What is going on at the FCC. First they try to impose a la carte rules and contend a 70% cable penetration and now they are trying to limit a cable company's ownership. What is there underlying motivation? If it is to promote more competition, I am hard to understand how this strategy makes sense.
I am a true believer of economics and the ideal notion that normal market forces will find equalibrium. As an example, look no further than cable and the role economic forces are playing. The rise of the phone companies into cable, the growth of satellite, and the technological forces that wireless and high speed. Rather than limit cable, allow the market to be open. Let technological change bring in more competition; perhaps finally the electric company will find a way to push programming and information through their electric wires. It is true competition that will create supply and demand and set real prices. It is the FCC and franchise exclusivity that limits it.
As a second example, look at the Sirius and XM Satellite merger. Again technology and market forces should be more at play than preventing their merger. The growth of ipods, wireless, and even over the air radio, is enough competition to not interfere. Consider if Direct TV or Dish make a play for mobile and the free market rules.
My advice, sometimes hands off is the way to go!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
From United Hollywood re Latest Writers Strike Info
Copied from United Hollywood:
The companies put out a press release today, thus ending the media blackout to which they and the WGA agreed. So this is what we no know:
That big, amazing proposal that the companies hinted to Nikki Finke was coming? Well, it came.
Turns out their exciting, groundbreaking proposal is... a residual rollback. And not just any rollback, one of the biggest in the history of the Guild. Then, stunningly, the companies have the balls to say their plan gives us more compensation. Well, I'm sorry, but If you take away a dollar and give me a nickel, the nickel ain't a raise. Somewhere, Nick Counter's first-grade math teacher is embarrassed.
So we decided to do some math of our own: We broke out the cost of the WGA's current proposal to the conglomerates into yearly figures. We found that the TOTAL payment yearly -- the total that ALL the companies would make under our proposals -- is $50.54 million. And that, we realized, is about one-third the budget of TRANSFORMERS. We are asking IN TOTAL, for the equivalent of the cost overrun on a summer event movie.
Instead of agreeing that that is a fair and just offer, they've proposed this:
When an hourlong episode of television is streamed on the Internet, writers would get a flat $250 payment for one year of reuse. That's $250 as opposed to, for example, $20,000 per episode when it's reused on network television. They proposed nothing new on downloads, it's still the DVD formula for those (ie. two-thirds of a penny for an iTunes download). For theatrical movies, they're offering exactly $0.00 on streaming. Oh, and they want to be able to define any content they like as "promotional" -- for which they would pay zero dollars. Even if they stream an entire film or tv episode, and even if they sell ads on it, they can call that promotional and pay us nothing.
THE AMPTP claims their deal is worth $130 million over three years. But what they don't mention is how much we'd lose under their proposal. As all media distribution transitions to the Internet before our eyes, their proposal takes away far, far more revenue than it provides.
A bold, new relationship? Sure, an abusive one.
Patric Verrone sent this letter to membership a few minutes ago:
To My Fellow Members,
After four days of bargaining with the AMPTP, I am writing to let you know that, though we are still at the table, the press blackout has been lifted.
Our inability to communicate with our members has left a vacuum of information that has been filled with rumors, both well intentioned and deceptive.
Among the rumors was the assertion that the AMPTP had a groundbreaking proposal that would make this negotiation a "done deal." In fact, for the first three days of this week, the companies presented in essence their November 4 package with not an iota of movement on any of the issues that matter to writers.
Thursday morning, the first new proposal was finally presented to us. It dealt only with streaming and made-for-Internet jurisdiction, and it amounts to a massive rollback.
From streaming television episodes, the companies proposed a residual structure of a single fixed payment of less than $250 for a year's reuse of an hour-long program (compared to over $20,000 payable for a network rerun). For theatrical product they are offering no residuals whatsoever for streaming.
For made-for-Internet material, they offered minimums that would allow a studio to produce up to a 15 minute episode of network-derived web content for a script fee of $1300. They continued to refuse to grant jurisdiction over original content for the Internet.
In their new proposal, they made absolutely no move on the download formula (which they propose to pay at the DVD rate), and continue to assert that they can deem any reuse "promotional," and pay no residual (even if they replay the entire film or TV episode and even if they make money).
