There's No App. for This

If you have had access to a television for any amount of time over the past three months, you have seen the constant and heated struggle between Verizon Wireless and AT&T regarding 3G coverage with their respective wireless devices. What started as a virtually necessary move by Verizon to combat the staunch opposition they met with the release of the iPhone and its ever growing popularity has turned into a substantial turning of the tide.

Verizon Chief Marketing Officer John Stratton admitted that the iPhone was the most groundbreaking device to ever enter the market and ultimately became "very disruptive" in Verizon's overall marketing strategy. Because of this, Verizon made the decision to abruptly throw out the pre-planned holiday advertisements with the "Maps" campaign. (Stratton can be seen explaining why the "Maps" campaign was necessary while providing an overview of Verizon's nine-year marketing history at http://adage.com/brightcove/single.php?title=53522445001) Add this with the release of the brand new "Droid" smartphone, and you've got a formula for disaster for AT&T. This decision has led to a tremendous score for Verizon on many levels and couldn't have come at a better time.

Verizon took a bold step in launching the "Maps" campaign, and in the process led to an even larger victory with AT&T responding with countless lawsuits and counter-ads that have done nothing to combat the original claim: Verizon has more expansive 3G coverage. The impact has been seen in many different forms, but most notably in an article I came across that reported that according to YouGov marketing claims. The report stated that Verizon's awareness among individuals age 18-30 has grown from a dismal 40% to an astounding 62.2%, surpassing and actually taking a bite out of AT&T's awareness rating weighing in at 54.4%. (A link to this study will be attached at the end).

In sum, AT&T's rebuttle has been received as whiny and overly-defending. While the iPhone my have an application available to buy movie tickets or even sing like T-Pain, they don't have an app. that can outdo what Verizon has done and will continue to do with their marketing efforts.



Here's the study of awareness ratings previously mentioned:
http://www.electronicista.com/articles/09/12/15/may.be.building.on.droid.success/

The iPad

I really don't have much to say except for "I want one... Now, please."
Check out the article at the bottom to get a good look at Apple's newest technology.
They're gonna take over the world with this thing.

Apple iPad

Newsday "boasts" 35 subscribers for online version...

I came across this article and was absolutely amazed at the number of subscribers. 35!!? I would guess that a good portion of the subscribers are actually employees trying to bump up their numbers. They will not sell much digital content with such horrible numbers! I question the ability of a company to profit if they do not have much in-house generated content... things that one can only get at their publication. Why would someone pay to subscribe if they are getting the same AP/Reuters generated content they can get somewhere else free?

I think companies have to get creative in their content and create new and interesting content the public can only get there, such as more investigative journalism.

35 subscribers @ $260 per year = $9,100 per year. Does that cover the utility bill for the servers?

Doomsday for Newsday?
In late October, Newsday, the Long Island daily that the Dolans bought for $650 million, put its web site, newsday.com, behind a pay wall. The paper was one of the first non-business newspapers to take the plunge by putting up a pay wall, so in media circles it has been followed with interest. Could its fate be a sign of what others, including The New York Times, might expect?

So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?

The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class.

That astoundingly low figure was revealed in a newsroom-wide meeting last week by publisher Terry Jimenez when a reporter asked how many people had signed up for the site. Mr. Jimenez didn't know the number off the top of his head, so he asked a deputy sitting near him. He replied 35.

Michael Amon, a social services reporter, asked for clarification.

"I heard you say 35 people," he said, from Newsday's auditorium in Melville. "Is that number correct?"
Continue reading article here...

Google v.s. China

It seems that Google has decided to branch out into yet another market, foreign affairs. Google, while great at data transfer, organization, and storage, is not the personification of the definition of diplomacy. Admittedly, I agreed with Google's lifting of search censors. But like Google, I shouldn't be meddling in the relationships of global super powers. At this point, we can use as many political allies on the global scene as we can get. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that the U.S. highlighting the cyber-attacks on Google "damages U.S.-Sino relationship." What does this mean for the global political climate? And should a .com really have this much pull in the universe?

CNN on China

Youtube Rentals

So Youtube announced on their blog today that they are going into the movie rental business. Five films from the Sundance film festival (2009 and 2010) will be available on the Youtube rental site over this coming weekend.
Their deal seems interesting, especially for fledgling, independent movie makers because they promise complete control over the distribution of their films on the site down to the price and rental duration.
So what do you think? Is Youtube the next big challenger for the movie rental throne? Do they have enough to seriously compete with Netflix or RedBox?
Discuss...

An entertainment buyout

Conan O'Brien and his staff will be paid $44 million dollars as part of a severance package with NBC. O'Brien gets $32 million; his staffers split $12 million.

Is this just the cost of doing business for NBC? I have not seen a recent price estimate for network spots during Tonight, but I would guess a spot probably costs $25,000 - $40,000 each for a :30 spot.

