Facebook Is The Go To Site For Everything

Social Networking has become the predominant way to communicate with our friends. We write emails through our Facebook account, share photos, exchange news items, and discuss our opinions. And as video chatting and skyping have gotten more popular, why not add it to the social networking mix. Well it seems Facebook is soon to come out with such an app. Now while I currently have Skype for the grandparents to talk to the grandkids, why not simplify it and chat inside Facebook. It would be convenient to have the option to video chat online with a "friend". And certainly, the price is right.

But maybe you don't want to chat when your on Facebook. Sometimes you want to simply be an observer, reading other people's comments but not communicate directly with them. And sometime when a chat screen appears, you don't know whether to answer or ignore it. Would that be rude. Will people start to list themselves as "invisible" so they can troll their account without anyone knowing they are online.

But be careful what you do or say in front of your videocam, the on-air light might just be on!

New York Times Considers Two Plans to Charge for Content on the Web

Can The New York Times put the cat back into the bag; that is, start charging for what was once given away free. Clearly we have been used to as consumers in getting free samples but will consumers be willing to start buying. Unlike The Wall Street Journal which has been charging a subscription fee from the start, it also has been the number one source for business news. Their unique value and brand appeal has enabled them to charge a premium to read their content. The New York Times, on the other hand, has no one specialty; some like their Business news, others their Sports, and other their Style and Editorial features. Can that broadness help or hurt them changing their business model. Will their readers stay with them and pay or go elsewhere for the news. And can the NYT keep their writers, like Mossberg and Pogue, from sharing their content outside the walled garden they might set up.

In order for The New York Times to survive, it's content can't remain free. Putting it into a subscription model of some sort will do one of two things. At the worse scenario, it drives people away from a NYT subscription and website quicker and kills brand loyalty and at the best scenario, provides web subscription to current print subscribers and incremental revenue for digital subscribers. Advertising will either decline or grow depending on what consumers choose. The New York Times provides a definitive point of view embraced both inside the tri-state and around the country. Financially, the only chance they have to future survival is a revenue model from subscription and advertising. Requiring subscription to web content might lower eyeballs in the short run but should ultimately pay off with subscription and more usage in the long run.

Verizon Selling Some Phone Markets

Verizon took a bold move this week, selling 4.8 million phone lines in 14 states to Frontier Communications. It gives Verizon a piece of Frontier's business, but more importantly, indicates that Verizon is concentrating instead on larger communities where it can replace copper lines for fiber and offer their FIOS product. Small, rural markets are best served by others. In addition, it allows more focus on wireless, especially as consumers shun their hard wired phone for cellular. "The local phone business, in fact, has been contracting quickly as customers shift to phone service offered by cable companies or simply to using their cellphones. Verizon, which will have 30.3 million phone lines left after the deal, lost 10.2 percent of its lines last year in the regions it is selling."

As capital is tighter than ever, and cost management means doing more with less, Verizon is better served concentrating on FIOS and wireless businesses where larger growth is more likely. Consumers are demanding a broadband connection and the costs to rebuild these smaller markets is high. The future for Verizon is their FIOS and cellular operations providing consumers and businesses multiple products: cable, broadband, IP phone, and cellular.

DVD Tops for Entertainment; Online Delivery Small But Growing

Consumers are still buying DVD's, but streaming usage is growing. And " even digital downloaders have not abandoned those shiny little discs. Eight out of 10 who downloaded movies also said they bought or rented a DVD," which indicates that physical media is not going away. For me though, the huge library of content online and easily accessible, makes me less inclined to have to own content. That rent or own philosophy seems to dictate my decision.

With the ease of VOD to watch on TV, and the lower cost to view, why purchase a DVD that has no long term interest to me. Those rare exceptions seem to be children's movies, including many Disney and Pixar titles, that get repeat viewing in my household. Other films, like the Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire, was great to watch on VOD; but having watched once, I find no need watch again. Still renting or streaming a film first lets me decide whether I want to make a bigger commitment to purchase.

