Who controls the cable box... Lots of business talk about interactive advertising, but ultimately who controls the interface seems to control the advertising. This puts Microsoft, along with Navic, in competition with cables new consortium approach with Project Canoe. Both seem to be competing for control of the platform and the promise of superior back office control.
"While Microsoft has attempted to gain a major foothold in cable for more than one decade by selling software for digital set-tops, in recent years, it has focused most of its set-top efforts on the burgeoning Internet-protocol-TV market and shifted its cable emphasis to back-end systems"
The advertising game continues to get more interesting and interactive advertising is a game changer. Are these two businesses complimentary or competitive. Who determines which middleware is deployed in the box, and does tru2way (OCAP) standards provide equal opportunity to impact which platform serves up the interactive ads. And lastly does the consumer have a say which platform thaey prefer to serve them. Kinda like deciding whether you prefer Explorer, Firefox, or Safari to be your interface.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Remote Clicks That Do More Than Just Change Channels
Interactivity. Convergence of web and TV. New monetization opportunities to target an audience and convert them more quickly from intention to purchase. Like that living room set on your favorite TV show. Push a button on your remote and connect to Pottery Barn and get more info on the item and hopefully agree to purchase.
That is what all the hoopla is about. And who controls that process. Which box controls the interactivity. For the cable companies, its hope now rests with Project Canoe, a new venture to link the six largest cable companies together to simplify the advertising process and create a more national footprint. Cable seems to have the inside track until other devices can prove that they can just as easily use the internet pipeline to achieve the same results.
Where once cable touted itself as local, technological change and competition has forced them to act more national and global. That local distinction and differentiation is gone; no longer do you think of your LOCAL cable company. It is anew ballgame.
For content creators, that neutral position continues to serve them well. Regardless of the distribution path, half of the connection requires the content itself to build an interactive experience. The other half, the ad and e-commerce angles, is more interesting. Who controls the experience; does cable have an advantage to best target its audience by geography, demographics, and psychographics. Or will the content itself be appealing to the right target audience without further segmentation. Interactivity brings more challenges, but it is also bringing forth many new opportunities as well. The landscape is changing before our eyes!
That is what all the hoopla is about. And who controls that process. Which box controls the interactivity. For the cable companies, its hope now rests with Project Canoe, a new venture to link the six largest cable companies together to simplify the advertising process and create a more national footprint. Cable seems to have the inside track until other devices can prove that they can just as easily use the internet pipeline to achieve the same results.
Where once cable touted itself as local, technological change and competition has forced them to act more national and global. That local distinction and differentiation is gone; no longer do you think of your LOCAL cable company. It is anew ballgame.
For content creators, that neutral position continues to serve them well. Regardless of the distribution path, half of the connection requires the content itself to build an interactive experience. The other half, the ad and e-commerce angles, is more interesting. Who controls the experience; does cable have an advantage to best target its audience by geography, demographics, and psychographics. Or will the content itself be appealing to the right target audience without further segmentation. Interactivity brings more challenges, but it is also bringing forth many new opportunities as well. The landscape is changing before our eyes!
Friday, June 13, 2008
Hollywood In ‘De Facto’ Strike: AMPTP
If Hollywood goes on strike again, then I say shame on the whole industry. Argue, negotiate, complain, but don't strike. Find a common ground. In today's recessionary climate, it will do so much more harm than good and it is in no one's best interest to strike. Don't!
Is Hulu Out-Executing Comcast in On-Demand Programming?
The interesting thing to me about this article is not that Hulu scored a coup by getting access to Comedy Central content that Comcast has yet to nail down. Today, broadband distribution via pc offers a far different viewing experience than the TV VOD experience.
What is most interesting to me is that eventually these two types of distribution platforms may truly compete with each other. When broadband content can be viewed directly across the HD TV set, the consumer will have the opportunity to choose which platform (VOD or broadband) to watch this content from. How friendly the navigation device is to searching for content or recommending videos will ultimately determine which path the consumer takes.
