Attention NFL Football fans, their TV deal has been renewed and pro football will remain on "free" television. "The broadcast networks will pay a total of nearly $28 billion in fees over nine years under the new contracts, which take effect after the NFL's 2013 season." Oh did I say free, I doubt it because ultimately those fees will be paid by a rise in cable subscription pricing. Broadcast networks will seek higher retransmission deals for carriage and those fees will be paid by increases in our basic cable bills. Advertising revenue will also rise as networks will demand higher fees for each :30 spot. And companies that pay higher fees will eventually price higher their goods and services to the consumer. It is the trickle down theory hard at work.
Occasionally operators push back on cable license fees but ultimately find agreement at some higher amount. Today that fight is occurring between Time Warner Cable and MSG Networks; their deal expires at the end of the year unless a renewal deal is reached. The likely scenario will be that no deal gets done at midnight of December 31 and the network is dropped. Other networks, print, and radio will blare messages from each side blaming the other for loss of programming. Fans of the network holler and ultimately some weeks or maybe months later, a deal is finally reached and the network is back on the air. It is then quickly forgotten until the next cable bill increase arrives in the mail.
Ultimately content is king and sports especially remains high on the list. How price elastic is this model remains to be seen. It may simply cause additional cord cutting by those no longer able or willing to pay for what they don't want to watch.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
If You Have An Xbox, Will You Need An Apple TV
Connected TVs are emerging to be more valuable than even 3D. Manufacturers are building sets with wireless and wired connectivity to the web while at the same time streaming media is finding spots on guides of various set top boxes. All this while cable operators push to keep their cable subscriptions growing.
For younger audiences, more entertainment is happening through their XBox, Playstation and Wii gaming boxes. And streaming media companies like Hulu and Netflix are attaching their subscription services to these boxes. "According to a new survey and projections by Strategy Analytics, the connected TV player will sell 4 million units this year to capture 32% of the streaming media player market. The media player market includes competitors such as the Roku and Boxee boxes."
And while the first generation of Apple TV boxes haven't caught on yet, hope is on the horizon with a next generation Apple box incorporating its cloud service and app connectivity with iPads and iPhones. "But more importantly, the AirPlay feature in iOS allows the mobile devices to move media to the TV from the devices and allows the iPhone or iPad to serve as complementary screens." And of course the rumor that Apple will manufacture its own television set. I also hope that Apple improves the remote control experience and perhaps includes Siri in the set top and TV set.
The XBox game controller is also a more adept device in enabling search choosing what to watch. And consumers that own a gaming device may not see the need to buy another set top box controller. Still the Apple appeal should never be minimized. The TV set in the home is becoming more a centerpiece for viewing and interacting with content.
Competition for alternative ways to connect to the web is growing rapidly; at the same time, cable operators are doing nothing to make their cable boxes more user friendly. As more meaningful content moves over to web devices, the threat of cord cutting becomes much more pronounced.
For younger audiences, more entertainment is happening through their XBox, Playstation and Wii gaming boxes. And streaming media companies like Hulu and Netflix are attaching their subscription services to these boxes. "According to a new survey and projections by Strategy Analytics, the connected TV player will sell 4 million units this year to capture 32% of the streaming media player market. The media player market includes competitors such as the Roku and Boxee boxes."
And while the first generation of Apple TV boxes haven't caught on yet, hope is on the horizon with a next generation Apple box incorporating its cloud service and app connectivity with iPads and iPhones. "But more importantly, the AirPlay feature in iOS allows the mobile devices to move media to the TV from the devices and allows the iPhone or iPad to serve as complementary screens." And of course the rumor that Apple will manufacture its own television set. I also hope that Apple improves the remote control experience and perhaps includes Siri in the set top and TV set.
The XBox game controller is also a more adept device in enabling search choosing what to watch. And consumers that own a gaming device may not see the need to buy another set top box controller. Still the Apple appeal should never be minimized. The TV set in the home is becoming more a centerpiece for viewing and interacting with content.
Competition for alternative ways to connect to the web is growing rapidly; at the same time, cable operators are doing nothing to make their cable boxes more user friendly. As more meaningful content moves over to web devices, the threat of cord cutting becomes much more pronounced.
Is You Tube Redesign Favoring Professional Over Amateur?
Once again, despite or desire for new things, we dislike change that affects what we are comfortable with. Change with the look of Twitter, change when our cable networks change their channel numbers, and now change with the You Tube redesign are all examples that get people frustrated. But change is meant to drive innovation and hopefully, once people get used to it, proves better, easier, faster, smarter than the previous version.
