Ad Banned As Promoting Cord Cutting

For consumers tired of paying the high costs of cable TV, broadcast networks can still be received over the air.  While homes used to get these networks with large antennas attached to their roofs, the transition to digital means that a much smaller antenna can do the same thing.  Today's generation has gotten so comfortable with cable that they may forget that these devices still exist.  The ad below is one example of how to save money by getting a digital antenna.



"Over-the-air antenna maker Antennas Direct recently wanted to buy some air time on Charter‘s cable channels to explain how TV viewers can access these channels without a pay TV subscription."  But Charter refused to take this media buy.  In addition to connecting an antenna to get local broadcast signals, customers in NY can buy broadband access to local broadcast through Aereo's streaming platform. For consumers not interested in top cable networks like AMC, Discovery, ESPN, Food Network, HGTV, Nickelodeon and others, an antenna offers a truly inexpensive, basic TV service.  And this is the worry of cable operators like Charter and others, that acknowledging these alternatives will hasten cord cutting.

But while cable operators are at risk of losing cable subscribers, they are also a key driver for broadband to the home.  Unless consumers are willing to pay for wireless access only, a broadband connection from cable or telecom company is the ideal way to get access to the web into the home.  And until these companies can build differentiation into their broadband platform, consumers will view it almost like a utility and see the product like a commodity.  And that will mean that the lowest price will win the consumers' business. 

Fox Building Another Entertainment Network

Add FXX Network to the stable of Fox Broadcast, FX Channel, and FXM Channel.  And hope you can tell them apart.  "FXX, which will replace and expand upon the current Fox Soccer Channel, will launch Sept. 2, targeting the "millennial" audience of adults ages 18 to 34."  So soccer out, general entertainment back in.  With an anticipated reach of 74 million homes, FXX will assure interest by moving over shows from the FX parent brand to the fledgling channel.  Those shows include "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, returning for a 10th season; The League, back for a sixth; Legit, to return for a second; and late-night series Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell, which will expand to a five-nights-a-week talk show from its current weekly format."

These Fox Channels will be distinguished by the demographic they reach although not quite sure if anyone will notice.  Most likely the quality of the shows served will determine the value of each brand.  And given the resources of Fox, FXX will certainly get great brand engagement and awareness by the time they launch in the Fall. 

Online Content Pushing Eyeballs From Television

The brave new frontier for content is no longer cable TV; the web has been the newest ground for innovation and niche programming.  Content creators are embracing this new fertile platform.  "Filming for Web productions in L.A. rose 46% over 2011. Such content has evolved from short episodes to full-length TV productions, some with budgets comparable to conventional TV shows'." And this content is finding homes on You Tube, Netflix, AOL, Yahoo, and other online sites.  Online content is no longer about user generated content (UGC), although that still exists, but in professionally produced content meant to drive views and advertising and subscription dollars.

And the eyeballs for online content are growing as well to the point where cable operators are feeling the pressure of customers cutting their cable cord for online content only.  Original productions on Netflix and Amazon, original channels on You Tube are key drivers to audience interests.  They may start out attracting niche interests at first.  But like cable, the demand only leads to more broadly created content to attract larger, ad rated interests. 

It is the evolution in the media landscape, from radio to broadcast to cable to web that follows similar paths to becoming mainstream.  The rise in web content will not kill cable, but it will change usage patterns.  And for content creators, the growth in the web platform enables more choice and more opportunities for distribution.

Intel To Offer Pay TV Service

While many have speculated about the Apple TV with a Pay TV subscription, Intel may be farther along in talks with programmers to build a new service.  "Networks such as Time Warner’s CNN, NBC’s USA Network and Viacom’s MTV would give Intel critical mass to offer consumers an alternative to established pay-TV services. Using its own set-top box, Intel plans to offer an online product this year, Erik Huggers, Intel’s vice president for media, said last month. That would represent new competition for incumbent operators like Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and DirecTV. (DTV)."  And working from scratch, Intel could avoid the problems plaguing these current distributors, by not offering expensive networks, especially sports networks, that raise the costs and hurt the profit margin.  With less linear channels and more access to on demand programming, Intel could build a low cost, higher valued Pay TV service that would attract price conscious households.

Also of interest, Intel would offer a DVR service in the cloud, rather than stored in their set top box.   Such an approach would make it easier to offer from the outset a TV Everywhere model for access of programming on all the household's devices.  These requirements are no doubt also being negotiated with the networks.  How fast Intel can build its model and whether Apple is working furiously behind the scenes to get to market first remain to be seen.  No doubt, the consumer interest for a better viewing experience is growing.

