Do You Remember the Film Short

I still remember the days when movie houses ran films continuously. You came whenever and watched till you got back to the point you came in. Sometimes there were double features and almost always there were shorts between the feature films. The popularity of these shorts have not gone unnoticed; Pixar likes to put a short in front of each of its animated films. And Turner Classic Movies uses them like those good old days as filler to get the feature to start at the top of the hour.

I bring this up, not just to reminisce, but to recognize that history does in fact repeat itself. These shorts were loaded with B talent; actors not always popular enough to make the big movie. And yet some of these actors become famous because of these shorts. Movie shorts included newsreels, featurettes, documentaries, comedies... Today, these shorts still exist; no longer popular on the big screen, but able to find a home on the small one. Not the TV, but the computer.

From Crackle: Star-ving Ep 1 feat Ed O’Neill & David Faustino

I speak of professionally produced scripted shorts found on a number of websites including Crackle, My Damn Channel, and others. Two of my new favorites are Star-ving with David Faustino and Corin Nemec and Wainy Days with David Wain.

While not fronting a big film, they are today's version of what the early short once was, B actors finding a way to showcase their talent. And this short form entertainment remains amusing and fun to watch. The biggest difference between then and now is that today's shorts include advertising while no advertising tended to appear with shorts in the theatre.

Still, the art of the short is not new to the web; it has been around for a long, long time. It is simply appearing on a different screen. I still like the old black and white shorts on TCM and I like discovering new shorts on the PC. They all bring an entertainment value to be enjoyed for quite a while.

Network DVR Closer to Reality

Cablevision's idea to move the DVR to the headend appears to gain some weight as the Supreme Court has rejected arguments by studios and content creators. "The media companies have argued that the use of network DVR, where the programs are stored on the cable company’s servers—in the cloud, as today’s lingo would call it—and “streamed” on demand when users request/record it, violates copyright laws" But is there really a difference between saving shows remotely or saving them on a centralized server. Probably not. My biggest concern is that the current DVRs used by cable companies offer a limited search and playback experience.

Unlike Tivo, their functionality and design are clunky. What's to change even though the programs are saved centrally. Ultimately, it is the software and viewer experience that will determine success. And perhaps it offers Tivo a valuable opportunity to offer its expertise to Cablevision to create a better user experience.

Or will the DVR become an outdated, obsolete product. Once content is available online for distribution across any platform, will the concept simply go away. Why copy for later when it is always available, always on-demand.

US TV prepares for $2bn ad shortfall

How bad will the economy be to TV ad revenue, both broadcast and cable, over the next few years; how about 2 billion dollars in the red. "The Global Media Intelligence report by Screen Digest, the media research firm, says some of the decline will be clawed back by US TV networks by online video advertising, which it expects to triple during the next four years...Screen Digest forecasts US broadcast and cable advertising revenues will fall from $69bn in 2008 to $67bn by 2013." That seems like an awfully big number to absorb. And its affect will certainly continue to hurt the job market and the economy at large over this time period. Online video advertising growth may offset this figure, but it is hard to expect it to have a substantial impact. Some may argue otherwise, but until advertisers feel comfortable with the research and measurable results, that growth may remain stalled.

Hulu, TV.com Getting Higher Ad Rates Than Their Network Counterparts

With less clutter, no fast forwarding, and a closer, more attentive viewing experience on the personal computer, it makes absolute perfect sense that sites like Hulu and TV.com are able to ask for higher CPMs. "Running an ad during The Simpsons on Hulu, for example, costs about $60/CPM, Bloomberg reports; running the same ad during prime-time on TV costs about $20-$40/CPM—or over 60 percent less in some cases." But is it really more profitable?

The challenge facing content creators, broadcast networks and cable especially, is embracing this new distribution path without losing an important revenue stream, cable subscription revenue. Authentication help to maintain a multi-platform customer, but not if it is undermined by free content, outside the security belt. What is in Hulu and TV.com's best interest may not be in the interest of its individual partners. So the question asked, can a higher CPM offset any revenue lost.

