Connected Consumers Watch More Network Broadcasting
A recent comprehensive study by CBS Research, examining consumers' attitudes towards digital media, and the role television will play in the near future, found that as the public at large becomes more connected to digital media, the more engaged they become in primetime television programming. And, as viewers become aware of the deadline for full digital transmissions, the likelihood of them investing in new digital TV sets increases substantially.
David Poltrack, Chief Research Officer for CBS Corporation and President of CBS Vision, concludes "... By offering (consumers) new ways to connect to their favorite shows, whether it's websites, podcasts, ringtones or other mobile features, we've been able to deepen the bond these fully connected viewers have with our programming."
Among the findings of the study:
The population is gradually moving up to higher levels of connectivity, This "fully connected" segment of the population, the segment with both a broadband internet and a digital television connection at home, has grown from 22% in the fall of 2005 to over 30% this fall. The "fully connected" segment of the population is the segment that is most likely to watch the top broadcast network programs.
Although less than 30% of the population is aware of the 2009 deadline for broadcasters to switch to full digital transmissions, approximately one-half of these people have already purchased a digital set and another 30% plan to before the changeover. Of those who are not aware, when told of the change, 40% stated that they would upgrade to a digital set before 2009.
56% of those surveyed were aware that you could watch network television programs by streaming them over the internet. Of those aware of this streaming option, 46% have already streamed at least one program. Of those not aware of this streaming option, when told which programs were available for streaming, 62% selected at least one of the thirty-three available programs that they probably would watch via streaming over the internet in the future.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Pre-Roll Rejected? Awwww, come on...
of course TV fans don't like pre-roll. who does? who likes tv commercials interrupting your favorite shows? who likes outdoor boards crudding up the outdoor environment? no-one likes advertising, but they still respond.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=54714
people may not like them, but they do work and they are considered effective. it may take time to come to the final model and pre-roll may not be it, but lets not get to excited about this information.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=54714
people may not like them, but they do work and they are considered effective. it may take time to come to the final model and pre-roll may not be it, but lets not get to excited about this information.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Digital Cable And Shifting Devices: Not Part Of The Ultimate Solution
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showTodaysArticle&art_type=4
INTERNET TV IS A DYNAMIC landscape, but some of what we see as a viable medium now will inevitably become obsolete within the next 10 years. Wikipedia defines "Internet TV" as "television distributed via the Internet," and I define Internet TV in a similar manner. Based on how I see it, the Internet TV landscape consists of six primary areas. These areas are:
1. Online VOD: network programming reaired on the Internet.
2. Sliver-Casting: niche programming developed and aired solely online.
3. Shifting Devices: TiVo, Sling Media, and other time/location-shifting tools.
4. UGC: user-generated content, aired and distributed online.
5. Mobile TV: network or other programming re-packaged and aired via mobile devices.
6. Digital Home Video: existing interfaces such as Digital cable, digital VOD, etc.
I foresee that while it is certainly worth our time to evaluate options within shifting devices such as TiVo as well as digital cable, I think it's safe to say that both of these are approximately five to seven years away from being an efficient place to advertise -- and 10 to 15 years away from becoming completely obsolete.
The issue arises from the fact that all TV will eventually be delivered via Internet Protocol, or IPTV. Eventually, as the speed for broadband continues to increase, we will see that all content, especially all video content, can be delivered through an IP-interface, though possibly in a radically different format than it currently is. The Internet providers and cable providers already know this, which is why you see Comcast and Time Warner Cable offering Internet, digital phone and digital cable all under the same package. These companies know that at some point it will be easy enough to shift all the cable over to an IP service, cutting their costs for delivery to the home.
A rep from Forrester once predicted to me that broadband speeds would be 10 times faster within five years, so a full-screen, all-video, no-buffer interface will certainly be achievable. If that's the case, why should they continue to deliver in the old format when they can simply create a Web interface that works with your remote, probably in some new format similar to what we are starting to see with the active touchpad system to be used by the iPhone? This radically updates the traditional TV interface and makes it even more consumer-centric, which is where the shift continues to take us.
If this is inevitable, then I would also argue that companies such as TiVo and Sling Media have a limited opportunity as well. The numbers would seem to support this. According to one source, there are televisions in 98% of U.S. households. The same source states that approximately 75% of U.S. households have a computer. This is compared with around 10% of U.S. households owning a DVR, and significantly less having a device such as a media center or Sling Box.
