It seems that NBC recognizes the key to survival of linear television is live programming. Credit sports, award shows, and now for NBC, Broadway musicals on television. With the success of The Sound Of Music last December, NBC has announced its second live production, Peter Pan.
Certainly casting will drive the buzz worthiness. For Sound it was Carrie Underwood vs Julie Andrews; and for Peter Pan, the question will be who will play the role made notable by Mary Martin. Viewers still willing to make appointment television, will enjoy these programming choices. Peter Pan may not have the same fan base as Sound of Music, but it certainly has the name recognition. Should this strategy prove another ratings hit, other Broadcast and Cable networks may soon try to overload us with this same approach. And sometimes too much of a good thing is too much.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
There Is Nothing Like TV (Set)
Let's face it, despite the rise of tablets, smartphones, and laptops, we still like to watch out TVs. There is nothing like a big screen HDTV to watch a movie, sporting event, or any number of TV shows. But we must also separate where that content is coming from. No longer is it being driven by antenna or cable operators directly into our TV set; instead, options have multiplied as more and more devices sync with our big screen monitor. We have Roku, Apple TV, and gaming devices like XBox One and PS4, connecting video content to the set; We have Chromecast, Blu-ray players, and more all with streaming media capabilities. And the choice of viewing is almost unlimited.
More amazing, we also have choice when deciding whether to watch our shows on the big screen or our personal handheld devices. TV Everywhere continues to make progress so that our linear networks are viewable where we are and not just on the TV. Still, my original premise holds. When we plan to be sedentary for a while, there is nothing like the size, sound, and detail coming from a big screen HDTV monitor and surround sound speakers that makes all the difference in the world.
Should Apple make an HDTV to compete in the space with Samsung and others? Many expect a smart, internet enabled, HDTV, to be announced this year. But my recommendation. If Apple must build a screen, make it a dumb monitor and put all the connectivity into its Apple TV box. Its already built and besides, Apple is building so many different size screens for its iPad and iPhone, why not build a 55" screen for the living room.
More amazing, we also have choice when deciding whether to watch our shows on the big screen or our personal handheld devices. TV Everywhere continues to make progress so that our linear networks are viewable where we are and not just on the TV. Still, my original premise holds. When we plan to be sedentary for a while, there is nothing like the size, sound, and detail coming from a big screen HDTV monitor and surround sound speakers that makes all the difference in the world.
Should Apple make an HDTV to compete in the space with Samsung and others? Many expect a smart, internet enabled, HDTV, to be announced this year. But my recommendation. If Apple must build a screen, make it a dumb monitor and put all the connectivity into its Apple TV box. Its already built and besides, Apple is building so many different size screens for its iPad and iPhone, why not build a 55" screen for the living room.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Broadband Could Bundle Like Cable
The loss of net neutrality has many folks fearing that equal access to content will no longer be equal. Where the FCC tried to ensure that all content was treated equally regardless of its size, the recent US Court order has opened Pandora's Box to new concerns including higher costs to access higher speeds and bundling of content online. And ultimately, that consumers will pay more to access content.
Critics of the new ruling believe that now ISP companies, the ones providing broadband service to your home, will charge content companies more to get HOV access and faster speeds. More established and richer content platforms, can afford to pay up, but they might also need to raise their subscription fees to recoup those added costs.
ISPs, like Comcast and Time Warner, could also start charging consumers more usage fees and bundle content to customers that want to receive faster streams. "The cheapest, fastest bundles will probably include the sites that pay ISPs the most -- most likely the big boys, including Amazon and Netflix. Another possibility is that ISPs could bundle popular sites with less-popular ones that are willing to pay. If you pay for a Netflix bundle, for example, you may be forced to use the Bing search engine." Good for the more established brands, but bad for new platforms and its content trying to get discovered and viewed. It starts to look eerily reminiscent of today's cable packaging plans.
And while the internet is not a utility, it certainly has become useful for utilitarian purposes from communication to information. "Access to unrestricted news will become a luxury reserved only for those who can pay more to their providers." Schools and libraries could become the best meeting places for the less fortunate to access high speed internet.
Of course, all this pontificating doesn't take into account how consumers and the government react to any detrimental shifts. We can be sure that new disruptive technologies will also emerge to quickly change the landscape, from new ideas to reduce file loads to new entrants in the ISP space and new technologies that make the current internet look like a dinosaur. The media landscape continues to evolve at a faster and faster pace and no doubt, the end of net neutrality may simply be the opportunity for new doors to open.
Critics of the new ruling believe that now ISP companies, the ones providing broadband service to your home, will charge content companies more to get HOV access and faster speeds. More established and richer content platforms, can afford to pay up, but they might also need to raise their subscription fees to recoup those added costs.
ISPs, like Comcast and Time Warner, could also start charging consumers more usage fees and bundle content to customers that want to receive faster streams. "The cheapest, fastest bundles will probably include the sites that pay ISPs the most -- most likely the big boys, including Amazon and Netflix. Another possibility is that ISPs could bundle popular sites with less-popular ones that are willing to pay. If you pay for a Netflix bundle, for example, you may be forced to use the Bing search engine." Good for the more established brands, but bad for new platforms and its content trying to get discovered and viewed. It starts to look eerily reminiscent of today's cable packaging plans.
And while the internet is not a utility, it certainly has become useful for utilitarian purposes from communication to information. "Access to unrestricted news will become a luxury reserved only for those who can pay more to their providers." Schools and libraries could become the best meeting places for the less fortunate to access high speed internet.
Of course, all this pontificating doesn't take into account how consumers and the government react to any detrimental shifts. We can be sure that new disruptive technologies will also emerge to quickly change the landscape, from new ideas to reduce file loads to new entrants in the ISP space and new technologies that make the current internet look like a dinosaur. The media landscape continues to evolve at a faster and faster pace and no doubt, the end of net neutrality may simply be the opportunity for new doors to open.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
The Court Enables ISPs To Run HOV Lanes
In what has been described as a blow to net neutrality, the US Court has pushed aside FCC efforts to keep the internet stream open and equal to all. Instead, they are allowed to operate HOV lanes and charge premium pricing for access. That means that broadband providers like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and others can pursue deals with high usage content distributors like Netflix, Amazon and others for faster streams at higher prices. In addition, "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit broadband and mobile service providers from selectively blocking or slowing
Web traffic and applications."
For companies willing to pay it means more costs to distribute and for broadband providers, it means a new revenue stream. And for the consumer, it ultimately means higher costs for content and some difficulty in getting content from outlier platforms. If Netflix needs to pay more for distribution, they need to charge consumers a higher subscription fee to recoup those losses. Consumers will find content that didn't pay for HOV access slowed down in getting their streams to our respective devices.
Why did the courts rule this way? It is because they do not see the web as a utility like gas, electric, or water. It is not a basic right regardless of how pervasive it has become for communication purposes. And the laws of our free economy best operate under supply and demand. As long as it does not operate under monopolistic conditions, government shouldn't interfere. And like a free economy, the rules of disruptive technology should also apply. Technological innovation to improve streaming, deliver alternative solutions, and improve our lives. By not setting net neutrality rules, the US Court may just be inviting new broadband opportunities to emerge.
For companies willing to pay it means more costs to distribute and for broadband providers, it means a new revenue stream. And for the consumer, it ultimately means higher costs for content and some difficulty in getting content from outlier platforms. If Netflix needs to pay more for distribution, they need to charge consumers a higher subscription fee to recoup those losses. Consumers will find content that didn't pay for HOV access slowed down in getting their streams to our respective devices.
Why did the courts rule this way? It is because they do not see the web as a utility like gas, electric, or water. It is not a basic right regardless of how pervasive it has become for communication purposes. And the laws of our free economy best operate under supply and demand. As long as it does not operate under monopolistic conditions, government shouldn't interfere. And like a free economy, the rules of disruptive technology should also apply. Technological innovation to improve streaming, deliver alternative solutions, and improve our lives. By not setting net neutrality rules, the US Court may just be inviting new broadband opportunities to emerge.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Charter Cable Talks, DirecTv Balks
A busy 24 hours in media and distribution as Charter Cable finally pulls the trigger and makes a formal bid for Time Warner Cable; at the same time, negotiations for contract renewal collapses between DirecTv and The Weather Channel and so the network is dropped from its lineup. And yet neither of these occurrences should come as a surprise to anyone.
For Charter and Time Warner Cable (TWC), discussions have been ongoing and the question became just how much would Charter bid. The current offer matches the current stock price and does little to impress TWC management. So next step, Charter plans to take it directly to the shareholders and demonstrate that a combined entity will deliver better earnings, higher profits, and a better investment. And more leverage to negotiating license fees with cable networks.
Which brings me to the latest cable operator balking out what are likely higher license fees for carriage of The Weather Channel. Certainly its license fees are not exceptionally high, especially compared to sports and other top 10 cable networks; still, weather content can be found quickly and easily online. When weather doesn't affect our lives, Weather Channel programming tends toward reality type programming; but, when the big storms hit, weather fans love to watch the network and embrace the rising tides, high winds, snow flakes, and more.
But then again, it seems, so does every other news oriented network, from CNN to MSNBC to Fox plus all the broadcast affiliates. Weather reporting is everywhere. In fact, cable networks have all left their core niche arena to be general entertainment for all, from news and weather, to reality programming and broad based entertainment. So DirecTv must believe that their customers will not suffer greatly as they have other networks to fill the void. Plus any cost savings helps DirecTv to keep its subscription fees from rising.
The Weather Channel may be feeling the heat, but so have other networks struggling to get or keep on cable line-ups. And with more consolidation potentially in cable, a TWC-Charter merger lets them negotiate even more tightly in what channels stay on their merged line-ups and which channels may face the ax.
For Charter and Time Warner Cable (TWC), discussions have been ongoing and the question became just how much would Charter bid. The current offer matches the current stock price and does little to impress TWC management. So next step, Charter plans to take it directly to the shareholders and demonstrate that a combined entity will deliver better earnings, higher profits, and a better investment. And more leverage to negotiating license fees with cable networks.
Which brings me to the latest cable operator balking out what are likely higher license fees for carriage of The Weather Channel. Certainly its license fees are not exceptionally high, especially compared to sports and other top 10 cable networks; still, weather content can be found quickly and easily online. When weather doesn't affect our lives, Weather Channel programming tends toward reality type programming; but, when the big storms hit, weather fans love to watch the network and embrace the rising tides, high winds, snow flakes, and more.
But then again, it seems, so does every other news oriented network, from CNN to MSNBC to Fox plus all the broadcast affiliates. Weather reporting is everywhere. In fact, cable networks have all left their core niche arena to be general entertainment for all, from news and weather, to reality programming and broad based entertainment. So DirecTv must believe that their customers will not suffer greatly as they have other networks to fill the void. Plus any cost savings helps DirecTv to keep its subscription fees from rising.
The Weather Channel may be feeling the heat, but so have other networks struggling to get or keep on cable line-ups. And with more consolidation potentially in cable, a TWC-Charter merger lets them negotiate even more tightly in what channels stay on their merged line-ups and which channels may face the ax.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Apple's iPad Air Ad Takes New Tact
If your were watching the football games this weekend or The Golden Globes, you may have also watched the latest Apple ad for the iPad Air. If not, here it is:
I have to first admit that when I initially saw it, I did not think it was an Apple branded ad. Its style and context were a complete departure from their other ads. But the more I watch it and think about it, the more it reminds me of their first ever ad, "1984", one that separated itself from the pack. And with this newest ad, I believe they have achieved the same result. Forbes says it well, "The company wants to show off why people love and use its products. They may be metal, glass and silicon, but what you’re buying is experience. It couldn’t be more removed from most everything the competition is doing." But it also places the iPad in the hands of artists, risk takers, and professionals, and makes the product an essential element of the process. And one thing it doesn't say is that you buy it for its lowest price, claims made by Apple competitors. No, the iPad is meant for more meaningful accomplishments, whether conducting a marching bands routines, taking or creating pictures, or discovering new species. And this newest ad campaign takes the user on this new journey.
-->
I have to first admit that when I initially saw it, I did not think it was an Apple branded ad. Its style and context were a complete departure from their other ads. But the more I watch it and think about it, the more it reminds me of their first ever ad, "1984", one that separated itself from the pack. And with this newest ad, I believe they have achieved the same result. Forbes says it well, "The company wants to show off why people love and use its products. They may be metal, glass and silicon, but what you’re buying is experience. It couldn’t be more removed from most everything the competition is doing." But it also places the iPad in the hands of artists, risk takers, and professionals, and makes the product an essential element of the process. And one thing it doesn't say is that you buy it for its lowest price, claims made by Apple competitors. No, the iPad is meant for more meaningful accomplishments, whether conducting a marching bands routines, taking or creating pictures, or discovering new species. And this newest ad campaign takes the user on this new journey.
-->
Friday, January 10, 2014
Broadcasters And Aereo Get The Attention Of The Supreme Court
Given the new round of funding that Aereo is getting, along with an aggressive rollout plan, the genie may already be out of the bottle. Still, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to listen to the broadcasters case and decide the validity of the Aereo business. Of course the earliest the case will begin is April which gives Aereo another quarter to advance its OTT platform.
And should the Supreme Court deliver a ruling for or against the broadcasters' motion, I don't expect a massive change in the current license fee structure. If Aereo wins, consumers still need a strong broadband connection to receive the signals. And Aereo might still want to make deals with broadcasters and cable networks to get local advertising inventory. And cable operators will continue to pay broadcasters a license fee given the expense to build out antenna farms. If Aereo loses, broadcasters will still come up with streaming models to deliver linear feeds of their channels, working with cable operators on an authentication process.
So let the legal fees add up, the genie is already out of the bottle.
And should the Supreme Court deliver a ruling for or against the broadcasters' motion, I don't expect a massive change in the current license fee structure. If Aereo wins, consumers still need a strong broadband connection to receive the signals. And Aereo might still want to make deals with broadcasters and cable networks to get local advertising inventory. And cable operators will continue to pay broadcasters a license fee given the expense to build out antenna farms. If Aereo loses, broadcasters will still come up with streaming models to deliver linear feeds of their channels, working with cable operators on an authentication process.
So let the legal fees add up, the genie is already out of the bottle.
I've Become A Second Screen User
I must admit that lately, with certain television programming, my iPad is part of my experience with the TV show. And a recent study out of CES indicates that I am not alone. "About 44 percent of Americans utilize another device while watching television". Now I must also admit that my second screen doesn't always relate to what is on the big screen.
For lots of programming, you might catch me playing an iPad game while sneaking peaks at the TV and listening for major plot changes. And yes, some times I am forced to pause and rewind. But I also admit that I have used my iPad for additional information related to the programming I am watching. When watching a movie, I sometimes find myself going to IMDB to get more detail on the cast or what else that actor has been in; when watching football, I keep an eye on the CBS Scores for more detail on yards gained by the running back or pass completions. And they add related Twitter commentary attached to the game I am watching, to share my frustration and/or joy of the results on the field. I must also admit with award shows coming, it is fun to read the Twitter feed for the snarky comments associated with the programming and the stars being feted.
As a society, we have become much more multi-taskers in our day. The result is a lost focus at times but we also gain incremental information that was once not available before. I think for high involvement programming, the second screen may cause us to miss key plot points or plays on the field, but technology also lets us rewind and pause as long as others in the room don't mind. Are there incremental revenue opportunities from the second screen, I'm not sure. But if it delivers loyalty to those apps, we may eventually register the other marketing messages that are presented to us. In the meantime, the use of the second screen will only continue to grow.
For lots of programming, you might catch me playing an iPad game while sneaking peaks at the TV and listening for major plot changes. And yes, some times I am forced to pause and rewind. But I also admit that I have used my iPad for additional information related to the programming I am watching. When watching a movie, I sometimes find myself going to IMDB to get more detail on the cast or what else that actor has been in; when watching football, I keep an eye on the CBS Scores for more detail on yards gained by the running back or pass completions. And they add related Twitter commentary attached to the game I am watching, to share my frustration and/or joy of the results on the field. I must also admit with award shows coming, it is fun to read the Twitter feed for the snarky comments associated with the programming and the stars being feted.
As a society, we have become much more multi-taskers in our day. The result is a lost focus at times but we also gain incremental information that was once not available before. I think for high involvement programming, the second screen may cause us to miss key plot points or plays on the field, but technology also lets us rewind and pause as long as others in the room don't mind. Are there incremental revenue opportunities from the second screen, I'm not sure. But if it delivers loyalty to those apps, we may eventually register the other marketing messages that are presented to us. In the meantime, the use of the second screen will only continue to grow.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Cable Network Bypassing Cable Operators For OTT
While Comcast says it saw a small increase in basic subscription, Time Warner Cable reported a Q4 drop of 250 million households. Cord cutting might be slowing down, but no one doubts that it is still occurring in households tired of paying for channels they don't want. That hurts new and independent cable networks unable to gain any foothold on a cable line-up. And for the WWE, a decision it seems to bypass the cable operator to offer its brand new linear network as an ala carte service to consumers through streaming platforms.
"The WWE Network launches Feb. 24 as a streaming service for $9.99 per month with a six-month commitment and will include all 12 pay-per-view events." Cable operators will certainly not like competition for eyeballs to Summer Slam and other monthly event based programming and could retaliate. Cable networks like USA that carry weekly WWE programming could also decide to stop airing these shows although that also seems unlikely. So the WWE sees tremendous upside in offering a streaming linear network to augment its media empire and ultimately reach the younger demo that has been embracing streaming video content. Will they see the value in a $10 monthly service for just one channel? Hardcore fans that also buy multiple PPV fights will find this to be a better deal. I also wouldn't be surprised that it could be a better financial deal for WWE to stream rather than split revenue with each of the cable operators for its monthly fights.
For WWE, the offer of the PPV fights included with the streaming linear subscription model could just be the tactic that assures that they surpass their breakeven level. And other programmers who have been unable to grow their subscriber base through the cable operator model may look toward the WWE model to help create their own winning streaming linear and on demand subscription service, too.
"The WWE Network launches Feb. 24 as a streaming service for $9.99 per month with a six-month commitment and will include all 12 pay-per-view events." Cable operators will certainly not like competition for eyeballs to Summer Slam and other monthly event based programming and could retaliate. Cable networks like USA that carry weekly WWE programming could also decide to stop airing these shows although that also seems unlikely. So the WWE sees tremendous upside in offering a streaming linear network to augment its media empire and ultimately reach the younger demo that has been embracing streaming video content. Will they see the value in a $10 monthly service for just one channel? Hardcore fans that also buy multiple PPV fights will find this to be a better deal. I also wouldn't be surprised that it could be a better financial deal for WWE to stream rather than split revenue with each of the cable operators for its monthly fights.
For WWE, the offer of the PPV fights included with the streaming linear subscription model could just be the tactic that assures that they surpass their breakeven level. And other programmers who have been unable to grow their subscriber base through the cable operator model may look toward the WWE model to help create their own winning streaming linear and on demand subscription service, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
