A simple enough question as advertising effectiveness on TV has been hurt - by falling ratings, by more fragmentation of TV choices, and because of the DVR. I believe that broadcasters have killed the golden goose of TV by adding more minutes per hour to a show, reducing the time spent inside the show and increasing viewer dissatisfaction with the growing number and length of breaks. As non-programming minutes have grown per hour, viewers have hit their wall and began seeking alternatives. One was the development of the DVR to literally skip over commercials; another, was to keep the pc in the same room as the TV and switch attention during commercial breaks from the show to other interactive applications. I believe if audiences were less bombarded by the number of ads and breaks, the DVR would not have become the necessary tool that it is to stay engaged with TV's content.
Last night, for instance, American Idol was a 2 hour show. Great family entertainment, yet filled with way too many ads. Luckily, I was able to start the show with my DVR and skip those too long breaks. Not good for the advertisers, but more satisfying viewing by me and my family. And yet, I still was able to recall key sponsors integrated into the programming of the show. Branded entertainment can be less invasive when done well and more effective use of dollars.
The same ad problems will happen to the web and VOD advertising as pre-rolls and overlays disrupt the content and cause the viewer to create new remedies to avoid them as well. A short form video can't have a :30 pre-roll each time. The viewer will disengage quickly from multiple views. Overlays remind me of snipes on the bottom of today's tv network programs, but at least they seem to be able to be clicked off.
It is okay to earn money through advertising; the point is that sometimes less is more and when you get greedy, you will lose everything. Gecko's quote from Wall Street is not true, Greed is not good.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Web Viewership Not a Zero Sum Game
This week's Multichannel looks closely at the effects of the writers strike on TV viewing. And makes an interesting point, that web video usage may have risen, but not at the expense of TV. And even with the writers strike two months in, January TV viewing still did well with reality programming and sports. Cable continues to impact broadcast viewing, perhaps even more than the writers strike did, by being able to carve up smaller pieces to reach individual interests.
Most interesting, according to Multichannel, "the splintering of the viewing audience among hundreds of TV channels and innumerable Web sites had already been in play before the strike started Nov. 5. The effects of the strike only really became noticeable, one top cable-research official said, when broadcast networks began running out of fresh episodes of hits like ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy."
We live in an age of multitasking and the ability to do many things at once. Most recently, that ability has become noticable with TV and web usage. The TV is on in one corner of the room, or perhaps even on one corner of the screen, while attention switches from show to web clip to blog and back to TV show again. And as most tv programming has become what I like to call low involvement viewing, it takes little attention to catch up to plot lines on the big tube.
I once worked on a research project that compared low and high involvement viewing to advertising effectiveness and the general results were that the higher the engagement, the higher the recall to the spots. It becomes much harder to multitask during a high involvement show. Still in today's world, younger viewers are more quickly able to move between online and tv engagements; that is to watch a high involvement show like Heroes, then quickly switch to the website and blogs during the commercial breaks. As the TV and the pc exist in the same room, those kinds of multitask relationships will only get stronger and web usage will grow, but not at the expense of broadcast or cable TV programming.
Most interesting, according to Multichannel, "the splintering of the viewing audience among hundreds of TV channels and innumerable Web sites had already been in play before the strike started Nov. 5. The effects of the strike only really became noticeable, one top cable-research official said, when broadcast networks began running out of fresh episodes of hits like ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy."
We live in an age of multitasking and the ability to do many things at once. Most recently, that ability has become noticable with TV and web usage. The TV is on in one corner of the room, or perhaps even on one corner of the screen, while attention switches from show to web clip to blog and back to TV show again. And as most tv programming has become what I like to call low involvement viewing, it takes little attention to catch up to plot lines on the big tube.
