Soaring TV scatter-market pricing has had a major slowdown in the first quarter, according to media agency executives -- but it is generally still higher than the upfront pricing set in the summer a year ago. Media agency executives say the big 30% to 35% increases for the cost per thousand viewers in the fourth quarter have abated in the early months of 2011. In some cases, there are only 10% to 15% hikes --- or even less. "The first quarter has cooled off considerably," says one media agency executive. "People panicked in the fourth quarter." This is not to say that networks aren't still happy with the current situation. "The business is robust; the pricing is firm -- depending on daypart and the kind of packaging," says Aaron Cohen, chief media negotiating officer for media agency Horizon Media. Media executives say this year's first-quarter option period, in which marketers can cancel part of their upfront buys, was more "normal" -- around 8% versus that of a year ago, when it was unusually low, with its low-single-digit percentages. TV marketers can cut back 25% of their upfront deals during the first quarter, 50% in the second and third quarters. This more normal quarterly option period helped the networks. "They had more inventory to sell," said Cohen -- and at higher prices than the upfront. In the fourth quarter, executives says there was a mad rush to place media dollars on TV programmers -- broadcast, cable and syndication --partly due to the reaction to the strong upfront TV ad market that preceded it, and also as a result of more marketers returning to television with budgets after the lows of the big recession period. Compounding some of the price issues in the last few months of 2010, networks such as ABC, NBC and Fox had significant audience deficiencies where they needed to make good to TV advertisers with additional commercial inventory. All factors contributed to a tightened supply. Not just broadcast was hit -- some large cable networks witnessed ratings declines in the period. Fox was in the worst shape of all the networks, losing some 15% or more in adult 18-49 ratings points. However, now in the first quarter, with the return of "American Idol" -- and its high number of ratings points -- Fox has come back somewhat. Only CBS has been able to consistently make real advertising volume gains since the start of the season. CBS said scatter pricing in its fourth-quarter 2010 reporting period was up 35% to 40%. Overall, CBS says network advertising volume -- upfront and scatter -- improved 8% from the fourth quarter of 2009. But early periods of 2011 may not be so robust for CBS or other TV networks. "Networks are ready to deal," says one media executive. "If networks were performing at the levels they promised, pricing would be higher." Still, media executives are expecting overall TV program price gains for the coming spring/summer upfront advertising sales period for the 2011-2012 broadcast season.
Getting more bang for your digital video ad has less to do with its length than the video content where it runs. A new study by digital video ad sales rights/ad server company FreeWheel pegs completion rates of video ads in content 20 minutes or longer -- typically in premium TV shows -- at 81%. Shorter, professionally produced videos -- 5 minutes to 20 minutes long -- only get a 62% completion rate. "Length of video content is a more significant factor of completion rates than length of the advertising," says the report. The study says 58% of digital video ads are 15 seconds in length; 26% of digital video ads are 30 seconds long. Mid-roll video ads -- those that run mostly in long TV episodes -- have a 91% completion rates. Pre-roll ads -- still the most dominant in terms of all digital video ads -- have a 67% completion rate. Post-roll ads pull in a 50% number. Pre-roll ads comprise 87% of all video ads served by FreeWheel, with 12% coming from mid-roll ads and 1% from post-roll ads. FreeWheel processed 23 billion video views and and 13 billion video ad views in 2010. Mid-roll is a rapidly growing category; a year ago it had an 8% market share. Much of this growth comes from the growth of long video content, such as premium TV shows. FreeWheel -- whose clients include Fox, Discovery Communications, Turner Broadcasting, Univision, and CBS -- says that although ad volume has doubled during the last six months of 2010, completion rates have remained stable. This is a good sign, it says, meaning that consumers recognize the value of ad-supported TV shows and video.
