Scotty, We Need More Power

The Internet Of Things, Connectivity, Accessibility, and Always On are the buzzwords we hear these days as our smartphones and tablets and other online devices are discussed.  But what runs all these devices, heck, what runs Tesla cars and other cars that Apple and Google and others may be developing, are batteries.  The power from these charged devices let us move, connect, share, and do so many more things.  All good until the power runs out. I mean how many times has your smart phone used up all its battery before the day was over?

How far can a Tesla drive on a single charge, how long will an Apple Watch last before it needs to be plugged back in.  We are constantly seeking cords and outlets to keep our smartphones and tablets charged, hoping that they will last the full day (and perhaps longer) before running on empty.  But as we look to connect more and more devices without being constantly plugged in, we put a lot of faith in our batteries to maintain and run without failing us before we are done with them.

What seems to be needed is a quantum leap in battery capacity and perhaps even the ability to recharge without being physically plugged in.  Can outdoor usage with solar and wind help new electric cars to maintain or even add power to the existing battery?  Can the concept of kinetic movement help a smartwatch or smartphone to wind itself and power the internal battery?  Or is there possibilities from organic matter that creates generation of power?  Along the way we hear Apple, Samsung, Google, and others focusing on the batteries that inhabit all of our devices to take us to the next generation of power and capacity.  It seems to me to be the next great innovation that we need to support our reliance on being constantly connected.  Until then, we will continue to search for charging stations, power cords with the right ends, and of course electrical outlets to keep our devices charged and ready. 

TV Trying To Hasten Its Death

It seems to me that television wants to quicken its demise.  Both higher subscription fees and an increase in advertising spots only pushes viewers to seek alternatives.  The more you push us, the faster we leave.  And rather than learn from its mistakes and seek ways to pull us back in, cable television prefers to drive another stake into its own coffin.

The latest effort was unearthed earlier this week in The Wall Street Journal.  According to WSJ, "As they contend with steep ratings declines, many top cable networks are jamming more ads into programming to meet audience guarantees made to advertisers and prop up revenue despite falling ad prices." How they do it is by speeding up shows and movies and cutting extraneous seconds from programming.  With every :30 seconds or so you can produce, another ad gets sold. 

Frankly, it is not so innovative; networks have been doing this for a while.  Just try watching the end credits to see just how fast they can scroll down the page.  Need to squeeze more time out of a show, just watch how the opening of one show starts even before the prior show has finished.  At some point, you can expect that networks will get rid of credits all together.  So how can viewers watch shows the way they were created?  Subscribers can watch seasons of syndicated and new shows on Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and elsewhere without any of this gimmickry. 

Why too are networks measuring current TV viewership beyond same day to encompass +3 or +7?  The push to increase ad load leads to current cable subscribers to DVR or TiVo content that can later be watched while fast forwarding through the commercials.  With ads accounting for 12 minutes or more of every half hour program, TV watchers can more efficiently watch their shows without this dreadful overload.

Bottom line, the cable networks are watching ratings decline as viewers are fleeing their television set.  Revenue is trying to be maintained by increasing rates to advertisers and pushing more ads into shows.  But this short term strategy is only hastening television's erosion.  Certainly content will flourish on other distribution platforms as television keeps pushing viewers away. 

Synergy Not Working For Sony

Synergy, once the buzzword for management, now seems to be a dirty word.  We've watched as companies like Time Warner have separated itself into separate pieces, Time Warner Cable, Time, Inc. and Time Warner (HBO, Turner), because synergy stopped working.  Perhaps it is because as companies got too big, they found it nearly impossible to adapt and change to changing market conditions.  The analogy has always been to ships; big ships need tons of room and time to turn while small ships are much quicker and more nimble.

That same problem has affected Sony and unable to create synergy and growth across its many different business units, they have also chosen to separate its pieces.  According to EE Times, "Sony continues apace in the process of ditching practically all of its electronics business units — PC (gone last year), TV (already a separate company), and audio and video business (scheduled be split off in October)."  What seems to be left is Playstation.  Sony, we won't recognize you anymore.

So what went wrong?  Why did synergy stop working at these companies?  Why can't hardware and software coincide?  Is it safe to say that technology is changing so rapidly and that coupled with typical human nature, preservation over sharing, business units were hard pressed to support each other, worrying instead that they would make themselves obsolete.  I believe that the creation of vertical business units that are rigidly structured to limit movement across these shafts creates an "us against them"mentality that drives destruction instead of cooperation.

