Interactive Channel Musings

Shifting Channels – Are you Ready for the Big One

2012-01-16T23:35:00.003-07:00

Two recent announcements caught my attention this morning:

Cadburylaunches its new Bubbly chocolate bar on Google +

Yeah, yeah – so what? The Web has been eating into television and radio channels for years, sowhy are these two announcements so intriguing?

Well, maybe it’s because of all the other little quakes rockingmy TV, computer, radio, tablet and phone. Broadcast is dead. Long live broadcast AND on demand, on anydevice, with interactive extras and hyper-targeted advertising– via the Web,err, TV, I mean desktop, or is that smartphone? Ever watch FuseTV or G4 channels? (I love “Moviesthat Don’t Suck,” but I digress). These new media channels were designedfrom the get go to integrate TV, Web and games (or music) into one. They arethe multi-tasking, multi-device, multimedia and interactive entertainmentplatforms of the future.

The digital and broadcast tectonic plates are crashing intoeach other with impressive force. Oldschool players with worthy content won’t be annihilated, but they will bereshaped through M&A or content sales if they don’t respond fast enough. Evenold guard CBS launched CBS Interactiveyears ago and is leading the charge with CBSMobile, featuring mobile games, live chats with fellow viewers andbackstage insights with venerable favorites, like, Abby Sciuto (PauleyPerrette) from NCIS. Is CBS the “fused, interactive media channel” modelfor the Boomer generation or are we all looking for the Bob channel, and Marychannel and Seymour channel, a la Pandora. Is Google+ the key?

Hulu is differentiatingitself from other “content channels” with original programming. Hmmm… “on demand” must not be enough. Canthey sustain themselves via the “broadcast programming demographic” advertisingdollar? They’ve simply shifted place,but not product. Google is bolsteringits online advertising juggernaut with Google+deep profiling and associated business services. Will it prove too targeted for certain product and service advertisers?

Well – I’m sure you all have your own opinion, but if youare a marketer and you are not paying attention, it’s time to get ready for thebig. Channels are folding on top of eachother, leaving both a path of destruction and incredible new landscapes for allgenerations of media consumers, content creators and advertisers. Are you ready?

Adding Comfort and Common Sense to Your Digital Channel Strategy

2011-11-11T14:18:00.001-07:00

Wow! Talk about mind blowing, common sense marketing that too many of us have forgotten.

If you are reading this you probably already know that at the most basic level, channels bring products and services (or content) to your customers. They're all about convenience and efficiency. Communications and computing products also double as digital channels. A means for us to conveniently and efficiently find, browse, consume and share information and content.

Steve Smith writes one of those articles that will make you forever think differently about interactive channels. Between the lines of the Mobile Insider article, Mobile Is the Web We Really Always Wanted All Along you'll find a good dose of common sense marketing. Common sense that has been beat out of most of us in pursuit of all things digital. It's time to put the customer front and center in the interactive channels equation. I'm all for data and the amazing things you can do with it, but data without putting it into the context of being human, won't help you achieve your business goals.

The long and the short of Steve Smith's article is that people like to consume media and engage better with brands when they consume it "appropriately and comfortably" - in a big chair, on the beach, feet up, while killing time at the DMV or waiting at a doctors office. Well, how about a big giant, "Duh!" This human behavior hasn't changed in decades.

Common Sense
If you're like me, as much as I am attached to my computer, when I am not working, I really don't want to be attached to my desk to watch TV, catch up on reading or search for recipes. That doesn't mean I don't still want access to media and information. My butt simply cannot tolerate any more office chair time and I need to be closer to friends or family - or just get some energy from a bunch of strangers at the coffee house or farmer's market. Even when I am working, I still look forward to plane rides where I grab my paper magazines and pen and start ripping out pages and writing notes for later action. Why? Because I can engage and consume on my terms. Appropriate tools for appropriate use models.

Comfort

I don't anyone who enjoys pleasure reading at a 90 degree angle - do you? A tablet or pad, e-reader, smartphone and PNDs all give us comfortable access to digital content on our sofas, in our cars, at the pool and in the sports bleachers. They are personal devices and comfortably go with us anywhere. A computer is a work appliance. Doing research at a desktop, with a full keyboard and big screen and lots of pictures and videos is an awesome thing. I can write notes, cut and paste notes into documents and integrate and interact with lots of things all at once. But we are human and crave diversity and mobility. Just because we want to be plugged into the the Matrix 24/7 doesn't mean we want to be tethered to the comm port and stuck in our cubicle pods in the fetal position. We were born for mobility.

