When you open up your browser, whether its Chrome or Firefox or Safari or even Internet Explorer, what is your home screen? Do you go to Google search or Apple.com or have you never changed it from its initial pre-set? It seems to me that the greatest opportunity for success in the online space will come from the internet company that can best educate consumers to lead them to make such a "bold" change.
I say this because of all the news coming out of Yahoo at its Newfront presentation to build new portals and new long form original content. From a new site to be called Yahoo Travel to shows from Katie Couric, Netflix like series, and concerts from Live Nation, Yahoo is aggressively building content to reach consumers and generate additional advertising revenue. Content is king in this scenario and I love the approach. At the same time, I adhere to the principal that if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound. Once these shows are produced and ready for consumption, what can be done for an audience to hear about them and seek out these content choices.
And that is what brings me back to the home page. I believe that a superior home page experience still needs to be built and promoted. An aggregated experience that is both adaptable for consumers' needs and frequently updated to push categories and topics of interest to help drive consumers to new and interesting content. Content is important but so is "discoverability" of that content and reminders that is it easily reachable.
So what is your home page? Mine is Feedly but I am open to change. Convince me to make Yahoo my home page or tell me what other options are there to provide a non-biased window to content that best suits my needs and interests. At the same time, it shouldn't be so cluttered that it looks like a mess. I believe there is still an opportunity to build a better "home base" that even when consumers leave their home page to explore other web content, they still want to come back to their home page for new updates and discovery. "If you build it, they will come" and I haven't seen anyone build the best home screen yet. Prove me wrong.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
The New Cable Map
Once Comcast is approved to acquire the Time Warner Cable systems, and that seems only a matter of time, agreements seem already in place with Charter Communication to swap some systems, spin out others, and create a new cable order. The death of Time Warner Cable will leapfrog Charter into the number two position for cable subscribers. And while it will be significantly less than what Comcast will manage, it will more than double the subscriber numbers for Charter.
For Comcast, it will enable them to cover the eastern markets of the US, from Maine down to Florida. Subscribers from Time Warner include Portland, all the major cities of New York, and Charlotte and other North Carolina and South Carolina markets. Charter will swap markets in Connecticut and California and elsewhere enabling Comcast to have major share in most of the top 10 DMAs. While this map doesn't include current Comcast markets, it provides some nice detail on the markets that will trade hands.
While Charter has never had much impact in major DMAs, the acquisition of these subs will give them some strong clusters in states like Ohio and Wisconsin. Looking at this map is like watching the a military operation as it splits up its spoils from a once mighty regime.
So where did Time Warner Cable go wrong? Once part of a larger Time Warner company, ranked 2nd in cable operations, to a soon to be forgotten footnote in the history of cable television. That would certainly make a great blog one day, perhaps even a book on the rise and fall of the Time Warner Cable empire. For now we watch as Comcast soon gains approval to consume and share some pieces of the carcass called Time Warner Cable.
For Comcast, it will enable them to cover the eastern markets of the US, from Maine down to Florida. Subscribers from Time Warner include Portland, all the major cities of New York, and Charlotte and other North Carolina and South Carolina markets. Charter will swap markets in Connecticut and California and elsewhere enabling Comcast to have major share in most of the top 10 DMAs. While this map doesn't include current Comcast markets, it provides some nice detail on the markets that will trade hands.
While Charter has never had much impact in major DMAs, the acquisition of these subs will give them some strong clusters in states like Ohio and Wisconsin. Looking at this map is like watching the a military operation as it splits up its spoils from a once mighty regime.
So where did Time Warner Cable go wrong? Once part of a larger Time Warner company, ranked 2nd in cable operations, to a soon to be forgotten footnote in the history of cable television. That would certainly make a great blog one day, perhaps even a book on the rise and fall of the Time Warner Cable empire. For now we watch as Comcast soon gains approval to consume and share some pieces of the carcass called Time Warner Cable.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Cable Operators Take TiVo And Netflix
Three small MSOs have agreed to let their TiVo set top cable box integrate Netflix into the mix. It means that cable customers in those communities with a leased TiVo box from the cable operator will be able to subscribe directly to Netflix and receive incrementally more TV shows and movies. And even more importantly for the customer, TiVo "will offer integrated
search that spans not just Netflix, but also the live TV lineup and the
operator’s video-on-demand service. Netflix will also be displayed like a 'channel' in the guide." So searching for a show like Breaking Bad, a consumer would see that it can be accessed on different platforms, through Netflix, on AMC's channel, and perhaps even on demand. And for consumers, a meaningful benefit.
I also believe it is ultimately good news for these cable operators. Consumers will enjoy the benefit of one box accessing multiple platforms of programming. And it will demonstrate that Netflix and other OTT video services are not necessarily cable cord cutters; rather, they can live harmoniously on the same infrastructure. And these same consumers will be taking both cable and broadband service from their respective MSOs to access their content. Hopefully other MSOs will learn from this initial launch and recognize that OTT may be less a threat and more a partnership.
I also believe it is ultimately good news for these cable operators. Consumers will enjoy the benefit of one box accessing multiple platforms of programming. And it will demonstrate that Netflix and other OTT video services are not necessarily cable cord cutters; rather, they can live harmoniously on the same infrastructure. And these same consumers will be taking both cable and broadband service from their respective MSOs to access their content. Hopefully other MSOs will learn from this initial launch and recognize that OTT may be less a threat and more a partnership.
will
offer integrated search that spans not just Netflix, but also the live
TV lineup and the operator’s video-on-demand service. Netflix will also
be displayed like a "channel" in the guide. - See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/tv-apps/three-us-msos-launch-tivonetflix-mix/374096#sthash.4rxOOsmY.dpuf
will
offer integrated search that spans not just Netflix, but also the live
TV lineup and the operator’s video-on-demand service. Netflix will also
be displayed like a "channel" in the guide. - See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/tv-apps/three-us-msos-launch-tivonetflix-mix/374096#sthash.4rxOOsmY.dpuf
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Sirius Continues To Grow
Each year the Auto Show comes to New York and each year, new model cars and concept vehicles are shared with the public. And on the showroom floors it seems every new car being sold offers a subscription to SiriusXM even as some start to remove cd and dvd players from the dash. The rise of digital content and satellite radio creates a complete entertainment solution.
