Passages: Put a fork in me, media. I’m done!

terrywhole2As I approach my 8th decade on the planet this summer, I’ve decided to move along in my professional life to something a bit different. I’d like to share it all with you, my friends.

It’s a heady thing when people choose to read the things you write, and I’ve always been extremely grateful and humbled by that. I’ve been writing The Pomo Blog for 15 years now, and we’ve covered a lot of ground in the posts and the essays. I’ve organized groups of bloggers, helped write the book on aggregation, helped originate the idea of unbundled media, wrote about data long before anybody could grasp the meaning, innovated the concepts of Continuous News (which is now everywhere), local ad networks, and advertising as content (aka “content marketing”), and identified things that are still influencing media and far beyond, such as the concepts of spectrum within spectrum and the evolving user paradigm. I’m also the only person who continues to study postmodern journalism and its consequences for tomorrow.

And for all of that, I’m broke.

And you know why? Because the industry that I’ve been trying to help for the last 15 years, local broadcasting, doesn’t give a ripple chip about any of it. Oh, the people in the trenches certainly do, but not those who live in the towers and write the paychecks, including mine. I’m tired of beating a dead horse, and that’s what local TV has become (thanks, Harry). What used to be a thriving industry of innovation, public service, and people who wanted to change the world has become the lifeless bones of an aging and smelly corporate carcass whose owners specialize in sucking the marrow to milk whatever profit is left. These wealthy bean counters, lawyers, and “managers” beat the drums of self-righteousness and the law, while picking the bones through cost-cutting, consolidation, and clout. Am I bitter? Of course I am, but not because I’ve been rejected, but because I actually believed they would want the industry to survive and thrive the disruptions to its core. That’s not the case, however, for the true inspiration of the people who run these companies is a comfy retirement, and the pathway is happy shareholders – the people who care ONLY about profits. Those people are also a part of the 1 percent, each seeking their own comfy retirement, too. I guess I’m angry with myself for ever believing something different was possible.

And so, I don’t care anymore now, and I’ve chosen to say “f**k it.” Effective immediately, I’m removing media and new media from the focus of my attention and moving on into other parts of culture, especially religion. I’m unsubscribing from all the newsletters, RSS feeds, and anything that has anything to do with media, advertising, etc. I’ve finished a new book, “How Jesus Joined the GOP” and while it’s being edited, I’m searching for the right agent and publisher. I was responsible for executing Pat Robertson’s plan to use television to “change America for Jesus,” and I know things about that process that are both fascinating and frightening, especially as it relates to today’s political landscape.

But the most remarkable observation to me is that I have studied cultural postmodernism through a different lens than those who’ve studied it in the name of “the church” and yet we’ve come to similar conclusions. I believe I have a lot to offer this world, and that’s my goal. There may not be much in the way of profit for me financially, but I’m used to that by now. What’s clear to me today is that life itself is changing before our eyes here in the 21st Century, and it goes far beyond the limiting scope of media. That’s where I want to be and need to be. It’s calling me – quite loudly, I think – and that’s where I’m going.

There are incredible events taking place in the world of spiritual understanding. It’s a transformation brought on by the same energy and innovations that are changing media, the kind of stuff that will shock and reinvent religion’s role in culture for the better. Its exhilarating and filled with people who really care about what’s happening. They need (and I hope they want) my eyes and the knowledge I’ve acquired as a cultural observer.

So I hope you’ll join me on this journey, but if you don’t, that’s okay. I’m very proud of the work I’ve done since I left the TV News business in 1998, despite the lack of proof that it has meant anything to the industry that was my life for so long. I’m alright with that, because the end of that story hasn’t been written yet, and who really knows where anyone will end up in the sands of tomorrow? I only know one thing for certain: I have touched The Unbroken Web, and that is worth any price I have to pay in this life.

May God bless and keep you all.

Broadcasting’s disruption on display in Raleigh

NBCWRALThe affiliate switch in the Raleigh market is BIG news and yet another harbinger of things to come for broadcasting. It doesn’t matter who initiated what in this remarkable event. WRAL-TV claims they did, because NBC is the best positioned broadcast network for the future. However, many observers, such as Al Tompkins at Poynter, are blaming the tough fiscal stance CBS is taking in affiliate renewal negotiations.

The switch was prompted by a disagreement between WRAL and CBS about how much revenue paid to WRAL from from cable companies should go to the network.

It would be easy to dismiss this as just another financial consideration on the bumpy road broadcasters are trudging, but that doesn’t go deep enough. The truth is that the broadcasting business model itself is hopelessly borked, and these kinds of events are simply guideposts along the way to its inevitable collapse. Nobody wants to talk about it, least of all owners, because there’s real money in maintenance of the status quo or at least the appearance thereof.

Local television is falling off the same cliff that destroyed newspapers, but it hasn’t shown up on the bottom line yet, because ever-increasing retransmission consent fees have shielded it from reality. There is no way it can continue for long. Consumers will simply refuse to pay for it when there are cheaper alternatives available. Mass marketing continues to take blow after blow from more cost-effective digital marketing, which is actually direct marketing disguised as mass marketing. Again, nobody wants to admit this, so we all just move forward basing our value on false assumptions of an archaic model. It helps no one except the executives charged with maintaining the hunky dory appearance.

How is anyone surprised that CBS wants top compensation for its top-rated programs? One day, CBS will be a kind of cable network, because it can gain the kinds of program compensation it deserves instead of splitting that money with local affiliates. TV program distribution doesn’t require broadcast affiliates anymore. Netflix and Amazon both won Golden Globes this year. This is all being forced by consumers who are now free to protest the gluttony of 5-minute commercial breaks in “their” programs. Are we really so foolish as to think the era of audience captivity is still moving forward? So much has been written about how the people formerly known as the advertisers are now functioning as media companies themselves that it’s hard for me to believe there’s a single person left who believes the ad-supported content model remains viable as a growth strategy.

The ONLY thing local broadcasters have left is news, and it’s never been more important to be number one. These locally-produced programs historically have generated half of the typical station’s revenue. But half the revenue will never equate to 100% of the expenses, so even the viability of quality local TV news is problematic. There will be cutbacks galore, and some stations just won’t make it. 15 years ago, I suggested stations might want to spin off their news departments into wholly-owned subsidiaries and let them find their own economic justifications. At the time, this would’ve also given local news efforts an opportunity to actually compete with web companies instead of relying on the brands of the TV stations for complete sustenance. Competing as a TV station online has never made sense, and yet that’s as far as most have gotten or will ever get.

In conclusion, the event Friday in Raleigh is stunning no matter how you look at it. To me, however, it’s just further evidence of a predictable future that doesn’t look so bright for my many friends and colleagues still toiling in the trenches.

And to paraphrase George Carlin, “These are the kinds of thoughts that kept me out of the corporate board rooms.”

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 premiere 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

referral

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.