Virginia Execution of of John Allen Muhammad SHOULD be on PPV

Since we still live in ancient Greece and execute individuals in front of a private audience, we might as well open this up to the privacy of our own homes. So, if you wanted to, you could ‘buy’ on demand the execution. The imagesproceeds should go to the families of the victims. Morbid? Perhaps. However, technically do-able and my hunch is that it would be widely subscribed to. Each stream would be individually watermarked across the entire screen with a see-through watermark dissuading further distribution, but not preventing it. OK, what do you think?

What Content Can NOT be Pirated, Is still 100% Free and Millions of People See DAILY?

It’s not the movies. They are all over everywhere. It’s not music. It’s not photo’s or documents. C’mon…Its TELEVISION! What I mean is this: TV isn’t pirated out of the box because the episodes of LOST or V or the last NY Giant football game (sorry, I’m a fan) debut on TV. I can’t find the upcoming episode of V which is on ABC tommorrow -10/10/09 – on any torrent or newsgroup. It may show up AFTER its debut on TV, but never before. There are no ‘screener’s’ floating around the newsgroups. This being said, the content on these networks becomes all that much more important. And, I believe because its so accessable, that’s one of the reasons its NOT on the newsgroups or torrents as much as the movies and music are.

-Coming up:

Wal-Mart and Target – The last DVD standing


Are CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX must haves ??

I’ve taken quite a bit of time off from posting any thoughts, but the media business is changing so rapidly that I just had to put a few thoughts down for kicks.

Question: If you were required to pay to receive the broadcast networks (as we’ve come to know them), how much is too much? That means, what is it worth to you to see shows on ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX each month? $ 1.00 a month per network, more? Would you pay to get these channels?
For years these ‘broadcast’ networks have been free, over-the-air channels that are supported by advertising. They still are. But you might say, ‘c’mon now, these are free channels’ why should I pay now? Answer: its NOT Hulu. Think about what you’d not be able to watch if you decided NOT to pay; Super Bowl, the Grammys, CSI, The Final Four, Survivor and David Letterman, The World Series and I could add another dozen or so shows and events. How about now, is $ 1.00 a month too much?
I believe that soon, we will be seeing a ‘fee’ to have these channels included in our cable packages, satellite packages, etc. And the reason we’ll see this fee is that these networks can charge for this and will most likely get it. They will charge a fee to cable op’s to carry the network and cloth them as ‘retransmission’ fees.
“Going forward, we will be seeking retransmission dollars from our distributors,” said Murdoch, FOX Chairman. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves announced that he intended to charge retransmission fees for CBS.
I think its just a matter of time before we will see those fees ‘bleed’ into our monthly bills. And once Hulu begin to charge, there won’t be anywhere else to go…except the torrents and newsgroups which are out of the reach of most people.
Welcome to the future.

TV how YOU want it and on the TV, not online…but they are stealth for the moment.

Imagine being able to turn on your tv and be faced with 3 choices; any movie old or current that you want to see, any TV show old or current that you want to watch and a large inventory or list of advertisements (both the funny ones you like and the boring ones you are sick of ). Then, let’s say you are the kind of person who hates watching ads on TV. OK, then you can watch whatever you want but you’ll pay a fee per show or movie to see it. You can always watch it again, anytime forever because it goes into your library forever.

Maybe you’re the kind of person who doesn’t mind ads. So you go through and pick out what ads you wont mind watching, then go get your movie or TV show. This won’t cost you anything because you will be watching ads. You can watch it again, anytime and forever as its put into your library. Neat huh? No plastic boxes to keep or DVD’s that get scratched, you can watch it anytime ON YOUR TV at home. Better yet, you can use one of your major credit cards to pay the fees to watch (if you are a ad-hater) and you’ll get ‘bonus’ points or in effect viewing ‘mileage’ on the card. You can use this ‘mileage’ to purchase other movies or TV shows. And here’s the coolest part; most anything that can be offered in High-Def is offered in HD for an extra small fee. But no Blue-Ray or Tivo required. And no clumsy other set-top box to install. Just a small, wireless device that just sits next to your TV. And this device is free. Sounds too good to be true. Its not and it will rear its head early next year, nationwide.

