The iPad has changed my media consumption behavior; but then again, so did my iPhone. For each platform, my use of my previous technology has changed. Where I once used the laptop for social media, gaming, email, and online viewing, I now prefer the iPad or iPhone. For me, the iPad tablet has been the second screen that has overshadowed the traditional TV; but it only replaced the laptop before it. That the study is suggesting that tablets are "an alternative to television and to other devices for users to watch full-length TV episodes" is true. It is lighter than the laptop, easier to hold, and possesses a great screen for personal consumption. The TV set continues to retain its hold for family or group settings with multiple eyes watching. A tablet won't ever replace that experience.
The iPad is a game changer because it does an enable a more personalized, individual experience. Great screen for game-playing both in size and clarity, touch screen for a different type of control that a mouse can't offer, and a jaw dropping amount of content, from apps to web browser, that provides what can only be described as an infinite number of opportunities. And yet more continue to be developed every day.
Sure, it can work for full length episodes if that is what you are seeking; for others, it may just be You Tube clips or a downloadable game. For me, it is a perfect way to watch my out of market games on MLB. And yes, the big screen TV may still be on and occupying a space as background noise and the occasional look up from the iPad to see what was just said.
Are iPads and other tablets a threat to the TV platform; yes and no. Yes, if your content is only available in one form on the TV, and No if your content is accessible across multiple platforms and in multiple forms. The synergy of a full length show with previous seasons online and social networking and gaming connected to the video can make for a more valuable experience. But for those that occupy their space in one platform as a one trick pony, online is a threat. But it has been a threat long before tablets came along to overtake the laptop. If this study has just discovered this trend now, then they are frankly too late.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Consumers Want A La Carte Programming So They Can Pay Less
Why the threat of cord cutting? It is because consumers have grown tired of watching their cost of cable explode and are seeking alternatives to a cable subscription. Those consumers in markets with telco overbuilders like to play the game of switching, or at least threatening to switch, in order to get discount pricing from their cable operator. Others, according to the latest survey, would rather pay just for the channels they watch.
"U.S. consumers would overwhelmingly prefer to pay for just 19 TV channels at $1.50 a pop than their current multichannel packages, according to a new survey. RBC Capital Markets found that 92% of over 1,000 respondents are interested in a a la carte TV offering that would cost them far less than the $84 they pay for access to at least 91 channels on average." Unfortunately, a number of the notable networks would want much more than a $1.50 for their service. And cable operators don't have the ability to unbundle networks and sell individually because of contractual issues. Most networks require that they be offered to the largest group of customers and that their reach exceeds 90% of total homes that subscribe. In today's marketplace, a la carte offerings by a cable operator are not realistically possible.
So consumers seek other alternative means to watch programs that they want at a price point that they are willing to pay. Hulu just announced that their premium subscription service, priced at just $8 a month, already has over 2 million subscribers. Netflix is offering its own low priced streaming service as well. What percentage of these customers are also cable subscribers was not released; it would be interesting to learn if these customers are cord cutters or not. Are these services complementary to cable or indeed upstarts?
Consumers may want to find alternatives to their cable subscription or they may simply want to complain and won't really act to cut that cord. A la carte sounds like an ideal solution but it won't happen in the current cable operator model.
"U.S. consumers would overwhelmingly prefer to pay for just 19 TV channels at $1.50 a pop than their current multichannel packages, according to a new survey. RBC Capital Markets found that 92% of over 1,000 respondents are interested in a a la carte TV offering that would cost them far less than the $84 they pay for access to at least 91 channels on average." Unfortunately, a number of the notable networks would want much more than a $1.50 for their service. And cable operators don't have the ability to unbundle networks and sell individually because of contractual issues. Most networks require that they be offered to the largest group of customers and that their reach exceeds 90% of total homes that subscribe. In today's marketplace, a la carte offerings by a cable operator are not realistically possible.
So consumers seek other alternative means to watch programs that they want at a price point that they are willing to pay. Hulu just announced that their premium subscription service, priced at just $8 a month, already has over 2 million subscribers. Netflix is offering its own low priced streaming service as well. What percentage of these customers are also cable subscribers was not released; it would be interesting to learn if these customers are cord cutters or not. Are these services complementary to cable or indeed upstarts?
