There is another player in the TV universe that hasn't even launched yet that may be worth checking out: Zillion TV. According to their website (zilliontv.tv) you choose the programs, how to watch even what addressable ads you'll accept. Right now they have agreements in place with Disney, NBC Universal, SONY and Warner Brothers.
Content streamed to my TV via the internet connection, I choose how I want it, when I want it and what ads I see. What a concept-media delivered to me when I want to get and programming I choose to receive. I may have to drop the cable provider when this launches.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Media Bites-October 16 2009
Comcast-NBC Universal-Vivendi deal will change the entertainment landscape.
The deal for Comcast to buy 51% of NBC Universal is just about wrapped up and the word is stil out on whether Vivendi will divest its 20% stake in NBC Universal.
Comcast subscribers total over 24 million and contribute to more than half of the company's 2009 revenue. The reasoning behind this deal all points back to viewing of content or as Brian Roberts, Comcast CEO calls 'cable bypass'-canceling their subscriptions and gravitating towards on line viewing platforms. The way around that is to prevent posting content on the internet, fee for content or accessing the content by proving users already subscribe to a pay TV service (TV Everywhere) Once this deal is complete, Comcast would hold the most TV assets worldwide including a percentage of the NBC broadcast network, Telemundo, USA, Bravo, MSNBC and CNBC.
To complete the deal that Comcast wants, Vivendi,(http://www.vivendi.com/vivendi/-accueil-en-) the French media and telecommunication company must shed 20% of its ownership in NBC Universal. Vivendi has until Nov 15 to notify one of its media partners GE, on whether they will sell any interest in NBC Universal.
It would be great if this entertainment merger and acquisition resulted in better quality programming, reduced subscription rates and innovative viewing technologies. It should since Comcast (http://www.cmcsk.com/)would control most of the content and production currently airing. Stay tuned as this will not be the end of TV consolidation, there will be much more to come that will hopefully make a positive impact on they way TV is delivered and consumed.
The deal for Comcast to buy 51% of NBC Universal is just about wrapped up and the word is stil out on whether Vivendi will divest its 20% stake in NBC Universal.
Comcast subscribers total over 24 million and contribute to more than half of the company's 2009 revenue. The reasoning behind this deal all points back to viewing of content or as Brian Roberts, Comcast CEO calls 'cable bypass'-canceling their subscriptions and gravitating towards on line viewing platforms. The way around that is to prevent posting content on the internet, fee for content or accessing the content by proving users already subscribe to a pay TV service (TV Everywhere) Once this deal is complete, Comcast would hold the most TV assets worldwide including a percentage of the NBC broadcast network, Telemundo, USA, Bravo, MSNBC and CNBC.
To complete the deal that Comcast wants, Vivendi,(http://www.vivendi.com/vivendi/-accueil-en-) the French media and telecommunication company must shed 20% of its ownership in NBC Universal. Vivendi has until Nov 15 to notify one of its media partners GE, on whether they will sell any interest in NBC Universal.
It would be great if this entertainment merger and acquisition resulted in better quality programming, reduced subscription rates and innovative viewing technologies. It should since Comcast (http://www.cmcsk.com/)would control most of the content and production currently airing. Stay tuned as this will not be the end of TV consolidation, there will be much more to come that will hopefully make a positive impact on they way TV is delivered and consumed.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Media Bites-October 8 2009
Content is king-but will you pay for it?
After meeting with a local print publication recently who informed me that they would now be charging a penny to access online stories- and after News Corp chair Rupert Murdoch stated most of the FOX properties will move to paid content, I wanted to keep beating this drum and ask will consumers be willing to pay for content?
I keep coming back to the same answer: only if there is real value in it at that moment for you.
All media properties are on a quest to develop additional revenue streams without diluting their core products or worse, having consumers cancel subscriptions and suffer further losses. A recent LA Times article noted that Soleil Securities calculated that every viewer that alters their viewing habits, choosing web over TV is forfeiting $920 in annual ad revenue and that Disney, Fox and NBC subsidize $33 million in losses at Hulu which is offset by only $123 million in ad dollars. The skyrocketing cost of producing all forms of TV advertising is underwritten by the $22 billion in cable and satellite subscription fees but it is not enough revenue to generate a profit. The answer seems to be a slow migration to pay for online content access.
Which brings it back to the -only if there is real value at that moment for you. In my opinion, if its a news story then the answer is no. Why? Because if I'm really that interested, I'll surf around until I find it at no charge elsewhere. If its an episode of 'Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia' or 'Glee' that I want to see, or have the ability to download a full length movie to my Iphone-you bet I'll pay for that because its entertainment and I'm programmed to pay for entertainment. I'm not going to pay for the news when it's available 24/7 everywhere you turn.
