Introduction to the issues concerning Engagement in consulting

I was recently speaking on chat to a friend of some problems I had with trying to impress on a company, the seriousness of their disconnect with their end clients who were, after all, you know real people… (like them?) it sort of went like this..

We are all much more creative than we give ourselves credit. Sorry for my disconnection with you … I have been trying every which was I can to relate and communicate to non-creative (C level Operations & Executive personnel ) to get them to comprehend what I consider as real business concerns … they consider as irrelevant emotive concepts like customer experience, engagement, feelings, Trust, and other more tangible concepts such as sustainable growth (that they understand) and I further spoke to them about future growth strategies that require innovative and out of the box thinking (therefore investment) .. any real growth without innovation is a fantasy .. future real growth will come from disruptive products and services that fracture and re-define the markets

I am certainly passionate about those areas …. where the corporate world think they are operating in a vacuum …. the psychological aspects of individual C Level career success restricts focus, narrows perspective & may break engagement & understanding of customers – I think it more than breaks the connection with the customers … except for those very rare people who have their feet on the ground – not too many of those …

Its amazing the mess that this one issue is causing the likes of News Corp, HP, Netflix, Yahoo and the obvious one is the looming changes facing Mass Media … you know Film, Mass Media (TV)+ Cable + Newspaper + Magazines .. Amazon must be loving this ..

I am been quiet on the blog, because I have been trying to process the so many changes since the uncloaking of the morally reprehensible behaviours of News Corp and a separate free lesson on how to damage your brand and lose over a million of subscribers courtesy of NETFLIX, Yahoo and the bickering … and the fork in the road that HP find themselves — put there through their own bad strategic planning … and lets not forget Delta who are without doubt the singularly worst client and customer culture I have ever observed in a company ….. and finally what the death of a truly inspiring creator, Steve Jobs will mean for Business in general but for Apple in particular, so I will come back here … give me a while to compose my thoughts and we will get at it.

PerhapsI can point to a letter sent by a recent passenger of Delta by my friend Sandra Maxey … here is the link … @sandymaxey Letter to Delta Airlines CEO – http://bit.ly/qcPxoK

But a couple more points while  we are here, I am wondering if we are all in the mess because of the MBA Program … it may make business understandable, but business is not a thing, each company is a life, made up of their own dreams and aspirations, full of individual people whom it might be nice to think are actually going in the same direction as the company, (most aren’t because of flawed Corporate cultures) and the most important aspect, their customers, who are all real people, who want to be valued and engaged … and refused to be categorized and sorted just so it makes it easier for the company to dissociate themselves from this truth .. companies are people … so are customers, people even own it … (maybe not directly) people manage it, operate in it, and who they sell their product or service to … you need to value them or basically become irrelevant .. you will cease to exist.

One last observation, the large aspect of the MBA attitude is one of expedience .. which is kind of abhorrent to me .. however that aside, recently I heard that Harvard and Wharton Schools were adding ethics classes to the MBA .. what a total waste of time, ethics, principles and integrity is not something you can teach, it is something that has to be part of your values, the actual make-up of your personality – if not, when you are put under pressure they (ethics) will not be your go to code of conduct.

So I would say again, to change the way the world thinks we need to teach our children value – and guess what its not money .. its collaboration, and relationships … but more later

Tags: Engagement+&+Flawed+Culture, Damage+your+brand

You and Content

It doesn’t matter how the content gets to you, by what ‘road” or in what form,  whether in a library book, a hard copy magazine or newspaper, the web and its various forms of streaming … it has something in common … it has to engage with you .. and make you want you to focus and read on.

This has always been the case. How often have you picked up a book, and it didn’t engage with you, watched a movie, switched channels, went to sleep or worse still walked out of a theatre .. or reading a web page and thought , no .. and moved on …  read a Twitter stream and nothing, you either clicked un-follow or went looking for content that you can relate to, regardless of how the content is delivered to you, how you view it or engage with it, it has to value you and engage with you as a person.

The current thinking in Hollywood and Old Media in general is that somehow they are a special case, somehow entitled to and deserving of exemption from a thing  called change, something that happens to us all, it isn’t the change that is a problem, its the attitude to it that matters … and the choices one makes based on these attitudes.

Now and in the future, content of all types, from the written word to a movie spectacular will reach us whether we are at home, mobile on at some kind of outside occasion via a internet appliance, in other words via an i/p address (VOD, Hulu and Netflix +++) …. and it accompanying infrastructure –   this will soon be the case for public screening (when or perhaps if they will happen) as well, perhaps by some kind of version of Bit torrent service.

If you need any convincing of the change to Internet distribution, currently in the USA, Netflix accounts for 25% of total North American Internet traffic. With their first International expansion, they now have an added 800,000 users (10% of all users) in Canada , with other International expansion slated, probably in the first step into Europe. I have spoken about this in previous post, going back a number of years … do not sit with your head in the sand – change will happen, with or without you.

I feel very sad for those companies who’s core business is public entertainment, and the picture theater complexes and soon they will make more money as retail malls .. or car parking .. but again no, the internet is all prevailing … even the traditional focus on malls will change, those huge real estate investments will be a thing of the past … perhaps the land will be returned long term into something productive, perhaps growing food. These changes in the utilization of malls and other huge public and retail edifices, will happen, it will not happen tomorrow, but it will happen.

