Subway is taking shots at the grease in some other QSR foods in two TV spots for its latest product launch, an Oven Crisp Chicken sub. The sub's white-meat chicken, tossed in seasoned breading and baked, is being billed as offering "breakthrough" flavor and a crispy texture "without the calories and fat of a traditional fried chicken sandwich" -- and the sub chain clearly has high expectations for it. "We're always looking for new options that offer great flavor and a good health profile, and this fits that bill perfectly," says Tony Pace, SVP and CMO of the Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust. Subway's nutrition facts show a typical 6" (273-gram) Oven Crisp Chicken sub having 0 trans fat, 6.7 grams total fat (1.5 grams of saturated fat) and 30 milligrams of cholesterol (60 of its 420 calories are from fat). The sandwich also has 23 grams of protein, 67 grams of carbs and 940 milligrams of sodium. (A quick check of KFC's menu shows 0 trans fat in all of its chicken items, with total fat and saturated fat grams per piece ranging from 3.5 to 33 and 1 to 4.5, respectively, depending on the method of preparation and the chicken part.) Subway's TV spots for the new item, from the MMB agency, don't actually claim that other QSRs do not offer any healthier options -- and in fact opt to focus on burgers grilled in oil/fat and French fries (no specific QSRs mentioned) rather than other fast-food chicken offerings per se. One of the two spots that began airing over this past weekend, "That's a Lot," shows shots of large quantities of grease, interspersed with shots of burgers cooking on greasy grills and fries in deep fryers, with a voiceover stating: "In one year, U.S. restaurants can produce up to 1.4 billion* pounds of grease ... enough to fill 3,300 kiddie pools ... over 33,000 water coolers ... or 111,000 bird baths ... of course, a lot of it ends up right here [shot of a cheeseburger]." Another, "Training Day," shows the manager of a generic burger QSR slipping on a greasy floor while showing a trainee how to prepare burgers on a greasy grill -- and how to dispose of the grease that's not ingested in the burgers: a tanker truck outside the front door (see screenshot). The spots then urge consumers to "skip the grease" or "get the deep flavor without the deep fryer" with Subway's new chicken sub. While these two ads take a decidedly more confrontational approach to conveying Subway's flavorful-but-healthier brand positioning than has been true in Subway's campaigns of recent years, Pace points out that the chain used a similar approach for its 2007 launch of its "Fresh Fit" menu (of which the new chicken sub is a part). Other new TV ads for the new item, to begin airing about a week from now, will take what's become a more familiar tack: Subway's "Famous Fans" endorsing the sandwich. With football season starting, featured famous sports fans will include the Detroit Lions' Ndamukong Suh, the New York Giants' Justin Tuck, and Super Bowl champion-turned-football broadcasting celeb Michael Strahan (who hosts the "Subway Post Game Show" following Fox Sports football coverage). Famous Fans will also be promoting the sandwich via messaging/tweets on their social media accounts, complementing Subway's own social media efforts, according to Pace. In addition, the campaign includes ESPN Radio's "Hotline" program, online advertising and print (including Subway's Wednesday front-page franchise position on USA Today's front page), he reports. If consumer response to the Oven Crisp Chicken sub lives up to Subway's expectations, the chain will continue its "aggressive" marketing support of the item, Pace adds. Editor's note: The article was amended.
