's most valuable property today is the NFL on Sunday nights. And NBC is riding its weekday future on The Jay Leno Show, Monday through Friday at 10 pm. You can blame cable, you can blame the internet, but perhaps the harder truth is that NBC has no one to blame but themselves. Instead of creativity we get old shows in new clothes - Knight Rider and Bionic Women. And where are they now - off the air very quickly! We get shows that are past their prime and we get reality shows that are simply inane like I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!

The solution is clear; cost management does not make a successful show. Creativity, quality, promotion, strong writing and talent are missing. Without them, all you get are shows that highlight what was once great with TV. And why NBC is left to airing shows on the 50 Most Memorable TV Lines, highlighting other networks great TV shows. You need scripted shows to make great lines and build viewer buzz. It's time for a turnaround NBC.

Cable Industry Weighs Its Approach to Targeted Ads

Many, many years ago, 23 years to be exact, I sold local cable advertising up in Boston. At that time, we sold local ads into 4 national cable networks and (CNN, USA, MTV, and ESPN) and 2 regional sports networks (Sportschannel and NESN). At that time, our pitch was simple, cheap TV advertising into targeted markets. Where radio and print went everywhere in the region, we could target the ad by headend into the markets that mattered. You wanted Boston but not Peabody, MA; done. Ratings were small so repetition was essential. And CPMs were low! We provided an opportunity for the local business to advertise inexpensively on TV, something they couldn't afford to do on broadcast TV. Our leads came from radio and the telephone book. My have times changed.

Today, cable competes for ad dollars with broadcast TV and buys are regional not local. The local business person can no longer afford cable for its message and has gone to the web to advertise. And so cable has found a way to offer that same targeted message today, not just by zip code, but by other demographic variables as well. Will that make cable affordable again to the little guy; probably not. But that is not who cable is targeting. Not anymore.

Cable's local ad audience is actually becoming national! Allowing national ad buyers to effectively target audience demographics across the cable audience. Not just by market, but through a partnership of all the big cable companies: Comcast, Time Warner, Cablevision, etc. Cable wants to take dollars away from the national cable network buy because it can more effectively target its reach and effectiveness. And for cable companies, national advertisers are where the real dollars can be found. Cable programmers never intended their local advertising inventory to be used against them, but that seems to be the case.

And the customer that local cable companies originally sought; they probably can no longer afford to buy cable ads today. They may have more luck going back to their local broadcast network and radio. That is the changing landscape of cable advertising.

Twitter, Brillstein develop TV series

Do you Twitter? Do you enjoy reading other people's Tweets? Do you like reality shows, especially ones featuring C and D list celebrities? Then do I have a show for you. "The San Francisco-based web phenom has partnered with Reveille and Brillstein Entertainment to develop an unscripted TV skein described as 'putting ordinary people on the trail of celebrities in a revolutionary competitive format.'" Me...I'm watching something else!

When I was younger, I learned of a game called celebrity tag. The goal, to find celebrities out in public and quietly touch them while saying tag. Simple and stupid. Unfortunately, the last thing on my mind when I met a celebrity was to say tag; rather, I was happy enough to simply say hi. So to hire people to chase stars, knowingly or unknowingly, seems equally as inane. It's hunting celebrities which just doesn't seem right. I don't expect this show to last. If this is what TV is coming to, perhaps it is time to go back to radio!

Lastly, how will Twitter make money. Today's WSJ article asks the same question. I am not a firm believer of Twitter either, although I like it within the social networking structure of Facebook. How many Tweets can you follow before it becomes mind numbing. And that said, how many "friends" can you have before you can't keep track of any of them. Just asking.

As TV Dwindles, It Still Leads

TV is not dead yet. It kinda reminds me of the Monty Python film where the townspeople are encouraged to "bring out your dead". Of course the ones they bring out aren't quite dead yet. "In fact, I'm feeling better." Yet they can't wait for the actual death, so the collectors help to facilitate it in order to expedite the process of collecting and move on. Such is the case for TV viewing.

In fact, TV is not dead but in fact still thriving. And marketers continue to use TV in their advertising budget. The rise of the web won't kill TV, as TV didn't kill radio, or DVDs kill the movie house business. "Think network television is washed up, overwhelmed by targeted and measurable ads on the Web? How is it that Apple, a tech company, and by the way, probably the most talented marketing company on the planet, is all over network television right now? And remember the movie industry is having a big year with big movies, using, yes, network television to drive people into theaters."