Somehow, in all the digital innovation madness, we've forgotten the basic tenants of why channels exist - to reach our customers - wherever they may be. While I love my electric purple office chair, it is not where I consume all of my digital content. And somewhere I remember hearing that farmers - out in their fields and on their tractors - are some of the biggest consumers of mobile digital content in the US. Weather and soil conditions are dynamic - as are the people who consume those services and the commodity markets that affect them.

When you take into account who your customers are, where they are, and from what device they prefer (or need) to consume your digital content, you can't miss on the basics of your digital channel strategy.

Marketing and IT - Joint Planning can Save your Interactive Channels

2011-09-02T14:30:00.001-06:00

As marketers, we don't always look at the technology issues behind the scenes of our interactive channels, but since most are digitally based, we can't bury our heads and ignore the business impact of underlying technical decisions. Today's marketers have to build an interactive channel directly to their IT departments. Without it, it's impossible to optimize your user experience, reduce your costs, maximize your reach or even set your pricing strategies.

This Information Week article, entitled Google App Engine Price Hike Stuns Developers is a great example of the interdependencies of interactive channels on technology decisions. Many app and Web development and distribution platforms (both desktop and mobile) are free or low cost. And many of them are good. But, a business is a business and everyone has to make money. So if you are building your interactive channel strategy and your pricing or service cost models are based on today's platform or tool pricing - stop, take a hard look, and ask if the current pricing is sustainable. While you're at it, if you are looking at open source tools, ask your IT team if the code base will develop fast enough to keep up with your business or marketing objectives. Software by committee always takes longer to develop.

The Cloud is here and with it come many opportunities, but oftentimes, with SaaS and PaaS services, the real costs of doing business are not clear until service levels scale. In this Google App Engine example, even with prior warning, people were surprised by the change, which in some cases doubled the cost of using their App Engine. This can be a huge profit hit to monthly subscription services or low-cost consumer Web apps or services. No one can plan for every inevitability, but a few questions and a few hours of due diligence alongside your IT counterparts can ensure you have a sustainable interactive channel strategy.

Data, Consistency and Relevance. Must Haves for Channel Marketers

2011-08-05T11:13:00.005-06:00

Interactive channels are "interactive." That means knowing your partners and customers and being able to have an intelligent conversation. That is driven by data.

It also means that those marketers responsible for managing those channels need to be tightly coordinated with with the rest of the company to set proper expectations and deliver consistent and/or complementary messages between your channels.

This McKinsey article does a great job of describing how we all need to be marketers and how marketing permeates every facet of today's businesses.

There are two key steps to achieving this goal:

1. Data - The Key to Understanding your Audience(s): This should be based upon whatever criteria is important to your business - how partners and customers connect with you, their preferences, their behaviors... Today's marketers must capture and learn how to extract the value from the data filling up corporate databases. It is one of your most competitive weapons. Data and turning that data into a meaningful interactive experience is the "new" marketing. It is the first step to determining your product/service, channel and communications strategies.

2. Communicate Consistently and Appropriately: within and across each audience or channel. If your communications are not relevant and timely, or if you send mixed messages to your audiences then you are undermining all your great planning and strategy. Don't let this happen. As the McKinsey article points out, this is the responsibility of all employees. Everyone in the company should understand their role in "marketing" to your customers and business partners.

In support of the second point above, I've recently come across a unique Messaging Integration Matrix tool created by boutique firm Competitive Advantage Management. It is designed to help businesses achieve the exact kind of integrated user experience set out in the McKinsey article. It's worth checking out.

As for me, well, I'm passionate about all the amazing things you can do with the data. Data access is the foundation of my current business, so I am speaking from experience. However you get or source your data, it is the key to relevance, regardless of your channel, product or communications strategies. When you use it wisely and respect it, your customers and your partners will share even more.

Mobile Web User Experience - Location Matters

2011-03-23T16:08:00.016-06:00

Took a trip between Denver and Boulder today and decided to test our new mobile Web performance app. I wanted to see how location affects Web page load speed in a mobile browser. In other words, what is the REAL USER EXPERIENCE for mobile customers and employees.

My methodology was simple: Same device, same carrier network, same Web page - so the only difference was my location - which you can see charted on this map. (And yes, I was either on foot or safely stopped the car each time I ran a test).