They say that Hollywood and TV production is a special case, this is such spin , it is not true, at the end of the day if the content is on You tube and you are engaged by it .. nothing else matters … now they have virtual scenery, and computer systems and CGI do so much inside a computer to generate content .. the quality will soon be available to have virtual actors .. so where is the future … where ever it is, it has to fulfill the emotional and entertainments needs of the customers, what they want … so for goodness sakes, ask them… perhaps back in the real world with real events, documentaries,  engagement with your viewers, (forbid the thought ..some sort of reality television) –   the content will need to relate to the needs of the viewers and have an emotional connection with the audience, the viewers … in this world not a virtual one. However being realistic, there will always be an need for entertainment that allows one to escape from the present, fiction or fantasy.

Hollywood is not a special case, get used to it .. change is here … mass media markets are now part of history, the future is niche interests and markets, so find and follow your bliss and there you will find your nirvana.

Back in 2008, I wrote a white paper on the then cliché phrase of the convergence of the internet with mass media .. at the time, I suggested that until band width is comparable with mass media models, that mass media had a little while, probably 3–5 years .. until the TV, Film and Cable business models primarily needed to be aware that there would be a problem, but they should be planning for this event now (in 2008) … because it would be a huge learning experience. However we are there early, bandwidth and distribution / streaming technology has made the jump to online media.

I always say in my day job, what make your business unique, what makes it different, why should the buyer come to you … this is never so apparent as the now, there is almost nothing unique about the Hollywood experience … and a small company can provide the content that people can engage with for a fraction of what the mass media market can .. but the key here is engagement, if I watch it , it is of value … how many times does the content producers play with us with the big fan fare with the new release, the new series, for a industry that is about the production of content .. with so much experience, you would think they would know what the formulae is and get it right more often .. but they so rarely do … occasionally with the NCIS Franchise, Grey Anatomy and Castle they do .. the BBC is about quality (well it was) others are great as well and are successful, however the vast majority of series are just taking up the air time with OK content .. measured by the engagement of people like you and I, as a ratings sample .. as soon as the engagement falls below a set point, they walk .. but seriously, why can’t they get it right more often, after all its their business … they don’t get it right, because they are not listening to the market .. they are producing content for a market that is not listened too or valued.  Does this sound familiar … it should be, it the song that corporations with flawed structures and cultures sing every day in all market segments that are only driven by a short term business view.

Hollywood, the TV Networks and the content producers are in denial, if they think they are in somehow a special case .. technology now has the ability to deliver digital pictures to a mobile device via a GSM or Wireless device .. by next year as the broadband speeds increase by factors of ten, or even multipliers by a 100 times, this will become the norm .. Goodness guys and girls … the future is here … adapt or die.

I have written a number of posts on this subject, going back 4 almost 5 years –  the attitude between of the content producers is desperation, they have almost no original stories that fit the Hollywood mold, and so the content producers regurgitate the same old formulae’s again and again … they do not rely on innovation, they rely on the past to provide their profit for the future … this reminds me of a old example but a good one, how do you think the last manufacturer of buggy whips did at quality control, through, over time, mergers and buy outs, I bet the last manufacturer produced the absolute best   product in the world, in what is defined as a shrinking. niche market, a long way from the Hey Day … we are seeing the same again … Hollywood is producing technically great content, all fluff and wonder, with almost no substance .. all fluff .. and relying on technical tricks, like 3D to enhance the viewing experience, it is not viable to do this .. I paid on 2009 for an adult and one child $40 for the tickets for Avatar .. (not including drinks, travel or parking ) … this is not sustainable.

Putting you content in a box, and controlling access, cannot and will not work in the digital world, this is a paradigm shift ladies and gentlemen, there are plenty of business models that will work, with this new technology, find another business model, even people of the Internet and New Media industry such as Google understand this, for instance, Eric Schmidt ex: Google CEO – “Free is better than cheap” work with adjacent income streams. This maybe an anathema to you, but it is reality.

Hollywood and its compatriots needs to realise that the dollar well is not bottomless, out here in the real world, money is not abundant (well nothing is really in the physical world) you have to appeal to your customers real needs and desires, I wrote a post about the current content production and MPAA  here …. which focused on the real situation of the motion picture content production industry .. their current healthy status and view of the future, please ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to be the one that says I told you so when a corporate liquidator is going through your asset list and seeing what they can make a return on .. do take note.

I have found another article on content and changes necessary by Jim Louderbeck, that brings more to this subject, I would suggest you look at it here

Tags: Content+production

MPAA and Film / TV Content Production and Distribution – the next 6-10 years

My experience is in content production, distribution, Broadcasting & electronic Media.

Just doing some more research on the current “issue” or alleged issue of Piracy for the motion picture industry, which is primarily represented in the USA by the Trade Organisation the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America, http://www.mpaa.org).

Now until recently I was aware of the issue, but not of the financial details, now I am actually wondering if there even is a real issue, with the effect of the Global Economic Crisis being seemingly felt across every market segment imaginable, except the motion picture industry, which has according to their own figures had a 15% domestic increase and an International increase of 30% over the years between 2006 and 2010 … wow ! This despite the fact that the number of actual releases in theaters increased just 10.1%.

The price of the admission ticket, rose by 39.4% from 2001– 2010 and yet the cumulative cost of the CPI rose just 27.95% …. ?

OK all that aside …. the rise in the income 2008 –  2009 for theater sales can be expected, as if we go back to the depression, even in harsh economic times (because of the times in fact) the industry has been pretty much recession proof.  The major demographics for the audience goes from 12 to 39 year olds, it is a very niche audience which in these harsher than normal economic times seem to be the only ones that actually have any access to disposable income.

I could go on and on .. however the point is essentially this …. Yes there is a problem with Pirating ( a small one ), but it is not serious, how can it be when year on year the income from sales of theatrical releases has increased far in excess of the CPI … the figures for loss of income presented by the MPAA are not believable.