Should advertisers worry about DVRs and Tivo killing the ad business. No. Creative promotion, limited breaks, sponsorships, and product placement can all be used successfully to beat the fast forward button. TV is still the most watched device and advertisements can still be effective. Don't kill TV off just yet.

Satellite, Telcos In 'TV Everywhere' Camp

How do you control online video content, only give it to those customers that have bought it; otherwise, more consumers will drop their cable subscription and watch everything through the web. "The idea: to reinforce the value of paying for television service, by serving up TV episodes or even live programming, to customers' PCs or other Internet devices simply by providing a user name and password." Is this done to eke out additional dollars or to simply reinforce value to those already paying for the brand on cable. And it preserves the cable model.

"Programmers, however, have expressed a preference to deliver Internet TV content via their own, or affiliated, sites." any interest quote but I am not sure it is true. Cable risks losing subscription revenue when they make it free to consumers on the web. And if programmers believe they can charge for access to their website, they may be mistaken. Consumers really don't want an a la carte experience, paying for content on each site they visit. Cable's packaging philosophy has enabled consumers to get access to channels they might never have the chance to find and view on their own. And helps to disperse the costs across a larger number, thereby reducing the cost per sub amount while increasing the value proposition.

Ultimately, the consumer wants the flexibility and convenience to decide what, when and where they want to watch content; push it to the PC, the big screen or even the mobile. And we prefer to only pay once for the content as we believe we should control where we watch it and not have to pay multiple times for different devices. Will the world end up this way; it certainly keeps changing.

Oprah Likes Skype and I Do Too

When Oprah says jump, we seem to jump. She picks a book, we read it; she pushes a new tech device, we get it too. Now I don't tend to be an Oprah follower. I didn't get a Kindle just because she mentioned it, but I like it's potential. And now she is pushing Skype and I have to agree. "Thursday’s episode of the show (taped earlier this month) is entirely dedicated to Skype, eBay’s soon-to-be-spun-off Internet communications service."

We specifically got Skype because my wife's parents wanted to see their grandkids and living on opposite ends of the coast, a weekend visit isn't so easy. Skype enables a face to face visit without the airport wait. Not only did it connect us to one set of grandparents, we quickly learned that the other set as well as one of my nephews had started using Skype as well. And my kids love the chance to see their family!

Here is the best news; the only cost was the video camera. Everything else is free. How does Skype make any money, I have no idea. I don't see ads and I haven't been inundated with email spam from them. If they are measured by registered users, Skype is doing quite well and this endorsement from Oprah will only increase their base. How they financially survive is anyone's guess.

Nielsen: Almost 99 Percent of Video Watched on a TV Screen

With so much talk about online video and its threat to broadcast and cable, it seems to be overblown. TV usage is at an all time high while online video watching represents a mere 1% of total viewership. That translates to over 153 hours of TV a month versus 3 hours of internet viewing. "DVR use is becoming more mainstay as well, with the number of time-shifted hours watched jumping 40 percent from the same time last year to more than eight hours per month." Consumer preference continues to be to watch their shows on their big screen TV.

And while there is no short term need to worry about TV consumption for the cable industry, there should still be a concern about the trend.From Q4 '08 to Q1 '09, TV consumption grew less than 2% while internet viewing grew by a whopping 53.2% That growth should tell Hulu, Joost, and other online video distributors that their platform is growing rapidly. "Nielsen stats have come under fire recently in both the old and newteevee worlds. Online, Hulu expressed frustration over its audience numbers, and TV networks are increasingly critical over whether their ratings are accurate. However, these latest stats reaffirm previous studies touting TV’s strength."

News Sharing: One For All, All For One?

Does it matter which channel you watch for your local news? You may find they are sharing more and more. As ad dollars soften, costs get cut and networks have found a number of ways to improve the bottom line. One avenue is to share services. Networks are now using the same helicopter to report traffic conditions on the roads. Here in New York, the channel 9 sports anchor also delivers sports for channel 5. In addition, networks are sharing cameras to cover major events. "Fox-owned KSAZ, Scripps' KNXV (ABC) and Meredith's KPHO (CBS) relied on their recently formed newsgathering partnership to supply footage of the president's arrival and his motorcade through the city." And lastly cheaper talent is being used to report the news as big salaries can no longer be carried.

