Archive for August, 2004

Warner manipulation backfires

Posted Monday, August 16th, 2004

Attempting to influence Pomos (Postmoderns) with Modernist methodology can backfire badly. Witness the case of Warner Brothers Records and a small — but highly influential — group of bloggers. The full story is from The New York Times, and it’s one every person who wishes to do business in the new paradigm should read.

In a nutshell, these bloggers write about and post MP3 files. They have heretofore operated outside the legal arm of the recording industry, so they were surprised to get a note and an MP3 from Warner about a new band that the record company was promoting. The note said Warner didn’t have a problem with what they were doing and asked them to listen to and write about the MP3. Most of the bloggers smelled a rat, but one wrote an entry and posted the MP3. Comments about the track were filled with accolades, but guess what? A group of them came from the same Warner IP address that sent the MP3. The marketer who wrote the initial request said it was probably just a group of fans from within the record company. Yeah, right.

The issue here is that the Internet really does reject manipulation, which is the core competency of any ad agency in a mass marketing world. These Warner people thought that if they could convince the MP3ers that their new band was good, then that would trickling “down” to their readers, and, voila, they’d have a hit. Not so fast.

Transparency is the rule “down here” and you people “up there” need to figure that out.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Warner manipulation backfires

Posted Monday, August 16th, 2004

Attempting to influence Pomos (Postmoderns) with Modernist methodology can backfire badly. Witness the case of Warner Brothers Records and a small — but highly influential — group of bloggers. The full story is from The New York Times, and it’s one every person who wishes to do business in the new paradigm should read.

In a nutshell, these bloggers write about and post MP3 files. They have heretofore operated outside the legal arm of the recording industry, so they were surprised to get a note and an MP3 from Warner about a new band that the record company was promoting. The note said Warner didn’t have a problem with what they were doing and asked them to listen to and write about the MP3. Most of the bloggers smelled a rat, but one wrote an entry and posted the MP3. Comments about the track were filled with accolades, but guess what? A group of them came from the same Warner IP address that sent the MP3. The marketer who wrote the initial request said it was probably just a group of fans from within the record company. Yeah, right.

The issue here is that the Internet really does reject manipulation, which is the core competency of any ad agency in a mass marketing world. These Warner people thought that if they could convince the MP3ers that their new band was good, then that would trickling “down” to their readers, and, voila, they’d have a hit. Not so fast.

Transparency is the rule “down here” and you people “up there” need to figure that out.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Warner manipulation backfires

Posted Monday, August 16th, 2004

Attempting to influence Pomos (Postmoderns) with Modernist methodology can backfire badly. Witness the case of Warner Brothers Records and a small — but highly influential — group of bloggers. The full story is from The New York Times, and it’s one every person who wishes to do business in the new paradigm should read.

In a nutshell, these bloggers write about and post MP3 files. They have heretofore operated outside the legal arm of the recording industry, so they were surprised to get a note and an MP3 from Warner about a new band that the record company was promoting. The note said Warner didn’t have a problem with what they were doing and asked them to listen to and write about the MP3. Most of the bloggers smelled a rat, but one wrote an entry and posted the MP3. Comments about the track were filled with accolades, but guess what? A group of them came from the same Warner IP address that sent the MP3. The marketer who wrote the initial request said it was probably just a group of fans from within the record company. Yeah, right.

The issue here is that the Internet really does reject manipulation, which is the core competency of any ad agency in a mass marketing world. These Warner people thought that if they could convince the MP3ers that their new band was good, then that would trickling “down” to their readers, and, voila, they’d have a hit. Not so fast.

Transparency is the rule “down here” and you people “up there” need to figure that out.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Why spectrum should matter to you

Posted Saturday, August 14th, 2004

Those who are genuinely interested in where the whole Internet “thing” is going would be wise to read this thoughtful article by Clay Shirky on the matter of broadcast spectrum. For those of you unfamiliar with Clay, he’s one of the real deep water fish in the Internet world, and this is the most understandable essay on this complex subject that I’ve ever read.

Why understand about spectrum? Because this is where the biggest threat to broadcasting-as-we-know-it exists, and it’s where the next generation of Internet business developments will take place.

