We pay for our usage of electricity, water, even cell phone minutes, why not broadband usage. That is certainly what Time Warner believes; especially as broadband pipelines get clogged up with heavy graphics and video. More users, more usage slows down the pipe, a traffic jam that can slow down speeds and aggravate users at the same time. Usage pricing puts the higher cost to the heavier user, but under the Time Warner plan, grants them faster speeds.
So what is a consumer to do. Well, if you just use your broadband for email and web surfing, probably nothing. Time Warner contends "that about 30% of customers use less than 1 Gigabyte per month", and would be charged a lower rate for service. The MSO will show customers what the usage has been to let them know what package may best serve them. "The MSO also will offer a 'gas gauge' tool to show subscribers how much bandwidth they've used up in a given monthly period."
As for the heavier user, Time Warner's plan is probably more costly. Unless Time Warner can demonstrate that their is more to gain with faster speeds for a higher price, the other option is to switch vendors. And that could prove better news for competitors like Verizon and AT&T. Unless of course they follow a "me too" strategy and move to a usage model, too.
Time Warner says that other countries follow a broadband usage model. But the all you can eat model has been around here for a while so may prove difficult to gain acceptance. Most may find it a convenient reason to switch. The question to Time Warner might be are heavy users highly correlated with being triple tier customers; that is, are you risking losing your best customers, who are already paying you top dollar, with even higher cable bills. If this research proves true, then perhaps it is not worth the risk of losing this best consumers to your telco competitors.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Magna: DVR Use Will Grow 70% By 2014, VOD By 60%
Just because the web is hot for content doesn't mean that other types of distribution is declining. Television continues to be an important device to the home. The rise of HD, bigger screen TVs, and content when you want it, all makes TV a good business to be in. But with that being said, linear viewing, scheduled at their time, not ours, is not what matters. Magna research shows that on demand viewing, whether through the DVR or VOD channels, will continue to grow at extraordinary rates.
"Magna forecasts that in five years, DVR usage will grow more than 70%, to 51.1 million U.S. TV homes Magna estimates this will reach 43% of all U.S. TV homes in 2014, up from 27% as of the end of 2008...Video on demand, a more mature digital TV product than DVRs, will grow by 61% in five years to 67.2 million households -- about 56% of U.S. TV homes. Currently, at the end of 2008, there were 41.7 million VOD households, or 37% of U.S."
That increase in on demand viewing will absolutely lead to declines in live linear viewing of TV. Still, TV should invest in good content, knowing that the viewer will consume it in different forms, at the scheduled time, DVR at a later date, or picked off the VOD menu. That the advertising continues to get viewed and the eyeballs recorded, will mean that the programmer will continue to get paid.
The DVR device is friendly to the local affiliate because it retains their local ads; the VOD and internet are the enemy of the local affiliate because their local ad does not run. Ultimately, both the DVR and VOD rely on strong content to satisfy viewer interest. For their usage to grow as predicted, the content must remain interesting to the viewer. Why set the DVR if the show has no appeal.
And for VOD, consumers don't have to rely on setting up a recording in advance; they can catch up on their favorite shows on demand. And content doesn't need to be on a linear broadcast or cable channel to be available on VOD. VOD offers the consumer libraries of content not accessible elsewhere. Smaller programmers can distribute their libraries of content without building a 24/7 linear TV schedule. These offerings may range from a few hours to many, but are typically refreshed either weekly or monthly with newer content to enjoy. More choices to satisfy different interests.
As viewers continue to get comfortable with their DVR and VOD boxes, they will start watching on their schedule, not the programmers. And except for news or sports, on demand viewing lets you watch what you want, when you want, fast forwarding, pausing, and rewinding to catch all the dialogue and all the action. To me, it is the ideal way to watch TV!
"Magna forecasts that in five years, DVR usage will grow more than 70%, to 51.1 million U.S. TV homes Magna estimates this will reach 43% of all U.S. TV homes in 2014, up from 27% as of the end of 2008...Video on demand, a more mature digital TV product than DVRs, will grow by 61% in five years to 67.2 million households -- about 56% of U.S. TV homes. Currently, at the end of 2008, there were 41.7 million VOD households, or 37% of U.S."
That increase in on demand viewing will absolutely lead to declines in live linear viewing of TV. Still, TV should invest in good content, knowing that the viewer will consume it in different forms, at the scheduled time, DVR at a later date, or picked off the VOD menu. That the advertising continues to get viewed and the eyeballs recorded, will mean that the programmer will continue to get paid.
