Why Apple Should Buy A Content Company

In a world where a box is just a box and distribution needs original and exclusive content to drive growth, media is big business.  And given the insatiable appetite for content affecting every consumer, content drives usage and multiple revenue streams.  Content can be purchased, it can be rented, it can be advertised; it can be downloaded and streamed and provide rich, measurable date about the user and usage.  And Apple should invest more in the business.

It is true that Apple has been dabbling in content with a trove of downloadable content on its iTunes platform.  And it has been build out a music streaming business.  But there is much more room to grown and acquisition may be the means to building a bigger better business model.  I have suggested a bid for Time Warner for its cable programming and theatrical distribution business and I have suggested other cable networks as a stepping stone into the media production and distribution universe.  Business Insider thinks that Apple should make a play for Netflix.  In the article, Stratechery analyst Ben Thompson says ""If Apple wants its usual ownership of end users it needs to buy its way in, and that means buying Netflix." With original and acquired content, Netflix's streaming model could enhance the Apple Music value, enabling packaging scenarios to drive further adoption of both models.  And it could also add value to the Apple TV business. 

Is Apple even looking at Time Warner, Netflix or other content creators and distributors?  The worry is that Apple is not innovating enough, not driving further adoption, not expanding, and facing increased competition from those eager to push Apple off the top of the mountain.  Maintenance and remodels of current products are not enough to remain a leader; rather, it says that you are treating your business more to maintain value than drive growth.  Beyond any possible plans to create a new technological product, Apple should look at content makers like Netflix to grow its business. 

What Will Viacom Do With Paramount

If you haven't guessed after reading my blogs, I am a huge fan of content.  But content does not live in a vacuum and the yin and yang between content and distribution, adding a dash of marketing to the mix, makes the difference between success and failure.  Good content can help distribution and good distribution can help bad content; ideally, great content, easily discoverable and accessed matters.

So today we have Viacom, a media company with an ailing CEO, infighting of the relatives, a changing board, and other leadership issues struggling to fix all the wholes, from falling ratings at their cable networks to poor movie making choices at Paramount.  Its latest box office dud being Ben Hur with very little box office hits to mention.  What should Viacom do with Paramount, where once The Godfather, Indiana Jones, and Titanic all were released?

There has been some speculation that Viacom should sell some if not all its ownership in Paramount.  But I love content and believe it is the driver to growth for Viacom.  I believe selling makes little sense unless the plan is to give up and sell all of Viacom.  Paramount, with the right talent on board, can make great content again.  And great movies are currency to be sold over and over again across different distribution windows. 

But what is in the pipeline of future Paramount releases following the awful Ben Hur film starts to question the internal leadership and the choices they are making.  October is the release of the next Jack Reacher with Tom Cruise, a possible hit, but they are also banking on a number of other sequels including Transformer, Friday the 13th, and Terminator.  What happened to originality?  Even their latest release of Star Trek Beyond felt like an overly long TV plot rehash.  If there is change to make at Paramount's film unit, it starts at the top.

As to their TV department, Paramount also produced Grease: Live,  Criminal Mind, NCIS, and others.  And hopefully they will have more upcoming hits to mention.  With so much demand for TV content in the streaming world from Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon, Paramount should have no problem finding homes for their product, as long as the quality is there.  Like my concern with movies, rehashing old series and classic movies at the expense of originality does not seem like the best route to take. 

So what should Viacom do with Paramount?  I say keep it.  If your plan is to sell Viacom, it is more valuable as part of a bigger deal.  if the plan is to reinvigorate Viacom, Paramount is a perfect complement to their media empire. 

Video Snacking To Drive Revenue Growth

We are about to get overwhelmed with tons of short form video content as the long tail of video consumption is about to get longer.  In today's NY Times, Tronc, once known as Tribune Publishing, has revealed their plans to increase video content 1000% daily.  And other online publishers are following this trend.  With video content attached to every online article, the hope is that more viewers will stay on the page longer, click the video, watch the ads, and continue to snack on other articles and other video content.  A very sound strategy.

Whether the content is created specifically for the page or linked via syndication or other means, the direction is clear.  More video snacking with content that connects with the viewer should create a better user experience.  And hopefully drive online revenue higher.


