2nd Screen Rising

While Google’s recent announcement of details around their Great Kansas City TV Adventure raised all sorts of questions about both their eventual intentions and the viability of their current ones, one crucial detail got lost in the shuffle.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Google is planning on giving every new subscriber to their pay-TV service an Android-based tablet to use as a remote control.

That’s a development we’ve been predicting for a while now, but Google’s announcement moves the timeline up. A tablet as a remote control opens the door for all kinds of 2nd screen apps, particularly one that’s controlled by the MVPD themselves. (Full disclosure: our KIT Social Program Guide app is a white label app that does exactly that: give control of the 2nd screen app and all the resulting data to the MVPD.)

By putting a tablet directly into consumers hands and telling them to use it as a remote control, Google is all but ensuring the rapid ascension of the 2nd screen, as other MVPDs are sure to follow their lead.

What remains to be figured out are all the UX  and design issues around those tablets: how they’re configured, what makes them easier to use than a remote control, how much do they incorporate voice commands and how many do you have per household. (We’re thinking that everyone in the family over a certain age gets their own so they can watch the same shows together while having personalized experiences on the 2nd screen device. See “Just Say No To Nielsen“)

It’s too soon to make any predictions here, but it will be interesting to see what Google does with their tablets and how much of the potential of 2nd screen apps their new service will take advantage of.

CHECK OUT THE SLIDESHARE: 10 Things You Need To Know About The Future of Television

10 Things You Need To Know About The Future Of Television

10 Things You Need To Know About The Future of Television from Alan Wolk

Lessons From Netflix

While it’s a given that Netflix’s runaway success as an online streaming service took everyone (including Reed Hastings) by surprise, I’d like to offer up a few reasons why consumers are so enamored of Netflix.

First off, it just works. The UI is very well designed and has a real indie film theater vibe. Recommendations are sorted by quirky categories, but there are enough of them that it works as both a discovery engine (when I have no idea what I want to watch) and as a recommendation engine (when I do.)  It’s easy to search for movies and TV shows, and just as easy to watch them.

That may not seem like such a big deal at first, but the fact that there’s no Buy or Rent option, no HD or SD choice, makes the whole experience feel more like watching a cable channel than watching VOD. And if you’ve ever had to wade through the VOD offerings of the typical MVPD,  you’ll appreciate why a well done UI is so important.

Netflix also seems to have fewer fails than VOD services, less movies that don’t play correctly, cut out halfway through, buffer, buffer some more, etc. and so forth.

It also doesn’t have rights issues.

One of the most frustrating things about renting from iTunes and the cable VOD services is that you have a small (24 or 48-hour) window to watch the movie before your rental expires. I can’t tell you how many times I have started to watch something, fallen asleep or otherwise been distracted and then had to re-rent it because I did not have time to finish watching the next night. Netflix all-you-can-eat service might not get the most recent movies, but it lets me watch them whenever I want, as many times as I want– the latter being an especially crucial factor for anyone with small children, for whom 300 viewings of the same program is about average.

There are definitely some lessons to be learned from this: For content that doesn’t fall under the “gotta see it now” umbrella (and that sort of content is proving to be far more popular than expected) a one-price, all-you-can-watch system has a lot of merit.  It feels much more like watching a supercharged DVR than an add-on pay service, and in fact helps viewers to forget that they are actually paying for the privilege.  (Any TV-watching service that manages to get viewers to forget that they are paying for a service– like burying the cost of set top boxes in the overall bill– is a good thing.)

The second is that simplicity is always a virtue. A system that reduces the number of choices I have to make, around terms I don’t fully understand, is always going to win out.

Bill Clinton was on to something.

Aaron Sorkin and the Counterrevolution

One of the most fascinating aspects of Aaron Sorkin’s new HBO drama The Newsroom, is just how blatantly anti-“spirit-of-the-internet” it is. Which is a sign that the pendulum is about to start swinging in the opposite direction.

For years, media was ruled by gatekeepers: editors who manned the doorways and decided what was worthy and what was not. They could do this because the means of production-- printing a book or making a movie-- were too expensive for the average person. And if that didn’t work, they could rely on the fact that distribution channels were tightly controlled: you could only buy books through bookstores. You could only watch movies at theaters or on TV.