Estimates predict that by 2010, 50% of U.S. households will have a DVR -- but as of right now, we know that 51% of U.S. households already have broadband at home, and that number is growing much more rapidly than the DVR numbers. What these figures suggest to me is that more homes will have broadband than a DVR, and the shift to IP-based content delivery would mean that online VOD services would increase, negating the need for a DVR. Additionally, if the system is Web-based, it suggests that I could watch my favorites from a remote location as well, without having to pay extra for some new device to push the content out to the Web. And not to belabor the point, but once everything is IP-based and delivered in a streaming format, advertisers will feel safe once again -- because you cannot currently fast-forward the streams, and therefore you cannot skip the commercials.
So my point is simple. The numbers suggest that our focus not shift away from these emerging formats. Instead, we should be learning how to work within them all, in order to create a model that will work within 10 years and become the dominant format for advertisers to reach consumers using tried-and-true methods mixed with some established, supported new ideas. I still suggest you test these models, but don't tie your existence to them, and don't be afraid of change. We are nowhere near the end of this race.
INTERNET TV IS A DYNAMIC landscape, but some of what we see as a viable medium now will inevitably become obsolete within the next 10 years. Wikipedia defines "Internet TV" as "television distributed via the Internet," and I define Internet TV in a similar manner. Based on how I see it, the Internet TV landscape consists of six primary areas. These areas are:
1. Online VOD: network programming reaired on the Internet.
2. Sliver-Casting: niche programming developed and aired solely online.
3. Shifting Devices: TiVo, Sling Media, and other time/location-shifting tools.
4. UGC: user-generated content, aired and distributed online.
5. Mobile TV: network or other programming re-packaged and aired via mobile devices.
6. Digital Home Video: existing interfaces such as Digital cable, digital VOD, etc.
I foresee that while it is certainly worth our time to evaluate options within shifting devices such as TiVo as well as digital cable, I think it's safe to say that both of these are approximately five to seven years away from being an efficient place to advertise -- and 10 to 15 years away from becoming completely obsolete.
The issue arises from the fact that all TV will eventually be delivered via Internet Protocol, or IPTV. Eventually, as the speed for broadband continues to increase, we will see that all content, especially all video content, can be delivered through an IP-interface, though possibly in a radically different format than it currently is. The Internet providers and cable providers already know this, which is why you see Comcast and Time Warner Cable offering Internet, digital phone and digital cable all under the same package. These companies know that at some point it will be easy enough to shift all the cable over to an IP service, cutting their costs for delivery to the home.
A rep from Forrester once predicted to me that broadband speeds would be 10 times faster within five years, so a full-screen, all-video, no-buffer interface will certainly be achievable. If that's the case, why should they continue to deliver in the old format when they can simply create a Web interface that works with your remote, probably in some new format similar to what we are starting to see with the active touchpad system to be used by the iPhone? This radically updates the traditional TV interface and makes it even more consumer-centric, which is where the shift continues to take us.
If this is inevitable, then I would also argue that companies such as TiVo and Sling Media have a limited opportunity as well. The numbers would seem to support this. According to one source, there are televisions in 98% of U.S. households. The same source states that approximately 75% of U.S. households have a computer. This is compared with around 10% of U.S. households owning a DVR, and significantly less having a device such as a media center or Sling Box.
Estimates predict that by 2010, 50% of U.S. households will have a DVR -- but as of right now, we know that 51% of U.S. households already have broadband at home, and that number is growing much more rapidly than the DVR numbers. What these figures suggest to me is that more homes will have broadband than a DVR, and the shift to IP-based content delivery would mean that online VOD services would increase, negating the need for a DVR. Additionally, if the system is Web-based, it suggests that I could watch my favorites from a remote location as well, without having to pay extra for some new device to push the content out to the Web. And not to belabor the point, but once everything is IP-based and delivered in a streaming format, advertisers will feel safe once again -- because you cannot currently fast-forward the streams, and therefore you cannot skip the commercials.
So my point is simple. The numbers suggest that our focus not shift away from these emerging formats. Instead, we should be learning how to work within them all, in order to create a model that will work within 10 years and become the dominant format for advertisers to reach consumers using tried-and-true methods mixed with some established, supported new ideas. I still suggest you test these models, but don't tie your existence to them, and don't be afraid of change. We are nowhere near the end of this race.
