Programmer v. Operator - The Never Ending License Fee Battle

The dropping of networks off our cable line-ups seems to happen more and more these days.  And as typical in these negotiations, networks threaten to be dropped and eventually are dropped for a period of time from the TV line-up.  Last month U-Verse threatened and finally settled with AMC Networks right before the deadline to drop their networks.  Dish Network actually dropped the AMC channels.  Today DirecTv is threatening to drop the various Viacom Networks - MTV, VH1, Nick, and others from their service on July 11 while Time Warner Cable has already dropped the Hearst Television owned broadcast networks in its various markets.  Perhaps we as consumers have become blasé to these battles having found ourselves turning more and more to alternative platforms for our entertainment and news.

Yes programming costs naturally rise, yes license fees rise to cover those costs.  And yes, ultimately the consumer must decide whether to keep paying or not.  For some of us, we remember broadcast TV as a free medium, paid entirely by advertising; for some of us, we have grown up paying for cable to get a better signal, more channels, and access to more commercial free premium programming.  And for some, anything we choose to watch can be found online, some free and some for a subscription price.  We gravitate to a model that best serves our need and our pocketbook.  But as cost of cable television continues to rise faster than the price of inflation, households are challenged to find ways to cut back.

Thus some may welcome the loss of some channels, even some they may watch, if only to keep their cable bill from rising.  Others may use it as a reason to finally cut the cord and embrace online.  Who needs their 11pm nightly news anymore if the same information can be shared via social networking and online news sites.  Who needs their Nick anymore if the same kind of shows are found on Hulu or Netflix.  The Programmer v Operator battle only helps to continue to push viewers away.

Has Digital Download Killed The Record Album?

The iPod might have saved the overall music industry by pushing song sales at a low price, but it may not have been a boon to the whole song album.  Single sales are increasing but album sales are down.  "Year-to-date cross-format album unit sales dipped by 3.2 percent (U.S.) and 13.8 percent (UK), according to figures released this week by Nielsen SoundScan and British Phonographic Industry."

Perhaps given the nature of digital, it is time to stop selling albums and start selling a different packaging of songs, combining song with video, photo album, concert footage, and other digital pieces into a whole new type of album.  Why does an album have  to be just a collection of songs.  It is time to redefine the album concept as a means to help push up growth.

Can Microsoft Find New Success?

A lot has been said these days about Microsoft and its attempt to adapt to a changing digital universe.  First they bought Yammer to make inroads in the social media space.  At the same time, their ad network purchase about five years ago, aQuantive, is proving to be a failed investment.  Now they are trying to compete in the mobile space with their own smartphone and tablet, Surface. But can they win against Google and Apple?

Not according to an ex Microsoft employee.  His take on the future of Microsoft sounds bleak.  "The not-so-flattering portrayal, titled “Microsoft’s Lost Decade,” is spun in next month’s Vanity Fair. The issue lands July 10." It sounds like it could be a very interesting read.

Yes Microsoft has been slow to market with new products.  Unlike others, they chose to keep with their current product line and have missed out on being ahead of new trends.  But given the ever changing fickleness of the consumer and Microsoft's efforts to regain the lead, there may be a chance.  As Microsoft knows so well, leaders sometimes fail to keep ahead of the curve.  It happened to Microsoft like it happened to RIM and others.  Even Netflix stumbled but seems to have bounced back.  Should Apple and Google stumble, an opening could emerge for Microsoft to rebound.  IF.

QR Codes Coming to Books

The mighty QR (quick response) code is expanding its reach as book publisher Simon and Schuster will begin adding it to the back cover of its hard and soft cover books.  With the QR code, mobile enabled readers will be able to access  "' the author’s mobile page on S&S.com where they can sign up for an email, browse the author’s other books and watch video'” according to their chief digital officer Ellie Hirschhorn.  But will it be successful?

Will print readers want this information, is it useful to their needs, or have they already decided, by not switching to an e-reader, that  they don't need today a connection between digital and print.  The challenge will be to communicate to the reader that their is real value being offered online, worthy of their time to scan and view.  I believe it has to be more robust than what was announced in the article.  For customers willing to link, how about a coupon to a discount to their next purchase of and S&S book or a link to a download of a movie.  The need for added value is essential to demonstrate a purpose for readers to actually read the QR code.  Still the challenge may be to make certain that they aren't being scanned prior to purchase so that the  value is there after the book sale.

What Happens When The Cloud Goes Down

Whether we like it or not, we all seem to be addicted to something.  Some may be more destructive than others, but in the end, we must be capable of living without.  So too is the case with the web.  We are addicted and when our networks shut down, we feel pain.  "The big news over the weekend was an Amazon cloud storage outage that took down services like Instagram, Pinterest, and Netflix in the wee hours of Saturday morning."  Yikes, for some, it may have felt like the world was ending.  No connection to Instagram, what will we do?

And not only did weather affect our websites, so did the decision to change our "official" time.  " To correct for minor decelerations in Earth's rotation, timekeepers added an extra second to the clock on Saturday – bringing Earth roughly four-tenths of a second ahead of the official time instead of six-tenths of a second behind. But one tiny little second change managed to bring down a number of the Web's more well-known sites, such as Reddit, Yelp, Linkedin, all of Gawker media's various Web properties, 4chan, Fark, Stumbleupon, and irate Bay, to name a few."  What will we do when a real catastrophe occur?

