Cable is one of the few monopolies left (largely because satellite hasn't yet figured out a way to keep your TV going in a rain storm), and the providers continually offer sub par service at an ever-increasing price. So The Baron wasn't shedding any tears for the cable companies when it was announced that some cable shows -- like those on Comedy Central -- would start to stream complete shows online on the same day. Obviously, cable is unhappy because it takes away from the exclusivity of their product so they don't want to pay as much.
You know what? Now you know how everyone else feels. The average cable home gets about 110 channels and watches about 15, but we still have to pay for all of them and the bill still seems to go up more often than any other household bill. Why? Because there's no competition. Maybe this will level the playing field a bit. I doubt it will make much difference in the grand scheme of things, but I do enjoy watching them squirm a bit. Is that a bit schadenfreude-ish? Yup, but the cable companies don't care at all about customer satisfaction or customer experience. Now that this has happened and, far more important, the telephone companies are getting into cable, we could see some real change -- in about 5 years.
Cable Companies Unhappy about Online Streams
Going Mobile: Web Use Differs Depending on Access Point
Though I gave myself the title of Baron, I certainly don't think I know everything about technology usage and media usage, but I do know a bit. That wisdom is what I try to impart here. That said, it seems completely obvious to me (and I would hope to you too, loyal reader) that the PC web experience and the mobile web are very different. Apparently, based on the tone of this BusinessWeek article, it's not that obvious.
Is it such a surprise that people don't want to set up blogs on social network sites via their mobile devices? Until the iPhone, most mobile devices delivered a poor browsing experience that could not handle high-level activities. Is it a surprise to learn that people use their mobile time on weather forecasts and airline information? Without sounding too snooty (too late), the answer is no. I have done some work in the mobile space so maybe I'm biased, but the underlying theme -- that mobile is used for convenience and shorter sessions while PCs are used for more in-depth functions -- just seems very basic.
One thing to keep in mind regarding this research: early adopters almost always use new technologies differently than the masses. (That's what happened with DVRs and ad avoidance habits.) The iPhone, which has raised consumer awareness about the mobile web, has given rise to smartphones that deliver a true web experience, but current mobile web users -- about 30 million people in the U.S. -- probably won't predict the pattern for the rest of us.
Hop into The TimesMachine
The great thing about the Web is its ability to make mass amounts of information easily accessible. Hell, Google built an empire on that principle alone. The latest addition is the cleverly named TimesMachine, the archive from The New York Times that allows users to see the paper and read articles from 1851-1922. (The dates cover the public domain archive of the Times. This blog post explains the process of how TimesMachine came to be, but it doesn't tell you if/when they might put more recent content online.)
The user interface is very well designed and easy to use. There are a few small nitpicks I have, but none seriously affect performance or usage. The first is the inability to click on an article when you scroll over it. The article highlights in blue and a box pops up, but you have to click the link inside the box to get to a PDF of the article. The other bummer is that you can't click on the ads. It would be fun if users could zoom in on those. They add a tremendous amount of historical value. On the plus side, most of the large ads can be viewed just fine as is.
SI Vault, the Sports Illustrated archive, is a similar tool that allows users to flip through as if they were reading the magazine (so you can check out the ads). The site only has some issues available with the "reader," but does contain complete archives (some are text only).
Cable Networks Keep Gaining on Broadcast
Cable networks have been gaining on the broadcast nets in terms of overall viewership for years. When reality TV made a big splash several years ago, the cable networks even passed The Big Four for primetime viewership. The latest chapter in the story comes from the growth of the cable network audience since the writers' strike. The strike sent people to cable and since most cable networks don't have much content, they just replay their core programs endlessly -- an advantage to a viewer who tunes in late and wants to catch up. (That's one of The Baroness' classic moves with Top Chef.)
What's interesting here is that the broadcast networks still let the cable nets own the summer. Granted, the cable networks do not need the kinds of ratings to justify what they charge (like the broadcast nets), but how can broadcast just cede the summer season? In the last few years, cable has had great success with new summer shows and the broadcast folks are getting left behind. People watch more TV now than they did a decade ago, and they want something new and compelling. A summer full of reruns is not cutting it.
