Pushing and pulling
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006There’s a rather revealing little piece in today’s Online Media Daily about the fear that the Media 1.0 crowd has about so-called “user-generated” content.
Bermel (Mary Bermel, interactive director for Hewlett-Packard) admitted she was “scared to death” of the prospect, while Trimble (John Trimble, SVP of branded sales for Fox Interactive) and Koerner (Stacey Lynn Koerner, president of consumer experience practice for Interpublic) were ambivalent.User-generated content brings “huge additional pressure,” Bermel said. “We want our brand in the marketplace presented in a certain way. Our advertising teams are used to push marketing–now we’re asking them to create pull marketing, things that will attract people to our brand.”
She also decried that “We say the new metric is engagement, but when people ask what that is, we can’t really tell them.”
Trimble said there was a “major paradigm shift” underway…
As Jeff Jarvis says, it’s “not users, not generated, and not content.” The term itself is used by mainstreamers to pigeonhole something that better enables them to (mis)understand it. These people will choke on the term rather than see it for what it really is, people being people.
They’re not scared of the UGC as much as they are of losing control. This line — we want our brand in the marketplace presented in a certain way — is the very heart of what’s under assault in the Media 2.0 space. “A certain way,” in this context, means that which will provide the most profit, the truth be damned. As Seth Godin recently told an audience at Google, “All marketers are liars,” and isn’t that the license accorded to push marketing?
As I wrote long ago, attraction is the key concept for marketing in the 2.0 space, not promotion.
Another milestone for WKRN
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006For the first time since we embarked on a pure Media 2.0 strategy for audience development at WKRN-TV in Nashville, aggregate traffic to the station’s 19 blogs last week exceeded traffic to the station’s primary Website, wkrn.com. This means the station has doubled its reach and created niche “businesses” in the market at the same time.
Two of the blogs are aggregators, and the rest are run by various departments (weather and sports), anchors, and niche (beat) VJs.
I’m very proud of Mike Sechrist, Steve Sabato and the whole gang at this progressive station, and as George Peppard used to tell The A-Team, “I love it when a plan comes together.”
UPDATE: Rex Hammock observes: “I guess it’s because people like me are always pointing their way because they know how to point this way, as well.”
Well said, Rex.
The Wisdom of the Opposite
Monday, October 30th, 2006One of the most insightful voices in the media world today is that of Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail and a blog by the same name. Anderson’s genius is in his understanding of economics in the new world, and the book is a must-read for anybody who wants to do business in Media 2.0.
In a presentation at Pop!Tech, Anderson spoke of what he calls the “Economy of Abundance,” which is what we find now that anybody can be a publisher or broadcaster. Our old models are all built on scarcity. Heck, advertising rates are built on scarcity, so talking about abundance is counterintuitive to Media 1.0.
Thankfully for all of us, Ethan Zuckerman was at the presentation and posted a delightful summary, including these four “business changes” that we all would do well to study:
- In the past, we built business cases based on ROI. Now we build it and build the business afterwards.
- In the past, “everything is forbidden unless it’s permitted.” Now everything is permitted unless forbidden.
- Scarcity is about paternalism, a decision that an editor knows what’s best. Abundance is about egalitarianism.
- Scarcity is top-down, abundance is bottom-up. Instead of command and control, it’s out of control.
The first business change is the one that fools most broadcasters (and all media companies), because our training and instincts demand that we have a profitable business plan in front of us before proceeding to do anything. This is a trap in the Media 2.0 world, because entrepreneurs in the space aren’t so bound. Consequently, they leapfrog companies who, for a very small investment, could be seizing the low-hanging fruit that these entrepreneurs are seeking. By the time they “build the business afterwards,” it’s too late to get into the game.
In my presentations, I often use a slide featuring a picture of George Costanza from Seinfeld and a quote of George’s from one of my favorite episodes, “The Opposite.” In it, George has decided that his whole miserable life was built on bad decisions, and that if he’d just do the opposite of what he thought was right, he’d end up better off than his current state. The show is filled with hilarious lines built on the premise, but none is more memorable than the one repeated in the slide. In the diner, Jerry, Elaine and Kramer convince George to try his new theory on a beautiful woman sitting at the counter. He does, and she shocks him by agreeing to a date.