It makes me think of all the science fiction tv shows and movies out there that show what happens when we are no longer connected.  Remember  that Twilight Zone episode when a neighborhood is plunged into darkness, no phones, no electricity, and the neighbors panic and turn onto each other.  Will we become so addicted to our web connection that a loss in power will do the same thing to us?  Or can we remain calm and remember to breathe.  Sites may be down but it shouldn't mark the beginning of panic.  At the same time, shouldn't we have back up systems in case of emergency.  They always worked on Star Trek!

A Digital Life Means No Anonymity

We seem to mind less and less that we are being tracked.  Our movements, our likes, and yes even our reading habits are being analyzed over and over again.  "The major new players in e-book publishing—Amazon, Apple and Google—can easily track how far readers are getting in books, how long they spend reading them and which search terms they use to find books. Book apps for tablets like the iPad, Kindle Fire and Nook record how many times readers open the app and how much time they spend reading."  And yet for the convenience of e-reading, we seem to be okay with being tracked.

Now the argument is always that all the data is aggregated and that individual usage remains anonymous, but one has to wonder for how long.  The need for targeting may start out wide but eventually it will begin to move to the individual.  Should we be paranoid; probably not.  But we should be able to opt out.

Would Consumers Drop Their Cable Provider If They Didn't Carry Certain Networks

What if you found out that some of your networks were no longer to be carried on your current channel line-up? What if you were also told that as a good customer, you would immediately see a drop in the cost of your cable bill, say $10 a month, and a commitment to lowering your cable bill by only bringing you a smaller but more favorable line-up of linear networks?  Would you immediately call another platform provider that overbuilds your community? Would you yell and scream but ultimately do nothing with your current cable operator? Or would you thank them for finally getting that rates need to come down in order to keep their customers happy?

Well the test case could be just around the corner.  According to Multichannel, both Dish Network and AT&T U-verse could decide that rather than keep negotiating a lesser license fee increase that they will simply drop all the AMC Networks from their respective line-ups after June 30.  That could mean no AMC, no WE TV, no IFC, and no Sundance Channel.  For AT&T, it is about the license fee increases being proposed for the networks; For Dish, the issue is more than price, it is about the bitter relationship with its former parent company, Cablevision, and their VOOM business.

Could AMC Networks become the test case that cable operators will use to determine what channels they must carry on basic that may affect carrier switching or total cord cutting?  Are these operators willing to take the risk or will it end up like all other negotiations where eventually a deal is hammered out and the networks remain on the air?  AT&T may ultimately find a financial solution but I believe that Dish could just test a scenario of doing without.

Today Show Needs To Change Even More

Today Show finally officially announced this morning that Ann Curry will be stepping away from the anchor desk and pursuing more journalistic endeavors inside NBC News.  As an avid Today Show viewer, Ann never made a strong impression as a co-host, neither jelling with Matt Lauer new carrying well the softer, humanistic pieces. It was simply not a good fit and created some cringe-worthy interviews.  Frankly, not all Ann's fault, wrong person for the wrong segment.

But Ann isn't the only problem with the Today Show.  Look no further than their weather person Al Roker and there lies additional blame.  His personality overwhelms the broadcast, his segments too much about him and less about the weather.  Among his signature bits, "Sunday, Sunday, Sunday" and " These are my people" are annoying at best, but over the top mainly.  He is in fact, best enjoyed when he plays less bombastic and loud. Willard Scott may have been the role model for Al, but Willard never seemed to overwhelm the show like Al always tries to do.

Lastly, changes in the hosting should also go along with changes in the format back to a more newsy approach in the first hour, less so in the second hour.  Sure an interview with a guy that screams on a roller coaster is cute but not worthy for a first hour newscast.  There must be something better to put on.  Pick your segments more wisely and put the human interest and celebrity spotting into hour number 2.

Change for the Today may not be easy but it sure is necessary.  The moment people become disenchanted they break away from their routine and try another show.  Winning back viewers will not be easy, especially if they have found turned away.  Make us like you again, make us respect what you are telling us, and treat us to stories that define best what you want to become.  The Today Show has a long and storied history, let's get back to what makes it click.

Cable Networks Believe Movies Stop Cord Cutting

An article in today's Paid Content states that today's basic cable networks believe that movies on their network help to keep viewers from dropping their cable subscription.    And while I love a good laugh, I don't see any logical correlation between the two.  Here's the quote "As basic cable original series prove to be important product differentiators for over-the-top services like Netflix, some of the networks that produce these shows are actually relying more on high-priced theatrical movie acquisitions to maintain or increase their subscriber counts and drive ad revenue."  

Movies are indeed a comfort staple on TV.  Put a compelling one on and sure enough viewers will stop  and view; it may bring ratings, it may bring ad revenue, but it is not the stickiness that keeps consumers subscribed to cable.  With many of these same titles available uncut and commercial free elsewhere, viewers are not subscribing just so they can see an ad every 5 minutes or a constant bug in the corner of the movie promoting your channel, or worse, a pop up announcing that a new show is coming up next.  Those in fact make me consider dropping cable to find the same movie without interruptions or distractions.

What does keep consumers from cutting the cord, live programming, especially sports, that are not available easily on the web.  Exclusivity of a show not yet available online.  Differentiation is key and movies are not differentiated especially when they are available on so many other platforms.