With The Rough TV Economy, What On-Air Talent Will Be Cut Next?

Local broadcasters are cutting costs in the wrong places, cutting talent, their faces for their news content. Here in New York, Len Berman, a fixture in sports, was hit; in Boston, Bob Lobel, another sports announcer also let go. Across the country, anchors and reporters, like Rob Morrisson on WNBC, have been laid off left and right. Frankly, their replacements, most likely cheaper, are less appealing too. To the point that a change in talent could lead me and perhaps others to a change in where we get our local news. "But TV executives say they have no choice. Gone are the days of 50% profit margins, replaced by 20% declines in the advertising revenues that support those shows."

What is even more surprising about this cost cutting is that it actually does a disservice to the local network, especially as the need to compete with other outlets. WNBC has created a local digital hyper channel called New York Nonstop to compete with Time Warner's News 1, Cablevision's News 12, as well as the national news networks. Wouldn't a show by Len Berman on their digital network add greater credibility and value to this new brand while supporting WNBC at the same time. These local broadcasters are the faces of their content and have a built in audience. Replacing them with generic news readers does little to support the local network and even less to help build up a brand new digital network. Unfortunately "some executives have long viewed talent as interchangeable parts." This short term cost cutting will have larger negative long term effects. Viewers will simply shift viewing habits faster as they become less partial to your new roster of mediocre talent.

Yes, cost is a factor and advertising revenues are down. Perhaps we have gotten too use to obscene profits and need to adjust our mindset to a new world. Yes businesses need to remain profitable but get back to more reasonable expectations. Cutting off your nose to spite your face will definitely cause more harm than good.

Microsoft Must Buy Twitter - Maybe Not!

The article suggests a number of reasons why Microsoft should buy Twitter with the most pressing being that it has changed how people share information. In a different article, another author suggests why Apple won't buy Twitter. I don't think anyone should buy Twitter.

While I currently have a Twitter account and sometimes Twitter, I post identical info on Facebook, Others have applications that let them simultaneously post across all social networks. And that is my issue, duplication. For me, Facebook is the more preferable place to post and share links, photos, information, etc. The real question should be, who will buy Facebook. I believe Facebook has more revenue opportunities ahead of it than Twitter ever will. Thoughts.

Canoe Shouldn't Recreate The Web; It Should Utilize It

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.