Technology360

Digital must-carry vs. faster IP-over-cable Internet access

Michael Harris makes the following proposal:

... Not surprisingly, MSOs and cable programmers continue to cry foul over broadcast digital must-carry and the possibility of multicast carriage. They well should. (See Cable's All-Upset Over All-Digital.)  ¶  But what the cable industry has failed to articulate is an alternative plan for the use of the spectrum that would be wasted under digital must-carry requirements.  ¶  Here's a suggestion. If the FCC deep-sixes digital must-carry, MSOs pledge to use the spectrum to rollout 100-Mbit/s Internet access nationwide. Move the argument into the marketplace, and empower consumers to pressure politicians still under the spell of broadcast lobbyists. ...

Link:  Cable Digital News.  I'm not advocating a position here, but we broadcasters might think about whether having a 100 mbps pipe to consumers might be better for our business model in the long run than trying to monetize more linear channels on already over-stuffed cable systems.  --Dennis

No Holy Grail For Online Video Ad Model...

David Kaplan writes:

Viewers of online video have never warmed to having to watch a preroll ads, and so, sites and marketers have been desperately searching for marketing vehicles that will click with consumers.  A WSJ piece surveys some possibles answers. One format being pursued is the use of graphics that slide over the bottom of the video-viewing screen - sometimes called referred to as overlays, bugs or tickers - as the best way to monetize online video. Another method advertisers have been trying out is wrapping the video players in skins. And still others haven’t given up on prerolls, attempting to make them more palatable by shortening the ads to five seconds or inserting a countdown timer telling viewers when the actual content will begin. ...

Link:  paidContent.

Goldhaber vs. Keen

Andrew Keen's book, The Cult of the Amateur, has attracted a lot of incoming missiles.  Last month, I linked to critiques by Clay Shirky and David Weinberger.  Michael "Mr. Attention" Goldhaber has just published Part I of a response to the book on his weblog he's titled, The Cult of the Professional.  I'll link to Part II when he posts it.  Link: Michael H. Goldhaber. 

Updated 31 August 2007:
Here's Part II, Social Networking vs. Gulags.  --Dennis

The BBC's iPlayer and ISP pushback

The BBC's current iPlayer beta has attracted a lot of comment in the blogosophere -- mostly about DRM and the Windows XP limits of the beta version -- but real story here is that ISPs in the UK have chosen this announcement as an occasion to make political points about capacity issues.  These complaints have the strong potential to be heard elsewhere in the world also as more and and bigger video files transit the Web, especially via P2P networks, legal and otherwise.  Here is a summary of stories about this development.

Jeremy Penston, iPlayer Politics: Behind the ISPs vs BBC row.  Link:  The Register.

Chris Williams, BT rubbishes BBC bandwidth throttling reports.  Link:  The Register.

Jack Schofield, ISPs warn BBC over iPlayer bandwidth use.  Link: The Guardian.  Included mostly for its links.

Bobbie Johnson, Bandwidth threat as on-demand TV grows.  Link: The Guardian.

Om Malik, Broadband ISP's Fear of the Web Video.  Link:  GigaOM.

Tim Ferguson, BBC iPlayer a Bandwidth Hog? Link: BusinessWeek.

Robert Andrews, BBC iPlayer Bandwidth Concerns - More Investment Needed, Regulator Says.  Link: paidContent.

Update 20 August 2007:

William Cooper, Broadband service providers threaten to throttle iPlayer.  Link: Informitv.

Then, to put this into some perspective, also read Om Malik's Online Video To Boost Internet Protocol (IP) Traffic.  He writes:

It should come as no surprise: the big and fat video files are one of the main reason why the bandwidth glut created by overbuilding in the telecom boom of 1990s is evaporating. The good news is that the demand for bandwidth is not going to end any time soon.  ¶  A report released by Cisco Systems (CSCO) predicts that consumer-related traffic running over IP networks is going to grow at a compound annual rate of 58 percent from 2006 to 2011, and will end up totaling 17 exabytes per month by 2011. ...

Link:  NewTeeVee.  --Dennis

How the MyFox deal badly hurts the affiliates

Steve Safran writes:

With the MyFox deal, the Fox-affiliated television stations have just taken the path of least resistance in the area where they need to make the biggest strides. They have chosen ease over risk. ...

... We have seen stations fail in their online attempts. What do those failures have in common?

• A lack of an independent platform
• A failure to invest in a station’s own infrastructure
• The ability to be creative and reflect the needs and desires of their own communities
• No entrepreneurial spirit
• Complete control over management
• No buy-in from the upper ranks
• Revenue sharing

In short: ownership.

The stations that have failed to make money from their online efforts are those that have failed to take ownership - true ownership - over their sites. By handing over the command and control to vendors, stations get into this loop where A. They produce an inferior product, B. They make no money and so C. They don’t invest in the product. ...

Link:  Lost Remote.  This longish essay goes on to make a number of interesting points.

In an email heads up about this post, KAKM's John Proffitt adds the following comments:

This logic follows with how I look at pubcasting station web sites as well.  When control and leadership of online work is ceded to an outside entity -- even one that's a partner/friend/helper -- the local station staff treat online activities as a forgotten backwater and ignore engaging the public in meaningful "new media" ways. ...

