Remember the good old days when TV was indeed free, once you bought the antenna and connected it to your roof. Walk through the neighborhood today and most antennas are gone, replaced either by more wires into the home or dishes on the roof. The result has been a unlimited increase in content for a monthly fee. And that same fee assured that the picture was clearer, never snowy, and full of HD detail. So how much is that worth, both to the cable company providing the signal and the viewer, paying to receive it today?
I contend that broadcast signals should be carved out from the subscription equation. They are the backbone of the TV landscape and offer a "basic" choice to those that do not seek more variety. And frankly those broadcasters also own cable nets so they are receiving compensation. In fact, broadcasters once used their weight with broadcast to help force in cable channels that a cable company may have been initially unwilling to launch.
I believe too that once the FCC forced broadcasters to switch their analog feed to a digital one, they opened up a Pandora's box. It actually led to more cable subscriptions rather than try to convert an analog antenna to digital. In fact, the next signal that broadcasters should send is an IP one. Allow the viewer to receive your network through the web. It will ultimately provide TV Anywhere and gain you more viewership to increase your ad revenue. A Comcast NBC merger by the way would definitely slow down the shift into this distribution platform.
But at the moment Cablevision and ABC are fighting over money for carriage and the loser will always be the cable customer; signals dropped temporarily, monthly bills raised, all to feed the pockets of both companies. So it is possible Cablevision customers would not see the Academy Awards on Sunday night. It is also possible that a last minute stay will keep it on. But what is true is that monies will get resolved and monthly bills will rise.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
ABC Cablevision Fight To Get Nasty
The contract negotiation between ABC and Cablevision is tuning nasty. Just months ago, Fox went through this same issue with Cablevision and only last minute negotiations saved them from being pulled off the air; Scripps Networks negotiations with Cablevision went from bad to worse and customers lost these networks for a couple weeks. Now it is ABC's turn. And they seem to be following the playbook. Open letters in newspapers, websites devoted to save the channel, and Facebook friends connecting under this same type of group. And Cablevision will hold the line till the very end until 12th hour negotiations on March 7 either save the channel or drop it from availability for Cablevision customers. Ultimately a no win scenario.
"The signal for ABC’s New York station, WABC, has been retransmitted, essentially free, by Cablevision for decades, but Cablevision said Tuesday that ABC now wanted $40 million a year, or about $1 a month for each subscriber." At the same time, ABC, and its owner Disney get tons of subscription revenue from its other networks - Disney, ESPN, Family, and others. But they are cable networks and ABC is broadcast. Both offered over the air and through cable lines, but a broadcast signal nonetheless. Does it or any broadcaster deserve a fee? This speaks to the heart of the argument.
It also points out the potential problem that faces the Comcast NBC merger. A distribution platform owning a broadcaster presents many problems of fair and equitable distribution; profit before public. It is the fundamental problem that should force the FCC to not approve the merger. Just imagine what might happen when it is NBC's turn to negotiate its "carriage" on Cablevision, Cox, or one of Comcast's rivals, Verizon, AT&T, et al. And what about pursuing new distribution platforms not beholden to a cable platform, like IP. Cablevision's negotiation with ABC is simply a precursor to the bigger problems that a Comcast NBC merger represents.
"The signal for ABC’s New York station, WABC, has been retransmitted, essentially free, by Cablevision for decades, but Cablevision said Tuesday that ABC now wanted $40 million a year, or about $1 a month for each subscriber." At the same time, ABC, and its owner Disney get tons of subscription revenue from its other networks - Disney, ESPN, Family, and others. But they are cable networks and ABC is broadcast. Both offered over the air and through cable lines, but a broadcast signal nonetheless. Does it or any broadcaster deserve a fee? This speaks to the heart of the argument.
It also points out the potential problem that faces the Comcast NBC merger. A distribution platform owning a broadcaster presents many problems of fair and equitable distribution; profit before public. It is the fundamental problem that should force the FCC to not approve the merger. Just imagine what might happen when it is NBC's turn to negotiate its "carriage" on Cablevision, Cox, or one of Comcast's rivals, Verizon, AT&T, et al. And what about pursuing new distribution platforms not beholden to a cable platform, like IP. Cablevision's negotiation with ABC is simply a precursor to the bigger problems that a Comcast NBC merger represents.