Here are the results fastest to slowest (all in seconds):

5.26

5.54

5.72

9.42

18.2

18.56

18.7

20.6

22.46

32.25

What Does This Mean to Mobile Marketers and Product Managers?

If you are looking at the Mobile Web as one of your content distribution, app delivery or marketing channels, make sure you understand everything that goes into the mobile user experience. Mobile is different, so be sure to look at the user experience from the user's perspective.

Consider sending less content to users in a location where performance is known to be slow - fewer words, fewer or smaller images and use compression.

Putting Interactive Mobile Marketing in Context

2010-09-29T16:56:00.009-06:00

Do you outsource your mobile marketing campaigns to an agency? Most have platforms (or use platforms) that can send broadcast emails or text messages (SMS) to your target list. Okay – so that’s just one side of the equation. Typically, there is some sort of call to action with a link back to your Website to do something. That something could be a coupon, free sample request, Webinar registration, playing a promotional game, or requesting a product brochure. If that something requires filling out a form or entering more than a 4-digit PIN, will a mobile user abandon the effort?

How a customer interacts with your website or “campaign site” is your responsibility - regardless of who writes the code or manages the distribution process. Make sure your agency understands mobile use behavior beyond text messaging or mini-site development. Mobile campaigns should be integrated into your sales and customer retention strategy. To do so requires you have some context about your customer, which makes the interaction personal, local and optimized for their mobile device. If your agency is not thinking about context, ask them to. If they don't respond, get a new agency.

Already building mobile apps? Instead of creating a one-time use promotional mobile app, consider building a re-usable context app and simply change your Web content to reflect your current goals – just as you do for customers arriving via a desktop computer. Think of your app as an interactive “loyalty” or “affinity” card that lives on the device and let’s the user update their “profile” or “preferences, even when they are disconnected from your website. With access to contextual data, you can quickly and easily customize and optimize your Web campaigns for mobile users.

Never built a mobile app? Worried about the download? Millions of mobile users download novelty apps every month. If you offer customers something of value, they’ll download a small app to access that recurring value. Your only barrier to success is determining how your customers define value. And since mobile is the most personal of all the interactive channels, use the flexibility of the Web and personalization to your advantage ...and always remember to respect customer choice about what data to share and when to share it. It's a great way to build trust.

A build once, use many times, contextual app approach can engage and entangle your mobile customers to a whole new level. It can be both effective and cost-effective. What you offer your customers each time they visit your site or respond to a mobile campaign, can be as personal or generic as best suits your needs and strategy. Budgets are tight. Mobile is hot. Make the most of it!

Marketers Take Charge of the Mobile Channel

2010-09-01T22:09:00.007-06:00

Mobile can be a challenge. But it can also be an incredibly powerful interactive channel. That means real-time; give and take; a true conversation with your customers, employees or partners. It’s every marketer’s dream. So what’s the key to interactive mobile marketing?

DATA.

I know, you thought I was going to say something sexy or profound.

Okay, I’m not going all geeky on you, but today’s enterprise and consumer marketers know that data is the key to creating relevance, managing policies, and delivering an amazing user experience. It’s the key to knowing your audience and building trust and loyalty. It is the foundation of good marketing. You can’t create a compelling dialog, message, promotion or product if you don’t know your audience.

The Web is interactive. It can remember my name, the books I’ve purchased or the background picture I like best - but for the most part, it’s not personal. It doesn’t follow me everywhere I go. Now a smartphone – that’s personal AND it gives me the ability to marry content with contact. It’s a phone. It’s a Web browser. It’s two mints in one!

The point is, that it’s capable of combining both voice and data on the same device. They can interact with each other, so you can interact more personally with your customers.

A mobile app has it’s place, but you can’t customize it for each user. With a Web-based approach, you can. You can take charge of your mobile channel by sticking to the basics.

Know your customers. Ask them their preferences. Deliver relevant content.
Know what their device is capable of and deliver content that looks good on their device, not someone else’s.
If location matters to your service or campaign know their location. Deliver local results or content, without asking them to type in info every time they change location.
Always give your customers the opportunity to say, “NO” to sharing personal information. You’ll earn their trust by respecting their privacy.

Mobile doesn’t have to be some miniaturized or watered down version of your website. It can be more than a text campaign. Apps are cool, but they can’t drive the level of interaction and personalization that the Web can when you really know your customers. Talk to IT. Let them know what you need. Access to enabling technology is no longer the issue. The only thing keeping your mobile channel from being truly interactive is the absence of mobile user data and marketing making its voice heard.