The DVR device is friendly to the local affiliate because it retains their local ads; the VOD and internet are the enemy of the local affiliate because their local ad does not run. Ultimately, both the DVR and VOD rely on strong content to satisfy viewer interest. For their usage to grow as predicted, the content must remain interesting to the viewer. Why set the DVR if the show has no appeal.
And for VOD, consumers don't have to rely on setting up a recording in advance; they can catch up on their favorite shows on demand. And content doesn't need to be on a linear broadcast or cable channel to be available on VOD. VOD offers the consumer libraries of content not accessible elsewhere. Smaller programmers can distribute their libraries of content without building a 24/7 linear TV schedule. These offerings may range from a few hours to many, but are typically refreshed either weekly or monthly with newer content to enjoy. More choices to satisfy different interests.
As viewers continue to get comfortable with their DVR and VOD boxes, they will start watching on their schedule, not the programmers. And except for news or sports, on demand viewing lets you watch what you want, when you want, fast forwarding, pausing, and rewinding to catch all the dialogue and all the action. To me, it is the ideal way to watch TV!
Front of Los Angeles Times Has an NBC ‘Article’
News or newsworthy, the front page of the LA Times has an ad. So does the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and other publications. The difference is that the ad gave the appearance of being an article. In fact, the ad was designed to subtly confuse despite the fact that it was in a different font, had a typical style ad directly below it, and the NBC logo on top. Clearly it was not a hard news article.
So did it work. It certainly created pr buzz, generating discussion, blogs, and attention; but did it go over the line and harm the editorial side of the newspaper. In the long run, probably not, but it does push them further down a slippery slope. Profit over content; the LA Times might argue, without profit, there is no newspaper and thus no content.
Selling ads on the front page is certainly acceptable; the ad should be more clearly differentiated from what was done. Clearly labeled advertisement at the top of the column and not in font too small to read. Making ads more effective is not unusual, but not to fool the reader. Newspapers need more dollars to stay around. But it still doesn't solve newspapers biggest problem, the loss of readers to the internet. No front page ad/column will solve that problem.
So did it work. It certainly created pr buzz, generating discussion, blogs, and attention; but did it go over the line and harm the editorial side of the newspaper. In the long run, probably not, but it does push them further down a slippery slope. Profit over content; the LA Times might argue, without profit, there is no newspaper and thus no content.
Selling ads on the front page is certainly acceptable; the ad should be more clearly differentiated from what was done. Clearly labeled advertisement at the top of the column and not in font too small to read. Making ads more effective is not unusual, but not to fool the reader. Newspapers need more dollars to stay around. But it still doesn't solve newspapers biggest problem, the loss of readers to the internet. No front page ad/column will solve that problem.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Actors and studios said to be close to new contract
Could it be true. Could SAG and AMPTP be close to a new agreement. Nothing public yet, but the talk is that informal talks have been going on and collaboration is occurring. Good news for all!
NBC Threatens Over Affiliate's Plans To Lose Leno
Legal action is being threatened by corporate parent NBC to the Boston station, WHDH, and its owner Sunbeam Television Corp. Quick and to the point, you will carry Leno at 10 pm or else. And the Boston station response is that their agreement gives them the right.
Why such a public fight; because NBC doesn't want any other of it's affiliates to get the same idea. Nip it in the butt early, publicly and privately, too. "Industry experts said NBC's swift and very public crackdown suggests the network wants to ward off any dissent that may be brewing at its other affiliates, some of which are nervous about how Leno will perform as a lead-in to their late-night newscasts." NBC has not been doing to well in the ratings lately and the local nets fear that cheap and ill conceived programming, especially in the slot right before their news, will ultimately affect local ratings too. The general perception is that most viewers are lazy and don't change the channel from their 10p show to the news. Keep them entertained and they stay for the news that follows. Disappoint and they turn the channel.
"WHDH's Ansin (Ed Ansin, owner of WHDH parent Sunbeam Television Corp.) said a local newscast will draw better ratings than Leno and that airing five nights a week in that time slot would be a financial disaster for his station. The new Leno show will compete against popular scripted shows, such as CBS's 'CSI: Miami.'" How can NBC assure Ansin and their other affiliates that Leno at 10P will perform? And how soon till another affiliate follows suit and copies WHDH? I wouldn't be surprised if every affiliate is also reviewing their legal agreements. High drama indeed...hey, this could be a TV show!