Two online companies, Wochit and Wibbitz, seem to have the means to quickly and efficiently link content to articles.  "The two services’ automation features work in similar ways. They analyze, and may summarize, text, be it a script or a traditional news article, and then automatically find photographs and video clips to go with it." Whether users find the additional content useful to them or simply clutter may determine the long term viability of these services.  But done right, the use of video on the page should be good news for these content companies. 

Screens Bigger, 3D Blows According To Katzenberg

Speaking at CineEurope, Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of Dreamworks Animation, stated what we all know.  3D is gimmicky and used poorly while movie goers really prefer bigger screens, per Variety.  I couldn't agree more. 

I have always found 3D movies distracting, even when done on films like Avatar.  The glasses used are uncomfortable and the screen is more likely to strain the eyes then produce a better picture.  Instead, theater owners that have spent capital improvement on bigger screens, better seats in a stadium style arrangement, and a superior audio experience, have hopefully found consumers coming back again and again. 

At the same time, the price point used to buy a seat must remain reasonable, especially for a family outing.  If you price too high, these customers will find their home theater experience more than adequate.  Recently, I took our family of 4 to the movies.  Using Flixster, we bought the film, theater time and exact seats.  When we got to the movies, we only had to wait to pick up the printed copies.  No waiting in lines, no wondering if the movie was sold out or if we would find seats together.  At the same time, the cost for tickets, including the Flixster fee, exceed $50.  Add a stop at the refreshment stand and many families will be using their entire monthly entertainment budget. 

 Some movie houses have added more dinner options to encourage consumer spending, others have arcade areas to catch a few quarters more.  Ads before the movies adds more revenues.  One ad especially caught our attention.  It was for a production of One Man, Two Guvnors that had been filmed during its Broadway run and would be run in the theater.  An interesting way to add more options to what a movie screen can deliver.  As for the movie industry, continue to build a better destination experience, especially inside the auditorium and movie lovers will continue to return.

Stock Market Worried About Cable Networks

When Time Warner Inc. announced lower earnings expectations in the future, the stock market responded by selling off a list of cable network stocks.  From Time Warner to Discovery, from Disney and Viacom to AMC, a consistent sell off was evident.  But what drastically changed?  Just a week or so ago, ESPN cut 300 jobs to lower costs and hopefully improve earnings.  Cord cutting has been much discussed over the last number of years; in fact, many cable operators have been posting much smaller sub losses in their latest quarter.  And content companies have been pursuing new streaming deals and other revenue lines to boost earnings.  So what really changed?

Sure, the announcement that Time Warner Inc. now expected lower earnings in the near future. But just yesterday, its premium network HBO announced it was the new home for future Jon Stewart content.  And that news was positively received.  As to the daily price fluctuations of media stocks like Time Warner, Inc., the likely means to restore earnings will be to cut costs.  Expect some layoffs from a number of these companies to boost earnings for its stockholders. 

Another Paid Streaming Service Joins The Mix

If you thought that cord cutting could save you money, think again.  The rise of so many streaming digital services could find yourself one day paying more for content then you were paying for cable.  With Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix each wanting you to pay $10 a month for their exclusive content, you can add a premium version of You Tube called YouTube Red.  Priced also at about $10 a month, do we see a price point that all these services like to reach, "YouTube Red will allow users to surf the site completely ad-free, across multiple sources, from desktop to mobile. Original programming and movies will also be available to YouTube Red subscribers, beginning next year. " This according to today's Multichannel News. 

And the more content you want, the more you will pay.  Last week, NBCU announced the launch of Seeso, a digital streaming content service that will cost about $4 a month.  It will include NBC shows as well as some original comedy content.  You might also decide you need HBO Now to assure you are receiving Game Of Thrones and other HBO content.  That will set you back another $15 every month.  If you like that, you may decide to add Showtime Now at $11 more a month.  And while Disney doesn't have a pay streaming service in the US, they are just announcing one to launch in the UK, per Variety.  And while there are still a number of free video content services, it is easy to see that the more content we want, the more we have to pay for.  Sorry, no bundling in the world of digital streaming. 

So lets add up what we know.  Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu costs $30 a month for all three.  YouTube Red is $10, Seeso is $4, HBO Now is $15 and Showtime Now is $11 for a total of $70 a month for the 7 services.  Add your favorite music streaming service, Apple Music, Pandora, Spotify, and watch your dollars fly out of your wallet.  Our cable bill could one day look like a steal. 

