Fox and Scripps Want Off The Time Warner Cable App

Fox Networks has sent its official letter to TWC demanding that it's channels be removed from the App. "News Corp. joins Scripps Networks Interactive Inc. (SNI) in challenging Time Warner Cable over transmission of live TV signals via an application on Apple Inc.’s iPad without consent. Time Warner Cable customers with Internet service are able to use the app to watch programming within their homes." And at the end of the day, it is all about incremental dollars for rights to stream its content.

I would certainly guess that the Time Warner Cable lawyers pored over each Networks agreements determining which ones gave them the loophole to carry its channel in such a manner. From that analysis, TWC picked its 32 cable channels to post on its App. And as these agreements may not have even considered this kind of distribution path, it seems likely that TWC believes that legally they have the right to offer in this manner.

How popular is this App? How many people have downloaded it and are using it? The fact that usage today is limited to inside the home, it may not truly satisfy the needs of the consumer. For a few dollars more, they could attach a Slingbox and get ALL their LIVE channels, plus DVR, remotely on their smartphone and iPad. And last I heard, Fox and Scripps haven't sued Slingbox or gotten more dollars from them.

Should Sirius Worry About Amazon Cloud Drive Service

Amazon may have just beat Apple to the punch with it's Cloud Drive Storage Service, though Apple has been probably not too far behind. It seems that if we are all saving the same songs, video,and other data, wouldn't their be economies of scale to centralize this content and avoid the waste of replication. It turns our devices into receivers and requires constant access to the web, but it makes a ton of sense.

Should Apple be nervous; probably not. Consumers still like to own and the cost to access may be high. Sirius has little to worry about, too. "What does Cloud Drive mean to Sirius XM? Initially very little, but as consumers adopt the service, and combine it with smart phones connected to the dashboard, people will have access to a wealth of personalized playlists that they may begin to listen to instead of Sirius XM." Sirius has already had to contend with iPods and have survived quite well. Consumers don't want to purchase every song they want to listen to; Sirius and terrestrial radio allow listeners to enjoy without incremental purchase. And Sirius brings exclusive content that Amazon can not offer. "Cloud Drive does not offer live content, nor does it provide the depth of news, talk, and sports that Sirius XM does."

Cloud Drive Service will be the buzzword of this decade. DVR content should soon find its way in the clouds as opposed to individual set top boxes. And consumers will get more and more comfortable saving their personal pictures and data in the clouds instead of a hard drive. In our quest for easier mobility, remote access means constant availability whenever and wherever we are. And that is what makes Cloud Drive Service a winner.

Was Comcast Right - Content And Distribution Can't Be Separated

Perhaps the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal will soon be regarded as a brilliant strategic move. While other cable distributors spun off their content companies, Comcast purchased a big fish. We applauded the separation of Time Warner from Time Warner Cable (TWC), we cheer on the soon to depart Rainbow/AMC Networks from Cablevision, and we recall fondly when programmers like Viacom kept their content and sold off their cable franchises. And the AOL-Time Warner merger a decade ago only reaffirmed that content and distribution shouldn't be combined.

But somehow, the timing today may just be right for a content and distribution merger to make sense. And it may be justified because of what is brewing between Time Warner Cable's App and the Networks it streams. It may make sense for a merger of content and distribution for cable operators as they compete with digital platforms for share. The threat of cord cutting might be described as remote, but it is that very threat that pushes Time Warner and other operators to build Apps to distribute content off the TV screen. Simply put, value added product to retain the customer as a paying subscriber, especially when the alternatives like Netflix and Hulu are cheaper. But as TWC releases its App, programmers are challenging the legality of its distribution. And other cable operators are surely watching.

Comcast, who now owns multiple Networks, can offer these streams without the risk of a legal front. Owning the vertical path of content and distribution provides them more freedom of movement and may encourage other companies to follow a similar path. "A full-on deal in which an Internet player like Netflix or Amazon.com will acquire a news organization, studio or TV-production house. Imagine Google grabbing the New York Times, or Facebook buying its own entertainment arm." And it is that threat that pushes TWC and other cable operators forward, despite the threat of lawsuit from the networks. As content and distribution move down this digital path, it may just now be the best time yet to merge. And Comcast may be a step in front.

Apple Building A Smart TV?

