Keeping with TV networks' efforts to spread around its content to different digital video distributors, CBS Corp. and Amazon.com today announced a non-exclusive licensing agreement. The deal will allow Amazon Prime customers to stream an additional 2,000 episodes of CBS TV shows -- now totaling 8,000 TV episodes and movies. Terms of the CBS-Amazon deal were not disclosed. Some 18 shows from CBS' library are part of the Amazon agreement. This includes: "The Tudors," which aired on Showtime; CBS' "Numb3rs" and "Medium"; the complete Star Trek franchise; and "Frasier" and "Cheers," both of which aired on NBC. In February, CBS also made similar library deal with Netflix under a two-year pact. Reports suggest that deal to be worth $200 million. Recently, Netflix added to its coffers with a renewal for nonexclusive TV and theatrical movie content from NBC Universal. One analyst suggested that deal gives NBC $300 million per year from Netflix -- a significant rise from $25 million per year it had been getting from the digital video service. In December 2010, Netflix inked a one-year deal with Walt Disney and ABC valued at around $150 million to $200 million. While that deal included library product, it also included more recent episodes of shows such as ABC's "Grey's Anatomy" and "Brothers & Sisters." "Amazon has created one of the most popular consumer marketplaces in the world, and we are very pleased to make these titles available to their Instant Video and Prime customers," stated Leslie Moonves, president/CEO for CBS Corp. "This new agreement represents another meaningful way for us to realize incremental value for CBS' content." Amazon Instant Video is a streaming video service with 90,000 movies and television shows available to purchase or rent. This service includes commercials; with individual shows priced as low as $1.99 an episode. Amazon Prime, a $79-a-year service, is commercial-free.
Some high-priced cable networks forced some traditional TV dollars into the hands of big digital video players this upfront. Speaking at the OMMA Ad Nets conference on Monday, Donnie Williams, executive vice president, chief digital officer for independent media agency Horizon Media, estimates some clients shifted 8% to 13% more dollars into premium digital platforms during the recent upfront sales. Williams did not mention specific cable networks or digital video platforms. Many senior broadcast and cable network executives forecast -- and then claimed big CPM increases for this upfront period, anywhere from 11% to 13%. But Williams notes that some networks collapse from certain price points, where the CPM gap between cable and premium digital video sites closed significantly. "Those [TV] guys drop their rates by an unbelievable amount," says Williams. "So if last year we were looking at CPMs in excess of $30 [for some demos], let's say they dropped their rates by 75%. It was a real land grab. As a result, tons of money went through our organization to digital channels." How much money? A lot. "We were writing deals 8%, 12% to 13% -- that's the increase spend on premium digital channels," says Williams. More importantly, he adds: "We weren't taking a hit on rates." Right now, Williams says, the marketplace for some specific premium digital video sites is solid. "There were guaranteed CPMs in the premium marketplace that sold for $10 -- that's guaranteed against audience," says Williams. These CPMs are for all viewers, persons 2 plus. He notes that the future looks bright for some digital video players. "It's not going to be very long that dollars are going to be re-shuffled and people start to exhaust channels they feel are more in line with the offline [TV] channels they are purchasing."
When it comes to multitasking, TV is more of a "solo" platform than any other. New research from Knowledge Networks shows that Internet users share that platform more than other media. Sixty percent of the time consumers spend with the Internet, they are using at least one other medium. This is also double the rate of consumers' use of TV -- 30% -- compared to other media. The study says TV is a solo medium 70% of the time. But the Internet isn't the most "shared" medium. That title belongs to newspapers, at 79%. Magazines come next at 71%. Not surprisingly, simultaneous use of the Internet with other media has grown among 18-34 consumers. It was 51% in 2009, rising to 64% in late 2010. Overall, the study says 20% of all minutes spent with the five media measured -- TV, Internet, radio, magazines, and newspapers -- are shared with one or more other media. "If we assume that every medium you add to the mix is likely to diminish attention to advertising, then television holds a unique advantage over the Internet when it comes to engagement," said Robert DeFelice, vice president of client services at Knowledge Networks and director of the MultiMedia Mentor research program. "But this also means that the Internet presents twice as many opportunities for reinforcing messages in other media," he adds, "if one has a clear sense of where and when target audiences might be likely to combine media use."
