Beyond the world of HD and DTV

So many announcements by cable, telco, and satellite touting all their HD programming. Fios TV adds A&E HD and Fox Business HD, Cablevision and others are adding TBS HD, AT&T U-Verse is offering over 30 HD channels, and now in print ads, Direct TV is boasting more than 70 HD channels. As the holidays approach, more and more people, myself included, will be shopping for the next generation HD screen, 1080p, to enjoy all this programming.

But as I have come to learn, it is more than just having the TV set. Your converter box must be HD ready, the channel you are watching must be HD, the programming on that channel has to be HD. So many consumers today are watching HD sets, but not truly watching HD TV. There is an education process to inform the viewer what truly is HD. And with any technological transition, this too will pass, as every channel finally goes HD 24/7 and non HD viewing is a thing of the pass.

And then what else is on the horizon. As the crystal ball heats up, I am interested what will TV viewing look like 20 years from today. The black & white to color TV transition is foreign to most younger audiences; others still fondly recall getting their first color TV in the house. So in 20+ years, what is next for enjoying our entertainment at home. Size of screen continues to grow and some might speculate that video walls are destined to be next. Just look at an HD control room and imagine the ability to customize a wall in your home with 1 screen or multiple screens; shots of sporting events or of the outside of your house. Others speak of the Star Trek approach. We've watched ST communicators, an imagination of Gene Roddenberry become today's mobile phone. Could the holodeck, and 3-D and interactive be a possibility?

But getting back to today, In the competitive world of cable, HD is being touted as the big fight. Which provider offers the most HD channels. But perhaps for marketing purposes, the real message should remain service. Which provider will do the best job to install, maintain, and satisfy the expectations of their customers and keep them loyal as the quantity message continues to blast us for attention.

Fox Business News Open For Business

A number of years ago, new TV channels launching on cable were being announced by the truckload. TV Macys, Horse Racing TV, Reelzchannel, and others; some have actually found space on cable line-ups, others not so lucky. And even others, like Trio, found their lights go dark. Recently, new channels are finding launches either as VOD channels or even more likely directly through broadband or IP technology.

So it is interesting to note, that what is old is now new again, as Fox Business News starts its first day of business on the cable line-up. Obviously, the financial backing of Fox is at play to get this channel a foothold on linear TV; but if their success with Fox News Channel is a guide, they understand the formula to gain viewers and build a successful business model. Who would suspect that business news would spawn the type of competition that you only expect to see for other genres, sports, movies, etc. With competition from CNBC and Bloomberg, Fox Business Channel has their work cut out for them to win over an audience and move loyalty viewing over to their product. Should CNBC and Bloomberg be concerned; yes and no. Competition splits the audience further but als raises the interest and brings in new viewers as well. Competition keeps you challenged and forward thinking. Competition will make for better TV.

And as Fox continues to grow their linear TV stable of channels, it demonstrates one other thing. That the power of the big screen is still relevant and vital and that content can still be best served by the TV screen. As Fox Business grows, it will be interesting to see how they build synergy with their online components to create a more unique and accessible viewing experience.

Is NBC for Sale

Why does GE want to sell NBC/Universal. Actually, why does GE even keep NBC. For a company whose core business is to "bring good things to life", GE does most of its business outside of media. Their investments are more likely to be found in defense, in jet engines and aircraft, in industrial and consumer manufacturing products, and in the financial arena. So as the owner of NBC, GE has never been seen as a good fit. Can you remember when David Letterman, once a staple of NBC's Late Night, when he tried to visit his new corporate owners after NBC was sold by RCA, and the GE security through David out of their building. Great TV and typical of the bad fit between GE and their new acquisition.

So now the talk is who the likely buyers of NBC might be. Two titans mentioned in the article are Time Warner and Google. I'm surprised to not hear Comcast mentioned given their run for Disney a few years ago. Certainly any one of these companies offer a better fit than GE, but is this best for NBC or the GE stockholder. Would it make sense for GE to spin NBC/Universal off as its own company? While some consolidation makes sense, I would hope that NBC and GE could be better served as separate entities and NBC have the creative freedom to grow in this new technological age without another corporate parent. And of the two possible new owners, if that is still the direction GE seeks, I hope for Google. Their business model offers more synergy while Time warner brings more overlap.

CBS Interactive Scares Up Web Series

CBS is certainly working hard to be a player in the interactive space. Their latest announcement, an on-line series with a Halloween theme, sounds fun and interesting. And as a stand-alone opportunity, another video in a crowded field.

My question though is what is CBS's strategic plan. What does this series bring to the space that supports their bigger objectives. Yes it is consistent with their plans to be distribution neutral, allowing its content to be seen inside many different distribution portals, AOL, Comcast, Verizon and many others. But it is the content itself, the choices they are making of what to include, that has no common thread.

Unless CBS is considering buying The Horror Channel, or perhaps AMC and the Monsterfest brand, The series, "How to Survive a Horror Movie" does not bring more to the CBS brand other than as filler. In fact, this series should have been picked up by those nets to expand the value of those brands.

I'm surprised that CBS is not looking for web product that is synergistic with their TV and Radio brands and keeps the user moving among the CBS properties. What does CBS expect the viewer to do after they watched the webisode; what next CBS product might they move the viewer toward? The inclusion of this program on the CBS.com website just looks disjointed and out of place. It is listed as a web exclusive; so what. As CBS looks to monetize the web, consider shows that bring your viewer from web to TV and from TV to the web. Unless your trying to tie in "Survive a Horror Movie" with " Ghost Whisperer", your viewers will be hard pressed to care.