As I see it, monthly cable fees charged by cable programmers to distributors tend to grow at an annual inflation rate. It is also a guaranteed revenue stream, changed only by the growth and loss of subscribers in the cable operator footprint. And with the rise of telco distributors, overbuilding cable neighborhoods, the possibility of higher subscriber fees and more cable penetration. The switch to digital also improved subscriber growth. Should enough programming become available on the web, consumers might be encouraged to drop their cable portion of their bill for broadband access only.

It then represents a very slippery slope for sites like Hulu and TV.com and their respective programming partners. I'm sure they would hate to kill off their golden goose. And so the last question to ask is, what should happen to these sites to enable viewers to still watch on their computers, but not give up their cable connection. Perhaps authentication must come to these sites as well.

For Comcast, FIOS Represents Just Another Market

Even though Comcast and FIOS compete, it shouldn't stop a partnership! In an unusual move, Comcast will sell advertising spots in FIOS markets that overlap its own markets. "Comcast Spotlight, the cable company's ad-sales arm, announced a deal Wednesday with Verizon Communications, under which it will sell local advertising on FiOS TV in at least 10 markets, where both Comcast and Verizon currently provide television service." For advertisers, it certainly assures that their message is seen on cable, regardless of who the service provider may be. Potentially profitable for both companies.

What would really be ironic is if this deal would finally allow FIOS to advertise its services on Comcast and Comcast do the same on FIOS. That would certainly be detente!

TV Everywhere

How do you protect your cable subscription revenue? First, assure that your content networks don't give everything away to the web; and second, provide your subscribers with access to TV content on other platforms. "The major worry is that if cable networks do not protect the fees from paying subscribers, and offer most programming online at no cost — as newspapers have done — then customers may eventually cancel their cable subscriptions." That is the slippery slope of the internet today, provided by these same content companies charging cable operators fees for network carriage and then turning around and posting shows at no charge on Hulu, TV.com, and other websites. As these sites get more content, cable may find itself in a losing battle.

It sounds kinda nice to have access to cable and broadcast channels on the computer. I recently got to watch Monday's US Open final streamed via MSNBC. No authentication required. The TV Everywhere concept would require that you as a cable subscriber are authorized to watch networks on the web. "The first test of the new system, which will authenticate cable subscribers online and make available programs on the Web for no additional charge, will be announced Wednesday, between Comcast and Time Warner. The trial will involve about 5,000 Comcast subscribers, and television shows from the Time Warner networks TNT and TBS."

It is one thing to be authenticated in your own home, but how can I as a "authenticated" subscriber be able to watch this content away from my home. At the office, in a hotel, away from home, I want the mobility to watch where I am and not to be tethered to my wired home. It sounds eerily similar to what Slingbox offers. So unless cable is offering this capability, I say skip it. If mobility is what you are after, Slingbox is the cure. Cable should strike a deal with Slingbox and put it in every set top box. That strategy might just retain cable subscription and beat Hulu and the web.

Do You Own A Blu-Ray?

Recently, my son asked me if we were buying a Blu-ray. We currently have quite a collection of standard DVDs in our library, but lately we have been watching a lot of movies on-demand. And for the record, we don't have the hi-def screen either although that is a planned purchase. But a blu-ray player is not.

Our viewing habits have switched and the DVDs become more useful for long car and airplane trips, while VOD has become the first choice for watching at home. And I believe we are not alone. "U.S. consumers have given Blu-ray a lukewarm reception, despite buying an increasing number of high-definition TVs, according to Harris Interactive." Somehow owning content, once an important part of the video experience, has given way to the rental. And immediacy and choice has positioned VOD as a leader.

