CBS disses affiliates with Star Trek announcement

CBS announced today that it is creating a new version of Star Trek for distribution in 2017. It’s not a shock, because the show’s 50th anniversary is coming up next year, and Star Trek is one of the all-time greatest franchises, regardless of the iteration.

What is going to shock the universe in the days ahead is the announcement that the program is only going to be available “exclusively” via the CBS All Access streaming service, according to the CBS press release:

The première episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access, the Network’s digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service.

The new program will be the first original series developed specifically for U.S. audiences for CBS All Access, a cross-platform streaming service that brings viewers thousands of episodes from CBS’s current and past seasons on demand, plus the ability to stream their local CBS Television station live for $5.99 per month. CBS All Access already offers every episode of all previous “Star Trek” television series.

No reader here will be surprised by this, because it’s been inevitable since the dawn of the Web. Let’s face it: direct to consumers is the most efficient way to distribute programs, and this announcement will be just the beginning. Watch for major conflicts over this and what will ultimately become the preferred method by which the legacy networks speak to their viewers.

The broadcasting industry, however, is not going to be happy, and I expect its objections to be loud and often.

Online video discontent — a rant

Eleven years after Microsoft established the standard for pre-roll video advertising at 7–12 seconds, the online video “industry” is still stuck on the idea that broadcast standards should prevail. This is a sickness, my friends, and it’s killing opportunities for legacy media companies who cannot or will not accept that the Web is a different animal entirely. I am so angry about this that I could spit, so I apologize ahead of time for the rant.

My dander is up over a piece on Digiday (great website, BTW) offering quotes from its publishing conference in Miami this week. The issue is pre-roll advertising, and the article is The biggest hurdles publishers face in monetizing digital video:

What’s your biggest challenge in monetizing video? In short, too many agencies are still trying to recycle their 30-second TV ads for the desktop and mobile. There are viewability requirements to be satisfied. What works for the advertiser often results in a bad user experience.

Why, oh why is this still an issue for us?

Let’s review. Legacy media did NOT invent the Web. Microsoft, a tech company, was ahead of the game back in 2004 when MSN created its “Video 2″ ad product and ventured forward in the field of online video. They may not have invented the pre-roll, but they studied it, pioneered it, and found in 2004 that 7–12 seconds was optimal length. Here’s the money quote from an article published in MediaDailyNews back then:

Hadley (Eric Hadley, director of marketing and advertising for MSN) said that ads on MSN Video 2 will appear “somewhat like TV ads,” except that only one 7–12-second video ad will appear for each piece of content. Hadley added that while consumers don’t necessarily need a broadband connection to view MSN video, the video capabilities are limited for narrowband users.

The day after I published my story on this, MediaDailyNews — at Microsoft’s request — altered the text of the article and changed that 7–12 seconds to 15–30 seconds. Why? Because that’s what Madison Avenue would go along with, and they controlled the money that would be spent via MSN Video 2. They wanted nothing to do with 7–12 seconds. I know this, because I investigated and spoke with Mr. Hadley and others, including those at MediaPost.

The point is that Madison Avenue is still calling the shots, while online legacy video companies are sinking fast, because people — as Microsoft knew 11 years ago — won’t sit still for anything beyond 7–12 seconds. Rather than accept reality, we chose to stick our fingers in the eyes of consumers, and now we’re upset because they’ve respond with ad blockers.

Here’s the thing. Corporations don’t have to change. They can do what they damned well please, including acting like fools in the face of compelling evidence of such behavior’s danger. If they do, however, they give up the right to whine — especially to the government — about matters that originate from this unwillingness to change, and that includes anything associated with the money tree they’re trying to protect.

I’ve begged people to open their eyes about this since even before 2004, but the industry would rather die than change, and that’s the truth!

End of rant.

Just sayin…

Dear people.

Once upon a time there was a writer who tried to present logical views of tomorrow in a rapidly-changing media universe. His words were rejected, and the reasons given were usually based in the idea that this prophet’s projections were a) not our business model b) too negative or c) my favorite: too out there (in other words, crazy). This was one of them: “Creating Spectrum Within Spectrum,” published in September of 2007.

I’m waiting (but not holding my breath) for an arrangement between all incumbents that allows them to move their competition between each other to a single platform on the Web, to operate as they wish within this specialized platform. Think of it as moving their existing spectrum to cyberspace and operating therein. If you want network television, for example, you go to the network television platform. If you want movies, you go to the movie section, and so forth. This could actually be done — and it would be useful for “consumers” — but it would require individual companies within these industries to work together, and that is very unlikely to happen.