For Sirius, consumers of new cars are enjoying their 3 month free trial of the service and more and more seem to be deciding to keep paying a monthly subscription. "Sirius added 173,480 net paying subscribers in the quarter ended March 31, raising the total to 25.8 million." With subscription fees and advertising, revenues for the quarter rose as well, despite competition from digital media and traditional radio.
So what does the future hold for Sirius? Are they an acquisition target or is there a limit to their growth goals? The good news, because of advertising as well, Sirius had a "better-than-expected 11 percent rise in quarterly revenue". Given the quarter subscription increase was only 0.68%, the challenge continues to be how to create more meaningful growth for the business. For now Sirius has a good story to tell, its what happens next that should keep us tuned in.
For Sirius, consumers of new cars are enjoying their 3 month free trial of the service and more and more seem to be deciding to keep paying a monthly subscription. "Sirius added 173,480 net paying subscribers in the quarter ended March 31, raising the total to 25.8 million." With subscription fees and advertising, revenues for the quarter rose as well, despite competition from digital media and traditional radio.
So what does the future hold for Sirius? Are they an acquisition target or is there a limit to their growth goals? The good news, because of advertising as well, Sirius had a "better-than-expected 11 percent rise in quarterly revenue". Given the quarter subscription increase was only 0.68%, the challenge continues to be how to create more meaningful growth for the business. For now Sirius has a good story to tell, its what happens next that should keep us tuned in.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Aereo Just A Remote Antenna And Cloud DVR
As the Supreme Court listens to arguments regarding the Aereo service, many also speculate what a ruling either way will do to future cloud based services. Broadcasters are concerned that this disruptive model will kill is license fee revenue model, although it would also increase its viewership reach. Aereo argues that it is simply selling a technological service to receive and transmit free programming.
Today's Business Insider article argues that a ruling against Aereo will also negatively effect the future of cloud based services. Previous rulings have enabled cloud based DVR service; in fact, Cablevision was the cable operator behind an N-DVR push. And when you look at the basic model, Aereo is simply leasing remote antennas rather than placing one on your roof and adding enhanced cloud based DVR capabilities in exchange for a monthly fee. BI's argument, and a compelling one is this: "Make no mistake, large media companies hate technical innovation. TV and movie studios also believed that DVRs and VHS cassettes would kill their businesses. In fact, they enhanced them. Aereo is simply a remote personal video recorder."
Should Aereo lose its court case, it claims no "Plan B" and would cause an end to its business. But it is argued that such a ruling would be counter to previous rulings enabling cloud based content capture and transmitting services. And would lead to "Any company whose business model relies on letting viewers store copyrighted material on a remote server for later viewing could find itself suddenly illegal" including services like Dropbox. The concern is that a ruling would significantly alter further innovation for all cloud based services.
Broadcasters argue that it will kill their business model although they have argued that before with the rise of cable, VHS, and DVR services. Some have threatened to move from over the air to a cable based model. While they argue the possible loss of license fees, I am skeptical that cable operators will move to an antenna based system as a result so no significant loss of revenue. I believe that as long as broadcasters use over the air to transmit, consumers should be allowed to lease antennas from Aereo or other to capture and stream programming. If we can do it with a DVR why not with Aereo.
Today's Business Insider article argues that a ruling against Aereo will also negatively effect the future of cloud based services. Previous rulings have enabled cloud based DVR service; in fact, Cablevision was the cable operator behind an N-DVR push. And when you look at the basic model, Aereo is simply leasing remote antennas rather than placing one on your roof and adding enhanced cloud based DVR capabilities in exchange for a monthly fee. BI's argument, and a compelling one is this: "Make no mistake, large media companies hate technical innovation. TV and movie studios also believed that DVRs and VHS cassettes would kill their businesses. In fact, they enhanced them. Aereo is simply a remote personal video recorder."
Should Aereo lose its court case, it claims no "Plan B" and would cause an end to its business. But it is argued that such a ruling would be counter to previous rulings enabling cloud based content capture and transmitting services. And would lead to "Any company whose business model relies on letting viewers store copyrighted material on a remote server for later viewing could find itself suddenly illegal" including services like Dropbox. The concern is that a ruling would significantly alter further innovation for all cloud based services.
Broadcasters argue that it will kill their business model although they have argued that before with the rise of cable, VHS, and DVR services. Some have threatened to move from over the air to a cable based model. While they argue the possible loss of license fees, I am skeptical that cable operators will move to an antenna based system as a result so no significant loss of revenue. I believe that as long as broadcasters use over the air to transmit, consumers should be allowed to lease antennas from Aereo or other to capture and stream programming. If we can do it with a DVR why not with Aereo.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Comcast Sees No Cord Cutting
While other cable operators have seen subscribers drop video service for OTT, Comcast seems to have bucked the trend. For the second straight quarter, video subscriptions actually rose for the company. "Comcast added 24,000 TV customers in the quarter to reach a total of 22.6 million." In addition, Comcast added "383,000 broadband subscribers in the period to a total of 21.1 million." They continue to defy analysts who expected cord cutting to take a bigger bite.
Comcast has followed a differential strategy that continues to work. Where cable operators have been separating their content companies from their platform companies (Time Warner Cable as an example), Comcast has embraced both content and distribution. Its acquisition of NBCUniversal from General Electric has led to enormous gains as well. They have proved that a content and distribution company can find synergies to work together.
Their planned acquisition of Time Warner Cable also demonstrates that size matters. To offer best services, economies of scale and efficiencies come from size. And a cable and broadband and content company, they seem to recognize that businesses change and adapt over time. Like Apple's willingness to forgo iPod sales for iPhones, Comcast seems to understand that the cable world may change significantly and they must continue to readjust to meet the changing customer needs. So far, it seems to be working well for them.