XBox 360 Offers IPTV Functionality
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/753/753458p1.html
Xbox hardware sells more than projected, Xbox Live Subscriptions reach 5 million and more.
by Douglass C. Perry
January 7, 2007 - Microsoft Chairman and Founder Bill Gates opened up this year's Consumer Electronics Show by highlighting his company's broad, somewhat scary, and rapid deplyoment of home entertainment software and services. Gates touched upon new advances in Windows Vista, introduced the Windows Home Server, and gave a brief progress report on Xbox 360 by spotlighting its new TV IP service. The keynote address was held in Las Vegas, NV., but also was broadcast live via streaming video at Microsoft's site.
The most exciting news for 360 gamers was Microsoft's IP TV, which enables gamers to watch TV on Xbox 360. Microsoft's ambitious multimedia effort basically looks to circumvent traditional TV, enabling users to see and record TV via Microsoft's Xbox Live service.
Xbox hardware sells more than projected, Xbox Live Subscriptions reach 5 million and more.
by Douglass C. Perry
January 7, 2007 - Microsoft Chairman and Founder Bill Gates opened up this year's Consumer Electronics Show by highlighting his company's broad, somewhat scary, and rapid deplyoment of home entertainment software and services. Gates touched upon new advances in Windows Vista, introduced the Windows Home Server, and gave a brief progress report on Xbox 360 by spotlighting its new TV IP service. The keynote address was held in Las Vegas, NV., but also was broadcast live via streaming video at Microsoft's site.
The most exciting news for 360 gamers was Microsoft's IP TV, which enables gamers to watch TV on Xbox 360. Microsoft's ambitious multimedia effort basically looks to circumvent traditional TV, enabling users to see and record TV via Microsoft's Xbox Live service.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Joost? What's that...
According to Mediapost, we are still not sure, but here you go anyways!
This Joost In: Venice Project Drops Cover, Changes Name
by Joe Mandese, Tuesday, Jan 16, 2007 8:00 AM ET
THE VENICE PROJECT, THE CODENAME for a new venture by the founders of Skype and Kazaa that has been promising to transform the way people watch TV over the Internet, has changed its name to Joost, and is going public on its plans and intentions. "Joost is a new way to watch TV, free of the schedules and restrictions that come with traditional television," the start-up's founders write on a new Web site launched this morning. "Combining the best of TV with the best of the internet, Joost gives you more control and freedom than ever before - control over what you watch, and freedom to watch it whenever you like. We're providing a platform for the best television content on the planet - a platform that will bring you the biggest and best shows from the TV studios, as well as the specialist programs created by professionals and enthusiasts. It's all overlaid with a raft of nifty features that help you find the shows you love, watch and chat with friends, and even create your own TV channels."
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=53949
This Joost In: Venice Project Drops Cover, Changes Name
by Joe Mandese, Tuesday, Jan 16, 2007 8:00 AM ET
THE VENICE PROJECT, THE CODENAME for a new venture by the founders of Skype and Kazaa that has been promising to transform the way people watch TV over the Internet, has changed its name to Joost, and is going public on its plans and intentions. "Joost is a new way to watch TV, free of the schedules and restrictions that come with traditional television," the start-up's founders write on a new Web site launched this morning. "Combining the best of TV with the best of the internet, Joost gives you more control and freedom than ever before - control over what you watch, and freedom to watch it whenever you like. We're providing a platform for the best television content on the planet - a platform that will bring you the biggest and best shows from the TV studios, as well as the specialist programs created by professionals and enthusiasts. It's all overlaid with a raft of nifty features that help you find the shows you love, watch and chat with friends, and even create your own TV channels."
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=53949
Monday, January 15, 2007
Apple's Cell Phone Gives TV Programmers New Possibilities
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=53763
Apple's Cell Phone Gives TV Programmers New Possibilities
by Wayne Friedman, Thursday, Jan 11, 2007 1:15 PM ET
In one instant digital-imaging minute, the well-being of some non-Apple cell phone manufacturers seems to be in some danger.
Consider juxtaposed images of the new iPhone next to the ads of those non-Apple mobile phones, and you can probably hear some executives gulping. Sadder still is that Apple competitors--Research in Motion Inc., which produces the BlackBerry phones, and Palm Inc.--saw their respective stock price fall sharply.
Oh yeah, Apple's stock was up to an all-time high.