With the redesign of YouTube, the other question is being asked, is it meant to favor professional content over uploaded amateur content? Is it a move that raises barriers to viewership by guiding viewers to content that brings more revenue to YouTube? "In place of that free-for-all will be a new YouTube, more commercial, more predictable and, its owners hope, more televisionlike. The underlying reason is money, of course, but the immediate issue is control. By cutting away the user-driven underbrush and shepherding viewers, especially those with YouTube accounts, toward TV-like content channels — an increasing number of them produced by corporate media partners — YouTube and its owner, Google, will gain more control by giving amateur videographers less exposure and funneling viewers toward fewer choices." TV experience on the web, professionally produced, fewer but better content. Are the lines between the TV set and the web becoming more and more blurrier?
YouTube's original objective was to enable consumers to share their videos with family and friends. Upload once and share among all. But that primary mission has evolved over time as its original owners sold YouTube to Google. The business plan is all about revenue and "the redesign is to push the viewer toward the higher, more brand-name end." More clicks, more ads, more revenue, more profit. The amateur video will be pushed further down the long tail. And the higher the viewership on a particular "channel", the easier it is to charge higher advertising. Is the article calls it, "predictable viewership for specific content". It is the TV model pushing ratings to garner premium pricing.
Will the amateur videos still exist on YouTube? They still generate ad dollars based on total views across all video clicks, but they will be harder to find. How the search button will push these viral videos over professional content remains to be seen. It may affect too how the next piece of amateur content is or isn't discovered. Search and recommendations may be pushing more professional content over amateur and that might be the worst sin of all for You Tube users.
Last point, like any good business model, the more revenue streams the better. Currently, YouTube has only the ad revenue stream. That may change as well as You Tube ponders a premium model to gain a subscription footprint. It worked with Hulu Plus, why not YouTube. Free only works for so long.
With the redesign of YouTube, the other question is being asked, is it meant to favor professional content over uploaded amateur content? Is it a move that raises barriers to viewership by guiding viewers to content that brings more revenue to YouTube? "In place of that free-for-all will be a new YouTube, more commercial, more predictable and, its owners hope, more televisionlike. The underlying reason is money, of course, but the immediate issue is control. By cutting away the user-driven underbrush and shepherding viewers, especially those with YouTube accounts, toward TV-like content channels — an increasing number of them produced by corporate media partners — YouTube and its owner, Google, will gain more control by giving amateur videographers less exposure and funneling viewers toward fewer choices." TV experience on the web, professionally produced, fewer but better content. Are the lines between the TV set and the web becoming more and more blurrier?
YouTube's original objective was to enable consumers to share their videos with family and friends. Upload once and share among all. But that primary mission has evolved over time as its original owners sold YouTube to Google. The business plan is all about revenue and "the redesign is to push the viewer toward the higher, more brand-name end." More clicks, more ads, more revenue, more profit. The amateur video will be pushed further down the long tail. And the higher the viewership on a particular "channel", the easier it is to charge higher advertising. Is the article calls it, "predictable viewership for specific content". It is the TV model pushing ratings to garner premium pricing.
Will the amateur videos still exist on YouTube? They still generate ad dollars based on total views across all video clicks, but they will be harder to find. How the search button will push these viral videos over professional content remains to be seen. It may affect too how the next piece of amateur content is or isn't discovered. Search and recommendations may be pushing more professional content over amateur and that might be the worst sin of all for You Tube users.
Last point, like any good business model, the more revenue streams the better. Currently, YouTube has only the ad revenue stream. That may change as well as You Tube ponders a premium model to gain a subscription footprint. It worked with Hulu Plus, why not YouTube. Free only works for so long.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Should Verizon Buy Netflix?
Build it or buy it may be the discussion inside Verizon these days on what to do about a movie rental business. It seems owning the wireless spectrum isn't enough, it is important to also have services to sell on that pipeline and the movie business can be lucrative.
As video consumption shifts more and more from DVD to online, so too changes the consumer preference to either own or rent. Studios pushing the sale strategy are pushing consumers with cloud ownership of digital copies with every DVD sold. And of course Apple and Amazon are there as well with their cloud strategies.