The following from the immediate past interim CEO, of the MPAA, Mr. Bob Pisano is basically unsubstantiated rhetoric, more commonly known as spin, how can there be a serious problem with over time the income to the industry has increased 30% … such statements as “We will continue to work with our industry partners to fight for common sense ways, through legislative, enforcement and legal avenues, to vigilantly protect the creativity at the heart of our industry from theft.” These kind of statements are making the industry look ridiculous, as well the U.S. Supreme court did rule that just copying did not constitute theft.

I do not agree with piracy, however, this mis-information, is on going and has not be substantiated, they are beat ups by what is essential a trade organisation with a big voice – these statements are not showing the industry in its best light … there are many other industries that employ far more people and families in the USA and worldwide … that actually are in serious and dire straits .. because they don’t have access to the Hollywood Media their voice is lost.  Many families on main street, also have no disposable income to currently invest in any sort of recreation, except free to air TV and maybe cable … remember cable, content on demand and it new variances will be the ever increasing choice for the distribution of content to the wider market.

There are a few issues that the MPAA and the industry in general needs to address… urgently

The price of tickets is not sustainable, bearing in mind that on top of these are the travel, parking, food etc .. taking your children is not the escape it used to be … I took my son to see Avatar at the local cinema and it cost one adult and one child over $40, not including parking, vehicle .. drinks etc…

The lack of growth is also a social one, and manifests as a result of the niche interests of the population, in their online lives – there will come a time, and it is not that far away where people will not go to the movies in anywhere near the same numbers, it is trending down in real terms and will continue to, for lots of reasons, some social, some concerning access, transport and financial to name just some, hopefully before then the studios will have come up with a way to reach people directly via Video Streaming in their lounge rooms, using the dreaded internet … this is here now – so change your business model or else basically … you have less than 5 years, probably less.  I wrote about the effects of technology on the film industry over 12 months ago, and it seems very much to be following the path and the time frame suggested then … in Australia with the NBN (National Broadband Network) this is supposedly designed to provide fibre access with data speeds from 100Mbps to 1 Gbps … this will have a major effect on  the access to On demand services including rich and video media content in Australia.

The Film industry, as with Television needs to start to make relevant stories that people will in the short term at least want to invest money in to go and see … perhaps the new business model is to make low budget movies that are truly an escape from the current meltdown and the huge pressures on families just to get by … but hopefully not too many more regurgitated sequels !!! – mind you that would not be too bad .. if they had a good story, as one can forgive just about anything if the writer and the Directors are at the top of their game -  unfortunately that is not the norm.

Also I have been saying this forever, content distribution is inseparable from content production … if you have funds you need to have been or will be investing in infrastructure for program distribution. The future will not be in venues as it is now, if you don’t now make these strategic investments or at least strategic partnerships, the future is going to be a difficult place as you are going to be a poor position at the bargaining table when it comes time to negotiation in 3–6 years …. because then you will have no distribution infrastructure that you influence, control or own.

Future distribution will not be by a Bricks and Mortar Theatrical release, ultimately the distribution will be in the form of data perhaps via a Peer to Peer network such as a Bit Torrent data stream, as explained in a previous article here  … think outside the box people .  Further the expansion of major releases will become a rarity, not the norm, and hopefully Hollywood will actually become a mature business instead of what it appears to be at the moment, an ego driven teenager with entitlement issues.

The uptake of new movies will have to have relevance to the actual market, talk to them, the real users, use the internet, that is its strength, where relationships and communities are the norm, not the exception .. also personally I am pretty tired of the predictability of the content coming out of Hollywood .. what about an original story please – also how about appealing to some level of standard and not the lowest common denominator.

To expand on the above via a personal observation, there are some unique and profoundly creative talents in the film industry, starting with unique writers that are true story tellers, their connection with the viewers illicit profound emotive responses, exceptional Directors with intuitive timing and insight, fantastic Cinematographers, gifted actors and support staff … with so much raw talent to draw from why is it so hard to put it all into an exceptional film that does not necessarily follow the prescribed formula … but that creates a real connection, and is not just some faded copy of a something that was once a profound original work.

Mainstream mass media including film, is normally a passive experience (except in the case of that true creative work), this mass media model also includes Newspapers, Radio, Cable / Satellite and terrestrial TV …. there is normally little to no  interaction with the viewer, that is not where we are going, the future will trend …. in the longer term your content will need to illicit a emotive response, or if you cannot create a masterpiece then at the very least, interactive ….ultimately the technology and the data speeds will materialize to make this a reality … unfortunately, the current trends for content is that it will come out of virtual sets, and actors as we understand them now may be a thing of the past, computer generation will be much more prevalent than it is even now.

Concerning the future distribution model, basically the Telco’s that currently own the fiber, need content just as much a you will need their fibre for distribution, however I guess if there is no successful negotiation, between you, then I guess content of the ilk of “I love Lucy” and “A Wonderful life” will be the only content … for distribution … funny that.

I realise that if I was again actively involved with the industry, that is back in the club, after a while, perhaps as little as three years, this type of objective perspective would be nearly impossible for me to create, as unfortunately those in the industry have an total inability to be objective and relate to their viewers, their users .. they are too busy doing, but doing what actually ? However a revelation will be forced upon the industry sooner or later, as they clearly don’t get it … change is here, recognise it, or suffer the inevitable changes that will be forced upon you, which you won’t like so much – it’s like I say “Change is the only constant, how we experience it, is up to us” ….