But, content distribution is also at stake; Comedy Central currently gets a license fee per subscriber for carriage of its linear network. The VOD content is added value. If Comcast can no longer benefit from this structure, will they decide to drop Comedy Central from its line up. By choosing Hulu over Comcast, is Comedy Central predicting the next distribution model. And as the Hulu model also includes the NBC family of broadcast and cable networks as well as Fox, the impact has far greater ramifications.
It is this intersection of content and distribution, faced with fast technological change, that is affecting the telecommunications and entertainment industries. It is why SAG and AFTRA are fighting for their fair share. Its why cable and telco and satellite are fighting to manage the pipeline to the home. And it offers many businesses new opportunities to build better mousetraps to connect the customer with the content.
What is most interesting to me is that eventually these two types of distribution platforms may truly compete with each other. When broadband content can be viewed directly across the HD TV set, the consumer will have the opportunity to choose which platform (VOD or broadband) to watch this content from. How friendly the navigation device is to searching for content or recommending videos will ultimately determine which path the consumer takes.
But, content distribution is also at stake; Comedy Central currently gets a license fee per subscriber for carriage of its linear network. The VOD content is added value. If Comcast can no longer benefit from this structure, will they decide to drop Comedy Central from its line up. By choosing Hulu over Comcast, is Comedy Central predicting the next distribution model. And as the Hulu model also includes the NBC family of broadcast and cable networks as well as Fox, the impact has far greater ramifications.
It is this intersection of content and distribution, faced with fast technological change, that is affecting the telecommunications and entertainment industries. It is why SAG and AFTRA are fighting for their fair share. Its why cable and telco and satellite are fighting to manage the pipeline to the home. And it offers many businesses new opportunities to build better mousetraps to connect the customer with the content.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
YouTube Hasn't Figured Out How to Make Money
The leader of video sharing, You Tube, seems to be having a hard time making money off online content. And yet they aren't worried. As Eric Schmidt, Chief Executive states, "The goal of the company isn't to monetize everything. The goal of the company is to change the world."
And Google, the owner of You Tube, can afford to wait. Search Engine Marketing is still their bread and butter and will enable them to expand as the advertising community gets more comfortable with better targeting methods for online video. "Schmidt added that unlike most companies, Google doesn't have to worry about making money from all its ventures since its search advertising business is a cash cow. "We have the luxury of time," he said. 'Most people in the business are so pressed for time. They have to make money now.'"
In the early days of cable, it was also hard to convince advertisers that a smaller audience also meant that it was a more efficient buy. Highly targeted, upper income homes were the first to afford cable and these early adopters were harder to reach; cable was the solution. Fast forward to the internet and it is the same story. Early adopters, more targeted audience, more efficient and effective buy. An as adoption of online video expands, scalability is sure to follow. For those advertisers who risk an online strategy earlier in the life cycle, will come bigger rewards. But eventually, online video advertising, like cable advertising before it, will explode and prosper. You Tube can afford to wait for they are likely to prosper.
And Google, the owner of You Tube, can afford to wait. Search Engine Marketing is still their bread and butter and will enable them to expand as the advertising community gets more comfortable with better targeting methods for online video. "Schmidt added that unlike most companies, Google doesn't have to worry about making money from all its ventures since its search advertising business is a cash cow. "We have the luxury of time," he said. 'Most people in the business are so pressed for time. They have to make money now.'"
In the early days of cable, it was also hard to convince advertisers that a smaller audience also meant that it was a more efficient buy. Highly targeted, upper income homes were the first to afford cable and these early adopters were harder to reach; cable was the solution. Fast forward to the internet and it is the same story. Early adopters, more targeted audience, more efficient and effective buy. An as adoption of online video expands, scalability is sure to follow. For those advertisers who risk an online strategy earlier in the life cycle, will come bigger rewards. But eventually, online video advertising, like cable advertising before it, will explode and prosper. You Tube can afford to wait for they are likely to prosper.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Hulu Adds Viacom Shows
While You Tube has cornered amateur UGC, and niche online networks like NextNewNetworks and My Damn Channel are developing more polished UGC, Hulu or Hula, as some still think to call it, is becoming the destination for broadcast and cable long form and short form content - movies, tv shows, and clips. Initially a partnership of Fox and NBC, the launch of Viacom shows like The Daily Show further expands the reach and impact of hulu.
