Interesting argument in this article by Diffusion Group analyst Colin Dixon who thinks that the Cable Operators, through Canoe Ventures, are going at it the wrong way. He suggests that they are not building a better mouse trap than the web and should instead work with the web's successful structure. "Canoe’s products — voting, e-commerce, interactive ads — would be simpler and better if delivered via a web browser, he writes."
Intuitively, it makes more sense to build an application for TV that integrates with other apps on the web. Consumers have gotten increasingly more comfortable with web-based apps and are incorporating them in the above list (voting, e-commerce, et al) as well as social networking like Twitter and Facebook on their pc and mobile devices.
If the cable set top device doesn't interact well with these applications and instead tries to run in its own vacuum, it may be that the viewer will shun the set top all together for web based entertainment. Or rely on other boxes like Roku or PS3 to bring video to the TV. That is all ready slowly happening as younger audiences are not buying cable subscription and using the web for their video entertainment.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Looking to Big-Screen E-Readers to Help Save the Daily Press
Technology may be partly to blame for newspaper subscriptions declining, but it can also be its salvation. As Kindle and others make electronic reading possible, downloads replace paper boys and kiosks.
Half the battle is controlling the flow of content. Content has value and as the Wall Street Journal has already proved, it deserves a subscription fee. The breadth and quality of the content can no longer be free for all. Advertising alone does not pay for all its cost. And the first step is for newspapers and magazines to rein in their content and control what they release. "The move by newspapers and magazines to make their material freely available on the Web is now viewed by many as a critical blunder that encouraged readers to stop paying for the print versions." The WSJ teases non-subscribers with bits of the article and reminds them that "membership has its privileges."
The other half of the battle is the electronic device. Today's Kindle and Sony E-Reader, with their small screen and black and white e-ink, are not good enough to provide readers with the full aesthetic. An Apple iPhone with its smaller screen is no better. It will be the next generation device that offers the right size, weight, and functionality, that will win out. Many view Apple as most likely to deliver first. "Such a device, with a screen that is said to be about three or four times as large as the iPhone’s, would have an LCD screen capable of showing rich color and video, and people could use it to browse the Web."
Will this save the print business in time? It feels a little bit like the chicken and egg; cutting off access to content and releasing more readers. The timing of each matters greatly in the hunt for eyeballs. I am eager for that new type of reader at a reasonable price point to pave the way. Look at what the iPod did for music and it seems the same is possible for print.
Half the battle is controlling the flow of content. Content has value and as the Wall Street Journal has already proved, it deserves a subscription fee. The breadth and quality of the content can no longer be free for all. Advertising alone does not pay for all its cost. And the first step is for newspapers and magazines to rein in their content and control what they release. "The move by newspapers and magazines to make their material freely available on the Web is now viewed by many as a critical blunder that encouraged readers to stop paying for the print versions." The WSJ teases non-subscribers with bits of the article and reminds them that "membership has its privileges."
The other half of the battle is the electronic device. Today's Kindle and Sony E-Reader, with their small screen and black and white e-ink, are not good enough to provide readers with the full aesthetic. An Apple iPhone with its smaller screen is no better. It will be the next generation device that offers the right size, weight, and functionality, that will win out. Many view Apple as most likely to deliver first. "Such a device, with a screen that is said to be about three or four times as large as the iPhone’s, would have an LCD screen capable of showing rich color and video, and people could use it to browse the Web."
Will this save the print business in time? It feels a little bit like the chicken and egg; cutting off access to content and releasing more readers. The timing of each matters greatly in the hunt for eyeballs. I am eager for that new type of reader at a reasonable price point to pave the way. Look at what the iPod did for music and it seems the same is possible for print.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
What Disney-Hulu Means for Apple
Should Apple be more worried now that Disney is joining forces with Hulu. I don't think so. Each follows a very different business model. For Hulu, it is all about advertising; For Apple, it is all about transaction of commercially free content. Advertisers tend to be concerned about ratings of content and less likely to associate itself with content of questionable taste - whether that means language, nudity, or just subject matter. In the transaction based model, the consumer decides what is appropriate by what he or she decides to spend their money on. And while some age-based issues may exist, content appeal impacts the transactional return. Too very different models, two very different choices.