Here  is the link to the Actual financial report of the MPAA, the MPAA Theatrical Report 2010 PDF ….

Tags: Content+Production, MPAA, Piracy

Is Bit Torrent really a threat for Old Media ?

Whilst on the surface the Bit torrent application using Peer to Peer technology has the capacity to do harm , again I look at the response to this in a productive viewpoint, how can the studios benefit from this obvious market potential …

For software applications, it is only a threat if the license key operates with the software –  this comes back to the software providers own encryption and licensing software system.

For Video, it is obvious, from the numbers of users, it is well proven point that there is a market for TV shows and Movies … this can be shown by the number of Torrent participants in the data stream … why isn’t it an option to pursue, that the content producers offer a legal stream of product, such as the Australian ABC does when product is broadcast within Australia, OK it is downgraded and in Mp4 Video format, but for those who have missed the show, or want to keep it for their amusement, what is the harm ? – it is a domestic only quality. Alternatively I can view the content in high quality using the i-View program replay service … for a limited time ?  Excellent interactive relationship for a transparent relationship with your customer.

For those outside of the studios primary market, which is primarily that of the continental USA, it is impossible to gain access to the content legally –  due to the Networks own licensing restrictions, people outside the studio zone, cannot view the product on-line … so the Bit torrent Software was born and is used as a response to this limitation. I am speaking primarily here of TV programs, the software allows someone to upload a program that was in the Public Domain, as it has been broadcast, so they can viewed in another geographic zone … In Australia none of the Video Streaming services allow access to the content for users in Australia, due to licensing issues, why is this ? Surely if I was subscribing to a US content provider –  streaming content, my own internet id (Geo location) would identify what geographic zone I was in, and thus my licensing region, and thus the content licensee for this zone … in my view the money I pay for access could be quite easily sent to the applicable country license holder for a particular content, by the i/p address as a subscriber … you guys need to start thinking outside of the box, and there is a substantial  increase in income that will flow once you do something so simple, for no appreciable increase in costs, as well as the increase in net due to increases in good will and lack of a confrontation relationship and the lack of a divisive enforcement arm – which lacks any credibility.

Stripping of a DVD to obtain the Video Stream is something that is another kettle of fish all together, as it was a licensed program, for one viewer only (household) –  I can see the harm here, all though it is no way to take as credible the loss of income the studio pundits claim, you cannot view the numbers and directly equate them to lost profits. However I do not agree with the commercial use of the Bit Torrent service where people pirate these streams to produce pirate copies to DVD’s …. however from the research I have undertaken, talking to users past and present, for a single user .. I have been told by many people I have spoken to actually go onto to buy legitimate licensed products, using the downloaded product as a trial if you like.

The content creators themselves have used the Bit Torrent facility, in the recent past and continue to do so. Recently there was the much heralded release of almost the final installment of a major franchise – (one more to go) … a program full topped and tailed (a teaser .. less than 40 minutes long) was released onto the Bit torrent before the theatrical release date … I have written about this as a use by the studios, when it suited them as a “legitimate marketing channel”, they used the Bit torrent facility, that obviously created interest and did make a positive difference at the box office.

However, by creating scarcity, the studios, the content creators / providers have created a secondary market that is so substantial –  what is their response, instead of being constructive and transparent, and working with the internet, to provide a access channel to provide access to this content, they go to these facilitator organisations that further exacerbate the situation, they troll the internet for alleged offenders. I have been so informed that the content providers / studios supposedly farm out their enforcement to self styled cowboys who I have been told send out unsubstantiated claims of infringement … for which they have no way of gaining anything positive from, except that it creates distance between the two parties and a them and us mentality. Nothing will be resolved … hopefully though, we are looking for a solution here … right ?

Surely if the studios, created a way whereby people could legitimately download a copy of the content, a downgraded quality for free or via something like an i-store or similar content provider at a reasonable cost of say $1 per TV episode (bear in mind there is no medium and the user pays for the data downloaded), the problem would essentially evaporate ….. or provide a encryption licensed video feed on something like a i-View format file, to provide the content …. or invest in a new Video file format that could not be hacked with a one user only encryption key.

Further to these claims of loss that is put forward by the license holders and their cowboys, this is substantially a fallacy, as it looks at the numbers of downloads and equates them to sold product at a sell price, this is such manipulation, as those downloads will not transfer to income unless the studio actually puts a 21st century procedure in to capitalise on this … if those that are seeking content could legitimately source product from the studios, free for a lower quality downloaded copy of pay for it at a reasonable price for a quality product then I believe the problem, much of these I am a victim mentality the content providers, particularly the spin the TV studios are pushing, is substantially a beat up and the problem would essentially evaporate.

If we view the actual financial performance of studio licensing, in context of the United States Balance of payments for 2008, 2009 and now in 2010 –  you can see increases in licensing income for overseas content sales which has increased over these years.

Incidentally there is only one major TV network in the USA that gets it … and coincidentally only one in Australia … that is making an attempt to provide access .. unfortunately the worst network is someone who should know better and I thought that they did

I wrote about this and other aspects of the affect of the internet on Old Media models in a white paper as far back as 2008 … with different ways to re-structure their business models even then, it is obvious that no one is yet ready to see a solution here and start thinking outside of the box now or then.

My view of the Internet and Older business models, is a couple of things, (1) The internet user demands a different relationship with content providers & (2) Use the internet to form communities, and build a sustainable interactive relationship – this is its strength (3) Please think outside the box … you cannot win this – make some money by approaching it another way … and what you can do best, that is to produce excellent content .