Consumers may want to find alternatives to their cable subscription or they may simply want to complain and won't really act to cut that cord. A la carte sounds like an ideal solution but it won't happen in the current cable operator model.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Don't Fret An Apple Stock Drop
To all those shareholders of Apple, don't sweat the small stuff. We have seen a huge uptick in Apple's price per share of stock so it is not unreasonable to expect some profit taking. But just because the stock is down 4%, it still has too much upward potential to not remain optimistic. By the end of this year, we should see the release of the next iteration of the iPhone, and everyone expects it to be called the iPhone5. Second there is talk of a smaller screen sized iPad to compete with Kindle and the Nook. Third comes the release of the secretive TV many assume will be called the iPanel. And whether it comes end of this year or next, it is in the pipeline.
But perhaps most exciting is what Apple could do with its access to company credit cards, an aggregated platform for apps, and a product line capable of making quick purchases. "The person with hundreds of millions of stored credit cards wins big. There are only two people on the planet who have stored over a hundred million active credit card numbers that I can think of: Apple and Amazon. One is in commerce and one isn't -- yet. Apple iPay " That could be the next Apple homerun!
But perhaps most exciting is what Apple could do with its access to company credit cards, an aggregated platform for apps, and a product line capable of making quick purchases. "The person with hundreds of millions of stored credit cards wins big. There are only two people on the planet who have stored over a hundred million active credit card numbers that I can think of: Apple and Amazon. One is in commerce and one isn't -- yet. Apple iPay " That could be the next Apple homerun!
RIP Chris Lonergan
I am very saddened to read the news of Chris Lonergan's passing late last week. He has been an important staple in the cable industry and someone who I met very early in my cable days. As a fellow programmer, I knew him as a fellow traveler, at cable shows, at system visits, and at association meetings. And the more I got to know Chris, the more I respected him. He was always well liked, and passionate about his work. He was a rock, the ideal embodiment of what a successful affiliate guy was meant to be. But his true character emerged as he learned about his medical issues and dealt with his problems. Brave and hopeful.
When I last saw him at a cable show, after he had bounced back and hoped to be in remission, he maintained a headstrong attitude that he was going to beat this thing. Outwardly he may have looked weak and tired, but inside he had a resolve and will that could not be missed.
His family has lost a good man; the cable industry has lost someone that made a lasting impact on everyone he touched. I am proud to have know Chris; I wish I had known him better for he made me a better cable guy in trying to match his energy and work ethic. With his death, the world is worse off.
When I last saw him at a cable show, after he had bounced back and hoped to be in remission, he maintained a headstrong attitude that he was going to beat this thing. Outwardly he may have looked weak and tired, but inside he had a resolve and will that could not be missed.
His family has lost a good man; the cable industry has lost someone that made a lasting impact on everyone he touched. I am proud to have know Chris; I wish I had known him better for he made me a better cable guy in trying to match his energy and work ethic. With his death, the world is worse off.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Nook With Light Costs How Much More?
The latest tech news has Barnes & Noble's Nook updated with an internal light to read in the dark. And the cost for this added feature is an incremental $40. WHAT? No outrage, no laughter. Now I am a big fan of B&N; I love their bookstores and my wife owns a Nook. Unfortunately, she has gotten so angry with it unable to keep a charge for longer than a few days, even with the wireless off, that she has gone back to print. Still, I believe it is a terrific device, yet I am moving toward the iPad and Nook app as opposed to an e-reader.
To read that the update model with internal light is priced a whopping $40 bucks more, especially as the non-light devices are even being given away with new newspaper subscriptions, makes me wonder if B&N has thought their pricing strategy through thoroughly. No other changes to the model, no bigger battery, no new screen clarity, just $40 more for a light. Given our current issues with battery life, a light must lead to more drainage of the battery and an even shorter life per charge.
Will customers flock to the new light emitting device or simply add a clip on light to their device for less than $10? I think the price point is problematic and I think it will either get people to buy up to the tablet or back down to the basic. This Nook goes on sale next month so we can only wait and see if there is actual customer demand or not.
To read that the update model with internal light is priced a whopping $40 bucks more, especially as the non-light devices are even being given away with new newspaper subscriptions, makes me wonder if B&N has thought their pricing strategy through thoroughly. No other changes to the model, no bigger battery, no new screen clarity, just $40 more for a light. Given our current issues with battery life, a light must lead to more drainage of the battery and an even shorter life per charge.
Will customers flock to the new light emitting device or simply add a clip on light to their device for less than $10? I think the price point is problematic and I think it will either get people to buy up to the tablet or back down to the basic. This Nook goes on sale next month so we can only wait and see if there is actual customer demand or not.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Digital Growth Driving Media Spending
It seems that digital pennies are becoming digital dollars. The pace of digital spending continues to grow and there are more opportunities than ever before for media to target efficient audiences and effective reach. And this annual growth is huge. "The fastest growth by far is in Consumer Internet & Mobile Services, tipped to swell 18.1% in 2012." Certainly the pace is poised to accelerate as other segments embrace the web. Print publications, newspapers, magazines, and books, are pushing more consumers to the tablets and computers.
In fact, David Pogue's article in The New York Times discusses plans for the five big magazine publishers to come together for a buffet of digital magazines that consumers can receive for a low monthly price. While the price point, $120 - $180/year, doesn't yet sound attractive enough for consumers to purchase, it will initially reach the early adopter and heavy users of multiple magazines as they test the price elasticity for their mags. It is a good start.
Consumers are becoming more and more accustomed to paying for digital content, whether it is music or e-books, movies, newspapers, and magazines. As advertising has been everywhere, consumers are not even surprised when it invades devices like our mobile phones. Whether we have become so overwhelmed by the number of messages flying at us that we ignore 95% or more of them is a topic for another day. How marketing messages break through the clutter to gain are attention becomes the challenge for today's marketer. But as the article forecasts, dollars are being spent.
In fact, David Pogue's article in The New York Times discusses plans for the five big magazine publishers to come together for a buffet of digital magazines that consumers can receive for a low monthly price. While the price point, $120 - $180/year, doesn't yet sound attractive enough for consumers to purchase, it will initially reach the early adopter and heavy users of multiple magazines as they test the price elasticity for their mags. It is a good start.
Consumers are becoming more and more accustomed to paying for digital content, whether it is music or e-books, movies, newspapers, and magazines. As advertising has been everywhere, consumers are not even surprised when it invades devices like our mobile phones. Whether we have become so overwhelmed by the number of messages flying at us that we ignore 95% or more of them is a topic for another day. How marketing messages break through the clutter to gain are attention becomes the challenge for today's marketer. But as the article forecasts, dollars are being spent.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Facebook Should Keep Buying Companies
Terrific article in today's Wall Street Journal posing the question in its headline, What Facebook Should Buy Next. Company acquisitions, both for the acquiring company and the one being acquired, requires great work to integrate and grow. Different cultures, different core missions, different executives all trying to blend together into a new union with a common goal. Some acquisitions are successful; others like Fox's acquisition of My Space, prove disastrous.
Google is figuring out what they need to do with their acquisition of Motorola Mobility. The former is a search engine and open software company, the later a hardware manufacturer. Time will tell whether a blended company will work or if Google will sell off the pieces that don't matter to their business. Facebook will now take on Instagram; but the question posed for Facebook is what else should they being doing to grow.
I love the direction that the author is taking. If content is king and if Facebook has rich data on users, the next piece is the content to drive the advertising engine. "Facebook should buy ABC, CBS and NBC. It should buy the New York Times website and the satellite radio broadcaster Sirius XM. It should buy a stake in Microsoft's search engine Bing. It should buy Pandora, Spotify, Hulu and any other digital platform where Facebook can follow users and hit them with targeted ads using their Facebook data without it seeming like Facebook is doing it." Add to that any number of large cable networks too; the end result is that owning the content with the social engine of Facebook could be a boon to advertisers.
The question is can Facebook do more with their data by owning content then they do now as a third party linking to all content across all platforms. Does ownership imply that their are other hurdles that could be best managed when linked together by common management? If it takes ownership of a content brand to unlock that value, then it sounds like a good investment. But if it can't be better quantified, than perhaps the current relationship just needs to be further tweaked and improved to unlock that consumer information to the content they consume, owned or not by Facebook.
Google is figuring out what they need to do with their acquisition of Motorola Mobility. The former is a search engine and open software company, the later a hardware manufacturer. Time will tell whether a blended company will work or if Google will sell off the pieces that don't matter to their business. Facebook will now take on Instagram; but the question posed for Facebook is what else should they being doing to grow.
I love the direction that the author is taking. If content is king and if Facebook has rich data on users, the next piece is the content to drive the advertising engine. "Facebook should buy ABC, CBS and NBC. It should buy the New York Times website and the satellite radio broadcaster Sirius XM. It should buy a stake in Microsoft's search engine Bing. It should buy Pandora, Spotify, Hulu and any other digital platform where Facebook can follow users and hit them with targeted ads using their Facebook data without it seeming like Facebook is doing it." Add to that any number of large cable networks too; the end result is that owning the content with the social engine of Facebook could be a boon to advertisers.
The question is can Facebook do more with their data by owning content then they do now as a third party linking to all content across all platforms. Does ownership imply that their are other hurdles that could be best managed when linked together by common management? If it takes ownership of a content brand to unlock that value, then it sounds like a good investment. But if it can't be better quantified, than perhaps the current relationship just needs to be further tweaked and improved to unlock that consumer information to the content they consume, owned or not by Facebook.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Cable Pricing Itself Out Of The Consumers' Budget
The rising cost of cable programming, especially sports networks, may be to blame for the high cost of cable subscriptions and the drop in consumer purchases. According to NPD Group, cable monthly fees have risen on average 6% annually while consumer income has remained flat. "The dramatically rising cost of pay TV could lead to more consumers cancelling service in favor of more affordable over-the-top video services and free-to-air broadcast, NPD said."
Certainly consumers have sought ways to lower their costs, from downgrading services and switching to lower cost providers. At the same time, ask a consumer which cable service they couldn't do without and it would be broadband. Consumers may drop their cable service for broadband only and take advantage of over the top programming through web based devices. Cable operators may be watching their business model change from pushing cable programming to pushing wire and wireless connectivity. With profit margins favoring broadband subscriptions, a gained broadband subscriber can more than offset the loss of a cable subscriber.
Certainly consumers have sought ways to lower their costs, from downgrading services and switching to lower cost providers. At the same time, ask a consumer which cable service they couldn't do without and it would be broadband. Consumers may drop their cable service for broadband only and take advantage of over the top programming through web based devices. Cable operators may be watching their business model change from pushing cable programming to pushing wire and wireless connectivity. With profit margins favoring broadband subscriptions, a gained broadband subscriber can more than offset the loss of a cable subscriber.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Xbox and MLB.TV Don't Go Well Together
I have a beef so I will use today's blog to complain about Xbox and MLB.TV. First Xbox, while it is technically my box, it was bought from my credit card, it was a gift for my son. But the result of being honest and putting his true birthdate on the account has been more problematic than helpful. Microsoft and their Xbox machine may think that they are preventing underage usage of certain apps and games, but it only works to prevent all from enjoying the full capabilities of the machine. And according to Microsoft, birth date once entered can never be altered.
Some may argue that it provides security from buying or playing certain games. That is not true. Those in the know all ready know to not use a true birth date; honest folks only learn later that they have lost their own parental right to determine what their child can or cannot play. Game Stop asks me each time my son wants to buy a Mature game if I approve; Microsoft does not. And it is my credit card info and my password that should enable me to allow or not allow any online download.
So my recent hassle with Xbox concerned our MLB.TV subscription. I can play my baseball games on the iPad but to play them on the Xbox was not nearly as easy. It seems that my son's birthdate has once again stopped us from enjoying content. You see, no one under the age of 18 can have an MLB subscription on Xbox. My MLB subscription, my son's LIVE Xbox subscription don't match. Who knew that baseball games were now considered "for mature audiences only". And so, we were back to watching the baseball game on the iPad and disappointed that the Xbox MLB TV app would not function properly.
So my advice to all parents buying a Xbox for their child; use your birthdate not your childs. Make them 40 and then you can be the one to ultimately decide what you want them to play and watch on their Xbox account. And I am left trying to teach my son not to lie, except to Xbox.
Some may argue that it provides security from buying or playing certain games. That is not true. Those in the know all ready know to not use a true birth date; honest folks only learn later that they have lost their own parental right to determine what their child can or cannot play. Game Stop asks me each time my son wants to buy a Mature game if I approve; Microsoft does not. And it is my credit card info and my password that should enable me to allow or not allow any online download.
So my recent hassle with Xbox concerned our MLB.TV subscription. I can play my baseball games on the iPad but to play them on the Xbox was not nearly as easy. It seems that my son's birthdate has once again stopped us from enjoying content. You see, no one under the age of 18 can have an MLB subscription on Xbox. My MLB subscription, my son's LIVE Xbox subscription don't match. Who knew that baseball games were now considered "for mature audiences only". And so, we were back to watching the baseball game on the iPad and disappointed that the Xbox MLB TV app would not function properly.
So my advice to all parents buying a Xbox for their child; use your birthdate not your childs. Make them 40 and then you can be the one to ultimately decide what you want them to play and watch on their Xbox account. And I am left trying to teach my son not to lie, except to Xbox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