Undateable Shows Live To Catch Viewers

There is something about live television that works.  Perhaps it is reminiscent of the Golden Age when TV was learning its craft and partly the notion that with live TV comes the danger of mistakes and unknown outcomes.  Live has made Saturday Night Live a better comedy show able to capture the latest news into its broadcast and deliver immediate outcomes.  And the format is being used at 8pm on Friday Nights with the show Undateable.

A serviceable comedy from creator Bill Lawrence, the series in its third season has decided to broadcast Live to create a more lively product.  The set looks like parts of the old Cheers set, and hopefully the magic pays off for Undateable.  The jokes are a bit lame but the writing incorporates the jokes of being live with breaking the fourth wall and of course mistakes from flubbing lines.  But somehow, it all seems to work.  The show is fun to watch and the cast seems to like the danger of live TV.  Music and special guests inhabit the bar to make a breezy comedy.  The hope is that the plots continue to tighten and the second bananas on the show further shine to create a more complete ensemble.  Overall, broadcasting the show live has raised the bar and the potential to becoming a better show. 

I will watch but I worry that shows I like tend to get cancelled.  I can only hope that this show is one of the exceptions. 

Netflix - How Much More Can They Grow

Netflix released their earnings this afternoon and the market didn't seem to like what they heard.  Earnings are down and costs are up and despite their plans to raise monthly subscription fees by a dollar, the market may be getting to saturated to expect more increases in growth.  Sure there is still growth but when it comes to the stock market, how much you grow matters more.  And Netflix might be leveling off.

As competition for content increases, costs to obtain more videos, either through acquisition or original content, will only continue to mount.  And given that Netflix has a one stream revenue model limits how much more they can keep producing.  Dollar increases a year may be nice but it may not be enough to offset subscription and content costs.  The stock market may not find Netflix the darling of streaming anymore until they produce a new revenue stream. 

When will advertising come to Netflix?  The push to produce is on and that strategic move might be the necessary price.  How they add advertising could also affect the subscriber base.  Commercial breaks are definitely not the solution; other ad tools are more desirable to keep its base engaged and paying.  Done well, ads will immediately boost the stock price, 

Playboy Goes PG-13

Before there was HBO or Skinemax (Cinemax), there was Playboy.  For every teenager seeking a look at a nude body, the choice was this or National Geographic.  And while Playboy can be credited for its part in America's sexual revolution, the revolution passed them as cable television and then the internet could offer even more explicit fare.

Playboy's competitor, Penthouse, tried a different approach to match changing morals.  Like the movie The Untouchables. Penthouse tried to match them, a knife for a knife, a gun for a gun.  But trying to be as explicit as cable and the web only seemed to hasten its demise.  Playboy suffered too.  But in a new approach, Playboy is trying a 360 and starting in March 2016, the nudity will go away.  Instead, the focus seems to move toward better editorial and articles.  Heck, among the things that made Playboy great, beyond the photos, were articles from such renown authors as Jules Pfeiffer.  The hope is that they find that right blend of stories and humor that will catapult Playboy to a profitable position.

Can this new strategy work?  As long as it doesn't try to dumb down its features like other, more teenage boy, magazines, Playboy may have a chance.  It may go counter to how they started but shaking up society is how Playboy first got noticed.  It seems time to do it again. 

Is Apple Music Successful

Despite the high competition in subscription music between Pandora and Spotify, Apple felt that there might just be an opening for them as well.  Seeing that itunes purchases of music were at risk, Apple created Apple Music to offset the purchase revenue model with a subscription one.  Apple seems to have no problem recognizing the need to shift as they did with the entry of the iPhone, knowing it would hurt future iPod sales.

And many believe that Apple Music is already a success with 15 million users signed into the free period.  That free trial ends in 9 days and we can only watch and wait to hear how many start to pay.  According to the NY Post article, if a third convert to pay, then Apple Music is successful.  So far half of the trial base has yet to turn off the auto pay feature.  If they all convert, 7.5 million users would make this new business a very successful launch.

Content is King and Howard Stern likes to tell us that he is the King Of All Media.  That being the case, Apple Music might want to sign him up onto their subscription service.  He did wonders for Sirius and could do the same for Apple. 