In a one hour program, show content probably runs about 44 minutes. This leaves 16 minutes for ad/promotion insertion. 16 minutes x 2 (for two :30 spots) yields 32 commercial availabilities.
Let's guess that the network generates revenue from about 70% of these spots. Some are dedicated to network program promotion and others go to the affiliates.
32 x 70% = about 22 commercials
If the average price is $31,000, a single program episode generates $682,000 in revenue.
Five days per week, the revenue is $682,000 x 5 = $3,410,000
52 weeks per year, the revenue is $3,410,000 x 52 = $177,320,000

Before you get too excited, remember that Leno and staff must be paid also! If the recent turmoil has driven away viewers and they don't return, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno will draw fewer viewers and generate lower ad prices--there's a ripple effect on total revenue. Still, a $44 million payoff may just be the cost of doing business.

Here's an NYTimes article about the severance package.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/business/AP-US-TV-Conan-Leno.html?_r=1&emc=na
Or: http://bit.ly/757heY

How the Chinese see the situation

TV Week (www.tvweek.com) features a story of a Chinese animation report of the NBC/Tonight Show/Leno/Conan travails. You don't have to speak Chinese to see that they've done an effective job of highlighting the issues.

The story points to a couple of things:
1. Public fascination with the soap opera content of celebrities and entertainment. Take note of the fight scenes.
2. An understanding of the continuing efforts to leverage entertainment program content, including the need to balance star talent, audience wants, and revenue projections.

Take a look. I am sure you will have additional thoughts.

TVBizwire

Must See Video: Chinese Animation of NBC Latenight Woes. Trust Us, This is Funny YouTube

http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2010/01/post-6.php

New Apple Tablet

A new Apple product coming? It is supposedly going to be a tablet that is similar to the Amazon.com product, Kindle. Kindle is a tablet that allows digital viewing of books. The main difference is this will be built on the iPhone/iPod Touch technology and will be in color, as opposed to the black and white screen on kindle. There are speculations that it will have an option to view pages, not only scroll. So, the layout will be similar to an actual magazine with pages that "turn" (animated). 

This will be huge, if it is done right. Not only will it offer video ads for magazines, but it will allow for real time corrections of editorial and advertising content. If an ad runs wrong, the publisher could simply "push" correct information via the internet. Text books could be updated with information in a more cost effective manner, rather than printing a new edition...

It is rumored that the screen will be OLED (organic light emitting diode). When this technology is expanded, it will be cheap to produce large screens that are flexible. This is my prediction as to where technology and industry of print media will go in the near future. Here is just one of the myriad of speculative articles

New Apple tablet speculation: two models, OLED screen

By Neil Hughes

Published: 04:10 PM EST

New reports on Apple's rumored upcoming tablet device suggest the product could have two versions -- one for educational use, and one with a Web cam -- and utilize an OLED screen.

Relaying information from an anonymous tip, Gizmodo's Brian Lam states that the device will have a 10-inch screen and look like a "giant iPhone, with a big black back." The tipster claimed to have handled a mock-up of the device, stating it has a home button like an iPhone, and will be positioned between an iPod/iPhone and a MacBook.

The report did not elaborate on the supposed separate Web cam and education editions of the device, but said it would cost between $700 and $900. The device has allegedly been under development between four and six years, though the first prototype was only created in late 2008.
Click here to continue reading

Google probing possible inside help on attack

I thought this is very interesting. I read another story about the attack on the Google system that said it may have negative effects financially because the perception of their security. If people do not feel safe, they will stop using their email service and their traffic will go down. Their revenue will fall commensurately. I wonder if this is not a story from the PR department trying to tell us it is espionage, or if it is a legitimate concern. Either way is bad. Now they not only have to look at their network security, but they might have someone there that is less than ethical with access to private data.  

Google probing possible inside help on attack

Google is investigating whether one or more employees may have helped facilitate a cyber-attack from China that the U.S search giant said it was a victim of in mid-December, two sources told Reuters today.

Google, the world's most popular search engine, said last week it may pull out of the world's biggest Internet market by users after reporting it had been hit by a "sophisticated" cyber-attack on its network that resulted in theft of its intellectual property.

The sources, who are familiar with the situation, told Reuters that the attack, which targeted people who have access to specific parts of Google networks, may have been facilitated by people working in Google China's office.

"We're not commenting on rumour and speculation. This is an ongoing investigation, and we simply cannot comment on the details," a Google spokeswoman said.

Continue reading story here...

