Twitter, Brillstein develop TV series

Do you Twitter? Do you enjoy reading other people's Tweets? Do you like reality shows, especially ones featuring C and D list celebrities? Then do I have a show for you. "The San Francisco-based web phenom has partnered with Reveille and Brillstein Entertainment to develop an unscripted TV skein described as 'putting ordinary people on the trail of celebrities in a revolutionary competitive format.'" Me...I'm watching something else!

When I was younger, I learned of a game called celebrity tag. The goal, to find celebrities out in public and quietly touch them while saying tag. Simple and stupid. Unfortunately, the last thing on my mind when I met a celebrity was to say tag; rather, I was happy enough to simply say hi. So to hire people to chase stars, knowingly or unknowingly, seems equally as inane. It's hunting celebrities which just doesn't seem right. I don't expect this show to last. If this is what TV is coming to, perhaps it is time to go back to radio!

Lastly, how will Twitter make money. Today's WSJ article asks the same question. I am not a firm believer of Twitter either, although I like it within the social networking structure of Facebook. How many Tweets can you follow before it becomes mind numbing. And that said, how many "friends" can you have before you can't keep track of any of them. Just asking.

As TV Dwindles, It Still Leads

TV is not dead yet. It kinda reminds me of the Monty Python film where the townspeople are encouraged to "bring out your dead". Of course the ones they bring out aren't quite dead yet. "In fact, I'm feeling better." Yet they can't wait for the actual death, so the collectors help to facilitate it in order to expedite the process of collecting and move on. Such is the case for TV viewing.

In fact, TV is not dead but in fact still thriving. And marketers continue to use TV in their advertising budget. The rise of the web won't kill TV, as TV didn't kill radio, or DVDs kill the movie house business. "Think network television is washed up, overwhelmed by targeted and measurable ads on the Web? How is it that Apple, a tech company, and by the way, probably the most talented marketing company on the planet, is all over network television right now? And remember the movie industry is having a big year with big movies, using, yes, network television to drive people into theaters."

Should advertisers worry about DVRs and Tivo killing the ad business. No. Creative promotion, limited breaks, sponsorships, and product placement can all be used successfully to beat the fast forward button. TV is still the most watched device and advertisements can still be effective. Don't kill TV off just yet.

Satellite, Telcos In 'TV Everywhere' Camp

How do you control online video content, only give it to those customers that have bought it; otherwise, more consumers will drop their cable subscription and watch everything through the web. "The idea: to reinforce the value of paying for television service, by serving up TV episodes or even live programming, to customers' PCs or other Internet devices simply by providing a user name and password." Is this done to eke out additional dollars or to simply reinforce value to those already paying for the brand on cable. And it preserves the cable model.

"Programmers, however, have expressed a preference to deliver Internet TV content via their own, or affiliated, sites." any interest quote but I am not sure it is true. Cable risks losing subscription revenue when they make it free to consumers on the web. And if programmers believe they can charge for access to their website, they may be mistaken. Consumers really don't want an a la carte experience, paying for content on each site they visit. Cable's packaging philosophy has enabled consumers to get access to channels they might never have the chance to find and view on their own. And helps to disperse the costs across a larger number, thereby reducing the cost per sub amount while increasing the value proposition.

Ultimately, the consumer wants the flexibility and convenience to decide what, when and where they want to watch content; push it to the PC, the big screen or even the mobile. And we prefer to only pay once for the content as we believe we should control where we watch it and not have to pay multiple times for different devices. Will the world end up this way; it certainly keeps changing.

Oprah Likes Skype and I Do Too

When Oprah says jump, we seem to jump. She picks a book, we read it; she pushes a new tech device, we get it too. Now I don't tend to be an Oprah follower. I didn't get a Kindle just because she mentioned it, but I like it's potential. And now she is pushing Skype and I have to agree. "Thursday’s episode of the show (taped earlier this month) is entirely dedicated to Skype, eBay’s soon-to-be-spun-off Internet communications service."