... Since the web allows for one-to-one and many-to-many connections, using a third party platform strikes me as antithetical to the nature of the web.  To my way of thinking, stations across the country that want to remain relevant and engaged going into the future should do two things:

1. Drop the word "station" from your vocabulary -- that word has declining value and meaning

2. Do all your online work and social networking yourself -- never turn that over to a hired gun ...

Thanks, John.  --Dennis

Navigating the Media Divide: Innovating and Enabling New Business Models - IBM report

The best "freebie" white paper I found last year relating to my electronic media responsibilities was IBM's The end of TV as we know it: A future industry perspective, to which I linked in January 2006.  It holds up well today.  So when David Leroy (thanks) pointed me at a pair of related new ones from the IBM Institute for Business Value and with two of t he same authors, I was hopeful.

The authors (Saul J. Berman, Steven Abraham, Bill Battino, Louisa Shipnuck and Andreas Neus -- Berman and Shipnuck being two of the authors on The end of TV...) didn't disappoint.  Navigating the Media Divide: Innovating and Enabling New Business Models and The fight ahead on media's main streets are, as the titles imply, about more than television -- but then last year's report was relevant beyond television also.

The papers explore issues around the familiar scenario framework that creates four quadrants with the X-axis being "Distribution and device platforms" ranging from "proprietary" to "open" and the Y-axis being "Content blend" ranging from "Produced by professionals" to "User/community contribution."  They view the upper and rightmost dimensions as being particularly disruptive amd posit that these four quadrants will be the four business models in use over the next 3-4 years.  The figure here (click for larger image) depicts these business models.

The authors provide ten specific recommendations for media companies some of which seem pretty obvious (e.g., "Put consumers at the center of your business and boardroom"), while others more insightful (e.g., "Give control to get share").

Link:  IBM: The fight ahead on media's mean streets.  IBM: Navigating the Media Divide: Innovating and Enabling New Business Models.

Also see Saul J. Berman, Adam R. Steinberg and Louisa A. Shipnuck, Beyond access: Raising the value of information in a cluttered environment.  Link:  IBM (pdf).

The Bottom Line

Michael Rosenblum says that this chart "contains the inevitable seeds of the future. " Click to enlarge image.

He writes:

... Suddenly we move from 3 networks to 500 cable channels. The limitation on number of channels is now no longer the EM spectrum, but rather the capabilities of coaxial cable to carry signal. And as a result, there are a lot more channels. And a lot more channels means a demand for a lot more content.  ¶  In fact, we go from a gross demand for content of 64,000 hours in 1974, to nearly  4.5 million hours in 2003.  ¶  However, at the same time as the number of channels is expanding, the size of the audience remains the same. Now there are many more channels dividing a pie that is essentially the same size as it was in 1973. ...

Link:  Rosenblumtv.  This is important reading.  --Dennis

What's happening at KETC, St. Louis

Public television station KETC in St. Louis, now under the leadership of the always-progressive Jack Galmiche, has been using consultant Rob Paterson to help it find better connections with its community.  Rob has an interesting overview of what they're doing on his weblog.  Link:  Robert Paterson's Weblog.  --Dennis

Interview with Rafat Ali

Terry Heaton has a very good interview with journalist Rafat Ali, founder of paidContent.org, mocoNews.net and a third news site dealing with digital content in India.  I've been reading paidContent and mocoNews since they began.  No one does a better job of following the money relating to mobile and digital content.  Link:  Terry Heaton's PoMo Blog.  --Dennis

The State of the Media Democracy - Deloitte & Touch report

Deloitte & Touche USA LLP has a report based on an online survey conducted by Harrison Group.  Here are survey highlights:

High Demand for User-Generated Content

• 40 percent of all survey respondents are making their own entertainment (editing movies, music and photos)
  • 25 percent of Matures
  • 56 percent of all Millennials; leading Millennials (18-24) participate more
• More than one in 10 Millennials are actively uploading their own videos on the Internet
• 51 percent of all survey respondents are watching/reading content created by others
• 71 percent of Millennials, 56 percent of Xers; Boomers/Mature participation is less, but noteworthy
• 53 percent of Millennials would download more videos if  connection speeds were faster
• One-third of online content viewing is done on user-generated sites
  • Almost ¼ for Matures, ½ for Millennials

Long Live Traditional Media!

• Favorite and promising new television shows beat the Web as the most frequent media conversation topics for all generations
  • Extensive amplification with the Millennials as they tell the most people about what they like
  • 52 percent of Xers are visiting television show Internet sites
• Printed magazines are an integral part of every generation’s life
  • 72 percent enjoy reading magazines over finding the same information online
  • 58 percent of Millennials agree magazines help them learn about what’s “in”
• Compared with online activities like surfing the Web and downloading music, all generations aspire to reading a book in the coming year

Advertising Insights

• 64 percent  tend to pay greater attention to print ads in magazines or newspapers than advertising on the Internet
• More than one-in-four would pay for online content vs. being exposed to ads
• Search engines and word of mouth are the most effective means for driving Web site traffic — 85 percent of Xers are influenced by someone’s recommendation
• 87 percent of respondents continually visit the same Web sites
• Generation Xers are a little more responsive to advertising

Future Products
Millennials are leading the way as far as embracing new technologies, games, entertainment platforms, user-generated content and communication tools:

• 64 percent want to easily connect their television to the Internet for viewing videos and downloading content to their television
• 60 percent want the ability to move their content to any device they own without any problems
• 57 percent want an entertainment and communication device that lets them do everything
• 49 percent want a computer or similar device that will be the center of their household media experience

You can download a PDF of select findings.   Link:  Deloitte.com.  --Dennis