Now comes the really interesting part. New devices usually mean new opportunity. What will TV marketers and TV program producers do now that Apple has set the bar so high--merging a phone with a video device, and with perhaps the most dominant portable music device?
If you thought that watching video could be boring on a small screen, Apple has just made it a little less so, with a three-and-a-half-inch screen that will be bigger than any other phone out there.
Surely, big changes are in the works. We are only one year removed from digesting the somewhat unbelievable news that you can watch your favorite prime-time show on your laptop or your iPod at the gym.
The reaction from TV and media companies will be obvious--they'll express optimism to be "anywhere and everywhere" their consumers are. The iPhone will seem to be just another device.
But it'll be much more. Put away the idea that the only thing you might want to watch is some video of a jiggling Christina Aguilera. You might also, for example, watch a TV episode on a small mobile device while waiting to board your plane
"Once you have the thing, you will want to carry it all the time," Mike McGuire, research director at Gartner Industry Advisory Services, told The Los Angeles Times.
Instead, kids might just think it's cool to watch a video at home on their new iPhones, while their parents fast-forward the DVR. Add a micro-video camera inserted into a second-generation iPhone, and they'll be able to shift back and forth from talking and seeing their friends while complaining about those early-round losers on "American Idol."
So iPhone users now can rag on their friends' sub state-of-the-art cell phones, as well as the most popular TV shows, more quickly than ever before.
The iPhone will bring new, heightened arrogance to a public already bombarded with entertainment and entertainment devices.
Sign me up.
Apple's Cell Phone Gives TV Programmers New Possibilities
by Wayne Friedman, Thursday, Jan 11, 2007 1:15 PM ET
In one instant digital-imaging minute, the well-being of some non-Apple cell phone manufacturers seems to be in some danger.
Consider juxtaposed images of the new iPhone next to the ads of those non-Apple mobile phones, and you can probably hear some executives gulping. Sadder still is that Apple competitors--Research in Motion Inc., which produces the BlackBerry phones, and Palm Inc.--saw their respective stock price fall sharply.
Oh yeah, Apple's stock was up to an all-time high.
Now comes the really interesting part. New devices usually mean new opportunity. What will TV marketers and TV program producers do now that Apple has set the bar so high--merging a phone with a video device, and with perhaps the most dominant portable music device?
If you thought that watching video could be boring on a small screen, Apple has just made it a little less so, with a three-and-a-half-inch screen that will be bigger than any other phone out there.
Surely, big changes are in the works. We are only one year removed from digesting the somewhat unbelievable news that you can watch your favorite prime-time show on your laptop or your iPod at the gym.
The reaction from TV and media companies will be obvious--they'll express optimism to be "anywhere and everywhere" their consumers are. The iPhone will seem to be just another device.
But it'll be much more. Put away the idea that the only thing you might want to watch is some video of a jiggling Christina Aguilera. You might also, for example, watch a TV episode on a small mobile device while waiting to board your plane
"Once you have the thing, you will want to carry it all the time," Mike McGuire, research director at Gartner Industry Advisory Services, told The Los Angeles Times.
Instead, kids might just think it's cool to watch a video at home on their new iPhones, while their parents fast-forward the DVR. Add a micro-video camera inserted into a second-generation iPhone, and they'll be able to shift back and forth from talking and seeing their friends while complaining about those early-round losers on "American Idol."
So iPhone users now can rag on their friends' sub state-of-the-art cell phones, as well as the most popular TV shows, more quickly than ever before.
The iPhone will bring new, heightened arrogance to a public already bombarded with entertainment and entertainment devices.
Sign me up.
Nielsen FINALLY Steps Up!
This is what I'm talking about! Internet TV, as a format, is now being measured by Nielsen, for the most part. check out what they decided to do regarding measurement of online streams as well. It now seems that Nielsen is moving away from estimating the audience and tracking the actuals, which was as inevitable as... well, something inevitable.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=53876
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=53876
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Will Internet TV Have Advertising or Not?
Will online video advertising become a viable business model or will it be supplanted by paid access to video content? Will Internet TV have advertising or not?
Video is obviously a hot topic right now, but there is a debate raging whether advertising in a video environment will be effective. The debate ranges from “video advertising is just as effective as TV”, as was stated in a report from HP and MSN, to the outlook for video advertising being dim as it “fails to resonate with consumers” as was cited by Forrester recently.