For media companies, this “wisdom of the opposite” is more than a script in a sitcom; it’s a real-world challenge to all of us, and getting past it is what will free us to engage the real competition of the Media 2.0 world.
A lesson from home
Sunday, October 29th, 2006
Nostalgia can be an evil seducer, for the past cannot be dragged forward, regardless of how hard we try. The past belongs where it is, and whether we glamorize it or run from it, its power is limited to that which we give it. The here. The now. These are what matters, and they are impossible to enjoy fully, if we hang onto that which used to be.
It has been a very long time since I went “home,” and as I drove around the old neighborhood, I wanted to enjoy the moment, but I felt I didn’t belong. The house in which I grew up appeared vacant, but I didn’t get out to look. Too many feelings. It is most definitely run down, but if somebody lives there, my guess is it doesn’t feel run down to them.
Everything on the old block felt crowded and cramped. The trees are enormous, and the field out back where we used to play is so overgrown that it’s hard to imagine the time long ago when we played baseball and football there with all the neighbor kids.
I got to spend precious moments with my mother, Miss Dorothy, and her cat, Missy Sue. Though I look like my father, it is my mother’s block from which I was chipped. She hasn’t a clue about the internet except for the woman downstairs who complains every time her computer belches. She doesn’t know about blogs, bittorrent, streaming video, social media, or any of the stuff of which I write, nor does she care. She smiles when I tell her what I do, but the smile is more a courtesy than anything else, and that’s okay.
But I was struck by the metaphor contained in that smile and all the way back to Dallas, I thought about how absolutely different our world is today from it was when I played in that field out back of our house. I thought about generations past and generations to come, and how I will one day likely smile that courteous smile rather than engage in that which belongs to the future.
For our lives belong to us, each with its beginning and its end. The past belongs where it is, with its good and with its bad, and the future belongs to that and those yet to come. Today is God’s gift to each of us, and my prayer for each of you today is that you not squander one moment thereof.
Going home is a trip
Saturday, October 28th, 2006I’m in Grand Rapids for a long-overdue visit with my mother.
I haven’t been here in years, but there’s an odd familiarity with the people here, even though I don’t know a soul. Western Michigan is home to a lot of people with Dutch ancestry, so blonde hair is everywhere. And, brrr, it’s cold!
Mom lives in an apartment, but I’m going to drive by the old home place (now in what would best be described as a “bad” neighborhood). I’ll have some thoughts and a picture or two when I get back (if anybody cares).
The water in the (video) pot is getting hotter
Friday, October 27th, 2006Warner Music Group’s deal with Brightcove to put video on its music sites is yet another fragmentation in the video distribution marketplace that ought to make broadcasters sit up and take notice. According to an article in today’s Online Media Daily, Brightcove will handle ad sales in the deal.
The Web-based players will encompass music videos, artist interviews, live performances and “behind-the-scenes” material. Through the deal, Warner will also allow bloggers, social networking sites and other Web publishers to add its video on-demand service to their sites. Sites that syndicate the Warner video programming will be able to share in ad revenue.
The pair of eyeballs watching an artist interview on a Warner Music Group site won’t be watching anything else at that time. And the fact that Warner is unbundling this content from the sites is the real incumbent killer. If that artist interview can be seen on Joe Blow’s blog, who needs the Today Show?
The message for broadcasters is pretty clear. The only thing we have now that others don’t is a temporary lock on local video, and this is not something that will last much longer. Newspapers, citizen journalists and video bloggers are all knocking at the door, and if we lose the local video niche, all is lost.
Like the proverbial frog in the hot water, we’re enjoying the bath, but the disruption is cooking us.
Upgrading my software (finally)
Thursday, October 26th, 2006I’m moving my blog to WordPress and will be offering an RSS 2.0 full feed when it happens. A lot of people have requested that, so we’re making it happen. I’ll also have a new URL, although this one will remain active in perpetuity (as well as my old RSS feed and all archives). It’s a tricky task to do without messing up one’s positioning with search engines, but it’ll certainly be worth it in the end.
I’ve been blogging for a long time, and my old Greymatter has served me well. It’s kind of like letting go of that comfortable old pair of shoes. Look for the new shoes in the next couple of weeks.
Clear Channel going private
Thursday, October 26th, 2006There’s buzz today about a plan to take Clear Channel private. The New York Times reports that negotiations are underway to “sell” the company to an investment consortium for $18.5 billion.
