Hulu looks great

I put my email address on the hulu website and was fortunate to get a password sent to enjoy the beta version. And while I can't understand why the investment in hulu to promote NBC shows, when nbc.com should be that resource, I do have to say I like the easy navigation that hulu offers. The nbc.com website comes across too cluttered and hard to navigate. Think you clicked a link to full episodes, but find your self on another general page. To many clicks to hard to get what you want quickly.

Hulu, on the other hand, has created a nice clean player, easy navigation, and at the moment, no full frontal assault of advertising. And while the NBC and Fox partnership may have created a nice new business, I continue to wonder why you couldn't take all this same learning and simply apply it correctly to your own network website. Hulu doesn't easily roll off your tongue and too many times I want to type H U L A. Thank goodness for bookmarks.

I like the concept of Hulu, I just don't like the clutter of a hundred different websites offering the same things, or each site offering something slightly different: one for downloads, one for streaming, another for clicks, a fourth for fan user generated versions. Rather, organize one website cleanly with easy search and quick access. Do we need hulu, no; but we do need the kind of thinking that makes for better synergistic use of the web and TV.

Data: U.S. Internet Advertising to Double to $42 Billion Over Next Four Years

Why are the writers striking - well with announcements about the growth of internet advertising, it's no doubt that everyone, writers included, want their "fair share" of the pie. Still,the number not mentioned is the overall growth of advertising spent, regardless of where. Does more choices for viewing, TV, DVD, broadband, mobile, equate to growth of viewing or simply redistribution of the same pie? Are the dollars moving to internet coming from something else? Is the overall growth simply inflation? My advice to both parties, find a fair % of the action regardless of the distribution method. You get paid a lot, the percentage is bigger; if you say there is no revenue, the percentage of nothing remains nothing.

Yes the times are different and consumers can flock to other resources to be entertained. But quality content still requires quality writing. How long this strike will take will depend on how soon the viewer gets bored with user generated and amateur videos and keeps asking for new fresh professional content on these new distribution outlets.

With the writer's strike everyone loses

There is truth in the line, "Those that forget history are bound to repeat it". The lessons of a strike hurt everyone, including the ones that are striking. And while it is a tactic in the fight for a better contract, it is far better to stay at the table and bargain in good faith, then hit the strike lines.

The repercussions of this strike go farther than just the two sides. Its economic ramifications hit far. Those other folks working on the show, are no longer working either. it takes many talented people, beside the writers, to turn the words into a show or movie. The networks, cable, and even new distribution platforms like Hulu and Joost are affected. No new shows, no new advertising revenue. And as consumers and viewers, we fall out of the pattern of watching these shows. That means that the shows lose their loyal base. Viewers find other things to do with their time and once they leave, it is harder to win them back.

And so there are no winners to a strike, only losers. So lets hope for a quick and equitable resolution.

Writers Guild Negotiators Eye Monday Strike

Just an absolute shame if the writers strike. it seems that the writers feel shortchanged from their last deal and their negotiated DVD percentage of payments. What is clear is that as technology has created new distribution platforms, new revenue opportunities exist and all people involved in the creation of original content deserve their "fair share" of the profits. I only hope that they come to agreement quickly.

NYT Site Unveils Revamped Tech Section

The New York Times seems to get it. Revamping their technology website and aggregating content from across other multiple sites along with the Times own expertise. It is taking the power of the New York Times brand to bring people to your site, the synergy with the press edition to market it, and the variety and depth of content to keep users inside its pages. And with compelling content and strong promotion, I have no doubt the Times will see longer page views and more users to their technology website. Now instead of accessing multiple web pages, the user gets all the editorial from other sources pulled onto one page. The same principal should be employed across all the other sections of the NY Times website. While the paper has always been a must read, providing access to related content from outside their site, will make the online edition a must read as well.

Marketing Rules Apply: No Joke: NBC Expected to Shutter DotComedy

The news that NBC is shutting down a small website - Dotcomedy - should come as no surprise. It has nothing to do with the quality of the site, although I don't recall ever looking at it before today, but to classic marketing. There are too many internet sites, many that look like each other, and so has become too fragmented for its own good. The NBC brand is very powerful and to dilute it with other brands that don't connect back to a bigger brand makes no sense. It would make more sense to push the individual brands like SNL in these new spaces, a strategy Comedy Central is employing with its content, including the Daily Show. People know and love these brands and tend to expect them to house their own content.