For Sale, One Streaming Video Service

As streaming video is the backbone of an aggregated media service, the field has been attracting new entrants to the market.  of course, there is Hulu, Netflix, Vudu, Redbox, and Amazon.  HBO GO is considering a streaming model without a cable subscription.  And yesterday, Spotify announced its plans to add to its music service with video streaming. So considering the interest and growth in this platform, one set of owners wants to cash out. 

"Hulu's board has approached companies that might be interested in buying the over-the-top video provider, Reuters is reporting."  Its owners, Disney/ABC, News Corp/Fox, and Comcast/NBC, have differing ideas of the business.  Comcast/NBC has limited involvement because of its cable ownership, "News Corp. would prefer a TV Everywhere model while Disney supports an ad-supported model."  And so, once a price is agreed upon, two of the partners might just sell their shares to the third, or all three will be exiting the business.  Perhaps, a download business that Apple iTunes has enjoyed might consider buying in as a quick entrance into the streaming field. 

Of course, this release is not new news; it has been in the press for some time.  But given the growth in the industry and the insatiable demand for online video content, doesn't even partial ownership of an aggregated model offer some enhanced benefits?  Do they each believe that the consumer will hop from site to site in search for content to consume rather than prefer a platform that can search and recommend across all content?  Given that each of these partners represent multiple networks, they may think consumers will be happy searching within the parent brand, but consumers care more about the title of the content, not who presents it.  Selling Hulu might just be for them a misstep. 

HBO Without A Cable Subscription

HBO has long been regarded as a major asset to cable operators.  As a premium cable service, it charges subscribers an incremental fee above a basic cable subscription, that is then split with the cable operator.  And viewers that want HBO must first buy cable.  Cable operators like this arrangement very much. 

HBO continues to draw viewers with its mix of movies and original series.  Its shows, like Game of Thrones, gets terrific press.  But HBO has its challenges, too.  For one, there is no traditional advertising on the network.  Content is shown without commercial interruption.  So HBO must find additional revenue through resale of content via syndication and DVD.  And as we know the DVD revenue model.  HBO must also recognize that cable subscription is dropping too.  "Increasingly, consumers are dropping traditional cable packages to rely solely on subscription services like Netflix or a la carte  services like Amazon Instant Video."  Ultimately, less cable customers means less customers buying HBO.

Seeing these changes in the distribution landscape and watching as their authenticated TV Everywhere approach, HBO GO, has found value.  "HBO GO users can access content via a laptop, tablet, phone, through a gaming console, or other streaming devices. The service has 6.5 million registered users versus 29 million for HBO as a whole."  HBO may just be considering a major new disruptive revenue model.  Offering HBO GO without an HBO subscription.  Not an easy change to make.  Current contracts with cable operators may have clauses that must be dealt with. Will HBO work with its cable operators to construct such a model or go outside the wall to sell directly to over the top (OTT) companies?

As HBO is owned by Time Warner and also sells its basic cable networks like TNT and TBS to cable operators, it may be problematic to work outside the existing model.  A collaborative, partnership model makes more sense for the large company.  At the same time, the web knows no geographic boundaries.  Cable operators would have to create an online partnership, like Hulu Plus for example, to sell and OTT only subscription to channels.  Broadband has been a real game changer to cable and the rules have yet to be written.  No opportunities continue to emerge.

Follow The Disruptive Trend

According to Mark Greenberg, head of EPIX TV, "the path forward for TV is to embrace change, competition, as well as consumer choice and control in order to be relevant to new generations."  Truth be told, the entertainment industry, just like every other business, and across every environment, follows Darwinism and the evolution of change.  Eat or be eaten, adapt to survive or perish.  By following that concept, Greenberg recognizes and adheres to that understanding for survival. 

And while there may be no timetable for the pace of change in the entertainment environment, that change is evident.  We see it today as alternative, over the top platforms are taking root, and cable companies are concerned that households are moving past the cable cord for the internet to consume media.  "The mantra of the digital age has been 'adapt or die,' Greenberg said. But the real mantra should be 'disrupt or be disrupted' and now is the time to 'get back into the disruption business.'” For both content and distributors that means figuring out how to make TV Everywhere a complete solution, regardless of the device.  It also means more flexible pricing models for consumers at price points that keep customers subscribed. 