I also imagine that a stand alone blu-ray player is not the best use of funds. As gaming consoles become a bigger part of the TV experience as well, they also offer blu-ray capabilities. Will they be used for that purpose, perhaps secondarily, as gaming use swells in volume. So what will happen to blu-ray. I imagine overtime, PCs, portable players, HDTVs, etc will all e capable of playing blu-ray and standard DVDs. And standard DVDs, like LPs and cassettes will head into the attic, reminding us once again of simpler days.

Twitter Looking For Revenue Model

Twitter, short messages to tell others what is on your mind, has long been absent an advertising message. For those that like to follow businesses, however, ads are expected. For example, follow Gary Vaynerchuk and Wine Library tweets and receive messages on upcoming specials, free shipping, and other tidbits about wine. In this case Wine Library gains "fans" and a social network to share messages and Twitter the company gets nothing.

If your interest in a product leads to a search for guidance and ultimately a place to buy an item, Twitter might just gain on the handshake. "E-commerce, including links to products and turnkey payment mechanisms, is a likely revenue stream for Twitter, said Todd Chaffee, a Twitter board observer and general partner at Institutional Venture Partners, which has invested in Twitter. That gives us one more hint about how Twitter will make money." But can that generate enough cash flow? I find all the message coming through as too much and my inclination is to turn it off or really filter. I have personally become less of a fan of Twitter. As a Facebook friend of Wine Library to get this same messaging.

For Twitter to make money, they may need to associate an ad message with each Tweet, and that may not be as welcome to its users. As more advertising comes onto its pages, it may just kill this golden goose.

Tivo - What is More Important, Content Or Distribution

For broadband connected Tivos, some great news, Tivo can now upload TV.com content. "TV.com users that have a TiVo Series2 or Series3, TiVo HD or TiVo HD XL DVR, are now able to schedule recordings directly to their DVR via TV.com. To record single episodes or entire seasons of shows users can click the 'Record to TiVo' button on TV.com show pages and the request will be sent directly to their TiVo DVR." Tivo continues to represent a leadership position in the DVR functionality and experience. For Tivo, content is king!

Great news for Tivo fans, but is it ultimately in Tivo's best interest? It seems that this content is the same content CBS and its partners put on cable and over the air. It seems that Tivo ultimately competes with cable as a means to watch your favorite shows. Perhaps Tivo should make more effort to partner with cable and telco as their DVR provider. It would provide an ultimately higher revenue stream and push the VOD/DVR experience through cable as opposed to around it.

Currently, Tivo is expanding its reach with Comcast and Direct TV and in a technology fight with Dish. The more content that Tivo can access directly from the web, the less valuable a cable subscription could become. It becomes a slippery slope as more live content (news, sports, etc) becomes available without a cable box.

Dish Still Trying to Work Around Tivo

Dish owes money to Tivo for using its technology on Dish DVR devices, Court appeals have delayed that payment and allowed Dish to continue to use this technology, and Tivo continues to not get paid. And so Dish is back in court to find another way around this patent infringement in order to continue to allow its DVRs to continue to be used by their customers. Otherwise, Dish has one of two options: 1. Turn off their DVRs and upset their customers until new technology can be deployed, or 2) Pay Tivo for its technology, embrace its patent, and let your customers continue to derive pleasure from their DVRs.

It seems the old adage, "I'd rather fight, than switch" is in play here. For some reason, Dish has a basic issue with Tivo preventing it from coming together to reach a common ground. Some times children simply can't learn to play in the same sandbox and despite how much money it will cost Dish, they would rather fight. For me, I'm holding on to my Tivo stock, cause I expect another windfall.

My Space Lays Off 30% of Staff

The future of media is the internet and the future of communication is social networking. My Space, once the darling of this world, is facing hard economic times and laying off 420 people, "as part of an aggressive restructuring that seeks to make the company smaller and more agile. " What has happened in the three years that Fox and Murdoch picked up this business? How is My Space faltering while Facebook seems to be picking up speed? Perhaps part of the problem might rest with ownership. Facebook remains young, aggressive, standalone while My Space was purchased by an old media company trying to augment its media distribution strategy. Change has been occurring quickly in social networking and Facebook has more successfully adapted while My Space lost its stride.