The AMPTP says it will have additional proposals to make but, as of Thursday evening, they have not been presented to us. We are scheduled to meet with them again on Tuesday.
In the meantime, I felt it was essential to update you accurately on where negotiations stood. On Wednesday we presented a comprehensive economic justification for our proposals. Our entire package would cost this industry $151 million over three years. That's a little over a 3% increase in writer earnings each year, while company revenues are projected to grow at a rate of 10%. We are falling behind.
For Sony, this entire deal would cost $1.68 million per year. For Disney $6.25 million. Paramount and CBS would each pay about $4.66 million, Warner about $11.2 million, Fox $6.04 million, and NBC/Universal $7.44 million. MGM would pay $320,000 and the entire universe of remaining companies would assume the remainder of about $8.3 million per year. As we've stated repeatedly, our proposals are more than reasonable and the companies have no excuse for denying it.
The AMPTP's intractability is dispiriting news but it must also be motivating. Any movement on the part of these multinational conglomerates has been the result of the collective action of our membership, with the support of SAG, other unions, supportive politicians, and the general public. We must fight on, returning to the lines on Monday in force to make it clear that we will not back down, that we will not accept a bad deal, and that we are all in this together.
Best,
Patric M. Verrone
President, WGAW
Michael Winship
President, WGAE
_______________________
Negotiations start up again on Tuesday. The only good news is that they are agreeing to continue to talk, but are they both interested in resolving this strike or is this just further delays and more a giant production spectacular, all glitz but no substance!
The companies put out a press release today, thus ending the media blackout to which they and the WGA agreed. So this is what we no know:
That big, amazing proposal that the companies hinted to Nikki Finke was coming? Well, it came.
Turns out their exciting, groundbreaking proposal is... a residual rollback. And not just any rollback, one of the biggest in the history of the Guild. Then, stunningly, the companies have the balls to say their plan gives us more compensation. Well, I'm sorry, but If you take away a dollar and give me a nickel, the nickel ain't a raise. Somewhere, Nick Counter's first-grade math teacher is embarrassed.
So we decided to do some math of our own: We broke out the cost of the WGA's current proposal to the conglomerates into yearly figures. We found that the TOTAL payment yearly -- the total that ALL the companies would make under our proposals -- is $50.54 million. And that, we realized, is about one-third the budget of TRANSFORMERS. We are asking IN TOTAL, for the equivalent of the cost overrun on a summer event movie.
Instead of agreeing that that is a fair and just offer, they've proposed this:
When an hourlong episode of television is streamed on the Internet, writers would get a flat $250 payment for one year of reuse. That's $250 as opposed to, for example, $20,000 per episode when it's reused on network television. They proposed nothing new on downloads, it's still the DVD formula for those (ie. two-thirds of a penny for an iTunes download). For theatrical movies, they're offering exactly $0.00 on streaming. Oh, and they want to be able to define any content they like as "promotional" -- for which they would pay zero dollars. Even if they stream an entire film or tv episode, and even if they sell ads on it, they can call that promotional and pay us nothing.
THE AMPTP claims their deal is worth $130 million over three years. But what they don't mention is how much we'd lose under their proposal. As all media distribution transitions to the Internet before our eyes, their proposal takes away far, far more revenue than it provides.
A bold, new relationship? Sure, an abusive one.
Patric Verrone sent this letter to membership a few minutes ago:
To My Fellow Members,
After four days of bargaining with the AMPTP, I am writing to let you know that, though we are still at the table, the press blackout has been lifted.
Our inability to communicate with our members has left a vacuum of information that has been filled with rumors, both well intentioned and deceptive.
Among the rumors was the assertion that the AMPTP had a groundbreaking proposal that would make this negotiation a "done deal." In fact, for the first three days of this week, the companies presented in essence their November 4 package with not an iota of movement on any of the issues that matter to writers.
Thursday morning, the first new proposal was finally presented to us. It dealt only with streaming and made-for-Internet jurisdiction, and it amounts to a massive rollback.