Let me enter the debate…
According to a report from Oppenheimer and Co. Inc. (and cited in a article Monday on Mediapost) advertising sponsorship opportunities will be “limited” in comparison to the consumers’ willingness to pay for streamed video content. This argument doesn’t work for me because throughout the growth of the web we’ve seen companies try to implement a paid access model and they never achieve critical mass. iTunes is a slight exception to the rule in that they allow for consumers to buy single episodes of programs you can watch online for free, but owning the episode and having the ability to watch it offline or on your PMD is a smart strategy for some people and not for others. This model applies mostly to people like me who travel and want to avoid missing their favorite shows, but online access to my favorite shows on CBS, NBC and ABC has altogether stopped my need to buy them. The only point of differentiation is timing and opportunity. Heroes is only available online for a short time, and then they will be pulling them down. iTunes will maintain them so they become a unique source for this content, which I agree is smart. All that being said, the landscape is littered with pay-for-access models and I don’t think this will be a successful model online, outside of iTunes. We all know that what you can pay for in one place you can likely access somewhere else for free on the web, especially when it comes to entertainment audio and video. The P2P sites still allow access to all this content if you just know where to look.
A study from Forrester cites that 82% of consumers say that ads within video are annoying, 75% say they ignore the ads, and only 10% of those consumers state they interact with video ads “sometimes”. I know this might be something of a stretch, but I would probably go as far as to say that 100% of consumers would love to see online video with no ads, and that 100% of consumers would love to watch regular TV with no commercials. No-one likes to watch commercials, even those of us in advertising. And as for the idea that only 10% of consumers interact with the ads “sometimes”, that is ten times stronger than most advertising. Consumers obviously want access to their favorite programs in the manner they would like, which is why location and time shifting devices are becoming popular, but advertising in this content is inevitable and is likely going to be accepted by the consumer. Our expectations need to be sound and we need to realize that video ads are strong drivers of brand metrics and should not be expected to drive immediate clicks and actions. We don’t expect that reaction from TV, so why should we expect that here?
As they stand right now, most online ads are annoying. I was watching an episode of Heroes and I saw the same ad play eight times through one broadcast. The ad was dull and did not speak to me as a consumer, but it’s early. Advertisers are still getting their feet wet and are still trying to determine how to use this new ad format. Once they feel comfortable and once there is more critical mass in this area, we will inevitably see a stronger play and unique ads being developed for this space. As I keep saying, Internet TV is inevitable and it’s a logical extension for what many advertisers have been doing with traditional TV.
So the bottom-line is that I think it’s too early to declare the medium a success or a failure, but I am 100% positive that we will see its growth over the next few months. It may take time for the models to become mainstream, but they will. I am going to be keeping an eye on this for certain, so feel free to check out my blog on the topic, Internet TV Today at http://internettvtoday.blogspot.com/. Don’t you agree?
Video is obviously a hot topic right now, but there is a debate raging whether advertising in a video environment will be effective. The debate ranges from “video advertising is just as effective as TV”, as was stated in a report from HP and MSN, to the outlook for video advertising being dim as it “fails to resonate with consumers” as was cited by Forrester recently.
Let me enter the debate…
According to a report from Oppenheimer and Co. Inc. (and cited in a article Monday on Mediapost) advertising sponsorship opportunities will be “limited” in comparison to the consumers’ willingness to pay for streamed video content. This argument doesn’t work for me because throughout the growth of the web we’ve seen companies try to implement a paid access model and they never achieve critical mass. iTunes is a slight exception to the rule in that they allow for consumers to buy single episodes of programs you can watch online for free, but owning the episode and having the ability to watch it offline or on your PMD is a smart strategy for some people and not for others. This model applies mostly to people like me who travel and want to avoid missing their favorite shows, but online access to my favorite shows on CBS, NBC and ABC has altogether stopped my need to buy them. The only point of differentiation is timing and opportunity. Heroes is only available online for a short time, and then they will be pulling them down. iTunes will maintain them so they become a unique source for this content, which I agree is smart. All that being said, the landscape is littered with pay-for-access models and I don’t think this will be a successful model online, outside of iTunes. We all know that what you can pay for in one place you can likely access somewhere else for free on the web, especially when it comes to entertainment audio and video. The P2P sites still allow access to all this content if you just know where to look.