The hulu player continues to excel, making others like Joost, pale in comparison. As more content comes to hulu, however, it will need to come up with a better way to search for material as well as ways to recommend something to watch. The use of pre-roll advertising and overlays offers them a chance to monetize the content but they need to be considerate of the types of content being watched. It ruins the experience to put a pre roll in front of every short clip.
And now comes word that Disney is showing full length movies for a brief time on line with one pre roll spot, once it airs on the broadcast network. "Starting now, the company is offering films online for a week after they air on ABC as part of its "Wonderful World of Disney" franchise. Included are "Finding Nemo," "Monsters Inc.," "Haunted Mansion," "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen," "Princess Diaries 2," "Freaky Friday," and "Peter Pan.""
This seems more stunt than anything else. Perhaps the pre roll will be used to promote some other Disney venture. Beyond movies, Disney has so much great video in its archives that could be monetized online. I certainly would love to see some of those old TV shows again. While it would seem unlikely that Disney would ever partner with Hulu, the power of the Disney brand would enable it to thrive on its own as a destination portal to all its great content.
The hulu player continues to excel, making others like Joost, pale in comparison. As more content comes to hulu, however, it will need to come up with a better way to search for material as well as ways to recommend something to watch. The use of pre-roll advertising and overlays offers them a chance to monetize the content but they need to be considerate of the types of content being watched. It ruins the experience to put a pre roll in front of every short clip.
And now comes word that Disney is showing full length movies for a brief time on line with one pre roll spot, once it airs on the broadcast network. "Starting now, the company is offering films online for a week after they air on ABC as part of its "Wonderful World of Disney" franchise. Included are "Finding Nemo," "Monsters Inc.," "Haunted Mansion," "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen," "Princess Diaries 2," "Freaky Friday," and "Peter Pan.""
This seems more stunt than anything else. Perhaps the pre roll will be used to promote some other Disney venture. Beyond movies, Disney has so much great video in its archives that could be monetized online. I certainly would love to see some of those old TV shows again. While it would seem unlikely that Disney would ever partner with Hulu, the power of the Disney brand would enable it to thrive on its own as a destination portal to all its great content.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Will There Be Another Entertainment Strike in 2008
Hard to believe that SAG has not learned anything from the writers strike earlier this year. The Los Angeles economy lost over $8 billion dollars. The New York economy also lost significant dollars. Lives were disrupted from hard working people that work in the industry but don't belong to any of these unions. AFTRA at least worked toward a resolution and SAG wants to destroy it and destroy their business too.
And while jobs were lost and the business model turned upside down, the networks survived. They found reality shows and other programming to replace the shows that were stopped. And in the latest round of upfronts, despite limited programming from the last strike, are still finding a better than expected ad sale market. They are not suffering.
Striking should not be an option in the negotiations. Find your fair deal.
And while jobs were lost and the business model turned upside down, the networks survived. They found reality shows and other programming to replace the shows that were stopped. And in the latest round of upfronts, despite limited programming from the last strike, are still finding a better than expected ad sale market. They are not suffering.
Striking should not be an option in the negotiations. Find your fair deal.
Monday, June 9, 2008
The Golden Age of Television
Like David Carr, writer of this article, I too miss the days when broadcast made an effort to fill seven nights of programming. And weekend nights included shows that were both written and performed well. So it is sad to see the airwaves filled with extreme fighting and other bad (albeit cheap)programming. It may get a small rating, bit these shows will have no future programming value. Don't look for re airings, syndication, or even dvd box sets. This short term programming strategy offers no long term revenue fruit. The other strategy that seems to be popular, the second airing of a weekday show on Saturday night. With VOD and dvrs, this re airing is a waste of programming time.