Spectrum is currently valuable because it is scarce, and it is scarce because it is treated like property. Even if novel uses of spectrum can be shown not to interfere with the current broadcast model, evidence that spectrum can be transmuted from a property-rights model to being treated as a public good might not be welcome, in part because it could call into question the hold the broadcasters have on spectrum. This is especially true now that over 85% of television viewers get their TV from cable and satellite, not from traditional broadcast.

The potential threat to spectrum holders is clear. We have a set of arguments for creating and enforcing property rights for things that aren’t actually property. We usually apply this artificial scarcity to intellectual property — patents, trademarks, copyright — and grant these rights to protect certain forms of abstract work or communications.

The rationale for all these rights, however, is to reward their creators for novel intellectual work. This does not offer much relief to spectrum holders seeking a justification for continued Government enforcement of scarcity. None of the current holders of spectrum have created any of it — a wavelength is a physical property that cannot be created or destroyed. If spectrum can be regulated without the traditional licensing regime, it’s hard to argue that the Government has a compelling interest in creating and enforcing scarcity.

Clay uses WiFi as an example of unlicensed and unregulated spectrum, and what can be accomplished when spectrum is treated as a public good as opposed to property. This argument is important to understand, because the whole mood of communications is moving away from regulated scarcity to the endless possibilities of wireless communications in the broadcast bands.

I have said it often here. Man wants to be God, and this is such a fundamental core of human nature that business catering to it will always be successful. We’re locked into the dimensions of time and distance, and we’re always striving to find ways out of our prison. Knowledge is another limiting factor, and it’s here that wireless communications offer release. Imagine having unrestricted access to the knowledge of the Internet wherever and whenever you wish.

This is why I am so emphatic in my belief that the only thing of value to local broadcasters is their content, and that companies who find content-distribution vehicles beyond their broadcast tower are those who will survive in the long run.

Read Clay’s essay carefully. It’s your future.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Why spectrum should matter to you

Posted Saturday, August 14th, 2004

Those who are genuinely interested in where the whole Internet “thing” is going would be wise to read this thoughtful article by Clay Shirky on the matter of broadcast spectrum. For those of you unfamiliar with Clay, he’s one of the real deep water fish in the Internet world, and this is the most understandable essay on this complex subject that I’ve ever read.

Why understand about spectrum? Because this is where the biggest threat to broadcasting-as-we-know-it exists, and it’s where the next generation of Internet business developments will take place.

Spectrum is currently valuable because it is scarce, and it is scarce because it is treated like property. Even if novel uses of spectrum can be shown not to interfere with the current broadcast model, evidence that spectrum can be transmuted from a property-rights model to being treated as a public good might not be welcome, in part because it could call into question the hold the broadcasters have on spectrum. This is especially true now that over 85% of television viewers get their TV from cable and satellite, not from traditional broadcast.

The potential threat to spectrum holders is clear. We have a set of arguments for creating and enforcing property rights for things that aren’t actually property. We usually apply this artificial scarcity to intellectual property — patents, trademarks, copyright — and grant these rights to protect certain forms of abstract work or communications.

The rationale for all these rights, however, is to reward their creators for novel intellectual work. This does not offer much relief to spectrum holders seeking a justification for continued Government enforcement of scarcity. None of the current holders of spectrum have created any of it — a wavelength is a physical property that cannot be created or destroyed. If spectrum can be regulated without the traditional licensing regime, it’s hard to argue that the Government has a compelling interest in creating and enforcing scarcity.

Clay uses WiFi as an example of unlicensed and unregulated spectrum, and what can be accomplished when spectrum is treated as a public good as opposed to property. This argument is important to understand, because the whole mood of communications is moving away from regulated scarcity to the endless possibilities of wireless communications in the broadcast bands.

I have said it often here. Man wants to be God, and this is such a fundamental core of human nature that business catering to it will always be successful. We’re locked into the dimensions of time and distance, and we’re always striving to find ways out of our prison. Knowledge is another limiting factor, and it’s here that wireless communications offer release. Imagine having unrestricted access to the knowledge of the Internet wherever and whenever you wish.