Viacom Programming To Leave Hulu
Viacom, he owner of Comedy Central, MTV and other networks, has decided not to renew its Comedy Central deal with Hulu. Despite its appeal and high usage on the Hulu platform, Comedy Central programming like The Daily Show, South Park, and others will cease being available as of March 9. I'm sure as other network deals expire they will not be renewed either. "Hulu said it was still talking to Comedy Central about “a number of opportunities.” A Comedy Central spokesman declined to say whether the channel would strike a distribution deal with one of Hulu’s competitors."
If I am to read between the lines, advertising revenue split between Comedy Central and Hulu was not enough to continue. It also has had the reverse effect of providing an alternative to cable, thus reducing cable subscription fees. The solution is obvious: a subscription model on Hulu so that Viacom captures a dual revenue stream. Hulu customers may not like that. The second is to do deals with cable companies that offer authentication to a cable subscription. Thus it would be more likely to keep Comedy Central on Fancast inside a walled garden and accessible only to Comcast customers.
Consider this a turning point for Hulu and one that seriously will impact their model. Content companies like the two stream model of subscription and advertising. Free does not fly in today's marketplace and ultimately the consumer will lose.
If I am to read between the lines, advertising revenue split between Comedy Central and Hulu was not enough to continue. It also has had the reverse effect of providing an alternative to cable, thus reducing cable subscription fees. The solution is obvious: a subscription model on Hulu so that Viacom captures a dual revenue stream. Hulu customers may not like that. The second is to do deals with cable companies that offer authentication to a cable subscription. Thus it would be more likely to keep Comedy Central on Fancast inside a walled garden and accessible only to Comcast customers.
Consider this a turning point for Hulu and one that seriously will impact their model. Content companies like the two stream model of subscription and advertising. Free does not fly in today's marketplace and ultimately the consumer will lose.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
ABC Could Pull Plug Off Cablevision
Just months after losing Scripps programming during contract discussions and almost seeing FOX pulled, another network is threatening the same path. In this case it is a broadcaster, WABC in New York, but the target remains the same, Cablevision. "ABC says that it may pull its WABC-TV New York signal from Cablevision at 12:01 a.m. on March 7 unless the cable operator agrees to pay for the channel in a retransmission-consent dispute. Broadcasters are increasingly pushing for cash in their retransmission-consent negotiations for their channels given the size of their audiences relative to cable networks that receive higher per-sub fees." I get the need for fees for cable networks, but I would like to think that broadcast signals are a different story. It is essentially over-the-air signals being captured and aired on cable. While not entirely technically true, the fact is that broadcast should remain "free" TV.
And trust me when I say that ABC won't suffer. In fact all the major broadcasters also own cable networks as well as additional digital offshoots of their broadcast signal. For ABC, Disney, Family ESPN and others can certainly support ABC's bottom line.
Eventually these broadcast, now digital, signals will become IP delivered signals, free to the TV over a broadband or wireless connection. It is this unlimited access to the world that means that their should not be a fee for carriage; otherwise, count ABC as simply another cable network. And isn't that the concern the FCC has with the NBCUniversal Comcast merger. The worry that Comcast will turn the NBC broadcast signal into another cable network.
But I may be too late to this argument. Broadcast television has already been receiving fees for carriage. And once the genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to plug it back up. Still, for our sake, the consumer and viewer, it is worth a try by the FCC. Otherwise you might as well turn them all into cable networks!
And trust me when I say that ABC won't suffer. In fact all the major broadcasters also own cable networks as well as additional digital offshoots of their broadcast signal. For ABC, Disney, Family ESPN and others can certainly support ABC's bottom line.
Eventually these broadcast, now digital, signals will become IP delivered signals, free to the TV over a broadband or wireless connection. It is this unlimited access to the world that means that their should not be a fee for carriage; otherwise, count ABC as simply another cable network. And isn't that the concern the FCC has with the NBCUniversal Comcast merger. The worry that Comcast will turn the NBC broadcast signal into another cable network.
But I may be too late to this argument. Broadcast television has already been receiving fees for carriage. And once the genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to plug it back up. Still, for our sake, the consumer and viewer, it is worth a try by the FCC. Otherwise you might as well turn them all into cable networks!