How will I feel once I own an HDTV and will I feel the need to buy a blu-ray player and own blu-ray DVDs; I just don't know. Will HD keep the DVD the predominate choice? It may slow down the trend to streaming, but it won't stop it.

While Netflix enjoys a healthy relationship of DVD media with its customers, the customer still treats those disks as rentals not purchases. Blockbuster and other video stores are expanding their offerings to gaming disks and other non-film product to increase their revenue streams. Will customers want to own the physical asset? That media must change and get smaller and easier to manipulate. Whether saved on thumb drives or other smaller transportable device, the current DVD must give way to these new media choices, just as the LP gave way to the cassette, the VHS to the DVD. We want more content packaged into smaller boxes. Customers will still buy; how they receive the content is what keeps changing.

Cablevision: MSG Is Not For Sale

Clarification from the Cablevision camp that should a spin off of MSG occur, it would not be for the purpose of selling the properties, merely to put more shareholder value back into the hands of Cablevision stock owners. And the Dolans would continue to retain majority ownership. "The MSG unit includes the Madison Square Garden arena; the MSG and MSG Plus regional sports channels; sports teams the New York Knicks, New York Rangers and New York Liberty; Radio City Music Hall; the Chicago Theater; the Beacon Theater and cable music channel Fuse."

While I did not personally read anything that stated possible selling of MSG, I did read about speculation of possible selling of the Long Island cable system and Rainbow programming unit with Time Warner and Comcast the most likely buyers. Keeping speculation low only drives up the intrigue value. Who knows what will or won't happen. The likely scenario continues to be no change.

Cablevision to Explore Madison Square Garden Spinoff

Will Cablevision spin off their Madison Square Garden businesses, including MSG, Knicks, and fuse? If you have heard about spin offs in the past, you aren't dreaming. This kind of speculation has been around for many many years. The closest they came was a tracking stock for Rainbow about a decade ago, but that was eventually re-ingested back into Cablevision.

For the public record, I once worked for Cablevision but have absolutely no inside information what they are planning to do. Still, if history is any guide, this speculation seems to be a regular occurrence and always seems to have the effect of raising the stock price. While Cablevision has recently been a buyer, having bought both Sundance and Newsday in the last year, the last time they sold something was when they sold Bravo in late 2002 to NBC.

A separation of companies has always been seen as a positive way to unlock the value of the assets. Others have speculated that it's Chairman is more interested in sports and music, than the cable business. Splitting the businesses would make it easier to get a truer market price on the cable side too with the opportunity to sell those assets to another cable company. Time Warner has always been desirous of owning the jewel of the NYC DMA, Long Island, which Cablevision runs. Cablevision continues to avoid further comment.

Will this be the time that Cablevision actually pulls the trigger on an asset spinoff? If history is a guide, don't hold your breath. It may simply be a means of pushing the stock price higher on news but not action. Still, anything is possible.

Amazon Introduces Big-Screen Kindle

It's bigger, but is it better. It's more expensive, but is it better. It's still just a black and white screen, but is it better. The answer is hard to say. And will it save or destroy the print business, that is the $100,000 question.

One thing is clear, it does not seem to be advantageous to the newspaper industry, especially as Amazon seems to take the majority of the revenue for being the distributor of the content. "Amazon does not release financial details about its relationships with newspapers, but newspaper executives say Amazon keeps 70 percent of the revenue — an arrangement the papers have been unhappy with." In fact, the newspapers are not going out of their way to strike deals to encourage Kindle's use over their current distribution and only have deals "for people who live in areas where their paper editions are not available."

Odd that the content creators are at the mercy of the distributor? Not really, but not necessarily the only solution. Just as the broadcast networks have created a digital joint partnership called Hulu to distribute online content, the newspaper companies should consider a similar solution for their digital distribution. Build a joint venture tied to your own device or work with Intel or Apple and create your own broadband service to download content. Retain a much larger percentage of the profits and reduce your printing and distribution overhead at the same time.

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.