WPP's Kantar Media and TRA will sit down for their first mediation session next month to see if they can iron out differences related to a patent infringement dispute over similarities between TRA's 3-year-old TRAnalytics service and Kantar's RapidView offering which launched earlier this year. The dispute landed in court two months ago. But the two sides, in a series of accusations and recriminations lobbed at each other over the past two weeks in court filings, continue to argue fiercely. The issue is a request by TRA to block Kantar from offering its service until after mediation -- or if that fails, a court trial. The court papers reveal that WPP has invested $3.7 million over the last four years in TRA, in exchange for access to the inner workings of the firm and board representation. The briefs also indicate that on several occasions in 2010, TRA CEO Mark Lieberman proposed to high-level Kantar executives -- including CEO Eric Salama -- that TRA buy the Kantar subsidiary that developed and launched the RapidView service. Lieberman's approaches were rebuffed, but Sheila Spence, Kantar's representative on the TRA board, suggested an alternative. The two sides negotiated a license fee to be paid by Kantar to TRA for the use of the latter's patented technique for a single-source research offering that links TV viewing levels to consumer purchasing behavior. TRA rejected a simple license fee, but came back to Kantar last September with a more elaborate business plan intended to expand the relationship between the two companies. The TRA plan, now filed in court, proposed that Kantar license TRA patents for portions of its businesses in both the U.S. and Europe -- and that it become a U.S. sales representative that would pitch TRA services to TV networks. Under the proposal, Kantar Europe would also sell versions of TRA's offerings. In addition to license fees, TRA proposed that Kantar help facilitate TRA access to DirecTV set-top-box data in the U.S. and BSKYB set-top-box data in Europe. The TRA business plan also proposed revenue sharing in both the U.S. and Europe. According to the court papers, the TRA proposal led to in-depth due diligence on the part of both sides during which financial statements, customer lists and prospects, tech data, staff details and an array of patents, copyrights and other intellectual property was thoroughly examined in preparation for a possible deal. TRA, it seemed, was confident -- or at least hopeful -- that a deal could be completed quickly. It even proposed getting the word out via press release specifically timed to Nielsen's IPO road show last fall. But as it turned out, no deal was done. Kantar launched its competing service in March of this year, and the court fight ensued a short time later. In its filing, Kantar asked New York District Court judge Shira Scheindlin to allow it to continue marketing its fledgling RapidView product throughout the course of litigation. The firm contended that TRA had not clearly shown it would be irreparably harmed in the marketplace unless RapidView was shut down at least for the duration of the case. "If TRA is willing to accept payment in return for [Kantar's] alleged infringing behavior, than it certainly is not suffering irreparable harm," Kantar's brief stated. Kantar also argued that the two services were not really head-to-head competitors because TRA focuses on ROI, while its own offering emphasizes future media planning and buying. TRA disagreed, arguing that both services use the same methodology and vendors, target the same customers and provide the same services -- including helping networks and advertisers be more precise with planning, buying and ROI strategies. TRA likened Kantar's service to "an inexpensive knockoff" of its own service, and one that Kantar is currently selling at a significantly lower price to customers.
Fox Sports chairman David Hill took a swing at boxing more than once Thursday, indicating it has limits on TV while the Ultimate Fighting Championship offers a more immersive experience. There's "boxing being one-dimensional and this thing being three-dimensional," Hill said as Fox announced a multi-year, multi-part deal to bring the UFC to various properties. Boxing has been suffering from a lack of marquee events as much as it has from any issues with camera angles. The UFC, meanwhile, is soaring in appeal among a younger audience, making it particularly attractive to Fox. The arrangement with the Fox Sports Media Group brings the mixed martial arts competition to several networks, including a broadcast network for the first time when it will debut on Fox in prime time on a Saturday this November. Going forward, the UFC will be on Fox four times a year live, either in prime time or late-night. Other aspects of the deal include reality-competition series, "Ultimate Fighter," which has been hugely successful for Spike, moving to FX in the spring. Viacom, which owns Spike, has indicated it is looking to move away from acquired programming. FX is also scheduled to air up to six live UFC events through the life of the contract, which is with UFC parent Zuffa. Other events and programming will be on Fox's Fuel TV. The UFC has been the subject of talk about coming to a broadcast network for some time, but President Dana White, said: "This what I always wanted. This is what I always thought was the pinnacle for us in the United States ... to get on Fox." A decade ago, the UFC struggled to be considered a sport and attract interest from blue-chip advertisers. White said that to people "who thought I was lunatic 10 years ago ... here we are." Even Hill had some concerns about the UFC's ability to enter the mainstream, but said its current appeal has put those to rest. Hill said Fox had discussions with many advertisers about their interest level and while "one or two companies may have a do not buy," there's an ample number ready to get on board. Word that Fox had a UFC deal was first reported by Sports Business Journal. Fox would not discuss financial terms, but after failing to win rights to the Olympics, it may have had more than a little cash on hand.
Endemol, the studio behind reality series such as "Big Brother" and "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," is looking to grow its scripted business in the U.S. with a focus on developing prime-time dramas for cable. The company is launching Los Angeles-based Endemol Studios to be headed by CEO Philippe Maigret. Jeremy Gold -- who has been senior vice president, scripted programming in the U.S. since 2008 -- becomes head of creative affairs. AMC is set to launch Endemol-developed western "Hell on Wheels" this fall, where Gold is the executive producer. Maigret, a former Disney executive who has been head of rights acquisitions in North America since March 2010, will continue in that role as well, reporting to Endemol North America Chairman, David Goldberg. The new studio operation "represents a significant step in our ongoing strategy to expand and diversify our activities in North America, at the same time helping fuel our global growth," stated Goldberg. Endemol has a major presence with dramas, comedies and soaps in Europe, calling itself the market leader in scripted offerings in Holland, Italy, Spain and Australia. It also has had success in the U.K. Its worldwide scripted production increased by 48% between 2008 and 2010. In the U.S., it will look to import successful international formats, while the studio will join others in co-producing roles.