They don't make ad industry seers the way they used to. Less than two years after Brian Wieser replaced Bob Coen as the top forecaster at Interpublic - and the ad industry's de facto chief bean counter - he is leaving to join early stage TV ad targeting technology company Simulmedia as CMO. His predecessor, Coen, had the job for 61 years, creating the role after the widow of McCann-Erickson Founder Alfred McCann funded a Harvard study defining advertising and endowed a position at the Interpublic precursor agency to begin tracking it. Elizabeth Herbst-Brady, president of Magna Global, the division of Interpublic's Mediabrands unit that now oversees the production and marketing of the holding company's forecasting reports, says she has a "short list" of candidates to replace Wieser, and hopes to have one in place when Wieser leaves next month for his new job marketing Simulmedia. Simulmedia, meanwhile, is about to "get serious" about making some noise in the ad industry, and Wieser's appointment is part of founder Dave Morgan's ramp up. Morgan, a regular contributor to MediaPost's "Online Spin Board," was a pioneer in the field of online behavioral targeting, founded one of the most successful companies in that field, Tacoda, and sold it to AOL for millions. Morgan has been relatively modest about his plans for Simulmedia, initially positioning it as a company that would simply help TV programmers figure out a better way of running their "on-air" promo spots to make sure they reach viewers most likely to watch upcoming shows based on their past viewing preferences. But people who are familiar with Morgan's long-term game plan say he is as ambitious about transforming the way TV advertising is bought and sold, as he was about shaking up the way the online display advertising marketplace worked. The shakeup, ironically, occurs as acute focus has been put on all forms of consumer behavioral tracking, especially the online display advertising marketplace, which has embedded the concept into many of the systems advertisers use to target their messages to consumers, and the ad industry has been rallying forces to lobby against proposed legislation to create a "Do No Track" law that some believe could be a death knell for behavioral tracking online, and TV and other media that have the kind of return path data that could be used to target them based on their consumption behavior. That likely is one of the reasons Morgan has been so mum to date, but following his presentations over the past couple of years at industry conferences and insider gatherings like MPG's "Collaborative Alliance" meetings, you could see his message shift from a simple TV promo targeting tool to a more effective way of targeting all of the $80 billion TV advertising marketplace. In fact, Morgan doesn't like to call the practice "behavioral targeting" on TV, most likely because of the emotions regulators, legislators and consumer privacy groups have against the term, but instead calls it an advanced form of "TV targeting." Simulmedia is far from alone in that burgeoning marketplace. In fact, Morgan recently created a complicated flow chart illustrating dozens of different companies and organizations - ranging from early stage ones like Simulmedia to more established players such as Google and Microsoft - as comprising a new marketplace he dubs the "Targeted TV Advertising Technology Landscape." The chart is an allusion to a similar, albeit even more complex flowchart that Wall Street's Terrance Kawaja created over the past several years to illustrate the growing complexity of the online display advertising technology marketplace. Kawaja's online industry chart contains hundreds of players , mostly middlemen who help enhance data surrounding an online consumer's behavior and thus make targeting them more precise. During a panel discussion at MediaPost's OMMA Global conference last September, Interpublic's Wieser joked to Kawaja that he had a similar chart that he's been tracking, and added, "Mine is bigger than yours." No doubt. Wieser is an inspired choice to lead Simulmedia's marketing efforts. He has no direct background in sales and marketing, though he has worked on Madison Avenue for years, and before that was a Wall Street securities analyst. But he is among the brightest and most inquisitive minds in the industry, and loves to engage in philosophical debates about the nature and meaning of advertising and media. During a one-day "sojourn" to help him understand, define, and ultimately figure out a way to categorize "social media" in Interpublic's official forecasting estimates, Wieser spent a day running from meetings with experts to experts, spouting famous quotes from Marshall McLuhan to a reporter who tagged along for the ride. At the end of the one-day sojourn, Wieser concluded that social media was not a form of advertising, and therefore should not be included in the ad industry's official estimates, much to the chagrin of hundreds, if not thousands of players, in that burgeoning marketplace. Asked recently, Wieser said he maintains that his view that social media is not a form of advertising, even though the practice seems to be transforming Madison Avenue once again. But Wieser has been a transformer of his own kind, and when he took over the job as Interpublic's chief forecaster two years ago, literally reinvented how the big agency holding company, its clients, and the media who source it, look at the world of advertising. He developed an intricate model that aggregated ad spending estimates based on actual revenues to the media, vs. Madison Avenue's standard approach of counting up the billings from the major agencies and marketers. Wieser maintained that it was a more accurate perspective, but it led to problems comparing Interpublic's numbers with the rest of the industry, including big forecasting counterparts at WPP Group, Publicis and other agency holding companies that would like to become the industry's de facto source instead of Interpublic. Interpublic's Herbst-Brady said the agency would continue to utilize the methodology developed by Wieser and considers it its unique intellectual property and a competitive advantage in the marketplace. In an email sent to friends and colleagues early this morning, after Simulmedia released news about hiring him, Wieser wrote, "Simulmedia will be a critical component sustaining long-term growth of the industry for all of its participants, generating enhanced value for advertisers, their agencies and TV networks alike." As they say in the TV business, stay tuned.
