Where are the smart commercials, the ones that make you laugh or cry or just think, the ones that solve a real problem or create aspirations. But what bugs me most are commercials that frankly don't make sense, where the solution is not sold by the action in the ad.
Another case in point, an ad for TD Bank. While some of their ads have been done extremely well, this one makes no sense. In it, the store owner tells us that he needs to make his daily end of day deposit. First, that he would rather leave a possible sale to tend to his banking would never happen. His business relies on customers that spend money and he is willing to end that relationship to make his day's deposit. Second, that he is willing to risk life and limb jumping through a plate glass window, breaking a car windshield, run through street traffic, all to make his deposit before the bank closes. But then he tells us that he is happy because the bank stays open later to accommodate him and his store hours. WAIT! You just risked your life to get to the bank in time and you didn't have to. Sure, it is meant to be humorous but the premise is inane. Ideally, the benefit of banking at TD Bank is that you didn't have to leave a customer early or risk your life to do your banking. Shouldn't his story be illustrated by another store owner that faces the same challenge only to find their bank door locked, while he calmly closes his business and walks to the bank and is greeted warmly inside. Just sating. If you haven't seen this ad, here it is:
What commercials do you find make no sense or don't work for you? Let me know.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Monday, August 10, 2015
Some Commercials Bug Me
And I suspect that many others feel the same way. It may pay the bills for media companies, but it seems at times that the number of minutes of ads per hour are approaching the number of minutes per hour devoted to content. How much more enjoyable is watching movies or shows on HBO or Showtime or Netflix or Amazon, all without commercial interruptions, then on basic cable with ad overload. Certainly some commercials are well done; they tend to find their way to content like the Super Bowl, but most are inane.
Case in point, a recent ad for FIOS featuring Rashida Jones. While I use this ad as an example, many others make no sense as well. In this particular ad, Jones is sitting in a friend's kitchen with a third friend talking about her date the night before. Fine so far. Just then, her cell phone rings and she asks permission to take it on her tablet and needing to use her friend's WIFI. Why? The call is on your cell, don't you want privacy. Fine switch it to Facetime or Skype or some other video app. But does her date know that she is turning his call from audio to video? And why ask for permission to use her WIFI if you are able to connect instantly to the now video call? You must have already had permission to access WIFI as it most likely needed a passcode prior to get online. And if it was an open WIFI, it meant that her friend didn't care who used their WIFI. The results of pushing the call from cell to WIFI are disastrous as buffering prevented the whole conversation from being heard. And the friends decide that he must be a psycho. Why? Was Jones describing her date prior as being disastrous? Probably not as she was willing to talk to him; a bad date would have most likely resulted in that call being ignored. So point for the ad is this, unbelievable premise, unlikely scenario, nonsensical outcome. Would any likely buyer of FIOS experience this type of problem with their current WIFI provider; no. I'm left clueless who would switch providers as a result of this ad. Most may simply ignore it as unwatchable; others, like me, annoyed each time it airs. If you haven't seen it, here it is:
FYI, my wife just saw a commercial for a Technical College. It had a spelling error. Not a good sign. Are there other ads that simply make no sense to you. Let me know. If advertising is to work, shouldn't it entertain or inform or aspire. But when it doesn't, it annoys.
Case in point, a recent ad for FIOS featuring Rashida Jones. While I use this ad as an example, many others make no sense as well. In this particular ad, Jones is sitting in a friend's kitchen with a third friend talking about her date the night before. Fine so far. Just then, her cell phone rings and she asks permission to take it on her tablet and needing to use her friend's WIFI. Why? The call is on your cell, don't you want privacy. Fine switch it to Facetime or Skype or some other video app. But does her date know that she is turning his call from audio to video? And why ask for permission to use her WIFI if you are able to connect instantly to the now video call? You must have already had permission to access WIFI as it most likely needed a passcode prior to get online. And if it was an open WIFI, it meant that her friend didn't care who used their WIFI. The results of pushing the call from cell to WIFI are disastrous as buffering prevented the whole conversation from being heard. And the friends decide that he must be a psycho. Why? Was Jones describing her date prior as being disastrous? Probably not as she was willing to talk to him; a bad date would have most likely resulted in that call being ignored. So point for the ad is this, unbelievable premise, unlikely scenario, nonsensical outcome. Would any likely buyer of FIOS experience this type of problem with their current WIFI provider; no. I'm left clueless who would switch providers as a result of this ad. Most may simply ignore it as unwatchable; others, like me, annoyed each time it airs. If you haven't seen it, here it is:
FYI, my wife just saw a commercial for a Technical College. It had a spelling error. Not a good sign. Are there other ads that simply make no sense to you. Let me know. If advertising is to work, shouldn't it entertain or inform or aspire. But when it doesn't, it annoys.
