New Disney-Hulu deal leaves CBS as the lone major network holdout

Good for CBS and their web portal TV.com, I wish you much success. I am of the belief that consumers will find good content. Your promotional efforts and the quality of your videos will drive people to your site. If they are looking for new shows like NCIS, How I Met Your Mother, or CSI, or older shows like Star Trek and Hart to Hart, TV.com will be the place. It is still early in the game and Hulu isn't the only player. Build the library and promote the titles; add social networking, fan polls, contests, and other value added pieces and make TV.com a must bookmark place to be.

On the business side, it also makes sense to stay independent and not join Hulu. How many content partnerships work. After some time, one partner gets bored with the other and the infighting begins. You've had partnerships with NBC before; are you ready for another one? It makes more sense to own 100% of the online business than 25-32% of it. Control your destiny, control the future.

No disrespect to Hulu; they are terrific with great content from NBC, Fox, and now Disney. But will the FCC have an issue with monopolistic type entity. TV.com can be as powerful a brand as any other. Why share it with others. And owning content enables you to build exclusivity around where it can be viewed. That is the power of CBS' video library and why they can stay independent.

Disney Joins NBCU, News Corp. on Hulu -- and why do some people still want to call it Hula

Well, it seems that Disney/ABC decided to sleep with the enemy and agreed to an equity stake in Hulu, along with NBC and Fox. According to the press release from Disney's CEO, Robert Igor, "From our landmark iTunes deal to our pioneering decision to stream ad-supported shows on our ABC.com player, Disney has sought to meet the constantly evolving viewing habits of our consumers, and today's Hulu announcement is the next important step in that ongoing journey."

Now full length shows from ABC, Disney and its other channels will populate Hulu alongside NBC and Fox programming. Certainly this makes Hulu even more of a "one stop shop" for long form broadcast and cable tv and movie programming, but is it necessarily a good thing. While these content giants compete in the linear space, they are each on the board of Hulu. Does that raise any monopolistic issues? How do these giants compete and co-habitate at the same time Is all this power in one place a good thing or not? And should the FCC and the government have a say?

One last line in this article says it all - "The transaction is subject to regulatory review." Interesting to see what is said.

What's The Next Move for Facebook

I can only take so many quiz's, support only so many causes, play so many games, download so many photos, and comment on so many updates. And when friends recommend clips, I actually sometimes click and watch. So should Facebook work a deal with Hulu or TV.com or Disney to enable full length shows to be watched inside the Facebook page with an ability to comment on it and recommend others watch full episodes too.

Is that another opportunity to enhance the relationship that Facebook has with its users and its users have with one another. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing those recommendations.

But perhaps, the very next move is to change back the home page to its previous version. I've tried it and frankly don't find it an improvement at all. I feel like I am no longer seeing enough of what my friends are doing and saying. I miss the older version.

WSJ Sees Circulation Increase

What is The Wall Street Journal doing right? As other newspapers and magazine see falling circulation and for some closures, The Wall Street Journal has succeeded. "Editor & Publisher publishes the top 25 list here, which shows that the Wall Street Journal was the only newspaper in the top 25 to report a circulation increase. Its increase was modest — 0.61% — but an increase nonetheless."

Top 5 newspapers by circulation percentage increas or decline, October 2007 -March 2008:

USA TODAY -- (-7.46%)
WALL STREET JOURNAL -- 0.61%
NEW YORK TIMES -- (-3.55%)
L.A. TIMES -- (-6.55%)
WASHINGTON POST -- (-1.16%)

And not only did they do it right on the print side, they have been equally as successful with their web business. Where once it was foolish to require internet subscription to view content, that is exactly what the WSJ did and proved the skeptics wrong. With content behind a walled garden, WSJ makes it more valuable to be a subscriber in order to receive both print AND web content.

Perhaps it is that the WSJ represents a more niche audience of business readers. Unlike a more general interest paper with sections devoted to metro, sports, and business, the WSJ writes more national news and business pieces. It is this niche that may be their salvation.

There was some talk that the WSJ might add more general content including a sports section to their news. I'm not sure this will increase their audience. I view the WSJ has a companion paper to other news. By copying a NY Times or USA Today format, The Wall Street Journal might actually hurt their credibility and value. Their circulation strength may be a result of not being a general interest paper; so far those papers are seeing declines while WSJ retains its audience.

The Long, Slow Liberation Of The Cable Set-Top Box

Tru2way, formerly OCAP, was designed to enable other consumer electronics to interface with cable. But to date, we have yet to break free from the cable box if we want to enjoy our digital TV channels and interactive choices like the interactive guide and VOD. The cover story seems to indicate that with Tru2way, cable companies are no longer tied to Motorola or SA for cable boxes, open to work with more partners. More competition, lower costs, more innovation.

So what is taking so long and why do cable companies still want to buy and lease cable box devices to consumers. Why can't we as consumers determine which box we want to use. Why can't I buy an HD set with a cablecard reader that gives me all the functionality inside my TV set. Or allow me to buy the DVR of my choice, Tivo or another provider, to access all the features on cable. The article contends that Tru2way will let us breakfree, but frankly there doesn't seem to be anything to be excited about.

