Magazines Get Ready for Tablets

Take control of your distribution and perhaps the magazine business isn't too bad. Thanks to Benjamin Franklin and the printing press, newspapers and magazines have enjoyed a couple centuries of success. But new technology has threatened to derail it and the solution is painfully clear, adapt or die. Obviously, the switch over to a pure digital play is not realistic; rather, a measured approach, reaching new adopters and maintaining print subscription with current ones. Thus any subscription must give you both a digital and print copy of your content.

As we trend toward devices that best display printed content, current opportunities exist with iPhones, Blackberries, Kindles, and of course the computer. Newer devices are on the horizon. "Although publishers have not exactly been on the cutting edge of technology, two magazines — Esquire and GQ — have developed iPhone versions, while Wired and Sports Illustrated have made mockups of tablet versions of their print editions, months before any such tablets come to market. Publishers are using the opportunity to fix their business model, too."

And Apple is lurking in the background not ready yet to release their tablet design. I look forward to seeing what they have in store for us!

367 magazines shuttered in 2009

At first blush, this decline may seem disturbing, but not unexpected. Shifting a print model to a digital one is not an easy task. At the same time though, new magazines also emerged. "... 247 magazines launched during the same period. Regional titles composed the largest category on both sides of the ledger." Also it should be noted that the pace of closure appears to be slowing down; the strong survive, the weak unfortunately die. It demonstrates though that opportunity exist even among a downturn. Print magazines need to embrace new distribution models; content remains king and eager to be consumed. New ways to get to the consumer through e-readers and iPhones may just be their salvation.

Sirius Gets a Holiday Present; Thank You iPhone

Radio is meant to be enjoyed everywhere; not just in the car, but wherever, whenever. And Apple's iPhone just may be making it possible. "From now on, every Apple iPhone will feature Sirius XM’s full internet content offerings. It will also include Howard Stern as a part of the Pocket Tunes Radio application on Apple iTunes Store." Sounds too good to be true and certainly it would be a game changer for Sirius. Next to learn, what the subscription cost will be and how it will be sold.

Not much news yet on it, so hear is hoping that it true. And if it comes to iPhone, maybe other devices will be next. Content is meant to be mobile, both video and audio, what you want, when you want, where you want.

Consumers Want Their TV Where They Want, Too!

Need a study to prove the obvious. Well here it is. Viewers want their TV content - when they want and where they want. It is the three W's - what, when, where! "The study found that younger consumers and early adopters would be particularly interested in watching local TV on their gadgets, particularly local news and weather information." They don't want to pay for it either. Local means broadcast and means access to news, weather and sports.

More screens means more time to watch and that should be good news to advertisers. Measuring usage across multiple screens is still a hot topic, but knowing that the content is valued and watched should be good news to the local broadcaster. "Broadcasters have been making noises for years about offering mobile TV, which would allow consumers to watch local TV broadcasts on their phones and handheld devices, but the technology has been slow to get off the ground... Station owners say they want to use their airwaves to offer more digital channels, including new channels for mobile gadgets." Maybe this study will push them to more quickly change and adapt.

No More Cable Bills

Check out the article in today's New York Times by Nick Bilton. He and his wife weaned himself off a monthly cable bill by installing a mac mini, Xbox, and a wireless remote. With access to Boxee, Hulu, Netflix, and others, and the ability to watch free broadcast channels, as well as gaming, his entertainment is complete. Click below to access.

"Welcome to our living room. Take a seat, make yourself comfortable. Would you like to watch a movie, or the new “Family Guy” episode?"

U-verse TV Hits 2 Million Mark

Competition is fierce and the telco vs. cable battle lines will only get fiercer. As AT&T reaches 2 M cable customers and Verizon Fios heading toward 3 million, telco is taking a bigger and bigger chunk of the map. "As of the end of September, U-verse TV was available to about 15 million homes in 22 states. The U-verse fiber-to-the-node network currently passes more than 20 million homes." And because a telco gain tends to be a cable or satellite loss, every basic subscriber matters in the fight for dominance in the industry.

Telcos need cable subs to replace loss of phone and DSL customers. For cable, phone remains a win-win upgrade, as does hi speed connections. But if the base for cable declines, as recent quarter have indicated, eventually cable will have less customers to upsell phone and hi speed to. And so the marketing of these provider services, for telco, cable, and even satellite, should only get fiercer in 2010.