Apple App Store Keeps Growing
Concern that Apple is only the iPhone may miss the bigger picture. The latest incarnation of iOS, the sales of desktop and laptop Macs, the rise of iPads in enterprise operations, and the future generations of Apple Watches, along with annual upgrades of the iPhone has created an infrastructure that easily and efficiently communicates among itself. And with the next model release of the iPhone next month means more upgrades, more switching from Android to Apple, and more growth. And what runs all these devices, the Apple App Store!
Count in the revenue from that business, 1.7 billion in July, according to Techcrunch, and Apple is a behemoth that continues to grow. Consumers that are buying the iPhone are likely to build households that include other Apple devices. And as content and apps can run easily across devices, the usefulness of these devices continue to increase as Apple markets and sells more apps to run across their devices. The Apple App Store generates revenue bigger than other retail operations.
International expansion, more users, more apps and more content will only drive this growth forward. And likely drive more excess cash to invest in other opportunities from automobiles to subscription services, from commercial operations to financial services. In fact, it has already started. Their App Store may be just another line item on their business plan, but it keeps delivering bigger and bigger numbers to the bottom line.
Count in the revenue from that business, 1.7 billion in July, according to Techcrunch, and Apple is a behemoth that continues to grow. Consumers that are buying the iPhone are likely to build households that include other Apple devices. And as content and apps can run easily across devices, the usefulness of these devices continue to increase as Apple markets and sells more apps to run across their devices. The Apple App Store generates revenue bigger than other retail operations.
International expansion, more users, more apps and more content will only drive this growth forward. And likely drive more excess cash to invest in other opportunities from automobiles to subscription services, from commercial operations to financial services. In fact, it has already started. Their App Store may be just another line item on their business plan, but it keeps delivering bigger and bigger numbers to the bottom line.
Friday, August 7, 2015
Are There Just Too Many Cable Networks
How many slices of a pie can you make before the serving size gets too small? Cable operators have impressed us with the number of channels they offer, creating value in aggregating so much content for one low price. But with the advent of on demand programming and the rise in streaming, channels have become a bit dated. Asked to define a network by the shows they offer and you can become glassy-eyed trying to figure it out. As viewers, we simply want to watch and aggregators like Netflix allow us to watch our Mad Men and other shows without caring what "channel" it is on.
Companies with multiple channels under their ownership air shows across those channels to gain audience interest. Most recently, the Jim Gaffigan Show appeared not only on TV Land, but Comedy Central as well. These networks are owned by Viacom. Other media companies have followed similar strategies. Orphan Black was seen across AMC Networks and BBC America Channels.
With so many channels asking for license fees, cable operators realize they now must cut back to save on costs. Viewers watch shows, not 'channels' these days, and aggregators like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon are capturing consumers with a single source for watching episodes or movies. No channel names involved. And so it may be time to consolidate and drop channel brands. Channels have become too fragmented so that no one network has a sufficiently unique brand. Channel individuality has been lost as each tries to reach the same demographic to drive advertising sales.
Cable operators realize too that a skinnier bundle with less channel offerings, combined with on demand and streaming capability through their menu, will keep price points more attractive and subscription from dropping.