Media research company General Sentiment is offering analysis to TV marketers which match viewers with TV brands they talk about. The Jericho, N.Y.-based company says with social analytics, its TV Brand Match technology can match product brands for any TV network or program. Greg Artzt, CEO of General Sentiment, states: "Understanding the size or demographics of a television audience is only half the battle. The other half is understanding what these viewers actually care about." The company says its technology starts by choosing either a network and corresponding television show or an industry, brand and product. Then it can view possible matches based on recommendations for a show or brand based on fans' common interests and online activity. General Sentiment says that historically, the benchmark for determining the reach and cost for these ad spots has been controlled for decades by Nielsen. "The only products in the industry that come close to General Sentiment's TV Brand Match are survey-based studies like Simmons and MRI, which have been around for decades. But that's history .... It's too slow, too expensive and too small a sample," said Artzt.
To humorously drive home the taste appeal of its new FiberPlus Caramel Pecan Crunch cereal variety, a new TV spot from Kellogg's has women engaging in a taste test pitting the cereal against luscious cupcakes. In what would appear to be an indirect spoof of General Mills's effective "Cardboard, no. Delicious, yes" commercials for its Fiber One cereals and other products, FiberPlus brand reps went to The Perfect Circle Cupcakery (Orange, Calif.) to have customers compare the taste of the new FiberPlus flavor against the bakery's famed chocolate lava cupcake. Taste testers' consensus? Great cereal, but the cupcake wins. The 60-second spot concludes with the messaging: "Not the best tasting cupcake ... the best tasting fiber. Kellogg's FiberPlus: Taste the Plus." Kellogg's and agency Leo Burnett are being mum about the spot, which represents a somewhat edgier direction than FiberPlus's previous campaign (also from Leo Burnett), featuring comedian Kieron Elliott as a "genie" who pops into homes to grant breakfast eaters' wish for a "deliciously nutritious fiber cereal." Kellogg launched FiberPlus cereal in July 2010, after the success of its FiberPlus Antioxidant Bars. General Mills's Fiber One cereal launched in 1985. The latest extension, Fiber One 80 Calories cereal, was launched in late June.
After finale ratings notably increased over the year before and Jennifer Lopez indicated she may not return to "American idol," all three judges from last year will be back come January. "Idol" will again feature Lopez, Steven Tyler and Randy Jackson and premiere Sunday, Jan. 22 on Fox after the NFC championship game. "Having both Jennifer and Steven return ... alongside Randy is such a positive reflection on what was a wonderful and hugely successful season last year, and everyone is delighted," stated Executive Producer Simon Fuller. After ratings declined for the season finales in 2010 and 2009, they were up by one measure by 12% in the 18-to-49 demo -- and Fox proved that the show would survive without Simon Cowell. In June, whether looking for negotiating leverage or not, Lopez cast some doubt about returning in a BBC radio interview. "I don't know," she said. "I haven't been forced to make a decision, and I'm glad about that because honestly, I'm very on the fence about it." Two weeks after "Idol" premieres next year, NBC's hit singing competition "The Voice" will debut post-Super Bowl. Ensuring that "The Voice" stays strong is one of NBC's top priorities.
Early morning network shows are seeing an overall tighter ratings race than in the last few years -- although "Today" is still far ahead among key viewers. ABC News says "Good Morning America" is attracting its biggest overall viewer audience in four years -- since 2006-2007 -- moving to the smallest viewer gap to NBC's "The Today Show" in four years. "GMA" averaged a Nielsen 4.343 total viewers and a 1.656 million among adults 25-54 during the week of August 8, 2011. This is a 14% improvement in total viewers and an 8% gain in 25-54 viewers from the week before. Season-to-date, "GMA", has gained 10% in total viewers versus a year ago. NBC's "Today" and CBS' "The Early Show" are also higher -- with "Today" picking up 2% and "Early" adding 1% in total viewers. "GMA" has grown 2% season-to-date among adults 25-54. Weekly numbers have "Today" in the lead, with 4.993 million total viewers and 2.2 million 25-54 viewers. "GMA" is at 4.343 million and 1.656 million 25-54 viewers. "Early" is at 2.224 million total viewers and 867,000 adult 25-54 viewers. Recently "Today" made some major on-air moves, with co-host Meredith Vieira departing in June and Ann Curry moving up to co-host with Matt Lauer.