Check out this article from Apple Insider. Steve Jobs may not be running the day to day, but it seems Apple is still innovative in its approach. "...Apple Smart TV could be an opportunity for the Cupertino, Calif., company to consolidate 'TV/Video content, gaming, DVR, as well as other features like apps and FaceTime into one product,' much like the company did with its strategy for the iPad." Does that mean Airplay, too? And given the high customer value, an Apple TV could have great success.

The challenge for Apple will be the cable companies and gaining access to programming without a cable box. The CableCard is not the solution; Apple would need to build a solution inside the set to descramble the cable signal and provide full access to on demand programming as well. Finding those answers would make an Apple TV a real winner.

Netflix Encourages Cord Shaving

My kids are encouraging me to drop our premium services for Netflix. Maybe because we cycle through the on demand list and find little for them to watch, maybe because there is so much buzz about Netflix. And Netflix continues to aggressively build up its content to effectively compete with HBO, Showtime,and others. "Movie rental company Netflix Inc is close to an agreement with Miramax to stream the studio's library in a deal that would be worth 'well north of' $100 million over five years, according to a source familiar with the deal. Miramax's more than 700 titles include hits such as 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Good Will Hunting.'"

And here is the kicker, it is cheaper to get a Netflix subscription then cable premium networks. So it is actually in the family's best financial interest to make the move. So how can Netflix make such aggressive distribution deals. For one, they don't have to share their revenue with a cable provider. And the more content they acquire, the more value to the customer. That means more subscribers to the service and more revenue coming in.

The premium channels have one ace up their sleeve - original content. Starz has Camelot, Showtime has Dexter, HBO has the upcoming Game of Thrones. For viewers passionate for this content, cord shaving is unlikely. For those willing to wait a year for the shows to move to DVD, Netflix will be there. Oh wait, Netflix has original content, too. So that Ace may only be a deuce.

Content vs Distribution: Cable vs Network

The new Time Warner Cable App, offering its customers live feed access of its channels on mobile devices, has raised the ire of the programmers. It seems the right to show a network on a channel position through a cable wire into the home does not extend to streaming media. And Time Warner Cable has read its contracts and figures that they have the rights to in-the-home mobility. "Melinda Witmer, chief programming officer for Time Warner Cable, said in an interview that her company is "well within our rights" to transmit TV channels to any device in the home, as long as it sends signals through its cables and its "secure network," rather than the "open Internet." For that reason, the app is specifically configured to work only when linked to a subscriber's home Internet connection." But is this the real fight?

It seems that this in-home access will not be enough for the tech savvy consumer. They want the same access outside the home too. And the consumers preference is to pay once and watch anywhere and everywhere. The Time Warner App is only a small step to this next model. It is a slippery slope and one that programmers don't want to take. They want to be paid for each distribution platform that their network is placed on. "Meanwhile, TV executives have reason to be wary. Some executives see an opportunity to make more money by selling shows and networks to companies like Apple and Netflix Inc. over the Web. They aren't eager to give those rights to cable operators without additional compensation." At the end of the day, it is all about the revenue.

It has become a more contentious relationship between programmers and operators. Programmers see new revenue streams while operators are trying to save their existing base. The challenge may be for operators to show programmers that their revenue is also at risk should viewers switch to other platforms. But as the nature of their relationship continues to erode, it may be difficult to find common ground.

The cable operator not saying much is Comcast. While Time Warner Cable divested itself of its programming, and Cablevision is planning the same with its Rainbow programming business, Comcast is the only operator left with both a distribution and content business. In fact, it may just be what makes Comcast most adaptable to its consumers' demands.

Can Media Buyers Change Their Models?

The population is getting older, the older are living longer, and they are spending more, too. Yet, the holy grail of advertising appeal is to the younger demographic. It just may be that the 18-49 year old audience may not be the ideal group to reach and advertisers may be missing the true mark. In fact, age may not even be an important variable to the mix. CBS certainly believes so. "Age and sex don't matter when it comes to TV ad effectiveness, said CBS Corp. Chief Research Officer David Poltrack, who has teamed with Nielsen to create what he called a historic move to replace demographics with a new model for TV planning and buying, based on viewer behavior and attitudes." But can media buyers change their behavior and attitudes to try a new approach?

It certainly makes sense knowing the psychographic tendencies of the audience you are trying to impress. And new research tools make it much easier to aggregate and analyze this information. "The growing use of single-source data like that from Nielsen Catalina and TRA Global, which combines set-top box and shopper-card data, has started to have an impact even before this, Mr. Poltrack said. That data led marketers to restore advertising budget dollars -- to TV in particular -- faster in the recent recession than in prior ones, he said." Better targeting of messages, especially to heavy users, often lead to a higher ROI. Yet, there is nothing like simple reach and frequency to break through the clutter, too.