I once worked on a research project that compared low and high involvement viewing to advertising effectiveness and the general results were that the higher the engagement, the higher the recall to the spots. It becomes much harder to multitask during a high involvement show. Still in today's world, younger viewers are more quickly able to move between online and tv engagements; that is to watch a high involvement show like Heroes, then quickly switch to the website and blogs during the commercial breaks. As the TV and the pc exist in the same room, those kinds of multitask relationships will only get stronger and web usage will grow, but not at the expense of broadcast or cable TV programming.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Writers Strike Has Changed Network Programming
Will the networks change their programming models or are old habits hard to break? Some believe that networks have learned their lesson finally and are reshaping their models, buying less pilots, premiering new programming around the year and not just in the Fall and Spring, and following the cable model of multiple programming showings throughout the week. And why make all these changes - To assure that the viewing public watches these shows and their costs can be recouped.
But under this model, the networks would need to actually create more tv shows not less. They will have to spend more money for more pilots and than commit more of them to a large enough number of shows. As VOD and websites like Hulu become vast libraries of shows, the old model of rerunning shows will not work. Once networks begin to monetize them on these other platforms, their linear tv schedules need to become populated with more original content or will see declining ratings. And so when networks like NBC announce that they are producing fewer pilots it goes against the logic of their future endeavors. They should be announcing more shows being produced to capitalize on the additional inventory needed to fill all this space.
And to the discussion of upfronts; as the writers strike has left the networks without new product, it is hard to imagine the value of upfronts this Spring trying to sell old programming as new again. You can't sell the shinola unless the sh*t exists. It's hard to believe that any of the networks have enough new programming in the mix to sell the sizzle. Get your programming house in order, than take it to the market. Agencies are tired of empty calories, make the effort to show the beef.
But under this model, the networks would need to actually create more tv shows not less. They will have to spend more money for more pilots and than commit more of them to a large enough number of shows. As VOD and websites like Hulu become vast libraries of shows, the old model of rerunning shows will not work. Once networks begin to monetize them on these other platforms, their linear tv schedules need to become populated with more original content or will see declining ratings. And so when networks like NBC announce that they are producing fewer pilots it goes against the logic of their future endeavors. They should be announcing more shows being produced to capitalize on the additional inventory needed to fill all this space.
And to the discussion of upfronts; as the writers strike has left the networks without new product, it is hard to imagine the value of upfronts this Spring trying to sell old programming as new again. You can't sell the shinola unless the sh*t exists. It's hard to believe that any of the networks have enough new programming in the mix to sell the sizzle. Get your programming house in order, than take it to the market. Agencies are tired of empty calories, make the effort to show the beef.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Pirates Online - a new interactive social network
The power of the big entertainment networks to push cross platform appeal of new content. While niche internet networks are fun to watch, one wonders if they can ever reach enough views to effectively monetize. Sites like Funny or Die may boast Will Ferrell, but is it enough for people to remember to bookmark it and check back frequently for new shorts. Out of site, out of mind.
On the other hand, big companies like DIsney can push new web sites and upcoming programming. This morning, while my kids were watching Disney, a promotion came up for a new social web site based on Pirates of the Caribbean. First a ride, then a movie, then a sequel, then a DVD and a gameboy game, and now a social network. And while it is being pitched as free, the user gets the offer to upgrade to a paid subscription in order to avoid seeing ads. Either way, Disney has found another way to make money off the brand. My son begged me to sign up and spent the hour exploring Jack Sparrow's world. Luckily I felt that the social networking elements were limited and certainly of much less interest to my 8 year old son. He likes the virtual sword fighting and exploration of the town. The site offers a week of ad free play so I will have to report back how the ads effect the game or the depth of the content. For now, we'll stay with the free play.
Playing in a virtual world based on a movie experience, seems far more interesting than a second life that tries to mimic real life. If users are going to play in a virtual world, the more fantastic the better. And Disney's ability to promote and build excitement by being everywhere - on TV, on the web, in the movies - and to promote easily across multiple platforms. It is the challenge the niche networks, the small fish, will contend with, how to get noticed when the big fish have so many resources at their fingertips.