Of course the other player is You Tube, the leader of user generated content. For me, they too serve a different model than Hulu. You Tube is a great place to find clips; Hulu is for full length shows. They could in fact be seen as complementary. It could be possible that You Tube and Hulu could enter into an agreement where interest in a clip on You Tube could lead to a link to Hulu to watch the entire show. They same scenario would hold true for TV.com as well.
The most interesting assessment is this, "Never mind that Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder. Hulu's pact with Disney serves as a reminder that if Jobs & Co. wants to make the splash in online video they appear poised to make, Apple needs to act fast."
Of course the other player is You Tube, the leader of user generated content. For me, they too serve a different model than Hulu. You Tube is a great place to find clips; Hulu is for full length shows. They could in fact be seen as complementary. It could be possible that You Tube and Hulu could enter into an agreement where interest in a clip on You Tube could lead to a link to Hulu to watch the entire show. They same scenario would hold true for TV.com as well.
The most interesting assessment is this, "Never mind that Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder. Hulu's pact with Disney serves as a reminder that if Jobs & Co. wants to make the splash in online video they appear poised to make, Apple needs to act fast."
Friday, May 1, 2009
New Disney-Hulu deal leaves CBS as the lone major network holdout
Good for CBS and their web portal TV.com, I wish you much success. I am of the belief that consumers will find good content. Your promotional efforts and the quality of your videos will drive people to your site. If they are looking for new shows like NCIS, How I Met Your Mother, or CSI, or older shows like Star Trek and Hart to Hart, TV.com will be the place. It is still early in the game and Hulu isn't the only player. Build the library and promote the titles; add social networking, fan polls, contests, and other value added pieces and make TV.com a must bookmark place to be.
On the business side, it also makes sense to stay independent and not join Hulu. How many content partnerships work. After some time, one partner gets bored with the other and the infighting begins. You've had partnerships with NBC before; are you ready for another one? It makes more sense to own 100% of the online business than 25-32% of it. Control your destiny, control the future.
No disrespect to Hulu; they are terrific with great content from NBC, Fox, and now Disney. But will the FCC have an issue with monopolistic type entity. TV.com can be as powerful a brand as any other. Why share it with others. And owning content enables you to build exclusivity around where it can be viewed. That is the power of CBS' video library and why they can stay independent.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Disney Joins NBCU, News Corp. on Hulu -- and why do some people still want to call it Hula
Well, it seems that Disney/ABC decided to sleep with the enemy and agreed to an equity stake in Hulu, along with NBC and Fox. According to the press release from Disney's CEO, Robert Igor, "From our landmark iTunes deal to our pioneering decision to stream ad-supported shows on our ABC.com player, Disney has sought to meet the constantly evolving viewing habits of our consumers, and today's Hulu announcement is the next important step in that ongoing journey."
Now full length shows from ABC, Disney and its other channels will populate Hulu alongside NBC and Fox programming. Certainly this makes Hulu even more of a "one stop shop" for long form broadcast and cable tv and movie programming, but is it necessarily a good thing. While these content giants compete in the linear space, they are each on the board of Hulu. Does that raise any monopolistic issues? How do these giants compete and co-habitate at the same time Is all this power in one place a good thing or not? And should the FCC and the government have a say?
One last line in this article says it all - "The transaction is subject to regulatory review." Interesting to see what is said.
Now full length shows from ABC, Disney and its other channels will populate Hulu alongside NBC and Fox programming. Certainly this makes Hulu even more of a "one stop shop" for long form broadcast and cable tv and movie programming, but is it necessarily a good thing. While these content giants compete in the linear space, they are each on the board of Hulu. Does that raise any monopolistic issues? How do these giants compete and co-habitate at the same time Is all this power in one place a good thing or not? And should the FCC and the government have a say?
One last line in this article says it all - "The transaction is subject to regulatory review." Interesting to see what is said.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
What's The Next Move for Facebook
I can only take so many quiz's, support only so many causes, play so many games, download so many photos, and comment on so many updates. And when friends recommend clips, I actually sometimes click and watch. So should Facebook work a deal with Hulu or TV.com or Disney to enable full length shows to be watched inside the Facebook page with an ability to comment on it and recommend others watch full episodes too.