According to the Nielsen Cross Platform Report, Americans are spending more time watching video content on traditional TVs, mobile devices and via the Internet than ever. Overall TV viewership increased 22 minutes per month per person over last year, demonstrating moderate growth and remaining the dominant source of video content for all demographics. Even the lowest fifth quintile of TV viewers still averages an hour of TV consumption per day, with the highest quintile tuning in for nearly ten hours per day. Mobile video viewing continues to see marked gains, with the number of Americans watching video on their mobile devices increasing 41% over last year and more than 100% since 2009. Time shifted TV continues to grow, both in the penetration of DVR devices in the home and the time spent. Internet video streaming also saw increases in time spent; this behavior is the highest among a younger and diverse subset of the population. Over the past year, satellite and telephone company-delivered TV subscriptions increased while subscriptions to wired cable decreased slightly. Broadcast-only households remained stagnant. Two thirds of TV homes now have an HDTV, an increase of more than 20% over last year. Slightly less than half have a video game console or a DVR, 45% and 40%, respectively. Television Distribution Sources - Number of Households (in 000's)Market Break Q1 11 Q4 10 Q1 10 Broadcast Only 11,193 11,147 11,170 Wired Cable 62,651 63,393 64,951 Telco 7,654 7,339 6,042 Satellite 34,297 34,273 32,877 Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011. (Based on Quarterly Universe Estimates.) African-Americans watch the most video content, including traditional TV and mobile video, though less timeshifted TV than the general population. Asians have emerged as the hands-down leader in time spent watching video on the Internet, averaging six-plus hours more per month than Whites and nearly four hours more per month than the next closest ethnic group, Hispanics. Asians also watch far less traditional TV than the general population-more than a third less than Whites and half as much as African-Americans. Like Asians, Hispanics watch less traditional TV but more Internet video than the general population, but to a less extreme degree. Video Audience Composition - Monthly Time Spent in Hours: Minutes - Ethnicity & Race WhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanicAsian On Traditional TV 155:33 212:53 135:42 100:25 Watching Timeshifted TV (all TV homes) 11:55 7:37 6:56 8:14 DVR Playback (only in homes with DVRs) 26:59 22:12 24:03 22:47 Watching Video on Internet 3:57 5:52 6:24 10:19 Mobile Subscribers Watching Video on a Mobile Phone 3:37 6:30 4:20 4:20 Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011. (Based on total users of each media.) Satellite, broadcast-only and wired cable delivery of TV content is nearly even among three of the four ethnic groups tracked, with Hispanics being the outliers. They are more likely to get satellite or be broadcast-only than Whites, African-Americans and Asians, and much less likely to get wired cable. Television Distribution Sources by Ethnicity White African-AmericanHispanic Asian Broadcast Only 9% 11% 15% 10% Wired Cable 61% 63% 51% 65% Telco 7% 7% 6% 9% Satellite 31% 27% 35% 27% Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011 Age plays an interesting role in video audience consumption across media, with the age groups 25-34, 35-49 and 50-64 each dominating a specific platform. Traditional TV viewership steadily increases with age, so it comes as no surprise that Adults 50-64 make up the largest segment of the traditional TV audience (25%). The largest segment of the Internet video audience is Adults 35-49 (27%), while the largest segment of the mobile video audience is 25-34 year olds (30%). A Week in the Life: Weekly Time Spent in Hours: Minutes 2-1112-1718-2425-3435-4950-6465+P2+Hispanic 2+African-American 2+ On Traditional TV 26:31 24:21 26:28 30:34 36:23 44:54 49:17 35:37 30:42 47:37 WatchingTimeshifted TV 1:49 1:31 1:30 3:11 3:11 2:48 1:40 2:25 1:34 1:42 Using the Internet on a computer 0:40 1:45 5:31 8:29 8:34 7:20 3:55 5:43 4:10 4:54 Watching Video on Internet 0:07 0:20 0:48 0:57 0:38 0:25 0:12 0:33 0:32 0:30 Mobile Subscribers Watching Video on a Mobile Phone NA 0:20 0:15 0:10 0:05 0:02 <0:01 0:07 0:12 0:13 Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011 (Uniquely based on the Total Population in the US; all 297 million Americans over age 2) The new trend among our TV and Internet homes shows the lightest traditional television users streaming significantly more Internet video via their computers, and the heaviest streamers under-indexing for traditional TV viewership. This behavior is led by those ages 18-34.The group of consumers exhibiting this behavior is significant but small. More than a third of the TV/Internet population is not streaming, whereas less than 1% are not watching TV. Usage:Number of Users 2+ (in 000's) - Monthly Reach Q1 11 Q4 10Q1 10% Diff Yr to Yr Watching TV in the home 288,500 289,284 286,225 0.8% Watching Timeshifted TV (all TV homes) 107,065 105,936 94,599 13.2% Using the Internet on a computer 190,913 191,237 191,301 -0.2% Watching Video on Internet 142,437 141,420 135,855 4.8% Using a Mobile Phone 231,000 230,300 229,495 0.7% Mobile Subscribers Watching Video on a Mobile Phone 28,538 24,708 20,284 41.0% Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011 Hispanic mobile subscribers are the most likely to have a smartphone, while White mobile subscribers are the least. The greater use of smartphones could be linked to Hispanics watching more video on their mobile devices than the general population. Likewise, the availability of Spanish-language channels available on satellite continues to drive the increased number of Hispanics who opt for satellite-delivery of their TV content. Mobile Device Penetration by Ethnicity WhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanicAsian Smartphone 30% 39% 53% 48% Feature phone 70% 61% 47% 52% Source: Nielsen, Q1 2011 Cord Swapping: Debunking the myth that consumers are no longer willing to pay for television content subscriptions, Nielsen found that 91% of TV households still paid for a TV subscription in Q1 2011. Instead, evidence points to a slight reshuffling of the method selected, whether cable, through telephone companies or satellite. For additional information from Nielsen , and access to the PDF report, please visit here.
CIMM is taking a pro-active role in advancing new media nomenclature and processes with both its Lexicon(terms and definitions associated with Set-Top-Box data measurement) and Asset Identification Primer (glossary of asset terms). These documents form the basis of the Word-A-Week column which offers a common language for Set-Top Box nomenclature that can expedite the roll-out of the data for its many industry applications. The word "augmentation" generally conjures up... ahem... physical enhancement. While we are not talking biceps or chests in this column, we are talking about more than just an average and expected program, commercial or viewing experience. In the STB world, augmentation -- whether real or virtual -- is made possible through the use of Advanced Advertising capabilities. It provides the viewer and content user unique and enhanced experiences. More, in this case, is certainly better. The challenge is how to measure this cross-platform opportunity. Can we adapt current standard metrics, or do we need to create a new set of metrics that more accurately reflect the changing and multi-platform marketplace? But let's save that for later columns. AR abbr Augmented RealitySee also: Augmented Virtuality, Advanced Advertising CIMM DEFINITION : The ability to combine video content with interactive features on the same screen so that it is interactive, real-time and is registered in 3D. Mixing reality with virtuality on the same screen. 2 : Augmented Reality is closer to the real environment while Augmented Virtuality is closer to the virtual environment. (Source: Wikipedia) NOTE - This is currently available in smartphones as an app. For example, standing in a subway station and seeing the station -- but then there is a virtual overlay of nearby restaurants, art galleries, etc. Augmented VirtualitySee also: Augmented Reality, Advanced Advertising CIMM DEFINITION : Like Augmented Reality, Augmented Virtuality combines real video content with interactive features to make it more virtual. AV is further along the reality / virtuality continuum in that it is more to the point of virtual than to the point of reality. Please refer to the CIMM Lexicon online at http://www.cimm-us.org/lexicon.htm for additional information on these and other terms.