Comcast has followed a differential strategy that continues to work. Where cable operators have been separating their content companies from their platform companies (Time Warner Cable as an example), Comcast has embraced both content and distribution. Its acquisition of NBCUniversal from General Electric has led to enormous gains as well. They have proved that a content and distribution company can find synergies to work together.
Their planned acquisition of Time Warner Cable also demonstrates that size matters. To offer best services, economies of scale and efficiencies come from size. And a cable and broadband and content company, they seem to recognize that businesses change and adapt over time. Like Apple's willingness to forgo iPod sales for iPhones, Comcast seems to understand that the cable world may change significantly and they must continue to readjust to meet the changing customer needs. So far, it seems to be working well for them.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Should Advertisers Pay More for C7 Ratings?
As more and more viewers get comfortable with their DVR, networks would love to extend the period of delayed viewing counting toward ratings from 3 days to 7. The good news is that shows would show higher ratings based on how consumers are really watching these days; the bad news, advertisers would pay more for those added quantifiable eyeballs. According to the TiVo research, some show ratings could increase more than 10%.
At the same time, advertisers might need to challenge how often viewers are using trick features like fast forward on their DVR boxes to pass through the commercials to get to the show. In my household, DVR and on demand viewing, especially during prime time, happens more and more often. And the remote is close by in trying to judge when to start and stop the fast forward button. Sometimes, the first commercial and last commercial in the break are viewed in getting close to the show content.
C7 Ratings, used to judge popularity of a show is certainly important. But in regard to raising advertising fees, some formula might be needed to ascertain the true value of delayed DVR viewing. Still it is nice to see that the rise of DVR viewing is seen as more than just 3 days from initial linear airing of a show.
At the same time, advertisers might need to challenge how often viewers are using trick features like fast forward on their DVR boxes to pass through the commercials to get to the show. In my household, DVR and on demand viewing, especially during prime time, happens more and more often. And the remote is close by in trying to judge when to start and stop the fast forward button. Sometimes, the first commercial and last commercial in the break are viewed in getting close to the show content.
C7 Ratings, used to judge popularity of a show is certainly important. But in regard to raising advertising fees, some formula might be needed to ascertain the true value of delayed DVR viewing. Still it is nice to see that the rise of DVR viewing is seen as more than just 3 days from initial linear airing of a show.
Looking
at 10 top primetime shows on the broadcast networks, TiVo Research
found $88 million in additional revenue that could be captured by
switching to C7 from C3. The ratings lift ranged from a low of 6.2% for
CBS’ The Good Wife to 10.9% for ABC’s Modern Family. - See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/change-c7-would-boost-ratings-revenue/373981#sthash.1IwCTEoc.dpuf
Looking
at 10 top primetime shows on the broadcast networks, TiVo Research
found $88 million in additional revenue that could be captured by
switching to C7 from C3. The ratings lift ranged from a low of 6.2% for
CBS’ The Good Wife to 10.9% for ABC’s Modern Family. - See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/change-c7-would-boost-ratings-revenue/373981#sthash.1IwCTEoc.dpuf
Looking
at 10 top primetime shows on the broadcast networks, TiVo Research
found $88 million in additional revenue that could be captured by
switching to C7 from C3. The ratings lift ranged from a low of 6.2% for
CBS’ The Good Wife to 10.9% for ABC’s Modern Family. - See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/change-c7-would-boost-ratings-revenue/373981#sthash.1IwCTEoc.dpuf
Looking
at 10 top primetime shows on the broadcast networks, TiVo Research
found $88 million in additional revenue that could be captured by
switching to C7 from C3. The ratings lift ranged from a low of 6.2% for
CBS’ The Good Wife to 10.9% for ABC’s Modern Family. - See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/change-c7-would-boost-ratings-revenue/373981#sthash.1IwCTEoc.dpuf
Friday, April 18, 2014
Video Streaming Not Hurting TV Ad Revenue
While Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and others are capturing subscription revenue and watching usage surge, broadcast and cable networks continue to grow as well. According to latest figures in the first quarter of this year, ad revenue was up over 21% from last year's first quarter. That is pretty healthy ad growth considering all the worries of cord cutting and streaming video.
In addition, syndication grew 11% for the quarter while local cable advertising rose 4%. Exciting times ahead as big data helps to drive better targeting and hopefully higher ROIs. It seems the pot is big enough for both digital and linear to continue to do well.
In addition, syndication grew 11% for the quarter while local cable advertising rose 4%. Exciting times ahead as big data helps to drive better targeting and hopefully higher ROIs. It seems the pot is big enough for both digital and linear to continue to do well.
for
the quarter was up 21.2% from a year ago. March spending was up 18%. -
See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/marketing/tv-ad-revenue-grew-21-q1-smi/373935#sthash.mmCjxbn8.dpuf
for
the quarter was up 21.2% from a year ago. March spending was up 18%. -
See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/marketing/tv-ad-revenue-grew-21-q1-smi/373935#sthash.mmCjxbn8.dpuf
for
the quarter was up 21.2% from a year ago. March spending was up 18%. -
See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/marketing/tv-ad-revenue-grew-21-q1-smi/373935#sthash.mmCjxbn8.dpuf
for
the quarter was up 21.2% from a year ago. March spending was up 18%. -
See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/marketing/tv-ad-revenue-grew-21-q1-smi/373935#sthash.mmCjxbn8.dpuf
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Yahoo Or Else
As CEO Marissa Mayer attempts to reinvent Yahoo, their greatest strength so far may be their investment in China's Alibaba, their challenge continues to be how to grow usage and consequently advertising. The secret plan, uncovered by re/code, may be to convince Apple to make Yahoo the default search engine on its iPad and iPhone devices. Certainly this will take some financial inducement. And is there an ROI that justifies the expense. Its just a shame that Yahoo hasn't done more to educate consumers on how easy it is to manually switch the search engine on these devices. It also makes me wonder if an Apple/Yahoo partnership could lead to more business ventures as well including original content and distribution.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Dad, What's Dial Up Internet?