This is why I am so emphatic in my belief that the only thing of value to local broadcasters is their content, and that companies who find content-distribution vehicles beyond their broadcast tower are those who will survive in the long run.

Read Clay’s essay carefully. It’s your future.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Why spectrum should matter to you

Posted Saturday, August 14th, 2004

Those who are genuinely interested in where the whole Internet “thing” is going would be wise to read this thoughtful article by Clay Shirky on the matter of broadcast spectrum. For those of you unfamiliar with Clay, he’s one of the real deep water fish in the Internet world, and this is the most understandable essay on this complex subject that I’ve ever read.

Why understand about spectrum? Because this is where the biggest threat to broadcasting-as-we-know-it exists, and it’s where the next generation of Internet business developments will take place.

Spectrum is currently valuable because it is scarce, and it is scarce because it is treated like property. Even if novel uses of spectrum can be shown not to interfere with the current broadcast model, evidence that spectrum can be transmuted from a property-rights model to being treated as a public good might not be welcome, in part because it could call into question the hold the broadcasters have on spectrum. This is especially true now that over 85% of television viewers get their TV from cable and satellite, not from traditional broadcast.

The potential threat to spectrum holders is clear. We have a set of arguments for creating and enforcing property rights for things that aren’t actually property. We usually apply this artificial scarcity to intellectual property — patents, trademarks, copyright — and grant these rights to protect certain forms of abstract work or communications.

The rationale for all these rights, however, is to reward their creators for novel intellectual work. This does not offer much relief to spectrum holders seeking a justification for continued Government enforcement of scarcity. None of the current holders of spectrum have created any of it — a wavelength is a physical property that cannot be created or destroyed. If spectrum can be regulated without the traditional licensing regime, it’s hard to argue that the Government has a compelling interest in creating and enforcing scarcity.

Clay uses WiFi as an example of unlicensed and unregulated spectrum, and what can be accomplished when spectrum is treated as a public good as opposed to property. This argument is important to understand, because the whole mood of communications is moving away from regulated scarcity to the endless possibilities of wireless communications in the broadcast bands.

I have said it often here. Man wants to be God, and this is such a fundamental core of human nature that business catering to it will always be successful. We’re locked into the dimensions of time and distance, and we’re always striving to find ways out of our prison. Knowledge is another limiting factor, and it’s here that wireless communications offer release. Imagine having unrestricted access to the knowledge of the Internet wherever and whenever you wish.

This is why I am so emphatic in my belief that the only thing of value to local broadcasters is their content, and that companies who find content-distribution vehicles beyond their broadcast tower are those who will survive in the long run.

Read Clay’s essay carefully. It’s your future.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

These ARE the good old days

Posted Saturday, August 14th, 2004

The “good old days” of TV News weren’t necessarily better, but they sure were a lot more fun. I had lunch with Mike Sechrist of WKRN-TV yesterday, and it was one of the best conversations I’ve had in years. We mostly just told old war stories, but we also talked about how and why things have changed so much in the business of local news.

Mike noted that it was the success of Cap Cities that got the attention of Wall Street, and how that was what shifted industry attention to the bottom line. Before that happened, the primary concern of local news was covering the news. It spawned a creativity that’s missing today — one that didn’t have the barrier of cost thrown into the equation. That creativity was mostly expressed in an uncompromising attitude that refused to take “no” for an answer. And it’s not that we were necessarily spendthrifts. The point is that there was a flexibility at the General Manager level that is simply gone today.

As we noted in our chat, local news of 30 years ago pioneered all of the things that today’s news people take for granted. “We wrote the rules,” Mike said. And I’ve got to admit that the process of writing those rules was done amidst an incredible energy that lifted everyone. I woke up each day eager to get to work.

We had our problems. People haven’t changed. There’s a potential asshole behind every smile when you have a bunch of egomaniacs in the same room, but it just didn’t seem to matter as much back then. My first news director was a newspaper guy. Mike’s was an old radio guy. It was — honestly — all about the news.

I find that same wonderful energy today in the innovations being produced by the Internet. We’re still in the rule-writing stage here, and there’s nothing quite like it.