WSJ Adding Options To Its Pay App

Sometimes you don't want to buy the whole loaf for a single piece of bread, or the whole album for a single song. So too is the case with digital newspapers. As The New York Times looks to enter the digital subscription market, The Wall Street Journal continues to be one step ahead. "Looking to get more subscribers for its iPad app, The Wall Street Journal will start selling single-issue digital versions of its morning paper for $1.99 in the within the existing free app." Understanding that there are occasional readers who may not want a subscription, WSJ is now ready to offer a single day's issue. Isn't that how newsstands function, selling daily papers. Offering single sales to the "casual" reader also provides for great sampling as a means to pushing a subscription later. It seems the virtual newsstand is finally coming together.

Howard Stern Fighting With Sirius

I guess things aren't so rosy between Howard and Sirius despite the recent renewal of his contract. "In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York, Stern, his agent Don Buchwald and Stern's production company, One Twelve Inc., claim Sirius failed to pay stock awards due in exchange for helping the satellite radio service exceed its subscriber growth targets." So one must wonder, is there more to this story. Contracts are never as clear cut as they are meant to be. Has Sirius found a loop hole to stop paying Howard stock or is something else amiss?

Writers Guild and Producers Sign New Agreement

Remember the writers' strike a few years ago. Tons of people out of work. Movie and TV show production stopped. Neither side could agree how digital dollars were to be shared. And at the end, the writers lost and the studios and networks saved tons of money. And how quickly the viewers forget the wasteland of programming including the rise and fall of The Jay Leno Show.

Well as far the WGA seems to be concerned, there will be no repeat behavior as a new deal was quickly and silently signed. "The agreement comes after less than three weeks of bargaining, in contrast to a writers' strike in 2008 shut that down much of Hollywood's production for 100 days." Members still have to sign off on the deal, but it seems certain to be sealed. No one wants to repeat that fiasco again for quite some time.

Will FCC Approve AT&T and T Mobile Merger - Absolutely

Can the FCC and Department of Justice ever say no to a deal? It may feel warranted initially but it never happens. These deals go through and for the most part it is for the better. It is the dragging out of the process that seems to hurt both companies and the competitive process. The NYT touts some pretty well known mega deals and most have been approved. But beyond these mergers, including the most recent NBC Comcast deal, what about others in the broader communication industry.

When AT&T was split up into baby bells who would have thought that they would merge and merge again. But despite the threat of oligopoly, new technological changes enabled new competition. The rise of the cable IP phone allowed cable companies to offer competing telephone service. That most likely was never envisioned.

The merger of Sirius and XM into a monopolistic satellite radio company seemed to appear as a huge concern too. But the merger was approved and there remains competition because of both terrestrial radio and mobile music devices. The delay in getting this merger approved only hurt Sirius in maintaining a competitive stance in an ever changing technology world.

And so to the question of the AT&T/T Mobile merger, it too should be approved ASAP. True it reduces the cellular competition into the big two with Verizon (perhaps 3 if you count Sprint), but cellular is facing growing competition from a WIFI world. And I am confident that work is on-going on the next innovation in wireless communication. For AT&T and others, they need to gain economies of scale as the wired side of their business erodes. This merger step forward seems necessary to simply remain competitive in an ever evolving and changing media landscape.

NYT vs The Daily: Can Either Overcome The Pay Wall

Next Monday, The New York Times ends its free web content and puts up a subscription wall. Today, one week sooner, The Daily erects its own pay wall as it too wonders, will anyone start buying its online newspaper. "News Corp. gets its first sense of whether readers will pony up $1 a week for a newspaper rendered in a mobile app, or if The Daily fades into the downloaded-and-forgotten oblivion that afflicts so many in Apple's App Store." Certainly, between the two content creators, the NYT has the bigger lead but it also has the most to risk. The Times has been offering free content for quite some time while The Wall Street Journal was fast to build what has become a successful pay model. The Daily comes from a strict online space with only a couple of months of sampling to urge consumers to fork over dollars for content.