The idea of having to tell the computer to dial in to your ISP to access mail still exists in some parts, but for the vast majority of us with a broadband connection, those days are long gone. One must go and watch the 1998 movie, "You've Got Mail", a film now 16 years old, older than my son, to see the characters dial in to AOL, here the familiar buzz, and learn that they have indeed got mail.
I remember fondly all those AOL cd-roms being available free of charge to get the software to download and start your trial membership. Since then, the AOL business model has changed from subscription membership revenue to an ad supported one. But those days were not so far ago. How quickly we forget the changes that have happened in our connectivity. We are now so connected that anytime our broadband access fails, we agitate as our webpages no longer refresh or connect to the video we seek to watch. An always on internet connection has become as important as shelter, food, and clothing. What's dial up - that has now become a history lesson.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Broadcasters Are Asking...What If
What if Aereo wins its case in the Supreme Court? Certainly both Aereo and the broadcasters are wondering what happens once the case is decided. For Aereo, they have announced in the media that without a Supreme Court victory, their business model will cease to exist. And broadcasters are considering their options as well should they be on the losing side of this argument.
While it is hard to imagine that broadcasters would drop their over the air signal, networks could consider converting to a cable model. Then Aereo would be unable to acquire an over the air feed to retransmit. Broadcasters could also consider selling direct to consumers its own platform of linear and on demand programming via the web. Today, all offer shows and clips streamed through their own website or through Hulu or both. Lastly, its possible that broadcasters will do nothing to alter their signal.
Through cable agreements, some broadcasters offer an authenticated streaming linear feed of their line-up to customers. Cable operators like Comcast might just continue to pay license fees for the simplicity of the delivery of the signal, but would push back hard should broadcasters attempt to sell a streaming model directly. I find it doubtful that cable operators would put together their own antenna farm unless they could justify economically a real cost savings.
If I were to predict an outcome it would be that Aereo wins its Supreme Court ruling. Broadcasters continue to license their signal and a full authenticated TV Everywhere model to cable operators, and so broadcasters continue to use the over the air airwaves. At the end of the day, if broadcasters can show that more consumers are watching their programming, via cable AND Aereo, then they will continue to increase their ad rates and generate more advertising revenue.
And one day, should cord cutting start to take a meaningful bite out of license fee revenue, broadcasters will revisit the cable model and consider transitioning away from the over the air signal and freeing up airwaves back to the FCC for other new opportunities.
While it is hard to imagine that broadcasters would drop their over the air signal, networks could consider converting to a cable model. Then Aereo would be unable to acquire an over the air feed to retransmit. Broadcasters could also consider selling direct to consumers its own platform of linear and on demand programming via the web. Today, all offer shows and clips streamed through their own website or through Hulu or both. Lastly, its possible that broadcasters will do nothing to alter their signal.
Through cable agreements, some broadcasters offer an authenticated streaming linear feed of their line-up to customers. Cable operators like Comcast might just continue to pay license fees for the simplicity of the delivery of the signal, but would push back hard should broadcasters attempt to sell a streaming model directly. I find it doubtful that cable operators would put together their own antenna farm unless they could justify economically a real cost savings.
If I were to predict an outcome it would be that Aereo wins its Supreme Court ruling. Broadcasters continue to license their signal and a full authenticated TV Everywhere model to cable operators, and so broadcasters continue to use the over the air airwaves. At the end of the day, if broadcasters can show that more consumers are watching their programming, via cable AND Aereo, then they will continue to increase their ad rates and generate more advertising revenue.
And one day, should cord cutting start to take a meaningful bite out of license fee revenue, broadcasters will revisit the cable model and consider transitioning away from the over the air signal and freeing up airwaves back to the FCC for other new opportunities.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Everyone Wants To Be A TV Network
If only it were so easy to pick great TV show, all the networks would be winners. NBC would never had lost its dominance with "Must See TV" on Thursday nights and shows like "Hello Larry" would have never made it on the air. But the process of selecting scripts to become TV pilots and pilots to be picked up for series is much more a matter of art than science. And unfortunately, most TV shows that I like and want to watch seem to quickly be cancelled.
Competition for programming has increased and so has the number of outlets. When it was just broadcast, only a limited number of shows could actually find time slots; with the rise of cable TV, number of slots have increased and the audience started to fragment. But it also allowed some edgier programming to slip through and find a significant audience. Shows like HBO's "The Sopranos" and AMC's "Breaking Bad" were discovered and loved. But with the size of the pot, or number of cable networks ever growing, audience size per network kept fragmenting. Some networks have grown their ratings, many have not. And broadcast continues to see eroding share.
The savior for some programming has been technology. From DVDs to DVRs to on-demand, viewers could watch shows whenever they wanted. Two shows competing in the same time slot meant little when both could be seen hours or days later. And now with the growth of streaming media, viewers can catch up with subscriptions to Hulu or Netflix.
Not being content with licensing previously created shows, streaming media has now entered the original content game. Netflix has found success with "House of Cards" and Amazon with shows like "Alpha House". Today we learn that Yahoo also wants to enter the picture with long form TV content. But with more platforms to choose from, the audience continues to fragment further. Capturing a meaningful audience size gets more and more difficult.
The winner in all this is the viewer who now can choose from almost an infinite number of choices. The challenge is in discovering which of the long form content is worth spending time with and which to ignore. Where to find it and how to retrieve it become our goals; discoverability and search. And how can you identify which shows are good and which are dogs? With a couple of networks airing linear programming, measurement was easier to achieve. Now it may be harder to compare, broadcast vs cable vs on demand vs streaming. An ever increasing number of networks and platforms offering an ever increasing amount of original TV shows to an audience trying to find the best stuff.