Broadcasting is so 20th century.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

These ARE the good old days

Posted Saturday, August 14th, 2004

The “good old days” of TV News weren’t necessarily better, but they sure were a lot more fun. I had lunch with Mike Sechrist of WKRN-TV yesterday, and it was one of the best conversations I’ve had in years. We mostly just told old war stories, but we also talked about how and why things have changed so much in the business of local news.

Mike noted that it was the success of Cap Cities that got the attention of Wall Street, and how that was what shifted industry attention to the bottom line. Before that happened, the primary concern of local news was covering the news. It spawned a creativity that’s missing today — one that didn’t have the barrier of cost thrown into the equation. That creativity was mostly expressed in an uncompromising attitude that refused to take “no” for an answer. And it’s not that we were necessarily spendthrifts. The point is that there was a flexibility at the General Manager level that is simply gone today.

As we noted in our chat, local news of 30 years ago pioneered all of the things that today’s news people take for granted. “We wrote the rules,” Mike said. And I’ve got to admit that the process of writing those rules was done amidst an incredible energy that lifted everyone. I woke up each day eager to get to work.

We had our problems. People haven’t changed. There’s a potential asshole behind every smile when you have a bunch of egomaniacs in the same room, but it just didn’t seem to matter as much back then. My first news director was a newspaper guy. Mike’s was an old radio guy. It was — honestly — all about the news.

I find that same wonderful energy today in the innovations being produced by the Internet. We’re still in the rule-writing stage here, and there’s nothing quite like it.

Broadcasting is so 20th century.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

These ARE the good old days

Posted Saturday, August 14th, 2004

The “good old days” of TV News weren’t necessarily better, but they sure were a lot more fun. I had lunch with Mike Sechrist of WKRN-TV yesterday, and it was one of the best conversations I’ve had in years. We mostly just told old war stories, but we also talked about how and why things have changed so much in the business of local news.

Mike noted that it was the success of Cap Cities that got the attention of Wall Street, and how that was what shifted industry attention to the bottom line. Before that happened, the primary concern of local news was covering the news. It spawned a creativity that’s missing today — one that didn’t have the barrier of cost thrown into the equation. That creativity was mostly expressed in an uncompromising attitude that refused to take “no” for an answer. And it’s not that we were necessarily spendthrifts. The point is that there was a flexibility at the General Manager level that is simply gone today.

As we noted in our chat, local news of 30 years ago pioneered all of the things that today’s news people take for granted. “We wrote the rules,” Mike said. And I’ve got to admit that the process of writing those rules was done amidst an incredible energy that lifted everyone. I woke up each day eager to get to work.

We had our problems. People haven’t changed. There’s a potential asshole behind every smile when you have a bunch of egomaniacs in the same room, but it just didn’t seem to matter as much back then. My first news director was a newspaper guy. Mike’s was an old radio guy. It was — honestly — all about the news.

I find that same wonderful energy today in the innovations being produced by the Internet. We’re still in the rule-writing stage here, and there’s nothing quite like it.

Broadcasting is so 20th century.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

NBC’s Olympic strategy can’t last

Posted Wednesday, August 11th, 2004

Steve Safran has a noteworthy rant over at Lost Remote. As a news guy, he’s upset with NBC’s restrictions on the use of Olympics highlights. I posted a comment:

The commercialization of the Olympics has grown to the point where it threatens to self-destruct. In all honesty, I don’t give a hoot about them anymore. What used to be THE world event to highlight the talents and gifts of amateur athletes has become the most over hyped dog and pony show ever. NBC ownership of the Olympics extends beyond “rights,’ methinks, and that’s pathetic.

Two things are inevitable downstream. One, the athletes will demand compensation. Two, the ratings won’t provide the ROI to justify such staggering amounts of cash.

We all must remember that the media scenario today is vastly different than it was in the Jim McKay days. Back then, we were content to wait, because that’s just the way things were. Today, however, it’s “I want what I want when I want it,” and technology is making that possible. And having that appetite for immediacy filled makes the NBC Olympic strategy unacceptable.