My advice to the studios, capitalise on the opportunity …. focus on your craft instead of sending all your profits to the lawyers.

Tags: Is+Bit+Torrent+an+issue+?, Bit+Torrent+is+it+a+solvable+issue+-+Yes+it+is

News Limited – Daily

I know that it is the essence of business to explore every option, but this niche opportunity that News is exploring to me verges on wishful thinking.

With the introduction of a new product for a very limited closed product market, namely for the Apple iPad. A very niche market … So what happens when a new hardware tablet is produced, a new “Daily” ?

A brave new venture to say the least, in my humble opinion the likelihood of payback and ultimate success is remote, when there is so much other content out there (all accessible via RSS and free),as well it harks back to the old media mentality of a closed channel for information. This is not how it works, and it is not viable to think that way anymore. Nor are pay walls … but that is seriously another discussion about flawed market strategies and tactics altogether.

In their favour News Limited / Fox will be able to provide a very wide and diverse content from news, comments and media content, but will that be enough, my view is that you cannot transpose old media structure on the internet, its about time that Fox and News Limited actually woke up to this. The internet is not about closed systems., something also which Facebook will learn, if it doesn’t evolve.

Concerning the future, if there is one, The Daily itself, will News have control over content –  or will Apple have some say ? Is it going to be skewed or politically biased like other News Limited content ? Also advertising on a subscription service will be needed to create long term viability –  would you pay for a subscription and at the same time be bombarded with advertising ?  Or turn it around, offer the subscription to the magazine without Adverts or no subscription with adverts… and why only for the iPad .. ?

The only good things that I see here is that News is doing it at all – it will have to evolve or die (after MySpace and their fiddling and controls .. what of this ? ) the thing that is innovative about this new venture, is that a subscription service actually exists to provide content under the Apple iTunes / Apps store, now that is a a new horizon to explore.  Good luck with that.

Invitation on LinkedIn

This is the edited context of a message I sent to a contact of mine on Linked In ….

For myself I tend to write a bit in my blog and ask the simple question why do companies continue to do it this way … or that ? Whilst websites are “your virtual windows to the world” they are only part of a virtual strategy along with those such as Twitter (@intmf) and even Facebook .. actually Facebook surprises me, I went on there in the past few weeks for a personal page to stay in contact with my friends around the world and it is quite amazing the contacts you receive …

Organisations cannot ignore the internet –  you do so at your peril.

I would say in passing I am not a fan of unsolicited direct marketing in any shape or form – even subscription based direct marketing has serious flaws in its business model, it doesn’t nurture or interact, it generally just dictates.

The Internet is about building relationships and through that communities, too bad (to name just one, who should know better) Television, Publishing and Films (old media attitudes) just don’t get it, they need to realise (there are organisations that do) that this is the 21st Century (I say that lot) and start using it properly as a real part of their strategy instead of alienating your virtual family by using them as Email fodder.

I have written about this a number of times, old media needs to think laterally and develop a new business model, for the internet, especially in the world of copying of digital files …. they could make money out of this … but instead they make the lawyers rich and damage their brand and lose their business focus in the process – by trying to control the uncontrollable.

Old media, has thrown money at buying internet operations, to try and fill a hole in their own business model, however as one example only you just need to look at what a disaster News has made of MySpace by forcing them to comply with old media philosophy (about control – which is such b/s) as with the internet the truth is that no one is in charge.  You are either on the internet or not .. trying to be on the internet behind pay walls will not get you a wide audience …. of those who will subscribe, many will have the the same antiquated values as your own, or those who relate to the scarcity of this “resource”. There are many ways to make money on the internet, advertising seems to provide a handsome return for the majority.

News’s idea of an Digital Newspaper subscription is likewise flawed –  guys and girls get with it.

People do want to be a part of something that interacts with us, asks our views, nurtures and supports the relationship .. they do not want to be dictated or lauded over … these days people vote, in the idiom of Facebook by unfriending (disconnecting) you – all connections are about choice, and the normal basis of the decision is the status of the two way relationship. When people purposefully disconnect this seriously damages a organisations brand in the view of the ex subscriber, people talk about their experiences … but because there is no way to measure why people really disconnect (no there isn’t) even though people try.

Other organizations who are deeply involved with the internet and its technology are the legacy carriers who are stumbling forward and falling over continuously, in Australia one who comes to mind is Telstra –  I talk about them here superficially –  I hear from various sources that AT&T is suffering serious problems with their customer service and network as well. This may be similar to the issues with Telstra which from where I sit is evidently a lack of a strategic vision from the board and a very flawed organisational culture.

The only way to operate in the internet, or anywhere in fact, is to operate with ethics and honesty as your base values, with a total accountable and transparent culture actually giving a dam about your customer –  too many organisations say they do, then like with the ANZ Bank –  someone in their organisation didn’t get the “this is our new culture memo” ingrained into their own values and personal culture, their lack of personal integrity and values damages the organisations as a whole … this reflected very badly on the ANZ Bank especially after being recognised as a sustainable bank on the world stage.

The whole flawed philosophy of business is expedience …. whatever gets it done, the trouble is it doesn’t – these flawed strategies just widen the gap between the provider and the customer.

Anyway, way too much to talk about here … if you like we can chat one day or I can give you one of my blogs to check out .. (I have three) …

I am working towards clarity and simplicity

Tags: Flawed+strategies

Broadcasters need to change – to stay relevant and viable

I wrote the below to a company in the UK about their response to a submission of mine.
 

“ I am not sure you will read this, but I am taking the chance you may, I have been all across media, from Radio, Television and Content production, now more focused on strategy for current and future delivery systems, and how companies, particularly those former monopolistic media companies, such as Television will survive and prosper.