So why are the broadcast networks proceeding down this path. Well I believe it is simply about diversification. Each broadcaster has a variety of cable networks behind it to offset broadcast losses with cable gains. And the winners in this strategy are ABC, NBC, and Fox. With NBC, its stable includes USA, Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC, Oxygen and others. For ABC, its ABC Family, Disney, ESPN, and more. And for Fox, its FX, Fox News, and Fox Business, as well as other niche channels. Each niche has successfully taken viewers and revenue from the broadcast side. But it delivers a more highly targeted audience. And so David Carr, if you need something enjoyable to watch on Saturday night, avoid broadcast for the greener pastures of cable.
How does the broadcast side compete? Should they remain programming generalists or define their programming wheel differently. Fox has been most successful with American Idol. While it may not have much replay value, it has allowed its audiences to discover other interesting programming that runs post show. Now if only they can create and air shows for seven nights a week.
So why are the broadcast networks proceeding down this path. Well I believe it is simply about diversification. Each broadcaster has a variety of cable networks behind it to offset broadcast losses with cable gains. And the winners in this strategy are ABC, NBC, and Fox. With NBC, its stable includes USA, Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC, Oxygen and others. For ABC, its ABC Family, Disney, ESPN, and more. And for Fox, its FX, Fox News, and Fox Business, as well as other niche channels. Each niche has successfully taken viewers and revenue from the broadcast side. But it delivers a more highly targeted audience. And so David Carr, if you need something enjoyable to watch on Saturday night, avoid broadcast for the greener pastures of cable.
How does the broadcast side compete? Should they remain programming generalists or define their programming wheel differently. Fox has been most successful with American Idol. While it may not have much replay value, it has allowed its audiences to discover other interesting programming that runs post show. Now if only they can create and air shows for seven nights a week.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Why the Strike Was Necessary
Click on and read this article. Back in 2006, the industry was predicting the rise of internet distribution and was preparing for its growth. That was 2 years ago, and they were already working toward moving thousands of hours of content online. "They wanted the Internet to blend directly into TV. Where the audience will watch the Internet on their TV. Just as if it was TV. And this was their "ultimate goal" two years ago."
They were preparing the content and working to keep all the revenue, according to this article, and not share its potential increased usage with the folks that created it. In fact, it seems they were willing to take a hard line stance against sharing, "By the way, from all reports during the strike, two corporations were hard-liners, refusing to allow a settlement that the others were willing to accept as fair. And so, largely because of these two corporations, the strike went on for three horrible months, devastating the economy of Los Angeles."
Without the strike, producers would have reaped the reward without sharing the spoils. Reminds me a bit of the early days of TV when syndication was just a possibility and many were not being paid for their work. Talent from these early shows could only watch as the corporate parents found new revenue streams on these titles and the talent got nothing. Certainly the Writers Guild, SAG, and the other unions don't want a repeat of that fiasco.
Lastly, was the strike necessary? 2% of distributors gross is better than nothing. "To anyone who wonders whether the strike, horrible as it was, was necessary -- the president of Warner Bros. Cable Distribution (Eric Frankel) just explained it to, you why it was. Well, okay, not "just." But he did two years ago."
They were preparing the content and working to keep all the revenue, according to this article, and not share its potential increased usage with the folks that created it. In fact, it seems they were willing to take a hard line stance against sharing, "By the way, from all reports during the strike, two corporations were hard-liners, refusing to allow a settlement that the others were willing to accept as fair. And so, largely because of these two corporations, the strike went on for three horrible months, devastating the economy of Los Angeles."
Without the strike, producers would have reaped the reward without sharing the spoils. Reminds me a bit of the early days of TV when syndication was just a possibility and many were not being paid for their work. Talent from these early shows could only watch as the corporate parents found new revenue streams on these titles and the talent got nothing. Certainly the Writers Guild, SAG, and the other unions don't want a repeat of that fiasco.
Lastly, was the strike necessary? 2% of distributors gross is better than nothing. "To anyone who wonders whether the strike, horrible as it was, was necessary -- the president of Warner Bros. Cable Distribution (Eric Frankel) just explained it to, you why it was. Well, okay, not "just." But he did two years ago."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