SAG and AFTRA To Work Together
The writers strike just 2 short years ago is an ancient memory for some; others, it was lost wages and acrimonious negotiations. The actors union lost its clout and was unable to push its own agenda. Well the actor's current contract expires in June of next year and new learnings have been made. SAG and AFTRA recognize they are more powerful working together then individually. "The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, or Aftra, said its national board of directors had approved plans to negotiate jointly with the Screen Actors Guild toward its next prime-time television contract." My only hope is that it results in an agreement with the producers and not another strike in Hollywood!
Monday, March 1, 2010
iPad Getting Content From Conde Nast
Apple's iPad may not be on sale just yet, but it is certainly building its content appeal. "The first magazines for which it (Conde Nast) will create iPad versions are Wired, GQ, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and Glamour, the company plans to announce in an internal memorandum on Monday." Earlier it was announced that the Associated Press will also sell a paid subscription on the iPad. or you can simply buy a subscription to The NY Times or other newspapers. And of course, the real reason to buy - access to books, video, and music!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sirius Chief Sweet-Talks Stern
Sirius is having a good year so fay. It' stock is over a buck and the car industry is slowly improving. So what is left. Staying relevant in an ever-changing technological environment and proving the old adage that content is king. One way to prove it is Howard Stern. His contract is up and he is the essence of exclusive content that separates Sirius from its rivals. "Stern's shock-jock humor is one of the biggest draws for the satellite radio shop and a key to improving its slumping subscriber numbers and advertising revenue." But does his price justify the rewards? Is Stern relevant today?
Howard has been out of the limelight since he left terrestrial radio for satellite. He is hard pressed to call himself the King of all Media anymore. But his fan base, if small, is loyal. And Howard does work hard to stay newsworthy. He is even in the press positioning himself as Simon Cowell's replacement on American Idol. Howard knows how to stay in the news.
"Sirius needs Stern. The pay radio shop lost more than 300,000 subscribers last year, leaving the company with a total of 18.7 million paying customers at year's end. Stern's is a program that people will pay for, it's also one of the few programs where Sirius sells ads....A new deal between Sirius and Stern may include provisions that would play to Stern's potentially broader appeal. Analysts and media veterans have suggested possibilities like a scaled-down Sirius schedule, a syndication of tamer programs for conventional radio or allowances that let Stern pursue TV shows."
A new contract that gets Howard more national exposure through TV and radio could also make the need to get Howard on Sirius less necessary, too. It is a fine line in how much exposure across media platforms so as to not hurt Sirius' bread and butter platform. To that end, a merger of Sirius with a bigger content company like Liberty Media makes even more sense. A Howard show on Starz, a TV subscription service and Liberty company, helps two pay platforms.
So for now Sirius should re-sign Howard and seek partnerships that serve mutual goals.
Howard has been out of the limelight since he left terrestrial radio for satellite. He is hard pressed to call himself the King of all Media anymore. But his fan base, if small, is loyal. And Howard does work hard to stay newsworthy. He is even in the press positioning himself as Simon Cowell's replacement on American Idol. Howard knows how to stay in the news.
"Sirius needs Stern. The pay radio shop lost more than 300,000 subscribers last year, leaving the company with a total of 18.7 million paying customers at year's end. Stern's is a program that people will pay for, it's also one of the few programs where Sirius sells ads....A new deal between Sirius and Stern may include provisions that would play to Stern's potentially broader appeal. Analysts and media veterans have suggested possibilities like a scaled-down Sirius schedule, a syndication of tamer programs for conventional radio or allowances that let Stern pursue TV shows."
A new contract that gets Howard more national exposure through TV and radio could also make the need to get Howard on Sirius less necessary, too. It is a fine line in how much exposure across media platforms so as to not hurt Sirius' bread and butter platform. To that end, a merger of Sirius with a bigger content company like Liberty Media makes even more sense. A Howard show on Starz, a TV subscription service and Liberty company, helps two pay platforms.
