An amazing story. His quote "Bricks are there for a reason: they let us know how badly we want things." So true, when things come too easy, we don't respect what we have. And regardless how good or bad things are, life is precious. His stories truly reflect the notion that one shouldn't sweat the small stuff. And when life gives you lemons, make lemonade! His honesty is real. An amazing man
His full lecture can be found on You Tube. Well worth watching.
Friday, September 28, 2007
CBS Creates 'EyeLab' To Woo Web Surfers
CBS splits from Viacom and it seems to be good news for that side of the company. CBS's efforts prove to me that they understand the space and are embracing the advantages that the web brings to compliment, rather than replace, their TV model. Additive programming built around shows, seem to me to be an ideal way to enhance the show's value, encourage more viewership of the TV show, and create synergistic revenue opportunities. Not clear in the article is how CBS plans to monetize the clips they have created, but I am confident that they have a business plan.
I also expect that they are not discounting the viewer interest in on-demand viewing of their long form programs. As the viewer has become more mobile and scattered, they may not have the time to come to the show. On demand and on line content enables the viewer to watch the programs and clips on their times and not per the whims of a network schedule.
I also expect that they are not discounting the viewer interest in on-demand viewing of their long form programs. As the viewer has become more mobile and scattered, they may not have the time to come to the show. On demand and on line content enables the viewer to watch the programs and clips on their times and not per the whims of a network schedule.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The Growth of HD and its effect on viewing choices
Comcast has just announced that it is launching more Hi Def channels, including HGTV and Food HD simulcasts. Also today, Direct TV announced that they are launching 21 additional HD nets to bring their number of national HDTV channels to 31. Next month, an additional 18 HD nets are to be added. The distribution of a Hi Def signal is best served by cable and satellite and not yet by broadband. In addition, HD sets are flying off the shelf as more consumers seek a better viewing experience. The only thing that doesn't change is time. There is still only 24 hours in a day, and once you remove sleeping, and perhaps working, fewer hours remain for viewing.
My point is that the rise of Hi Def is a competitive tool to keep the viewer connected to the tv experience. The viewer must mull which matters most the convenience or mobility to watch a program away from the tv set, or the quality of the video and sound experience to watch on the HD set. And on a VOD basis, would you rather watch a SD or HD version of the program. Would you rather watch Heroes or 30 Rock on a 2" screen or on your 50" HD set with surround speakers. With sports and films, the choice is even more obvious. Circumstances may affect that decision, but in the end, I believe the experience of HD wins out. Networks need to embrace HD; consumers are preferring it. Add an interactive component to the HD set and we may just become couch potatoes for life.
My point is that the rise of Hi Def is a competitive tool to keep the viewer connected to the tv experience. The viewer must mull which matters most the convenience or mobility to watch a program away from the tv set, or the quality of the video and sound experience to watch on the HD set. And on a VOD basis, would you rather watch a SD or HD version of the program. Would you rather watch Heroes or 30 Rock on a 2" screen or on your 50" HD set with surround speakers. With sports and films, the choice is even more obvious. Circumstances may affect that decision, but in the end, I believe the experience of HD wins out. Networks need to embrace HD; consumers are preferring it. Add an interactive component to the HD set and we may just become couch potatoes for life.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Can the Long Tail be Monetized
VHF channels begat UHF, UHF begat more basic cable tv networks, basic channels grew and begat more basic tiered channels, more came along as basic channels repurposed themselves and created digital offshoots. And the number of video offerings continue to grow at an exponential rate as channels are created on the web. And while broadcast television has seen their audience drop and cable's share has flattened, they still represent the hump of viewing. So how do the rest of these networks survive? Have we become too fragmented in our offerings or do these ultra niches still have a profitable economic model?
Ultimately the real economic power lies with the big networks who can repurpose their content on the different distribution platforms and enhance their brand value with "extras" and more interactive access. The challenge for the small network is to be seen as the dominant brand in their small pond. And to hope that the size of that audience is still large enough to monetize though advertising, subscription, commerce, etc.
It seems that the ones who are making money are the individuals who come up with the great idea and then build it out to be sold to the bigger company. As businesses, they need the synergy of the larger network to become more efficient and effective as a network. So many examples exist: Classic Sports sold to ESPN, Court TV sold to Turner, Bravo sold to NBC, and rumors of Oxygen soon going to Turner as well. On the Cable Operator side, we no longer talk of Adelphia, Vision Cable, Falcon, Millenium, TCI, Telecable and others. The same will hold true with web programming.