A study from Forrester cites that 82% of consumers say that ads within video are annoying, 75% say they ignore the ads, and only 10% of those consumers state they interact with video ads “sometimes”. I know this might be something of a stretch, but I would probably go as far as to say that 100% of consumers would love to see online video with no ads, and that 100% of consumers would love to watch regular TV with no commercials. No-one likes to watch commercials, even those of us in advertising. And as for the idea that only 10% of consumers interact with the ads “sometimes”, that is ten times stronger than most advertising. Consumers obviously want access to their favorite programs in the manner they would like, which is why location and time shifting devices are becoming popular, but advertising in this content is inevitable and is likely going to be accepted by the consumer. Our expectations need to be sound and we need to realize that video ads are strong drivers of brand metrics and should not be expected to drive immediate clicks and actions. We don’t expect that reaction from TV, so why should we expect that here?
As they stand right now, most online ads are annoying. I was watching an episode of Heroes and I saw the same ad play eight times through one broadcast. The ad was dull and did not speak to me as a consumer, but it’s early. Advertisers are still getting their feet wet and are still trying to determine how to use this new ad format. Once they feel comfortable and once there is more critical mass in this area, we will inevitably see a stronger play and unique ads being developed for this space. As I keep saying, Internet TV is inevitable and it’s a logical extension for what many advertisers have been doing with traditional TV.
So the bottom-line is that I think it’s too early to declare the medium a success or a failure, but I am 100% positive that we will see its growth over the next few months. It may take time for the models to become mainstream, but they will. I am going to be keeping an eye on this for certain, so feel free to check out my blog on the topic, Internet TV Today at http://internettvtoday.blogspot.com/. Don’t you agree?
Fulfill Television's Destiny Online
I like this article from iMedia Connection...
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/13113.asp
In 2006, the entertainment industry came closer to realizing the full potential of the TV/internet relationship than ever before. We are finally accepting that these two media can co-exist-- thanks to marketing advances like multiplatform content delivery, the use of video, user-generated promotional content and flexible viewing options. The resulting "content economy" of network and cable TV is, thus, being driven by value and market power. The currency: full episodes, clips of scheduled shows and features that are strategically used to drive traffic to websites-- which in turn generates ad revenue, promotes shows more effectively and drives increased viewership.
Let's take a look at the strides made this year, and what's likely to come.
TV content gets some new digsWithout exception, the major networks have finally started to create true content destinations, featuring full episodes, clips, show schedules, interactive games and even some blog driven content. Best of breed network executions even serve content to fans based on day of the week, and even day part, to encourage and remind them that a favorite show is on that night.
Yet, few network sites feature personalized content yet (with the possible exception of NBC), and there is little in the way of cross promotion based on expressed interest or fan profiles. For instance, if a fan is tracked watching a comedy, doesn't it make perfect sense to cross promote other comedies? Given the volume of traffic on content aggregators versus network websites, cross promotion may be a reason to distribute rather than host all their own content.
Networks weren't quite ready for this in 2006, but this year, that could change.
Hosted versus distributed video contentTraditionally, within the video window of a network website, fans are given a short synopsis of an episode, the series schedule for the week, access to show clips and links to shows' official websites. Not much of an offering, eh?
Yet, the networks are becoming cognizant of content's role in acquisition and retention of viewers. Thus, we're beginning to see online premiers of full episodes that can attract viewers weeks before the show appears on TV.
For example, "The Office" offered web-exclusive episodes during the show's hiatus to continue fan interest during the off season. And, to retain viewers, NBC offers fans a replay of the last week's episode and has highlights of past shows, so lapsed or new fans can catch up on the storyline. For further fan engagement, behind-the-scenes footage, promosodes, trailers and interviews are offered up to connect fans to the show's characters.
As a rule, while cable networks have robust websites that are similar to major networks -- with online schedules, interactive games, show profiles and the like -- they have not been as aggressive in hosting content in clip or full episode format.
When asked about using full episodes to generate trial and interest for their emerging network, one CEO demurred to err on the conservative side of hosted content for fear of retribution from cable affiliate distribution. Here, the market power of major networks allows them to freely distribute their full episode content online, while the cable networks have to tread more lightly.
Distributed content is a great example of the currency content holds in the online marketplace and should play a particularly strong role in the upcoming year. This value has been long known by offline publicity experts, who expertly dole out content 'exclusives' to tabloid shows, like "Entertainment Tonight" and "Access Hollywood."