The movie rental business has been shaken up in recent months with the various missteps made by Netflix. And Blockbuster is trying to refocus their business with the help of their new owners Dish/Echostar. So now Verizon is considering making a play for Netflix and perhaps to help them re-establish their formal glory. "Chief Executive Officer Lowell McAdam told an investor conference on Dec. 7 that the company aims to move beyond its Fios TV service into the streaming-video business." And while the speculation is that Netflix is on the Verizon radar, why isn't Hulu also being considered. Hulu has indicated an interest in being sold while Netflix has not. Both require bandwidth that Verizon can support and Hulu offers a duel revenue stream of subscription and advertising. Plus Hulu doesn't have the burden of mailing DVDs and could support a theatrical film streaming service expansion.
Yes, I like the idea of Verizon pursuing a streaming distribution strategy. I just wonder if all the baggage hanging over Netflix will not allow them to recover and prosper again. My vote is for Verizon to consider a Hulu acquisition but should it be Netflix, the first order of business would be to roll back the pricing model, market to all former customers with an additional special incentive, and consider rebranding. How does NetFios sound?
As video consumption shifts more and more from DVD to online, so too changes the consumer preference to either own or rent. Studios pushing the sale strategy are pushing consumers with cloud ownership of digital copies with every DVD sold. And of course Apple and Amazon are there as well with their cloud strategies.
The movie rental business has been shaken up in recent months with the various missteps made by Netflix. And Blockbuster is trying to refocus their business with the help of their new owners Dish/Echostar. So now Verizon is considering making a play for Netflix and perhaps to help them re-establish their formal glory. "Chief Executive Officer Lowell McAdam told an investor conference on Dec. 7 that the company aims to move beyond its Fios TV service into the streaming-video business." And while the speculation is that Netflix is on the Verizon radar, why isn't Hulu also being considered. Hulu has indicated an interest in being sold while Netflix has not. Both require bandwidth that Verizon can support and Hulu offers a duel revenue stream of subscription and advertising. Plus Hulu doesn't have the burden of mailing DVDs and could support a theatrical film streaming service expansion.
Yes, I like the idea of Verizon pursuing a streaming distribution strategy. I just wonder if all the baggage hanging over Netflix will not allow them to recover and prosper again. My vote is for Verizon to consider a Hulu acquisition but should it be Netflix, the first order of business would be to roll back the pricing model, market to all former customers with an additional special incentive, and consider rebranding. How does NetFios sound?
Monday, December 12, 2011
Don't Write Off The Kindle Fire Or Amazon Just Yet
Today's New York Times' article might have left you feeling that Amazon's Kindle Fire was a failure. Sure there are complaints but that is not unheard of in this new unknown space. The tablet is still a very young product that has yet to reach its full potential and first generation problems can be cured if Amazon stays front and center with its customers. Empathize with them, recognize the inherent problems and come back ASAP with solutions; some may need to be short term fixes, others long term changes, but by being honest and agreeable with the customer, Amazon will retain them and continue to grow their share of the business. "Despite Amazon’s silence on the matter, analysts have been estimating the company will sell from three to five million Fires this quarter."
Amazon still needs to speak up loudly. Again history being a guide, how Tylenol quickly reacted t their packaging challenges many years ago enabled them to survive through a PR nightmare and remain a dominant brand. It is that truthfulness and commitment to act that can save or bury any brand. Even successful companies have made missteps. "All this would be enough to send some products directly to the graveyard where the Apple Newton, the Edsel, New Coke and McDonald’s Arch Deluxe languish. But as a range of retailers and tech firms could tell you, it would be foolish to underestimate Amazon." In fact, as many have seen, we learn much more from our failures than from our successes. Unfortunately some companies are not as quick to manage their mistakes. Look no farther than Netflix and the troubles they have had.
Amazon and the Kindle brand have built a ton of loyalty over the years just as Apple has had with its products. Communicating with that audience and managing that trust in a proactive way while resolving technical issues is the ultimate PR cure. Especially as articles, like the one in the NYT, appear. Otherwise, the opinion in the article's first two lines will be recited over and over again as fact..."The Kindle Fire, Amazon’s heavily promoted tablet, is less than a blazing success with many of its early users. The most disgruntled are packing the device up and firing it back to the retailer." And that is not the kind of perception Amazon wants to have floating around.