It may now be time for the media industry to drop nets and better segment their brands. Can MTV and VH1 be combined, Can A&E, History, and H2 become one brand; Can IFC, Sundance, and BBC be combined. Could TBS, TNT, TruTV become one brand? And will independent networks like GSN, Ovation, WFN, and others find that they will also fall off the cable line-up. It might just be time to watch network fragmentation evolve back into fewer more sustainable brands. r they might go away altogether ac consumers cut the cord to cable TV and seek only their programs on other aggregator platforms.
Companies with multiple channels under their ownership air shows across those channels to gain audience interest. Most recently, the Jim Gaffigan Show appeared not only on TV Land, but Comedy Central as well. These networks are owned by Viacom. Other media companies have followed similar strategies. Orphan Black was seen across AMC Networks and BBC America Channels.
With so many channels asking for license fees, cable operators realize they now must cut back to save on costs. Viewers watch shows, not 'channels' these days, and aggregators like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon are capturing consumers with a single source for watching episodes or movies. No channel names involved. And so it may be time to consolidate and drop channel brands. Channels have become too fragmented so that no one network has a sufficiently unique brand. Channel individuality has been lost as each tries to reach the same demographic to drive advertising sales.
Cable operators realize too that a skinnier bundle with less channel offerings, combined with on demand and streaming capability through their menu, will keep price points more attractive and subscription from dropping.
It may now be time for the media industry to drop nets and better segment their brands. Can MTV and VH1 be combined, Can A&E, History, and H2 become one brand; Can IFC, Sundance, and BBC be combined. Could TBS, TNT, TruTV become one brand? And will independent networks like GSN, Ovation, WFN, and others find that they will also fall off the cable line-up. It might just be time to watch network fragmentation evolve back into fewer more sustainable brands. r they might go away altogether ac consumers cut the cord to cable TV and seek only their programs on other aggregator platforms.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
It's The End Of The Bundle As We Know It
With apologies to R.E.M., it looks like the end of the bundle as we know it (and I feel fine). Prophetic perhaps, but the stock market these last couple of days sure feels like the bundle today is broke and that media companies will be the losers.
For cable, the bundle was originally laughed at when Cablevision first introduced a triple play bundle of cable, phone, and broadband for under a hundred dollars a month. And with an assortment of cable networks, consumers felt like they got a good deal. Other cable companies scoffed but soon found themselves following along as it proved to be a very successful marketing strategy.
Fast forward almost 20 years and cable subscription fees have grown faster than inflation. Cable operators kept aggregating more and more networks to their line-up and license fees of all networks kept rising. And so did our cable bills. We may have enjoyed the wide variety of programming and the rise of on demand viewing, but we were also inundated with more and more commercials. For consumers, a breaking point was near and the solution has been cord cutting.
But in order to enjoy content, alternatives also had to be found. The quantum leap happened as Netflix emerged with a broadband streaming solution at a price point of under $8 a month. Amazon Prime, Hulu, and others saw a shift occurring and have found a way to attract viewers with low fees, syndicated and well known content, and as to really entice viewers, original content to drive adoption. For price/value, cable was losing the race.
Unfortunately cable networks are not about to lower their license fees that they charge operators. So cable operators have now started to drop networks off their basic line-up and create skinnier versions at lower costs. For some cable networks, it is a double hit; lost subscribers first due to cord cutting, and second, drops in their subscriber base due to being dropped from basic levels of service. With lower subscriber bases, advertising revenue creates a third hit to the networks bottom line. Verizon FIOS has announced such a move and Charter Cable is not far behind.
Today, the bundle is not the technology choices; we have essentially watched as the triple play can essentially be managed through the broadband fiber with web, streaming, and VOIP. The bundle is now the aggregated content that we are consuming across our devices. And price elasticity is playing a huge part. AT&T, now with DirecTv in its stable, is trying its own bundle of cellular and satellite to drive subscription. Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu continue to advance with more original content to their bundle of content.
Media networks that own their content should find that they will survive cord cutting with more platform alternatives to place their content. And branded opportunities within the content will drive forward more advertising revenue as well. For cable operators, the bundle as we know it has changed; Driving value of the fiber pipeline to the home, services that rely on the broadband pipe, and TV Everywhere content accessibility at more competitive price points will keep the business thriving.