Content has this same power to keep and drive visitors to the online corollary-- eoline.com, rottentomatoes.com, yahoo.com entertainment and AOL entertainment each has a loyal following of visitors that love to see the latest scoop on their favorite shows and stars. Simple interview clips, highlight reels or upcoming teaser clips are being distributed online to dozens of content portals, fan sites and content category plays, generating thousands of impressions for each show.
Now video content aggregators, such as Youtube.com, have the power to build interest in a show with their massive audiences. A prime example of life being breathed back into a show is "Saturday Night Live," which experienced an online renaissance with the YouTube appearance of its Lazy Sunday sketch-- and then proved its viral viability wasn't a fluke with the more recent Justin Timberlake video. Through this technique, SNL now has a legion of young fans, not to mention older fans who are returning to the aging franchise.
TV has embraced the use of clips on YouTube, but they need to be breakout hits to make a dent in the enormous amount of user generated content. To differentiate themselves, networks and shows will need to invest in their UGC portal relationships in the form of exclusives, promotions and branding to create destinations for themselves within these online networks.
To achieve this goal, expect to see networks and shows begin to adopt branded channels that aggregate both network and user content around their show. For example, while the Paris Hilton YouTube page was touted as their first 'brand channel,' it was merely a list of content. Contrast that execution with the unique, branded creative treatment, theatrical release date / call to action and litany of movie trailers and clips for "Night at the Museum." In a similar vein, the YouTube and Coca Cola 'Wishcast' viral promotion featured familiar Coke holiday creative with the Coca Cola polar bear icon and Coca Cola logo, along with a combination of user generated content incentives.
Speaking of "You" Web…In 2007, user generated content will play a stronger role in TV show promotions, both on network websites and distributed amongst the content aggregators. Co-branded UGC promotions with the Groupers and YouTubes of the world that integrate storylines, characters and on-show events will be most effective to engage viewers. Offering fans the chance for their own content to be voted on by other fans and judged by writers and cast will add an extra level of validity to promotions, and the ultimate payoff of fan content shown as a 10-second slot amid commercials will keep viewers from fast forwarding on their DVRs.
2006 was a first big step for cable and network shows to legitimize distributed content and embrace it for the value of the audience. To further leverage this online interest and audience, network based websites evolved beyond a show schedule to become more of a destination.
2007 will bring more fan involvement in the form of UGC promotions, a more strategic link between both hosted and distributed content with some networks cross promoting shows based on fan preference or past behavior. Cable networks will begin to develop distributed content promotions that include local cable operators to avoid disintermediation and benefit both through increased subscription and viewership.
Mike Wokosin is VP of interactive at The Cannery. Read full bio.
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/13113.asp
In 2006, the entertainment industry came closer to realizing the full potential of the TV/internet relationship than ever before. We are finally accepting that these two media can co-exist-- thanks to marketing advances like multiplatform content delivery, the use of video, user-generated promotional content and flexible viewing options. The resulting "content economy" of network and cable TV is, thus, being driven by value and market power. The currency: full episodes, clips of scheduled shows and features that are strategically used to drive traffic to websites-- which in turn generates ad revenue, promotes shows more effectively and drives increased viewership.
Let's take a look at the strides made this year, and what's likely to come.
TV content gets some new digsWithout exception, the major networks have finally started to create true content destinations, featuring full episodes, clips, show schedules, interactive games and even some blog driven content. Best of breed network executions even serve content to fans based on day of the week, and even day part, to encourage and remind them that a favorite show is on that night.
Yet, few network sites feature personalized content yet (with the possible exception of NBC), and there is little in the way of cross promotion based on expressed interest or fan profiles. For instance, if a fan is tracked watching a comedy, doesn't it make perfect sense to cross promote other comedies? Given the volume of traffic on content aggregators versus network websites, cross promotion may be a reason to distribute rather than host all their own content.
Networks weren't quite ready for this in 2006, but this year, that could change.
Hosted versus distributed video contentTraditionally, within the video window of a network website, fans are given a short synopsis of an episode, the series schedule for the week, access to show clips and links to shows' official websites. Not much of an offering, eh?
Yet, the networks are becoming cognizant of content's role in acquisition and retention of viewers. Thus, we're beginning to see online premiers of full episodes that can attract viewers weeks before the show appears on TV.