Amazon still needs to speak up loudly. Again history being a guide, how Tylenol quickly reacted t their packaging challenges many years ago enabled them to survive through a PR nightmare and remain a dominant brand. It is that truthfulness and commitment to act that can save or bury any brand. Even successful companies have made missteps. "All this would be enough to send some products directly to the graveyard where the Apple Newton, the Edsel, New Coke and McDonald’s Arch Deluxe languish. But as a range of retailers and tech firms could tell you, it would be foolish to underestimate Amazon." In fact, as many have seen, we learn much more from our failures than from our successes. Unfortunately some companies are not as quick to manage their mistakes. Look no farther than Netflix and the troubles they have had.
Amazon and the Kindle brand have built a ton of loyalty over the years just as Apple has had with its products. Communicating with that audience and managing that trust in a proactive way while resolving technical issues is the ultimate PR cure. Especially as articles, like the one in the NYT, appear. Otherwise, the opinion in the article's first two lines will be recited over and over again as fact..."The Kindle Fire, Amazon’s heavily promoted tablet, is less than a blazing success with many of its early users. The most disgruntled are packing the device up and firing it back to the retailer." And that is not the kind of perception Amazon wants to have floating around.
Friday, December 9, 2011
TiVo Having A Good Month
TiVo seems to be all over the news these days with more and more good news regarding its distribution. Earlier this month came word that DirecTv was pushing its TiVo box and now the rollout of TiVo on Charter in the Fort Worth system and full rollout by June 2012. This deal was announced almost one year ago so it is nice to read that it is actually available in market. "Charter-branded TiVo PremiereCharter's TiVo DVR will be $20 per month; during a limited promotion period, subscribers can get additional TiVos for $10 per month for 12 months."
"For TiVo, attracting subscribers through operators including Charter and DirecTV is critical to its future. For the quarter ended Oct. 31, TiVo gained 117,000 net subs, thanks to the rollout of a TiVo-based box by the U.K.'s Virgin Media -- its first net gain in more than four years." These US deals should give TiVo another strong quarter. As a TiVo fan, I look forward to seeing them drive distribution across the other major cable operators.
"For TiVo, attracting subscribers through operators including Charter and DirecTV is critical to its future. For the quarter ended Oct. 31, TiVo gained 117,000 net subs, thanks to the rollout of a TiVo-based box by the U.K.'s Virgin Media -- its first net gain in more than four years." These US deals should give TiVo another strong quarter. As a TiVo fan, I look forward to seeing them drive distribution across the other major cable operators.
ABC Putting First Season Shows On Web
There always seems to be a little hesitancy when it comes to making TV shows available outside its linear time slot. Before web video, it was on demand and networks were extremely cautious about offering their best shows on this new distribution platform. When on demand first was offered, cable operators were lucky to find scraps of shows that networks were willing to offer. Some may argue that contractual issues prevented networks from placing shows on demand; most others were fearful that on demand would take eyeballs away from ratings and thus hurt their financial success. But there were some cable networks willing to take a risk with on demand. Some actually offered sneak peaks of their first run shows prior to their linear time slot. The result, audiences grew and ratings didn't suffer. Today we have more sophisticated research to show viewership and build ad revenue, but it has taken years to gain acceptance.
But technological change doesn't stop and the growth and demand for more online video runs rampant. So it is great to read that ABC is using the power of the web to grow interest and ratings of its first run series. "Looking to give a promotional push to two promising series, ABC will make their entire libraries available online over the next month. All episodes of new first-season shows “Once Upon A Time” and “Revenge” will be accessible on ABC.com or through the network’s iPad player." Especially for episodic shows, a great opportunity for new viewers to catch up and get engaged with the show.
Online can also provide better targeted advertising that appeals to the viewer. More interest, more viewers, and more revenue. Today's primary audience, Adults 18-49, are spending more and more of their time on their digital devices - laptops, iPads, iPods, and iPhones. Getting them to discover new TV shows is tougher given the clutter of choices that exist. Bringing shows to them online is the first step in re-engaging with them where they are most likely to view. I look forward to hearing from ABC how this digital tactic has worked to build stronger viewership and interest in their shows.
But technological change doesn't stop and the growth and demand for more online video runs rampant. So it is great to read that ABC is using the power of the web to grow interest and ratings of its first run series. "Looking to give a promotional push to two promising series, ABC will make their entire libraries available online over the next month. All episodes of new first-season shows “Once Upon A Time” and “Revenge” will be accessible on ABC.com or through the network’s iPad player." Especially for episodic shows, a great opportunity for new viewers to catch up and get engaged with the show.