Before this Olympics is complete, we’ll be reporting on stories of pirated highlights being spread across the Internet. It’s just the beginning.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

NBC’s Olympic strategy can’t last

Posted Wednesday, August 11th, 2004

Steve Safran has a noteworthy rant over at Lost Remote. As a news guy, he’s upset with NBC’s restrictions on the use of Olympics highlights. I posted a comment:

The commercialization of the Olympics has grown to the point where it threatens to self-destruct. In all honesty, I don’t give a hoot about them anymore. What used to be THE world event to highlight the talents and gifts of amateur athletes has become the most over hyped dog and pony show ever. NBC ownership of the Olympics extends beyond “rights,’ methinks, and that’s pathetic.

Two things are inevitable downstream. One, the athletes will demand compensation. Two, the ratings won’t provide the ROI to justify such staggering amounts of cash.

We all must remember that the media scenario today is vastly different than it was in the Jim McKay days. Back then, we were content to wait, because that’s just the way things were. Today, however, it’s “I want what I want when I want it,” and technology is making that possible. And having that appetite for immediacy filled makes the NBC Olympic strategy unacceptable.

Before this Olympics is complete, we’ll be reporting on stories of pirated highlights being spread across the Internet. It’s just the beginning.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

NBC’s Olympic strategy can’t last

Posted Wednesday, August 11th, 2004

Steve Safran has a noteworthy rant over at Lost Remote. As a news guy, he’s upset with NBC’s restrictions on the use of Olympics highlights. I posted a comment:

The commercialization of the Olympics has grown to the point where it threatens to self-destruct. In all honesty, I don’t give a hoot about them anymore. What used to be THE world event to highlight the talents and gifts of amateur athletes has become the most over hyped dog and pony show ever. NBC ownership of the Olympics extends beyond “rights,’ methinks, and that’s pathetic.

Two things are inevitable downstream. One, the athletes will demand compensation. Two, the ratings won’t provide the ROI to justify such staggering amounts of cash.

We all must remember that the media scenario today is vastly different than it was in the Jim McKay days. Back then, we were content to wait, because that’s just the way things were. Today, however, it’s “I want what I want when I want it,” and technology is making that possible. And having that appetite for immediacy filled makes the NBC Olympic strategy unacceptable.

Before this Olympics is complete, we’ll be reporting on stories of pirated highlights being spread across the Internet. It’s just the beginning.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Attention TV station sales departments

Posted Wednesday, August 11th, 2004

MediaDailyNews reports today on a new study by the online ad people at BURST! Media projecting a banner year for online holiday research and shopping this year. According to a survey of 47-hundred Web users, 93.6% expect to use the Web to research and/or purchase gifts during this year’s holiday season. 77 percent of those Web shoppers plan to make some holiday purchases online in December.

Income appears to affect the likelihood of Internet buying. The study finds that more than 30 percent of respondents with household income of $75,000 or more, and 27.3% of respondents with income of $100K or more, expect to purchase over half of their holiday gifts online. In contrast, 11.9 percent of those who earn less than $20,000 expect to buy more than half of their holiday gifts through the Web; one-third of those making under $20,000 will not make any online purchases…

…”Online shopping lets consumers be in four stores at once,” explains Ellen Tolley, spokesperson for the National Retail Federation (NRF). The organization’s 2003 eHoliday Mood Study found that 59 percent of retailers reported revenue boosts of 25 percent or more for the 2003 online holiday season.

This is important information for television station sales departments, because it underscores the need for a viable online presence to take advantage of the advertising that is sure to come from the biggest retail season of the year. A special holiday shopping section, with links to various online shopping sites — from bargains to specialities — is just one possibility. Local search is another.

Web surveys are notoriously easy to manipulate (where, for example, did BURST! find their respondents?), but these numbers are such that they simply cannot be ignored. The report also shows that the fear of using the Internet for shopping is easing, and that’s more good news for online buying and selling sites. The issue will always be there, but the knee jerk seems to have calmed a bit.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Attention TV station sales departments

Posted Wednesday, August 11th, 2004

MediaDailyNews reports today on a new study by the online ad people at BURST! Media projecting a banner year for online holiday research and shopping this year. According to a survey of 47-hundred Web users, 93.6% expect to use the Web to research and/or purchase gifts during this year’s holiday season. 77 percent of those Web shoppers plan to make some holiday purchases online in December.