Why such a public fight; because NBC doesn't want any other of it's affiliates to get the same idea. Nip it in the butt early, publicly and privately, too. "Industry experts said NBC's swift and very public crackdown suggests the network wants to ward off any dissent that may be brewing at its other affiliates, some of which are nervous about how Leno will perform as a lead-in to their late-night newscasts." NBC has not been doing to well in the ratings lately and the local nets fear that cheap and ill conceived programming, especially in the slot right before their news, will ultimately affect local ratings too. The general perception is that most viewers are lazy and don't change the channel from their 10p show to the news. Keep them entertained and they stay for the news that follows. Disappoint and they turn the channel.
"WHDH's Ansin (Ed Ansin, owner of WHDH parent Sunbeam Television Corp.) said a local newscast will draw better ratings than Leno and that airing five nights a week in that time slot would be a financial disaster for his station. The new Leno show will compete against popular scripted shows, such as CBS's 'CSI: Miami.'" How can NBC assure Ansin and their other affiliates that Leno at 10P will perform? And how soon till another affiliate follows suit and copies WHDH? I wouldn't be surprised if every affiliate is also reviewing their legal agreements. High drama indeed...hey, this could be a TV show!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Is This the Future of the Digital Book?
Are digital books more than just electronic ink on a screen? It seems that everything is multimedia, and books fall into that category too. More than just a good story, add music and video and stir together into an even fuller experience. Add to that an online book club and twitter to share your thoughts on a book, magazine, or article, and the written experience is now interactive, too. This is exciting stuff.
New startups, like Vook.tv, WEbook, Fourth Story Media, and others are emerging to enhance the move from written page to digital experience. That means that the Kindle and Sony e-reader are just the first baby steps to a brand new experience. "Ms. Nelson (Sara Nelson, former editor of Publishers Weekly) has seen the Vook prototype and says it is intriguing, but the challenge is to avoid feeling gimmicky. 'If you are going to put video in a book, it has to flow so naturally into the story that readers don’t even realize they are switching mediums,' she said."
Perhaps that is what Facebook and other social networks need to tie into next. Expanding the interactive experience with other types of content, but centralize the experience on your main social page. That partnership could quicken the acceptance of these new products.
New startups, like Vook.tv, WEbook, Fourth Story Media, and others are emerging to enhance the move from written page to digital experience. That means that the Kindle and Sony e-reader are just the first baby steps to a brand new experience. "Ms. Nelson (Sara Nelson, former editor of Publishers Weekly) has seen the Vook prototype and says it is intriguing, but the challenge is to avoid feeling gimmicky. 'If you are going to put video in a book, it has to flow so naturally into the story that readers don’t even realize they are switching mediums,' she said."
Perhaps that is what Facebook and other social networks need to tie into next. Expanding the interactive experience with other types of content, but centralize the experience on your main social page. That partnership could quicken the acceptance of these new products.
Friday, April 3, 2009
New Jay Leno Show Rejected By NBC Affiliate In Boston
Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that NBC reported that they were meeting with their affiliates to work together to make sure the new Jay Leno show met expectations. Well I guess the Boston affiliate, WHDH, couldn't work out an arrangement. They have now publicly stated that they will air a 10pm news hour rather than the national Jay Leno Show feed. And NBC is obviously mad as hell. "Ed Ansin, who owns WHDH's parent company, told The Boston Globe he did not believe Leno's new show would be successful. He said the station would do better financially with a news show that competes with Fox-affiliated WFXT-TV's highly rated 10 p.m. newscast." NBC says that WHDH is contractually required; WHDH says otherwise.
What the Boston affiliate hasn't said, is what they will air at 11pm. It doesn't seem more news so maybe will be a syndicated sitcom. WHDH believes they can make more money with news at 10p than with Jay. And as the Tonight Show starts at 11:35, WHDH could extend this news show from 10 - 11:05 to keep viewers from switching and then go right into a 30 minute sitcom. And if WHDH is obligated to run the show at some other time, they may choose to move it further into the early morning or weekend hours. Who says it has to be run at 10p.