So for now Sirius should re-sign Howard and seek partnerships that serve mutual goals.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
To 3-D or Not 3-D
CES premiered a number of 3-D TV sets and cable networks, including Discovery and ESPN, have announced the creation of 3-D channels. And next month, consumers can actually buy a 3-D TV set. "Sears, the first US retailer to offer 3-D sets, is selling two models, a 46-inch set for $2,599 and a 55-inch one priced at $3,299. The sets are made by the electronics giant Samsung, which began selling them in Asia late last year. Viewers have to wear 3-D glasses to get the in-depth, visual effect that is now all the rage in the movies." And I believe it will be a big bust.
I believe 3-D today is a fad best used in theatres to draw kids and adults to pay more to watch a movie. Frankly, the glasses are awkward, uncomfortable, and viewing sites are more limited. It works in a theatre, it will bomb in the home. Without enough content, limited programming, ands the need to wear glasses, a 3-D set is not the near future of home entertainment. Until enough content arrives and can be watched without glasses, the future for consumer electronics remains HDTV.
Consumers are just now purchasing their big screen HD set and are not about to junk it for this development. Early adopters are instead buying multiple HD sets for more rooms in their house, while others are just now buying their first HD set. For the next few years, the future will be lower priced, bigger screens (55" and higher) HD sets for the main viewing and smaller sets for the bedrooms, study, and kitchen. Will consumers look at them in the store - yes. Will they buy a 3-D set - No.
I believe 3-D today is a fad best used in theatres to draw kids and adults to pay more to watch a movie. Frankly, the glasses are awkward, uncomfortable, and viewing sites are more limited. It works in a theatre, it will bomb in the home. Without enough content, limited programming, ands the need to wear glasses, a 3-D set is not the near future of home entertainment. Until enough content arrives and can be watched without glasses, the future for consumer electronics remains HDTV.
Consumers are just now purchasing their big screen HD set and are not about to junk it for this development. Early adopters are instead buying multiple HD sets for more rooms in their house, while others are just now buying their first HD set. For the next few years, the future will be lower priced, bigger screens (55" and higher) HD sets for the main viewing and smaller sets for the bedrooms, study, and kitchen. Will consumers look at them in the store - yes. Will they buy a 3-D set - No.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
For Networks, Web Can Increase TV Ratings
For Networks that rely on advertising revenue, the web is not evil. Viewers can walk and chew gum at the same time and they do watch TV and surf the web simultaneously. In fact, as the article suggests, the web's social networking tools allow a virtual water cooler to occur at the moment the show is airing. No waiting till the next day at work to talk about last night's show. "The Nielsen Company, which measures television viewership and Web traffic, noticed this month that one in seven people who were watching the Super Bowl and the Olympics opening ceremony were surfing the Web at the same time."
The challenge of talking to viewers in different parts of the country can limit this interaction and so some programming is being shown at the same time across the country. "Seeking to capitalize on the online water-cooler effect, NBC showed the Golden Globes live on both coasts for the first time this year, and the network reportedly wants to do the same for the Emmy Awards this fall, so the entire country can watch (and chat online) simultaneously." Ratings for broadcast networks should continue to grow again.
The challenge does remain for networks and cable operators that rely on cable subscription to grow revenue. Consumers are growing more weary of paying exorbitant fees and are using competition as one alternative to find lower rates. And cable operators continue to use Promotions and incentives off their regular prices to keep customers from switching. But the web will enable us to drop cable subscription and receive programming strictly through a web connection. Operators will try to recoup that loss through higher usage fees and other means. But as network license fees rise so will cable subscriber fees. How consumers fight this inflationary war will sure include how the web effects this business.
The challenge of talking to viewers in different parts of the country can limit this interaction and so some programming is being shown at the same time across the country. "Seeking to capitalize on the online water-cooler effect, NBC showed the Golden Globes live on both coasts for the first time this year, and the network reportedly wants to do the same for the Emmy Awards this fall, so the entire country can watch (and chat online) simultaneously." Ratings for broadcast networks should continue to grow again.
The challenge does remain for networks and cable operators that rely on cable subscription to grow revenue. Consumers are growing more weary of paying exorbitant fees and are using competition as one alternative to find lower rates. And cable operators continue to use Promotions and incentives off their regular prices to keep customers from switching. But the web will enable us to drop cable subscription and receive programming strictly through a web connection. Operators will try to recoup that loss through higher usage fees and other means. But as network license fees rise so will cable subscriber fees. How consumers fight this inflationary war will sure include how the web effects this business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