I have both a My Space and Facebook account but have found myself ignoring My Space and concentrating on Facebook. I liked Facebook's uniformity and structure; I found it easier to navigate. My Space, with all its "skins" and busy graphics became more disjointed and less interesting to use. Mostly, I liked how Facebook aggregated the content of my Friends onto one page as I was more interested in reading what they were doing then what I was posting. What does My Space look like today; I haven't been on in a long time so I can't tell you. They lost me and obviously others, too.

"The perceived missteps are numerous. Some observers say it clung too long to a 'portal strategy,' in which it sought to amass an audience around entertainment content. By contrast, Facebook maintained its focus on features that enhance the social-networking experience, such as the "News Feed" that matches the immediacy of Twitter's staccato updates." How will My Space win back its users; that is what their smaller group will be hard pressed to do. Perhaps Murdoch needs to buy Twitter and incorporate those users back into My Space. And obviously come up with something more innovative and unique that will be exclusive to the My Space experience. Otherwise, this might be the beginning of the end for My Space.

The Death of the TV Business

Great article in Advertising Age called: Sorry, There's No Way to Save the TV Business by Henry Blodget that really reminds us that history tends to repeat itself. Technological change affects businesses and one needs to look no further than the businesses before it to see what will eventually happen to them. Need examples...what the web did to the music industry it is doing to the DVD and video business. The same holds true for distribution.

The article looks at the changing business of newspaper subscription and correctly argues that broadband will do the same to upend the apple cart for cable TV subscription. "After saying all this same stuff for years, the newspaper industry figured out the hard way that, eventually, reality intrudes. You can't stuff the genie back in the bottle. And in the next five to 10 years, the TV industry will figure this out, too." What essentially have been barriers to entry that prevent consumers from seeking content elsewhere, have been lowered such that consumers don't necessarily need to pay as much for their entertainment dollar. "With an internet connection anywhere in the world, you will soon be able to get to almost anything. And not just to your computer -- to your TV."

The death of the TV business is not as the author points out, a question of if; but rather, a question of when. A must read article.

What You Want, When You Want It

Viewers like their On-Demand and the growth rate for usage is staggering. According to Rentrak, "Video-on-demand orders increased 21% last year, with operators processing 3.8 billion VOD orders in 2008 excluding adult programming." And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that DVR growth is also rising at a very health rate. Consumers care about how they use their time and prefer the immediacy of VOD. In less than a decade, VOD has become well accepted and liked.

There was a time though where consumers were hesitant about using VOD on their remote. There seemed to be a concern that any button pressed would result in a purchase. It took a little time to train the consumer that Free On Demand programming was actually free. That is not the case today. According to last year's findings, "91% were free VOD, while 6% were subscription and 3% were transactional." Over time, that fear has dissipated.

And there is still room for more usage and higher growth rates. The VOD features through the set top box are still clunky and laborious to work through. It still takes too many clicks to find what you are looking for and the search feature is prehistoric compared to the web. We like to describe that process of going in and out of categories as "tree and branches." You meander up and back from click to click to go deeper and deeper into categories and occasionally jump out and start from the beginning in order to find your preferred video. Once a new search function is developed, this current process will be quickly forgotten. To me, it is what continues to hold back the further growth and appeal for VOD. But I am assured, a change is a comin!

Hard Liquor On Broadcast

The car and financial services industries are hurting and the broadcast ad dollar is declining so where to go to find new sources of revenue. Where hard liquor was once a no no on broadcast, now its ad budget is as green as anyone elses. "This year, with network advertising revenue off about $250 million, or 4.2 percent, in the first quarter compared to last year, local affiliates are not only accepting hard liquor ads -- they are actively courting the $451 million distilled-spirits advertising business." Watch Simpsons and drink Chivas!