Consumers are drawn to these newer disruptive models for entertainment for a number of reasons.  One, that You Tube channels and videos are attracting niche interests.  Videos on X box games or how to instruction attract a younger demo.  Two, the online social communities, like Facebook and Twitter, can promote and recommend interesting content and enable a viral demand to view.  Three, the rise of mobile platforms, tablets and smartphones, bring the content to us, rather than making us go to a TV room to view.  And Four, the growth of over the top (OTT) devices, like Xbox, Roku, Apple TV and others bring more than just broadcast and cable networks to the TV, they bring internet access to a larger inventory of short and long form programming, on demand and at our fingertips. 

So Mark Greenberg is right, "the path forward for TV is to embrace change, competition, as well as consumer choice and control in order to be relevant to new generations."  It is a classic rule of nature as old as Charles Darwin himself.  In that struggle to survive, one must adapt to change.  As Herbert Spencer, Darwin's contemporary,  once said, it is "the survival of the fittest".

Walking And Web Surfing A Problem?

I enjoy reading Ralph Gardner's Urban Gardner articles in The Wall Street Journal.  And while his writings don't typically match this blog's content, I was drawn in to today's article, Too Much, Too Soon.  In it he makes a very logical point regarding Google Glass, "However, there's something I'd like to say to the good folks at Google before it's too late: Don't. Please just drop the idea. I know it sounds really exciting; even I'm really excited. But it's not smart. It will come to no good for a whole bunch of reasons."

For the most part, he questions our ability to do two things at once.  It may be fine to wear a Google Glass while at our desk or sitting on our couch, but another thing all together when we are outside on the street and sidewalks.  Will Google Glass distract to the point where we forget where we are walking and get knocked over by someone else, or worse, step into the street and get hit by a car.  Will we think we can wear these glasses while driving a car?  We certainly have been told time and time again not to text and drive." But that's the point: Just as with smartphones, it doesn't matter how cutting edge, even architectonic, these devices are. We, their masters, remain profoundly dumb, inept, clumsy, antediluvian.  And for Google's sake, will the first fatality that comes from someone wearing their Google Glass result in a lawsuit and possible class action suit. 

Ralph certainly envisions an upside of information at your fingertips, "Let's say you're walking down the street and spot an especially alluring fellow pedestrian. It will be only a matter of time until you'll be able to aim the lens of your device at his or her face, and using face recognition technology get the individual's address, work history, marital status, measurements and hobbies."  We are in fact already an open book on the web.  Despite the possible uses of Google Glass, the threat of injury, of oneself or others, seems so real.  We have a hard enough time concentrating on where we are going, let alone have distractions cross our path.  Hopefully, Google has thought this through.

Liberty Media May Want More Cable Companies

John Malone and Liberty Media may be itching to get back into the cable platform business.  Having once owned TCI 15 years ago, their recent cable acquisitions may be indicative of more to follow.  When Malone did own TCI (Tele-Communications, Inc), they were known for not investing in the infrastructure, building out the plant to enable more bandwidth.  It was sold to AT&T and ultimately has found its way in to Comcast. 

Today, they are back in the cable game.  In 2009, "Liberty Global agreed to buy the cable network Unitymedia for $3 billion from investors including BC Partners and Apollo Global Management." He bought into a Puerto Rican cable company, OneLink Communications, last year and will be closing on a 27% position in Charter Communications this year.  So, is John Malone planning to build up an international cable business?

So who else might Liberty Media be looking to acquire?  Cablevision, with 3 mm subscribers, has tremendous value, especially with its systems in the New York City market.  Cox Communications, though privately owned, could be a consideration as well, with over 4.5 mm customers.  Of course, Liberty could also start buying up smaller cable operators, at 1 mm subs and under, but the synergy with Charter may be harder to find.  Still, any additional acquisition by Liberty Media will only confirm their strategic plans.

Charter Buys Optimum West, Liberty Media To Buy Piece Of Charter

As Charter Communication grows, so does Liberty Media.  First came the announcement that the FTC approved Charter's purchase of Optimum West, the former systems owned by Bresnan and sold to Cablevision.  Now comes word that Liberty Media is buying a quarter stake in Charter.  "The acquisition of a stake in Charter, the eighth biggest pay-TV operator with 4.2 subscribers, would be Malone’s first big investment in a U.S. cable operator since he sold Tele-Communications Inc. to AT&T (T) for $48 billion in 1999."  Of course, Liberty also had a piece of DirecTv before spinning it out into a separate run company.