The negotiations come as family- controlled media companies across the nation explore the possibility of selling their companies or taking them private. Cox Communications, the cable company based in Atlanta, went private in 2004. Cablevision, which is controlled by the Dolan family, is in the middle of negotiations to become private.
“If you’re constantly worrying about where your stock is today, you’re going to make decisions that aren’t broadcasting decisions,” Halper said. “If they go private, it gives them the flexibility to turn a profit, but to also have the time to grow and develop new formats, and to perfect the ones they already have.”
During this time of disruption and turmoil, unless the management is willing to put up with shareholder anger and demand for short-term answers, I don’t see what else they could do.Companies solely in the radio business aren’t set for growth in any way; they’ll be lucky if they don’t continue shrinking with the changing entertainment climate. They are still reeling from getting caught off guard from consumers’ demand for downloadable music.
I think they should go private and give themselves the breathing room to be able to see how they can strategically respond to the existing marketplace. If they don’t, they will endlessly have to deal with putting out brush fires as shareholders demand higher returns. The result would only be possible short-term spikes that do nothing for long-term success.
Clear Channel, the radio monster, is looking to sell itself to go private, according to the Times. Why? Because the radio business sucks.This is why I have not feared media consolidation. Clear Channel, the poster child for evil media conglomerates, bought up stations and sucked cash out of them but now there’s not much left to suck. Consolidation is the act of a dying industry. Well, broadcast won’t die. But it sure as hell won’t grow.
When I published my predictions for 2006, this was one of them, and it will only accelerate next year.
Proprietary players are a big no-no
Thursday, October 26th, 2006Michael Arrington is one of those internet voices that demands attention, and his TechCrunch blog is must-reading for those truly interested in what’s taking place in the new world. He writes about new companies and new applications, and I’ve found his insight to be prescient and remarkable.
This morning, Michael wrote about another new TV download service that combines BitTorrent, “legitimate” TV downloads and DVD sales. In his summary, he makes an important point for all of us in “the biz” to note, because — like some other applications — this one requires downloading a special player.
It’s clear that this is a product that people will want to use, although more for the Bittorent content than for the for-pay TV shows. A comparison engine for premium TV is nice, but each service has its own viewer and rules (most don’t work with Macs, for example, although iTunes does), and consumers are not going to want to install multiple pieces of software just to view different TV shows.
Attention broadcasters and all other video creators
Wednesday, October 25th, 2006I’m going to be a broken record on this, so get used to it. We simply must cease using publishing terms in referencing our efforts on the web.
- We don’t distribute by publication; we distribute by channel (think Motherload, Overdrive, Innertube, etc.).
- We are not publishers; we are producers.
- We sell spots; not banners, leaderboards, skyscrapers, boxes or other print ad concepts.
- We don’t count users; we count viewers.
- Our advertising doesn’t surround content; it’s a part of it.
Is it just me…
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006…or is Monday Night Football actually much better on ESPN than it ever was on ABC?
And while I’m at it, is there a worse play-by-play guy in all of sports than Brent Musburger? And he’s ABC’s go-to guy for college football. Yeesh.
Let them consolidate (but keep the internet free)
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006A Baltimore Sun article notes that media consolidation isn’t good for local communities, and cites two new studies, as the FCC takes another look at its decision about the matter.
“FCC commission decisions are too often made with insufficient data,” Gloria Tristani, a former FCC commissioner and president of the Benton Foundation, told the Associated Press. “These studies strongly suggest that ownership restrictions should be tightened, not relaxed.”… Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review, published by the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland, said in an interview that media consolidation has not been good for journalism.
“When you get a whole lot of stations owned by one owner, you get a whole lot more … and more cookie-cutter products,” he said. “You’re going to lose local character. And certainly that applies when one entity owns several forms of media in one town: You lose the competitiveness that’s so important to good journalism.”
Rieder said the proliferation of Web sites and bloggers has created an impression that there are sufficient voices in any given community. “But there aren’t enough voices that do original reporting,” he said.
With all due respect to Mr. Rieder, “original reporting” is exactly what’s developing at the center of the personal media revolution, and in just a few years, it won’t matter if one entity (a.k.a. “the man”) owns every traditional media outlet in a community.