Telemundo announced the launch of its new strategic social media arm to better connect with the growing Hispanic presence on online social networks. Dubbed Social@Telemundo, the new unit will be led by Borja Perez, vice president for digital media and integrated solutions at the Spanish-language media company. The five-person group will focus on delivering interactive content across key social platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, tied to each of Telemundo's shows and telenovelas. It will also build on efforts like the broadband series "Telemundo Live" by sharing more access to the broadcaster's programming and stars in Spanish and English. "U.S. Hispanics are incredibly active consumers of social media and are 1.5 times more likely then the general market to be active in this space," stated Peter Blacker, executive vice president of digital media and emerging businesses at Telemundo. He added that traffic to Telemundo's Facebook page had grown seven-fold in the last year and five-fold on Twitter. There's still a lot of room for growth. Telemundo has drawn about 52,000 fans on Facebook and 90,000 followers on Twitter, just a fraction of the millions of loyalists top brands or celebrities attract on those sites. MTV, for instance, has 13.8 million fans on Facebook. But Telemundo is counting on the burgeoning Hispanic online audience to fuel its social-media efforts in the months and years ahead. It cited comScore data showing 29 million U.S. Hispanics outline, with growth outpacing the general population by 50%. Latinos are also overrepresented when it comes to online video, with 42% watching entire TV shows on the Web compared with 28% of non-Hispanics. Telemundo cited SIMM Survey data showing 54% of U.S. Hispanics are on Facebook and 11.4% on Twitter, compared to 43% and 4.8% of the overall population. But a Pew Hispanic Center study released this month found U.S. Latinos overall are less likely than whites to access the Internet, have a home broadband connection or own a cell phone. Hispanics also trail African-Americans in home broadband access, but use the Internet and mobile phones at similar levels.
Higher TV show licensing revenues and continued growth in advertising helped lift CBS Corp. to big financial gains in its fourth-quarter reporting period. Net income rose more than four times to $283.0 million from $58.8 in the fourth quarter of 2009. Revenues gained 11% to $3.9 billion. Entertainment revenues rose 11% to $2.02 billion. A big part of this was a 29% gain in television license fees, driven by the second-cycle syndication sale of "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation." Network advertising was 8% higher in the period from prime time and sports programming. Better growth was achieved at CBS Interactive with a 18% gain in display advertising. Total advertising sales -- including its TV stations -- improved 12%. Local TV stations continued their strong growth, up 21% to $821.5 million. CBS Television Stations had a 28% gain in ad revenues -- with automotive and financial services, as well as higher political ad sales, being key growth categories. CBS Radio ad revenues improved 14%, its best results of the year. Leslie Moonves, president/CEO of CBS, told analysts in an earnings call that the company should reach $250 million retrans dollars in two years. But he didn't say how much it expects to get from its affiliates in deals from their reverse compensation revenues. CBS' cable networks -- which include Showtime and CBS Sports Network -- grew 6% to $368.3 million. Showtime Networks (which includes Showtime, The Movie Channel and Flix) subscriptions totaled 67.1 million, up by 5.8 million -- largely as a result of better satellite and telco video distribution sales. CBS College Sports Network gained 4.3 million to 39.1 million. CBS' publishing division -- Simon & Schuster -- climbed 5% to $231.7 million, aided by best-selling titles in the fourth quarter such as "Broke" by Glenn Beck and "Full Dark, No Stars" by Stephen King.
Telemundo is amping up its focus on social media through a dedicated group in the emerging space. Tabbed Social@Telemundo, Borja Perez, a digital media executive, will head the venture and work with production and ad sales. Initiatives are planned in Spanish and English. Networks may be struggling with how to accurately measure the impact of social media on ratings, but they are more than aware of its potential. They are also looking for ways to generate some ad dollars from the chatter and activity their content generates. The Telemundo group will emphasize building experiences using Facebook and Twitter linked with its content, promising a focus on all shows and novelas. "By leveraging the power of social media with our ability to create original programming, we are able to create a dialogue amongst our 'viewers' ... In addition, our bilingual approach allows the full spectrum of U.S. Hispanics to enjoy their unique identity and relationships with our content," stated COO Jacqueline Hernández. Telemundo cited figures about significant Hispanic interest in social media: About 54% of Hispanics are on Facebook, compared to 43% of the general market; 11% are on Twitter versus about 5% of the general market. More than 29 million Hispanics are online, Telemundo said. A general Telemundo Facebook page has 52,000-plus likes, while the network has 90,000 Twitter followers. Andres Cantor, the famed soccer announcer who just extended his contract with Telemundo, is active on Twitter with some 4,000 followers. Among others, he could benefit from promotional work by Social@Telemundo.