Which brings me back to picking the best content to create. As broadcasters have been well aware, it is not easy to pick the winners. HBO could have picked "Mad Men" but declined it; AMC thought differently. Making such decisions is a bit of an art and some luck. And as the article in today's NY Times suggests, its a gamble. But Yahoo smells advertising dollars from streaming long form content. And if they pick right, they see financial rewards. That is, if the audience can discover it, like it, and want to keep watching it. Ask the broadcast and cable networks, it isn't easy.
Competition for programming has increased and so has the number of outlets. When it was just broadcast, only a limited number of shows could actually find time slots; with the rise of cable TV, number of slots have increased and the audience started to fragment. But it also allowed some edgier programming to slip through and find a significant audience. Shows like HBO's "The Sopranos" and AMC's "Breaking Bad" were discovered and loved. But with the size of the pot, or number of cable networks ever growing, audience size per network kept fragmenting. Some networks have grown their ratings, many have not. And broadcast continues to see eroding share.
The savior for some programming has been technology. From DVDs to DVRs to on-demand, viewers could watch shows whenever they wanted. Two shows competing in the same time slot meant little when both could be seen hours or days later. And now with the growth of streaming media, viewers can catch up with subscriptions to Hulu or Netflix.
Not being content with licensing previously created shows, streaming media has now entered the original content game. Netflix has found success with "House of Cards" and Amazon with shows like "Alpha House". Today we learn that Yahoo also wants to enter the picture with long form TV content. But with more platforms to choose from, the audience continues to fragment further. Capturing a meaningful audience size gets more and more difficult.
The winner in all this is the viewer who now can choose from almost an infinite number of choices. The challenge is in discovering which of the long form content is worth spending time with and which to ignore. Where to find it and how to retrieve it become our goals; discoverability and search. And how can you identify which shows are good and which are dogs? With a couple of networks airing linear programming, measurement was easier to achieve. Now it may be harder to compare, broadcast vs cable vs on demand vs streaming. An ever increasing number of networks and platforms offering an ever increasing amount of original TV shows to an audience trying to find the best stuff.
Which brings me back to picking the best content to create. As broadcasters have been well aware, it is not easy to pick the winners. HBO could have picked "Mad Men" but declined it; AMC thought differently. Making such decisions is a bit of an art and some luck. And as the article in today's NY Times suggests, its a gamble. But Yahoo smells advertising dollars from streaming long form content. And if they pick right, they see financial rewards. That is, if the audience can discover it, like it, and want to keep watching it. Ask the broadcast and cable networks, it isn't easy.
Friday, April 11, 2014
How Much Would You Spend On A Smart Watch?
Wearable technology, like the potential of the Apple iWatch, the Samsung Galaxy Gear, the Pebble, Fitbit, Google Glasses, and more, has both the consumer market and the financial market on edge. It is the next big thing and its development while nascent is expected to explode.
With Apple, many expect that when they finally release their iWatch, its stock price will explode. But given that a "stupid watch", can be had for under 10 bucks, what would you spend for a smart watch? Samsung has priced its Galaxy Gear for around $300 while the Pebble can be found for a little more than $200. Google Glasses, although not a watch, is expected to cost $1,500. And according to today's news, an Apple iWatch could go for over $1000. Other models could cost less, according to the NY Post article, but how much less to justify upgrading to the luxury model.
For early adopters, price will not be an issue for any of these devices. But to get to scale, these prices will definitely go down. Ultimately, consumers will have to see the value that the device brings to justify buying these wearable technologies. And if that demand can be generated, these devices will all become winners.
With Apple, many expect that when they finally release their iWatch, its stock price will explode. But given that a "stupid watch", can be had for under 10 bucks, what would you spend for a smart watch? Samsung has priced its Galaxy Gear for around $300 while the Pebble can be found for a little more than $200. Google Glasses, although not a watch, is expected to cost $1,500. And according to today's news, an Apple iWatch could go for over $1000. Other models could cost less, according to the NY Post article, but how much less to justify upgrading to the luxury model.
For early adopters, price will not be an issue for any of these devices. But to get to scale, these prices will definitely go down. Ultimately, consumers will have to see the value that the device brings to justify buying these wearable technologies. And if that demand can be generated, these devices will all become winners.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Are We Really Secure?
We seem so surprised. Each time our security efforts are thwarted, we are shocked, think we have fixed the problem, and then find that it happens again and again. Today it is the news that the Heartbleed bug opens up our secure data on sites previously thought impenetrable. From banking to to tax returns, the https lock can be picked. and unfortunately it seems for every piece of security and lock, there is someone able to break it.
Whether it is an internet bug or a teen breaking into the World Trade Center construction site, a closed door is an excuse for someone to try and sneak through it. Airport security seems to continually find holes that allow guns on board and non-violent objects to be confiscated. Even the lock on our house is a lame attempt to prevent someone without a key from opening it. Break-ins happen all too frequently. We only get upset though when it happens to us. Unfortunately, even when we try to protect ourselves, the outcome may not justify the means. Just ask Oscar Pistorius who is claiming in court his use of a gun was to thwart a break in only to discover that he shot his girlfriend instead.
Our attempt at security, whether through the internet, at the airport, in our home, or at a commercial site mainly stop non-criminal individuals from even considering the possibility of committing a crime. For those that want to break-in, there always seems that if there is a will, there is a way. So why all the surprise to learn that the internet continues to attract "hackers" seeking the next challenge to solve. The discovery of the Heartbleed bug is not shocking, it was only inevitable. Higher walls will be constructed, more guards will be hired, bigger safes will be built, but no matter what security is created, there will always be folks seeking to undermine the system. Are we really secure; not so much.
So why security at all? Frankly to make it as hard as possible for those seeking to commit such crimes to succeed. Our hope is that we can keep the numbers as low as possible so that the vast majority of us are safe and secure. There is no 100% security solution but clearly something is always better than nothing.