So if Liberty Media is looking to get into the distribution game, might they look at buying an additional cable operator.  While John Malone and Charles and Jimmy Dolan haven't tended to see eye to eye,  Cablevision might just be a target for acquisition as well.  And to the Dolan advantage, it could lead to a bidding war with Time Warner Cable who would see adding the Cablevision footprint as a more valuable asset.  For now, we can only watch and see what intentions Liberty will have with their Charter investment. 

Do Its Owners Want To Keep Hulu?

Despite Hulu's success, its owners, Fox, Disney, and NBC may not want to stay with them.  NBC/Comcast has no active management of them because of its cable ownership and Disney has been mulling selling out.  With the departure of its CEO, Jason Kilar, Hulu's future ownership is uncertain.  And yet, all these ownership issues coming while Hulu is actually performing quite well. 

"Hulu’s monthly unique visitors totaled 24.1 million last month, who watched 709.9 million total videos, according to comScore. Meanwhile, Hulu served 1.44 billion ads in February 2013, representing 583 million minutes."  And Hulu believes ComScore may not be representing all its numbers from multiple over the top (OTT) devices.  Not only does Hulu have a successful ad sales model, it has built a subscription revenue model that tops some cable operator numbers, with "more than 3 million paying customers for the $7.99-per-month Hulu Plus service, according to Kilar."  And Hulu subs are growing while cable subs continue to decline. 

Perhaps ownership would prefer not being both content and distribution owners.  By ridding themselves of ownership of Hulu, they are free to charge Hulu higher rates for carriage of their product.  Perhaps too, they face the conflict that comes from negotiating license fee deal with cable operators with Most Favored Nation clauses that limit their profitability?  Or their problems with ownership are because they have differing strategic views on the future direction of Hulu?  So while Hulu may be performing well, internal issues exist they may change the ownership and direction of the brand.  Hey Apple, care to buy Hulu?

Time Warner Cable Wants To Keep Customers Loyal

In New York City, Time Warner Cable has operated for years a very successful local news channel dubbed NY1.  For New Yorkers, the network offered an array of news and informational programming matched directly to the city they live in.  For those not in the Time Warner Cable (TWC) NYC area and a TWC subscriber, access is impossible.  Only TWC subscribers get NY1.  That limitation though is also an advantage as the channel is both well regarded and exclusive. 

But TWC believes that current customers, defectors to rival platforms in the market, including FIOS, RCN, and the satellites, DirecTv and Dish, and of course cord cutters might not know that they would lose NY1 if they left TWC.  "To hammer home that point, NY1 will undergo a 'rebranding' and name change to TWC News."  So why is this change happening now after so many years in the marketplace.  "The changes are the result of market research that found Time Warner subscribers were not aware that Time Warner owned NY1."  Rebranding is scheduled for this Fall. 

Of course, many fans of NY1 are not happy to hear of a name change.  And while it more directly connects the news channel to the corporate parent, it is hard for me to imagine that New Yorkers don't already know that NY1 is a Time Warner network.  And while I believe that exclusivity is essential to save subscribers from fleeing, my gut tells me that those consumers willing to switch from TWC to a rival cable operator or cut the cable cord completely know exactly what they are losing and gaining in the process.  For subscribers, I believe that the price point is overwhelmingly more important to their decision to switch than any channel exclusivity.  In today's economic market, price sensitivity to cable continues to be an increasingly bigger problem.  So name change or not, I believe it won't change the consumers decision to switch to a lower cost provider. 

Redbox Expands From Kiosk to Streaming

The Redbox model has been about accessibility with kiosks near where we shop to pick up a DVD rental for the evening.  And while the business model has worked well, the consumer still is moving to instant accessibility.  Like Netflix, Redbox has realized that they too needed to expand in order to grow the business.  The result, Redbox Instant, a joint venture with Verizon, to deliver a new streaming video competitor to Netflix, Amazon and others.  "The video service offers subscribers four DVD rentals as well as unlimited streaming of number of movies for $8 a month."

Coming later to the party poses some challenges, especially a smaller library of streaming shows and movies.  And what matters to the consumer is that the library of product to consume is not only desirable to watch, but that the library is actively growing to manage the voracious appetites of the customer.  So yes, size does matter, but so does exclusivity of content.  Demonstrate to the market that the offering is both plentiful and unique and Redbox Instant will capture market share.  It will be harder to compete from a lower cost standpoint as the monthly costs of under $10 a month makes it difficult to price too much lower.