Amazon New Feature A Winner

The worst part of a streaming service is when there is no WIFI or when you are forced to buy it (hotel, airline, etc.)  And it is those times when you rely on it for watching a video or listening to music that the value of a streaming subscription is worthless.  Well, it seems Amazon Prime has heard those complaints and has instituted a new feature.  According to Business Insider, Amazon Prime subscribers "can now download movies and TV shows on your smartphone or tablet for offline viewing."  And it is available on any device, not just certain Amazon Fire devices.  It also means that customers on certain data plans can download content and potentially avoid needing expensive data plans on their cellular phones.  Applause, applause to Amazon for a great feature that brings tremendous benefits to its customers. 

Apple Wants Original Content

As an admitted fan of Steve Jobs and Apple, I have enjoyed watching the company and using their products.  In my blog on Aug 21, I mentioned, and not for the first time, that Apple should consider buying a content company.  I suggested the purchase of CBS, Scripps, or Viacom, but wouldn't mind them buying Netflix either.  Today's Huffington Post speculates that Apple is indeed interested in producing original content to compete in the streaming space. 

In an age of build or buy, I might re-suggest to Apple that their expertise is not content creation.  But they have the free cash to buy and purchasing a content company with both a library of content and the talent that goes with it may be the best means to jump start their entry into the content space.  I've offered a few suggestions already, but maybe another is in order.  I think that Tim Cook, CEO of Apple and John Malone, CEO of Liberty Media might consider some sort of partnership approach.  Both bring an expertise from different sides of the media space and both see a global vision to their business strategy.  A healthy collaboration of content, distribution, and technology might be the synergy that we need to affect a quantum leap in the media landscape. 

Should Apple get into the content business, absolutely!  But I propose that buying media companies and building out a partnership with Liberty might be the ultimate one-two punch to compete in the distribution space. 

The Glut of Video Content

In my blog on August 7, I suggested that there were too many cable networks, resulting in bloated cable line-us and high subscription pricing.  My suggestion, that it was time to drop cable networks, reduce the glut, and hopefully try to lower prices.  Today's NY Times takes a different direction, but sees a similar solution.  In the article, Soul Searching in TV Land, writer John Koblin finds that there is too much content on TV and notes that "Mr. Lombardo and other executives say it is harder than ever to build an audience for a show when viewers are confronted with so many choices and might click away at any moment." 

There are so many original shows being created and aired, that fragmentation leads to lower ratings.  In the Golden Days of TV, many shows may have been created as pilots, but with fewer outlets, only the best could make it to series and to air.  There is no need to wean out anymore so that many more shows make it to the screen, either on a linear line-up or a streaming service.  We are inundated with choice.  Add to that all the older series now accessible on services like Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon, "So a new season of 'Scandal,' for example, is also competing against old series like 'The Wire.'”

With so much content at our fingertips, it may be harder and harder for quality shows to get noticed and viewed.  Fragmentation of content choices also makes it harder and harder to find; we rely more on social media to tell us what is trending and where to find it.  Fragmentation has also made it harder for networks like Univision to grow even for Hispanic viewers.  With so much choice, revenue is harder and harder to increase.  The NY Times also speaks to this issue in the same edition. 

Too much, whether candy or content, leads to a tummy ache, or revenue challenges.  The economic laws of supply and demand apply to video content like anything else.  It may be time to reduce the supply to maintain the right balance for demand. 

Content Verse Distribution Battle Continues

The proverbial chicken verse egg is very much in play when it comes to the world of media and the question of which is more important, distribution verse content.  Today, the stock market seems to think less of content creators as those media companies, from Disney to Fox to Viacom have all suffered due to cord cutting.  For the moment, distribution, or to be more exact, the distribution disruptors, are leading the current battle.  The rise of Netflix and Hulu and Amazon, the threat of Apple entering the content subscription business, and increased usage of devices like Roku, Chromecast, Apple TV, and other OTT boxes are threatening the cable license fee model.  Consumers still want content to watch; they just don't want to pay much for it.

And so low cost distribution platforms provide content choices for less.  A Netflix subscription for under $10 a month.  An HBO subscription WITHOUT a cable subscription, Amazon Prime with free shipping and tons of content to watch.  All cost less than an annual cable subscription.  And if video content companies are getting less revenues, than profits will only drop, despite additional cost cutting. 

Of course the content v. distribution model is essentially a balancing act, one that will find a new middle ground as some cable channels fall away and we find clearer programming segments.  We no longer watch channels, we watch shows and that also affects our search efforts.  Channel surfing has lessened as broadband enables us to search specific attributes to find shows and movies to watch.  From a certain actor or actress to key word search, the need to keep pushing channel up or down is no longer necessary, especially as content goes online. 