Pandora's push to become a multiplatform service got a boost this week with Verizon's announcement that it will make the personalized Internet radio service available to FiOS TV subscribers in major media markets, beginning with California, Texas, and Virginia. The companies plan to introduce Pandora in other Verizon markets in the not-too-distant future. The new service will offer users all the interactive functionality of Pandora's online audio service, including creating new stations based on the individual's favorite artists, songs and genres, bookmarking songs for purchase, and rating songs -- all through commands from FiOS remotes, including mobile devices with the FiOS TV Mobile Remote app. Verizon subscribers who already have a Pandora account can access it by entering their email address and password as they would normally. The Pandora-less can also sign up for a new account through FiOS. The deal should make it easier to access Pandora content on home entertainment centers. Previously, FiOS TV customers could stream a variety of online content from Windows PCs to TVs through Verizon's Media Manager service. Over the last year or so, Pandora has mounted a concerted effort to bring its personalized digital audio service -- originally online-only -- to new platforms, including cars and mobile devices. On the automotive front, in January Toyota announced that it will integrate Pandora into its new "Entune" multimedia system. Like previous auto integrations, users can connect Pandora to the Toyota Entune system via any cell phone with a data plan, including smart and feature phones. Pandora already has partnerships with several major automakers, including Ford and Mercedes, along with radio manufacturers Alpine and Pioneer, whose after-market products allow drivers to access Pandora from car dashboards.
A new report estimates about 4.5 million, or 4%, of U.S. homes will have only over-the-top delivery of video service by the end of this year. That figure, according to SNL Kagan, is projected to rise to 12.1 million over the ensuing four years, which would be about 10% of homes. They would rely on Netflix and Amazon for content. Kagan says over-the-top consumers "impacted the subscriber counts for multichannel service providers in 2010." They are expected to "exert competitive pressure going forward." Executives at cable providers say there is scant evidence of cord-cutting, and reductions in subscriber rolls are due more to factors such as the economy or slowed household formations. In 2010, the second and third quarters marked the first declines in subscribers with a multichannel subscription, but the figure did increase for the full year. Kagan estimates that about 85% of homes had a subscription at the end of 2010. (The figure counts homes with multiple subscriptions just once.)
For a long time I've doubted that the Internet would replace traditional over-the-air and wired television as the primary source for video content. I just didn't believe that Hulu, Netflix, YouTube or any other online service could take the place of broadcast and cable networks. My conclusions were partly based on hard evidence -- Nielsen research shows that only about 1% or 2% of all "three-screen" video is consumed over the Internet -- but, like many commentators, I mostly extrapolated from my personal anecdotal experiences. Unlike some of the people I hang around with -- media reporters, research geeks, engineers -- I am not an early adopter. I do not have an iPad, have not signed up for Google+, and do not thrill to the pending upgrades of any of my technology products. And until now, I haven't seen any reason to connect my TV to the Internet. Nevertheless, as a consumer I do keep an eye out for technologies that will improve my life, which is why I recently bought an Apple TV. The issue is that we are a family of rabid Red Sox fans living behind enemy lines in Yankee territory, and the baseball games we want to watch are not available on standard TV. We are longtime subscribers to MLB.TV (at $25/month) and have followed the games online -- but it's just so painful to sit in the living room watching a baseball game on a laptop when there's a nice big HDTV in the same room. I knew there were various solutions to this problem, but was unwilling to spend the money to upgrade my existing Blue-Ray player to an Internet-enabled one. Nor, with a teenage boy in the house, did I want to introduce an X-Box into the living room just to access the Internet. However, I was willing to try an Apple TV. Like most Apple products, the genius of the Apple TV is its simplicity and ease of use. Plus it only costs $100, which seems reasonable for a purely indulgent purchase. The device itself is small -- not much bigger than a pack of cards -- and simple to install. All you need to do is plug a power cord into the wall, connect an HDMI cable to the TV, and hook up the Internet (either WiFi or wired.) The navigation is intuitive and the HD quality is good. When