For local media, the same thing could be done. If users wanted access to local news video, they would go to one place, where all local news video was available. This would create a form of spectrum within the whole, where individual players could duke it out just like they do in their own universe today. The problem, again, is that it would require separate companies to work together, and that’s highly problematic. The number one station would tell the others to go to hell, because they think they can a) do just fine on their own and b) it would “cheapen” them by putting their work on the same stage as their competitors.

Would this station prefer their work to stand alone as a blip in the overall spectrum of the Web or be a part of a bigger blip, a piece of spectrum designed specifically to better enable users to find their work? And this same number one station is stratching its head, trying to figure out how it can attract a larger audience.

For the answer to this dilemma, let’s go back downtown, to that piece of closed retail spectrum. As people moved to the suburbs, the retail world understood that it had to be where the people were. It could not expect the people to come to them.

And so the suburban shopping mall was created, and what is a mall but a group of competitors banded together for the convenience of shoppers? Would the number one department store refuse to anchor the mall, because its chief competitor was on the other end? Of course not!

Fast forward to today, where my friend Harry Jessell of TVNewsCheck and NetNewsCheck fame published an article: TV News Groups To Offer Local News App.

“In the ideal world, we aspire for it to be an iconic destination for people who care about local news,” says Louis Gump, the CEO who developed similar news apps for CNN and The Weather Channel.

“You can see multiple stations potentially in the area where you live and you can also get content from other places you care about, either because you are from there or you have friends who live there.”

…The charter station groups insure a large initial footprint for the service. Collectively, they operate 112 news-producing stations in 84 markets, including eight of the Top 10 and 17 of the Top 25. There will be multiple stations in 21 of the markets.

That’s just for starters. NewsON intends to sign on other stations or “affiliates” to stretch the footprint across the entire nation. “I would be ecstatic to see one station out of every market. We would like to serve everybody in the U.S. with content that it relevant to them. That a big audacious goal.

“I’m not assuming that every last station group will participate, but I want them to know that everybody is welcome to participate in some form or fashion.”

And so, once again, the writer rests his case. How do you judge a prophet? If the things he says come to pass.

Just sayin…

The Referral-Driven Web


The vast majority of online consumers of news and information connect with content through what Google calls “referrals,” and in my experience and study, second place isn’t even close.

This phenomenon has been growing for years, but the rise of social media has accelerated it to the point where it cannot be ignored. In fact, we’re at the place where it’s safe to say — with a great deal of certainty — that for traditional media companies, online distribution is referral-driven. Our online strategies and tactics, therefore, need to be centered around this reality, and that includes making money.

I like to use Google Analytics, because it provides an apples-to-apples comparison with most of the Web, including local businesses. If you’re going to use data to sell your services, you might as well use a reference that your customers understand. There are many other analytics systems available to media companies, but understanding your web usage through Google’s eyes provides standards accepted by our real online competition — the pureplays. We can only gain.

Session Acquisition is a key component of website understanding: how and where do our “eyeballs” come from? Google identifies people who visit a site by rules-based groupings known as “Channels,” which is their way of quantifying sessions. These involve several types of referrals, including social, search, email, and others.

Of the limited sites I’ve studied, around 3/4 of traffic comes via referrals. They tend to view one page and leave via that same page. Contemporary media websites have become mostly mobile, as shown by shrinking numbers of sessions recorded as originating from desktops. This is important, because the vast majority of those sessions are acquired via referrals.

The top referrer I’ve seen is Facebook, and its dominance is enormous. A recent site I studied revealed over half of all traffic (52%) came via Facebook, and most of those (68%) came via mobile.

This strongly suggests that people themselves are showing media companies how they want their content served, and our response is crucial.

Will we force them into an infrastructure built upon our wants and needs, or will we create an experience for users that will encourage them to come back? Remember, this is a world of abundance, not scarcity, and that means it’s entirely a pull medium.

Attraction works better than promotion. People don’t have to tolerate our interruptions anymore, because they can find what they need elsewhere. Oh, there are occasionally “must see” pieces of video, for example, but exclusivity is an advantage only where distribution can be controlled.