Whether it is an internet bug or a teen breaking into the World Trade Center construction site, a closed door is an excuse for someone to try and sneak through it. Airport security seems to continually find holes that allow guns on board and non-violent objects to be confiscated. Even the lock on our house is a lame attempt to prevent someone without a key from opening it. Break-ins happen all too frequently. We only get upset though when it happens to us. Unfortunately, even when we try to protect ourselves, the outcome may not justify the means. Just ask Oscar Pistorius who is claiming in court his use of a gun was to thwart a break in only to discover that he shot his girlfriend instead.
Our attempt at security, whether through the internet, at the airport, in our home, or at a commercial site mainly stop non-criminal individuals from even considering the possibility of committing a crime. For those that want to break-in, there always seems that if there is a will, there is a way. So why all the surprise to learn that the internet continues to attract "hackers" seeking the next challenge to solve. The discovery of the Heartbleed bug is not shocking, it was only inevitable. Higher walls will be constructed, more guards will be hired, bigger safes will be built, but no matter what security is created, there will always be folks seeking to undermine the system. Are we really secure; not so much.
So why security at all? Frankly to make it as hard as possible for those seeking to commit such crimes to succeed. Our hope is that we can keep the numbers as low as possible so that the vast majority of us are safe and secure. There is no 100% security solution but clearly something is always better than nothing.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Weather Channel and DirecTV Kiss And Make Up
It seems that DirecTV and Weather Channel both needed each other. Despite the drop of the network 3 months ago and the launch of a competitive weather service, DirecTV still felt the pressure to relaunch The Weather Channel. It came with a price cut and concessions on programming of the network, as well as TV Everywhere access, but a deal got done. So my question is why?
I question the deal not because Weather Channel doesn't offer programming that appeals to a weather minded audience, but that it could be easily replaced with another channel called Weather Nation and consumers could still access weather content online. Also when weather becomes the news, all the news channels carry weather reports. So why did DirecTV negotiate a renewal agreement? Here are the possibilities:
1) DirecTV was feeling pressure from consumers for the drop of the network and consumers were dropping DirecTV for alternative cable service.
2) The Weather Channel's minority owner NBC Universal was involved behind the scenes and some leverage was used for negotiation.
3) The launch of the morning weather show starring Sam Champion, although not a rating winner, demonstrated important and unique programming that DirecTV felt compelled to carry.
4) The need for added value to its subscribers with an agreement that gave DirecTV users access to content inside and outside the home on mobile devices.
5) The deal was so cheap and came with "marketing incentives" to help the bottom line.
Any or all of these reasons may have been the rationale for The Weather Channel relaunching on DirecTV. Regardless, subscribers will once again get access to their programming.
I question the deal not because Weather Channel doesn't offer programming that appeals to a weather minded audience, but that it could be easily replaced with another channel called Weather Nation and consumers could still access weather content online. Also when weather becomes the news, all the news channels carry weather reports. So why did DirecTV negotiate a renewal agreement? Here are the possibilities:
1) DirecTV was feeling pressure from consumers for the drop of the network and consumers were dropping DirecTV for alternative cable service.
2) The Weather Channel's minority owner NBC Universal was involved behind the scenes and some leverage was used for negotiation.
3) The launch of the morning weather show starring Sam Champion, although not a rating winner, demonstrated important and unique programming that DirecTV felt compelled to carry.
4) The need for added value to its subscribers with an agreement that gave DirecTV users access to content inside and outside the home on mobile devices.
5) The deal was so cheap and came with "marketing incentives" to help the bottom line.
Any or all of these reasons may have been the rationale for The Weather Channel relaunching on DirecTV. Regardless, subscribers will once again get access to their programming.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Cutting The Telephone Cord
With all the discussion centered around households cutting the cord to their cable service in favor of OTT services, we sometimes overlook the fact that households are cutting the proverbial telephone cord as well. In fact, the drop in landline phones is huge. "Nearly 40% of U.S. households now have no landline phone, and there are more wireless devices than people." With the rise of cellular, there is no reason to share a house phone when people can call or text or email you directly on your mobile device.
Verizon and AT&T have both moved faster into the wireless space especially as they manage the competition from cable with IP enabled landline phone sevice. No longer is copper the backbone of the house; most likely it is coaxial cable or fiber. And as the WSJ indicates, the push is on by these telco heavyweights to "cut the cord" from copper and embrace an IP driven world. "The new technology also is far less regulated." That brings up a whole new set of issues in connectivity between platforms.
And AT&T envisions a whole new way to connect customers. "AT&T wants new and existing customers to eventually use broadband service, mobile phones or a conventional phone that connects to a router-like box. The box plugs into an electrical outlet and zaps signals to a cellphone tower." No more copper, no more switching technology. But change is not always easy to accomplish and many are naturally wary. Ultimately, the challenges mentioned in the article will be managed.
We are moving in an IP direction with mobile and wireless key elements in this change. Government regulation may be behind but it will surely catch up. And given the cost efficiencies, there seems nothing to stop AT&T, Verizon and other telcos to move away from wired copper to the home in favor of new communication platforms.
Verizon and AT&T have both moved faster into the wireless space especially as they manage the competition from cable with IP enabled landline phone sevice. No longer is copper the backbone of the house; most likely it is coaxial cable or fiber. And as the WSJ indicates, the push is on by these telco heavyweights to "cut the cord" from copper and embrace an IP driven world. "The new technology also is far less regulated." That brings up a whole new set of issues in connectivity between platforms.
And AT&T envisions a whole new way to connect customers. "AT&T wants new and existing customers to eventually use broadband service, mobile phones or a conventional phone that connects to a router-like box. The box plugs into an electrical outlet and zaps signals to a cellphone tower." No more copper, no more switching technology. But change is not always easy to accomplish and many are naturally wary. Ultimately, the challenges mentioned in the article will be managed.
We are moving in an IP direction with mobile and wireless key elements in this change. Government regulation may be behind but it will surely catch up. And given the cost efficiencies, there seems nothing to stop AT&T, Verizon and other telcos to move away from wired copper to the home in favor of new communication platforms.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Where Should Apple Invest?