I can’t wait and I’m not telling who this is either. But its definitely very cool.

The Nielsen, Pinta and the Santa Maria – calling 1952.

While this post is about how viewers are ultimately measured, its also about the ad agencies and then their clients, the ‘big brands’ that are being billed monthly for advertising their brand on various TV outlets and others big media sources. 

Nielsen uses a technique called statistical sampling to rate the shows — the same technique that pollsters use to predict the outcome of elections. Nielsen creates a “sample audience” and then counts how many in that audience view each program. Nielsen then extrapolates from the sample and estimates the number of viewers in the entire population watching the show. That’s a simple way of explaining what is a complicated, extensive process. Nielsen relies mainly on information collected from TV set meters that it installs, and then combines this information with huge databases of the programs that appear on each TV station and cable channel.

To find out who is watching TV and what they are watching, the company gets around 5,000 households to agree to be a part of the representative sample for the national ratings estimates. Nielsen’s statistics show that 99 million households have TVs in the United States, so Nielsen’s sample is not very large. The key, therefore, is to be sure the sample is representative. Then TVs, homes, programs, and people are measured in a variety of ways.

To find out what people are watching, meters installed in the selected sample of homes track when TV sets are on and what channels they are tuned to. A “black box,” which is just a computer and modem, gathers and sends all this information to the company’s central computer every night. Then by monitoring what is on TV at any given time, the company is able to keep track of how many people watch which program.

Small boxes, placed near the TV sets of those in the national sample, measure who is watching by giving each member of the household a button to turn on and off to show when he or she begins and ends viewing. This information is also collected each night.

The national TV ratings largely rely on these meters.

Are 5,000 ‘samples’ really representative of what 100 million TV sets are ‘watching’  24 hours a day?? Someone in the household ‘pushes’ a button on a black box when he or she ends or begins viewing? I can barely get to my show on time never mind finding a button to push in the house on a little black box. Since I’m assuming that you, who are reading this right now are included in this statistic, have a TV and fall into place with these TV ‘habits’ or statistics from Nielsen ? I’m not finding fault with Nielsen. But you have to wonder how seriously does one take the ‘Nielsen’ ratings. Can’t this be done in a more accurate, better way in 2008?

I can’t help but ask: Somehow, somewhere and in some possible way, can’t the internet make this data somewhat more accurate? Am I asking too much? Comments please.

Watching the web more than TV

It will take another 3-4 years, but eventually your kids (and mine)  will be spending more time in front of the internet than their TV sets. For children ages 10 to 14 who use the Internet, the computer is a bigger draw than the TV set, according to a study recently released by DoubleClick Performics, a search marketing company. The study found that 83 percent of Internet users in that age bracket spent an hour or more online a day, but only 68 percent devoted that much time to television.

Fast forward a few years, and if you were a producer of any show bound for TV and aimed at this age group (now 14-18yrs old), you’ll want to know where and how your show will be exhibited not only on TV but the web.

Viewers spend more time in front of a TV in a single day than they do a whole month with online video but one day…

Surprised? But this is the bigger picture and important because it keeps things in perspective. This is how it is today. Consumers watched 10 billion online videos in December (comScore) . People watched an average of 3.4 hours of online during the month, up 34% from January 2007. TV audiences are shrinking. They are still big and can be huge (like the recent Superbowl numbers prove) but TV has a new competitor. The 10 billion videos watched online in December was the highest total since comScore started keeping track of the stat a year ago. Apple knows this. Apple has applied for a patent that allows widgets to be displayed on TV when you’re watching Apple TV apple.gif. So imagine watching a movie and a small search widget (with advertising embedded in it of course) can be displayed if you want it that allows you to look for any actor or production person in the movie you are watching or reference other info at IMDB, for example. Or give you the ability to chat, read news feeds, get sports scores, etc. What a nice way to integrate the internet with TV viewing. Unobtrusive, but there.