Chevrolet, with its spending odometer clicking rapidly, will serve as one of four new sponsors on this week's "Latin Music Awards" broadcast on Univision. After a slew of Super Bowl spots, the GM brand joins L'Oréal, Old Navy and Walmart as new entrants behind the show. Meanwhile, in Spanish-language broadcasting, Telemundo said it has extended the contract of legendary soccer announcer Andres Cantor, famed for his "Goooooollllll!" call. He has been with the network for 10 years. Following his stints hosting Telemundo's coverage of the 2004 and 2008 Olympics, he is likely to reprise that role next summer in London. At Univision, another sign that auto-category spending remains strong is Honda returning at the "Latin Music Awards," along with Anheuser-Busch and T-Mobile. The telco giant will have a type of integration with Mexican star Cristian Castro plugging a new device while traversing the carpet. It is also the sponsor of the show's dedicated microsite. Thursday's show will have a red carpet pre-event. Univision said last year's broadcast drew 11.3 million viewers, while topping all but NBC for the night in the 18-to-34 demo. Univision ad sales head David Lawenda stated that the show, now in its 23rd year, offers an "opportunity for our partners to connect with the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population." Scheduled to appear are Ricky Martin, rock band Maná, singer/ songwriter Juanes and singer/actress Belinda. Performers include Pitbull and Lucero. Angélica Vale is the host along with Jaime Camil.
CIMM's Set-Top Box Data Lexicon is a compilation of terms and definitions associated with Set-Top Box data and its measurement. This Word-A-Week column highlights a term and definition from the CIMM Lexicon. It is our hope that this will help in creating a common language for Set-Top Box data usage and help expedite the roll-out of the data for its many industry applications. Continuing on last week's discussion of Return Path Data, which is a more accurate term for what we tend to call Set-Top Box data, we now take a look at the term "Back Channel" also known as Back Path or Back Haul. It is the existence of the Back Channel that enables us to receive the data from its various source points. But the mere existence of a Back Channel is not a guarantee of receiving a full range of data gathered on the box. Some Back Channels, lacking bandwidth, do not have enough capacity to return a full range of data. In addition, Satellite companies receive the back channel data from phone lines which can vary by household. Back ChannelSee also Back Haul and Back Path CIMM DEFINITION : 1. A return path connection that can be used by a Set-Top Box to communicate with the cable headend; Can be used to communicate to cable headend or the service provider. It applies to asymmetric data connections and is the slower of the two data paths in the connection. 2 : "A communication channel that can be used by a Set-Top Box to communicate with the cable headend or other devices. Also known as Back Haul. A term used to describe the technology which provides the infrastructure for electronic traffic traveling from the subscriber to the platform company." (Source: Nielsen) 3 : "Term commonly used to describe the action of sending data back to a host server over a phone wire or cable pipe." (Source: itvt.com/glossary) NOTE- Available bandwidth on the return path is severely limited within the existing digital cable environment, and exceeding bandwidth limits can be catastrophic -i.e., STB reboots, network downtime. Motorola systems are limited to a raw bitrate of 256 Kbps per node (i.e., 500 to 1500 STBs), much of which is consumed by the system itself, VOD session management, IPG interaction, interactive application processing, etc., Also, communication on this return path is limited to User Datagram Protocol (UDP), which does not guarantee delivery of information from STB to the back-end, and generates additional bandwidth usage by applications to confirm delivery and resend lost data. Cisco systems provide slightly more return path bandwidth and support Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) which guarantees delivery of data, but typically reserve more return path bandwidth for system and resident application (e.g., SARA) use. Collecting STB measurement data with low Latency is a complex task, especially for census data. Load on the back channel is an issue in downloading STB data. (Source: FourthWall Media Please refer to the CIMM Lexicon online at http://www.cimm-us.org/lexicon.htm for additional information on these and other terms.