It’s time for marketers to flex their creative muscles by using data, the Web and the smartphone explosion to marry content and contact. It’s time to make your mobile channel truly interactive.

App Stores - Are they worth the Price of Admission?

2010-05-21T09:29:00.004-06:00

Google Plans Store For Web Apps -- InformationWeek

Hmmm. It appears that Google is looking to directly monetize search outside of advertising and corporate search. This makes sense from a business perspective, but does it signal a fundamental shift in repositioning search to "Discovery"? It almost feels like a product line extension - same technology, repackaged. Is discovery worth 30% to a software developer. Couldn't I just search the general Web using the same tags or keywords on any any search engine. Sure as a developer, I'll need to pay for keywords to rise to the top, but it doesn't cost me 30% of my gross product revenue.

An app store is not marketing, recommending or supporting any given product - all the things a retailer or value-add reseller does for about the same margin. So, is discovery really worth 30%? Is distribution being artificially controlled via the app store model? When there are hundreds of thousands of titles in app store, what is your 30% really getting you?

Physical distribution margins are not even close to 30% - never have been for software, not even in the 80's. So unless my app store is actually proactively marketing my app, this seems like a high price to pay when I could have delivered it over-the air or via a standard PC download from my website.

Since my company develops software, I have to look at this positioning shift with a wary eye. Has Web 2.0 figured out that free is not a business model and ad revenue has its limits? If so, this is a good thing and sanity is returning to Web. It is up to the software developers channel to determine whether or not they are getting value for their money. Ask the hard questions. Is the app store just another form of a walled garden disguised as a better user experience or is there real value for your business? Is it a requirement of using the OS, or just an option? And what if you are buying for a business, can I buy a master copy and provision it all employees from one server?

Multi-channel strategies exist because people like to buy (or download) where they want to buy (or download). A "great" user shopping experience is more than just the buying/download process. It is also about how you learn about a product or service and where you can purchase it. Making it easy regardless of the "storefront" is key. Today, while I can find iPhone apps on "open" stores, such as Handango, as soon as I want to buy something I am redirected to Apple, so I cannot consolidate with my Android or Blackberry purchases.

The best platform vendors will build this level of flexibility into their software and business models. Making it easy regardless of the "storefront" or payment method is key. Forcing users into a single behavioral model - which is different for every platform - will simply drive developers and users to seek new, simple and more uniform Web-based approaches to software distribution and discovery.

Cross-Platform Mobile Web - No Artificial Channel Boundaries

2010-01-06T14:23:00.005-07:00

I normally write about interactive channels - and The Mobile Web" is certainly the newest and hottest of all the interactive media channels. But I will argue that there is only one Web and it should (and can) support mobile and desktop Web services regardless of device (smartphone, "superphone", netbook, game device, laptop, desktop, e-reader & every other new device we haven't yet imagined). And by Web services, I mean any Web interaction/transaction beyond static brochure ware. If you have to sign in, login, type in a form or a search box, download something or in any other way have a two-way communication with a Web application/Web site, then by my definition, it is a Web service.

The history of the Mobile Web should really be the Mobile Anti-Web. The Web is OPEN and the Mobile Web has been CLOSED. Carrier Walled Gardens. Handset/OS maker controlled App Stores. Even browser companies with cross platform support - if you use their browser (what about the other 75% of the population). So is this the mobile Web or the Verizon Web, or the Apple Web? Maybe the Google, Blackberry, Ovi or Mozilla Web. What ever happened to just "The Web"?!

Well mobile Web services or Mobile SaaS is designed to open the Web to all mobile users, regardless of their device, OS or brand of browser. The only requirement for delivering a Web service is an HTTP connection and browser (not one that only connects back to the carrier's Web portal). The browser lets you connect to any Web site. It may or may not be formatted properly for mobile (or your browser), but you can access it (permissions permitting, of course).

Okay marketing, sales, service and biz dev folks - what if your Web service knew that a mobile device was knocking on the door? What if it new who was actually visiting, and where they were? What if the Web service knew the user's security permissions, their advertising preferences or whether or not their battery charge was strong enough to complete a download? What if the Web could know who, what and where about every mobile user? And what if it could know all of this without asking the user to type in or fill in the majority of this information (a real pain on those little keyboards). And what if the user (or business) could define with whom they were willing to share their information? Well, then you can personalize, localize and appropriately mobilize (or not) your Web services.