"Glee: The 3D Concert Movie" hasn't conquered movie theaters --- unlike what the franchise accomplished with television, iTune downloads, and live concert tours. Seems "Glee" took one entertainment step too many. Fox Filmed Entertainment looked to do what any modern media company with a big valuable asset would do -- eke out a few more shekels, not the least of which would come from a premium 3D ticket price. The movie -- with a pretty nice wide release on over 2,000 screens -- earned a humble $6 million this past weekend, coming in 11th place among all movies. But, one Fox executive told The Wrap, the studio knew the film wouldn't be a lock, that it could be going into "uncharted waters." "Glee"'s pedigree wouldn't have signaled this. Even before its premiere a couple of seasons ago, Fox television executives had sold the show highly to critics as the next big thing. And -- rare for such claims - "Glee" delivered big juicy ratings. Next came those music sales, then the concerts. All that is hard to do in the ever-more competitive entertainment world. And give "Glee" some more credit: It will honor its storyline. Those "Glee" kids entering their senior year this season will need to "graduate" -- that is, leave the show. (Hey, the cast of Disney Channel's "High School Musical" needed to graduate as well. And, mind you, there is already talk of a "Glee" spinoff.) What went wrong with the movie? While "Glee" has done a lot for Fox in its short history, some critics say fans perhaps didn't need more of the "Glee"-sters singing songs they had already heard on the TV show, via iTunes, or in concert. Reasons the film might have worked included:
When Jason Cieslak, Siegel+Gale's managing director based in Los Angeles, first heard the news that Google would acquire Motorola Mobility, he assumed the move became a "knee-jerk reaction" in response to losing the Nortel patents bid by a consortium of heavyweights such as Microsoft. There's actually more to the buyout found in set-top boxes and Internet TV. The acquisition should have interesting implications not only for the tech-industry Android developers, but consumers, too. Many people believe the acquisition suggests that Google will enter a vertically integrated market segment similar to Apple, but Cieslak doesn't believe that's the strategy. "Google didn't demonstrate a whole degree of skill when launching Nexus, their own homegrown mobile device," he said. "I'm not sure if developing devices is part of the company's core DNA, so the next move once the deal closes will bring up interesting issues." Some of those issues take Google's focus away from core advertising services and toward device building to compete with HTC or Samsung. Cieslak isn't so sure these companies -- which build Android running devices -- would agree to a partnership that pits Google competing for handset market share. It seems like a strange "cooperative dynamic," not a model even similar to Apple or Microsoft. This might send Samsung or HTC into the arms of Microsoft or Hewlett-Packard, Cieslak said. Expect some consolidation in the mobile industry during the remainder of the year and through next year. For application developers, while the move to acquire Motorola Mobility patents will protect many building the Android OS into devices, the platform is highly fragmented, which makes Cieslak think that maybe some will give Apple's or Microsoft's OS another look. For advertisers, the deal clearly reinforces Google's position to expand into Internet TV and services. Motorola is one of two very important companies when it comes to set-top boxes and services, generating nearly $3.6 billion in revenue last year in the space. Pull Internet TV into the mix and tie it with search. Some might argue that this combination makes TV advertising the primary driver back to the Internet or mobile devices, fueling search. Some believe television is the most effective media in driving consumers through the purchase funnel. Microsoft made it clear Wednesday that "Bing is more than just Microsoft's search engine, competing to win against Google." Pointing to Internet TV, Frank Shaw, VP of corporate communications at Microsoft, wrote in a blog post: "we'll be rolling out further advances in entertainment over the next few months." TVB.org suggests that national retail advertisers using spot TV to geographically customize campaigns around various school opening dates in different parts of the country might better maximize the effectiveness of their ad dollars. Many consumers who see a TV ad turn to a search engine to research the product or service. A recent study from TVB.org shows that 22.4% of consumers who took action after seeing a television commercial went to the Internet to either learn more about a product or service, tried to find the advertisement on the Web, or sent someone a Web site link about the product. For Google to build an infrastructure based on Internet TV that drives consumers from lean-back to lean-forward marketing services it needs Motorola's Mobility division to outpace Apple and Microsoft.