Redbox Instant has been in beta mode with speculation of a public launch next week.  Can Redbox steal away subscribers from their competitors or are customers willing to buy into more than one streaming service?  Differentiate the value and I believe the latter is true.  At the end of the day, build a better viewing experience and customers will come.

Paper Is Sometimes Better Than Digital

Enjoy!

I Want My, I Want My...Vevo TV

The successful jingle and song lyric from Dire Straits, I Want My MTV may no longer be as fashionable as it once was.  At its launch, MTV was cutting edge with VJs and an emphasis on music videos.  It's style was hip and current and it worked perfect with a new technology of cable TV in the home.  But that was more than 30 years ago and today, MTV is one of a number of music/video channels reaching a younger demo.

With costs of cable rising and younger audiences moving from cable to online for their entertainment, a new channel has emerged that may just be to broadband what MTV was to cable, Vevo TV.  "Vevo took another step towards becoming a full-on music TV network Tuesday with the launch of Vevo TV, a 24-hour live stream of curated programming. The channel is using MTV-like VJs, and is at launch available on the web as well as on mobile devices, Roku boxes and Xbox 360 gaming consoles."  New technology for a new audience.

While Vevo might like to offer its TV channel to cable operators, operators will most likely be resistant to adding it to their line-ups as it competes with them on the over the top platforms (OTT).  That issue changes of course should Vevo TV become more popular than MTV and other cable music services and cable operators need it to compete.  But by then, the damage may be done as more and more households add OTT devices like Roku, XBox, Apple TV, and others into their home.  By then the cable box becomes less relevant.  Cable could instead bypass this obstacle by opening up their cable box to the web and these services. Still it may be too late as households become more accustomed to using their online boxes for programming. And that is a competitive threat.

For online channels watching this Vevo experiment, their success with an online TV channel may just be the push for them to also release their 24/7 channels as well.  And for services like Roku and XBox that are aggregating online content, it could prove a winning formula to competing for share of the cable household.

The Challenges Of Video Content Distribution

The intersection of video content and distribution becomes a negotiation for both parties.  Each needs the other, but their respective needs may not be completely aligned.  The perceived value of your content can decide how much leverage you may have in striking the right distribution deal.  Distribution companies seek content to add value to their pipeline.  The size of their audience also helps determine the kind of content deals they can negotiate.   Each takes their respective strengths (and weaknesses into the negotiation.

In the world of cable television, that fight (negotiation) has been going on for years.  Channels get pulled off cable line-ups during renewal periods for agreements.  Niche networks fight for any distribution they can get and larger networks, with multiple channels, use their better networks to help lift distribution for their smaller networks.  It is the fight that Cablevision is in today with Viacom.

 For content creators, it is about eyeballs and the revenue it can generate.  For distributors of content, it is about exclusivity and appeal to also increase viewership and revenue.  So in the world of internet video, why is it still a challenge for content creators to get distribution.  The web provides ubiquity enabling video viewership by anyone to any device.  And yet, video companies still seek distribution deals.

Frankly, it comes down to tonnage.  There are so many channels, so many shows, so many short videos that viewers and consumers in general have a difficult time finding what they want.  Heck, most don't even know what to ask for.  Distribution companies, whether a cable company like Comcast or Time Warner, an online video service like Hulu or Netflix, or even branded You Tube channels and other websites push their value as aggregators and recommenders of content to consume. What is known becomes watched, some unknown becomes viral and noticed, and most becomes part of a long tail of limited views. 

How we are discovered is essential.  For the most part, the bigger the project, the better the financing, the stronger the buzz, and the marketing behind it help to propel content to awareness, interest, and consumption.  Distributors prefer exclusivity so as to make their platform the only place to watch.  Cable operators want networks to only put shows on their line-up and not online so as to not present to consumers alternative options for viewing.  New episodes on network only, year old episodes on Hulu.  Content owners want ubiquity, the more choice for viewing, the more opportunities for revenue.  Distributors want exclusivity; the higher the value of the perceived content, the higher the value of the platform presenting it.  And so negotiations between distribution and content becomes fraught with issues on windows of ownership and exclusivity to make both sides happy. 