And what of the content original to the web. They gain by attaching them to those better known brands. It's the Mall strategy; get them to the big box stores and once they are there, encourage them to visit the boutique stores in the space. And so, my advice, make the NBC brand the home page that aggregates all the other brands. Push your viewer inside the NBC mall and from there make it easy to find the content they seek; oh and why they are visiting, check out the other smaller content sites too.

Hi Def Confusion Reigns - How Big Is It

Is High Definition the next greatest thing? According to Nielsen, and contrary to the CEA, Hi Def penetration is low, only 13.7% of TV households. And most likely, those homes may have multiple TVs, but only 1 may be HDTV. It seems to suggest that content owners need not rush to convert their programming or their channels to the HD format.

More interesting is the fact that the Consumer Electronic Association has measured that same penetration at over 32% of all households. That difference amounts to over 21 million homes that may or may not be HDTV homes.

The CEA believes that difference between their figure and Nielsen is how to define a HDTV household. Those with an HDTV set, but not connected to a converter box able to show an HDTV signal would not count in the Nielsen number. Per B&C, "The CEA’s own research, in fact, indicated that in 2007, only 44% of HDTV owners are actually receiving HD programming."

My own household falls into that mix. We have a HDTV set in the kitchen, but connected directly to the cable wire to the wall; no box. Why - the converter box takes up too much room, and the picture, even if not HD, looks great. In fact, if I could network all my sets to one HD server in the garage, I would upgrade all my sets to HD now. The boxes are space hogs and unsightly.

Most importantly though should not be how many are out there now, but how many will there be in 3 months, 1 year, 5 years, etc. Consumers love the thin ergonomic look for the HD screen, they love the improved picture, and they will continue to purchase HDTV sets. So I would be most interested in the expected growth, because HD is not going away.

Verizon's FiOS TV Bulks Up on 3Q Subs

The fact that Verizon Fios TV is growing should not surprise anyone in the cable industry. As cable companies have tapped the hard wire phone market, Verizon recognized the consumers were less reliant on their hard wire and more reliant on wireless. It stays true to the mantra, what you want when you want it, and the mobility of consumers has led to this revelation.

What the cable industry should be most concerned with is how Verizon intends to build better synergies with Fios with their wireless business. Remote programming of their cable box. Remote access to home security, and other applications that connect the mobile user to their home base.

And so the rumor that Comcast and Time Warner may partner together to purchase Sprint makes sense for strategic reasons. But if this purchase does occur as a partnership, can they mutually agree on the direction of their business without co-opting their unique cable business plans.

Verizon will continue to grow subs - some as customers find dissatisfaction from the service problems of their current provider, others because of an upcoming price war. No matter what marketing cable employs, subs will continue to leave the establishment to try the new guy. That's the battle. But to win the war - to keep them or win the cable customer back: unique programming through VOD channels and web to TV programs, better synergy across the triple or quad businesses, and exceptional service.

My advice turn your service people into the Geek Squad. Offer that expertise to the home on 24 hour notice. Spend the time and effort making each customer beholden to your company for setting up and maintaining their working home network universe of cable, phone, wireless, high speed, security, etc. That is true convergence.

Hulu Readies Its Online TV, Dodging the Insults

Why Hulu? It's the question many will ask. What does Hulu do that neither NBC or Fox can do separately. Whether Hulu can offer to NBC or Fox what You Tube can't is the ultimate answer. The other networks are employing different strategies to provide program access on the internet.

To me, while the web can act as a VOD method to catch shows that you missed on the TV, it should also be used to provide relatable content that augments the show, interactive games, additional footage, background info, that furthers the experience of the show itself.

So if the show is 30 Rock, the episode can certainly be repeated on the web, but how about additional footage of the secondary characters, like the writers of the faux show, to feel immersed in the 30 Rock experience. Now why this experience needs to be accessed thru Hulu as opposed directly through NBC.com or 30Rock.com, will determine whether Hulu as a new business lives or dies.