For cable, the bundle was originally laughed at when Cablevision first introduced a triple play bundle of cable, phone, and broadband for under a hundred dollars a month. And with an assortment of cable networks, consumers felt like they got a good deal. Other cable companies scoffed but soon found themselves following along as it proved to be a very successful marketing strategy.
Fast forward almost 20 years and cable subscription fees have grown faster than inflation. Cable operators kept aggregating more and more networks to their line-up and license fees of all networks kept rising. And so did our cable bills. We may have enjoyed the wide variety of programming and the rise of on demand viewing, but we were also inundated with more and more commercials. For consumers, a breaking point was near and the solution has been cord cutting.
But in order to enjoy content, alternatives also had to be found. The quantum leap happened as Netflix emerged with a broadband streaming solution at a price point of under $8 a month. Amazon Prime, Hulu, and others saw a shift occurring and have found a way to attract viewers with low fees, syndicated and well known content, and as to really entice viewers, original content to drive adoption. For price/value, cable was losing the race.
Unfortunately cable networks are not about to lower their license fees that they charge operators. So cable operators have now started to drop networks off their basic line-up and create skinnier versions at lower costs. For some cable networks, it is a double hit; lost subscribers first due to cord cutting, and second, drops in their subscriber base due to being dropped from basic levels of service. With lower subscriber bases, advertising revenue creates a third hit to the networks bottom line. Verizon FIOS has announced such a move and Charter Cable is not far behind.
Today, the bundle is not the technology choices; we have essentially watched as the triple play can essentially be managed through the broadband fiber with web, streaming, and VOIP. The bundle is now the aggregated content that we are consuming across our devices. And price elasticity is playing a huge part. AT&T, now with DirecTv in its stable, is trying its own bundle of cellular and satellite to drive subscription. Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu continue to advance with more original content to their bundle of content.
Media networks that own their content should find that they will survive cord cutting with more platform alternatives to place their content. And branded opportunities within the content will drive forward more advertising revenue as well. For cable operators, the bundle as we know it has changed; Driving value of the fiber pipeline to the home, services that rely on the broadband pipe, and TV Everywhere content accessibility at more competitive price points will keep the business thriving.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Could You Live Without Your Voicemail
According to a number of articles, Apple is testing ways to have voicemails transcribed into text. Currently, my Comcast phone service does the exact same thing. Messages left on my home phone, including reminders from CVS that my prescription is ready gets transcribed and sent to my Apple iPhone. It certainly enables me to delete the voicemail without ever having to listen to it.
Of course, not all efforts at transcribing go off perfectly. It always seems that the Comcast service mishears a portion of some messages and that requires me to listen to get the true message. In those cases, I am grateful that I have both options. That Apple wants to offer a similar service for cellphone voicemails would be a nice option; still, I wouldn't want to eliminate the original voicemail just yet. Will a SIRI transcription service eventually replace voicemail entirely. The sad truth is that text loses inflection, it misses humor or sarcasm or just the unique marvel of each person's unique speaking habits. For commercial voicemails, text is preferred; but I still like hearing the voices of friends.
Of course, not all efforts at transcribing go off perfectly. It always seems that the Comcast service mishears a portion of some messages and that requires me to listen to get the true message. In those cases, I am grateful that I have both options. That Apple wants to offer a similar service for cellphone voicemails would be a nice option; still, I wouldn't want to eliminate the original voicemail just yet. Will a SIRI transcription service eventually replace voicemail entirely. The sad truth is that text loses inflection, it misses humor or sarcasm or just the unique marvel of each person's unique speaking habits. For commercial voicemails, text is preferred; but I still like hearing the voices of friends.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Even Digital Content Is King
Not satisfied with owning a leading broadcast network, cable networks, and a movie studio, NBC Universal and its parent company Comcast want to own digital content creation companies too. The latest on their radar are Buzzfeed and Vox Media. Buzzfeed has positioned itself as a leader in creating social commentary, news, and entertainment with an eye to creating eye-catching, shareable, viral content. Vox Media has created some well known sports blog along with its recent acquisition of re/code. In an ironic twist, it is re/code passing on some of this news on the potential partnership plans.