Be Careful with Results of AP "Survey"
I saw the headline, "," and immediately thought that this is the kind of the thing I should be blogging about. I took a look at the article, which explains that young media savvy consumers have no media consumption rituals and that they often get their news information via e-mail (as opposed to the Internet). The article also noted that the survey found similarities between young media consumers in America, India, England, etc.
Just one problem. They only "surveyed" 18 people living in six different countries or regions! That's not a survey -- it's a questionnaire given out to some friends. How can you possibly draw any conclusions between habits of people in different countries when -- at most -- 12 people are from that country? The Baron usually doesn't focus too much on methodology, but this has to be a typo. It's completely absurd.
Tech and Media Roundup: Links and Opinions Aplenty
Since we're not feeling any of the big stories today in the tech and media world, we're going to give you a quick roundup of some cool stories. They may not be worth their own post, but they are worth being aware of. Consider this post several opinions for the price of none.
• The folks at The New York Times -- and this blog is one of their best -- seem to like the Netflix box that streams movies. This is clearly the future model. It will be interesting to see how much faith users have in this box. Aren't we all a little skeptical at how quickly and how well this box will stream movies? The biggest plus: it only costs $99 and requires a $9 a month subscription.
• After finishing first in the number of online streams in the latest Nielsen data, Hulu is continuing to expand. What's interesting here is that by adding some of these networks, Hulu will be adding some programs from CBS, which finished last in online streams. In related news, Fancast has added the top Viacom shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to its online stable. Very nice!
• TV is starting to tinker with live commercials. Radio does this all the time with promos and anyone who listens regularly will tell you that the only ads they remember are the ones the hosts ad-lib. Since this article talks about the late-night TV hosts, this could get fun and might actually give me reason to watch.
• This is the most ridiculous SI cover I have ever seen. I found it absurd, but also a little distasteful that they make it seem like the Rays player is on 'roids. Maybe that's just my interpretation, but I can't be the only one. See, I'm not.
Agencies Need to Graduate to Compelling Online Ads
Welcome to our 100th post! Though we don't want this to sound like a graduation speech, we'd like to thank the Baroness for her support and our stable of readers for coming back. Now if we can just get the folks at Facebook to return our calls, we'll be all set.
One of our fascinations is watching TV shows online. It is amazing to see how quickly the service has improved and how quickly viewers have moved online. As we mentioned in an earlier post, some online viewers even make up half of a show's audience. Now comes word that marketers are hot for online ads during shows. Not surprisingly, the ads have high recall and offer more of a connection. They would be better still if they were not just repackaged content from TV. We know it's coming, and at this rate it may be here in a year or two, but this is where agencies really have to work hard to create Flash ads -- which are cheaper to produce -- that engage the viewer in a way that is unique to the medium. So far, we've only heard urban legends that indicate this online TV creative actually exists.
The Baroness and I love watching shows online, but when I see the same ad four times in a row and it's never the slightest bit interesting or engaging, plus it looks awkward because it's repackaged, it always bothers me. OK, back to the part that sounds like a graduation speech: It's time for these agencies to step out into the world and take risks. Shoot for the stars and realize that you can make a difference and be a great success.
An Insightful View on Mainstream Media
We often spend time writing about the sorry state of print journalism -- the dropping circ numbers, the vanishing pool of ad dollars and the fact that no one under 30 views the newspaper as central to their lives. But there is a larger disconnect than that. For the last several years, media viewer/readership (TV, print, Internet, radio) has been increasing at fairly sizable percentages. In TV alone, people are watching 15% more than they did a decade ago. So why are newspapers losing out?
Dan LeBatard, a Miami Herald sports columnist, has an insightful take on the topic, noting that newspapers should spend more time giving readers what they want and less time dictating content. His blog post, which he did for The Big Lead, discusses sports but it could be applied to mainstream media overall. It gives a sense of just how fearful the mainstream media is of blogs, the Internet and change in general.
Our favorite nugget from the column: "Newspapers aren’t giving you what you want. We are telling you what you should want, and you are doing an exceptional job of ignoring us. The marketplace has spoken, and the marketplace always wins in business." Understand that we're not for the dumbing down of society and we believe serious news needs to be out front when appropriate, but the increased consumption of media means people have specific wants and they'll go wherever they can to get find they're looking for. If you don't adapt, consider yourself a dinosaur.