Can the newcomer survive? Can the gray old lady get back into shape and adapt to a rapidly changing marketplace? Or will iPad and smartphone users simply continue to consumer content that is free to read? Is it all, one or no winners in this battle. For consumers that see the value in the product, success should come. The Times has that edge with its consumers and the online platform adds convenience for the customer. The Daily has not earned that credibility yet. Form without substance may not be enough to gain a viable base. Deep pockets however may carry the day. As tablets and smartphones grab a bigger footprint, and consumers begin to accept that they have to pay for quality content, success may come for both. At the same time, they should not stop innovating; as competition in this space will only ramp up, too.

Sirius Outside The Car

Have you been a Howard Stern fan but unwilling to put Sirius in your car? Perhaps it is because you don't commute that much and do more radio listening at the office or in the home. Well, it seems that Howard will finally make it to the App Store. "The SiriusXM Internet Radio App gives you access to over 120 channels of great SiriusXM programming, including Howard Stern, on your iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch so you can have the best in audio entertainment anywhere you go!" Adding a new distribution platform with access to original content like Howard should help to drive up subscription revenue for Sirius. And while they have to share that download fee with Apple, Sirius probably had a similar revenue share plan with the auto dealers in exchange for adding it into a car's features.

For Sirius subscribers, there is an incremental cost to add this app. How many existing customers add this platform may be a good indication of the how strong the value proposition is for Sirius. New customers to the App will be charged a higher monthly subscription plan. Still, this new distribution platform offers much wider access to content and could be seen as quite a deal. I know it is for me.

New York Times Requiring Paid Subscription For Online Content

The wall is slowly going up around The New York Times web content. For the occasional user, sampling will be free; but once you've read too much, a subscription to the site will be required. "There are three pricing plans for people to choose from; at each pricing level, the level of access readers have to the paper's content increases. The cheapest costs $15 per month. The most costly plan costs $35 per month, and allows unlimited access to the Times' website, smartphone and tablet apps. People who subscribe to the print edition of the paper will also have unlimited access." For print subscribers, it will be like getting a bonus edition. For newsstand purchasers, it might be financially more attractive to buy the online version.

Other newspapers and magazines will watch and see how well this change is treated by The New York Times' customer and what the financial ramifications may be. It could lead to higher subscription revenue; it could also lead to a drop in online usage and consequently online revenue. And should it prove successful, watch as the free amount of content drops. They will initially offer 20 free article views per month. Success could drive that sampling number down; instead, they could offer a daily fee for access.

Given the rise in iPads and smartphone usage, the timing may just be right. With other content competing in this space, however, the Times must really push its brand value to justify its cost. Otherwise, free and lower cost content from other sources will simply push the Times further out of the picture.

Content Wants To Be Paid On Every Platform

Consumers have always wanted content on their terms. The rise of the VCR first enabled viewers to tape their favorite shows and watch at their convenience. The challenge was those that couldn't even set the clock. VCRs begat the Tivo and the DVR experience. No clocks to set and an easier way to record. And the DVR has led to On Demand where the content has already been recorded and simply waits to be called up and viewed. Yet throughout this evolution, the content view has been limited to the TV screen. The most recent innovation has been the Time Warner App to push TV content from the TV to the iPad.

Great for consumers, but a challenge to TV Networks. Programmers want to be paid for this new distribution platform. "Network legal reps are issuing a flock of heated missives to the nation’s No. 2 cable operator, calling for an immediate halt to a new service that allows subscribers to stream video content to iPads and other tablet devices." When On Demand was released, revised agreements were needed for use; content owners argue that their agreements don't enable usage on mobile devices. These agreements tend to describe the technology used to transmit and the security to protect it. Time Warner argues that its use is limited to inside the home, but that may not matter in their programming agreements.

And while I can understand the Networks trying to increase their license fees, more views of their channels would also mean more advertising dollars. Perhaps more emphasis should be on measurement of iPad TV views. I also wonder if Programmers are so opposed to Time Warner pushing their content to more consumers, then why haven't they also sued Slingbox and Dish. Their boxes have been out on the market for a while and apps to access on mobile devices already exist, without any limits on where the content is viewed. Slingbox doesn't pay license fees for pushing content either.

Should Networks be entitled to more dollars for rights to more platforms? That certainly is what contract negotiation is all about. Value for value. But at the same time, recognize that when consumers are asked to pay too much or are restricted in accessing content, they tend to find innovative ways to move forward. Look no further than the music industry and Napster as an example. For TV, Tivo was developed to skip commercials and Slingbox was built to access content remotely. Networks not working together with Cable Operators to find a viable solution will find that consumers will simply build a work around solution. The Time Warner App adds value to the cable subscription. And keeping cable subscribers keeps Network annual license fees from declining.

