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.