What I wonder, and perhaps you can enlighten me, why Traditional (old) media does not view the Internet as a partner instead of a threat, it is the ideal resource to allow them to form “true” partnerships, rather than the current viewpoint of most broadcasters where they treat these “communities” in anything but an accountable and collaborative way, they either totally ignore their feedback or treat them as a target for Email fodder… the potential for the internet to build support, communities and a future (though a more accountable and transparent one) for old media is there, it is profound, it just needs to be tapped with the right strategy.

Traditional (old) Media needs to be more open and inclusive, they need to provide content that their customers (which isn’t the advertiser) want to view, value them and treat them with respect, why not to start with a treat,  for example, like asking your customer base what they want to see, or how they see this character or that character or that relationship develop, this is the essence of the difference between old and new media ( although the whole idea of being tied to the end-user would be impossible and abhorrent for a really creative soul, Broadcasting is not about true creativity … it is about putting bums on seats ), however if those in Broadcasting are not responsive with a collaborative strategy, traditional media will be about as relevant to the future of content production and delivery, as the current manufacturer of buggy whips are to mass transit.

Old media has to become relevant to the future, they need to stop lamenting about their past glories. For instance the Internet, will not have in the short term, the capacity to deliver product to all, as Television and Cable / Satellite technologies do…I wrote a paper about this and other new growth business models back in 2008, though currently some aspects are changing, conventional broadcasters do have a real positive, and that is unlimited “connections” if you like, the true mass media model, something that under current and short to medium term prediction of capacity, the internet does not – but that gives old media a breather, it is not a reprieve.

Broadcasters need to change direction, as I guess I am doing, re-inventing themselves in a new guise, they need to find a different business model – but I guess my point is, just as in the past, the dire predictions from the other old media such as Radio and Cinema has had to do, they had to find a different way to prosper, they will have to specialise, but first of all they need to listen.

When Rupert bought MySpace .. it was a disaster waiting to happen (and I thought so then when I wrote this and this about Fox and old media), MySpace is now floundering because of the stereotypes and the inflexible and unrealistic short term strategies that Fox tried to impose on the organisation – Fox, like many in the industry are just not structured or psychologically equipped to operate in the internet, as they like most conventional media is looking for the quick fix, the magic bullet, when there is none

They need to face and change, not only change to their structure and the organisation, but more importantly to their old viewpoints, a true change of culture is needed … do get with it, please remember what century you are in ( I am saying that a lot lately ),  your consumers do not want what you think is best or spin, they want respect and to be valued, especially the future generation s –  the up and coming new consumers, including my sons ‘Y” generation  … respect them, ask them what they want and listen and that will help you mold your future.

There is so much more to this .. but finding someone who will even listen, and is open to the inevitable changes needed, that will make them a force in the future is almost impossible to communicate to those who can make the change – now that is irony.

I don’t really want to be the one to say I told you so when it all crumbles and the jackals are there looking to the future picking over the remains of the carcass of old media.

Thoughts anyone –  or send me an Email

Warner Brothers & Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Part 1

I have been told that a limited length watermarked copy of a new theatrical release has appeared on a torrent site, and it strikes me as very fortuitous that this content ( well the first 36 minutes anyway) of Part one of the latest Harry Potter film, the Deathly Hallows has been uploaded, it can only work to the advantage of the producer.

If Warner Brothers are in anyway involved in this marketing ploy, one has to congratulate them for finally realising that the internet is a tool, and can be an ally,  so why not use it as a partner …  and to their advantage –  in my view the long term viability of the traditional content producer could be described as a sunset industry … so if they (Warners) were driving this, then, you guys and girls, congratulations again. Please get with the new technology, and take advantage of it. I am sure it will be to the producers advantage and enhance your sales, especially after the interest, that this internet upload will generate.

If Warners and many others want to have a long term life, I would suggest that they generate a future relevant Strategic goal, in line with the 21^st  Century, build their operations plan and again become relevant to the market.  If they don’t they may make some great entertainment, but they will go the way of Polaroid and be as relevant to the future as is the last manufacturer of bull whips.

Start living for tomorrow and stop living in the past.

just a thought !

Tags: Warner+Brothers, Harry+Potter+Part+1, November+19th+2010

Media – Branding & Debt Issues

Further to my previous entry here about the market valuation of PBL Media as of July 1, 2008

CONSOLIDATED Media Holdings will consider tipping more money into debt-laden PBL Media if asked by private equity partner CVC Asia Pacific, see the original article here

The potential for an equity injection into PBL Media, owner of Channel Nine, was tackled by CMH executive chairman John Alexander at the annual results announcement, following investor concern about the joint ventures $4.2 billion debt.

Together this is placing the viability of the normally cash rich 9 network in an insecure tricky position – the pressure on David Gyngell must be immense – specially when I read that he has said he doesn’t want Nine to be the number one TV Network, he wants to have the most profitable – there was a time not that long ago when there weren’t the restrictions financially that there are now when one without the other was inconceivable, as the number one TV network he would be a long way down the road to being the most profitable.

With the lag between ratings and income (and the recent spurt in Nine ratings) I cannot see advertisers voluntarily handing more money to Nine until more time has past – being that we are in a retail recession won’t help either – there will be great pressure on the media buyers to get better value for the advertising dollar –  I hope Nine has in place a strategy for the new level playing field period – that is the time without the Olympics. However with the promotions I have seen on Nine they do not seem to be appealing to a wide demographic – good luck to them – I think they need it.