To Grow, One Must Be Original

Whether it is in our personal life or professional one, a differentiation strategy is often useful to attain ones' goals. For a network desiring to grow its ratings, low cost often evolves into a differentiation strategy involving unique original programming. There are many examples to illustrate. In pay TV, HBO was first to dive into original series to differentiate itself from other pay networks. It's first was Oz, followed of course by The Sopranos. Since then, Showtime, Starz, and yes even start up Epix have followed with their own original shows. For basic TV, who would ever expect that TV Land, the place for rerun TV would dive into originals as well. And others like AMC went from classic movies to original miniseries like Broken Trail and their first original series, Mad Men. Original is differentiation; it builds loyalty and hopefully for networks, ratings.

So it must come as no surprise that a movie service like Netflix could follow a similar pattern. "Netflix may be on the verge of acquiring its first original television series, “House of Cards,” a drama to be directed by David Fincher." The platform may be different, but the strategy is the same. Differentiation using original series improves loyalty to the service. Do it well and customers will stay and hopefully bring their friends, too.

The fact that this strategy is being used in this new space adds another wrinkle. "Picking up the exclusive rights to a television show would effectively make Netflix a network similar to ABC or HBO and would underscore just how disruptive the company has become to the media business." As opposed to being another window for films to be available for viewership, Netflix is redefining itself as the online, on demand place for new and old content. Given the costs to produce original content, Netflix will most likely need to raise its subscription rates to finance these new projects. They may also need to build an ad model as a second revenue stream. For now, Netflix remains a low cost alternative to pay as it further slides into the competitive path of the current cable model.

Cable Operators Starting To Offer Mobile Live TV

While a number of cable operators are starting to work on pushing cable channels to mobile devices, Time Warner Cable is the first to release an App. "Time Warner Cable on Tuesday is set to debut an app for Apple's iPad that will let customers watch more than 30 live channels over their home Wi-Fi networks, at no extra charge for those who take both broadband and expanded basic or higher video service." Of course their are a number of limitations. You can only watch on a mobile device within the home. Only 33 cable channels are available, no broadcast channels have been mentioned. And no ESPN, TNT or TBS yet. Still, it is a good first step for operators to satisfy the needs of today's mobile customer and create added value. Comcast and Cablevision seem to be close behind in announcing their app. It is still a baby step as the consumer is restricted to watch only at home, despite being untethered.

Of course, the competition has been offering complete remote access to all channels for a while. Dish Network has been using Slingbox to access remote viewing on both a computer and the smartphone.

Digital broadcast networks are looking at new technology to enable connections to the consumers across any device. Currently known as UltraViolet, consumers could buy once and play content anywhere. It is another step in enabling consumers to watch their TV content anywhere and everywhere. As cable offers a key aggregation approach, these stars could align to bring a robust line-up to the consumer, without the need for a wire.

Will All Roads Lead Through Facebook?

It seems that Facebook is fast becoming the big aggregator with all applications aligning themselves on your Facebook home page. Watch a movie on Facebook, share it with your friends; find a coupon on Facebook, share it with your friends. Why go to tons of different sites if Facebook brings it all to you. And isn't finding something and sharing it what Facebook is all about. While movies and coupons aren't there just yet, it is clearly the direction of the company. "Facebook Inc. plans to test a Groupon-inspired service that provides discount offers, an effort to use its 500 million-plus members to capitalize on the surging online-deal market."

Just as you open your email every day to catch up, you do the same with Facebook. Heck why not have all email go through Facebook too. Of course, the challenge of too much convergence to one source leads to putting all your eggs in one basket. What happens when the site goes down. When your email goes down and you have to get a message out, you rely on your second email account. Too much dependence on one source also limits our own acts of discovery of other deals. Still the convenience of easily sharing through your social network account is appealing and Facebook continues to capture the trend.

And for those that don't want to be an open book, sharing all their activities online with their "friends", there still remains the old fashion way of cutting coupons for the newspaper. Enjoy!

It's Not Cord Cutting, It's Cord Shaving

The concern that cable will lose subscribers entirely to alternative platforms is not necessarily true. Television remains the predominant way to enjoy video programming, especially long form while the pc and tablet are perhaps better suited for short form watching. That line is certainly blurry and based on when and where you are to watch, but the viewing preference is clear. And cable prefers that best connection to the TV set.