The web blew all that up and gave everyone a voice. Even something as simple as letters to the editor took an a different cast online: the editors couldn’t just decide which letters they wanted to publish: on the web, every letter (or comment) got published.

While this change was much-needed, it now seems close to spinning out of control. This is particularly true of news, for as Sorkin’s mouthpiece, executive producer Mackenzie MacHale (Emily Mortimer) notes, news is about truth, not entertainment. Unfortunately, the gatekeepers of the internet favor articles and videos that instantly go “viral” because they’re outrageous, not because they add to our understanding of the truth.

The emphasis on instant popularity and creating “virality” has cheapened the entertainment industry, too. I was recently on a panel where the CEO of one of the many data interpretation companies was adamant that the main benefit of any sort of social TV would be to enable producers to see what plot devices garnered the most buzz, so that they could then go incorporate them into their own shows.

I twitched. Visibly.  And gently reminded him of the dozens of “me too” shows Hollywood blasts out each year, few (if any) of which meet with success. The key to Oprah isn’t having a talk show with an outspoken-yet-empathetic black woman with weight loss issues as the host. The key to Oprah is Oprah: she has that secret sauce that people respond to and cloning her is not going to give you the recipe.

More importantly, the programs and plot devices that get the most social media buzz usually aren’t the most interesting or clever or thoughtful. Like news, they’re just the most outrageous or cute or funny. Because outrageous is what gets click-through. And outrageous makes us dumber in that it doesn’t ask for a whole lot of thought or reflection. 

Outrageous isn’t prima facie a bad thing; it becomes bad when it’s the only thing, and that is what is starting to happen with the new gatekeepers.

But back to the news, which is not about cloning formulas, but about doing actual reporting. There are stories that only a real journalist can do, stories that require weeks, if not months of research, which in turn requires an organization that can finance that research. 

I’m a bit of a zealot about this: I make it a point to post “only a journalist could have done this” stories to my social networks. (This New York Times story about Apple store employees is a good recent example.) And I do this to point out that while citizen journalists are useful, they ultimately have a small role in the news gathering process: providing on-the-ground, front line details during revolutions or natural disasters. They can give the immediate picture, but not the big one.

Ditto the legions of Tweeters who retweet catchy headlines, “5 Reasons Why” lists and any story that sounds vaguely racy or scandalous. Tweeters are very good at reporting the deaths of celebrities. They usually beat the mainstream media. 

But that’s about it. 

The bulk of the stories that get shared via social media are not, as Sorkin notes, about presenting the truth or both sides of the argument. They’re about presenting something outrageous or funny or cute enough to be passed along. Which is dangerous, because it can make it seem as if a non-issue (Sorkin’s example is Birthers) actually has two equally valid points of view.

That’s why The Newsroom has significance beyond it’s actual place in the TV universe. It’s the first popular voice to point out the tyranny of the crowd; the fact that the new gatekeepers may be just as bad as the old ones; and that once again it’s truth and art that suffer.

Sorkin’s may be the first voice, but I suspect it won’t be the last.

Google's iGoogle Decision Defies Logic

So I guess I'm not the only one angry about Google's decision to shut down iGoogle. But beyond my personal irritation with the impending loss of the site I use to keep tabs on everything from news to weather to sports scores to my calendar, it's just a mind-boggling maneuver.

iGoogle serves to keep users in the greater Google ecosystem. The built in search engine is Google. The calendar widget syncs with Google calendar. The mail widget is Gmail. Google gets the clicks through to any of the news/sports/entertainment sites. (And yes, I realize that it's fairly easy to build a widget for non-Google sites, but your average iGoogle user doesn't have the skills for that.)

That alone should be reason enough to keep it alive.

Now some observers have suggested that Google will try and bake these features into Chrome or GooglePlus or both. And given that it's Google we're talking about, this may well be the case. Which brings up the question: why piss off users by telling them you are shutting down the service (16 months in advance, mind you) when you could position it as an upgrade or combination of the "best of" two products.

They've got 16 months to change their minds.