From streaming television episodes, the companies proposed a residual structure of a single fixed payment of less than $250 for a year's reuse of an hour-long program (compared to over $20,000 payable for a network rerun). For theatrical product they are offering no residuals whatsoever for streaming.
For made-for-Internet material, they offered minimums that would allow a studio to produce up to a 15 minute episode of network-derived web content for a script fee of $1300. They continued to refuse to grant jurisdiction over original content for the Internet.
In their new proposal, they made absolutely no move on the download formula (which they propose to pay at the DVD rate), and continue to assert that they can deem any reuse "promotional," and pay no residual (even if they replay the entire film or TV episode and even if they make money).
The AMPTP says it will have additional proposals to make but, as of Thursday evening, they have not been presented to us. We are scheduled to meet with them again on Tuesday.
In the meantime, I felt it was essential to update you accurately on where negotiations stood. On Wednesday we presented a comprehensive economic justification for our proposals. Our entire package would cost this industry $151 million over three years. That's a little over a 3% increase in writer earnings each year, while company revenues are projected to grow at a rate of 10%. We are falling behind.
For Sony, this entire deal would cost $1.68 million per year. For Disney $6.25 million. Paramount and CBS would each pay about $4.66 million, Warner about $11.2 million, Fox $6.04 million, and NBC/Universal $7.44 million. MGM would pay $320,000 and the entire universe of remaining companies would assume the remainder of about $8.3 million per year. As we've stated repeatedly, our proposals are more than reasonable and the companies have no excuse for denying it.
The AMPTP's intractability is dispiriting news but it must also be motivating. Any movement on the part of these multinational conglomerates has been the result of the collective action of our membership, with the support of SAG, other unions, supportive politicians, and the general public. We must fight on, returning to the lines on Monday in force to make it clear that we will not back down, that we will not accept a bad deal, and that we are all in this together.
Best,
Patric M. Verrone
President, WGAW
Michael Winship
President, WGAE
_______________________
Negotiations start up again on Tuesday. The only good news is that they are agreeing to continue to talk, but are they both interested in resolving this strike or is this just further delays and more a giant production spectacular, all glitz but no substance!
Hulu or Hula
Have you tried googling the NBC/Fox site for video content and found yourself calling it H U L A and not H U L U. Where one is a Hawaiian dance, the other is the offical website. As it relates to building a brand message, I wonder if that confusion will help or hurt the site. Should Hulu buy the hula website and redirect people to the correct site or has some entrepreneur already picked it up in anticipation of that economic opportunity.
By the way, the correct site is Hulu! :)
By the way, the correct site is Hulu! :)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Networks set for $120m from web ads
According to the article, the big four networks, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox are in line to earn $120 million in ad revenue this year from online advertising. And the growth continues to skyrocket. What is not mentioned is whether the same networks are seeing a decline in ad revenue from their video product. And while ad dollars have moved from broadcast to cable, each of these networks own multiple channels in each space as well as building or acquiring web space. So it is likely that this $120 M in online revenue is incremental growth and not cannibalization from other products. "The total online video advertising market will be worth close to $1.3bn this year after doubling in size in 2006, according to Accustream, the digital media research company."
And with content needed to fill all of these buckets, it is clear that it cannot be done without strong compelling content. I hope that the news blackout on the current negotiations between writers and producers is indicative of a real attempt to find a solution.
And with stories like these, the writers' point is clear; there is revenue being produced from this hard work.
And with content needed to fill all of these buckets, it is clear that it cannot be done without strong compelling content. I hope that the news blackout on the current negotiations between writers and producers is indicative of a real attempt to find a solution.
And with stories like these, the writers' point is clear; there is revenue being produced from this hard work.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Web bubble 2.0 for social networks?
Is social networking more fad than future? How do the applications of social networking converge with the entertainment media? ABC has just announced a relationship with Facebook and Fox and My Space are adding more newsfeeds to their site. So it is hard to imagine a bursting bubble, but more change is coming. levels of sharing of personal information must occur. I for one am not sure I want to mix my business social net circle with my personal circle.