Online can also provide better targeted advertising that appeals to the viewer. More interest, more viewers, and more revenue. Today's primary audience, Adults 18-49, are spending more and more of their time on their digital devices - laptops, iPads, iPods, and iPhones. Getting them to discover new TV shows is tougher given the clutter of choices that exist. Bringing shows to them online is the first step in re-engaging with them where they are most likely to view. I look forward to hearing from ABC how this digital tactic has worked to build stronger viewership and interest in their shows.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Is Research In Motion (RIM) For Sale or Going Bankrupt?
What is the long term future for Blackberry? Once the darling of all businesses, it has lost its edge to both the Apple iPhone and other smartphone devices. Blackberry has not adapted fast enough and it allowed others to successfully takeover its space and market share. In addition, it's take on the tablet market with the release of the Playbook demonstrated that they did not understand the needs of the consumer. "We are still shocked the Playbook does not have native email functionality". What is obvious is that RIM behaved like other market leaders; they were set in their ways, adverse to risk, and unable to innovate against its rivals.
So the question is what will happen to RIM. Analysts don't seem to believe that RIM is an acquisition target, although they continue to see a depressed stock price. But what if a company was kicking the tires on the maker of Blackberry and could build some synergy to advance themselves in the mobile marketplace. Google took that step with Motorola. So let me throw out one name offered to me this morning. Could Microsoft benefit from purchasing RIM? Blackberry still has its feet in the market and there are loyalists to the product. Microsoft has the operating system and as my friend speculated, Windows 7 could be built into the next generation of blackberry products. A risky purchase given the trajectory that RIM is headed but fresh legs through acquisition might just allow it to survive and prosper again. Food for thought as the mobile industry continues to expand.
So the question is what will happen to RIM. Analysts don't seem to believe that RIM is an acquisition target, although they continue to see a depressed stock price. But what if a company was kicking the tires on the maker of Blackberry and could build some synergy to advance themselves in the mobile marketplace. Google took that step with Motorola. So let me throw out one name offered to me this morning. Could Microsoft benefit from purchasing RIM? Blackberry still has its feet in the market and there are loyalists to the product. Microsoft has the operating system and as my friend speculated, Windows 7 could be built into the next generation of blackberry products. A risky purchase given the trajectory that RIM is headed but fresh legs through acquisition might just allow it to survive and prosper again. Food for thought as the mobile industry continues to expand.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Verizon and Cablevision Fighting Again
Even when I am not looking at the TV, the moment a certain music bed is played, I know that it is the Verizon FIOS ad regarding Cablevision's slow broadband speed. Then I look up to see a closeup of eyes moving in circles with the VO ..."Are you suffering from cable...vision." As an ad, it is memorable because of its unique music, copy, and video; but is it accurate? It seems it may have been true in March of this year but not anymore, not since Cablevision upgraded its plant. "According to Bloomberg, the suit states that the study was conducted before an upgrade of Cablevision plant boosted performance significantly. The Bethpage, N.Y.-based MSO said its average download speeds are more than 90% of advertised download speeds during peak hours and are above 100% of advertised speeds on a 24-hour basis." Yet, at this point, the ads are still running.
And while Verizon fights with one cable company, it has agreed to partner with three others as a result of a wireless transaction deal. At some point in the next three years, Comcast, Time Warner, and Bright House will be able to sell Verizon Wireless service packaged with a cable subscription.
Lastly, the fight between Verizon and Cablevision may not be as simple as it seems. It's not just about broadband speeds. Although MSG and AMC Networks are no longer owned by Cablevision, they do share a common family ownership. Lack of deals for the hi def channel of certain networks may have raised the notch for nastiness in this latest battle. And as the ad has successfully caught the consumer's attention, it simply spreads more salt into the wound between these two telecommunication giants. Who will win; perhaps, the damage is already done.
And while Verizon fights with one cable company, it has agreed to partner with three others as a result of a wireless transaction deal. At some point in the next three years, Comcast, Time Warner, and Bright House will be able to sell Verizon Wireless service packaged with a cable subscription.
Lastly, the fight between Verizon and Cablevision may not be as simple as it seems. It's not just about broadband speeds. Although MSG and AMC Networks are no longer owned by Cablevision, they do share a common family ownership. Lack of deals for the hi def channel of certain networks may have raised the notch for nastiness in this latest battle. And as the ad has successfully caught the consumer's attention, it simply spreads more salt into the wound between these two telecommunication giants. Who will win; perhaps, the damage is already done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