Income appears to affect the likelihood of Internet buying. The study finds that more than 30 percent of respondents with household income of $75,000 or more, and 27.3% of respondents with income of $100K or more, expect to purchase over half of their holiday gifts online. In contrast, 11.9 percent of those who earn less than $20,000 expect to buy more than half of their holiday gifts through the Web; one-third of those making under $20,000 will not make any online purchases…

…”Online shopping lets consumers be in four stores at once,” explains Ellen Tolley, spokesperson for the National Retail Federation (NRF). The organization’s 2003 eHoliday Mood Study found that 59 percent of retailers reported revenue boosts of 25 percent or more for the 2003 online holiday season.

This is important information for television station sales departments, because it underscores the need for a viable online presence to take advantage of the advertising that is sure to come from the biggest retail season of the year. A special holiday shopping section, with links to various online shopping sites — from bargains to specialities — is just one possibility. Local search is another.

Web surveys are notoriously easy to manipulate (where, for example, did BURST! find their respondents?), but these numbers are such that they simply cannot be ignored. The report also shows that the fear of using the Internet for shopping is easing, and that’s more good news for online buying and selling sites. The issue will always be there, but the knee jerk seems to have calmed a bit.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Attention TV station sales departments

Posted Wednesday, August 11th, 2004

MediaDailyNews reports today on a new study by the online ad people at BURST! Media projecting a banner year for online holiday research and shopping this year. According to a survey of 47-hundred Web users, 93.6% expect to use the Web to research and/or purchase gifts during this year’s holiday season. 77 percent of those Web shoppers plan to make some holiday purchases online in December.

Income appears to affect the likelihood of Internet buying. The study finds that more than 30 percent of respondents with household income of $75,000 or more, and 27.3% of respondents with income of $100K or more, expect to purchase over half of their holiday gifts online. In contrast, 11.9 percent of those who earn less than $20,000 expect to buy more than half of their holiday gifts through the Web; one-third of those making under $20,000 will not make any online purchases…

…”Online shopping lets consumers be in four stores at once,” explains Ellen Tolley, spokesperson for the National Retail Federation (NRF). The organization’s 2003 eHoliday Mood Study found that 59 percent of retailers reported revenue boosts of 25 percent or more for the 2003 online holiday season.

This is important information for television station sales departments, because it underscores the need for a viable online presence to take advantage of the advertising that is sure to come from the biggest retail season of the year. A special holiday shopping section, with links to various online shopping sites — from bargains to specialities — is just one possibility. Local search is another.

Web surveys are notoriously easy to manipulate (where, for example, did BURST! find their respondents?), but these numbers are such that they simply cannot be ignored. The report also shows that the fear of using the Internet for shopping is easing, and that’s more good news for online buying and selling sites. The issue will always be there, but the knee jerk seems to have calmed a bit.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The best TV in a long time

Posted Tuesday, August 10th, 2004

I’m surprised that precious little has been written in the blogosphere about the TNT’s summer limited series, The Grid. The series ended last night, and I thought it was one of the finest I’ve seen on television, especially in recent years. Great cast. Great writing. Great cinematography. Great editing. And a most compelling topic — terrorism. It was definitely fiction, but the show took me inside the world of Middle Eastern terror better than anything I’ve seen to date. So where are all the commentaries?

NOTE TO ABC: Immediately call TNT about rights to run this on your network. It’ll help.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The best TV in a long time

Posted Tuesday, August 10th, 2004

I’m surprised that precious little has been written in the blogosphere about the TNT’s summer limited series, The Grid. The series ended last night, and I thought it was one of the finest I’ve seen on television, especially in recent years. Great cast. Great writing. Great cinematography. Great editing. And a most compelling topic — terrorism. It was definitely fiction, but the show took me inside the world of Middle Eastern terror better than anything I’ve seen to date. So where are all the commentaries?

