Cable Losing Shares

The story may be about Time Warner Cable announcing a loss of subscribers in the third quarter, but once the other cable companies announce their numbers, Time Warner will not be alone. But it is the second line in the NY Post story that really made me chuckle, "Poor home sales and the weak economy, which have families pinching pennies, are seen as the culprits." Perhaps there are other reasons at play too!

The cost of cable has risen faster than the inflation rate. Internet connections, whether tethered or wireless, are more valuable to the home than the cable subscription. And customers are tired of paying for more but essentially getting the same content. Customers are tired of exorbitant cable bills. My own relative recently informed me that their family recently cut the cord. A digital antennae, a broadband connection, and a Netflix subscription, and they estimate a savings of over $500/year. Sure, they are watching their pennies, but they are not doing without. They are getting all the content they want and need through alternative sources. It is competition through technology that is hurting the cable distributor. Yes price is a factor; but choice, convenience and ease of use are working against cable too. Technology is building a better user experience to compete with the cable model and at a lower price.

How will cable respond. Unfortunately, broadband pricing will begin to rise, again most likely faster than inflation. Heavier users will be penalized with additional fees. And cable will try to offset the loss of cable subs through higher pricing to their broadband subs. A wrong strategic move. The barriers to entry in wireless appear lower than cable. New competitors will rise and offer blanket coverage in your community and across the US. Content will continue to fill the IP platform and the consumer shift away from a tethered world will only grow.

The signs are there, Time Warner and the other cable companies. Stop blaming the economy and start changing your strategy to adapt to a changing entertainment landscape. Else your leadership position will fall.

Sirius Could Be More Profitable Without Howard

If Howard Stern chooses not to renew his Sirius deal, it may prove more beneficial to Sirius. Despite losing some Stern devotees, "Sirius can build sales with the money it saves on Stern." Or use some of that money to buy other talent needed to keep the content on Sirius looking exclusive and unique.

Whether it is an improving car industry or overall economy, Sirius subscriber numbers have been growing. Per the S&P analyst in this article, Sirius could add 1.1 million customers in 2010 and another 1.4 in 2011. Finally some healthy growth for them. Beyond Stern, Sirius' mix of sports, music, comedy, talk, and more may finally be appealing for consumers. With new cars including Sirius technology, the ease to subscribe is also a major boost. As Sirius uses free trial to demonstrate its value, the customer base rises. It may slowly becoming a must have feature for every car.

Is It Time To Buy An iPad

Fourth quarter is just around the corner and stores are gearing up for the holidays when sales really pick up. And in time for the holidays, the next release of the Apple iPad. "Apple is rumored to be working on a second generation of the iPad with FaceTime video conferencing ready by the holiday shopping season." Does a front facing camera on the iPad turn the corner from an intriguing device to a must have? Or, is it really necessary to rush a next version. "Apple has been racing to keep up with demand for the iPad, selling more than 3.27 million by late July and only getting to 24-hour turnaround on orders as of late last month."
With demand what it is why the rush.

I Want My MTV

Almost 30 years, the cry of "I Want My MTV" was both a song refrain and the longing of a new generation for programming geared to them. The rise of a channel devoted to music, another to news, and another to sports was the start of the 1000 channel universe of cable programming. New cable networks arose although the mythical number of channels was never met. The cry for MTV brought more programming choice to the medium we love - television, and demonstrated that niche programming can survive.

That is for a time until the desire for more profits outweigh the desire to remain true to the niche one serves. Each channel, MTV included, broadened its programming format to widen its audience interest and raise its Nielsen rating. Every channel started delivering movies, cartoon channels added live action, old movie channels added new movies and tv series. Even MTV stopped showing music videos. Not one channel today has stayed true to its niche.

But the cry for more continues to ring out and today it is in the form of on demand programming. There may not be 1000 channels, but there sure is almost 20,000 hours of on demand programming. But viewers also want to watch content beyond the four walls of their home. The cry today is now for wireless and access everywhere; and with it more choice. While on demand rises, the need remains for access to live programming remotely as well. The cry is for connection - across devices, across platforms, heck even across continents. ALL CONTENT EVERYWHERE. Perhaps we need a new song refrain today to hype our hopes for this next want. "I want my content now".

Viewers Prefer Local News And Miss Local Cable Companies

I read this short article today and it reminded me of what cable distribution initially meant. As people seem to prefer local news, cable was meant to be your local distributor. Municipalities would take bids and select their local cable provider in exchange for local channels and production facilities. Just check down in the lower numbers of your cable line-up for those channels. Yes they are still there. And cable companies built local offices manned by local management to respond to local issues. And they marketed their local presence as something unique, that the telephone company couldn't do.

Today, cable distributors have consolidated their management operations into regional or divisional levels. Most decision making has gone even higher into the corporate building. There seems to be no more local and cable distributors have opted to copy the telephone model today instead of differentiating from it. The local manager no longer exists; in fact, those local buildings may now simply be call centers or warehouses with no General Manager in attendance. Consolidation is king.