We tend to look at developments in media as events in a linear process when they are actually crosswise and multi-dimensional. All of these entities “controlled” by the FCC are being disrupted by Media 2.0. The disruption is what’s growing, not Media 1.0, so while we clearly ought to care about what happens in this space, the reality is it isn’t the only space anymore.
And the real rub to the institutional world is this: it’s all about people, not big business. It’s people who are feeling the effects of media consolidation that are referenced in the studies above, but people aren’t passive and helpless media “consumers” anymore, and in some ways they’ve already turned the page on the past. The big Media 2.0 players are helping them, and this WILL continue.
So I say let them consolidate, for the future isn’t theirs. Keep the internet free, and let us continue to build that which is new.
The window is closing (although it doesn’t appear so)
Monday, October 23rd, 2006
New sites launch every day, and I don’t normally make a big deal out of that. However, the launch today of Travelistic warrants a comment. Created by Nicholas Butterworth, the former head of MTVi and CEO of pioneering music site SonicNet, Travelistic wants to be the YouTube of travel, a hybrid of user-generated videos (share your vacation) and professionally produced material.
The reason I want to reference this event is that I have discussed this very concept with various media companies, along with a host of others that I would consider “low-hanging fruit,” especially at the local level. Smart people outside the mainstream will continue to snap up these ideas and remove them from the range of possibilities currently open to existing media companies. This is Media 2.0, folks, and the window of opportunity will not last forever.
Losing investigative reporting - negative or spin?
Monday, October 23rd, 2006Dan Gillmor references a Howard Kurtz commentary lamenting the potential loss of investigative reporting in the wake of newspaper financial woes and reminds everybody that traditional media sources aren’t the only people doing investigative reporting.
One, which has been around for a while, is the Center for Public Integrity, which does brilliant investigative journalism. It relies on grants and donations, a business model that has supported terrific stuff.Another, newer project, is Jay Rosen’s budding NewAssignment.net, which has a chance to help redefine the nature of the investigative project in a networked age.
And let’s not forget that the best reporting on government spying on Americans has been done by that famous journalism organization (not), the American Civil Liberties Union. A new report, based on information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, is an example.
There has been an endless stream of commentaries lately that point to the loss of investigative reporting as dangerous for our culture, and I’m not sure the complaint is much more than wishful thinking disguised as a scare tactic. Consider what new media pioneer Rob Curley told Fast Company last week, “I think newspapers lost their way and started focusing on big investigative stuff and forgot to cover the prom or 10-year-olds playing baseball.”
Big-J journalism is addicted to Watergate gotcha-ism, and there’s a fine line between watchdogging government and career furtherance through talk shows. While I hate that people are losing jobs (got the T-shirt), we have to be circumspect in our automatic (and nostalgic) reaction that budget cuts for newspapers (and TV networks) translates to an uninformed public.
If there’s a market for investigative reporting (and there is), then the market will find a way to fulfill itself. Going quickly, however, is this idea that only a “professional” news organization can adequately investigate anything.
Who needs Nielsen?
Monday, October 23rd, 2006In my essay The Transparency Marketplace, I touched on new measurement metrics that are coming that will help web distributors and advertisers better understand and do business on the web. This is a subject that always opens eyes in discussions with broadcasters, because our world is so dominated by the methods of Nielsen.
I point out that Technorati can measure influence through links. Google page rankings are their measurement of “importance” of pages (and will one day be on a much larger scale than today’s one through ten ranking). Alexa measures traffic, and while their methodology is evolving, we cannot dismiss the ability of advertisers to use an independent third-party tool. One day, all three of these could be used to set advertising rates.
Now comes Quantcast, a beta application that looks very promising to me. Here’s what they say about themselves:
Quantcast is a team of web analytics experts building powerful statistical technology to understand internet audiences. Quantcast helps web publishers of all sizes understand the composition of their audiences and attract higher advertising rates, and helps advertisers and agencies find elusive online audiences wherever they might be. This web site allows anyone to view audience reports on hundreds of thousands of websites.…We’re good but not yet perfect. While we see a huge amount of internet traffic every day, it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the entire internet. Fortunately, we know enough about the transactions we see and the US Internet as a whole (thanks in part to the US Census Bureau) to use a range of mathematical techniques to adjust our observations to provide you with best estimates for the whole internet. The confidence meter displayed with the data gives you a good idea how accurate we believe our estimates to be.
Moreover, we have no choice but to play by their rules, and isn’t this what really galls the mainstream? Quantcast is going to provide statistics for your site to advertisers, whether you like it or not, and if you want those statistics to be reliable, then you’re going to have to insert their little pixel into the code on your pages (become a “Quantified Publisher“).
This is an important part of the Media 2.0 disruption that needs more attention than its getting, because these are the kinds of tools that will fuel the internet advertising economy downstream.
(Thanks to Steve Rubel for the tip.)
Just in time for Christmas…
Saturday, October 21st, 2006
My three books are about ready for publishing. We’ve been working on getting them ready for the last couple of months (who knew there was so much to this?), and I’m pretty excited that they’ll be on the market around November 1st.
Hint, hint: Just in time for Christmas.
Watch for my Website going up soon, too — PalmersMeadow.com. That’s where you’ll be able to actually purchase the books. They’ll be $16 each, plus shipping and handling.
Palmer’s Meadow is a mythical land where spiritual fables are told through insect characters. I wrote the first one 15 years ago (The Butterfly Tree) and the last one in 1997 (Princess of the Pond). They are not children’s books, for they carry adult themes and spiritual answers to the conflicts in which the characters find themselves. They’ll ultimately be available as eBooks, but I wanted to get the actual books done first.
Now if I can just get an animation deal.
Google messes with ZeFrank’s fun
Saturday, October 21st, 2006According to video blogger ZeFrank, Google’s “check out” application has advised him that he will not be able to use its service in continuing the creative advertising concept I told you about on Wednesday. If true (hey, who’s to doubt Ze?), I find this pretty remarkable for a company that has heretofore enabled small business advertising. Ze told his audience that he’ll switch to PayPal, but that’s so 20th century. I’m going to look into this further, and I’ll let you know what I find.
Poor Ze. Google’s probably pissed, because they didn’t think of the idea themselves. Bullies!
It’s not the programming, people!
Friday, October 20th, 2006Reaction to NBC Universal’s big announcement yesterday focuses primarily on the network’s early prime time programming decision, not on the digital future aspects of NBCU 2.0. While I don’t disagree that the ceasing of production of scripted shows for the first hour is a big story, I think the bigger matter is NBC moving to be first-in-line in the all-digital future.
By dwelling on the programming, these observers run the risk of reducing the bigger story to a broadcasting insider case, and that deflects attention from the industry as a whole and advertiser discontent. Here are some of the things being said today. I’ve lifted what I believe are the most important elements:
Wright understood the future when he took over as the network’s honcho. In 2004, he told the Hollywood Reporter:“The evolution of on-demand technologies will necessitate an adjustment period for content owners, but it also will bring myriad business opportunities.”
But like the rest of humanity, he may not have realized how swift and brutal the changes would be:
“We make a lot of bets. In our case, trying to focus on content was something we felt comfortable with — high-end programming that has the ability to break through the clutter — rather than focusing on distribution.”
Just don’t look for that high-end stuff between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m.
NBC Universal’s plan to reorganize its news operations as part of a companywide streamlining serves as a vivid indication that the technological forces squeezing newspapers have spread to TV.…Although broadcast television networks have scaled back their news operations in recent years, particularly in foreign bureaus, they have largely avoided the kind of extensive layoffs that have plagued their print brethren. In the meantime, network news divisions have moved aggressively to package their content for online and mobile viewing, hoping to hold on to its audience with Net casts, podcasts and blogs.
Wright’s cost-cutting seemed a stark contrast to rivals such as News Corp. (NWS), which paid $580 million last year for the owner of Internet social hub MySpace, and Google (GOOG), which just agreed to pay $1.65 billion for YouTube.“NBC Universal was outfoxed by News Corp. when it bought MySpace,” says Tom McPhail, a communications professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. “That was the clear sign that they should have gone after YouTube. But senior management at GE and NBC have been behind the Internet curve. Critics thought cable would do in the networks’ power. It turns out the Internet is the real culprit. NBC Universal is just the first to throw in the towel.”
Wright counters that he has made some big investments of his own in digital, including $600 million for the female-oriented Website iVillage, not to mention many upgrades for high-definition TV, or HDTV.
Besides, he says, “People would kill us” if NBC Universal matched the prices that News Corp. and Google spent for their high-profile acquisitions.