Still, the rising costs of the cable subscription is resulting in purchase behavior changes. Some are cutting the cord for internet only viewing; that number statistically is today very small. Others are seeking less expensive alternatives including switching providers from cable to telco or satellite who are able to provide a similar service for a lower cost; hence, a drop in basic cable subscriptions at the cable operator while these other providers grow. And lastly, the current cable subscribers, like me, who seek to downgrade their service to keep their costs from further escalating.

Some drop their hard line cable phone service (retaining their wireless phones) and others drop their programming tiers including premium services. "HBO and Cinemax, Time Warner Inc.'s (TWX) stable of premium cable networks, together lost about 1.6 million subscribers last year, while Netflix Inc. (NFLX) added nearly 8 million--a performance that was widely viewed as evidence that some consumers have an appetite for viewing movies and TV shows on broadband instead of pay-TV." This act of consumers dropping services and taking lower tier programming offerings is in essence "cord shaving".

Consumers have grown weary of paying so much for cable service and not seeing more return for their dollar. Costs are rising but value isn't. Dropping networks and programming tiers allow consumers to keep their cable subscription while using alternative platforms to appease their wants. So a Netflix subscription, costing far less than a monthly HBO subscription becomes a sufficient substitute. Cord cutting is most likely still of future concern for cable operators and programmers; but for today it is really about cord shaving.

Tablet Bubble

Should iPad competitors simply stop competing? According to analysts, they have no chance against the Apple iPad. "So far, Apple is running laps around the competition, with the launch of its second-generation iPad before many of its rivals release their first. The iPad 2 goes on sale tomorrow, and so far only a smattering of rivals have hit the market, including Motorola's Xoom and its Android software." Still, if anything is learned from history, no one is first forever. Competition is necessary and technological advancement will continue to change the outcome.

Just look back a bit at history as the guide. For example, Sony led the portable music space with its hit product, the Walkman. Why buy a substitute for the real thing. Except that technological change got the better of Sony in this category. Digital succeeded tape, but Sony was so stuck on its product that they couldn't change to meet the changing demand. For the Detroit car industry, they were so stuck on big vehicles they couldn't change to meet the new needs of small and economic.

Apple continues to be fortunate in understanding the digital landscape but as history teaches us, it gets harder to continue expand while protecting the existing turf. The iPad is the leader but Apple must continue to take risks to adapt to changing needs or they too could find themselves looking backwards and not ahead.

Step Aside Sirius, Mog Wants A Seat In The Car

It seems Sirius has another contender in the satellite radio industry. Mog, a streaming music service, is using the smartphone and a deal with BMW to bring another service to the consumer. "Mog’s controls on the Mini are integrated into the dashboard’s digital display, and activated by hooking up a smartphone through the car’s Mini Connected system. The program connects to the Internet through the phone, but otherwise it is handled entirely through the standard dashboard controls." In addition, Mog is doing deals with TV and Blu-ray manufacturers to bring their subscription service into the home as well, something Sirius has yet to do. The versatility of it's service to more places should attract more users as well.

But Sirius shouldn't be the only ones concerned. Pandora and Rhapsody also occupy the home space and Apple and Google would like nothing better than to make more inroads as well. To me, the key remains the centralization of the assets, either accessed by a server for the whole home to enjoy or as is now being pushed, the cloud. Apple wants to utilize the cloud for iTune users as are others. With content in the clouds, content is accessed easily from anywhere as long as their is a connection. And what you want, when you want, where you want is ultimately what the consumer desires.

The Merging of Facebook and Skype?

Do you want to merge your Facebook account with Skype. All those friends you have added, are you ready to talk with them every time you are posting? Or will you be encouraged to do your Facebook activity offline. Well the idea of converging the two sites may become a reality. "Facebook Inc., the world’s biggest social-networking company, is holding talks with Skype Technologies SA about offering Web video calls to its 500 million users, two people familiar with the discussions said." So does this work for you or would you prefer to keep the two separate?

Perhaps, it may require us as Facebook users to classify our "friends" in different categories, those that we want to enable full communication access and those that are enabled to simply read and write posts. Perhaps we simply don't want all our friend to know all the time whether we are online or not. Right, I mean some friends are closer than others, and in the case of Facebook, some are simply acquaintances.