"With newsroom budgets under pressure like never before, TV stations in a growing number of markets are suppressing their competitive instincts and forming news co-ops to capture and share video of public meetings, press conferences and other routine events." How far can this go? One network may supply the same news show for two different channels, one at 10 p on one net and again on 11p on another channel. It seems to be the way we are headed.

Advertisers get demanding as TV networks try to be creative

Ad spending is declining and content companies are looking for creative ways to get their biggest slice of the ad buy. The "big fish" networks with their hands in many platforms may have to build ad packages that are more than just linear schedules. "Collaboration has become key to sales, with more advertisers demanding that networks work with them to create innovative campaigns weaving brands into shows and across platforms." That means in program, VOD, web, and mobile. Product placement, sponsorship, sweepstakes, interactive participation, sampling, and social networking. The simple ad buy can no longer be simple.

And the big networks, with their fingers in broadcast and cable, video web portals, mobile websites, etc. may have to reach across their businesses to synergize the complete solution for their advertiser. For Fox, that might mean building a campaign that includes Fox Network, Fox News and Fox Business Channel, VOD, My Space, and even Hulu. And in the case of Hulu, does that become problematic in determining what part of the buy is Hulu's, especially when sharing the revenue with NBC and soon to be Disney. And doesn't an integrated, multi-platform buy mean cost savings for the advertiser. How much is the Hulu share discounted as a percentage of the total ad buy.

"Companies also want to know more about viewers than just how many there are and their basic demographics. They want to know who is paying attention to the commercials, and whether those ads compel them to actually make a purchase." Online and VOD data can provide far more accurate data on the viewer than linear. Tivo can get more info on time shifted usage. Big brother may simply be the advertising companies knowing more about how we consume the content we view.

Facebook Is The Go To Site For Everything

Social Networking has become the predominant way to communicate with our friends. We write emails through our Facebook account, share photos, exchange news items, and discuss our opinions. And as video chatting and skyping have gotten more popular, why not add it to the social networking mix. Well it seems Facebook is soon to come out with such an app. Now while I currently have Skype for the grandparents to talk to the grandkids, why not simplify it and chat inside Facebook. It would be convenient to have the option to video chat online with a "friend". And certainly, the price is right.

But maybe you don't want to chat when your on Facebook. Sometimes you want to simply be an observer, reading other people's comments but not communicate directly with them. And sometime when a chat screen appears, you don't know whether to answer or ignore it. Would that be rude. Will people start to list themselves as "invisible" so they can troll their account without anyone knowing they are online.

But be careful what you do or say in front of your videocam, the on-air light might just be on!

New York Times Considers Two Plans to Charge for Content on the Web

Can The New York Times put the cat back into the bag; that is, start charging for what was once given away free. Clearly we have been used to as consumers in getting free samples but will consumers be willing to start buying. Unlike The Wall Street Journal which has been charging a subscription fee from the start, it also has been the number one source for business news. Their unique value and brand appeal has enabled them to charge a premium to read their content. The New York Times, on the other hand, has no one specialty; some like their Business news, others their Sports, and other their Style and Editorial features. Can that broadness help or hurt them changing their business model. Will their readers stay with them and pay or go elsewhere for the news. And can the NYT keep their writers, like Mossberg and Pogue, from sharing their content outside the walled garden they might set up.

In order for The New York Times to survive, it's content can't remain free. Putting it into a subscription model of some sort will do one of two things. At the worse scenario, it drives people away from a NYT subscription and website quicker and kills brand loyalty and at the best scenario, provides web subscription to current print subscribers and incremental revenue for digital subscribers. Advertising will either decline or grow depending on what consumers choose. The New York Times provides a definitive point of view embraced both inside the tri-state and around the country. Financially, the only chance they have to future survival is a revenue model from subscription and advertising. Requiring subscription to web content might lower eyeballs in the short run but should ultimately pay off with subscription and more usage in the long run.