For NBCUniversal, adding a stable of digital content companies to its video rodeo seems like a good fit. Synergies between networks, shows, advertising, and promotion could all help drive viewership and usage gains. But synergy is also a tricky animal that in many cases culture and personal politics can end up building roadblocks to success. Done well, digital content, like any other content, is king and as many believe is what drives consumers to certain platforms. Should this deal succeed, it will be fun to watch how it is utilized.
For NBCUniversal, adding a stable of digital content companies to its video rodeo seems like a good fit. Synergies between networks, shows, advertising, and promotion could all help drive viewership and usage gains. But synergy is also a tricky animal that in many cases culture and personal politics can end up building roadblocks to success. Done well, digital content, like any other content, is king and as many believe is what drives consumers to certain platforms. Should this deal succeed, it will be fun to watch how it is utilized.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Yelp Needs Help
As far as the stock market is concerned, Yelp is the sound a dog makes. Earnings don't look so good and the stock price is falling drastically. But the problem isn't that consumers aren't using the service or that revenue is falling, the opposite is true; the problem is that they are not growing fast enough. I am an active user of Yelp. I use it for restaurant suggestions, I use it for hotels. I even just looked at online reviews on Yelp for local car dealers. It is a useful and practical service. But I can see on the business side, the difficulty they must have in growing revenue. As it's main charm is social media, users posting personal reviews, companies with great reviews don't need to advertise on it as social media is providing a credible ad message without them paying for it. And a company with bad reviews may simply want to not advertise on a site that is badmouthing it. Rather, they can just respond to specific reviews. So the old adage, 'why buy the cow if the milk is free', seems to come into play with Yelp.
It may be that the future success of Yelp comes from synergy it can create by merging with another entity. Could Google, Facebook, or Twitter be interested in joining forces with yelp/ It seems that a partner is needed if Yelp is to have future financial success. For now, I will continue to use Yelp; I love it and appreciate getting important feedback and reviews
on different businesses.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
What If ESPN Became A Stand Alone Service
Disney/ESPN CEO Bob Iger admitted earlier this week that ESPN could one day offer itself like HBO Now. Given the loss of cable subscribers, primarily due to cord cutting, Iger expects that they could recapture homes with a streaming sports service. But sports content is one of the most expensive line items resulting in nets like ESPN charging the highest amounts for a cable network compared to other cable license fees. And it is those costs that consistently rise annually resulting in cable bills rising as well. That is one of the likely causes of cord cutting.
So would non-cable customers pay about $30 a month, according to the Huffington Post article, for a streaming ESPN service? Those consumers that cannot live without their sports are not likely the ones cutting the cable cord. So I find it highly doubtful that consumers would pay that much. It seems that $10 per month might be the threshold that some would pay. I say that given that Netflix and Hulu are able to get away with fees at that level. Overall, sports fans tend to retain a cable subscription, while non sports fans are the bigger cord cutters.
In the meantime, ESPN will likely follow more austere cost cutting measures, with a larger percentage going to the big sport leagues, to counter the loss of cable subscribers and a drop in revenue. The rising costs of sports programming, leagues, players, games, TV rights, etc. is making access to these games, through broadcast or in-person tickets, more expensive and harder to enjoy. Over time, fan interest continues to fall, and consumers will be harder to reach.
So would non-cable customers pay about $30 a month, according to the Huffington Post article, for a streaming ESPN service? Those consumers that cannot live without their sports are not likely the ones cutting the cable cord. So I find it highly doubtful that consumers would pay that much. It seems that $10 per month might be the threshold that some would pay. I say that given that Netflix and Hulu are able to get away with fees at that level. Overall, sports fans tend to retain a cable subscription, while non sports fans are the bigger cord cutters.
In the meantime, ESPN will likely follow more austere cost cutting measures, with a larger percentage going to the big sport leagues, to counter the loss of cable subscribers and a drop in revenue. The rising costs of sports programming, leagues, players, games, TV rights, etc. is making access to these games, through broadcast or in-person tickets, more expensive and harder to enjoy. Over time, fan interest continues to fall, and consumers will be harder to reach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