Content is ultimately king in my book; but for the moment, broadband distribution exclusivity may be driving the bus for the moment. 

Can You Tell Me How To Get, How To Get To HBO

Kids matter. Netflix has been making sure it has its share of kid programming, from zero on through teenager to adult to assure that the whole family gains satisfaction from its subscription to their service.  Shows like Arthur, Magic School Bus, Curious George and others are all meant to attract the youngest audience and their parents.  And it seems HBO is following a similar strategy. It's latest move, acquiring first run content for Sesame Street, the popular pre-adolescent series that has been appearing on PBS. 

Per the NY Times, "After nine months of programming exclusively on HBO, the shows also will be available free on PBS, its home for the last 45 years."  This financial investment is certainly good news for Sesame Workshop.  How useful it is to HBO and what other children programming it starts to acquire will demonstrate how serious they are to get into this space.  But given how streaming has become more important to the future of HBO and how quickly children are embracing mobile video, it is the kind of content that HBO needs to stay competitive with Netflix. 

Don't be surprised to watch Showtime and Starz make their own investments into children's programming too.  They have traditionally used a follower strategy against HBO.  Content is king and HBO wants to compete effectively in the mobile market against Netflix. 

Even Digital Content Is King

Not satisfied with owning a leading broadcast network, cable networks, and a movie studio, NBC Universal and its parent company Comcast want to own digital content creation companies too.  The latest on their radar are Buzzfeed and Vox Media.  Buzzfeed has positioned itself as a leader in creating social commentary, news, and entertainment with an eye to creating eye-catching, shareable, viral content.  Vox Media has created some well known sports blog along with its recent acquisition of re/code.  In an ironic twist, it is re/code passing on some of this news on the potential partnership plans.  

For NBCUniversal, adding a stable of digital content companies to its video rodeo seems like a good fit.  Synergies between networks, shows, advertising, and promotion could all help drive viewership and usage gains.  But synergy is also a tricky animal that in many cases culture and personal politics can end up building roadblocks to success.  Done well, digital content, like any other content, is king and as many believe is what drives consumers to certain platforms.  Should this deal succeed, it will be fun to watch how it is utilized. 

Mobility And Personalized Second Screen Favored By Young

A study discussed in today's Multichannel News confirms what my family already knows, that the second screen is preferred over the big TV screen.  And while the study focuses on children ages 2-12, my slightly older children also prefer their handheld devices over the big screen TV set.  Their study finds that 57% of parents find that their children would choose their mobile device over a TV screen.

I can also share that in my household my children seem to choose their iPhone over their iPad to view certain content.  It may be because of convenience, they always carry their smartphone, or perhaps simply laziness.  I'm not quite sure.  But what I do see is that they prefer these devices because of content that appeals to them from sites ranging from Netflix to You Tube.  That they can binge view and watch commercial-free.  That they can watch the same video multiple times and they can watch where ever they decide to sit, from the stairs to the bed to the desk.  It is the ultimate what you want, when you want, where you want, how you want to watch. 

And while I don't personally approve, I see these parents of younger children hand off their smartphone in restaurants, supermarkets, and other establishments as entertainment distractions from other activities.  It becomes the ultimate babysitter.  I am not a fan, especially in a restaurant where I restrict use of these devices.  The dining table is for conversation and social interaction, not for independence and anti-social behavior.  It may distract the 4 year old, but it is not a good habit. 

This preference for the mobile screen over the TV set is what scares cable distributors the most.  If enough desired content can be found away from the cable box, consumers may no longer see the price - value of being a cable subscriber.  Until cable can gain more content exclusivity, more cord cutting is destined to occur as these next generations of consumers no long value the cable box in their home. 

Video Delivery Verse Viewership

Sometimes it feels like we spend too much time looking at the trees but missing the forest.  I share this trite observation as it applies to cable operators in their desire to stop cord cutting, the act of subscribers dropping their cable subscriptions for OTT content.  With notable shows on platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime,  Hulu, Crackle, and other digital sites, cable operators watch with disdain as its viewership erodes. 