Is that another opportunity to enhance the relationship that Facebook has with its users and its users have with one another. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing those recommendations.
But perhaps, the very next move is to change back the home page to its previous version. I've tried it and frankly don't find it an improvement at all. I feel like I am no longer seeing enough of what my friends are doing and saying. I miss the older version.
Is that another opportunity to enhance the relationship that Facebook has with its users and its users have with one another. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing those recommendations.
But perhaps, the very next move is to change back the home page to its previous version. I've tried it and frankly don't find it an improvement at all. I feel like I am no longer seeing enough of what my friends are doing and saying. I miss the older version.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
WSJ Sees Circulation Increase
What is The Wall Street Journal doing right? As other newspapers and magazine see falling circulation and for some closures, The Wall Street Journal has succeeded. "Editor & Publisher publishes the top 25 list here, which shows that the Wall Street Journal was the only newspaper in the top 25 to report a circulation increase. Its increase was modest — 0.61% — but an increase nonetheless."
Top 5 newspapers by circulation percentage increas or decline, October 2007 -March 2008:
USA TODAY -- (-7.46%)
WALL STREET JOURNAL -- 0.61%
NEW YORK TIMES -- (-3.55%)
L.A. TIMES -- (-6.55%)
WASHINGTON POST -- (-1.16%)
And not only did they do it right on the print side, they have been equally as successful with their web business. Where once it was foolish to require internet subscription to view content, that is exactly what the WSJ did and proved the skeptics wrong. With content behind a walled garden, WSJ makes it more valuable to be a subscriber in order to receive both print AND web content.
Perhaps it is that the WSJ represents a more niche audience of business readers. Unlike a more general interest paper with sections devoted to metro, sports, and business, the WSJ writes more national news and business pieces. It is this niche that may be their salvation.
There was some talk that the WSJ might add more general content including a sports section to their news. I'm not sure this will increase their audience. I view the WSJ has a companion paper to other news. By copying a NY Times or USA Today format, The Wall Street Journal might actually hurt their credibility and value. Their circulation strength may be a result of not being a general interest paper; so far those papers are seeing declines while WSJ retains its audience.
Top 5 newspapers by circulation percentage increas or decline, October 2007 -March 2008:
USA TODAY -- (-7.46%)
WALL STREET JOURNAL -- 0.61%
NEW YORK TIMES -- (-3.55%)
L.A. TIMES -- (-6.55%)
WASHINGTON POST -- (-1.16%)
And not only did they do it right on the print side, they have been equally as successful with their web business. Where once it was foolish to require internet subscription to view content, that is exactly what the WSJ did and proved the skeptics wrong. With content behind a walled garden, WSJ makes it more valuable to be a subscriber in order to receive both print AND web content.
Perhaps it is that the WSJ represents a more niche audience of business readers. Unlike a more general interest paper with sections devoted to metro, sports, and business, the WSJ writes more national news and business pieces. It is this niche that may be their salvation.
There was some talk that the WSJ might add more general content including a sports section to their news. I'm not sure this will increase their audience. I view the WSJ has a companion paper to other news. By copying a NY Times or USA Today format, The Wall Street Journal might actually hurt their credibility and value. Their circulation strength may be a result of not being a general interest paper; so far those papers are seeing declines while WSJ retains its audience.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Long, Slow Liberation Of The Cable Set-Top Box
Tru2way, formerly OCAP, was designed to enable other consumer electronics to interface with cable. But to date, we have yet to break free from the cable box if we want to enjoy our digital TV channels and interactive choices like the interactive guide and VOD. The cover story seems to indicate that with Tru2way, cable companies are no longer tied to Motorola or SA for cable boxes, open to work with more partners. More competition, lower costs, more innovation.
So what is taking so long and why do cable companies still want to buy and lease cable box devices to consumers. Why can't we as consumers determine which box we want to use. Why can't I buy an HD set with a cablecard reader that gives me all the functionality inside my TV set. Or allow me to buy the DVR of my choice, Tivo or another provider, to access all the features on cable. The article contends that Tru2way will let us breakfree, but frankly there doesn't seem to be anything to be excited about.