So what's next. Will we once again allow cigarette ads to appear on TV. Perhaps its time for a Lucky Strike! Cause when it comes to greed, anything goes. What happened to the ethical issues that banned hard spirits the first time. Some might argue that the ban was a voluntary one and that cable nets have been advertising hard liquor for a while. Still allowing spirits to advertise on TV simply brings us further down that slippery slope. Perhaps the ad guidelines for TV networks should be ... ANYTHING GOES!

My Cable Networks Are Losing Their Niches

I can appreciate change and I certainly understand that cable networks must continue to evolve in order to grow ratings, viewership, ad dollars, and of course total revenue. At the same time, each should stay true to their core mission or else they all simply start looking like each other. I make this statement because I recently saw an ad announcing that Cartoon Network will have non-animation, reality programming. Yikes! Does that mean that they will change their name to Cartoon and Live Action Network? Certainly it is not a first as they have shown non-animation films on their channel. It may be by, about, and for kids, bit it is not their core mission - cartoons. And why is it being done, broader demographic reach, bigger ratings, more advertising.

But I don't want to put the blame down on Cartoon; truth is, other cable networks have done the same thing, gone outside their core programming genre:

TV Land - theatrical movies
AMC - Modern movies and original TV series
A&E - syndicated TV series
CNBC - repeats of Deal or No Deal and other shows
TLC - reality (non learning) TV shows

The list goes on and on. Each cable network has broadened its niche so that the network today looks nothing like the network of 5 -10 years ago. For example, Bravo went from classical arts to pop art.

Is this a good or bad thing. That is not for me to decide. Clearly, ratings of each of these networks have improved as well over this same period. Broad programming will have more appeal over niche. It is just that cable programmings appeal was that it could provide the niche programming that broadcast lacked. Now, cable has become the new broadcast network source. And where do the niches go now for content; for the moment, that would be the web.

Daily Show Meets The New York Times

Too funny!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
End Times
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Newt Gingrich Unedited Interview

Why the NYT would let The Daily Show in their doors is beyond me. Some great lines. "Why is aged news better than real news" Nothing in the paper is about what happened today. And you gotta love the end joke, "What's black and white and red all over?" Not the newspaper, their balance sheet. That is the nail in their coffin!

Digital Transition Equals Digital Divide

"It's the end of the world as we know it..." So go the lyrics and so begins a new chapter in America. The end of analog, over the air, TV and the start of all digital, all the time. For most of us, with cable or satellite, today will come and go without any impact whatsoever. But for those with limited resources, the poor, the elderly, it will mean the end of free TV. Despite the warnings, despite the chance to get a coupon for a converter box, millions may see their TVs become huge paperweights.

And this transition, this digital divide has the potential to lead to a huge gap between the haves and the have-nots. Cable hopes to use this transition as an opportunity to convert non-subscribers into paying ones. Some will finally succumb to the pressure and the lesser of two evils. You see, a converter box alone for over the air signals is not really enough. Your antennae will need to also be recalibrated and turned to be able to catch the digital signal. It might not be that easy. And so, they will learn to live without TV and lose their access to TV's content.

Is enough being done to soften this digital divide and assure that more homes are in the have category? The four month delay certainly helped. But it seems enough stragglers remain. And any divide can hurt this country. Those without tend not to appreciate those that have and some take to criminal activities to prove their point. Cable has a rare opportunity to do more at this time besides just making a buck. Offering free service to homes without cable seeking help getting their antennas and converter boxes to work is one way. Selling an extremely low price connection to broadcast stations only is another. Goodwill by these companies can go a long way.

And for those homes off the beaten path, too far to get a cable line installed; what will they do? In parts of this country, that is a real problem too. It may prove equally opportunistic for satellite companies to offer a similar option. Ultimately, it is about eliminating this digital divide so that every household, once again, has easy access to TV signals. Otherwise, this digital transition will cause an impactful digital divide in this country.

Is Twitter Just A Fad?

If the research is true and not an anomaly, Twitter's growth is over. Usage remains strong, but previous research has shown that 90% or so of these messages come from only 10% of users. In fact Twitter's uasage rate is half of what Facebook is and Facebook has been around longer. This "May definitely brought some surprising results. While YouTube (YouTube reviews) is attracting an ever increasing audience, and Facebook (Facebook reviews) is still growing fast, Twitter’s growth has suddenly stopped, at least according to the numbers from Compete." And while most people don't actually unsubscribe, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that most users have been inactive for more than a month.

I feel so much overlap from what Twitter does and what I get from my other social networking sites. In fact, some people have utilized programs to update all there social networks simultaneously. Thus I get to read the same drivel too many times. Is May's numbers an exception or will the trend show that growth is over? For me, I think I can do without Twitter.

TV Execs Say 'Family Hour' Is a Relic -- I DISAGREE

The ad community calls it a missed opportunity and the TV execs blame the DVR, VOD, and new media. They claim the family doesn't watch together anymore and it is not possible to reach them like the past. I disagree. And so does the Association of National Advertisers. "For their part, ANA-affiliated advertisers don't seem to be buying into the notion that the networks are simply reflecting a new vision of the American family that's moved past 'The Cosbys.'"

As evidence, I point to family friendly programming like American Idol, watchable by any and every age group and a ratings juggernaut. In addition, the networks let cable take over this type of programming mix and Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, and ABC Family have brought family friendly shows to the TV screen. And there are a number of shows doing quite well, including Spongebob, Wizards of Waverly Place, Phineas & Ferb, Hannah Montana, Drake and Josh, and others. These and others are proven easy to watch as a family and so likable that kids are willing to watch the same episode multiple times. And while my family DVRs a number of these programs, my kids prefer watching the commercials and not skipping.

And so audiences have left broadcast for cable and continue to disperse as networks lose their sight of how to reach their audience. Fox did it with American Idol. CBS has Amazing Race. What the networks need to do is bring back family friendly scripted shows. The Family Hour is NOT a relic, but some TV EXECS are!

As The Digital Transition Nears, Broadcasters Compete To Put TV on Mobile Devices

With the digital transition in 3 more days, what is to become with all those analog signals. Well the next avenue for full video remains mobile, both on the handset and in the auto. I spoke of Sirius' need to adapt its technology to provide video as well as audio content. Portability remains a big open business opportunity as is the ability to move video across different screens.

Cellular companies and mobile handsets have a chance to gain this business if the timing and consumer need is rights. "The digital switch will let live video be sent to mobile devices -- phones, computers, car systems -- on the newly available analog spectrum. Contenders include MobiTV, Qualcomm's Flo TV and Transpera." Is this what the consumer wants? Is the timing now? "The young consumers who are more likely to watch television on their mobile phones tend to watch on-demand programs -- videos that can be played whenever the viewer chooses -- rather than live TV, " according to Lewis Ward, Research Manager at IDC. My personal opinion is that live sports is the only reason to buy a mobile video package. Movies on demand for the kids on a long road trip might be an option, but DVDs would seem to be so much cheaper for the amount of use in the car.

I still recall so many years ago when the next big thing was video phones; seeing who you are talking to. Twenty years later, it is still not widely embraced. Skype offers that connection but in my household, 99.9% of our phone use is still over landlines and cellular. Will mobile video take off like cable, barely materialize like video phones, or takeoff and then drop like satellite radio. Digital transition is finally here and the entertainment landscape continues to change.

Is Sirius Done?

Did Sirius make wrong strategic decisions. Was too much time and money wasted buying XM Satellite instead of concentrating on its real competition, free radio and the web? And while content is king, did Sirius spend too much for it without determining whether it could afford it? And could anyone have predicted that the economy would turn south and that the auto industry decline would have hit so hard.

Sirius is in the proverbial "between a rock and a hard place." "Sirius XM, which broadcasts football and baseball games, has lost more than $300 million in the past two quarters and has lost a net of 404,422 subscribers in the first three months of this year. Mel Karmazin, CEO at the New York-based company, said in its earnings press release on May 7 that 'satellite radio is now a cash flow growth story.' That story has yet to help Sirius XM equity shares, down 86 percent in the past 12 months."

And, unfortunately, I am one of their shareholders, not smart enough to sell at the top or willing to take a loss yet while it is at the bottom. I put a lot of faith in John Malone and his financial involvement to stay in for the long haul.

Perhaps there is growth opportunity for Sirius outside the car, through the mobile device and as an Apple iPhone app to extend the subscriber base. Perhaps there is synergy with a TV satellite company like Direct TV to add more subscriber value, and getting TV signals into the car. It is those untapped opportunities that might give Sirius the chance to recover.

Digital Transition Is A Week Away

One week from today, June 12, and the digital transition will finally occur. Back in February, everyone seemed in an uproar that it had come to quickly and the public was unprepared. 4 months later and it is back page news. Still, cable hopes that consumers will rush to subscribe rather than fear a loss of TV signals. Under the guise of public service, cable is pursuing a radio campaign to remind consumers that the date is next Friday.

My one surprise in the upcoming date is that it is a Friday. Does that mean that there will be a flurry of activity over the weekend to buy a converter, calibrate the antenna, schedule a cable truck. Would the public have been better served if the transition date fell midweek.

And what will the day look like. Panic, calm... are we ready. Will it arrive like a lion or a lamb? We will soon find out.

And at the same time, my cable company is moving more channels off their non-scrambled line-up and requiring me to put a converter box on more TV sets to continue to receive these signals. While I have learned to accept the set top box, I do not feel the need to put it on every TV set. It's size alone makes it unwieldy for a place next to my kitchen TV. If it were simply much smaller and behind the TV, allowing my TV to retain all its functionality. I would add one. But cable has done a poor job of allowing consumers to buy a third party device to enable that or to even offer one itself. And so my access to channels on some of the TVs gets more and more affected. So long MSNBC; goodbye TCM, Adios Style. How many more go away to the point I finally decide to go the Fios route.

As TVs Become Monitors, How Often Do They Need to Be Replaced

I have a TV in my house over 16 years old. Others are more than 5 years old. My desktop computer is 4 years old. I hate obsolescence and expect big ticket items to have as long a shelf life as possible. That includes refrigerators and washers too. So as I consider my purchase of an HD TV, I expect it to last me at least 10 years too. According to Wilfred Martis, director of platform strategy and planning for Intel’s Digital Home Group, "research indicates that people are replacing their TV sets more often — every seven years now, down from the previous 10-year life cycle. How much lower will that number go?" Am I expecting too much from my machines?

We have become a society that throws away things too easily and it makes more sense that items be enabled to retain what is working and updated to keep them useful. Turning TVs into modular pieces that can easily switch out and upgrade sounds most promising.

Big Screen TVs Need to Act More Like Monitors

An interesting comment inside this article got me thinking: "Casual games offered through FiOS TV (think: chess) didn’t take off until the company added a video window to run television alongside game play." Ultimately, TVs need to look and act more like computer monitors, allowing us to resize various screens to fit on the TV simultaneously. Just imagine your 55" screen (or larger) with the flexibility to watch a movie or game and then have the picture shrunk so that it is not affected as you play a a casual game of chess with your "social network" on another portion of the screen. We multi task on our PC, why not multi task on our TV screen as well. Add a wireless keyboard or just as easily use your PC keyboard but display the output on the TV screen. It will require the cable companies and telcos to finally merge cable, broadband, and communication into one interchangeable connection. What fun. That would surely create real subscriber engagement.

