Media & Culture

Digital Media / Media & Culture — No Comments
4
Mar 10

Viacom Pulls Colbert & Stewart from Hulu – Bad Move?

The stories are flowing about Viacom’s decision to pull Colbert & Stewart from Hulu, and as you’d expect the response has been pretty polarizing. Comments and responses to posts about the decision reflect the type of consumer reaction you’d imagine – anger, frustration, dismay, etc. – while business press has been more forgiving and focused on the challenges likely to be present to negotiators. I can understand people’s feelings – when you’re used to doing something, no one likes change.

As a consumer I’m a big lover of Hulu. But as a former senior exec at MTV Networks, I was never happy about Colbert & Stewart on Hulu. Daily Show and Colbert Report immediately became the most popular content on Hulu, which helped build and strengthen Hulu’s brand far more than Daily Show or Colbert’s. Some have talked about Colbert and Stewart’s “halo effect” on Hulu overall, but while having their programming on Hulu helped grow Hulu’s brand, it damaged the respective shows’ ability to build a stronger community around their programming directly on their own sites, nameely ColbertNation.com and TheDailyShow.com. Furthermore, a conflict was created between the two companies’ ad sales groups as both attempted to best monetize the content. Not to say that I think more networks should pull their content from Hulu. I believe that Colbert & Stewart are a particular exception because of the volume of content and the popularity compared with other content on Hulu.

On the other hand, I also was not happy with the user experience on either site – as is obviously the case for many other people, too – finding them too difficult and confusing for the average visitor, and the full-episode player, which usually works fairly well, doesn’t have the same stability, polish and cleanliness as Hulu’s.

So in the end, was it the right move to pull the content? Many people, like user ‘Joe. F’ on PaidContent, are saying things such as, “Why do people keep saying that they should change to a subscription model? Doesn’t everyone realize it will kill the website? Hulu has attracted many illegal downloaders of their weekly shows, me being one of them. If they go to a pay model I will simply go back to pirating the shows, as would many people.” On the other hand, user ‘NJ’ on NY Times wrote, “Eh. This is hardly a shake-up. If Viacom were to take Colbert and Daily Show offline entirely, that would be something. But avid watchers of both shows can pretty easily access them on comedycentral.com.”

Ultimately, it’s all about a balance between ad dollars and viewers. It may seem counter-intuitive that removing content from Hulu could increase revenue, but let us assume for a minute (and this is just hypothetical – I’m not saying this is actually true) that Viacom is able to sell ads at a rate 30% higher than Hulu is for the same content. And also assume that some percentage of people who watch the shows on Hulu will migrate to watching them on Viacom sites. Obviously not 100% of people will migrate, but then again, not 100% need to migrate for it to be a net win. Furthermore, not having the content on Hulu actually protects Viacom’s ability to sell that space for the 30% premium.

So in the we’ll see if Hulu or Viacom or both are hurt by this. In the end, people who are big fans of the show will find an alternate way to view it, and will happily just visit their respective sites. Especially since the shows will still appear in search results on Hulu, so it’s hard to say that the move will damage Comedy Central very much.

Disclaimer: I wasn’t personally involved in the original negotiations with Hulu, and I have no special knowledge about the current negotiations between the two companies. This post represents only my own thoughts on the matter.

Digital Media / Media & Culture — No Comments
27
Jan 10

Non-linear and Multilinear Stories – Demon’s Souls Taking The Next Step?

There’s no mistaking the fact that the most interesting experiments in non-linear or multilinear storytelling are happening in video games. As story and character become an increasingly important element of the gaming experience, with top notch writing and acting starting to become commonplace, it’s interesting to see the ways that these new techniques will filter back into traditional storytelling.

I was amazed by Dead Space’s ability to maintain the mise en scene by making sure that menus didn’t pause the game and were completely diagetic – you never left the story and terror could really be around any corner. In my mind, it was a breakthrough that people haven’t fully realized yet. But Demon’s Souls takes the next step in a million tiny ways. Most importantly, they’ve redefined traditional online play into a collaborative, multilinear experience.

As you move through the world, you see ghostly figures that are actually other players who happen to be in the same place in the world map as you are. You don’t actually play with them, but you can see their movements through your area, helping you see if there are enemies up ahead. And each player is encouraged to leave notes for each other about what may be in store for them ahead.

These two simple elements have completely changed the way the story unfolds. Unlike traditional online game play that is often totally distinct from the single-player campaign, Demon’s Souls completely merges those experiences.

Sacrificed here is story, though. I’m excited to see how this type of non-linear multi-user approach could be applied where story and character play a larger role. Even more so, how could this approach be applied to traditional storytelling?

Digital Future / Digital Media / Media & Culture — No Comments
18
Nov 09

Another Post About The Death of Cable and the Future of “TV Everywhere”

Many people have written about the death of the cable biz and what will be in store for its future, so I’m certainly not the first to muse. But I find the lack of focus on obvious parallels in related businesses interesting, many of which would be highly instructive historical references to those in power, particularly at the MSOs who are fighting to consider their future.

Once upon a time there was the big bad AT&T, which was later broken up into the RBOCs, otherwise known as the regional Bell operating companies. Each of these RBOCs had the luxury of a near monopoly in the various regions they represented for many years, and during that time delighted in pillaging the coffers of their customers with ever increasing prices, poor service, and the like. Doesn’t this sound familiar so far? Replace RBOC with your local Cable Operator – for me that’s Time Warner Cable.