Today's NY Times ask the question, what should Apple do with over $150 billion in cash. While Amazon is building a competitive OTT box and Google is releasing Google Glasses and building driverless cars, Apple has yet to announce its next new business. We wait patiently for news about a wearable device or big screen TV, but since Steve Jobs' death, the "next big thing" has not yet come.
So what should Apple do, according to author Nick Bilton. he considers an investment in Tesla as a possibility or the acquisition of a cellular company like Sprint or T Mobile or both. And while content and distribution seem to best work hand in hand, Comcast will face its own uphill battle to acquire Time Warner Cable and stake its claim as the preeminent cable, broadband, and content company (NBCUniversal) in the land.
Most of us expect Apple to update its Apple TV box and to finally release a wearable divide, most likely to be called an iWatch. But what about Apple partnering with Liberty Media and its investments around the world in cable including Charter Cable and DirecTv. Or should Apple go even further and buy AT&T. Why not buy TiVo and adapt is box to accept iTunes and Airplay. The question on everyone's mind is what will the next device be that has the Apple brand attached to it.
Apple has a large chest of free cash ready to invest. And while sitting on it is a defensive use for future uncertainty, Apple has be an innovator. Yet lately, that innovation has lapsed and will continue to wait and see whether its future is one of new growth or retaining value.
So what should Apple do, according to author Nick Bilton. he considers an investment in Tesla as a possibility or the acquisition of a cellular company like Sprint or T Mobile or both. And while content and distribution seem to best work hand in hand, Comcast will face its own uphill battle to acquire Time Warner Cable and stake its claim as the preeminent cable, broadband, and content company (NBCUniversal) in the land.
Most of us expect Apple to update its Apple TV box and to finally release a wearable divide, most likely to be called an iWatch. But what about Apple partnering with Liberty Media and its investments around the world in cable including Charter Cable and DirecTv. Or should Apple go even further and buy AT&T. Why not buy TiVo and adapt is box to accept iTunes and Airplay. The question on everyone's mind is what will the next device be that has the Apple brand attached to it.
Apple has a large chest of free cash ready to invest. And while sitting on it is a defensive use for future uncertainty, Apple has be an innovator. Yet lately, that innovation has lapsed and will continue to wait and see whether its future is one of new growth or retaining value.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Picking Your Next Streaming OTT TV Box
With the release of Amazon's new OTT box, Amazon Fire TV, it joins a competitive group that includes Apple TV, Google's Chromecast, Roku 3, Smart TVs, and TiVo's Roamio. So which one to choose or should we still wait for the next release. Some are speculating that Apple is getting ready to announce and release its next Apple TV box. But if you are in the market now, Mashable has a nice list of the differences among the major brands.
For me, the differentiation that most matters is the content that can be streamed from the device. If your world revolves around your iTunes library, than Apple TV offers that exclusively. If it is about access to Netflix, then all the devices offer that app. Amazon's new product tries to differentiate through other technical approaches including more memory, a unique search and recommendation engine, and a remote with voice search.
For all these devices, the fact is that consumers want to not only stream to their mobile devices but to their big screen TVs too. Competition and innovation will continue to follow these streaming devices but at the end of the day, the one with the best, exclusive, and most valuable content will ultimately win.
For me, the differentiation that most matters is the content that can be streamed from the device. If your world revolves around your iTunes library, than Apple TV offers that exclusively. If it is about access to Netflix, then all the devices offer that app. Amazon's new product tries to differentiate through other technical approaches including more memory, a unique search and recommendation engine, and a remote with voice search.
For all these devices, the fact is that consumers want to not only stream to their mobile devices but to their big screen TVs too. Competition and innovation will continue to follow these streaming devices but at the end of the day, the one with the best, exclusive, and most valuable content will ultimately win.
Broadband Has A "Need For Speed"
We expect that when we pick up the telephone that it is immediately ready to make a call. We expect that when we turn on the TV, that a TV show appears. We expect when we flick on the light switch, that electricity immediately comes on and our lamp turns on. Yet when we sit in front of our computer or tablet, we must wait for our web page to refresh. Sure it comes on and the wait may be a few seconds (or longer), but we continue to wait. Add more devices to the stream, and delay time mounts.
If this is you, then you are not alone. The speed is only as fast as the internet connection that you have and coaxial cable to the home has its limitations. As Tom Cruise said in the movie Top Gun, we have a need for speed. Today's best wired choice is optical fiber but that is not how most of the US is wired for broadband. "The United States ranks in 14th place behind countries like Sweden, Japan, South Korea, Romania and Macau in fiber connectivity." In fact, " only 7.7 percent of broadband subscribers have optical fiber connections, the fastest and highest quality available."
The capital costs to update our infrastructure must be enormous and the cable companies may have little motivation to invest unless they can gain a bigger return. Google is investing in a few markets and Verizon FIOS as well. Our only other hope is wireless broadband although the speed may not match as well to a wired fiber connection.
Unfortunately for all that the US has accomplished, broadband speed does not rank us high in the world. How then can we ramp up our connectivity speed without costing consumers an arm and a leg? It may just take a quantum leap in building new processes for refresh and load that can handle packets of data that are only getting more and more heavy. Till then, we can only watch and wait as the little wheel tells us our content is loading and will be ready shortly.
If this is you, then you are not alone. The speed is only as fast as the internet connection that you have and coaxial cable to the home has its limitations. As Tom Cruise said in the movie Top Gun, we have a need for speed. Today's best wired choice is optical fiber but that is not how most of the US is wired for broadband. "The United States ranks in 14th place behind countries like Sweden, Japan, South Korea, Romania and Macau in fiber connectivity." In fact, " only 7.7 percent of broadband subscribers have optical fiber connections, the fastest and highest quality available."
The capital costs to update our infrastructure must be enormous and the cable companies may have little motivation to invest unless they can gain a bigger return. Google is investing in a few markets and Verizon FIOS as well. Our only other hope is wireless broadband although the speed may not match as well to a wired fiber connection.