Tivo Wins!

How many times does Echostar have to lose in court before they finally pay their fine and do a deal with Tivo. Of course, Dish will continue to appeal, clogging our judicial system, rather than recognize that they need to partner with Tivo. I am a fan of Tivo so you can tell who I am rooting for.

According to Dish, "We are disappointed in the district court's decision finding us in contempt," Dish said in a statement. "We believe a stay is warranted and that we have strong grounds for appeal. Our engineers spent close to a year designing-around TiVo's patent and removed the very features that TiVo said infringed at trial." So in an attempt to work around Tivo's technology, you still worked from it. Sounds rather fishy to me and the courts seem to agree. Stop fighting, pay your fine, license Tivo technology. Dish has bigger battles to fight to grow and retain its subscriber base.

Comcast has been taking the lead to partner with Tivo on their DVR and I for one can't wait for it to be available in my home. I currently have a standalone Tivo in one room and a Comcast DVR in another. I actually give up getting digital signals in my Tivo TV because I so prefer the functionality and ease that the Tivo box offers.

Congrats to Tivo on winning another round. Keep innovating!

John Malone Sees a Revenue Model in Broadband Content

In an interview with Walt Mossburg, the chairman of Liberty Media, John Malone, believes the very survival of online content depends on a subscriber revenue fee. He recalls a time when TV was free and the question was how to get people to pay for additional TV type content (cable). As Malone saw it, "The way it was successful was blending together the transport service with the charge for the content. When you were a cable subscriber, you weren’t sure whether you were paying for connectivity or whether you were paying for the content that was embodied in the connectivity."

The problem in comparing the launch of cable to the launch of broadband video is that the consumer already subscribes to the internet and is already receiving free video content. In the cable example, its content was not made available unless you bought it.

The issue is to get the consumer to pay more for what they are already receiving. The answer may still lie in connectivity and multi-platform viewing. Providing the consumer with the means to synchronize all their viewing platforms into one easy to use program has a value and appeal. To that end, the telcos may have a leg up on their cable rivals because they have a four screen advantage to work with: wire and wireless, cable and broadband. If I could receive my sports network on my cell phone because I am away from my home, receive my TV networks on my laptop, these extra features of connectivity have an incremental value.

Malone sees a future more pay per view. "People will pay on a per-view or on some kind of subscription basis for content on the Internet if the quality is there and there’s convenience. The question you have to ask yourself is, is there going to be an aggregator doing that? This is the role that HBO traditionally did in movies. They aggregated movies and they sold you in bulk. You got 30 movies a month for seven bucks when they started." As Mossberg correctly notes, that is what Netflix and Apple and others are doing. But then again, so is cable through VOD!

Should Time Warner Sell Itself?

Interesting opinion speculating Time Warner's next move, post AOL spin off. Now that the cable distribution and AOL businesses are spun off, what is next. It seems though that spinning off the cable networks makes little sense although it is delivered as one such option. "Option 3: Which brings us to Mr. Bewkes’s third, and possibly most attractive option. To sell the company to the likes of, say, Comcast, or News Corp. " His rationale, "though Time Warner operates a number of solid businesses, from Turner Broadcasting to Warner Bros. and HBO, none hold growth potential." And yet NBC and others see their cable networks as growth opportunities and solid business ventures. Is the Time Warner business over and done? Is Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes clueless on how to run these businesses? Has the merger of Time, Inc. and Warner Brothers been a huge missed opportunity?

I believe that Time Warner can save itself and should not consider option 3, a sell to another company. It is the home for great content in multiple forms, print, TV, film, and terrific cable networks in the basic and premium space. If content is king, then maintaining its hold on content is essential. Consumers continue to seek out great content and have shown that they are willing to pay for it too. The business does not need to stagnate; Time Warner simply need to build a new strategy and direction to take them to the next level. It can be done.