On the other hand, big companies like DIsney can push new web sites and upcoming programming. This morning, while my kids were watching Disney, a promotion came up for a new social web site based on Pirates of the Caribbean. First a ride, then a movie, then a sequel, then a DVD and a gameboy game, and now a social network. And while it is being pitched as free, the user gets the offer to upgrade to a paid subscription in order to avoid seeing ads. Either way, Disney has found another way to make money off the brand. My son begged me to sign up and spent the hour exploring Jack Sparrow's world. Luckily I felt that the social networking elements were limited and certainly of much less interest to my 8 year old son. He likes the virtual sword fighting and exploration of the town. The site offers a week of ad free play so I will have to report back how the ads effect the game or the depth of the content. For now, we'll stay with the free play.
Playing in a virtual world based on a movie experience, seems far more interesting than a second life that tries to mimic real life. If users are going to play in a virtual world, the more fantastic the better. And Disney's ability to promote and build excitement by being everywhere - on TV, on the web, in the movies - and to promote easily across multiple platforms. It is the challenge the niche networks, the small fish, will contend with, how to get noticed when the big fish have so many resources at their fingertips.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
My Damn Channel Presents Wainy Days
The web expands your programming choices - while I believe long form programming is best viewed through a bigger TV set, the mobility offered by pc, ipod, and phone lets you catch up with your programming when it is most convenient to you.
Short form programming, "snack food", is great for consumption on the web. I've just discovered Wainy Days on My Damn Channel. Funny stuff. I hope you enjoy one recent episode with special guest, Paul Rudd.
Short form programming, "snack food", is great for consumption on the web. I've just discovered Wainy Days on My Damn Channel. Funny stuff. I hope you enjoy one recent episode with special guest, Paul Rudd.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Networks Plot Course - How to woo back viewers
Im tired of the same old stuff on TV. The writers strike took away my favorite shows and made me quickly tired of reality shows. My Tivo is empty with nothing new recorded for me to watch; I gravitate to news and sports, at least that content is fresh.
The learning curve is that shows don't necessarily have to premiere in the Fall. It's not when a show starts, but the quality of the product and its stories that appeal to an audience. And it will become harder to build shows that appeal to large audiences as the growth of distribution, cable channels and new media platforms, further splits the audience into smaller parts. Still there is a need for fresh and new to get back the viewers that have left TV for other choices.
If I could program a network, I would strategically select shows that appeal to various audience demographics and plot out marketing strategies to reach them. And I would use TV, VOD, mobile and pc to gain interest and desire to become a loyal viewer to each new series. TV networks react to trends. One channel creates a medical show, and the others follow at the same time with a duplicative series. I would want to program the network that leads, rather than follows the pack. Missing from today's line-up today, I propose the following new series: 1) a Western - a la Broken Trail and starting a new life in the old west; 2) a Variety series - hosted by former American Idol talent with professional talent - individual acts as well as comedy and singing skits; 3) Historical series - life in 18th or 19th century - with classic family drama; 4) Family comedy series where a job change forces a family to move, from the NYC to Midwest, and the challenges when small towns don't have the same issues and neighbors act different; and 5) a Sci Fi series - perhaps Star Trek Academy or time traveler focused. That would be my wish list to woo back viewers.
The learning curve is that shows don't necessarily have to premiere in the Fall. It's not when a show starts, but the quality of the product and its stories that appeal to an audience. And it will become harder to build shows that appeal to large audiences as the growth of distribution, cable channels and new media platforms, further splits the audience into smaller parts. Still there is a need for fresh and new to get back the viewers that have left TV for other choices.
If I could program a network, I would strategically select shows that appeal to various audience demographics and plot out marketing strategies to reach them. And I would use TV, VOD, mobile and pc to gain interest and desire to become a loyal viewer to each new series. TV networks react to trends. One channel creates a medical show, and the others follow at the same time with a duplicative series. I would want to program the network that leads, rather than follows the pack. Missing from today's line-up today, I propose the following new series: 1) a Western - a la Broken Trail and starting a new life in the old west; 2) a Variety series - hosted by former American Idol talent with professional talent - individual acts as well as comedy and singing skits; 3) Historical series - life in 18th or 19th century - with classic family drama; 4) Family comedy series where a job change forces a family to move, from the NYC to Midwest, and the challenges when small towns don't have the same issues and neighbors act different; and 5) a Sci Fi series - perhaps Star Trek Academy or time traveler focused. That would be my wish list to woo back viewers.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Hulu Expects to Add More Content Providers
For those that don't mind watching television on their pc, content aggregation is important. Hulu, recognizing that content is king, is furiously working to add more partners, like Time Warner and Viacom, to their mix. And to increase their reach with Hulu's placement inside AOL.