The other driver might be the financial markets themselves.  Seeking to drive value for investors, hedge funds and activists pursue spin offs of assets as a means in the short run to unlock the value of business units.  Where synergy once create a 1+ 1 = 3 world, today that formula no longer proves true.  A new management philosophy might be needed to make synergy work better in future business models. 

Can Cable Television Survive The Rise Of Web Networks?

Two separate stories are tied together by the growing usage of broadband spectrum. First comes from the NY Times where Lloyd Braun's media company, Whalerock Industries is introducing a number of web networks, including Kim Kardashian and Howard Stern. According to the article, "These channels, set to arrive in the coming months and available via the web and mobile app, will offer a mix of paid and free programming". It is the rise of these a la carte online subscription services that has been the bane of cable subscribers forced to buy bundles of cable networks that they don't want.

And that leads to the second article from Broadcasting & Cable where analyst Craig Moffett tells us that his firm "has downgrade Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications to Neutral, warning investors that it's time to reduce their exposure to the cable business." Partly due to worries from increased FCC regulation, but also because of the increased competition on the broadband platform."

The television industry, once classified as broadcast, then to encompass cable, now is redefined again to embrace programming off cable from Netflix, Amazon Prime, and perhaps in the coming years from companies like Whalerock.  The millenial audience is already embracing the stars of You Tube and elsewhere.  But that next audience, 12-18, who I have heard described as Generation Edge, who are growing up with a preference for their mobile device, smartphone or tablet, over the traditional television set. 

Will they pay for a la carte web channels?  Glenn Beck seems to have found a big enough audience willing to pay for his channel.  MLB gets paying subscribers for live baseball games, too.  I guess the question is how many of these web networks can survive and how many need a broadband aggregator service like Sling TV to derive value from smaller, but more meaningful bundles.  Cable may need to rework its subscriber packaging formula to best compete.  Regardless, there will be some cord cutting, the question for the analysts and all these companies is how much. 

Could Net Neutrality Regulation Hurt Innovation?

As the FCC ponders enacting tough new laws on equal access to the internet, many wonder if government interference and tight regulations will instead choke the technology and limit growth.  Many look at other utility companies and the effect regulation has had to stifle innovation.  There are arguments on both sides depending on who benefits from FCC involvement.  Still, one hates to see a free economy hampered when government controls the business decisions surrounding the internet's development and evolving growth.

Is the current internet broken that net neutrality laws are necessary to fix?  Or can competition from wire and wireless providers create a better industry to drive innovation and growth.  While the current industry may be deemed too much an oligopoly, the FCC might better spend its time enabling companies to invest in alternative infrastructures.  Google, for one, is slowly building alternative internet pipelines in certain markets.  Opening new spectrum for wireless internet is another opportunity to enhance market competition.  Push tax benefits for those companies that make investments that improve the accessibility and reliability of networks. 

Laws and regulations that restrict do little to drive growth in the marketplace.  Time and time again we have seen our public utilities challenged with a heavy government hand that slows decision making to a crawl and limits the ability to upgrade and support new technological improvement.  More should be done to propel our internet infrastructure to 21st century standards, but regulation does not seem to be the right move. 

Is Programmatic Advertising Killing Sales Jobs?

There is no doubt speed, effectiveness, and efficiency with technology that makes programmatic advertising a win for buyers and sellers of media.  Programmatic has been the buzz word of late, which fairly simply automates the purchasing and trafficking of advertising into available spots.  It is most connected to the digital world but continues to creep into traditional television advertising models.  In essence it removes human interaction from the equation and it is a disruptive technology.  

As a result of all this automation, media companies are able to cut back on employees.  In fact, AOL announced a couple weeks ago, ahead of its quarterly earnings, that it was laying off "150 employees Friday, or 3% of its staff.  The bulk of the layoffs, or close to 100, were in sales, a result of the company's surging growth in so-called programmatic ad sales, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation who was not authorized to speak on the record", according to USA Today.

AOL is not alone in these efforts and this is not the first time that technology has replaced labor.  Look no further then the assembly line that once required huge numbers of factory workers and now can be done with machines.  But it is a first for media, that less ad sales people are needed to drive the revenue for the business.  Will it replace humans completely, the answer is obviously no.  The key differentiater is creativity and the ability to develop innovative advertising programs that ad buyers want.  Content partnership, product integration, and cross marketing integration still requires the human touch.  But buying and placing a digital ad or 30 second commercial can more easily and efficiently be done without the hard sell or human negotiation.