For the long tail of content, ubiquity is essential to simply get noticed. The hope being that discoverability can eventually lead the content creator off the tail and onto wider viewership where multiple revenue streams may be possible.  For these content companies, association with an aggregator that can help them to better market their content and build awareness and engagement is essential to success.  We are known by the company we keep and content is no different.  Being on sites or networks or screens that reach a similar interested audience is valued to build that engagement, interest, and value.  It is a long term game that occurs with each and every piece of content that gets created. 

More Consumers Not Watching Traditional TV

Nielsen released a recent study that is detailing just how much cord cutting has been occurring in the last 6 years.  According to their report, more than 5 million homes in the US don't have get cable or over the air TV service.  That number has more than doubled, from just over 2 million homes in 2007.  Described as "Zero TV Homes", these households tend to be younger than 35 and have no children.  "The main reasons 'zero TV' consumers cite for not having pay TV or receiving broadcast TV are cost (36%) and lack of interest (31%)."  So what do these households do for entertainment?

Not surprisingly, most actually own a television set and use it to connect to devices to watch from the internet.  Others let their computer screen be their source for entertainment.  Cable companies may not be worried as this group represents less than 5% of total US households.  Some may still subscribe to a cable company for broadband access only.  Still it is indicative of a growing trend.  With cost as a primary driver for dropping TV service, they may be harder to win back even as they grow older and have families.  With more reliance on internet programming and better programs available online, the interesting movement to watch will be just how quickly this "zero household" group grows. 

Nook Needs Exclusive Content Partnerships To Succeed

Barnes and Noble has announced new content partnership deals for its Nook tablet to help build up its library of content offerings and compete in the marketplace.  "The new partnerships deals involve Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. (LGF), MGM Holdings Inc., Viacom Inc.'s (VIA, VIAB) Paramount Pictures, Relativity Media, National Geographic, Little Pim and Film Buff."  Content is King and the strategy of building content is important to the success of their business plan.  But it is a very competitive landscape and others are doing exactly the same thing.  So if the strategy is to level the playing field against bigger names like Apple and Amazon, it may not be enough. 

The success of a content strategy, in my humble opinion, is in the exclusivity of content offerings that are created.  In the over the top (OTT) world, Netflix and Amazon have been investing in exclusive content to compete with cable.  Even in network and cable programming, the channels that have the better programming gets the ratings and the ad dollars.  It also enables leverage to the channel and its positioning on a cable operator's line-up.  Taking the cue from these other related industries, B&N must find its exclusivity to effectively compete with the Nook, whether in the general marketplace or in niches. 

A few off the top ideas for B&N to consider.  Exclusivity with magazine brands for an exclusive window of release ahead of general release.  Exclusivity of e-textbooks for college classrooms.  Even exclusivity of TV shows or movies.  Consider exclusive gaming and other apps that make the Nook as differentiated as possible from other devices.  At the end of the day, a me too strategy will not be enough for the Nook to succeed; other tablet libraries are already larger and B&N will have a hard time to catch up.  In my opinion, it will be differentiation in niche market offerings and content exclusivity that will most grow the Nook brand.

Has Facebook Gotten Boring?

Question, are you still a Facebook fan?  Do you go on as often as you did 6 months ago?  Are you posting as much as then?  Or have we all gotten a little bored with Facebook.  I ask because today another change is being made to the Facebook screen.  "Reports from various technology news sites expect Facebook to introduce a new image-enhanced version of the News Feed for the Web and for mobile phones"  And while they tell us that users are posting more, I am skeptical.

Perhaps it is because I represent an older demographic and I am seeing less postings from myself and my "friends".  I still check my Facebook, but I find myself doing it less and less.  I think it has become most useful in easily wishing others Happy Birthday on their special day.  But I have become less enthralled by it.  I just wonder if I am alone in that point of view.

I do like keeping up on my friends and their activities, where they are, what they are up to; but I feel that the clutter from suggested posts and other ads make it harder to get to what I really care about.  Sure I like to play the games through Facebook, but I don't feel the need to either share my score with the world or know what word a friend may have played in a game I am not competing with them in.

I may not be completely over Facebook, but any changes that only build more clutter may just turn me off for good.

Time, Inc. To Split From Warner Bros.

Last month, I speculated in my blog that once Time Warner spun off most of its magazines to Meredith, it should change its corp name back to Warner Brothers.  Well the deal with Meredith appears to have fallen through so step two is to split apart the two companies.  Goodbye synergy; print and video no longer make good bedfellows. "CEO Jeff Bewkes said that the spinoff would allow Time Warner to 'focus entirely on our television networks and film and TV production businesses.'"

