Kagan study: cable nets in good shape

Major media companies with cable network distribution are doing better than believed while independently owned cable networks are struggling, according to this SNL Kagan study. Not earth shattering news, I must say. The power of these large companies with multiple brands converging across multiple spaces, broadcast, cable, print, etc seems to me to be the driver of this success. Just this morning, the NBC Today show brand is pushing CNBC and their Fast Money program. In addition, references to their websites offers more synergies. Disney is the master of this synergy, too; just look at the runaway success of High School Musical, and its merchandising across many businesses. I even understand that ABC Good Morning America will be highlighting its sequal on Thursday mornings show. Across many brands, content is pushed and leveraged to create even more revenue lines.

It becomes harder and harder for content to breakthrough the sheer number of shows and networks now available on TV, on demand, and online, without the power of a larger media company behind you to get noticed. Is it possible to breakthrough, sure, but that long tail is awfully long. These same conglomerates are able to package these opportunities to their advertisers assuring metric goals are met and revenue attained. The little guys can survive; but in life, the big fish tend to eat the little fish.

Comcast Teams Up with Philadelphia Magazine

Great synergy opportunity for both Comcast and Philadelphia magazine "Best of Philly" edition. Video on demand to enhance the magazine experience and hopefully, interesting content that brings the user back to the magazine's pages. The opportunities to enhance the advertising message and extend the value of both brands are amazing. This is also what VOD should be about, content beyond what is being repurposed on linear TV. I look forward to hearing the promotional opportunities and tactics used to grow awareness of this combination to the Philadelphia community.

Is Mark Cuban Right: Is the Internet Dead?

Mark Cuban recently spoke at the closing panel of the CTAM Summit where he declared "The Internet's for old people" and based on this and a number of other articles, his meaning was that the internet that we know today is past its prime and that what cable has built will change the way we receive and what we watch over the hi speed line. It reminds me a bit of the old adage, "the only thing constant is change", and what Cuban is suggesting is not so off base.

The services that Time Warner and Comcast, Verizon Fios and others each provide to their own unique customer, closed, walled gardens of content, applications, and information, will separate each cable operator from the other. How companies like Google and Tivo try to utilize the open cable architecture, OCAP, that the FCC has imposed is counter to the intranet structure which Cuban sees as prospering.

One story I recall from graduate school was when the rairoad companies were asked, what business they were in and they responded trains. But what their business really turned out to be was transportation and by not adapting to change, they lost dominance to the airline industry. In Jim Collin's book, "Good to Great", the businesses that excelled understood that in order to continue to be great, they had to adapt to the changing needs of the customer and to maintain their industry dominance, they had to keep thinking differently to excel.

Of course the internet will change, but it is not dead. Closed systems stifle growth. Its one reason the US cellular is so far behind the rest of the world. The competing cell formats don't talk to each other. So, the question shouldn't be, is the internet dead, the question should be, what's next. The internet is about sharing...sharing information, entertainment, and communication, that will not die, but it will continue to change to satisfy the consumer. In a very short time, we've experienced more social networking, quicker fulfillment of viewing through on-demand, easier navigation to what we seek, and more content than we can possible consume in one lifetime. The internet has put people together with similar interests, rediscovered relationships and lost friendships, opened barriers for more creativity, and opened our eyes to more possibilities.

The internet is not dead. An open architecture enable more applications to be written and even mashed together into something extraordinary. No, it is not dead and I'm excited by what's coming next.

Cable Without a Cable Box, the Start of TV Convergence

Terrific article in this morning's NYT that encapsulates the new opportunities opening for the TV to do much more because of the CableCard. Consumers may now get access to more opportunities: DVDs that can directly record all digital cable programming with a better signal, Tivos working without rigging connections to get a poor signal off a cable box, and other advances. Cable operators may fear the loss of revenue from selling lower priced cards instead of higher priced settop boxes, they also can reduce the higher inventory costs of the settop boxes. Cable operators should not be in the business of selling boxes, the revenue streams are in the service of the pipeline. It's in the cable operator's best interest to embrace the CableCard when they get out of the box business, With the CableCard, the power of choice goes to the consumer to decide which box fits their needs the best. The CableCard opens up the ability to bring convergence to the TV with more devices able to talk the talk.

Tivo Unveils cable card enable settop box

So what does the cablecard mean for consumers...as I suggested in an earlier blog, it opens up the market and allows more products to interface with cable more effectively. And the first to market seems to be Tivo with a DVR that reads the cable signal and allows easy recording and viewing. Having worked with a Tivo that only received non-scrambled signals, the cable card enables the Tivo device to work even better, recording all shows accessible through the cable line. To me, Tivo is like a luxury vehicle while a cable DVR is a family station wagon. They both go from A to B, but Tivo, with its bells and whistles, and easy to use navigation, travels in style. I've been on both road trips and prefer my Tivo! Are more cablecard products on the horizon, I certainly hope so.