More is better, not just from more suppliers, but also depth of inventory from existing content providers. Refresh is key to satisfy the unquenchable thirst of small screen viewing. For the heavy user, more is necessary to keep them returning to the Hulu site. But do you take the old content off to satisfy that user; what of the new viewer, just invited to the site, who still values the current material. How content gets refreshed and rotated affects the value for the new and old user.
And at what point should Hulu become the distribution point back to the big screen TV. Allowing it to interface throught the cable box to choose and stream VOD on the HD TV set. Will this content look good on the new HD sets? Or should Hulu make a separate version of its product for VOD consumption through the cable box. Would the consumer pay for access? Would its advertising model work to enable it to be a Free On Demand service? Ubiquitous distribution of all this content on big screen and small; to me that is what would make Hulu especially interesting but it would certainly upset the syndication apple cart.
More is better, not just from more suppliers, but also depth of inventory from existing content providers. Refresh is key to satisfy the unquenchable thirst of small screen viewing. For the heavy user, more is necessary to keep them returning to the Hulu site. But do you take the old content off to satisfy that user; what of the new viewer, just invited to the site, who still values the current material. How content gets refreshed and rotated affects the value for the new and old user.
And at what point should Hulu become the distribution point back to the big screen TV. Allowing it to interface throught the cable box to choose and stream VOD on the HD TV set. Will this content look good on the new HD sets? Or should Hulu make a separate version of its product for VOD consumption through the cable box. Would the consumer pay for access? Would its advertising model work to enable it to be a Free On Demand service? Ubiquitous distribution of all this content on big screen and small; to me that is what would make Hulu especially interesting but it would certainly upset the syndication apple cart.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Net neutrality, without it, broadband takes a giant step back
There once was a day, not long ago, that consumers paid their phone bills based on the length and distance for each call. Wanted to call NY to CA, wait till night to get the lower rate. Start the timer and don't talk too long. I recall a Brady Bunch episode where the dad installs a pay phone in the family room to offset the costs for all the phone usage and to teach the kids that the phone calls cost money to make. Today, we get charged one low fee per month, unlimited calls across the US and Canada.
Broadband access never asked for a per byte usage charge; rather, it asked for a low fee for unlimited access for broadband use. But as demand grows and file sizes grow expedentially, cable is concerned that it can't handle the flow of traffic. Comcast's solution was to restrict high volume downloads from sites like Bit Torrent; Time Warner's idea was to charge consumers on the usage levels of their broadband activity. Both plans may cause consumers to seek competitors willing to provide unlimited service. While higher download and upload speeds can be priced at a premium, usage pricing and restictive access would be a huge step back.
The telcos must be hoping though that the cable companies push the usage model; telcos would have the competitive edge to push that their systems do not interfere with the flow of internet traffic. Rationally, it does not seem wise for cable to push against net neutrality or usage pricing as it could widen the competitive gap between cable and telco. Unfortunately, no one ever said this was a rational business.
Broadband access never asked for a per byte usage charge; rather, it asked for a low fee for unlimited access for broadband use. But as demand grows and file sizes grow expedentially, cable is concerned that it can't handle the flow of traffic. Comcast's solution was to restrict high volume downloads from sites like Bit Torrent; Time Warner's idea was to charge consumers on the usage levels of their broadband activity. Both plans may cause consumers to seek competitors willing to provide unlimited service. While higher download and upload speeds can be priced at a premium, usage pricing and restictive access would be a huge step back.
The telcos must be hoping though that the cable companies push the usage model; telcos would have the competitive edge to push that their systems do not interfere with the flow of internet traffic. Rationally, it does not seem wise for cable to push against net neutrality or usage pricing as it could widen the competitive gap between cable and telco. Unfortunately, no one ever said this was a rational business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
