Facebook Controlling What We See

I sometimes wonder if social networking is not such a good thing.  It's nice to acknowledge someone's birthday, share photos with friends and family, and engage in meaningful social discourse over politics and policies; but it also comes with a cost.  From coveting our friends vacation destinations, celebrity connections, to social miscues of not being invited to another friend's party, to the despair of cyber-bullying, it brings the full range of both positive and negative behavior.  And this is what we do to ourselves.

When we read that Facebook is experimenting on us, determining whether we see more positive vs. negative posts, then we might want to reconsider the value it brings and whether the animal has broken free too many times from the pen. 

Facebook, Instagram, and other social networking apps are a great sharing opportunity but do we have to be so open to what we share.  Are we doing it to satisfy ourselves or to let the world know just how exciting our life is.  Or should I say, how much more our life is than your life.  Is that the ultimate reason we share?  Psychologists could have a field day understanding why we post and engage in such an open way.  I frankly don't want to read that you visited Dunkin Donuts although I am sure that Dunkin Donuts loves it.  I do love seeing pics of family and friends and to see news of graduations, weddings, and babies.  What that line in the sand is between sharing and boasting is not a clear one.  And perhaps we need to do a better job determining which posts get viewed by which of our groups - family, friends, and acquaintances. 

But I don't need Facebook determining for me what I see or inundating me with too many ads that clutter my feed. Let me decide who can see what I post and what I want to see.  I'm starting to be more careful what I post these days.  And maybe, just maybe, we will all get tired of "eavesdropping" on other peoples' lives through social networking and concentrate more on leading our own lives. 

Will The Demise Of Aereo Hurt Broadcasters?

An interesting article in re/code that argues that the shutdown of Aereo is actually bad news for broadcasters.  As the younger generation continues to spend more and more time on their mobile devices, they have made bigger stars of some You Tube celebrities than TV ones.  From Bethany Mota to PewDiePie, to many that my kids know of and I have no clue who they are.  Still, that is who my kids are watching and broadcast, especially linear broadcast becomes more and more irrelevant. 

As the article note, Aereo made broadcast more accessible to that streaming crowd and opened up accessibility to the cord cutters.  Without it, viewers have to either find new ways to access broadcast programming or continue to skip it for Netflix, Amazon Prime, You Tube and others.  And the broadcasters have lost access to the future generation of potential viewers.  It is over the long run then that broadcasters have more to worry about. 

Aereo was admonished for copyright infringement stemming from the rental of an antenna on a remote antenna farm.  Other companies are now trying new ways to skirt the ruling.  Rather than rent, the antenna needs to be purchased and installed in the home; a box attached to it, captures and transmits wirelessly to authorized devices.  Does ownership of equipment change the result?  Certainly, Slingbox has been doing similar capturing and streaming for some time now.

For now, Aereo has lost and the broadcasters believe they have won.  But as viewership shifts from wired to streaming, from linear to on demand, consumers will seek out shows from multiple devices at times that best suit them and on platforms that are easy to access and appeal to their interests.  Tomorrow's audience may simply not care what broadcasters are pitching on old technology.

A battle may be lost, but the war is certainly not over either.  Much can happen to reshift interest back to broadcast.  New technologies, new strategies, new content.  I have consistently argued that linear wins with live programming.  It hits a home run when it is available on every platform.  And there are many examples to justify it including The World Cup matches on ESPN and streamed online, NBC's Sound of Music, NFL Football, etc.  Once broadcasters truly embrace streaming of their content, their future will be much brighter.

New iWatch Uses

An interesting article in Business Insider wonders if Apple's iWatch could possibly share some features that Disney has incorporated in their theme park MagicBands.  The key might just be the radio frequency built into these consumer friendly wearables.  "Want to buy food while you're at the park? Just scan your wristband and enter a PIN. Tired of scrambling for your hotel key? Simply tap the wristband to your door. The wristband is connected to a credit card and is capable of replacing your wallet, keys, and theme park tickets throughout Disney's sprawling campus. It essentially acts as a digital ID that you wear around your wrist."  Could Apple be emulating these features in their own design?  It certainly opens up new possibilities for usefulness for the future device.

Should Apple Buy A Content Company?

Given the power of content over distribution in the recent Aereo decision, other distribution companies might want to start to reconsider owning content to control the whole pipeline.  A unique scenario proposed in the Washington Post is that Apple should buy Disney.  With Amazon building original content to supply its own Amazon Prime subscribers, the idea might not seem entirely foolish.  Especially as its connection extends to its founder Steve Jobs.  But does Apple want to broaden itself so much away from its own closed architecture of products and media store?

Of course the odds against such a deal also seem overwhelming.  Apple tends to create, rather than acquire, and their acquisition strategy, until recently has been minor in size and scope.  An Apple-Disney combo could change the whole culture of both companies.  It could also cause Apple to lose vision on technical innovation as it worked to hard to find synergies of the content and distribution model.  Still, it is interesting to wonder what if. 