True, print media is having a difficult time as it deals with its transition to a digital format.  But the content that is created for print has incredible value in a digital world and combined with video from the network and film side of Time Warner, the makings of great stickiness and revenue generation.  Breakups are never easy.  Now the Time, Inc. side of the business must rely on its own video abilities to augment the value of their brands through these digital growing stages.  The challenge of proving that a growing revenue model exists and that these print brands will succeed in the digital future may have been too tough for Time Warner.  Patience is a virtue but given Time Warner's need to grow profitability, that patience no longer exists.  Synergy cannot be found to make the marriage last and so divorce is forthcoming.  "Time Warner said its goal was to complete the deal by the end of 2013."

Where acquisition was once the name of the game, Time Warner has determined that divestiture is the future.   They spun off Time Warner Cable a couple years ago and now it is Time, Inc.'s turn.  Smaller, more agile, and hopefully, more profitable for the remaining entity, Warner Brothers.

Is Apple Finally Launching A Streaming Music Service?

It's one thing to offer downloads, it's another to offer a subscription service.  Why Apple has been slow to enter this space is unclear, but Apple may be reconsidering.  "Apple Inc has held talks with Beats Electronics LLC, the audio technology firm co-founded by influential hip-hop producer Dr Dre and music mogul Jimmy Iovine, on a potential partnership involving Beats' planned music-streaming service, three people familiar with the situation told Reuters."  

It is time for Apple to announce a full fledged subscription service - music, video, info - available across its product line.  As Apple has never worried about cannibalizing its current offerings, there should be no fear that a subscription service may affect download purchases.  The iTunes store will continue to survive and thrive.  And an Apple subscription service guarantees a measurable monthly revenue stream, something Wall Street would be pleased to see.  

Can we expect movement quickly?  It seems that Steve Jobs had been considering before his death.  "(Jimmy) Iovine said Jobs didn't want to pay the record companies enough, and thought the price would come down eventually."  The resurgence of music, thanks partly to iTunes, shows that not to be the case.  It seems that now might just be a good time, given recent stock performance, to pull the trigger and announce a subscription service. 

Media Has A Social Soundtrack

Great article in Huffington Post from Deb Roy called "Television's Future Has a Social Soundtrack"  As Twitter and Facebook enable immediate sharing of our thoughts and concerns, it provides great social measurement of events in our lives.  Since television offers us a window to the world, from presidential debates to award shows, from the Super Bowl to The Walking Dead, the second screen enables social commentary to share with the world.  "Just in the United States, tens of millions of people are talking to each other as they watch TV. This year's Super Bowl alone spurred over 24 million tweets."

Count me in the group.  I tweeted as well during the Oscars and enjoyed reading others' snarky tweets.  It also added to my engagement in the show I was watching. And as Roy points out, social media opens us up to other viewpoints and feedback. It also provides an expertise and recommendations to new programming.  "Hearing chatter about a show is becoming a common way to discover new programs and decide what to watch."  

This "social soundtrack" becomes for the user an important added value to our viewing behavior.  " If you are not part of the soundtrack yet, chances are that you will be soon."

The Fragmentation Of TV Sports Networks

No doubt that the cost of monthly cable service is becoming a major concern for households.  For some, it is becoming expensive to the point where consumers are cutting the cord and relying on the web for their video entertainment.  One of the biggest contributors to the cost of cable is sports programming.  License fees for sports networks are among the highest expenses for the cable operator.  And of course those fees get passed on to the consumer.

Sports programming also attracts an audience that offers more advertising opportunities. So where once sports was only found on broadcast channels, programming has pushed down to national and regional cable networks, as well as to the college and high school level.  And from a few sports networks, now we have many.  ABC has the leader in national sports with ESPN while NBC and CBS has been pushing forward their networks as well.  Now comes Fox Networks trying to build out their own national sports net.  "Fox has spent months working to convert Speed, a motorsports-centric network with 81 million subscribers, to Fox Sports 1. A companion service, Fox Sports 2, will replace another niche channel, Fuel."

But it is more than just national sports networks, the regional nets demand their monthly fees as well. NY has YES and MSG, Philly has Comcast Sportsnet, Boston has NESN.  And don't forget the rise of networks from the professional leagues as well, including the NFL Network, MLB, And NHL.  Even TBS and Turner get higher fees for their carriage of basketball and baseball.  College sport fans can also enjoy watching their teams on the Big Ten and Pacific-12 Networks.  And MSG has a network devoted to high school sports.  Is their fragmentation?  No doubt. 