Spoiler alert: Egypt has undergone a revolution! Oh, you knew about that already? But if not, maybe you need to curtail your heavy DVR usage! Social media got big credit for helping fuel big changes in Egypt -- as well as starting up similar rumblings in Algeria, Bahrain and other places. It's only been a couple of weeks and political goings-on in the Mideast are moving at top speed -- perhaps the fastest ever for events of this type. But there are other media events where consumers actually want the news cycle to slow down -- if not stop entirely for a period. The recent Grammy Awards were another in a string of events where fans looked for a more languid approach. Prior to CBS' time-delayed West Coast Grammy telecast, viewers in that time zone went into a huff when their twittering East Coast friends told them such news as Esperanza Spalding beating out Justin Bieber for the highly prized new artist award. Faster news or slower news? You pick your state of reality. I know plenty of people who only watch sports events on a "tape" delay basis -- just so they can blow through the commercials on their DVRs. For the most part, sports and entertainment news comes with its own set of time guidelines. Still the increase in news reports with the cautionary "spoiler alert" tag is getting out of hand. A couple of years ago I left a phone message for my aunt -- a long suffering New York Giants fan - with celebratory talk about the team's Super Bowl victory. Quickly I received a phone call from my uncle telling me she was out for the evening and had taped the game. Not just any game, mind you! Fans of "The Office" or "Smallville" or "The Mentalist" may have their own precautionary tales of when news should be released about season-ending episodes. We are in a media time warp of reality. Speed is demanded on one hand; and radio silence on the other. One possible solution probably won't help: put social media on a TV-like time delay.
Investors have some reason to be skeptical of the digerati's persistent claim that Internet-based and distributed video content really has arrived. After all, there were many false starts - from Web TV to Pseudo TV, TheDen to Entertaindom TV. And dare we say "Joost?" And even now, TV content at Hulu and the network sites tends to suck attention away from the video hubs and "digital studios" that continue to compete with YouTube and others for ad dollars. For the big money on Wall Street it is hard to know where to place bets. But one investment group that controls about $17 billion in assets is saying, "Internet TV's time is coming." Turner Investments (no relation to that Turner, so far as we can tell) declared in a research brief that the wait is almost over. Almost. "We think Internet TV is finally beginning to realize its promise," the research team says in its brief. "We see it gaining wider consumer acceptance and commercial scale in this decade." Yeah, they said "decade." These are the stock investors, not the VC in-and-out crowd. Turner has substantial stock positions in Broadcom, Entropic Communications, NetGear and others. Despite many false starts, this time the wave of interest in digital video is different largely because it rides a larger wave - connected devices. "Perhaps the biggest thing Internet TV has going for it is that it's part of a technological megatrend known in geek-speak as digital connectivity: the Internet is enabling consumers to connect to all manner of digital devices and systems," the authors write. Consumers are getting accustomed to everything being Web-enabled, from phones to TVs, ultimately homes and appliances. It is this Web-centricity that is blurring the distinctions among silos that were built on seemingly different technology: TV, mobile, laptop, desktop. Increasingly, the screens look and act the same. User-unfriendliness and a lack of professional content hampered Internet TV in the past, but Turner says that as consumers get more comfortable with connected devices a "virtuous circle" will occur where demand will drive suppliers to realize beneficial business models to more flexible distribution. No, don't wait for it. Turner doesn't have the magic models to make all of this work for content providers, either. They just feel confident that technological advances will grow demand enough to help make that business case. In fact, it sees jagged progress in different markets, principally because the incumbents feel threatened. And truth be told, this investment house isn't placing its bets on content. They see the stars aligning in Internet TV's favor but are placing chips on the sure things - bandwidth. Anything related to heightened network demand is the more likely winner in any future Internet TV scenario: Broadcom, Cisco, D-Link, Entropic, et. al. Content may be king, but routers, switches and networking chipsets are the crown jewels of the new kingdom.