Earlier this summer, MediaPost's David Goetzl made the interesting suggestion that Comedy Central should establish a conservative counterweight to offset its liberal-leaning programming (i.e. "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report"). The reader response to this column was swift and heated, with readers claiming: 1) that Stewart doesn't lean left, he just exposes hypocrisy; and 2) that conservatives can't be funny because they are so mean to the disadvantaged. The notion that "The Daily Show" favors neither party is one that Jon Stewart himself tries to advance. During his June appearance on Chris Wallace's Fox News show, he claimed he had no partisan agenda. He said repeatedly that he is "a comedian first" and that "The Daily Show" is only about highlighting absurdity and corruption. Is it possible that Stewart actually believes what he says? That all he's doing is finding laughs wherever they are and that almost all the absurdity and corruption is on one side of the aisle? Although it seems obvious to me that he runs a "liberal" show, sometimes we have to take people at their word. Maybe he's spent so much time in his own circle of like-minded friends that he can't even imagine what others might find absurd or corrupting in, say, more government regulation, teacher unions or Obama-worship. I don't doubt that Jon Stewart is a comedian first; and he does bring to the show a comedian's full bag of tricks, including wit, sarcasm, accents, and funny faces. Partly because of this, his commentaries are frequently fresher and more incisive than anything on the official news shows. But it strains credibility to argue that he has no general political objective. Anyone who watches "The Daily Show" with an open mind can see that Jon Stewart, with his relentless ridicule of conservative politicians and obsession with Fox News, wants to move the country to the left. Having a political agenda is not the same as being partisan, and it is true that Stewart sometimes criticizes the Democrats (usually for being insufficiently liberal). He was, for example, pretty aghast that President Obama reached a deficit reduction deal that did not include tax increases. And he will poke gentle fun at Democrats from time to time, but you always feel that he's laughing with them, not at them. In any event, back to Goetzl's original point: does Comedy Central need a conservative counterweight? Probably not. Could it make more money if it had one? Yes. (And don't try to argue that Comedy Central already has a conservative alternative with "The Colbert Report." Colbert plays a conservative character, all right -- one who's dim and egocentric. This character is funny because he and his ideas are shown to be ridiculous, not because he delivers the conservative viewpoint with humor.) To be clear, a conservative comedy show would not draw viewers from Fox. Although Fox and Stewart constantly snipe at one another, they are not really competitors. Fox's audience is older white men, while Comedy Central's is a completely separate cohort of younger guys. If Comedy Central did have a conservative political show, it would steal audience from other networks with young male audiences, such as ESPN, SpikeTV and Discovery. My guess is that Comedy Central viewers are not inherently political one way or another. Sure "The Daily Show" and Colbert probably have nice niche audiences among Capitol Hill staffers, White House staffers and other aspiring political operatives, but I bet that their typical viewer is more like my son, a largely apolitical college sophomore who likes Jon Stewart for the same reason he likes Daniel Tosh and Demetri Martin: bcause they are funny. Indeed, a younger male audience is probably ripe for conservative humor. This generation has suffered from the straight jacket of political correctness, liberal professors and self-satisfied Baby Boomers. As it is, they have no outlet for their frustrations other than tasteless shock radio, which takes the anti-PC approach way too far over the edge. But if there is no demand-side barrier to a conservative show on Comedy Central, there is definitely a supply-side problem. If you Google "conservative comedians," the result is pretty slim, which is no surprise, since everyone knows that being a conservative in Hollywood or New York can kill your career. It would take a brave comedian or writer to come out of the closet and announce admiration for, say, Sarah Palin (and how much funnier would it be if it this comedian were also a woman?). In the meantime, there is one Comedy Central show that actually does what Jon Stewart claims to do: it skewers hypocrisy and cant where it exists, regardless of politics, religion or race. The name of that show is "South Park." We can only dream of what a talk mock news show hosted by Trey Parker and Matt Stone would look like.
Another TV threat has started -- this one from the broadcast networks, now saying: "Tell your cable, satellite or telco operator to get on board with 'TV Everywhere' plans -- otherwise we'll hold your favorite show hostage." The broadcast networks used to make threats around the retransmission fees stations demanded. It sounded like this: "Hey look at what your cable operator is trying to do!" Or, from the other prospective, the cable industry's: "Hey, those networks you used to get for free? Well, they want money from us now -- and, in turn, you." Fox made a deal with Dish that effectively pushes non-Dish subscribers into an eight-day delay mode for online airings. That means you can't get your "Family Guy" or your "Glee" the day after it airs on Fox unless you are a Dish customer. Whatever happens, don't blame only Fox. You'll be seeing a lot of this from other networks too. Overall, networks and TV retailers (cable, satellite, phone companies) still haven't figured out an appropriate business model -- ad revenue sharing, license fees, etc. -- for online and mobile platforms. You would think that having users watch plenty of online advertising was enough for some networks, especially because consumers can't fast-forward through those commercials You can feel the tension. All this technology has been rubbing traditional TV companies, like cable operators, the wrong way. That's why companies like Time Warner and Cablevision have set up their own mobile apps -- which has had the likes of Viacom and others pissed off. Cable operators believe their existing deals with networks give them exclusivity when any video is watched in the home, through any wired or unwired video device. Some of those legal threats have subsided as parties have made deals. This is partly because Hulu is still network-owned. Cable/satellite/telco operators view Hulu as a competitor. Consumers might think -- as many have: "Why do I need those older TV retail companies when I can get virtually all the shows I want from a digital platform the networks own?" That's the rub -- in part --- and why networks need to cash out of this business. There is some irony here: It was cable providers who were pushing TV Everywhere tactics to protect their existing video consumer bases. Now it's networks pushing cable operators and others to make TV Everywhere happen quickly -- to resolve future digital issues. Fox's pleading is a start: "Frustrated?" says a Fox blurb to consumers on its website. "Join your fellow subscribers and let your TV provider know that you want access to all full episodes on Fox.com. We will send an email when your provider's status changes." They mean: When a deal gets made.