In addition, Comcast particularly has to be careful as it attempts to get its NBC Universal purchase approved by the FCC and FTC. Programming differentiation has played a big part. Sports is raising its ugly head today. Telco and satellite want access to the Comcast Sports Net and cable and telco want access to the NFL Sunday Ticket. At some point, programming differentiation will become a non-factor in marketing; rather, it will be about service and price. And hopefully, better pricing and service leads to a better customer experience.

How Much Is A Video Rental Worth

When DVDs hit the market, purchase price was nearly $20. The rental market seemed an ideal opportunity to watch the movies you like at a reasonable cost. Blockbuster zoomed in at one price point and Netflix came later with a more convenient distribution strategy, straight to the mailbox and no late fees. Yet the price point stayed strong despite competition. Until now. Redbox has turned the model upside down and in turn has caused problems, both for its competitors and for the Hollywood studios themselves. Rentals for a buck.

And it has financially hurt the movie industry. "A regional economic group estimates that dollar DVD rentals from Redbox and others has cost the entertainment industry $1 billion and that the "ripple effect" will cost hundreds of millions more." Hollywood is fighting back and studios are suing to prevent Redbox from renting at this low price. In return, Redbox is suing the studios for antitrust. A long battle will ensue.

Of course low prices mean that the consumer wins. Business competition ultimately leads to better pricing and service for the customer. Can movies still be made when revenues are cut. Perhaps the cost of movie-making is what is really at stake. Does it need to cost that much money to make them. Independent filmmaking has shown the low cost, high quality movies can still be made. And so the solution for studios, cut your production costs.

As the DVD rental business faces pricing issues, what will it mean for VOD. At prices nearly 5 times higher, will consumers switch from VOD consumption to Redbox as well? Should cable be worried and do they need to re-evaluate their pricing model and their marketing message?

Redbox is a game changer in the industry and the result of the upcoming legal battle could have broader implications. $1 to rent verse $5 to watch VOD; in today's economy, the answer is pretty obvious.

Americans Still Watch 99% Of Video On TVs: Nielsen

How would you prefer to watch your video. Currently it is the big screen; in fact, that is how 99% of us prefer to watch. "Nevertheless, video consumption among Web and DVR users is growing fast: On a monthly basis, minutes spent watching Internet video watching increased 35% in the third quarter and time-shifted TV viewing jumped 21%."

Why is online important. There are a number of reasons: 1. More offerings - in fact beyond the ability to catch up on current TV shows, there are shows that are no longer on TV or VOD that people seek out to watch. And for those looking beyond mainstream, alternative and short form programming exists only in this spectrum. 2. Search - ever try finding a program by hunting and pecking on VOD or searching a cable TV guide. It is horrific compared to the ease and flexibility of online. 3. Mobility - sometimes you can't get to a TV; how great that the TV can get to you. 4. Flexibility - think DVR and VOD to the nth level. Online lets you both find a show and go to a time spot in the show. Try fast forwarding VOD and ask yourselves why do I need to waste 5 minutes to move ahead to the 1 hour 10 minute mark. 5. Simple - try navigating the on demand platform and you wish it was simpler, faster, and better than what exists online. It's hard to sell cable as "advanced" when its functionality is so 10 years old.

So don't be too fooled by the percentages. Clearly TV is the dominant viewing experience, but online is not going away. Rather, it is only getting more convenient and user-friendly. It is time, however, for the cable box and its functionality, to emulate the online experience.

Eventually Nothing Free On The Web

The web has been a valuable tool. Need information for a school project, search the web for free. The result - the end of Encyclopedia sales. Want to listen to music or purchase an album - result - the closing of music stores like Tower Records and HMV. And seeking articles on news and current events or perhaps just a little gossip - result - the collapse of magazines and newspapers.

Well the last group is fighting back. "Consumers will soon have to start paying for news and entertainment they have become used to getting for free on the Web as media firms face the reality that advertising can no longer foot the bill." And Google, with a need to keep their suppliers happy, may help. "Web search leader Google has promised publishers ways of earning advertising revenue alongside news stories, but most big news organizations scoff at the idea that such ads are enough to fund the production of quality journalism." Is it enough?

Search is a funny game and Google, while the current leader, isn't the only game in town. Will Bing, Yahoo, and others follow or will they revolt and find alternative ways to give consumers the search results they need. Or will we eventually move down that slippery slope and find ourselves getting only a couple of lines from an article before being force to "subscribe" in order to see the rest of the story. It seems to be working for The Wall Street Journal" and Murdoch may force this move on its other media properties. Or be proven a genius and others will follow.