Live Now: BeanCast Episode 207: Size Matters

This week I had another chance to appear on everyone's favorite

marketing podcast, the BeanCast.

In addition to affable host Bob Knorpp, I was joined by Chicago PR

legend Gini Dietrich and my old friend, author and serial entrepreneur Joseph Jaffe.

Conversation topics include YouTube's "professional" content and

enduring popularity, Facebook ads on Zynga and their overall viability

as an advertising vehicle for local brands; as well as Facebook's

tendency to adopt a "shoot first/ask questions later" attitude to any

and all changes.

And, as the podcast title suggests, does size matter?

You can stream or download it here.

E-TV in the Age of Personalization

    

Adland has long dreamed of a world where viewers sat in front of their television sets, buying everything from Anacin to Zest with a single click of the remote. They’ve even named it “Jennifer Aniston’s Sweater” after a hypothetical situation where viewers would be able to click to buy the garment the moment they saw it on the Friends star.


Only that’s never going to happen.


For the Jennifer Aniston’s Sweater experience to be viable, it needs to truly be one-click, or it becomes too distracting and takes the viewer away from the show, something the actual viewer regards as a negative outcome. And the fact of the matter is that very few products-- impulse purchases or otherwise-- fall into that category. There are always decisions to be made: what color? what size? where do you want it shipped? do you want it sent overnight? And by the time you’ve made those decisions, Chandler’s already asked Monica to marry him, and you’ve missed out on why.


What’s far more likely is a second screen experience that allows viewers to go back after the show is over and shop the product placement goods along with the advertised ones.  This is a much more natural experience. (Well, natural for 2012, anyway.) It allows for behavior like comparison shopping, reading reviews, saving to Pinterest and adding to a Wish List, all of which have become essential parts of the online shopping experience.


The MVPDs who owned the apps would be able to charge premiums for placement and even sell ads that linked to the show site. There would be opportunites for brands to take over a show (e.g. all the women on Friends would be wearing Banana Republic clothes and BR would buy a dedicated page on the second screen app to showcase it.) They could advertise that page during the show or even dress the women on several other shows and combine all the various outfits on a single page.


This would be a great option for car manufacturers who could showcase each of their models on a different program and then send viewers to a single site to see them all. This activity would also help networks sell their series, as viewers may discover a new show as they are shopping.


And that’s just placement. Add in measurement, and you’ve got an even more revolutionary change. 


As Alex Blum and I noted in our article The Nielsen Myth, the most exciting development of the convergence of television and the internet is the ability to finally measure exactly who is watching. Not just which household, but who in the household, when, where and on what device. (Second screen apps will be individualized, so that everyone in the house has their own account.) That means better targeting, better tracking and more timely messaging (no ads for events or sales that ended between the time the show was recorded and the time it was viewed.) It also creates the opportunity to have “paired advertising” -- :30 or :60 second brand ads on the big screen that link with deeper dive, more actionable, “get me more information” second screen spots. 


But it’s the potential of personalization, which is the real game-changer here. 


In addition to not serving up tampon ads to 16 year old boys, personalization will allow your TV (or, more accurately, your social program guide app) to start recommending products and services based on your history. The algorithms will take into account what you’ve bought, what you’ve bookmarked, what you’ve looked into more closely as well as what shows you like, what your friends watch and how much disposable income you would seem to have. 


You’d have the option to share information from the credit card that’s linked to your account, so that recommendations would reflect the totality of your purchases. (Yes, there will be some concerns about privacy, but most people won’t be too put out by the fact that their MVPD knows they ate lunch at Gino’s Pizzeria and bought a pair of Nike running shoes at the Springfield Sports Shop. Particularly since they’ll be a number, not a name.) 


But wait! There’s more!  


MVPDs can start to negotiate deals on behalf of their customers. So going back to Jennifer Aniston’s sweater, say U-verse can tell Banana Republic that they’ve got 20,000 women, aged 18-34, who have bought clothing from Banana Republic within the past six months, all of whom are likely to watch Friends that week. They’ll cut Banana Republic a deal on ad placement if the retailer agrees to give U-verse subscribers 20% off on Jennifer Aniston’s sweater. 