Merged XM-Sirius Would Offer 'A La Carte' Pricing

Interesting move by the two companies to offer a lower price option as a tactic to demonstrate to the FCC why their merger should be approved. While pricing is certainly a factor that the FCC would consider, it is not the straw that will determine the final decision. Clearly, Sirius and XM should remind the FCC of what they have already allowed to occur across the cable industry and that this impact resulting from a merger on the market is far less of an issue than cable. A cable/hi-speed/phone customer has far fewer choices open to them. You can get your local cable provider, Dish or Direct TV, AT&T or Verizon. If Sirius and XM merge, the choices for audio entertainment still allows for dozens of free radio stations, iPod connections, cellular/wireless connections, and perhaps soon, Direct TV for the car. Sirius and XM mainly serve the mobile market, and to be more specific, your car. While they also have mobile devices to compete with boomboxes, a pc connected wirelessly to a streaming radio station provides an equal variety of content. Technology is enabling a low cost of entry to the marketplace, the FCC should alllow the merger to take place and let the free market economy to work.

Should cellphones be technology agnostic?

Google makes some interesting points as they seek out an opportunity to join the wireless fray. Televisions work with any cable provider, computers work with any high speed provider, why shouldn't any cellphone work across any wireless provider. This open model approach had it been in effect today would have caused the Apple iPhone to be available across all wireless platforms.

So what does Google have to gain from an open architecture. The initial answer is advertising to into the wireless platform and the the consumer might gain with reduced wireless fees for more messaging. Perhaps also, such openness would enable more applications to be built that could more effortless tie in the pc and the phone. As Google doesn't have a cellphone or pc to sell, owning the consumer on multiple screens may prove more lucrative than we may think. It be interesting to learn what else is up Google's sleeves.

Google continues to lead the convergence revolution and it will be fascinating to see if the FCC will approve Google's wireless license. Their argument is a good one and seems in the consumers best interest. But can the wireless industry move down that path?

Study: Broadband Viewing Up, But Not Affecting TV

There is an insatiable hunger for more video on the web and this study, commissioned by Nielsen for NCTA, confirms that fact. And while interesting to know, the fact that there is more video on the web than ever before seems to make the above conclusion seem way too obvious. Of course usage is up!

The fact is that most content available on the web today is short-form, snack-size bites, to feed that viewing hunger. It would be more interesting to learn when during the day this video is consumed and what the preferred length of a video on the web was viewing. I recall in the VOD universe, most free on-demand viewing occurred outside the prime time window, and most longer content, i.e. movies, tended to be watched during prime time. In the case of broadband video, it would be interesting to learn what percentage is viewed during the work day, and what percentage in other dayparts. And will that information, which I am assuming will show a disproportionate amount of viewing during the day, cause companies to restrict the viewing of video on company computers.

While better navigation and search are imperative to user satisfaction, how user behavior changes with the advent of longer video on the web will also be interesting to analyze. The convergence of the web with the cable box and the ability to move or stream content to a preferred viewing device, tv vs. pc, may be necessary to lead that behavioral change.

Sony website focusing on professional video only

An interesting move by Sony to rename its website and to change its strategy to show professionally produced video instead of showcasing amateur clips. While TV has always had an "America's Funniest Home Video" type show, You Tube has cornered that arena on the web. Sony's belief seems to be that it will be easier to sell more ad spots on a site featuring emerging professional filmmakers.

My question is - what does Sony have going for it that will encourage viewers to visit their site verse other sites that already cater to this genre. The Sony brand does not represent a filmmaker home. Mention the Sony brand and TVs and cameras come to mind, not movies. And the newly named Crackle brand has absolutely no brand to connect with nor existing relationship with filmmaking; perhaps, the site should have been renamed Sony Pictures or the company they had previously acquired - Columbia Pictures -to connect more to their business and communicate a brand value associated more closely with film. While I believe the future of video success on the web is professionally produced content, it has to be in the right context and with a brand connection that resonates value.

In addition, the user is being inundated with lots of videos from so many sources. And given the low cost of entry, more videos are on the way. The consumer can bookmark a few of their favorite sites, but ultimately, many videos get quickly lost. What we need is a single website that quickly and easily aggregates all these video choices and can help search through the growing library and make some suggestions based on my viewing behavior. Lets call it TVGuideBlinkxTivo.