Truth is, there is nothing unusual with these trends; they follow the desires of the consumer and the companies that innovate and change to get in front of them.  And while TV sets got bigger and sharper, some tried 3D, others 4K, the consumer preference changed to smaller, more personal, handheld screens on tablets and smartphones.  This is the current future of how many are watching video content today.  And this is their choice.  Cable operators have remained more locked behind their set top boxes and tethered to wires that run around the home.  And because of the license deals that they signed, they are limited on what they can push out to subscribers on wireless outside the home.  As we have become more mobile, cable operators remain fixed.

Its not that viewers aren't watching TV shows or movies.  They are watching shows that once appeared on television and others originally created for OTT platforms.  Want to see Seinfeld as it first aired without being cut down for syndication, go to Hulu.  Ready to watch the third season of the original series Orange is the New Black, go to Netflix.  The screen may be smaller or it may not; now the consumer has more choice.  They now decide what device best suits their viewership needs, an iPhone or iPad, Roku, Chromecast or any other device can allow viewers to choose where, how and when they want to watch.  "It's Not Linear, It's Whenever", could now be HBO's new slogan.  With HBO Go and HBO Now, a consumer can access content as an authenticated cable subscriber or simply as an online monthly subscription.  And some cable networks are following along, creating streaming channels of their own to drive viewership and hopefully revenues. 

Content companies are winning because they now have more platforms to sell their programs to.  Can't get a good syndication deal, sell it to OTT.  Cable operators have been slow to get true TV Everywhere for its subscribers.  And it may get harder for them as content companies love having different platforms to negotiate with.  But those costs can only rise to purchase license fee rights to both cable and streaming platforms.  And then those costs will likely be passed through to the consumer. 

Here is what I want.  As a cable customer, I want to access the cable guide on my iPad, see what is available on channels and on demand quickly and easily, and watch on that same iPad the show I picked, regardless of where I am sitting, in the home or on the beach or in another city.  I want to decide if I want to push that content to a larger TV screen in my home instead.  And I want to do it now.  I want control, I want choice, and I want flexibility.  No set top box tree and branch searching for me, no tethering to a location; I want mobility, unlimited access, ergonomic search, with a quality picture and fast and easy functionality.  The content is the content, how you deliver it to us matters more. 

Cable TV And Internet Last In Customer Satisfaction

Today's New York Times shares a study that confirms what most of us know, that we don't care much for our Cable TV and Internet providers.  According to the study, "Of the 43 industries on which the survey solicits opinions, TV and Internet companies tied for last place in customer satisfaction."  Of course among these providers, some may rank higher than others, the overall consensus is that the industry has done a poor job of listening to customer complaints or improving service. 

Perhaps most apparent, beside You Tube videos of sleeping cable technicians, is that the price-value model is not working.  The combination of subscription pricing combined with an ever increasing load of advertising has caused consumers to seek other solutions.  They are fleeing to over the top (OTT) content providers and cutting the cord to their cable service.  As service remains stagnant and prices continue to rise, satisfaction will keep falling as more consumers cut the cord. 

Is Verizon A Good Fit To Acquire AOL?

AOL needs a partner for growth in the mobile space and Verizon needs to embrace digital content; perhaps, that is the reason Verizon decided to buy AOL.  According to numerous reports, the deal will place AOL under new ownership but continue to be run by current CEO Tim Armstrong.  But the question to ask is whether such a combination can produce favorable synergy?  Verizon has certainly tried before but was unsuccessful in growing the Redbox Instant platform to compete with other subscription video companies like Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime.  AOL offers a different set of digital content brands including Huffington Post, TechCrunch, and Engadget.  So how can Verizon help?

Clearly, Verizon is a telecommunications giant with the financial resources to support AOL brands and their growth strategies.  Verizon also brings the largest mobile platform in the US to assist  AOL in extending out its reach and usage stats.  But helping a horse find water doesn't necessarily mean that it will drink from the trough. Verizon must rely on AOL's own expertise with building and growing digital content brands.  And AOL might need to hire from the outside to gain additional help.

Owning more content will enable Verizon to monetize more of its mobile business and to hopefully enhance its data analysis across both its platform and competitor mobile platforms.   And through a better understanding of the mobile space, to create an even more accessible and intuitive expertise.  With content as king, Verizon hopes to do better to capitalize on content this time around.  For AOL, it seems like a huge opportunity to capitalize its strengths with a more powerful financial popular who is also the mobile leader at the moment.  Let's hope that this acquisition is indeed a good synergistic fit.