I tune to MLB.TV, it's almost like watching baseball on regular TV (without the commercials.) As an added benefit, Apple TV also provides easy access to Netflix, so I was able to investigate what the Netflix craze is all about. But after having the Apple TV for about a month, I wonder if I'm missing something. I don't understand why anyone thinks Netflix could compete with regular TV. The problem isn't the quality of the viewing experience -- which is high -- but with the content. There's much less streamable Netflix programming than I had assumed. There are a handful of movies I plan to stream - eventually, at some point. I am delighted to see that the full library of "Saturday Night Live" and "The Office" seasons are now easily accessible. And my son is catching up with all the "South Park" seasons he was forbidden to watch growing up. But I find that my Netflix viewing is limited to times when there is absolutely nothing else to watch on TV. In the long run, Netflix may challenge the traditional syndication model, because it is fundamentally a new way of syndicating content, but viewers will first have to be trained to proactively look for the programs they want, rather than just turning on the TV to see what's there. So the bottom line is that Apple TV is great for making Red Sox games available on our living room TV. That was $100 well-spent. And by making Netflix easily available, it has created an emergency back-up option for periods when I'm craving a particular rerun. But would I cut the cord and cancel my cable now that I have Applet TV? No way. And even if Apple TV offered Hulu Plus (which for some surprising reason it doesn't) I don't think I would actually cancel cable and give up live television, sports, "Mad Men" and the other networks that are currently unavailable on Hulu. What my experience with Apple TV has made obvious is that there are no real technology obstacles to making Internet TV ubiquitous. It's clearly possible to create a simple elegant device to stream content to an HDTV. The real obstacle is the reluctance of content providers to turn over their programming to services that would undermine their remarkably successful ad-supported business models. Duh! And really, why should they? Creating content is not free - why should content creators give it away for free? The notion that the Internet will fundamentally change the way we watch television seems more and more like a pipe dream as we come face to face with the economic realities of licensing content. With its new pricing plan, Netflix streaming is now going to cost $7.99 for a lot of movies and TV shows I don't really need. What will the price be when they have more movies and TV shows? Maybe a lot closer to my current cable bill? Hmmm...
How do you save a media brand when your name is Rupert Murdoch or News Corp.? You shut down a profitable weekend newspaper; you buy back $5 billion in News Corp. shares; you cut bait on trying to take over British Sky Broadcasting; you trot out a couple of resignations ; and you take out full-page ads in U.K. newspapers, including one that had long pursued a story against one of your own papers. There'll be more coming. Murdoch's initial brand message in the U.S., as the owner of a group of tabloid newspapers, was "tough, get-the-story-at-all-costs, and for-gods-sake-don't-apologize." Some of that tough brand patina later worked its way onto the Fox network in later years, and onto take-no-prisoner reality shows. But now many fear that some of his brands have gone too far. Murdoch -- perhaps biting his tongue -- offers a personal apology for phone hacking and claims of bribing police. At the end of the print ad, he hints there will be more to come: "In the coming days, as we take further concrete steps to resolve these issues and make amends for the damage they have caused, you will hear more from us." Hmmm... Might that mean a TV ad as well? Right now, the News Corp. brand problem seems to be contained in the U.K., but it may not end there. The FBI is investigating News Corp. operations in the U.S. because News Corp. employees might have tapped phones of the families of 9/11 victims. So the question of what happens to the brand in this country is going forward. Perhaps nothing will happen. Don't expect advertisers to cut back on their buys on Fox's "American Idol" or "Glee," or on the Fox News Channel. But you can't take an FBI investigation lightly. Many might think that if such behavior was okay for one News Corp. media outlet, why not others? That's the danger, and why News Corp. looks to contain the damage. Tabloid journalists -- or any journalists -- have an increasingly tougher time competing in the vastly growing digital world. But a crime is a crime. Having a "tough" image at a newspaper will only take you so far. Murdoch first said in The Wall Street Journal that the accusations were "total lies. Now, he says, there was "serious wrongdoing." News Corp.'s brand message is seemingly changing.