Verizon Selling Some Phone Markets

Verizon took a bold move this week, selling 4.8 million phone lines in 14 states to Frontier Communications. It gives Verizon a piece of Frontier's business, but more importantly, indicates that Verizon is concentrating instead on larger communities where it can replace copper lines for fiber and offer their FIOS product. Small, rural markets are best served by others. In addition, it allows more focus on wireless, especially as consumers shun their hard wired phone for cellular. "The local phone business, in fact, has been contracting quickly as customers shift to phone service offered by cable companies or simply to using their cellphones. Verizon, which will have 30.3 million phone lines left after the deal, lost 10.2 percent of its lines last year in the regions it is selling."

As capital is tighter than ever, and cost management means doing more with less, Verizon is better served concentrating on FIOS and wireless businesses where larger growth is more likely. Consumers are demanding a broadband connection and the costs to rebuild these smaller markets is high. The future for Verizon is their FIOS and cellular operations providing consumers and businesses multiple products: cable, broadband, IP phone, and cellular.

DVD Tops for Entertainment; Online Delivery Small But Growing

Consumers are still buying DVD's, but streaming usage is growing. And " even digital downloaders have not abandoned those shiny little discs. Eight out of 10 who downloaded movies also said they bought or rented a DVD," which indicates that physical media is not going away. For me though, the huge library of content online and easily accessible, makes me less inclined to have to own content. That rent or own philosophy seems to dictate my decision.

With the ease of VOD to watch on TV, and the lower cost to view, why purchase a DVD that has no long term interest to me. Those rare exceptions seem to be children's movies, including many Disney and Pixar titles, that get repeat viewing in my household. Other films, like the Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire, was great to watch on VOD; but having watched once, I find no need watch again. Still renting or streaming a film first lets me decide whether I want to make a bigger commitment to purchase.

How will I feel once I own an HDTV and will I feel the need to buy a blu-ray player and own blu-ray DVDs; I just don't know. Will HD keep the DVD the predominate choice? It may slow down the trend to streaming, but it won't stop it.

While Netflix enjoys a healthy relationship of DVD media with its customers, the customer still treats those disks as rentals not purchases. Blockbuster and other video stores are expanding their offerings to gaming disks and other non-film product to increase their revenue streams. Will customers want to own the physical asset? That media must change and get smaller and easier to manipulate. Whether saved on thumb drives or other smaller transportable device, the current DVD must give way to these new media choices, just as the LP gave way to the cassette, the VHS to the DVD. We want more content packaged into smaller boxes. Customers will still buy; how they receive the content is what keeps changing.

Cablevision: MSG Is Not For Sale

Clarification from the Cablevision camp that should a spin off of MSG occur, it would not be for the purpose of selling the properties, merely to put more shareholder value back into the hands of Cablevision stock owners. And the Dolans would continue to retain majority ownership. "The MSG unit includes the Madison Square Garden arena; the MSG and MSG Plus regional sports channels; sports teams the New York Knicks, New York Rangers and New York Liberty; Radio City Music Hall; the Chicago Theater; the Beacon Theater and cable music channel Fuse."

While I did not personally read anything that stated possible selling of MSG, I did read about speculation of possible selling of the Long Island cable system and Rainbow programming unit with Time Warner and Comcast the most likely buyers. Keeping speculation low only drives up the intrigue value. Who knows what will or won't happen. The likely scenario continues to be no change.

Cablevision to Explore Madison Square Garden Spinoff

Will Cablevision spin off their Madison Square Garden businesses, including MSG, Knicks, and fuse? If you have heard about spin offs in the past, you aren't dreaming. This kind of speculation has been around for many many years. The closest they came was a tracking stock for Rainbow about a decade ago, but that was eventually re-ingested back into Cablevision.

For the public record, I once worked for Cablevision but have absolutely no inside information what they are planning to do. Still, if history is any guide, this speculation seems to be a regular occurrence and always seems to have the effect of raising the stock price. While Cablevision has recently been a buyer, having bought both Sundance and Newsday in the last year, the last time they sold something was when they sold Bravo in late 2002 to NBC.