“With the writer’s strike keeping new TV episodes from reaching the airwaves, viewers have been seeking alternatives for fresh content. It appears that online video is stepping in to help fill that void.” This is what the Exec VP at comScore was quoted as saying. I’m not so sure that the writer’s strike had too much to do with these numbers.

The growth in video on the web had been steadily increasing year after year. Consumers are spending less and less time watching TV – and that’s been happening now for many, many years – consistently. This is a trend that is not going away anytime soon.

10 years from today, these numbers will look funny, but for now here is what they look like:

Google Sites google-logo.jpg once again ranked as the top U.S. video property in December with 3.3 billion videos viewed (32.6 percent share of videos), gaining 1.3 share points versus the previous month. accounted for more than 97 percent of all videos viewed at the property. Fox Interactive Media ranked second with 358 million (3.5 percent), followed by Yahoo! Sites with 340 million (3.4 percent) and Viacom Digital with 238 million (2.3 percent).

I wonder if you’ll be able to get an Apple widget on a Google Panasonic TV set next year? Hmmmm, that will be interesting.

Top U.S. Online Video Properties* by Videos Viewed
    December 2007
    Total U.S. -- Home/Work/University Locations
    Source: comScore Video Metrix

    Property                         Videos               Share (%) of
                                      (000)                   Videos

    Total Internet                10,156,199                 100.0
    Google Sites                   3,314,962                  32.6
    Fox Interactive Media            358,353                   3.5
    Yahoo! Sites                     340,409                   3.4
    Viacom Digital                   237,689                   2.3
    Microsoft Sites                  180,443                   1.8
    Time Warner Network              174,079                   1.7
    Disney Online                    123,009                   1.2
    ESPN                              84,839                   0.8
    Apple Inc.                        50,316                   0.5
    ABC.COM                           47,259                   0.5

    * Rankings based on video content sites; excludes video server networks.
      Online video includes both streaming and progressive downloads

We are getting closer…GoogleSonic TV sets!

We are swiftly approaching the convergence of the TV and the web. Google google-logo.jpg is helping this transformation by signing a deal with Panasonic today as reported by Duncan Riley at GigaOm to build and sell ‘Google’ TV sets. They are suppose to include access the YouTube, Picasa Web Albums and probably gmail, but this is not confirmed. What is confirmed is the blending of TV and the web. This implications of this deal are clear – once consumers get access to larger pipes (bandwidth) to the home, TV will be delivered over the internet. One year, we will all wake up and there will no longer be any difference between ABC-TV that I’m watching on my computer screen in my office or ABC-TV that I watch on my large flat panel TV in the living room which is framed by and delivered through a browser. I can’t wait!

This just in…Google and Simon Fuller to debut TV show online

Good Monday Morning…on the heels of my last post comes a rumor just a few hours ago that Google and Simon Fuller (American Idol fame) are collaborating on a new TV show to debut online. (think ‘prom queen’ Prom Queenbut even more production values added to the mix). Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about!

the WGA the strike and presenting the newest Network…the internet

So, we have a strikewga strike in Tinseltown and the studios SHOULD be giving the writers their fair share of future revenues that WILL be generated from viewing their work on the internet. Or maybe the writers should just form another guild entirely that is digital only for the web. It strikes me that there will be more producers and actors and writers that will migrate their efforts on the internet once its been shown that a new TV show can produce some significant coin from their debut online. Since there are many more households with broadband now than ever before I wonder how many people would watch ‘American Idol’ or ‘Lost’ online FIRST given the chance? And then watch the repeats on TV. I wonder what the online viewing numbers must measure for the advertisers to allow the web to ‘go first’. It could be an interesting paradigm shift if it happens one day.