Turner Brings Targeted Ads to TV
The effective ad targeting on the web has forced those in the TV industry to work at creating more effective ads. TV is still the most effective -- and frankly, the only -- mass medium out there. If Turner's plan to target viewers with these contextual ads works, the cost and effectiveness of TV ads could increase. That would avoid the doom and gloom predictions of TV ads due to the DVR. Well, it could help at least.
This does seem like a great concept, though I don't know if viewers will purchase olive oil after watching a scene featuring olive oil in The Godfather. It certainly can't hurt to try to link the viewing experience with the ads. During The Office season finale (which The Baroness and I DVR-ed), we did hold off on the fast-forward to watch the Get Smart ad with Steve Carrell, but would I have done the same if they had been at Chili's and then I had seen an ad for Chili's? Doubtful.
Newspapers Need to Stop Whining About Craigslist
Craig Newmark -- of Craigslist fame -- has always been a media favorite because he's thoughtful and interesting and he has resisted the urge to sell is site for hundreds of millions of dollars. This feature again addresses the claim that Craigslist is killing newspapers because it's taking away classified ad money to papers. Newmark, who clearly cares about journalism, refutes this, but it's almost indisputable. That said, who cares? Craigslist offered a better mousetrap and people flocked to it.
As the story notes, if newspapers want to win back classified users, they need to design something online that benefits their readers. Easier said than done, maybe, but you can't expect people to use something less efficient just because they have for many years. If newspapers could actually design web classifieds to rival Craigslist, my guess is people would flock there since they would be more inclined to trust their local paper over Craigslist.
TV Networks Try to Figure out Online Viewing
Since the upfront ad sales kick off this week, TV is the topic du jour. Generally, I love The New York Times' media coverage, but this article about time-shifted TV viewing leaves a lot to be desired. The article breaks no new ground and rehashes the same old stuff. It does have a couple of interesting tidbits that point to where things are in the whole DVR/VOD/streaming of TV mess.
It's amazing how quickly people have migrated to online viewing, specifically to sites like Hulu. (Side note: I went to a panel today with Hulu CEO Jason Kilar. Interesting discussion, including the fact that you can watch the ads for your show on Hulu in a trailer format which cuts them out during the show itself. Back to the post.) The story notes that half of viewers for The Office and 30 Rock in L.A. watch online. That's amazing.
The other key point the story brings to light is the fact that advertisers and networks haven't fully committed to online viewing. I recognize that the most money comes from TV, but The CW pulled Gossip Girl episodes from its website to improve the show's ratings. It's ironic since the network has been lauded in many places, including a cover story in New York, for being the new model of a TV/online hybrid. The CW should have at least given more time to see how this will play out (and the comment by the show's executive producer in the Times article tells you some at the network were hoping that would happen). Oh well, this is how progress is usually made, slowly and tentatively. At least they're not pulling The Office from Hulu.
Free Papers: Getting More Than You Pay For?
I was visiting Baron von Mom recently and while I was talking about the expansion of NYTimes.com, she was complaining that soon she won't have any paper to read. While I doubt the Times will stop printing its print edition any time soon, that day is coming at some point. Everyone in the newspaper biz is trying to figure out what the future of print is. We'll leave online journalism alone for the moment because that is where most content will go. But until the transition is complete, what happens to print?
In many large cities around the country, the free, ad-supported daily has become the answer. In New York, there are two such tabloids, filled with news tidbits, a handful of local stories and Sudoku. Those papers only publish on weekdays and are available in newspaper boxes throughout the city. Now, there is word that the free papers in Baltimore, Washington and San Francisco -- all owned by Philip Anschutz -- will begin free Sunday papers with home delivery. Now, I don't live in those cities so it may be that those papers are dreadfully unreadable and not worth the time and effort of lugging them into the house, but the model is an interesting one. It may not be possible for a straight media company. (Anschutz has a diverse empire with stakes in a variety of businesses). I don't know if these ventures lose money, but it's something the rest of the print industry should examine carefully as it may provide an answer to a confounding question.