Unfortunately for all that the US has accomplished, broadband speed does not rank us high in the world. How then can we ramp up our connectivity speed without costing consumers an arm and a leg? It may just take a quantum leap in building new processes for refresh and load that can handle packets of data that are only getting more and more heavy. Till then, we can only watch and wait as the little wheel tells us our content is loading and will be ready shortly.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Aereo Needs Supreme Court Victory
This month the Supreme Court will hear from Aereo and the broadcasters about whether the Aereo business model is legitimate or stealing. Aereo believes that it has the right to take the over the air broadcast feeds via their antenna farm and sell online access to consumers; Broadcasters like ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC believe that Aereo should be required to pay for the content from their networks. The decision will decide the fate of Aereo.
For those old enough to remember, households used to purchase antennas that they would put up on their roofs. Homes were wired so that TVs inside the house could each access the antenna. And some fancy antennas could even be made to rotate to help receive some remote signals. As a boy living in the suburbs of Philadelphia, I remember turning that dial to access New York's Metromedia station to watch "Wonderama". The day we switched to cable meant the loss of that station but the beginning of a whole new assortment of programming.
Despite broadcasters switching from analog to digital, they still use over the air transmission and consumers can continue to access broadcast TV from antennas. That Aereo has build a business model that moves the antenna off the roof and into a centralized farm doesn't change for me the transmission. So that instead of buying an antenna, consumers lease one instead. And for that they get additional features including the ability to record programs for later viewing. Consumers with antennas at their homes can do the same thing with boxes from TiVo and others. That Aereo has simplified the reception and delivery issue for broadcast signals does nothing to change the fact that consumers could do the same thing with a store bought antenna and in home DVR box. It is for that reason, from what I see as an outsider to the process, that would cause me to side with Aereo in this Supreme Court ruling.
Certainly a loss for the broadcasters should do nothing to change the business model that they have in place with cable operators. The expense for operators to build their own antenna farms so as to not pay broadcasters a retransmission license fee would likely outweigh the cost of the current contract. Plus all the broadcasters own cable networks too and would surely figure out a bundle type strategy to keep the status quo alive. And should broadcasters decide to give up this spectrum and behave like cable networks, then the FCC could make a bundle selling this spectrum for additional wireless broadband opportunities.
So let the battle for broadcast rights move ahead. I see Aereo coming out the victor, for if they lose, they will be no more.
For those old enough to remember, households used to purchase antennas that they would put up on their roofs. Homes were wired so that TVs inside the house could each access the antenna. And some fancy antennas could even be made to rotate to help receive some remote signals. As a boy living in the suburbs of Philadelphia, I remember turning that dial to access New York's Metromedia station to watch "Wonderama". The day we switched to cable meant the loss of that station but the beginning of a whole new assortment of programming.
Despite broadcasters switching from analog to digital, they still use over the air transmission and consumers can continue to access broadcast TV from antennas. That Aereo has build a business model that moves the antenna off the roof and into a centralized farm doesn't change for me the transmission. So that instead of buying an antenna, consumers lease one instead. And for that they get additional features including the ability to record programs for later viewing. Consumers with antennas at their homes can do the same thing with boxes from TiVo and others. That Aereo has simplified the reception and delivery issue for broadcast signals does nothing to change the fact that consumers could do the same thing with a store bought antenna and in home DVR box. It is for that reason, from what I see as an outsider to the process, that would cause me to side with Aereo in this Supreme Court ruling.
Certainly a loss for the broadcasters should do nothing to change the business model that they have in place with cable operators. The expense for operators to build their own antenna farms so as to not pay broadcasters a retransmission license fee would likely outweigh the cost of the current contract. Plus all the broadcasters own cable networks too and would surely figure out a bundle type strategy to keep the status quo alive. And should broadcasters decide to give up this spectrum and behave like cable networks, then the FCC could make a bundle selling this spectrum for additional wireless broadband opportunities.
So let the battle for broadcast rights move ahead. I see Aereo coming out the victor, for if they lose, they will be no more.
Long Form Video Content Matters
While short form video content, a few minutes or less, allows viewers to watch tons of different clips, it has its limitations. For one, it makes it hard to put a 30 second ad before a 2 minute clip. Viewers will quickly tire of not getting their video served, lose interest, and leave the site. And while 10 and 15 second pre-roll ads are nice, they don't pay enough. Cable television networks learned this many years ago when they transitioned from short form clips to full length shows. The early days of MTV, Movietime (now E!), and Comedy Central are a few examples of networks that experienced that move.
It seems that long form content is where the real dollars are. It enables subscription revenue, longer pre-roll and mid-roll ads, and keeps viewers on the site longer. Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, and You Tube are all embracing long form content. "Not only is AOL moving toward more original programming, which gives it greater control over the content and a bigger slice of the money it generates, but AOL is also taking a successful overseas program and translating it for an unfamiliar US audience. It was Netflix's strategy with its hit "House of Cards," which was based on a UK series." And AOL hopes to capitalize on this strategy with advertising.
No short form content will not go away; but the addition of long form programs demonstrates that streaming is following the same product life cycle that cable did before it. AOL now becomes another major competitor in the OTT space and more competition to the traditional linear cable model. Cord cutters rejoice, additional online content continues to come your way.
It seems that long form content is where the real dollars are. It enables subscription revenue, longer pre-roll and mid-roll ads, and keeps viewers on the site longer. Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, and You Tube are all embracing long form content. "Not only is AOL moving toward more original programming, which gives it greater control over the content and a bigger slice of the money it generates, but AOL is also taking a successful overseas program and translating it for an unfamiliar US audience. It was Netflix's strategy with its hit "House of Cards," which was based on a UK series." And AOL hopes to capitalize on this strategy with advertising.
No short form content will not go away; but the addition of long form programs demonstrates that streaming is following the same product life cycle that cable did before it. AOL now becomes another major competitor in the OTT space and more competition to the traditional linear cable model. Cord cutters rejoice, additional online content continues to come your way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