As for the story of local news still number one. people still live in neighborhoods and still want to know as much about what is going on outside their front door as in their state, country, and world. Local may have been a buzzword for the early days of cable, but local still does matter.

Apple Flashes New Apps

Apple's strategy of doing their own thing regardless of the competition has suddenly hit a sharp left turn. Their exclusivity with AT&T left Verizon open to do other deals and competition has moved down the pike fast. Along with products that compete, apps that work in one world, but not Apple's has been a real challenge. At first Steve Jobs said no to Adobe's Flash, but competition from Google has altered that position. "Apple Inc is easing restrictions for building iPhone and iPad applications, a move that should allow for the use of third-party tools such as Adobe Systems' Flash software and ease tension between the two companies."

So if apps co-exist across products, I assume the next challenge for Apple is to remain innovative with product design. That does not seem to be a problem. Apple has proven itself numerous times with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Files from one program easily get manipulated in another program. The fact is that Apple products are built well and function even better. It behooves Apple to open up its App development to enable even more functionality for its devices. Apple truly builds products with ergonomics in mind. Ultimately, Apple will continue to distance itself from Google in building devices that further improve the convergence of content across distribution platforms.

Ultimate Synergy - Marketing Owning The Medium

The worst part of advertising are ads that are perceived as ads. Low credibility, negative relationship, and an intrusion on the content. And while adults are more savvy (we hope) to ad messages, children are not. To them, everything told to them is true. marketing to children then is a tricky process.

So what may be perceived as smart marketing may also be looked at as deceptive and disingenuous; that is the ownership by a toy manufacturer of a TV network. "Discovery Communications (DISCA.O) and toy maker Hasbro Inc (HAS.N) said on Wednesday their new joint-venture cable network The Hub, to launch next month, would target an under-served market of children aged 11 and younger." Shows featuring toys ripe for purchase have that air of credibility but unlike an ad, doesn't necessarily differentiate between fantasy and reality.

So what is the difference between a manufacturer that owns a network airing shows of its characters and a network not owned, but whose characters were licensed to appear on a TV show. Probably not much. Perhaps the key difference is the ownership factor. Promotion of the toy may be more important than the rating of the TV program. Hence a 24/7 advertising model. Thus, the channel can afford less advertising "commercials" as the whole time is essentially a toy advertisement.

Still Hasbro and Discovery may have a point that they are not the first to enter this space. "Hasbro Chief Executive Brian Goldner said rival children's cable network owner Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) is the third-largest toy maker in the world while Viacom Inc's (VIAb.N) Nickelodeon is the fifth-largest." In those two cases, the content came first and the toy making came second; in this case, the toy is driving the content.

Can The Hub be successful? At the end of the day, TV content needs to be engaging and watchable, regardless of the toy it is promoting; otherwise, it won't be of interest. And without interest, toy sales will drop. Make solid programming investments, develop good stories, and high production values and the audience should grow.

The Merging of Broadcast and Cable

So what is the difference between say ABC and Bloomberg, or NBC and USA. To today's audience, they are both simply networks on their cable line-up. One may be more general interest, one may or may not be more niche. This merging into one box called TV content may signify the greater trend occurring. In fact, broadcast networks own cable nets just like NBC owns USA.

So that there is news that broadcast and cable news operations may combine is simply the beginning to full scale ownership of the operation. CBS and CNN sharing news resources, great; how about one corporation simply merging with the other. "It’s all understandable: With the news industry battered by a still-foundering economy and splintered media landscape, questions of whether such marriages of convenience and economic viability are the future for broadcast news become inevitable."

To me, it is inevitable that content companies will continue to merge to find their economies of scale. Both in news and entertainment content. Where there used to be many cable operators in the market, today the top 5 own a vast majority of the marketplace. For content companies, some mergers have occurred and more seem forthcoming. At the same time, the merging of contet companies with distributors may be the end result of this slippery slope. With a Comcast and NBC merger comes also the concern that too much power in the hands of too few will limit new growth and innovation, especially that Comcast owns the broadband pipeline as well as the cable connection. Or lead to the death of TV at the hands of a wireless revolution.

Sirius needs Howard, does Howard Stern need Sirius

There was once a time when all negotiations were done behind closed doors; but today, most seem to occur across the media. The same holds true for the Howard Stern and Sirius negotiations. "While some speculate that Stern on Thursday was merely beginning the process of negotiating in public, the shock jock also indicated that he has no desire to bash his employer like he did before he ditched terrestrial radio for satellite radio." Of course, his agreement doesn't expire till the end of the year, so all this could simply be posturing for the best possible deal.

But exclusive content can drive distribution and so it seems that Sirius needs Howard more than Howard needs Sirius. Howard has many more choices although restarting in a new medium requires more energy than perhaps even Howard isn't willing to give. Going back to broadcast for Howard may be fodder that Howard made a mistake going to Sirius and is in need to reclaim his "King of all Media" crown. I expect that at the end of the year, Howard and Sirius will renew their vows.