A separation of companies has always been seen as a positive way to unlock the value of the assets. Others have speculated that it's Chairman is more interested in sports and music, than the cable business. Splitting the businesses would make it easier to get a truer market price on the cable side too with the opportunity to sell those assets to another cable company. Time Warner has always been desirous of owning the jewel of the NYC DMA, Long Island, which Cablevision runs. Cablevision continues to avoid further comment.

Will this be the time that Cablevision actually pulls the trigger on an asset spinoff? If history is a guide, don't hold your breath. It may simply be a means of pushing the stock price higher on news but not action. Still, anything is possible.

Amazon Introduces Big-Screen Kindle

It's bigger, but is it better. It's more expensive, but is it better. It's still just a black and white screen, but is it better. The answer is hard to say. And will it save or destroy the print business, that is the $100,000 question.

One thing is clear, it does not seem to be advantageous to the newspaper industry, especially as Amazon seems to take the majority of the revenue for being the distributor of the content. "Amazon does not release financial details about its relationships with newspapers, but newspaper executives say Amazon keeps 70 percent of the revenue — an arrangement the papers have been unhappy with." In fact, the newspapers are not going out of their way to strike deals to encourage Kindle's use over their current distribution and only have deals "for people who live in areas where their paper editions are not available."

Odd that the content creators are at the mercy of the distributor? Not really, but not necessarily the only solution. Just as the broadcast networks have created a digital joint partnership called Hulu to distribute online content, the newspaper companies should consider a similar solution for their digital distribution. Build a joint venture tied to your own device or work with Intel or Apple and create your own broadband service to download content. Retain a much larger percentage of the profits and reduce your printing and distribution overhead at the same time.

With The Rough TV Economy, What On-Air Talent Will Be Cut Next?

Local broadcasters are cutting costs in the wrong places, cutting talent, their faces for their news content. Here in New York, Len Berman, a fixture in sports, was hit; in Boston, Bob Lobel, another sports announcer also let go. Across the country, anchors and reporters, like Rob Morrisson on WNBC, have been laid off left and right. Frankly, their replacements, most likely cheaper, are less appealing too. To the point that a change in talent could lead me and perhaps others to a change in where we get our local news. "But TV executives say they have no choice. Gone are the days of 50% profit margins, replaced by 20% declines in the advertising revenues that support those shows."

What is even more surprising about this cost cutting is that it actually does a disservice to the local network, especially as the need to compete with other outlets. WNBC has created a local digital hyper channel called New York Nonstop to compete with Time Warner's News 1, Cablevision's News 12, as well as the national news networks. Wouldn't a show by Len Berman on their digital network add greater credibility and value to this new brand while supporting WNBC at the same time. These local broadcasters are the faces of their content and have a built in audience. Replacing them with generic news readers does little to support the local network and even less to help build up a brand new digital network. Unfortunately "some executives have long viewed talent as interchangeable parts." This short term cost cutting will have larger negative long term effects. Viewers will simply shift viewing habits faster as they become less partial to your new roster of mediocre talent.

Yes, cost is a factor and advertising revenues are down. Perhaps we have gotten too use to obscene profits and need to adjust our mindset to a new world. Yes businesses need to remain profitable but get back to more reasonable expectations. Cutting off your nose to spite your face will definitely cause more harm than good.

Microsoft Must Buy Twitter - Maybe Not!

The article suggests a number of reasons why Microsoft should buy Twitter with the most pressing being that it has changed how people share information. In a different article, another author suggests why Apple won't buy Twitter. I don't think anyone should buy Twitter.

While I currently have a Twitter account and sometimes Twitter, I post identical info on Facebook, Others have applications that let them simultaneously post across all social networks. And that is my issue, duplication. For me, Facebook is the more preferable place to post and share links, photos, information, etc. The real question should be, who will buy Facebook. I believe Facebook has more revenue opportunities ahead of it than Twitter ever will. Thoughts.

Canoe Shouldn't Recreate The Web; It Should Utilize It

Interesting argument in this article by Diffusion Group analyst Colin Dixon who thinks that the Cable Operators, through Canoe Ventures, are going at it the wrong way. He suggests that they are not building a better mouse trap than the web and should instead work with the web's successful structure. "Canoe’s products — voting, e-commerce, interactive ads — would be simpler and better if delivered via a web browser, he writes."