This evening, the world learns the answer to the burning question on everybody's mind: "Are the TV game shows of the future safe for humanity?" Personally, I believe all game shows are in jeopardy unless the producers and networks embrace the reality that it's not an IBM supercomputer that threatens to make on-air game show contestants -- and the genre -- irrelevant. The real assassins will be the TV executives who continue to let everybody -- with the exception of the at-home audience -- be an integral part of the TV game show experience. I'll say it again - WE WANT TO PLAY. Offering viewers silly (and often misleadingly costly) side games, like the litigation-ridden, text-message-revenue-driven Magic Suitcase distraction, does little to engage viewers in an increasingly connected world. First, however, some casual "Jeopardy" observations from a less-than-casual game show enthusiast: The special edition game of "Jeopardy" between Watson, the IBM super computer array, and the two best players in "Jeopardy" history, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, has received a lot of attention from the media, and presumably, the public. Going into this evening's third and final game, Watson is heavily favored after having doubled the cumulative scores of his fleshy foes in the first "game." Watson has two unfair advantages, the first of which has been quietly discussed in some circles for weeks, including a report posted by PBS. It appears that Watson is amazingly deft at timing the important button presses that allow one player -- mostly Watson, as it turns out -- to answer, while locking out the others. I don't quite understand the algorithm used to "clear" the circuits to allow the players to "ring in," but I am certain that a computer has an advantage in that subtle, but most vital, department. Especially since Watson can't hear, and is fed the questions via digital text; how else would it know when it is safe to hit the trigger, if not by some formula tied directly to the computer or switch that "opens the lines"? (My gut - for Game Two this evening, IBM will have slowed Watson's trigger reflex, giving Ken and Brad a sporting chance. Shades of the Roman Coliseum, merged with the $64,000 Question scandal... oh, but it's for charity... right.) The other advantage is purely mathematical. Trigger-advantage aside, if indeed the exposition is a battle between "man and machine," then having two virtually equal, human "Jeopardy" geniuses on the same stage actually gives Watson an advantage, in the long run. One human ends up eroding into the other human's chances (sort of like the Tea Party's impact on the Republican Party candidates in the upcoming elections). At this high level of trivia games, Ken and Brad, cumulatively, likely know 85% of all answers, leaving the number of questions that only one human knows at a pretty low percentage. Watson, on the other hand, seems to be adept at answering questions that are extremely difficult, but stumbles on the easy questions, which would, with high certainty, likely go to either one of the humans. A more favorable (and entertaining) simian outcome, therefore, would find Watson competing against only one of the two "Jeopardy" champions, filling the third spot with, say, Karl Pilkington. Or perhaps even Lindsay Lohan. (Well, maybe not Lindsay - she'd probably end up stealing the show. Click here for your choice of rimshots...) Observations aside, however, inquiring TV Board readers want to know, "Is this the future of TV game shows? Or do game shows even HAVE a future?" Granted, the celebrity-versions of game shows have been a tried and true, if not cyclical staple of many game show franchises. At-home audiences may, at least temporarily, be curious about a celebrity's mental prowess. They may tune in just to see if she's wearing the latest from Dolce and Gabbana. Or, now, how many terabytes of data it houses. And, certainly Watson's celebrity is undeniable; on Tuesday, a Google News survey comparing "this week" results for "Watson," "Sheen," and "Lohan," returned 19,100, 10,200, and 9,370, respectively. But, much like the celebrity-versions of TV game shows, audience interest wanes. Which means Watson may move on to less challenging game shows (for a computer), such as "Wheel of Fortune" (early Vegas odds, Watson, 1:5), or, more challenging games like "Family Feud" or "Million Dollar Money Drop," where intuition and knowledge of human sentiment often trumps sheer data retrieval power. Either way, the "viewing" audience, with smart phones, laptops, and tablets in hand, is increasingly hungry for engaging content - and TV is NOT delivering. To make matters worse, no genre of TV programming - NONE - provides a better onramp to interactive and reactive television, meaning that no genre today wastes a greater opportunity. Consider "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," which reportedly captured over 75% of America's viewers in its first year on national television. One reason why it's been remanded to syndication is because its viewers gradually came to recognize that the more appropriate title should have been, "You Won't EVER Be a Millionaire Sitting At Home Watching This Program - I Don't Care How Smart You Think You Are!" The formula for game shows used to be, "Play along at home while you watch total strangers win huge prizes." Game show designers have changed the nuances of their games by dumbing them up, or down, and have increased the jackpots over the years, but to the at-home viewer, nothing really changed. As a result, many still sit at home, visiting the equivalent of Mr. Roger's "Neighborhood of Make Believe," yelling answers at their TV sets and patting themselves on the back for getting an occasional answer correct. And then there's the growing audience share that texts, searches, surfs and Facebooks while dedicating increasingly less attention to content, and even less to the ads. How do you reach them, Mr. Game Show Gatekeeper? What's the answer? What is "Please pass the iPad?"