Deadline Hollywood has more of a take on the story. They offer another interesting perspective. "NBC also trotted out Michael Fiorile, the NBC Affiliate Board Chairman (and Vice Chairman of the Dispatch Group) to give Jay a vote of confidence: 'The NBC affiliates are very excited about the new Leno show weeknights at 10 p.m. Jay is a true star with enormous appeal. We've been engaged in an open dialogue with NBC about the format of the show, and we’re looking forward to working with Jay and the entire team to make it a huge success.' But the sad truth is that the same Michael Fiorile was telling media outlets at the end of 2008 that NBC's beleaguered affiliates had asked the network last summer to give back time, and maybe even days, to them. And to give local content a shot. "
NBC could offer the block to another channel or to its Telemundo affiliate, although that suggestion seems less likely. When you start to cut costs, you sometimes cut more than just the fat, you cut the quality as well. Watch how more expensive news readers and TV reporters are being replaced with younger, less expensive talent. But when it comes to prime time, quality matters. "Estimates are that Leno 2.0 may only cost $2M a week and result in 46 weeks of original shows, compared to the average $3 million per episode pricetag of scripted primetime dramas that air on average 22 original weekly episodes. But the 58-year-old attracts only 4.8 million viewers now on The Tonight Show -- measly by primetime standards, especially in the advertiser-coveted 18-to-49 demographic. The affiliates know that expanded local news or local ballgames might hit a higher number than Leno or NBC's weaker nights -- which is no doubt why WHDH made the decision it did. "
A Jay Leno prime time variety type show could work...ONE day a week. But five nights will only chase viewers away to other channels. WHDH may be the first to announce, but may not be the last.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
SAG, AFTRA Reach Tentative Commercial Accord
It can be done; SAG can complete an agreement. Done jointly with AFTRA, the new agreement seems to encompass web, cable, and broadcast issues, as well as Hispanic spots. "We have achieved a deal that brings significant improvements to these contracts," said SAG chief negotiator John. McGuire in a statement. 'Our gains include establishing the first-ever payment structure for made-for-the Internet and new media commercials and significant increases in wages during a very troubled global economy.'" Nicely done.
So now let's get a deal done with AMPTP. The truth is you have no leverage and you aren't going to strike. It is in no one's best interest. You've proved you can work jointly with AFTRA; perhaps, it is best to use their signed agreement to complete yours.
So now let's get a deal done with AMPTP. The truth is you have no leverage and you aren't going to strike. It is in no one's best interest. You've proved you can work jointly with AFTRA; perhaps, it is best to use their signed agreement to complete yours.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
ABC and ESPN Coming to YouTube… But Short-Form Only
If You Tube does one thing well, it is as a destination site to look for videos. And once those videos are discovered, it allows the viewer to see what people are talking about. And as a promotional vehicle it is an ideal fit for ABC, teasing viewers with short form pieces and linking them back to the brand site to watch the full episode. Brilliant! But the article only talks about ABC and ESPN, will Disney Channel content also be included? I'm hoping the answer is yes.
So why is there buzz still about a Hulu and Disney possible partnership? What does Hulu bring to Disney that adds more value than You Tube. It certainly doesn't bring added value to the brand name, only to the content piece. Certainly additional distribution points are useful for reach, but it is at an added cost that would drive viewers AWAY from their own sites.
The question that continues to be asked of Hulu and other sites that do distribute full length episodes is why; why give for free what the customer buys in a cable subscription. The model that Comcast and Time Warner have proposed is to only authorize web access to this content to households that also have a cable subscription. Disney gets a healthy subscriber fee and the revenue from Hulu surely won't offset the loss of cable subs.
This You Tube partnership makes much more sense; bringing short form content online and encouraging consumers to watch full episodes on their TV or on the Disney branded sites. Limiting full length episodes to 'authorized" cable customers could bring added subscription revenue opportunities as well. ESPN has already demonstrated that they can sell web content to cable companies; ESPN360 is a perfect example of that and Verizon currently offers it to its broadband customers. The decision to not strike a Hulu Disney agreement seems the better choice.
So why is there buzz still about a Hulu and Disney possible partnership? What does Hulu bring to Disney that adds more value than You Tube. It certainly doesn't bring added value to the brand name, only to the content piece. Certainly additional distribution points are useful for reach, but it is at an added cost that would drive viewers AWAY from their own sites.
The question that continues to be asked of Hulu and other sites that do distribute full length episodes is why; why give for free what the customer buys in a cable subscription. The model that Comcast and Time Warner have proposed is to only authorize web access to this content to households that also have a cable subscription. Disney gets a healthy subscriber fee and the revenue from Hulu surely won't offset the loss of cable subs.
This You Tube partnership makes much more sense; bringing short form content online and encouraging consumers to watch full episodes on their TV or on the Disney branded sites. Limiting full length episodes to 'authorized" cable customers could bring added subscription revenue opportunities as well. ESPN has already demonstrated that they can sell web content to cable companies; ESPN360 is a perfect example of that and Verizon currently offers it to its broadband customers. The decision to not strike a Hulu Disney agreement seems the better choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