Intuitively, it makes more sense to build an application for TV that integrates with other apps on the web. Consumers have gotten increasingly more comfortable with web-based apps and are incorporating them in the above list (voting, e-commerce, et al) as well as social networking like Twitter and Facebook on their pc and mobile devices.

If the cable set top device doesn't interact well with these applications and instead tries to run in its own vacuum, it may be that the viewer will shun the set top all together for web based entertainment. Or rely on other boxes like Roku or PS3 to bring video to the TV. That is all ready slowly happening as younger audiences are not buying cable subscription and using the web for their video entertainment.

Looking to Big-Screen E-Readers to Help Save the Daily Press

Technology may be partly to blame for newspaper subscriptions declining, but it can also be its salvation. As Kindle and others make electronic reading possible, downloads replace paper boys and kiosks.

Half the battle is controlling the flow of content. Content has value and as the Wall Street Journal has already proved, it deserves a subscription fee. The breadth and quality of the content can no longer be free for all. Advertising alone does not pay for all its cost. And the first step is for newspapers and magazines to rein in their content and control what they release. "The move by newspapers and magazines to make their material freely available on the Web is now viewed by many as a critical blunder that encouraged readers to stop paying for the print versions." The WSJ teases non-subscribers with bits of the article and reminds them that "membership has its privileges."

The other half of the battle is the electronic device. Today's Kindle and Sony E-Reader, with their small screen and black and white e-ink, are not good enough to provide readers with the full aesthetic. An Apple iPhone with its smaller screen is no better. It will be the next generation device that offers the right size, weight, and functionality, that will win out. Many view Apple as most likely to deliver first. "Such a device, with a screen that is said to be about three or four times as large as the iPhone’s, would have an LCD screen capable of showing rich color and video, and people could use it to browse the Web."

Will this save the print business in time? It feels a little bit like the chicken and egg; cutting off access to content and releasing more readers. The timing of each matters greatly in the hunt for eyeballs. I am eager for that new type of reader at a reasonable price point to pave the way. Look at what the iPod did for music and it seems the same is possible for print.

What Disney-Hulu Means for Apple

Should Apple be more worried now that Disney is joining forces with Hulu. I don't think so. Each follows a very different business model. For Hulu, it is all about advertising; For Apple, it is all about transaction of commercially free content. Advertisers tend to be concerned about ratings of content and less likely to associate itself with content of questionable taste - whether that means language, nudity, or just subject matter. In the transaction based model, the consumer decides what is appropriate by what he or she decides to spend their money on. And while some age-based issues may exist, content appeal impacts the transactional return. Too very different models, two very different choices.

Of course the other player is You Tube, the leader of user generated content. For me, they too serve a different model than Hulu. You Tube is a great place to find clips; Hulu is for full length shows. They could in fact be seen as complementary. It could be possible that You Tube and Hulu could enter into an agreement where interest in a clip on You Tube could lead to a link to Hulu to watch the entire show. They same scenario would hold true for TV.com as well.

The most interesting assessment is this, "Never mind that Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder. Hulu's pact with Disney serves as a reminder that if Jobs & Co. wants to make the splash in online video they appear poised to make, Apple needs to act fast."

New Disney-Hulu deal leaves CBS as the lone major network holdout

Good for CBS and their web portal TV.com, I wish you much success. I am of the belief that consumers will find good content. Your promotional efforts and the quality of your videos will drive people to your site. If they are looking for new shows like NCIS, How I Met Your Mother, or CSI, or older shows like Star Trek and Hart to Hart, TV.com will be the place. It is still early in the game and Hulu isn't the only player. Build the library and promote the titles; add social networking, fan polls, contests, and other value added pieces and make TV.com a must bookmark place to be.

On the business side, it also makes sense to stay independent and not join Hulu. How many content partnerships work. After some time, one partner gets bored with the other and the infighting begins. You've had partnerships with NBC before; are you ready for another one? It makes more sense to own 100% of the online business than 25-32% of it. Control your destiny, control the future.

No disrespect to Hulu; they are terrific with great content from NBC, Fox, and now Disney. But will the FCC have an issue with monopolistic type entity. TV.com can be as powerful a brand as any other. Why share it with others. And owning content enables you to build exclusivity around where it can be viewed. That is the power of CBS' video library and why they can stay independent.