I do not consider than 7 has handled the Olympics well this time – especially concerning the integration with the Internet – what is it with 7 – they have given away their entire brand on the Internet to Yahoo – when you type in http://www.yahoo7.com.au you actually end up with the Australian Yahoo – namely http://au.Yahoo.com/ – I don’t know why they bother, the lack of real branding is not doing the Strategic brand development for the seven network much good at all. I can see why Yahoo want the connection – namely content and search engine hits – but why does Seven want the connection ? I have my thoughts none of which are very positive for the Seven Networks image.

Or perhaps it was Channel 7 attempts to follow the leader, where Nine use their 50% ownership of ninemsn as the default Nine Network Web-site… what is the reasoning behind Channel 7’s move.. some please explain it to me please.

What would have happened if Yahoo had been bought by Microsoft? It would have meant that Channel Nine (through ninemsn) would have had a connection directly with the Channel 7 website – great I don’t think.

The idea of a web presence is all about extending the brand – unless they realise that they won’t excel, they (TV and Publishing) must accept that changes in their brand strategy are needed – the Internet is about information and forming communities – not to throw information without a Strategy, you end up treating your viewers like fodder – this is arrogance or incompetence – no communication and no relationship is formed – this is unfortunately what all of the networks are doing except for the ABC which has the best Internet presence and strategy in Australia with SBS in second place.

What I don’t understand is that advertisers in the Australian market spent more that a Billion dollars advertising on the Internet – where is the strategy for the TV and Publishing networks where in their business plan – (except for ninemsn.com) do we see them getting their share of the pie?

 

 

Tags: Media+Branding

Broadcasting and the Internet

Introduction

The current major incumbents in the media did tend to under-estimate the importance of new competing technologies – the Internet as it is now and as it will evolve is having a major impact on the viability Broadcasting operations.

Before we make a best guess of what the future will bring – we should at first think about what are the underlying causes of these changes – and then how will these changes affect the products and services of the future.  We would be foolish to believe that new technologies will replace all old technologies – Radio was not replaced by Television, Neither has Cinema been replaced by Television.  In fact both Radio and Cinema have gone from strength to strength – in spite of very intense competition from new technologies.

The current situation in which the Free to Air and Old Media finds itself in has come about basically from changes in consumer electronics in the area of Digital communications, in particular – The Digital Compression of Video and Audio Signals – however the high speed Internet speeds currently available in ADSL and in particular ADSL2+ will exacerbate the competition, but the competition from the Internet will come from many, many small sources on the Net  – not from any large organisational entity.

Convergence

This became very fashionable in the 1990’s – however it seems to me that all these industries, i.e. Broadcasting, the Internet and Telco’s may converge into one industry – but of course there will be numerous cross-industry alliances and ventures. I do not believe that at this point in time, because of the following – TV Sets are viewed from a distance, typically 5-11 times the picture height, whereas computer users interact with their screens typically at 2 times picture heights – This difference means that text and graphics for TV Viewing must be much larger than the ideal size for computer applications.

Secondly – TV is viewed passively, by several people at a time, whereas computer usage is generally a solitary as well as a very interactive activity. The reality is that at this point that Computer style interactivity and TV communal viewing do not mix – except and unless you control the remote control. I see that Computers will be used as a display for TV programs. So in effect any convergence will be a one way process. TV reception will be a standard feature on computers – but using the TV as a “Word processor” or to display long and length web pages – is not foreseeable operationally at the moment.

However as above convergence is not the only thing having an effect on Broadcasting – what I also see is the continuing fragmentation of content production and it’s aggregation through a variety of mechanisms. The media business has always been an aggregator, that is its history and it’s capability. For media companies to have a future this may be where they find it.

What does matter

The reality of today’s digital world is made up of content-foraging consumers. Consumers increasingly have the ability, and perhaps the desire, to blur the distinctions between “newspaper” and “TV” stations. What consumers want, and can get from the Internet, are streams of news, entertainment as well as niche interest content.  Some of its print, some of its video, and some of its national, international, and local news, but the actual control of the content mix is controlled by the consumer.

In light of the fact that many of the new digital sources from the Internet are not high capital companies backed by many millions of dollars – there isn’t a lot of money left in owning a single physical thing that has to be sold or maintained, it’s not just another peer media conglomerate to be worried about; it’s an entity like Starbucks that could just as likely buy a newspaper and/or a TV station.  Although the wisdom of such a decision, being so divergent from their core activities would need to be truly examined.

Increase the Audience

Newspapers and local TV stations have been lamenting the loss of their subscription and classified advertising revenue staples to new intermediaries on the Web who don’t operate under the same capital needs, ownership constraints or carry the burden of having to actually produce original content. With the change in cross-media ownership restrictions, they now have a chance to do things differently. There are obvious cost savings from consolidation of local news organisations and advertising sales forces, they now have the opportunity to offer a new value proposition to local advertisers to provide true cross-media reach, highly targeted local focus, signage and events, sponsorships, promotions, the self-service Internet ad vendors really can’t touch.

Future of Broadcasting

The real enemies of Free to Air Television and Cable Television are inertia, lack of innovation and the complexities of integration. To capitalise on this new local cross-media opportunity will require some radical shifts in organisation and mind-set. Local stations and newsrooms will need to not only reconfigure their operations and services, but also quickly learn how to apply the lessons of online community building, user-generated content, and Web presences or partnerships to add to or increase their traditional media offerings. So far, their track records in tapping new local advertising revenues on the web has had little success – Perhaps the current wave of consolidation will provide the catalyst they need to embrace fundamental change – personally unless the Old and New aspects of companies are innovative, co-operative and working for the common good, I doubt whether they will succeed in the short term.