Over the last ten years there has been a monumental shift, however. As wireless technology improved and moved into the mainstream, customers found wireless to be an excellent alternative to the good ‘ole landline. Then things became even more interesting as VOIP changed the landscape for voice services even further. Suddenly, the RBOCs were faced with competition on three fronts – wireless carriers, cable MSOs who could offer VOIP over their traditionally video networks, and upstart companies like Vonage that had no limitations of competing in markets dominated by the RBOCs.

How does this compare to that traditional cable video industry? Well, it wasn’t long ago that you had only one choice in receiving service, your local MSO. Then the satellite business came along and offered a viable alternative to most customers in the form of DirectTV and Dish Network. Not to mention a couple of upstart MSOs that began trying to compete, with middling success, against the established players, like RCN. So, just like the RBOCs sat comfortably and didn’t evolve their business only to be “caught off-guard” by the massive landscape change (even though it took a decade to play out), the same thing will happen to the cable biz.

Already there are alternatives that are satisfying the early adopters, and as the worlds of Hulu and Sezmi begin to evolve, and as new wireless technologies like WiMax allow the wireless carriers to compete with video delivery services effectively (not to mention MediaFlo and the like), consumers will soon have many more choices and options with how they receive video content.

So what does this mean? Think about it in terms of the wireless biz… Since the service itself has been turned into commodity, they now can only compete mainly on price, features, and hardware. You can jump from one wireless carrier to another simply because you like the phone they carry better than the one offered by your current carrier. So imagine a cable biz that looks similar, where cable companies are forced to innovate on their technology as a core driver to customer acquisition. Where it’s not enough to have that same old cable box you always had, but you want the fancy new “smartbox” – making the parallel between so-called feature phones and smartphones… If the cable companies were smart, they would already be developing these new smartboxes, but to date they are still focused on the wrong things. Perhaps some get it, like EchoStar bringing Sling functionality into their suite of offers, but others are instead still focused on how to keep their captive audience even more captive by leveraging their negotiating powers with the content providers to lock out upstart companies.

On the surface TV Everywhere sounds like a good idea, but in the long run it just opens the floodgates to the cable biz morphing into an industry that will look exactly like the wireless biz of today.

I, for one, look forward to that day.

Digital Future / Digital Media / Media & Culture — No Comments
28
Oct 09

Internet Video vs the DVR and Cable

Mark Cuban, in a recent post on his blog about Internet Video vs DVR, gets it half right. His point is to reiterate the power of the DVR as a driver to keep consumers interested in traditionally delivered video. But I ask, why?

He says, “Forget the Internet!” But I think he’s missing the point and confusing “internet” as meaning “watching videos on your computer.” Don’t think of the Internet as a collection of web sites. Instead, think of the internet as nothing more than a delivery pipe that doesn’t care about the receiving mechanism, then the question becomes what are the advantages of delivering content via IP technology over the current status quo of cable delivery?

We are already seeing the internet radically change related industries. Think how different gaming is now that there’s XBOX Live. For many people they couldn’t imagine playing games at home by themselves anymore. Why not create XBOX Live-like experiences but for watching TV?

So, I agree with Mark that the Big Media companies still don’t get it. And I agree that Big Media should embrace DVR and Sling-like technologies wholeheartedly. But I think there’s a lot more to it. Programming needs to advance, and the internet provides a better, open platform for doing so.

As I said before in my post about multi-linear storytelling, we need to find ways to allow programmers to create more compelling content. Big Media shouldn’t forget about the internet, they should just stop worrying so much about “web sites” and focus more on how to take advantage of internet technology for real-time delivery of advanced programming tools. Whether it’s social connections and simultaneous viewing, or multi-linear story options, the nature of content delivery changes drastically when you move from a traditional cable simulcast delivery model, to a true multicast delivery model that allows each person watching a program to have a customized viewing experience.

Digital Media / Media & Culture — No Comments
30
Sep 09

Three Screens – Moving Content Consumption Across Platforms

I can’t speak for everyone, but I know how much my television viewing habits have changed over the last few years. Between the DVR, Hulu, and my Apple TV, my routine has changed drastically from just five years ago.

For one thing, I watch more. It seems fairly simple, but with better access to view the shows I want, when I want, I watch more. True, I pretty much only watch recorded programs, and pretty much always fast forward through the commercials, but I most certainly watch a lot more than I used to.

So, the most recent research from Nielsen’s Three Screen report shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone – video viewing is up. According to their research, overall viewing is up by 1.5% over the same quarter last year, including, as you’d expect, an increase in internet video viewing.

More interesting is the data on simultaneous TV viewing and internet usage, which is at 56.9%. Quite a large number, but certainly not a surprise to me. I can think of a zillion times I’ve been in the middle of watching a show and felt the immediate need to look up an actor on IMDB, or Wikipedia.

These patterns are just glimpses into the future as media consumption continues to change. These changes will result in increased consumption, not decreased, but with better control and more choice. Hopefully quality won’t suffer in the meantime. But it’s time that programmers got smarter about how to bring the three screens together during programming. It’s time we moved beyond SMS voting campaigns…

← Older Entries