Rather, TV manufacturers are designing TV sets that can access the web directly, creating an interactive experience WITHOUT cable. Cable and the set top box are simply speaking, "a day late, and a dollar short" The cable box is a brick that most consumers would do without if they could. It minimizes the TV set, not enhances it. Tru2way and OCAP has been discussed for quite a while, but it hasn't made any impact yet. How quickly will the consumer see opportunity; I suspect it will happen around cable and the set top box, and not because of it.

Replay And Regret: Rainbow COO Warns Of DVR Dangers

The DVR is a product of our own doing. Television's desire to grab more money from advertising resulted in not only more expensive ad spots but also more advertising minutes per hour. And it is this latter element that caused someone to innovate a solution - program copy and playback later so as to fast forward through ads to watch content. As Rainbow's research has disclosed, "70% of people skip because they are tired of the same commercials playing so often; 60% suggested pods are too long; and 65% said the commercials are 'boring.'" For me personally, I would have ranked them differently with pod length the biggest issue. Once I fast forward commercials, I am hard pressed to tell you what the commercial is that I skipped or whether it is boring or creative. How could I know. I've skipped the ads because the pod length is long. TV networks made their bed and now they must deal with the DVR consequences.

If commercial breaks were :60 or less, I might be less inclined to reach for the remote. Rainbow's COO suggests that "commercials might also improve effectiveness if addressable advertising got more wind at its back." At that point more creative ads targeted to me might work; but if pod lengths remain long, I won't see those ads either, even if it is "customized" for me; I'll be fast forwarding through the break to get to my show.

Now I know I represent a particular demographic. My children enjoy the ads with their shows. They inform them of new toys and games, movies to see and shows to watch. They are naive to the marketing behind the message. They see it as credible information. I see ads as a nuisance.

Frankly, I got the DVR to time shift my shows to watch them when they were most convenient to me; ad skipping was the added incentive. Reduce the number of ads per hour and more people will watch ads. Otherwise, I'm sure we will see a greater reliance on product placement in shows and perhaps even commercial overlays. We've already gotten accustomed to seeing these bugs on the corner of our screen promote what's coming soon; why wouldn't ads be next.

TiVo Promotes Ads It Hopes You’ll Talk to, Not Zap

Tivo, the company that encouraged its subscribers to skip ads and get more TV for your hour of viewing, now wants to be a better friend to advertisers; well its own advertisers anyway. Sure keep skipping through ads, but if you use a trick feature, like pause or fast forward, you'll be encouraged to click and interact with a particular ad message. "Advertisers can choose the specific show or genre they want their pause ad to appear on — Mercedes-Benz USA used it to promote a new car during football games earlier this year. TiVo also offers ads that appear when viewers fast-forward through shows." Networks are probably not happy that their own ads are being challenged by their distributors ads.

"It is in a footrace with other companies, including Cablevision, Cox Communications and DirecTV, to offer interactive alternatives to the zapped-through television spots. The ads are called interactive because they ask the viewer to do something — enter in a new channel number, press a button on the remote — to get more information." Cable also has started a joint venture, Canoe, to assist them.

So what do the networks, both broadcast and cable, think of this capability. Will advertisers pull their ads off the networks to utilize the technological capabilities of the various distributors? Or will they have to partner with these same distributors to assure their piece of the interactive ad marketplace? And ultimately, will the viewer interrupt their show to watch an ad, even one that is positioned for them, or simply skip through it as they do now? Interactive advertising - fad or future?

The Way To Save Newspapers? Kill Some More Of Them

Newspapers will survive technological change. But as this article correctly predicts, consolidation will save the newspaper industry. We have seen this same consolidation occur across many other industries as well. The cable industry is a great example. Where once every community seemed to have its own cable system, today it is dominated by a few. The accounting industry once included "the big 8"; but now most are gone. Even the auto industry was once populated with many manufacturers; not today.

Newspapers can return a healthy profit. "Industry EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization) margins are 14% to 16%, according to a recent J.P. Morgan analysis of public newspaper companies. While that's well below the peak of 25%, newspaper companies are generally still reasonably profitable." Who survives and who doesn't will have to be left to who best manages through these tough economic times. Will the New York Times survive; I bet they will.

Amazon Launches HD Movie Rental and TV Show Sales

Have you bought a Hi Def TV lately? Big screen, awesome picture, not much to watch. Even the HD channels aren't always showing HD programming. Perhaps it even encouraged you to upgrade your DVD player to Blu-ray and bought or rented a number of movies. Cable, satellite companies and the telcos are all marketing their number of HD choices, both channels and number of shows. Still it may not be enough to satisfy that HD urge.

Well, more choice is coming! Amazon "said it will add more than 500 HD TV shows and movies to its Amazon Video On Demand service. Titles are from major networks and studios like Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Sony Pictures, Paramount Pictures and Showtime Networks, with new-release movie titles including 'Twilight' and 'Frost/Nixon' and TV shows such as 'The Tudors' and 'Smallville.'" They can be downloaded directly to some HDTVs or available through the Tivo Series 3 or Roku players.

I have yet to pull the trigger and buy an HD TV set. I know I want a bigger screen and am looking at both the 52" and 55" LCD sets. Or should I reconsider Plasma. I know I don't want to spend a lot of money and am looking at less than $2500. But should I buy a Samsung, Sharp or Sony or look at lesser known brands like Vizio? Or wait till more sets connect directly to the web? Too many choices, too many variables, too many new models scheduled to be released. What to do.