For example, "The Office" offered web-exclusive episodes during the show's hiatus to continue fan interest during the off season. And, to retain viewers, NBC offers fans a replay of the last week's episode and has highlights of past shows, so lapsed or new fans can catch up on the storyline. For further fan engagement, behind-the-scenes footage, promosodes, trailers and interviews are offered up to connect fans to the show's characters.
As a rule, while cable networks have robust websites that are similar to major networks -- with online schedules, interactive games, show profiles and the like -- they have not been as aggressive in hosting content in clip or full episode format.
When asked about using full episodes to generate trial and interest for their emerging network, one CEO demurred to err on the conservative side of hosted content for fear of retribution from cable affiliate distribution. Here, the market power of major networks allows them to freely distribute their full episode content online, while the cable networks have to tread more lightly.
Distributed content is a great example of the currency content holds in the online marketplace and should play a particularly strong role in the upcoming year. This value has been long known by offline publicity experts, who expertly dole out content 'exclusives' to tabloid shows, like "Entertainment Tonight" and "Access Hollywood."
Content has this same power to keep and drive visitors to the online corollary-- eoline.com, rottentomatoes.com, yahoo.com entertainment and AOL entertainment each has a loyal following of visitors that love to see the latest scoop on their favorite shows and stars. Simple interview clips, highlight reels or upcoming teaser clips are being distributed online to dozens of content portals, fan sites and content category plays, generating thousands of impressions for each show.
Now video content aggregators, such as Youtube.com, have the power to build interest in a show with their massive audiences. A prime example of life being breathed back into a show is "Saturday Night Live," which experienced an online renaissance with the YouTube appearance of its Lazy Sunday sketch-- and then proved its viral viability wasn't a fluke with the more recent Justin Timberlake video. Through this technique, SNL now has a legion of young fans, not to mention older fans who are returning to the aging franchise.
TV has embraced the use of clips on YouTube, but they need to be breakout hits to make a dent in the enormous amount of user generated content. To differentiate themselves, networks and shows will need to invest in their UGC portal relationships in the form of exclusives, promotions and branding to create destinations for themselves within these online networks.
To achieve this goal, expect to see networks and shows begin to adopt branded channels that aggregate both network and user content around their show. For example, while the Paris Hilton YouTube page was touted as their first 'brand channel,' it was merely a list of content. Contrast that execution with the unique, branded creative treatment, theatrical release date / call to action and litany of movie trailers and clips for "Night at the Museum." In a similar vein, the YouTube and Coca Cola 'Wishcast' viral promotion featured familiar Coke holiday creative with the Coca Cola polar bear icon and Coca Cola logo, along with a combination of user generated content incentives.
Speaking of "You" Web…In 2007, user generated content will play a stronger role in TV show promotions, both on network websites and distributed amongst the content aggregators. Co-branded UGC promotions with the Groupers and YouTubes of the world that integrate storylines, characters and on-show events will be most effective to engage viewers. Offering fans the chance for their own content to be voted on by other fans and judged by writers and cast will add an extra level of validity to promotions, and the ultimate payoff of fan content shown as a 10-second slot amid commercials will keep viewers from fast forwarding on their DVRs.
2006 was a first big step for cable and network shows to legitimize distributed content and embrace it for the value of the audience. To further leverage this online interest and audience, network based websites evolved beyond a show schedule to become more of a destination.
2007 will bring more fan involvement in the form of UGC promotions, a more strategic link between both hosted and distributed content with some networks cross promoting shows based on fan preference or past behavior. Cable networks will begin to develop distributed content promotions that include local cable operators to avoid disintermediation and benefit both through increased subscription and viewership.
Mike Wokosin is VP of interactive at The Cannery. Read full bio.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Apple Announcement #2 - The AppleTV
http://www.apple.com/appletv/
Also very cool, and definitely a device i want to try out...
This allows you to wirelessly stream your pics and movies from your computer to your TV, and since its Apple it will certainly be simple and easy. The way things are changing, don't be surprised to se them roll-out a flat screen with this embedded in it very soon.
Also very cool, and definitely a device i want to try out...
This allows you to wirelessly stream your pics and movies from your computer to your TV, and since its Apple it will certainly be simple and easy. The way things are changing, don't be surprised to se them roll-out a flat screen with this embedded in it very soon.
Apple iPhone - TV on the Go!
Its not a "traditional" internet tv device, but you know this is going to be a game changer... i personally cannot wait for this device in June.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