The best opportunity for social networks to change is with video applications. As IP TV becomes more a reality, this convergence should become even easier for the consumer to enable and enjoy. Opinions registered right on the screen and easier interactivity for the average non-tech consumer to handle.
Also from Media Week, "Worldwide shipments of multimedia-enabled mobile phones will exceed 300 million units next year, surpassing shipments of television sets, according to a research report by MultiMedia Intelligence. By 2011, about 9 of 10 mobile phones will include capabilities such as video playback" Technology is enabling more social networking, not bursting it.
The best opportunity for social networks to change is with video applications. As IP TV becomes more a reality, this convergence should become even easier for the consumer to enable and enjoy. Opinions registered right on the screen and easier interactivity for the average non-tech consumer to handle.
Also from Media Week, "Worldwide shipments of multimedia-enabled mobile phones will exceed 300 million units next year, surpassing shipments of television sets, according to a research report by MultiMedia Intelligence. By 2011, about 9 of 10 mobile phones will include capabilities such as video playback" Technology is enabling more social networking, not bursting it.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The End of Print Newspapers?
It seems that Tom Brokaw has made an interesting prediction, that in 10 years, print newspapers will go the way of dinosaurs. That must be welcome news to Amazon's Kindle and other portable devices. And as we begin to get more and more environmentally friendly, the reduction of paper use must be a welcome relief.
As a fan of newspapers and magazines, I will find it hard to completely move away from the tactile feel of turning the news pages and cutting out coupons. And the ability to lighten my load of the paper, once read, from my briefcase to trashcan. And how many devices must I constantly carry - cellphone, PDA, and now reader. Plus all the unique chargers to keep these devices working. My briefcase is getting heavier just thinking about it. And the paper reduction now leads to more electronic consumption. Will global ecology efforts ever improve.
Yes, digital consumption continues to grow and the print media will no doubt be affected by this convergence. But we will always need content and journalists, no matter what the media they write to (cave walls, newspaper, electronic), is what we will always consume. Professional, intelligent, thoughtful content. This too is what the writers strike is all about. I just wonder ultimately what the device will look like to feed our reading passion.
As a fan of newspapers and magazines, I will find it hard to completely move away from the tactile feel of turning the news pages and cutting out coupons. And the ability to lighten my load of the paper, once read, from my briefcase to trashcan. And how many devices must I constantly carry - cellphone, PDA, and now reader. Plus all the unique chargers to keep these devices working. My briefcase is getting heavier just thinking about it. And the paper reduction now leads to more electronic consumption. Will global ecology efforts ever improve.
Yes, digital consumption continues to grow and the print media will no doubt be affected by this convergence. But we will always need content and journalists, no matter what the media they write to (cave walls, newspaper, electronic), is what we will always consume. Professional, intelligent, thoughtful content. This too is what the writers strike is all about. I just wonder ultimately what the device will look like to feed our reading passion.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Writers Strike negotiations to resume Monday
Great video from SNL's Will Forte and Kristen Wiig. Lets hope both the writers and producers come to the table with the intent to find a win-win resolution. I want to see professionally produced content come back. Reality TV has its limits too. Happy Thanksgiving!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Amazon creates Kindle for a Digital Read Experience
Last night on the train ride home, as I was reading my book, I noticed my seatmate trying out her new Kindle reader. And as a technophile, I was intrigued by its sleak look and its readability, even from my sideways angle.
And yet, I did not feel compelled to keep looking over her shoulder. As a fan of reading, I love the feel of a book. And I love the chance to share what I have read to others. In fact, my current book is a recommendation from my wife who passed on the book from her to me. I am thoroughly engrossed in its story.
At some point, books stack up on the shelves. Some are shared with friends and family. Some remain to be re-read and enjoyed again; others sent to the local library or book fair for others to enjoy. Is Kindle the reader that changes that dynamic? At some point it will. Chnage is inevitable; when did you stop using the yellow pages to get your business phone number and went to the web instead.
But I don't think Kindle is the answer to the book reader yet. In today's environmentally friendly world, it may make most sense to replace the daily newspaper or weekly magazine, which tend to be read and recycled quickly. But for now, I don't think the book reader will find Kindle advantageous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