Now that the initial dust has settled over the audacious Google acquisition of Motorola, analyst eyes are turning deeper into the deal and beyond the obvious. More than just mobile phone patents, the Motorola acquisition puts Google squarely where it has wanted to be for a while - on the set top box. As IMS Research points out in a brief yesterday, Motorola has long been one of the top manufacturers of set-top boxes for many MSOs. They also have longstanding relationships with the very companies that otherwise see something like a Google TV as an intrusive layer on their own business models. "With Google TV currently still in search of market traction, this deal allows Google to get closer to the video arena from the services side, versus the consumer side," says Paul Erickson, Senior Analyst, Consumer Electronics, IMS Research. "Also, it allows Google to have direct presence at the front line of the world's most competitive market for deploying pay-TV applications to tablet and handsets." There is bound to be a number of messy pieces to the battle for TV-Web integration over the next few years. It is hard to believe that the major pay-TV providers are going to easily and willingly let Google TV become a default operating system across their boxes. Motorola is a strong player in that hardware arena, but they don't have that kind of leverage in a world where the MSO skunkworks have been working on proprietary digital TV interfaces for a long time. Worse, the battle for app dominance on the TV screen is going to have multiple combatants. With connected TV players like Samsung making inroads with their own direct connections to apps, you have a layer of TV makers wanting in on the Web-to-TV game. There is another generation of game boxes coming, the most popular way of connecting Web to TV. It is hard to believe that Sony and Microsoft will not be building into their next generation boxes robust app interfaces. And then there is Apple... and whatever the hell they are up to. One can imagine a number of years ahead of us where the TV environment starts looking a bit more like the mobile phone environment, a lot of hardware pieces and app sources and competing interfaces. Google will certainly bring to the table a legacy of great analytics and the ad serving, ad sales models from the Web that could be extremely compelling in an IPTV future. But for consumers, the best hope is that competition among all of these gorillas will render clearer on screen interfaces and better integration among Web and TV and hardware pieces. The wild card in all of this - the real game changer - could well be the connection between the handset/tablet device and the set top box. The ways in which an iPhone or an Android device could be synched and integrated with the main screen makes the mind reel. The battle for the TV may end up being a real war over who controls the second screen.
Tracey Scheppach, SVP, Video Innovation Director, SMGX/VivaKi, got her Mobile Insider Summit "5% Solution" panel off with an important question, asking each panelist to explain their top reason why they thing tablet computers are going to be huge. Interestingly, most of the panelists gave good reasons, but mainly cited iPads, not necessarily tablets as a category. And most of them, including Scheppach herself, cited personal user experiences and observations as their reason. Gregg Hano, VP Group Publisher, Bonnier Technology Group, Bonnier Corp., cited what happened when Bonnier moved into tablet publishing and bought him an iPad in April 2010. He said he brought it home over Easter break and watched as all the kids visiting his household "fought" over using it. Scheppach had an even more personal example, citing an anecdote that happened about six months ago, when her six year old child came up to her bedroom on a Saturday morning at about 6 a.m. and asked her to "turn the TV on." A groggy-eyed Scheppach essentially ignored the request and went back to sleep. A couple of hours later, she went downstairs and found her six-year-old using her iPad. When she asked why, her child said, because, "I don't know how to turn on the TV." When Scheppach offered to demonstrate how to turn the TV on, her child said, not to bother, because, "It doesn't really do anything." "At that moment, I knew it was a game-changer," Scheppach said. That anecdote is insightful, because one of the main reasons the consumer electronics industry – the people how manufacture and market conventional TV sets – has always cited as an advantage over the computer industry is the intuitive, plug-and-play usability of TV sets vs. computers. If the summit panelists' observations about iPads is true, then Apple may have actually surpassed that with the iPad. But wait there's more. It's also a pretty good money-maker, according to Rockfish Interactive's Joe Saumweber, who said he recently spent some time thumbing through some Omniture data and found that, "the iPad alone generated more page views and revenue than all other mobile devices combined."