Aereo Loses Challenge In Supreme Court

In a strong majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Aereo today saying that their business violated copyright by stealing signals.  And I must admit that I am a bit shocked.  I saw the rental of the antenna through Aereo as a proper work around to forcing a homeowner to instal an antenna in the home.  And given that the signals are broadcast free over the air, I would argue that you can't steal what is free.  For those fans of the start up, cord cutters in particular, access to broadcaster signals through their service will be denied. 

So what is next for Aereo?  Shut down completely or start to negotiate individually with each broadcaster in each demographic for license fees to connect to the network.  And given the agreements these same broadcasters make for access to subscribers to Comcast, Charter, DirecTv and other, the license fees for a comparatively tiny subscriber base like Aereo will be too high to continue the business model. 

The other question that should be asked is how will content streaming and capture be treated based on this new ruling.  Will it have a notable effect or be limited to this specific ruling?  Content is king in this scenario and ownership enables content creators to negotiate those rights as they seem fit.  This ruling strengthens that position and places content ahead of distribution. 

Cable's Dirty Little Word...Leverage

For cable networks, the key to launch multiple channels is to let the most valuable channel help drive the launch of the smaller less desirable ones.  But don't dare say that the networks employed leverage to force the cable operator to negotiate an all or nothing approach to launch the stable of channels.  In the Viacom - Cablevision lawsuit, leverage is precisely what is being argued. And the courts have agreed to hear the case.  "Should the suit continue, and be decided in Cablevision’s favor, it would set a precedent restricting the ability of programmers to force MVPDs to accept bundles of ancillary – and usually unwanted – content in order to get access to premium channels." 

Historically, though always denied, this has been the case.  For Viacom, it has helped to launch offshoots like VH1 Classics and for Discovery, launches of Health and OWN.  Deals are constructed that bundle in such a way that better deals are constructed for line-up access.  What is ironic is that Cablevision once had its share of cable networks before spinning them off into separately traded public companies.  MSG and Fuse (which was just sold to NuvoTV) was once paired with AMC, Bravo (now an NBCU brand), IFC, Sundance, and WE.  Aggregating these brands enabled all to grow and prosper.  And while the leverage word is never used, the value of the bundle was certainly superior to a la carte when license fees were negotiated.

Not surprisingly, it is also the case on the cable operator side.  Networks are packaged together and offered to consumers; like the lawsuit, households do not have the option to subscribe to basic channels a la carte from their cable provider.  It is in essence the same issue that Cablevision is now suing Viacom over.  Ironic, indeed.  Should Cablevision prove victorious in this lawsuit against Viacom, it could open up a new set of lawsuits with consumers requiring cable operators to sell channels a la carte as well.  Perhaps Cablevision should be careful what they wish for. 

World Cup Offers No Ad Interruptions

Even as a casual fan, I am getting hooked on World Cup Soccer and I am not alone.  Ratings have hit records for both ESPN and Univision.  And yet I wonder, how does that translate into revenue for these two networks? 

Yesterdays match between the US and Portugal was over 95 minutes of non-stop action with only one break at halftime.  Each 45 minute plus half had exactly zero commercial interruptions.  Sure there was ad signage around the field and occasionally a small log appeared near the score, but at no point did announcers stop to send to an ad break or announce that the last score was sponsored by someone.  It was all game all the time.

And unlike the four major professional leagues in the USA, the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL, the game was non-stop, non-commercial, all-joy.  These other leagues would collapse without all those ad breaks.  Yet soccer has not been changed enough by commercialization to force stoppages in play for commercials. 

No doubt fans of the sport kept the channel on between halves so that the halftime stoppage was the only chance to air traditional commercials.  And not enough of a break to air too many either.  Great for the fans but revenue challenging for the broadcasters.

Is Vivendi A Content Buyer?

With all the talk of media mergers, Reuters thinks that Vivendi might just be the company to start acquiring content companies in order to become a major media player.  "Bankers are honing pitches to buy U.S.-based TV companies like AMC, Starz, and Scripps Network Interactive, or a movie studio such as Lionsgate, said two of the people."    Of course any potential of a deal could ramp up conversations by other US players to prepare their own competitive bids.  This summer could be the start of such announcements.

Aereo Decision Could Come Within Two Weeks

The Supreme Court of the United States has certainly had some time to review their notes and deliver a decision. Can Aereo continue its business model or do the broadcasters have the right to yank away free over the air signals from a company that leases antennas? " There are still two more Mondays in the session, and the court could add a Thursday session next week as it has done the previous two."  Or they could continue to wait till the next session this Fall although the expectation is that a decision will come shortly.

I have no inside track nor have I heard any of the testimony.  In fact, I am not even a customer of Aereo; rather, I still get triple play service from our cable provider.  Simply looking at the information that has played across the media, I am firmly of the belief that Aereo will be victorious and broadcasters will still be able to get license fees from cable operators.  Until a decision is rendered, we can only wait and watch. 

There are still two more Mondays in the session, and the court could add a Thursday session next week as it has done the previous two. - See more at: http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/no-aereo-decision-yet/375250#sthash.j6P5j5OT.dpuf