Rather, TV manufacturers are designing TV sets that can access the web directly, creating an interactive experience WITHOUT cable. Cable and the set top box are simply speaking, "a day late, and a dollar short" The cable box is a brick that most consumers would do without if they could. It minimizes the TV set, not enhances it. Tru2way and OCAP has been discussed for quite a while, but it hasn't made any impact yet. How quickly will the consumer see opportunity; I suspect it will happen around cable and the set top box, and not because of it.
So what is taking so long and why do cable companies still want to buy and lease cable box devices to consumers. Why can't we as consumers determine which box we want to use. Why can't I buy an HD set with a cablecard reader that gives me all the functionality inside my TV set. Or allow me to buy the DVR of my choice, Tivo or another provider, to access all the features on cable. The article contends that Tru2way will let us breakfree, but frankly there doesn't seem to be anything to be excited about.
Rather, TV manufacturers are designing TV sets that can access the web directly, creating an interactive experience WITHOUT cable. Cable and the set top box are simply speaking, "a day late, and a dollar short" The cable box is a brick that most consumers would do without if they could. It minimizes the TV set, not enhances it. Tru2way and OCAP has been discussed for quite a while, but it hasn't made any impact yet. How quickly will the consumer see opportunity; I suspect it will happen around cable and the set top box, and not because of it.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Replay And Regret: Rainbow COO Warns Of DVR Dangers
The DVR is a product of our own doing. Television's desire to grab more money from advertising resulted in not only more expensive ad spots but also more advertising minutes per hour. And it is this latter element that caused someone to innovate a solution - program copy and playback later so as to fast forward through ads to watch content. As Rainbow's research has disclosed, "70% of people skip because they are tired of the same commercials playing so often; 60% suggested pods are too long; and 65% said the commercials are 'boring.'" For me personally, I would have ranked them differently with pod length the biggest issue. Once I fast forward commercials, I am hard pressed to tell you what the commercial is that I skipped or whether it is boring or creative. How could I know. I've skipped the ads because the pod length is long. TV networks made their bed and now they must deal with the DVR consequences.
If commercial breaks were :60 or less, I might be less inclined to reach for the remote. Rainbow's COO suggests that "commercials might also improve effectiveness if addressable advertising got more wind at its back." At that point more creative ads targeted to me might work; but if pod lengths remain long, I won't see those ads either, even if it is "customized" for me; I'll be fast forwarding through the break to get to my show.
Now I know I represent a particular demographic. My children enjoy the ads with their shows. They inform them of new toys and games, movies to see and shows to watch. They are naive to the marketing behind the message. They see it as credible information. I see ads as a nuisance.
Frankly, I got the DVR to time shift my shows to watch them when they were most convenient to me; ad skipping was the added incentive. Reduce the number of ads per hour and more people will watch ads. Otherwise, I'm sure we will see a greater reliance on product placement in shows and perhaps even commercial overlays. We've already gotten accustomed to seeing these bugs on the corner of our screen promote what's coming soon; why wouldn't ads be next.
If commercial breaks were :60 or less, I might be less inclined to reach for the remote. Rainbow's COO suggests that "commercials might also improve effectiveness if addressable advertising got more wind at its back." At that point more creative ads targeted to me might work; but if pod lengths remain long, I won't see those ads either, even if it is "customized" for me; I'll be fast forwarding through the break to get to my show.
Now I know I represent a particular demographic. My children enjoy the ads with their shows. They inform them of new toys and games, movies to see and shows to watch. They are naive to the marketing behind the message. They see it as credible information. I see ads as a nuisance.
Frankly, I got the DVR to time shift my shows to watch them when they were most convenient to me; ad skipping was the added incentive. Reduce the number of ads per hour and more people will watch ads. Otherwise, I'm sure we will see a greater reliance on product placement in shows and perhaps even commercial overlays. We've already gotten accustomed to seeing these bugs on the corner of our screen promote what's coming soon; why wouldn't ads be next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