At the end of the movie "The American President," Michael Douglas says of his opponent, "His problem isn't that he doesn't get it, his problem is that he can't sell it." We seem to have both problems today. There are 435 voting members of the House of Representatives, 100 Senators, and 1 president. They are our duly elected representatives and they are currently engaged in a great debate that, because of our 24/7 TV culture, has devolved into bad theater -- or, depending on your preferences, has become the best reality show on television. Of these 536 men and women, it is estimated that approximately 40% are lawyers. For the data types among us, this indexes to approximately 700 vs the U.S. working population. When was the last time you asked your lawyer for financial advice? I speak of the Great Debt Ceiling Show, starring President Obama, Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid and a supporting cast of too many to name. The flaw in the story line is that we know how it will end. This week (or possibly next, if either side feels their TV interviews are going particularly well), there will be an "agreement." You will please pardon the expression, as the outcome will be more of a hold your nose accommodation to political survival than any intent to agree, or to serve the country. It has become, on all sides, about positioning for elections -- and little more. What we, and the rest of the worldwide audience, are breathlessly witnessing is the Butterfly Effect, once again. To review from an earlier piece referencing the perfectly named Chaos Theory, when even small changes are made to complex systems (our politics and our economy for example), large, unintended effects often result. In our case, the metaphorical butterfly's wing is round-the-clock televising of our political discourse. Historians tell us that the first "TV President" was John F Kennedy. He just looked better than Nixon, and folks around the country became enamored when he said "cahr" and they had to figure out he meant automobile. Fast-forward to today, and we see that television has caused our most serious debates to be conducted in sound bites. Like the current one in which we hear, "Live within our means," and for the other side, "Everyone should pay their fair share." Is there anyone who believe this represents a useful discussion of a serious issue? Our Fed Chairman says the result of not raising the debt ceiling would be a "huge financial calamity." Thanks. There has been little substantive dialogue on this ongoing TV show of the impact of default on each citizen from the resulting 40% cutback in government payments, little mention of the higher cost of money as interest rates rise on credit cards and auto loans. And little reference to the resulting severe stock market decline, or the real impact of another cycle of recession. Maybe it's a disservice to say they don't get it. The stars of this show are intelligent. But I guarantee that neither side has been able to articulate and sell it, or we wouldn't be playing chicken at this point. In an earlier time we'd be hearing, after the fact, about the "backroom deal" that was struck. It's not an earlier time, and we should be happy about that. We have the means not only to practice advanced advertising today, but advanced citizenship. Let's use the MediaTech tools and channels we've created, and on which we practice our craft, to make our voices heard. Let's take charge of the outcome and cancel the show.
What are the first two words that come to mind when someone says "Charlie Sheen"? Anger? Management? Say what you will about Sheen. But Lionsgate's effort to star him in a sitcom titled "Anger Management," riffing off the 2003 theatrical movie starring Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson, makes perfect popular culture sense. Even those who only tangentially know about Sheen's adventures earlier this year might have their ears perk up. I smiled a bit when I first heard about the new sitcom -- and that's the producers' point. What is the actual show about? We only know it is "loosely" based on the movie from Joe Roth's Revolution Studios that was distributed by Sony Pictures Entertainment. The movie was about a calm businessman (Sandler) who mistakenly gets sent to an anger management coach (Nicholson). But will the TV show be funny? At this point, who cares? "We always look for series ideas that are noisy, accessible and relevant," Kevin Beggs, president of Lionsgate Television, told The Hollywood Reporter. Noisy? Yeah, we get it. The "anger" will no doubt be a tease for this entire show. We will wait patiently for Sheen to explode -- which will deliver a somewhat true picture of his crazy off-screen life over the first part of this year. Sheen will play the Nicholson role -- an anger management counselor who has had anger issues. A big question is whether the iron is still hot around Sheen. Another big question: How much of Sheen do we want to see in this way? What network will run this bit of Hollywood entertainment? Nothing has been released as yet. Lionsgate's Debmar-Mercury, the unit handling the Sheen project, has done recent deals with cable network TBS for Tyler Perry sitcoms, as well as distributing "Wendy Williams" and other shows in syndication. Expect a number of cable networks to take a chance here -- but perhaps not too many broadcast networks, including, obviously, Sheen's former place of employment, CBS. But also expect a different kind of Sheen -- at least early on. I imagine the first couple of episodes will have a demur low-key Sheen playing off viewers' expectations that they"ll see him do his anger stuff. My guess is that will come in episode three, with bigtime tune-in ads pushing viewers to "Watch this week's episode when [Sheen's character] gets 'emotional' or 'honest'." TV marketers -- and maybe even viewers -- are salivating.