Ultimately the real economic power lies with the big networks who can repurpose their content on the different distribution platforms and enhance their brand value with "extras" and more interactive access. The challenge for the small network is to be seen as the dominant brand in their small pond. And to hope that the size of that audience is still large enough to monetize though advertising, subscription, commerce, etc.
It seems that the ones who are making money are the individuals who come up with the great idea and then build it out to be sold to the bigger company. As businesses, they need the synergy of the larger network to become more efficient and effective as a network. So many examples exist: Classic Sports sold to ESPN, Court TV sold to Turner, Bravo sold to NBC, and rumors of Oxygen soon going to Turner as well. On the Cable Operator side, we no longer talk of Adelphia, Vision Cable, Falcon, Millenium, TCI, Telecable and others. The same will hold true with web programming.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Bundling vs a la carte
There have always been complaints from homeowners regarding purchasing a package of channels against the ability to only purchase the individual channels you want. And at first blush, it sounds like a good move for the customer, pay for only what you want. But in reality, that might not be the case. First, people really don't watch channels, they watch programs. So if they find themselves liking a new program, they will then start moving to a transaction type model to enjoy the individual show. The more you watch, the more you spend. In most cases, buying in bulk, whether at Costco or on your channel line-up, ultimately gives you more for less.
Yes, we get channels that we may not want to watch, but the reverse also holds true, others may not like the channels we watch. Ultimately, the aggregate purchase enables all to get access. Now some channels are placed higher up in tiers and force an additional purchase, and even others may not even be available on your particular cable company's line-up. It is not an all or nothing environment for channel viewing. But the system isn't broke, so does it need to be fixed?
So how does the issue get resolved. The answer I believe does lie in the world of broadband. Channels and shows can find distribution outside the linear cable line-up. VOD enables a subscription or transaction opportunity. That cable customer can get access to on-demand without purchasing any additional channels. And the opportunities with IP delivered programming and new platforms like Joost brings more choice to your fingertips. And isn't that what we really want, more choice. So this lawsuit shouldn't be about antitrust or program packaging; the effort of these litigious individuals should be about embracing competition from Direct TV, Dish, Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-Verse in the marketplace, the choice of programming on the web and on VOD, and fair and open access to the web. That will keep the pricing of programming reasonable.
Yes, we get channels that we may not want to watch, but the reverse also holds true, others may not like the channels we watch. Ultimately, the aggregate purchase enables all to get access. Now some channels are placed higher up in tiers and force an additional purchase, and even others may not even be available on your particular cable company's line-up. It is not an all or nothing environment for channel viewing. But the system isn't broke, so does it need to be fixed?
So how does the issue get resolved. The answer I believe does lie in the world of broadband. Channels and shows can find distribution outside the linear cable line-up. VOD enables a subscription or transaction opportunity. That cable customer can get access to on-demand without purchasing any additional channels. And the opportunities with IP delivered programming and new platforms like Joost brings more choice to your fingertips. And isn't that what we really want, more choice. So this lawsuit shouldn't be about antitrust or program packaging; the effort of these litigious individuals should be about embracing competition from Direct TV, Dish, Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-Verse in the marketplace, the choice of programming on the web and on VOD, and fair and open access to the web. That will keep the pricing of programming reasonable.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
NBC to offer free episode downloads
Is NBC's digital distribution strategy clear to anyone out there. Shows are available on Amazon Unbox, Hulu, and now on NBC Direct. Where does the user end up, hard to tell. What drives them to one of these sites. Also hard to tell. How does the consumer find out that the episode is free with commercials on one distribution platform, and available for permanent ownership on another. Beats me. Why did they create Hula in the first place and when we they end that partnership with Fox. (I'm guessing it closes in a year.) We are watching NBC go through a great big learning curve. And it will be interesting to see what they do next.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
CTAM NY Panel explores broadband vs cable for content
Today's panel, from CTAM's annual Blue Ribbon Breakfast, asked the question, can broadband video be cable's newest opportunity. Perhaps the bigger question to ask would be Friend or Foe.
An "A" list of panelists that included Herb Scannell, CEO of NextNewNetworks, Matt Strauss, SVP New Media Comcast, David, Eun, VP Content Partnerships Google, Dallas Clement, SVP Cox Comm, and Bruce Campbell, President Digital Media Discovery, and moderated by Will Richmond, Principal of Broadband Directions, spent the hour discussing the changes in viewing behavior and the opportunities and threats that broadband viewership brought.