People can find them almost anywhere today, even down to just the core scene or scenes. Trying to protect this offline advantage online forces us into relentlessly playing defense at a time when we’d be better off adhering to the new rules being written by the people formerly known as the audience.

For ideas about how to create a favorable pull experience for users, we need to look to new media companies, those who aren’t bound by the concept of competing online as an offline company.

Click on any link from ESPN or Digiday, for example, and you’ll find the piece you’re seeking is at the top of an infinite scroll. I mean, how smart is this? If users are going to view only one page via referrals, why not make that page into something that allows (not forces) them to scroll on beyond a single story? We’re the ones who believe the one-page equals one-story model is what we need. despite the evidence that people don’t like to click, especially via mobile.

The question hounding media companies since the dawn of the Internet and its World Wide Web has been “how can we use this invention to further our business model?” Newspapers created a response that was identical to its offline products and even carried the same language with words like “pages” and the “fold.” TV stations responded initially with the newspaper model, but when we finally got around to video, we brought with us the 30-second spot. Brand extension has always been our goal, for it’s the power of those brands that fueled the business of mass media, a scarcity that only those with a license or a printing press could provide. We had the levers that those with money could pull to grease the wheels of commerce, and it was a heady thing.

As we’ve learned by now, however, the Web is nothing like what we imagined, and evidence is now coming forth that offers a very clear understanding of how users connect with media content. We owe it to ourselves to look at this with a clean whiteboard. Our future depends on it.

Google rewards responsive design

Screen Shot 2015-04-18 at 8.24.35 AMThe search engine giant (and smart, smart, smart network master) is tweaking its MOBILE search algorithm, and the result could be a disaster of Biblical proportions for all those TV station websites still clinging to the bloated design of popular CMS providers. As I’ve written a billion times, the path to downstream irrelevancy for broadcasters is clinging to old models, and these CMS templates are as old as it gets in web years. According to the AP, Google’s move will take place Tuesday and will “sway where millions of people shop, eat and find information.”

Google’s move will push every online provider to be more “mobile friendly,” and most TV station websites aren’t.

To stay in Google’s good graces, websites must be designed so they load quickly on mobile devices. Content must also be easily accessible by scrolling up and down — without having to also swipe to the left or right. It also helps if all buttons for making purchases or taking other actions on the website can be easily seen and touched on smaller screens.

If a website has been designed only with PC users in mind, the graphics take longer to load on mobile devices and the columns of text don’t all fit on the smaller screens, to the aggravation of someone trying to read it.

Google has been urging websites to cater to mobile device for years, mainly because that is where people are increasingly searching for information.

Go read the whole article via NetNewsCheck, because it’s filled with important stuff.

The essence of the problem is that local broadcasters are still competing with each other online. They’re trying to be TV stations online, because they cannot or will not look beyond their own industry to see what’s really happening in the networked world. TV stations are mass media vehicles and the “broad” in broadcasting is rightly interpreted as one-stop-shops for all entertainment and information. This is ridiculous online, but TV people keep adding content and sections to their sites. And of course when you do this, you feel obligated to provide a doorway to all that precious cargo, so deep navigation becomes an essential part of any page. Moreover, an interrupted television signal is an emergency for broadcast stations, so the same paranoia is applied to their websites, which elevates the importance of stability in their approach to content management. These are the things to which broadcasters cling, and Google is about to shove it all right up their backsides. Why? Because none of it is “mobile friendly.”

And good luck with those apps of yours, too. If Google’s spiders can’t see it, it means nothing in search.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is an addendum to my essay Time to Revisit Our Mobile Strategy.

NAB opens while surrounded by warning signs

Here is the latest in my ongoing series, Local Media in a Postmodern World:

Headlines Shout the Warning Signs for Broadcasters

NAB2015Thousands of people associated with the broadcast industry swarm the convention center in Las Vegas every year for exposure to the latest in industry thinking and products. This is all well and good, but as I’ve said many times in the past, the National Association of Broadcasters does a disservice to its members by only discussing and presenting technology that helps broadcasters be more efficient, instead of providing a platform for debating its disrupted business model. It’s eerily similar to my satirical post a couple of years ago about a 19th Century whale oil convention: Ignoring the Obvious.

While regular readers here might not find anything new in this essay, the validation provided by recent headlines proclaims a loud “amen” to what we’ve all known for years: broadcasting is in the midst of a raging storm. Sadly, you won’t hear anything about that from the NAB.