These papers may not be exactly what Baron von Mom is looking for. Readers will likely get what they pay for with these papers -- lots of wire stories and brief roundups of events with little in-depth analysis -- but the model could be used in the future to prolong the life, and find a use for, the sagging print industry.
3 Shows, 1 DVR: The Complicated Math
The Thursday night TV schedule presents an interesting challenge. The Office and 30 Rock go up against Grey's Anatomy and the Celtics-Cavs game. (I don't need to tell you which one The Baroness doesn't care about.) Our DVR can handle two of the three and we have decided to watch the NBC sitcoms on Hulu. Why is that relevant here? Well, Comcast and Time Warner are experimenting with limiting the number of gigabytes for users and charging a fee above that limit. The writer points out (correctly, I think) that the cable companies may have an ulterior motive here since they still want people to watch on TV. The question is, will there be a point at which we worry about the monthly bill -- similar to the cell phone bill -- when we watch TV online?
If that happens, the cable companies could be courting disaster with the emergence of Verizon FIOS. Cable companies no longer have a complete monopoly and if they start alienating customers -- Comcast has cut off customers who use more than the stated gigabyte limit -- they could be asking for trouble. Plus, cable companies could draw the ire of the networks, who are trying to push viewers online to increase viewership.
Paying for Web Access at Hotels? Ugh!
A quick warning: I'm irrational. I have no idea why I pay for the newspaper but expect free content on the Web. No clue. I do know, though, that I am not the only one. This is the great conundrum of the Internet. One of my biggest pet peeves in this regard is hotels and Internet access. I despise having to pay to get online and spend some time checking my favorite sites and blogs. It's not my fault you have crappy cable and I can't find the sports news I need.
I suppose the reason it irks me so much is that I hate being nickel-and-dimed. I already have to pay for parking (if you're in a city like NYC), the mini-bar and virtually everything else. And no, that doesn't make up for the fact that I take the pens. I'm not so bullish on airports, but for heavy business travelers, it must be a huge pain in the butt. Anyhoo, some hotels and airports are giving travelers free Internet, though it's ad-supported or you have to sign up for a loyalty program. Don't know why it has taken so long for this to become the norm. I understand we're all here to make money and frankly, if they added it into the cost of the room, it wouldn't bother me at all. Today's rant, over and out.
Tech Publisher Shows it Can Make the Transition Online
There's an interesting story in The New York Times detailing how IDG, a publisher of mostly tech magazines, has moved some of its top pubs online and seen strong ad growth. The journey was much more difficult than that last sentence makes it seem, but the important thing here is that magazines can transition online and make money from ads. I was impressed that they decided to scrap the 3,000-word features and tailor the content to online readers by utilizing web video. Of course, the tech mag readership is more likely to smoothly migrate online, but right now the battered print industry will just settle for knowing it can be done.
Since we're feeling all giddy about print entities, we should also tell you that newspapers are cornering the market in local online ads. That's no surprise, but it is key as more local ads move online.
What if Those Facebook Friends Showed Up at Your House?
We've written about the oddity of Facebook and being "friends" with people you haven't seen in 15 years. Well, a bunch of Brits took that point and ran with it, turning it into a real-life episode. The clip even got mentioned in The Wall Street Journal, which is where we found it. (It reminds us of the great Dave Chappelle sketch detailing what it would be like if the Internet was a real place.) Enjoy.
Apple Uses iPhone to Keep Moving Forward
It's no secret that we love the iPhone. While we won't count the ways here, this is the overarching theme: the Apple folks are forward-thinking and have built a completely logical device. Now, Apple is teaming up with tech heavyweights like Cisco and Intel to develop advanced applications for the iPhone. The Baron's personal favorite? You can move a file from the iPhone to your desktop computer with nothing more than the flick of a finger. The article says it best when it notes that this is why Apple is the king. Other manufacturers are trying to catch up, while Apple is pushing the line further and further.
Even more exciting is the fact that AT&T will be sponsoring the 3G iPhone when it comes out in June, meaning that the 8MB iPhone will costs just $199. It's like the iPod all over again. And if you think that Apple is still just a nice niche company, look at the fact that its earnings were up 36% over last year, thanks largely to PC sales. Apple has figured out that it can keep customers once it exposes them to its core strengths of usability and design. The iPod and the iPhone tap into that broader customer base.