Content Stored In The Cloud

We own multiple devices in the home: multiple computers, iPods, and more. And pretty soon, everyone in the household will have an iPad. At the same time, we seek ways to share and hold our content. And while it may not be necessary to have access to the content at all times, we want to make sure it is there and safe when we do want it. So we buy back up digital storage or copy content onto cd-roms. And what we get is multiple copies of the same content filling up tons of storage. We have decentralized storage across each device in each home; now is the time to start centralizing and the solution lies in the cloud.

My first introduction to this concept was when Cablevision announced that it wanted to offer a N-DVR with content saved not on the device but at the central network. For Cablevision, it was an uphill, legal fight. Since then the need for more centralized storage has been turned into the latest buzz word, cloud computing. As defined in Wikipedia, "Cloud computing describes computation, software, data access, and storage services that do not require end-user knowledge of the physical location and configuration of the system that delivers the services."

So Apple is now trying to do the same thing with iTunes. "A deal would provide iTunes customers with a permanent backup of music purchases if the originals are damaged or lost, said the people. The service also would allow downloads to iPad, iPod and iPhone devices linked to the same iTunes account, they said. The move would be a step closer to universal access to content centrally stored on the Internet." Simply, user-friendly, and convenient. Download what you need immediately and store what you want to own and hold. Hopefully Apple will secure agreements from content companies to distribute and store in this manner.

And it seems to me that convenience spells more revenue. The safety of back-up combined with the need to continue to purchase and own. We, as human beings, remain pack rats; it's just nice to know that we don't have to clutter our own drives with digital content.

Banner Year For National and Local Cable Ad Sales

The economy is picking up and businesses are advertising once again. Despite threats of cord cutting and DVR, cable ad sales revenue continues to grow, reaching $27.1 billion dollars in 2010. In fact the CAB calls it the best year ever.

And while national cable ad sales grew near 10%, more impressively, local cable ad sales increased by 20% last year. "Original programming, said CAB, helped attract more dollars across categories to the national cable networks. They also rang up gains with non-linear ads." With interactive advertising and better segmentation technology, along with on demand advertising, cable advertising should continue to advance this year, too.

Of course, the economy must continue to respond. The health of key industries, including the auto market, are necessary. While last year had tons of political advertising, this year must rely on other sectors to pick up the inventory. As employment begins to rebound and consumers are purchasing more items, the economy is rising. And it seems that for 2011, cable advertising has a lot of positive momentum supporting its growth.

Apple iPad 2 Released

Engadget has some great information on the iPad 2 from the event today. And with Steve Jobs in attendance, it made for a bigger impression. Thinner, faster, dual camera.
And I have to say, I want one.

An App Store On Every Block

In real towns, every block seems to be filled with banks, but in the online world, the neighborhood is adding more App Stores. Of course the leader is Apple and it's iTunes and iPhone App library. And Google is making a strong run with it's Android App Store. The latest to enter the fray is Amazon. "The retailer is aiming to tap rising demand for games and entertainment that can be downloaded on mobile phones. That market, which is being pursued by more than 30 app stores, may rise to $40 billion by 2014 from $14.3 billion last year, according to Booz & Co. Competitors are trying to grab business from Google’s own Android Market, which has rankled some users for being cumbersome."

And as more devices enter the market, including the introduction of the iPad 2, they bring in more users and of course more demand for more apps. And while the cost per app may be a few pennies, the volume of sales is enormous. While Apple has the exclusivity, Android does not. And so Amazon and Google will be fighting over a smaller market share while Apple continues to enjoy all the growth. Still the market is growing and competition over the expectation of growing revenues just might bring in even more players.

Hulu Ad Revenue To Double in 2011

Forget about their subscription revenue for a moment, Hulu is on pace to double its ad revenue this year. I guess the digital ad business is no longer pennies or nickels but starting to act like real dollars. "(CEO Jason) Kilar did not address some of the recent controversy surrounding Hulu, including a possible shift toward a pure subscription model, or a widely discussed blog post he produced a few weeks ago that seemed to take some shots at several of the company’s top TV network partners and their business models." He maintains excitement in Hulu's continued growth with subscription and other forms of consumer revenue.

It seems that not only are views rising, but so are the number of unique advertisers and content partners to the Hulu formula. The more to watch, the more people watching, the more desirable for businesses to advertise to these eyeballs. And so far, it seems that Hulu is not hurting the other viewing platforms...yet. But their success can only cause some concern that it may lead viewers to cut the cord with the cable operator.