It’s a win-win situation: Banana Republic likely makes up in volume what they lose in margin and U-verse gains the loyalty of their customers who see added value in being a U-verse subscriber. 


As partnership deals and second screen advertising gain bigger shares of marketer’s advertising budgets, the big question becomes who will eventually control the ad buying process: the traditional TV buying services or the upstart internet ones? There are arguments to be made each way and the TV buying firms, in particular, have invested in digital divisions. But the new landscape is far too different to lay odds on either camp right now and it’s entirely possible a brand new service will emerge. It’s really “blue ocean” right now, since few major advertisers actually buy their own media and so they are going to be looking for someone who can guide them through all the changes that the rise of the second screen will bring about. 


The biggest benefactors will be us, the consumers. With personalization, we may actually start to find advertising useful, as opposed to intrusive. (Think of your reaction to catalogs: you might not want to buy something then and there, but they’re kind of fun to look at. That’s the emotional response the new advertising should strive to engender.) And we won’t be forced to sit through sixty seconds of seniors doing tai chi as an announcer warns that Ubiquitix may cause diarrhea, dampness or premature death. 


That alone is worth the price of admission.

What Are Intel and Google Thinking? (Possibly The Same Thing.)

The trade press abounds with rumors today that Intel and Google are preparing to launch their own set top boxes in order to launch their own virtual MSOs.

If they get someone to sell them content rights, that is.

But obvious problems aside, should the big pay-TV providers be worried about the new competition?

I’m thinking probably not. But you know who should be worried?

TiVo.

Let me explain: as I have harped on about for a while, the very first thing the user of a virtual MSO will need is an internet connection. And where is our user getting his or her internet connection? From the pay-TV provider, of course! A vast majority (90%+ if you’re a FIOS customer) get their internet from the same company that sells them TV. And that bundle comes with a considerable savings. And no bandwidth caps.

Now Google has spent a while trying to wire up Kansas City with ultra hyper turbo speed internet. But as Verizon found out with FIOS, the US is a very big country and wiring individual houses and buildings with ultra hyper turbo speed internet is a very time consuming job. Like decades worth of time-consuming.

Intel, on the other hand, doesn’t even have that. All they have is a box and a dream. Oh, and a spinoff called Intel Media “a business group with a mandate to get content for Intel-based platforms”

Content they will likely run on... what? Their own network that Comcast magically gives them the bandwidth for? Doubtful.

I can see Intel making a set top box they sell to Comcast, since their box allegedly will have the ability to tell who is watching, sorted by age and gender. And consumers might be intrigued by a box that has “Intel Inside.” But content? What credibility does Intel have as a content distributor? Selling or licensing their data collection functionality seems to make much more sense than trying to become the new Cablevision.

But what do I know.

Google on the other hand, has tried its hand with content: YouTube. (Okay, they bought YouTube, but still.) But that’s about it. They’ve got an ad network that may be of interest to networks. (Or not: they may decide Google’s algorithms are great for search terms but not for channel search.) They’ve also got billions of dollars to buy up content. But beyond Kansas City, where they can offer ultra mega internet, what’s the hook? Will the content work across all Android enabled tablets and phones? Which, to be real, inevitably means only the newest phones can get it and that service will vary wildly by provider. It also means the project would DOA.

Here again, I think Google may just want to make a set-top box. One that takes all their data collecting expertise and puts it to use for advertisers and content producers. They can even integrate G+ and Gmail if they want. Just don’t try and become Verizon. (And why did they spend so much money on the Morotola purchase if that wasn’t where they are headed.)

TiVo needs to worry (a little) because even though they make a DVR rather than a set top box, they have long been the only game in town. Plenty of other people made DVRs, but none innovated the way TiVo did. 

Given consumer’s tendency to lump STBs and DVRs together, a Google or Intel box would be seen by both consumers and providers as a replacement for TiVo, with stronger data integration capabilities and a rosier financial outlook.

And if you're TiVo, that could be a problem.

UPDATE - 6.12.12: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the U.S. Justice Department has taken note of the stranglehold cable companies have on the internet and is looking at whether bandwidth caps and other measures are meant to "quash nascent competition from online video"