Disney's "Keychest"

A couple of days ago it was announced by Bloomberg that Disney is in the middle of renegotiating its previous agreement with the Starz Network in an effort to take back the rights to digital distribution of its films. This new agreement would limit the current online distribution of the Starz Network's films through Netflix.

http://tiny.cc/Z5m7Y

Disney's push towards re-appropriation of digital-distribution seems to be in support of the company's previously announced "Keychest" project. "Keychest," as described by Disney studios's president of home entertainment, Bob Chapek, would allow consumers permanent access to digital properties (ie. movies and television shows) across multiple platforms and digital devices. The technology is similar to that currently used by Google Docs in that the information is stored on a digital "cloud" from where it can be accessed at any time. This would allow for a customer to begin watching Mulan on television at home, pause it and continue watching it on a cell phone in the car, and finish it on a lap top in the park.
So what does this change spell for Netflix? Would you prefer digital ownership to digital rental?
Discuss...

All of Google out of China? Really?

By now we've all heard of Google's threat to pull out of the Chinese market due to the recent hacks into its email systems. If you haven't, then here's a short article that gives the main points.

http://tiny.cc/mP66s

So, what are the consequences of Google pulling out of China? A recent article in by Seth Weintraub of Computer World poses some interesting questions regarding all that Google is and the effects of a complete retreat from the Chinese market.
Since Google is no longer just a search engine it has to consider all of its different components and the effect it will have on its stake of the global market. Like the new Android smart phone or Youtube. With China being such a major player in today's global economy (and certain to be even more important in the future) what will happen to Google? Will it destroy the Android's chances against an already empowered Apple? Will companies using Google apps for business in the Orient have to look for other alternatives? And what about Youtube's promise of a global sharing center?

Discuss

http://tiny.cc/3D9kh

New FCC Approach to Internet Regulations

I think this an interesting article regarding access to the internet and the FCC. I don't know if any of you have heard of the "net neutrality" stuff that has been discussed in the past year or so?

Also, I just put in a home theater system. The blue ray player has internet access. I download purchased or rented videos from Amazon.com and it streams to my blueray player. It also works with Picassa Web albums and Youtube. Some Blu-Ray's have "BD Live" content. They are special features that are only enabled when you have internet access.

Unfortunately, the player I have doesn't support NetFlix. I wish it did. Their SlingBox product is rather expensive considering it doesn't do anything else, and I don't like uni-taskers. I was a little disappointed when I realized I had just gained a new way to spend money just by clicking a button.

I wonder if they will try to regulate it since the web is integrating with traditional cable viewing?

Here is the article:
FCC looks at ways to assert authority over Web access


By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 15, 2010; A22

The Federal Communications Commission is considering aggressive moves to stake out its authority to oversee consumer access to the Internet, as a recent court hearing and industry opposition have cast doubt on its power over Web service providers.


The FCC, which regulates public access to telephone and television services, has been working to claim the same role for the Internet. The stakes are high, as the Obama administration pushes an agenda of open broadband access for all and big corporations work to protect their enormous investments in a new and powerful medium.


"This is a pivotal moment," said Ben Scott, director of policy at the public interest group Free Press. The government wants to treat broadband Internet as a national infrastructure, he said, like phone lines or the broadcast spectrum. But federal regulators are grappling with older policies that do not clearly protect consumers' access to the Web, their privacy or prices of service.


The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC's authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers' access to the online file-sharing service BitTorrent. But in an oral hearing last Friday, three judges grilled an FCC lawyer over whether the agency had acted outside the scope of its authority.


The appeals court is still hearing the case, but analysts predict that the FCC will lose and that the ruling could throw all of its efforts to oversee Internet access into question. A loss could undermine the legality of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's push for policies that would prohibit service providers from restricting customers' access to legal Web content -- the concept known as net neutrality -- and throw into doubt the agency's ability to oversee pricing and competition among Internet service providers.

Article continues...
http://tinyurl.com/yesvgza

10th Anniverary of the Train Wreck

The AOL/TW Merger happened 10 years ago. If you're under age 30, it's probably difficult to remember this event. If you worked for either company or owned stock in the combined company, it was just a disaster. Ask Ted Turner.

Turner built Turner Broadcasting into a cable powerhouse from his first move into broadcasting with the purchase of an abysmal UHF TV station in Atlanta. Channel 17 received the call letters WTCG for Turner Communication Group. The call letters later became WTBS for Turner Broadcasting System. Today, it's just TBS and exists predominantly as an ad supported basic cable channel that has spawned the growth of other cable programming services. Turner sold his company to Time Warner, primarily a cable television company and magazine publisher. Eventually, Ted Turner would lose about 80% of her personal fortune in the collapse of AOL/TW, about $8 BILLION.

Read this article in The New York Times about the merger, 10 years later:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/media/11merger.html?pagewanted=1&sq=aol%20&st=cse&scp=2

Here's a shorter URL: http://bit.ly/6djKT3

Where and why did this go wrong?

Here are the opening paragraphs from the NYT story:

A decade ago, America Online merged with Time Warner in a deal valued at a stunning $350 billion. It was then, and is now, the largest merger in American business history.

The Internet, it was believed, was soon to vaporize mainstream media business models on the spot. America Online’s frothy stock price made it worth twice as much as Time Warner’s with less than half the cash flow.