NOTE TO ABC: Immediately call TNT about rights to run this on your network. It’ll help.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The best TV in a long time

Posted Tuesday, August 10th, 2004

I’m surprised that precious little has been written in the blogosphere about the TNT’s summer limited series, The Grid. The series ended last night, and I thought it was one of the finest I’ve seen on television, especially in recent years. Great cast. Great writing. Great cinematography. Great editing. And a most compelling topic — terrorism. It was definitely fiction, but the show took me inside the world of Middle Eastern terror better than anything I’ve seen to date. So where are all the commentaries?

NOTE TO ABC: Immediately call TNT about rights to run this on your network. It’ll help.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Who owns those relationships?

Posted Tuesday, August 10th, 2004

The excitement about broadband and interactivity includes serious questions about the relationship between publisher and user, according to Discovery.com’s Bill Allman. He expressed this concern at the end of a wonderful interview conducted by The Washington Post Company’s Chris Schroeder and published in MediaDailyNews. Having been involved in interactive media since 1992, Allman is widely regarded as a pioneer, and his words carry considerable weight.

The elephant in the room in discussions about the next generation of interactive media is that, along with the new ways of getting broadband content — whether it’s broadband, wireless, PVRs or VOD — there are bound to be new relationships with the customer. Who owns those relationships? Who has the rights to monetize that relationship via advertising or other commerce? How will those models change with interactivity? The established models for making money in media — and there’s still a lot of money being made the old fashioned way, mind you — will eventually be eroded by the new ways. And that has the potential to change everything about our business.
In addition to the obvious questions of who makes money in the delivery chain, Mr. Allman understands what many of us have been saying for quite some time, that the user is in charge of this relationship, not the publisher. I wrote about this extensively yesterday, and this gives me a chance to repeat the theme: decentralized power is THE issue of the new millennium, and it’s already impacting the world of business. In the future, monetizing the relationship (I love MBA speak) will look a lot more like the old Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) than the newer version (He who has the gold makes the rules).

I think Rishad Tobaccowala, ad giant Starcom MediaVest Group’s chief broadband strategist, nailed it best at DoubleClick’s annual Insight Conference last year. Here’s what MediaDailyNews wrote:

2004 ushers in an “empowered era” in which “humans are God,” because technology allows them to be godlike. The question Tobaccowala put to conference attendees is: “How will you engage God?”
You engage God as Job did. “I had heard about you before, but now I have seen you with my own eyes. I take back everything I said, and I sit in dust and ashes to show my repentance.” That’ll be the day, eh?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Who owns those relationships?

Posted Tuesday, August 10th, 2004

The excitement about broadband and interactivity includes serious questions about the relationship between publisher and user, according to Discovery.com’s Bill Allman. He expressed this concern at the end of a wonderful interview conducted by The Washington Post Company’s Chris Schroeder and published in MediaDailyNews. Having been involved in interactive media since 1992, Allman is widely regarded as a pioneer, and his words carry considerable weight.

The elephant in the room in discussions about the next generation of interactive media is that, along with the new ways of getting broadband content — whether it’s broadband, wireless, PVRs or VOD — there are bound to be new relationships with the customer. Who owns those relationships? Who has the rights to monetize that relationship via advertising or other commerce? How will those models change with interactivity? The established models for making money in media — and there’s still a lot of money being made the old fashioned way, mind you — will eventually be eroded by the new ways. And that has the potential to change everything about our business.
In addition to the obvious questions of who makes money in the delivery chain, Mr. Allman understands what many of us have been saying for quite some time, that the user is in charge of this relationship, not the publisher. I wrote about this extensively yesterday, and this gives me a chance to repeat the theme: decentralized power is THE issue of the new millennium, and it’s already impacting the world of business. In the future, monetizing the relationship (I love MBA speak) will look a lot more like the old Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) than the newer version (He who has the gold makes the rules).

I think Rishad Tobaccowala, ad giant Starcom MediaVest Group’s chief broadband strategist, nailed it best at DoubleClick’s annual Insight Conference last year. Here’s what MediaDailyNews wrote:

2004 ushers in an “empowered era” in which “humans are God,” because technology allows them to be godlike. The question Tobaccowala put to conference attendees is: “How will you engage God?”
You engage God as Job did. “I had heard about you before, but now I have seen you with my own eyes. I take back everything I said, and I sit in dust and ashes to show my repentance.” That’ll be the day, eh?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »