AR&D Reinventing Local Media

The upfront is underway and this is announcement week. Nothing really surprising so far — a lot of stuff about multimedia advertising. But this caught my eye. It’s from a Media Daily News article on ABC’s delivery of “HD quality” video through its streaming player.

It represents another signal that ABC no longer views television as content sent in a linear pattern through a living-room screen. For advertisers, the initiative and new player will allow for geo-targeting of ads (emphasis mine). Creative can be localized and targeted to individual users.

If a television network can geo-target ads, they are actually competing in the local media space.

Ouch! That hurts.

I know this makes me sound like I have multiple personalities (because I emphasize Media 2.0), but when we present our Simulpath™ strategy to clients, we note that path one (brand extension) success is best achieved through an aggressive unbundling strategy. There’s a great article in today’s Wall St. Journal (free) that compares the CBS unbundling strategy to that of the other networks, each of which hopes to find success in constructing super video portals.

I wrote about this two years ago, and it continues to be a viable strategy. Jeff Jarvis calls this statement by Quincy Smith, head of CBS interactive, the “smartest media quote of the year:”

“We can’t expect consumers to come to us. It’s arrogant for any media company to assume that.”

This is textbook unbundling thought, and I want to add my kudos to Jeff’s.

Headlines from PaidContent.org this morning:

Online Personal Broadcasting Firm Mogulus Gets $1.2 Million Angel Funding
Online Video Company Pitch Firm Vator.tv Gets Funding
Online Video Production Startup Black20 Gets Funding

These types of stories are coming fast and furious and pose the greatest threat to the broadcasting paradigm. Mark Cuban’s “laughable” statement (”the concept of internet video replacing TV is laughable“) fails to take into consideration the reality that the type of television viewed online isn’t the same as what’s available in the broadcast world.

Eyeballs are eyeballs (and we each only have two) and money is money.

I love metaphors, and this one’s a beauty. In a Variety article a week ago about the television “upfront,” Jack Feuer writes of how television companies are positioning digital media this year.

“Last year, the networks all realized they had to address digital,” says Margaret Clerkin, CEO of North America for MindShare Interaction. “They were naive in that they thought they could offer it in a cookie-cutter fashion. ‘CSI,’ ‘Lost,’ every show had the same tactics put against it. I would hope now they understand what works and what doesn’t.”

No doubt they do.

The emphasis is evident in the rush to put shows on iTunes and acquire social networking sites like MySpace.

Media buyers and sellers are calling it “the wheel.” It’s the idea that you don’t just buy television anymore, especially network television. What you do, instead, is use the network as the hub of a wheel. Then digital and other emerging platform opportunities become the “spokes.”

Nice metaphor. Unfortunately, it’s suicidal strategy, if it’s all you’ve got.

That’s because the hub is the problem, and to tie digital efforts to it guarantees only that disruptive innovations will continue to march forward. The hub is what we call Media 1.0, wherein media companies take elements of the disruption and try to drag them into the mass marketing business model of a deteriorating core. Notice in the metaphor how each of the spokes flows from and supports the core.

The problem is that real business flexibility lies within the disruption, and that is what we call Media 2.0.

The television upfront is a dinosaur from the Wayback Machine — but a necessary part of doing business as television. However, businesses in decline often find that their greatest strength ultimately becomes their greatest weakness, and by tying their digital applications to their core, this “wheel” strategy sacrifices long-term business health for short-term profits.

I can’t remember when I first saw this, but I assumed it was a typo. Then it started coming at me with increasing frequency, so I thought I’d Google the term.

I’m talking about B.C.E. and C.E. instead of B.C. and A.D. when it comes to dates.

Nobody asked me if this was all right. Nobody asked for my permission. In fact, nobody even told me about it. “They” just decided it, and I don’t even know who “they” are, except to recognize political correctness when I see it.

I mean, really, people. Do we need to rewrite history? Some of the definitions I found in Googling the term BCE included references like “Christians refer to this as B.C. and A.D.” Christians? Folks, the whole world has referred to dating this way for many centuries.

Of course, one could argue intellectually that just because this is the way we’ve always done it doesn’t mean it’s the way we should do it today. And I understand fully the message behind the change.

But, you know, you could’ve at least told me.

AP asks a question no broadcaster wants to hear, “Where have all the viewers gone?” The answer depends on who’s giving it, but let’s not fool ourselves about the importance of the question.

In TV’s worst spring in recent memory, a startling number of Americans drifted away from television the past two months: More than 2.5 million fewer people were watching ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox than at the same time last year, statistics show.

…Scariest of all for the networks, however, is the idea that many people are now making their own television schedules. The industry isn’t fully equipped to keep track of them, and as a result the networks are scrambling to hold on to the nearly $8.8 billion they collected during last spring’s ad-buying season.

…The viewer plunge couldn’t have come at a worse time for the networks — next week they will showcase their fall schedules to advertisers in the annual “up front” presentations.

Really now, should this be a surprise to anybody?

Let me drag out, once again, the first Heatonism: Revenue isn’t the problem; audience is the problem. Fix the problem.

Umair Haque is spending time with media companies these days. That’s us, so we need to pay attention.

First, he takes on this rather amazing statement from Time-Warner boss, Richard Parsons, “The Googles of the world, they are the Custer of the modern world. We are the Sioux nation.” Umair says this is completely backwards, and I couldn’t agree more.

From a strategic pov, Google is the one who is hyperflexible and capable of mounting quick yet disproportionately devastating forays into new markets and new value chain segments.

Finally, note the fact that if strategic thinking seems almost impossible for today’s mediacos, that’s because, well, for many, it is - they are trapped in an ever deepening value chasm.

He adds that the biggest reason digital revenues fail to scale for media companies is their need to take care of their existing lucrative businesses. Amen to that, too.

In another insightful post, Umair looks at the broadband destination site “Honeyshed” and proceeds to rip apart their business plan. It’s stuff like this that makes Umair a must read for those of us in the media strategy business. He lists five reasons not to believe their marketing, including “..it’s just another mass media play in a micromedia world,” and ends with this conclusion:

The point is that markets, networks, and communities are the chokepoints of the post-network economy. Honeyshed’s ultimate failure is that it is none of these - it’s just another lame, inert, rigid, channel.

The thing I like most about Umair (besides his remarkable mind) is that he has a sharper sword than most. He doesn’t mince words, and while some think he comes off as arrogant, it isn’t arrogance when you’re just, well, right.

Here’s the link to our latest newsletter. “Murdoch strikes again, Size doesn’t matter, and “Everything is Miscellaneous” is the tease.

So ABC, ESPN and Cox Cable are banding together for a VOD package that includes the inability of consumers to skip the commercials. If we’re going to unbundle our programming, I’m all for attaching marketing to it as a way to pay for the products, but if technology can be created to disable fast-forwarding, technology can be created to enable it.

At best, this may slow down a part of the disruption, but the 30-second ad paradigm is over. And until we come up with its replacement, we’re going to find ourselves in the unenviable position of fighting with those we wish to attract the most — our viewers.

I don’t normally do these kinds of “group” posts, but there is so much good stuff out there today, and I don’t have time to write individual posts. So here it goes:

You simply must read Rupert Murdoch’s insightful take in Forbes on the current state of “the media.” I’ve often written about him with admiration, because he really does seem to get what’s taking place. This piece only adds to that belief.

News is in more demand than ever, but the vast network of Internet-savvy news junkies want their news with several fresh twists: constantly updated, relevant to their daily lives, complete with commentary and analysis, and presented in a way that allows them to interact not just with the news but with each other about the news. They won’t wait until six o’clock to watch the news on television or until the next morning to read it in isolation. This plainly provides a challenge for news providers but also an opportunity to be far more engaged with the audience.

Companies that take advantage of this new meaning of network and adapt to the expectations of the networked consumer can look forward to a new golden age of media. Far be it from me to suggest that either I or my company have all the answers. No one does. But the future of media is a future of relentless experimentation and innovation, accelerating change, and–for those who embrace the new ways in which consumers are connecting with each other–enormous potential.

Great stuff and spot-on. Let the mold-breaking begin. Actually, if you haven’t already begun this process, you’re probably too late.

Then there’s this fascinating tidbit from Niall Kennedy:

Webmasters will soon be able to auction off widget space on their sites and blogs managed and marketed by advertising powerhouse Google. Advertisers will produce a Google Gadget in standard IAB unit sizes for distribution across the Google network at CPC or CPM billing rates. Google will bolster its current Google Analytics package to support better tracking paid and free widget campaigns in this sub-page and asynchronous pageload environment. The Google Gadget advertising beta program was publicly announced during a marketing summit for the automotive industry according to Online Media Daily.

This means, my beloved fellow broadcasters, that we will be able to buy ad spaces on sites we choose and have minute-by-minute control over the content in those ad spaces. And the same will be true of local advertisers, who wish to buy widget space on our sites. Remember, folks, this is Google.

On to the remarkable announcement that the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (NATAS) has formed a peer group — the National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences. Shelley Palmer rightly notes that this is “Recognizing the New Digital Generation.” The new group is open to membership for all of the existing NATAS members, and the initial thrust of the group will be reaching out to new media organizations for memberships. There is no plan (so far) for an awards competition or ceremony. For now, that will remain strictly with television and the Emmys.

Bob Wright, chairman of NBC Universal, will chair the new group, and he told Shelley, “I am very happy to be involved with this group (the National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences). It has been clear to me for some period of time that we have converging technologies, and we need to figure out away to get these people involved with us. This new group is a great way to connect with these people.”

Finally, and I’ll write more on this later, I’ve begun reading David Weinberger’s new book, Everything is Miscellaneous.” Let me tell you, folks, this is one of the most important books of the new age, and I predict the language will find its way into the collective lexicon of anyone involved in the organization of information and knowledge. I strongly recommend reading it.

You’ve got to love the arrogance of the print industry as it relates to television.

I was at an event recently where a print photojournalist-turned-video photojournalist was talking to people about his craft. “I’m not talking about the kind of video that you see on television news,” he told the crowd. “I’m talking about adding the elements of motion and sound to the story.”

Huh?

Did he invent that or just discover it? The NPPA might have a thoughts about the notion. Motion and sound, huh? I guess that’s a pretty novel concept when frozen images are your stock in trade.

Then there’s my fascination with the word “interstitial.” Here’s one of the web definitions:

This term means something in between and is a page that is inserted in the normal flow of content between a user and a site. An Interstitial Ad is an intrusive ad unit that is delivered without specifically being requested by a user.

Let me give the interpretation here: this is called a commercial.

You see, print folks are so accustomed to display ads that “surround” content that they’re now in love with ads that “interrupt” content. Hell, we’ve been doing that since way back.

What do you expect when the print guys see their model destroyed by disruptive innovations and are forced to “discover” this whole new world out there?
Sigh.

Microsoft wants to buy Yahoo!?

Thomson wants to buy Reuters?

EMI for sale?

Google or Gannett want Monster.com?

Westwood One is for sale?

Private equity firms want to buy AOL?

And, of course, Rupert wants the Wall St. Journal?

In the words of the immortal Frank Barone, “Holy Crap!”

(thanks to I Want Media)

My job requires that I register and join many, many website databases, nearly all of which require a username and password. In the beginning (when the heck was that?), this was fine, but it has gotten to the point where it’s pretty friggin’ ridiculous trying to remember literally hundreds of username/password combinations. I can’t count the number of times I’ve gone back to a site where my cookie has crumbled and have tried to log back in only to be greeting by some words on a screen yelling at me, because the stupid username and password don’t match. AUGH!

Then there’s trying to recover a password only to find that the email address on file is no longer in use. And since my favorite username has already been taken (by me, of course), I have to start the registration process all over. Grrrr.

But nothing irritates me like sites that force their own password rules on me, especially those that require “at least one number” in the mix. WTF? I mean, really. Why should you care what I select for a password?

Maybe it’s because it’s Friday, but can we puh-leeeeeeze have some uniformity here?

Or not.

I’m eastbound today en route Jackson, Mississippi for the first ever Central Mississippi Blogger Meet-up. The event will be held at the studios of WJTV-TV tomorrow morning at 11am. If you’re a blogger from the area, you should have already received an evite, and I hope to see you there.

This is a station that has made the decision to listen, and those of us who blog need to sit up and take notice when that happens. So come on by and say hello.

I’m also looking forward to spending a little time with my friend Linda Allen. She’s the main anchor there and was a dear friend of Allie’s.

Here’s the link to this week’s newsletter.

In an article about the conundrum facing DIGG, the online news community, Staci Kramer over at PaidContent shines a light on the core conflict between media and the masses in today’s world. I left a comment, but I want to expand on it, because this issue is the sweet spot of everything about which I write — the conflict between a mature modernist culture and an upstart postmodern culture.

Just as the printing press heralded the birth of modernism, so is the internet bringing the postmodern culture to fruition. If we’re going to do business in this evolving culture, we’re going to have to view things a little differently.

In the DIGG case this week, stories about a Linux hack for HD-DVD encryption began showing up on the “front page” of the user-determined DIGG. The hack allows people to copy content from HD-DVDs, something the entertainment industry doesn’t want. So a cease and desist order arrived at DIGG, with which managers tried to comply by removing stories and banning certain members.

This created a fury with the masses at DIGG, which then found itself swamped with links to story after story revealing the hack. So DIGG gave up, and founder Kevin Rose wrote:

“…after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be. If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.”

Staci points out that some are calling this “mob rule,” and she waves a very real warning flag for businesses who MUST have user loyalty to survive.

In other words, community first–even when it breaks your own rules, business second. This time. No clue as to what Digg will do the next time it’s faced with a take-down request on another topic but it’s clear who actually holds the power in this equation. What that means for business–not so clear.

I tried to point out in the comments that this is much bigger than anybody realizes, because the very concept of mob rule is a modernist invention. It’s not that mobs haven’t had their way historically, but it’s the attachment of the word “rule” that modernists find intolerable.

What I find most fascinating here is the automatic assumption that chaos is evil. This is a purely modernist perspective, but life itself proves it to be false. Moreover…with any form of internal governor–especially if it is dedicated to self-preservation–people will generally obey cultural rules.

The essential problem with all modernist dogma is the insistence that without a strong external governor (usually belonging to the haves), we’ll sink to Lord of the Flies level. The revolution that’s underway in the communications world is arming the mob with the power of information, so I just don’t buy the argument that we’re all hell bound without external “control.”

And you also have to consider the significance of what was driving the mob at DIGG. Was it the HD-DVD hack or being told they couldn’t share the hack?

There is much that can be said about the copyright cartel and how it has stifled creativity in the name of the almighty dollar–and the slight-of-hand evident in publicly stating “it’s about the artist” when it’s really about stuffing the profit pockets of those who control what you and I watch and listen to.

But I’ll leave that to others.

So what’s happening with DIGG and the other examples that Staci uses is the front line in a cultural struggle that has profound ramifications for the future. With every day that goes by, the machine we know as the World Wide Web — a communications network without a central control — gets stronger and smarter. As we teach it, it informs us, and so it’s pretty hard to argue with the theme of Kevin Kelly’s seminal Wired essay, “We Are The Web.”

The real cultural question for tomorrow is will we find the culturally acceptable internal governor that will keep totalitarianism’s bayonets away? On this hangs much, including tomorrow’s business models.

We have faith in capitalism, and so it works; will we ever have enough faith in each other to make that work? Stay tuned, because that is the essential question of life circa 2007.

When I was a news director, nothing caused me more personal difficulty than the departure of a quality staffer. I learned the business reality that the person leaving isn’t as important as the one coming in the door, but that never made the loss any easier to accept. We make investments in people in this business, and there’s a real sense of loss when one moves on in this revolving door world.

And so I feel a great sense of loss this morning in the resignation from WKRN-TV in Nashville of General Manager Mike Sechrist. I’ve known it was coming — and I suppose that makes it a little easier — but Mike and I fought hand-in-hand (and it was often a real battle) to pioneer new innovations at the station, and there’s a natural sense of uncertainty for everybody involved. Wherever I go in the broadcasting world, WKRN-TV is the envy of the business, because it is two years ahead of everybody else. Mike Sechrist is the one who deserves the credit for that.

And the business reality is that he will end up in an important position somewhere, and I have faith that we will again work together. Mike finds the digital world fascinating and a reminder of the fun days of television. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that full time?

It was a fun ride, Mike. Let’s do it again. And never forget that you’re one of the good guys. Clark Kent would envy your strength.

(Read Mike’s blog entry)