Ultimately the costs of fragmenting can only lead to trouble. As costs of carriage rise, consumers will have a hard time paying for all these channels. At some point consolidation must occur as larger segmentation returns.  But that might take some time.  

Can The iWatch Save Apple?

First came talk of an Apple TV and now the push is on for an Apple iWatch; bottom line, is there another product in the line-up that can restore Apple to coolness and pull back up the stock price?  According to unconfirmed reports, the iWatch is coming with some valued features.  "Features under consideration include letting users make calls, see the identity of incoming callers and check map coordinates, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans aren’t public. It would also house a pedometer for counting steps and sensors for monitoring health-related data, such as heart rates, this person said." 

Would the younger audience even where a watch?  Would the older demo replace their current watches for an Apple iWatch?  For me, I am probably more likely to wear a watch then wear a pair of Google glasses.  Heck, I despise wearing the 3D glasses in movie theaters.  Wearable computers are certainly the fashion of the future.  But perhaps we should take our cue once again from Star Trek and look instead at a device that also acts like a pin.  If Captain Kirk wears one, maybe we should too.

NBC Considering Linear Distribution With OTT Providers

As companies have learned, sometimes you need to cannibalize the product in order to continue to grow.  Apple was willing to push iPhone sales knowing that it would cannibalize on iPod sales.  And NBC may be considering a similar strategy, cannibalizing on current distribution to achieve greater growth and hopefully larger revenue.  That means offering the linear feeds of its broadcast and cable channels to internet platforms. 

And there certainly would be takers.  Apple has been considering an Apple TV set for years and getting NBC channels distributed would add value to their efforts.  "Intel, for one, has publicly discussed plans to launch an over-the-top pay TV service in 2013 and says it has approached major programming providers." Sure NBC's cable arm Comcast has a large percentage of the US cable geography; still offering it to an internet platform would provide more access to the entire country, beyond the communities that they currently cover. 

The challenge would be for NBC in the agreements with distributors already in place.  There are most likely most favored nation (MFN) clauses that might interfere with offering their networks to IP platforms.  There might also be higher costs for carriage making the networks more expensive for the consumer to purchase.  But it could also be the first step in unraveling bundles of programming to consumers interested in cherry picking the channels they wish to watch.  That Comcast/NBC is "negotiating several 'full freight' requests" might just legitimize the next phase of network distribution in the IP world. 

The Monetization Of Digital Content

As content gets digitized, whether from print, audio, or video, it essentially loses its wrapping, the pieces around it that differentiate it from something else.  For books, it can be hard cover or softcover with any number of covers to make it appealing.  For music, it can be presented as album, cd, cassette, etc.  And as video, as VHS, DVD, or presented by a TV channel with wraps and intros to keep us tuned in.  But the content itself is intact and unchanged, except perhaps for special Director Cuts or extended versions. 

For distributors cutting deals to sell this digitized content, the classic marketing decisions must be made.  For cable distributors, it is aggregating the mix of channels at a price point that works and building a platform that assures that the service is always on.  For music, it is sold as a standalone song or within an album, and the ease of streaming or download.  And book sellers on having a large library of content and the ease of purchase and download.

The challenge for all distributors is figuring out how to best appeal to the consumer so that they choose your infrastructure to buy from and to create a hopefully long term, loyal customer base.  But consumers can be fickle and their interests can change with any internal or external force, from pricing changes to technological innovation.  The successful distributor can react as well as be proactive to assure that their relationship with the consumer continues to grow. 

And that is what makes the entertainment and media landscape so interesting and appealing to me; the constant change that enables innovation and growth.  For cable, the rise of video on demand and interactivity on the TV set; for book sellers, the rise of e-readers and tablets, and for music, different ways to consume and enjoy, from downloading and purchase to streaming online or from Sirius and even still from radio. 

Change is the constant force that assures that nothing stays the same forever.  Consumers love innovation that improves the quality of their lives.  We no longer can wait for the newspaper to be delivered to our door or for our news telecast at 11 pm, we need it now and digital has enabled instant accessibility.  It is hard to imagine getting it any faster, but I'm sure we will.  We also want it at an affordable price, willing to pay more if we can be convinced it provides greater value.  And we want the extras that make the experience that much more satisfying.  The challenge is figuring out what all those things are for all of the content we seek to consume.