Worried if Nike has ESPN's announcers in its pocket? I'm not too concerned -- though viewers might be. Seems all of ESPN's "College GameDay" crew -- Chris Fowler, Lee Corso and Kirk Herbstreit -- have deals with Nike for doing speaking engagements on the brand's behalf, and wearing footwear not seen on-air. This is nothing new. A number of network sports personalities, including others at ESPN, have marketing deals. For many, the logical conflict-of-interest question comes down to informing the public. To some, it's not like these guys are reporting on financial malfeasance, Egyptian revolutionaries, or toxins in drinking water. This is college football. But the trouble here isn't with the day-to-day reporting of college football. What happens if an off-the-field incident, perhaps a sports marketing story, needs coverage? Nike is a business partner of ESPN, and also has deals with universities. Perhaps an off-the-field incident on a college campus would need some discussion, one that might have an effect on a TV sports marketer. ESPN's crew doesn't appear in TV commercials for Nike. Thank you very much. It makes sense. Highly presentable TV personalities could moderate or motivate a crowd for a Nike-sponsored event. But let's get their profile right. Are they in fact "hosts" or "reporters"? If Tom Bergeron or Ryan Seacrest got the same deal, what would be the public's response? That's easy. Let's move to the other side of things -- what if Brian Williams, Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer had Nike deals? You can be sure viewers might want to know this information. The big question for consumers these days is to what level all this marketing stuff concerns them when supposed real journalists information are involved. Bob Steele, director of the Prindle Institute for Ethics and a journalism professor at DePauw University, told the New York Times: "You do have to wonder why a sports journalist, or any journalist, would wander in this kind of ethical minefield without recognizing the consequences." That little adjustment on Steele's part is just the issue: First, he made a reference to "sports" journalist, then to "any" journalist. We might all say the same thing. The key question to ask: Is there a meaningful journalistic difference between the two -- especially in today's complex digital marketing and content world?
Despite the proliferation of paid media models, online piracy of copyrighted materials will continue, according to a new report from PwC. In its survey of 202 people who admit to downloading pirated media, the company found that of course the chief motivator is price, supported by their perception that "everyone is doing it." Curiously, PwC found that the many ad-supported sources of free media might be contributing to the legitimization of piracy because they blur the line between legitimate and illegally obtained copyrighted material. Video is the big attraction. Among content pirates, 83% say they streamed TV shows in the last month and 69% streamed movies for free. Almost half (48%) had accessed a movie within a month of its DVD release. Apparently many consumers find even digital pricing too high: 68% completely agreed that the reason they were downloading content illegally was because the hard copy was too expensive, but 58% felt the same about the digital pricing. If content producers want to lure consumers away from piracy via pricing they will have to go lower than some of them appear to be planning. PwC found that these pirates were willing to pay a maximum of $3 for a movie and $1 for a TV show. Only about a third of these consumers worry that piracy might increase media costs. The physical disc is not an overwhelming draw, either, with 56% of this group feeling they didn't need a hard copy. Media cheats do not seem particularly remorseful. The survey finds 81% plan to continue accessing unauthorized material in the next six months. The mobile platforms will only make this worse, since 40% say they plan to use these remote devices to access content, too. The fear of being caught (68%) is a secondary concern to having their computers infected by viruses (80%). The moral issue -- that they simply are doing something wrong -- seems to concern only 59% of pirates. Figuring out a strategy to lure the media pirates away from their swashbuckling ways is a poser. The lure of free is hard to beat, especially when 58% say they want to be able to access content free and prefer an ad-supported model. Eighty-seven percent said they were willing to watch ads in exchange for free TV content, and 84% felt the same about movies. Rather than playing with pricing and packaging of individual media titles, content providers may have better luck (nominally) with a Netflix approach. Thirty-four percent of pirates said they preferred subscription-based models, and only 9% seemed to like the transactional approach of on-demand systems. Of course PwC's report was not a survey of all consumers, so the actual size of the pirating population was not considered. But the fact that many of those who access copyrighted content learned about the sources from friends or family indicates the viral nature not only of piracy but the validation mechanisms people use to rationalize it.