It is inevitable that Digital will be the future of broadcasting. Free to Air or Over the Air will remain inherently a “passive”,” from one too many” communications system, Digital Technology will multiply the numbers of available broadcast services, including, (1) Free-to-Air Broadcasting (2) near Video on Demand services (3) Subscription Services (4) Pay-per-View Services.  The format of the delivery system will differ markedly from country to country – it is therefore clear that there is no universal solution – Broadcasters will need to make decisions concerning the appropriate delivery systems for their markets. Customers are certain to demand increased portability, mobility and access for the delivery of services – delivery of services from conventional terrestrial and even satellite services will thus remain and essential element of Broadcasting.

Just a simple thought of a income stream – which needs to be fully examined, for a hypothesis sake let’s set up a subscription service. Something that is generally affordable, say less than $10 a month, for any and all content from your subscription server, using for instance Bit-Torrent streaming media  You can pass on the file for free if you want – and when someone tries to open it they get a opening screen saying subscribe here- But they get to watch the program anyway – Tom O’Reilly (http://www.oreilly.com/oreilly/tim_bio.html) runs a successful publishing business on the basis that he gives away his content – but on the other hand makes it really easy for people to buy a copy, and tens of thousands of them do – it really requires a lateral shift – a paradigm shift – By giving it away in the first instance – this gets rid of a huge enforcement load and a huge big legal bill which has no purpose other than to really upset your customer base.

The subscription server could be full of streaming video of your content archives, all news content, series content – after first screening  – a lot of the “making of” programs interviews etc.  People will lap it up, the peripheral content is almost as popular as the actual film. I think the strategy has to be long term to integrate the broadcast content with the Internet (especially for international audience) rather than just using the net as a promotional channel for the TV.

In Australia one of the networks Internet sites is very bad at doing this – it enables no interaction, and treats visitors as trailer fodder. There is a trivial – “Email us with your story” or “”Have your say” – both of which create emails – in other words they break the connection. This is not innovative or a paradigm shift in approach – this server site needs to be run by someone who knows what they are doing on the Internet.

At the end of the day you are talking to one person, not an “audience”. There is no need to inform people of the changes, they will already know.

Also consider the freeing thought – stop trying to control the viewer, the listener or the reader – you will fail – involve them – turn your audience whether it be on the free to air transmission or on you well branded (same name) web site – into rabid promoters of your channels programmes and digital products – there are successful business sites on the Internet now doing just this.

The Internet

The Internet suffers from serious congestion especially when too many users attempt to retrieve information from a particular site or even at busy times of the day. The Internet will become very important for Broadcasters as a new delivery mechanism for; broadcast Services; on-demand services and, especially the delivery of services to international audiences.  Rest assured that the Internet will evolve and develop a wide range of services we cannot envisage at present. However, at present and unlike Broadcasting – the Internet is not well suited to the simultaneous delivery of programme content to very large audiences and it cannot offer services directly to mobiles and portables economically or easily – this form of “TV” will remain something for major events such as the cricket or the Olympics etc.

It is clear that today’s Internet cannot deliver high quality Broadcast quality content or video on demand – however this limitation is I believe will not be permanent, and to provide such a service almost every element would need to be replaced – but it is conceivable.

It is impossible to predict what new services will be successful in the market place – but at the end of the day whatever you are viewing whether on a TV or a computer screen – attractive and informative content will be a key factor.

The Internet as it is now, and as it may be conceived for perhaps the next 10 years does not mean the “death of Broadcasting” – Broadcasting in all of its forms will remain ubiquitous – the Internet will become very important – Broadcasters I believe will become a major source of content for services & content for the Internet now and in the future.

Proposals

Essentially the future of Broadcasting is about forming a relationship with the individual people in their audience – about forming a community – where the TV station listens to and places credence in their thoughts – there are lots of way in doing this for instance:-

These are the ideas I would implement, which provide a increase in involvement with their audience..

·         a forum on the Internet (on each stations site) for each station where people can have their say in different aspects of the stations operation – Accountability & feedback  – to the station and “why they did this or that” with a response by someone of substance. 

·         Also there should be a presence on the Internet by the stations – say promoting their stations operations – advertising the stations premium content on the Internet.

·         each viewer can fill in a preference – after joining a stations “club” – where the station keeps them informed of new happenings in their areas of interest – further to the idea of a subscription server as noted in the original document.

·         Next – the technology for this is available now – is to offer a free customised TV station per interested person on the subscription services – where they are viewing their preferred program content – the provider can then supply targeted advertising at a premium to their normal rate with the customised content.

I have other concrete ideas to maximise audience connection and thus ratings for the station or network.

Conclusions

I am passionate about the future of Broadcasting, New Media and the Technology that enables them – where both of these areas are going to evolve. In particular how we infuse the influence of the Internet and other emerging digital platforms into the mass media business models.

Very few Media companies in Australia are building new business models most are not. Some are throwing money at the threat by buying Internet operations thinking that this will plug the holes in their future Income profile, whilst others are actually doing what is needed to make the Internet an ally, by building communities.

I am positive that formerly monopolistic media enterprises can both survive and grow their income streams but they will need to do so by following a different business model to that of the past, new strategies for the movement into Multi-platform Broadcasting; and onto other emerging digital platforms; Overseeing production of innovative inherently cross media television programs; the acquisitions of new innovation content experiences for free to air and online; I want to contribute to, and help guide that process.

Tags: Broadcasting+and+the+Internet