If sites like Hulu.com and Fancast.com position and price themselves correctly, I believe you'll see not only increased usage and revenue, but more sampling of on air product as well. Print pubs are betting that if they price it more aggressively for subscribers, they will increase circulation. Only time will tell if that though process will work.
After meeting with a local print publication recently who informed me that they would now be charging a penny to access online stories- and after News Corp chair Rupert Murdoch stated most of the FOX properties will move to paid content, I wanted to keep beating this drum and ask will consumers be willing to pay for content?
I keep coming back to the same answer: only if there is real value in it at that moment for you.
All media properties are on a quest to develop additional revenue streams without diluting their core products or worse, having consumers cancel subscriptions and suffer further losses. A recent LA Times article noted that Soleil Securities calculated that every viewer that alters their viewing habits, choosing web over TV is forfeiting $920 in annual ad revenue and that Disney, Fox and NBC subsidize $33 million in losses at Hulu which is offset by only $123 million in ad dollars. The skyrocketing cost of producing all forms of TV advertising is underwritten by the $22 billion in cable and satellite subscription fees but it is not enough revenue to generate a profit. The answer seems to be a slow migration to pay for online content access.
Which brings it back to the -only if there is real value at that moment for you. In my opinion, if its a news story then the answer is no. Why? Because if I'm really that interested, I'll surf around until I find it at no charge elsewhere. If its an episode of 'Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia' or 'Glee' that I want to see, or have the ability to download a full length movie to my Iphone-you bet I'll pay for that because its entertainment and I'm programmed to pay for entertainment. I'm not going to pay for the news when it's available 24/7 everywhere you turn.
If sites like Hulu.com and Fancast.com position and price themselves correctly, I believe you'll see not only increased usage and revenue, but more sampling of on air product as well. Print pubs are betting that if they price it more aggressively for subscribers, they will increase circulation. Only time will tell if that though process will work.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Media Bites-October 2 2009
The Jon and Kate + 8 saga takes an odd turn
As a parent of 3 kids under the age of 14, I've always enjoyed watching the daily struggles they all faced running a household with 8 kids. Each parent had their own style and personality and it seemed to work.
Then we hear things are not all wine and roses. Alleged affairs and struggles within the Gosselin marriage. Not unique to many families in America, but now wide open for everyone to see thanks to the beauty of reality TV (assisted of course by the media hoopla that surrounds them everywhere they went). So in an emotional and heartfelt response, Jon and Kate announced a formal separation and agreed to continue to do the show 'for the kids'. The show goes on hiatus and relaunches in August delivering over 9 million viewers.
Now all we saw and heard at the end of the summer was about Jon's partying, meeting with Lindsey Lohan's father to pitch a show and his dates with young adult women. All this from a man who has said one of the reasons for the separation was that he was uncomfortable with all of the media exposure.
The latest in what is really turning into a reality TV train wreck is a cease and desist order restraining TLC from any further filming with the kids delivered to the network by Jon Gosselin. Interesting, since according to TLC, he was directly involved in shooting only a few days prior to the legal document being filed. Why the change of heart? Could it be that the show name is being changed to 'Kate + 8'?? Will he loose out on some of the income that is being generated from the show?
Right now the focus should be on those kids that are seeing their parents relationship fall apart, in public. In my opinion, viewers will begin to retreat from the show, ratings will slip (they already are showing serious erosion) and the show will be either retooled or cancelled. Only time will tell-but lets hope TLC and the Gosselins do the right thing.
As a parent of 3 kids under the age of 14, I've always enjoyed watching the daily struggles they all faced running a household with 8 kids. Each parent had their own style and personality and it seemed to work.
Then we hear things are not all wine and roses. Alleged affairs and struggles within the Gosselin marriage. Not unique to many families in America, but now wide open for everyone to see thanks to the beauty of reality TV (assisted of course by the media hoopla that surrounds them everywhere they went). So in an emotional and heartfelt response, Jon and Kate announced a formal separation and agreed to continue to do the show 'for the kids'. The show goes on hiatus and relaunches in August delivering over 9 million viewers.
Now all we saw and heard at the end of the summer was about Jon's partying, meeting with Lindsey Lohan's father to pitch a show and his dates with young adult women. All this from a man who has said one of the reasons for the separation was that he was uncomfortable with all of the media exposure.
The latest in what is really turning into a reality TV train wreck is a cease and desist order restraining TLC from any further filming with the kids delivered to the network by Jon Gosselin. Interesting, since according to TLC, he was directly involved in shooting only a few days prior to the legal document being filed. Why the change of heart? Could it be that the show name is being changed to 'Kate + 8'?? Will he loose out on some of the income that is being generated from the show?
Right now the focus should be on those kids that are seeing their parents relationship fall apart, in public. In my opinion, viewers will begin to retreat from the show, ratings will slip (they already are showing serious erosion) and the show will be either retooled or cancelled. Only time will tell-but lets hope TLC and the Gosselins do the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