We specifically got Skype because my wife's parents wanted to see their grandkids and living on opposite ends of the coast, a weekend visit isn't so easy. Skype enables a face to face visit without the airport wait. Not only did it connect us to one set of grandparents, we quickly learned that the other set as well as one of my nephews had started using Skype as well. And my kids love the chance to see their family!

Here is the best news; the only cost was the video camera. Everything else is free. How does Skype make any money, I have no idea. I don't see ads and I haven't been inundated with email spam from them. If they are measured by registered users, Skype is doing quite well and this endorsement from Oprah will only increase their base. How they financially survive is anyone's guess.

Nielsen: Almost 99 Percent of Video Watched on a TV Screen

With so much talk about online video and its threat to broadcast and cable, it seems to be overblown. TV usage is at an all time high while online video watching represents a mere 1% of total viewership. That translates to over 153 hours of TV a month versus 3 hours of internet viewing. "DVR use is becoming more mainstay as well, with the number of time-shifted hours watched jumping 40 percent from the same time last year to more than eight hours per month." Consumer preference continues to be to watch their shows on their big screen TV.

And while there is no short term need to worry about TV consumption for the cable industry, there should still be a concern about the trend.From Q4 '08 to Q1 '09, TV consumption grew less than 2% while internet viewing grew by a whopping 53.2% That growth should tell Hulu, Joost, and other online video distributors that their platform is growing rapidly. "Nielsen stats have come under fire recently in both the old and newteevee worlds. Online, Hulu expressed frustration over its audience numbers, and TV networks are increasingly critical over whether their ratings are accurate. However, these latest stats reaffirm previous studies touting TV’s strength."

News Sharing: One For All, All For One?

Does it matter which channel you watch for your local news? You may find they are sharing more and more. As ad dollars soften, costs get cut and networks have found a number of ways to improve the bottom line. One avenue is to share services. Networks are now using the same helicopter to report traffic conditions on the roads. Here in New York, the channel 9 sports anchor also delivers sports for channel 5. In addition, networks are sharing cameras to cover major events. "Fox-owned KSAZ, Scripps' KNXV (ABC) and Meredith's KPHO (CBS) relied on their recently formed newsgathering partnership to supply footage of the president's arrival and his motorcade through the city." And lastly cheaper talent is being used to report the news as big salaries can no longer be carried.

"With newsroom budgets under pressure like never before, TV stations in a growing number of markets are suppressing their competitive instincts and forming news co-ops to capture and share video of public meetings, press conferences and other routine events." How far can this go? One network may supply the same news show for two different channels, one at 10 p on one net and again on 11p on another channel. It seems to be the way we are headed.

Advertisers get demanding as TV networks try to be creative

Ad spending is declining and content companies are looking for creative ways to get their biggest slice of the ad buy. The "big fish" networks with their hands in many platforms may have to build ad packages that are more than just linear schedules. "Collaboration has become key to sales, with more advertisers demanding that networks work with them to create innovative campaigns weaving brands into shows and across platforms." That means in program, VOD, web, and mobile. Product placement, sponsorship, sweepstakes, interactive participation, sampling, and social networking. The simple ad buy can no longer be simple.

And the big networks, with their fingers in broadcast and cable, video web portals, mobile websites, etc. may have to reach across their businesses to synergize the complete solution for their advertiser. For Fox, that might mean building a campaign that includes Fox Network, Fox News and Fox Business Channel, VOD, My Space, and even Hulu. And in the case of Hulu, does that become problematic in determining what part of the buy is Hulu's, especially when sharing the revenue with NBC and soon to be Disney. And doesn't an integrated, multi-platform buy mean cost savings for the advertiser. How much is the Hulu share discounted as a percentage of the total ad buy.

"Companies also want to know more about viewers than just how many there are and their basic demographics. They want to know who is paying attention to the commercials, and whether those ads compel them to actually make a purchase." Online and VOD data can provide far more accurate data on the viewer than linear. Tivo can get more info on time shifted usage. Big brother may simply be the advertising companies knowing more about how we consume the content we view.

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.