Can individuals make money on the web

I recently added a widget to my blog that offers to pay me every time someone clicks on the ad. I think in the last 2 weeks, I have earned less than a first class postage stamp. In addition, I have embedded Google Adsense and yet to know what revenue I may have earned. Am I trying to get rich by these methods, no; I am simply trying to determine its longevity and value.

Today, Blinkx, a video search engine, has announced its willingness to share ad revenue with users that post their videos and allow them to include advertising, everytime the ad is clicked. Rightly so, the CEO, Suranga Chandratillake, realistically set the expectations according to the article, "Mr. Chandratillake cautioned that any income derived by bloggers and others agreeing to take the ads would not be much. 'Maybe enough to pay your Internet bill at best,' he said."

So why do it. For Blinkx, aggregating all the videos helps them gain revenue, but for the individual blogger or vlogger, the return is far far less. New companies that are looking to better monetize their video web business may seek Blinkx help, but may have more success building ad revenue themselves or working with another partner that offers a more generous split.

Content vs Technology

In the linked article, the blogger argues that main stream media (MSM) is looking to blame technology for its lost audience share and to not realize that the cure is content. As he constantly notes, "It’s The Content, Stupid". And while I have continually argued that content is king, I believe that his argument is misplaced.

The reason that the MSM share has declined is not because of technology alone, it is due to the fact that the audience embraces content that is convenient and readily available. Technology has simply enabled content to reach its audience faster and in a form that best suits the users' need. The NY Times example, that subscription is declining, as argued in the blog, because the content is not relevant, that because their stance on Iraq was not accurate, readership left.

I disagree. Regardless of the NY Times stance, readers left because they could receive similar content faster and more efficiently through other technology means. Breaking news is more relevant on the web, business news changes in moments and the web and mobile can deliver that news directly. The NY Times may see a declining readership, not because they may have gotten the story wrong, but because the content is being better served elsewhere. Yes, it is the content, but it is also how it is made available. And that is the value that technology brings to content. It lowers the barriers and expands the reach. The NY Times needs to change to reflect a changing environment. It's content needs to be more relevant in a print mode than a web mode.

His argument regarding Rosie O'Donnell and her departure from The View is also nonsensical How did MSM banish Rosie? And how can he argue that audience has eroded as a result. It is just not true. And In that particular example, it's not about content, it was simply about bad manners.

Facebook, My Space, Linked in - fad or future

Are My Space and Facebook an in the moment fad soon to go the way of the ham radio, or will the user base continue to grow as more and more users are "linked in". I have had the opportunity to join and use these various social networking forums and find myself enjoying them, but each for very different reasons.

For My Space, I find it offers more personal creativity in creating a web page, yet in that disjointed manner, find various pages too busy and hard to read. At the same time, most requests for friends come from strangers with sleazy offers.

For Linked in, I see it as a great business relationship tool to share your CV and learn more about other people's business skills and possible shared professional relationships. As a business networking tool, it is very impressive and has the potential for more business applications.

For Facebook, I enjoy its social networking strengths and its ability to passively share info, thoughts, common interests, and passions. Unlike Linked in which does not need to be updated often, except to add contacts, Facebook requires an increased level of interaction to keep the information relevant and useful. It begs the question, how often are you willing to keep involved, or will one find something better and just as quickly shift allegiances. Facebook seems to be to have the better staying power as it opens itself as a key "home" page for the user to start from in their launch of the web. That means that it needs to add additional features to be regarded as that key portal.

Open Internet Coalition Opens New Network-Neutrality Front

The internet has become a vast playground of words, music, video, personal thought, and sharing. And until recently, most people assumed that anything goes. But when last week, Verizon made a business decision to block a text message because of content, it opened up a Pandora's box once again. And not just about blocking, but also about determining which piece of content gets priority.

Should the company providing the pipeline be allowed to decide what it allows and thus charge perhaps for premium access, or should the consumer expect that every piece of data, no matter in what form, gets the same level of access and flow across the pipeline?

Private business will argue that they built the pipe and should have control over enabling its use. Consumers argue censorship or anti-consumer behavior for what was created to be an open pipe. And how much government regulation is needed when an open market would allow the consumer to economically decide which provider to use based on service, access, etc. It seems that one rule begets another and the FCC, through cable franchises, has limited competition in the marketplace. Open access to all communication outside government regulation. Stop treating it as a utility and let the consumer decide with their pocketbook which service best serves their need. Not happy with Verizon, switch to another provider. Open cable and wireless spectrum up and let the economy shape the landscape.

Turner Dips Toes Into Virtual Online World

I am a big fan of brand extension in new media. I believe that the synergies create advance the core value of the program or network brand and offers greater monetization opportunity. And while I frankly don't get Second Life as a stand alone social gateway, the Turner announcement intrigues me. And it was this quote in the article that made me think...“Through this opportunity, we hope to leverage the Kaneva platform to explore how users interact with our brands in a virtual world,” TBS vice president of new products Blake Lewin said, in a statement.

I can think of a number of interesting virtual worlds that a user might want to interact in; for TBS - walk in Seinfeld's apartment and Tom's Diner, hang out with the Ramones on Everybody Loves Raymond. For Cartoon Network, walk around Camp Lazlo, or for us old timers, hang out in Bedrock with the Flintstones. Applying a virtual world with social networking and popular entertainment is the key mash up approach to success. I look forward to what Turner and Kaneva have in store. It is these kinds of relationships that will make second life far more valuable in the new media space.