“I don’t think any of those deals would change our life,” he says. “News Corp. struck it rich with MySpace. But it’s a fragile business, and what’ll it be like in one or two years, who knows? We want to be in more stable parts of the business.”
It’s never what you pay. It’s what you get for your money, and no matter what Zucker thinks of what advertisers will support at 7 p.m., the 8 p.m. shows are bound to be affected. What’s that worth?Just last year, Zucker himself said the first hour of prime time was crucial because “the ability to launch things [in the second hour and] having them self-start is nearly impossible.”
So now he’s saying he wants to rein in costs?
The NFL stadium bogus threat
Thursday, October 19th, 2006Here we go again.
Bob Orr has written a beautiful piece for CBS Public Eye called Be Afraid, Be VERY Afraid on the non-threat that was hyped by CNN and others yesterday of dirty bombs and NFL stadiums. He says “We blew it,” and asks, “What will we do next time?”
This is the type of thing that is killing our credibility with the people formerly known as the audience. It’s easy to second guess news managers who run on something like this, but Orr is absolutely right in saying that we need to find a way to restrain ourselves.
The real problem is this story was irresistible. It had the kind of sexy elements that get news directors to crank up team coverage — big crowds, dirty bombs, football, and a “warning” from the government.What it was missing was some substance and restraint from media outlets which let hype trump context. As I said, we blew it.
Mr. Orr asks a very good question. What WILL we do next time?
NBC Universal’s break with the past
Thursday, October 19th, 2006
This morning’s stunner from NBC Universal is just the beginning of what is a necessary top-line strategy shift for broadcasters of all stripes. Bob Wright, Vice Chairman of GE and Chairman and CEO, NBC Universal, announced that the company is laying off 700 people and cutting $750 million in expenses by the end of 2008 in a massive restructuring. Dubbed “NBC 2.0,” the plan is wide-sweeping and includes some truly remarkable elements. Here’s what Variety wrote this morning:
“This initiative is designed to help us exploit technology and focus our resources as we continue our transformation into a digital media company,” Wright said.The restructuring will touch all divisions of the company, which has in recent years, been the least-profitable division within GE. It is also a test of Wright’s heir-apparent Jeff Zucker, who is spearheading the initiative.
In television, the cuts will mean abandoning high-cost dramas in the 8 p.m. hour, because advertiser interest in the timeslot doesn’t justify the expense, NBC U Television topper Zucker told the Wall Street Journal.
Deep cuts are planned in news operations across the company. NBC News shows like “Nightly News” and “Today” have been bright spots within the network even as primetime has struggled.
Nevertheless, Zucker announced deep cuts to the $1.5 billion the network spends on newsgathering. NBC News will consolidate bureaus and cut staff, including on-air talent.
“Either you drown or you ride the wave,” said NBC News chief Steve Capus about 2.0, which he calls a necessary response to the “tsunami” of change. In a nutshell, TV news staffers need to quickly expand their skill sets and become proactive about contributing content on multiple platforms. They now have to compete with a tech-savvy workforce for these new digital positions. (Recent events have shown that media companies do not automatically shift TV staffers to the web. They lay them off and hire someone else who’s qualified.) And I also believe it’s critical that we redefine the nature of news and expand its boundaries……I would challenge the definition of “news” and focus on innovating new products that engage our users through the marriage of information and technology. While it won’t look anything like TV news, it will still inform, educate and enlighten. And journalism will still play an important role.
While I certainly like some of the statements I’m reading, the proof will be in how they execute all of this. The first sentence in the press release defines NBC Universal as “a leading global content company,” and that has only limited applications in a truly Media 2.0 world. It’s tough to compete with a leading global aggregation company like Google when your core business is content creation.
Wright’s statement that NBC is being transformed into “a digital media company” reminds me of the statement to shareholders this spring by Antonio Perez, president of Kodak. “We are now a digital company,” he told the gathering. In both cases, the transformation is essential for survival. Kodak admits that it waited too long before moving into the digital world. I don’t think that’s the case for NBCU, and I think they’re making a very, very smart move here.
I’m sorry people are losing their jobs, but let me state for the millionth time that this is inevitable. I think 2007 may well be a bloodbath, and that which isn’t drained next year will certainly flow freely in 2009.
It would be classless for me to say “I told you so,” so I won’t.