The cable perspective viewed it as an opportunity provided the infrastructure included them. Matt spoke of the infrastructure to reach the user however they choose to watch and that Comcast is committed to adapt to meet that changing pattern. He points to the success of VOD and the eyeballs they are reaching as one example. And Dallas's comment regarding Hi Def programming makes the cable platform more effective for watching this type of content. Google talks publicly of its partnership philosophy, but left unsaid is how they can enter the advertising side of the cable business and be the transaction arm on the cable platform. Programmers seek eyeballs, either through the synergy from existing linear brands or by distribution efforts. As Herb Scannell suggested, we can't expect the viewer to come to us; we need to put our content out to the viewer wherever they may be. Herb also noted that the mantra is no longer "content is king", but rather "the consumer is king". The conversation even ventured into the changing pattern of subscription content, as noted by the change at Times Select.
This was a terrific panel. I must note that I am currently VP on the CTAM NY Board, but was not responsible this year for this particular event's planning. The committee outdid themselves to create a panel that will be talked about for quite a while. How consumer viewing patterns change and how the industry adapts its infrastructure to remain valuable seems the key determinant. The interactive elements of video, data, and mobile into a cohesive service may be the key win for all parties.
An "A" list of panelists that included Herb Scannell, CEO of NextNewNetworks, Matt Strauss, SVP New Media Comcast, David, Eun, VP Content Partnerships Google, Dallas Clement, SVP Cox Comm, and Bruce Campbell, President Digital Media Discovery, and moderated by Will Richmond, Principal of Broadband Directions, spent the hour discussing the changes in viewing behavior and the opportunities and threats that broadband viewership brought.
The cable perspective viewed it as an opportunity provided the infrastructure included them. Matt spoke of the infrastructure to reach the user however they choose to watch and that Comcast is committed to adapt to meet that changing pattern. He points to the success of VOD and the eyeballs they are reaching as one example. And Dallas's comment regarding Hi Def programming makes the cable platform more effective for watching this type of content. Google talks publicly of its partnership philosophy, but left unsaid is how they can enter the advertising side of the cable business and be the transaction arm on the cable platform. Programmers seek eyeballs, either through the synergy from existing linear brands or by distribution efforts. As Herb Scannell suggested, we can't expect the viewer to come to us; we need to put our content out to the viewer wherever they may be. Herb also noted that the mantra is no longer "content is king", but rather "the consumer is king". The conversation even ventured into the changing pattern of subscription content, as noted by the change at Times Select.
This was a terrific panel. I must note that I am currently VP on the CTAM NY Board, but was not responsible this year for this particular event's planning. The committee outdid themselves to create a panel that will be talked about for quite a while. How consumer viewing patterns change and how the industry adapts its infrastructure to remain valuable seems the key determinant. The interactive elements of video, data, and mobile into a cohesive service may be the key win for all parties.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Can Subscription Work on the Web?
Apparently the New York Times is giving up on a dual revenue stream and no longer charging for access to special features on their site, N.Y. Times Select. 
Lost fees will be made up, hopefully, by more eyeballs and thus more advertising revenue. So with the Times caving in, does this lead to more sites doing the same. I was not a subscriber to their website, although we have been getting the print edition home delivered for years. I always felt that I could get the information I needed without paying extra for it. obviously others felt the same.
And yet, I am a subscriber to the Zagat subscription site, receiving both a book and full web access to their reviews. Am I in the minority; do most people find adequate info to their search without paying extra for membership. And will that type of open access lead to fundamental change in behavior. Will people stop buying the print edition of the Times or the Zagat book, when the info is so easily accessible on the web. In these two cases, and as many others are noticing, convergence is changing behavior and old methods need to be replaced with new thinking. How companies find new ways to monetize these businesses will determine their continued existence and their profitability.
Lost fees will be made up, hopefully, by more eyeballs and thus more advertising revenue. So with the Times caving in, does this lead to more sites doing the same. I was not a subscriber to their website, although we have been getting the print edition home delivered for years. I always felt that I could get the information I needed without paying extra for it. obviously others felt the same.And yet, I am a subscriber to the Zagat subscription site, receiving both a book and full web access to their reviews. Am I in the minority; do most people find adequate info to their search without paying extra for membership. And will that type of open access lead to fundamental change in behavior. Will people stop buying the print edition of the Times or the Zagat book, when the info is so easily accessible on the web. In these two cases, and as many others are noticing, convergence is changing behavior and old methods need to be replaced with new thinking. How companies find new ways to monetize these businesses will determine their continued existence and their profitability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