The key success behind programmatic advertising seems to be the research that lives across all the data and the ability to decipher it in meaningful ways to best choose which media and in what combination makes for the best campaign.  And post advertising, the proof will be in the results the campaign generates.  Who is engaging with the content, when are they consuming, why are they interested can now all be captured digitally.  And that information, across set top boxes, web platforms, credit card information, and more are being absorbed, analyzed, and released.  Ask the right questions and your ad can reach exactly the type of person you seek to create engagement with.  And with hopefully a higher percentage that you are reaching only those likely to be interested in the first place.  Bottom line, successful financial results means that programmatic ad buying will then become the new norm. 

Target Ticket Follows Redbox Instant To Close

Building a streaming aggregator is not an easy task.  It takes content deals, it takes customers, and it takes a solid infrastructure to manage the end to end delivery.  It doesn't take much for it to go wrong.  And it takes a sound strategy and firm execution to be successful.  Netflix and Amazon Instant have easily become the standouts of success.

Sling TV has just launched and word is that they are facing some difficult technological issues managing its streaming activity.  And while they push forward, Target Ticket, a streaming service created by Target to compete against other retailers like Walmart, has decided to shut down.  Never heard of Target Ticket, you are probably not alone.  I am a frequent visitor to Target and can't recollect ever seeing any marketing in-store or in their circulars. 

Their demise means that consumers that purchased digital product will have to switch to CinemaNow to continue to get access.  But with content that CinemaNow does not have rights to, customers will get credits instead.  That certainly is the biggest challenge when owning digital content that you don't have direct ownership of.  So what is next?  How long till CinemaNow, Walmart's Vudu service or even UltraViolet or another streaming service decides it can no longer compete with Apple and Amazon?  The loss of Target Ticket may simply be a precursor for more to come. 

NBC Mishandling Brian Williams Apology

It is my humble opinion that NBC and the PR team at NBC are mishandling the fallout of the Brian Williams misremembering crisis.  That he "conflated" the episode in Iraq may have been the least of his problems, but using a vocabulary word that few know didn't help his effort at a half-asses apology.  And as Mr. Williams takes some time to withdraw from all public appearances, including a scheduled visit to The Late Show With David Letterman on rival CBS, it begs the question, could this PR nightmare been better handled.

I believe that NBC is using the wrong playbook.  To me, the better way to have handled this outcry would be to face it straight on with minimal delay.  I cite case book examples in the world of business from Tylenol, Coke and even Netflix to illustrate how a fast response can avert a greater disaster.  Tylenol did it by quickly recalling all product, apologizing and announcing efforts to use different packaging to demonstrate safety was their highest priority.  Coke tried a new coke formula but was quick to pull from market and announce the return of its classic formula.  And Netflix thought it could divide the company into two entities, DVD and streaming; they heard the backlash and were quick to stop the split and respond directly.

Yet the team working with Brian Williams has chosen to not follow these examples.  The apology was not to the point and direct; rather, muddled by shades of gray.  Had he then stayed out in the public, talking directly to anyone who wanted to hear his apology and how he was contrite and eager to demonstrate his trustworthiness, I believe this incident would have been minimized and Mr. Williams would have retained his good standing among the public.  Withdrawing from appearances, removing himself from his own nightly news program, has only added to the problem.  And it may now be too late for him to fully recover his good stature and high ratings. 

Are We Being Watched And Listened To?

I most recently met a colleague who had taped over the camera on her laptop.  She was concerned that the device could be accessed without her knowledge and she could be watched without knowing it.  Her concern may be a valid one; Cameras have become a way of life, whether used for traffic enforcement, shoplifting, security.  And we seem to be ok with it.

The latest concern is that the next generation of smart TVs from Samsung may also be listening to us as well.  With a capability to use verbal commands to instruct the television set what functions to initiate, comes some interesting news.  But buried deep in the privacy policy for their set is a notice that the set will also share all communication that it hears.  Surprising, it shouldn't be.  Business Insider also tells us that "the Siri dictation feature is sent to servers that reside in the US and that Apple, its related companies and agents have access to the contents of what is dictated."

Privacy may simply be a thing of the past.  As more and more devices connect to the internet, our actions and our words get more easily captured.  What others decide to do with it, whether to use for safety and security, advertising, or to uncover private and personal information remains to be seen.  But what should not be a surprise is that someone is watching and listening to us.  And so we become more responsible for our actions.