Well, that is what my company has been working on, delivering this contextual Who, What & Where data via the Web browser to the Web server for use in any Web service/Web application. We've been shipping Windows Mobile and Blackberry versions of our software for the past year, and now we have achieved true cross-platform support, successfully delivering this data from Symbian, Android and iPhone devices up to a Web server. You can check out these Web pages that "echo-back" the data being sent from the device to our little application that shows the arriving data. Take a look and think about how you could grow your business, increase productivity or gain a competitive advantage through the personalization, localization and mobilization of your Web services.

Android

Symbian

iPhone

Free Trial of Windows Mobile or Blackberry

YOU - The Newest YOU - The Newest Communications Channel

2009-12-15T14:26:00.003-07:00

All right, get ready for a long one… I’m breaking the bloggers rule of short and sweet – damn the consequences. Proceed at your own risk.

I’m a bit of a privacy freak - particularly when it comes to digital privacy. I don’t have anything in particular to hide, just something I inherited from my family. I believe that each individual has a right to privacy (unless they break the law) and should be able to control that privacy. I’m posting this blog, so choosing to give up a bit of my own privacy, in hopes to make a handful of people more aware, ask tough questions, and take some form of action, be it educating your children, having a water cooler discussion, changing your online behavior or service provider, or contacting your elected officials. So what does this have to do with channels?

Today, most of our media channels are, or are becoming interactive. We watch CNN and Twitter our favorite talking head. We post comments to blogs. We update our Facebook page, email & text. If you are part of the Google Voice Beta, you can let Google transcribe your phone messages into an email, creating a voice to text, cross channel communication. In effect, YOU and ME are creating a new user generated content (UGC) channel – The You Channel. We no longer use the Web to simply read information, we also create Web content via social networks, blogs, uploaded photos, FarmVille purchases, Second Life simulations, emails and now phone transcripts.

The companies enabling, hosting, and transacting this very cool technology track everything we do, and now with GPS-enabled mobile devices, can track where we go and help us find our friends (and enemies). This allows them to deliver targeted content and ads, so you and I are more likely to open our wallets or keep coming back. The better the user targeting, the higher the ROI and the premium ad or subscription fee. I’m a marketer and a consumer. I appreciate getting stuff that interests me am more likely to spend my limited marketing dollars delivering ads/content to someone more likely to care about my product. In fact, (and as a disclaimer) my company offers software that can enable this level of targeting for mobile Web services. We have chosen to do so in a way that can gives the user or business control over what personal data is collected, shared, and with whom. But, I digress…

You’ve heard the phrase, “He who controls the information, has the power.” Well companies, like Google, have become very good at what they do, and have become very powerful indeed. That leads to new customers, such as the US Government, and new uses for their technology and services. What is just becoming clear to many people is exactly what those alternative uses are. Just like anything, this information can be used for good or evil. From a practical perspective, there is simply too much data for the average person to maliciously use it.

So, what about the non-average person or powerful organization? http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people ValleyWag blogger, Ryan Tate, editorializes on a recent CNBC interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, expressing his concerns over how this data is used:

An interesting follow-up by Julie Bort appeared on Network World’s GoogleSubnet:

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48975?source=NWWNLE_nlt_daily_am_2009-12-14

And a third by Robert Hansen at Internet Evolution:

http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?doc_id=185755&f_src=ieupdate

This one is really worth reading the comments, as it gives a balanced view of the impact on You and Me of user generated content.

Are you still with me?

Lets roll back the clock to 1982. If I only read the comics and obituaries for a month, nobody knew and nobody cared. If I bought a book, nobody cared except my local bookseller who might want to recommend something similar the next time I stopped by. Fast forward to 2009. Now, it is possible to know the specific comic or obituary I read and every book I buy, along with any review or comment I write. I am, whether I like it or not, a contributing member of The YOU Channel every time I search, post, buy or social network.

Why is this relevant? Because there is a huge lack of context behind this data. Am I researching a novel, seeing if the body I dumped in the river has been identified, or just quirky? The book I bought, was it for me – or perhaps a gift? True story: Back in the 80’s I started receiving Soldier of Fortune and a SWAT supply catalog. It took me awhile to figure out why somebody thought I cared about knives hidden in belt buckles, but best I could determine, I bought The Anarchists Cookbook for a friend who was thinking about writing a novel and needed some background information. It was a Christmas present and not relevant to my personal interests – or behavior. Okay – that was a marketing targeting error, but my point is that if this happened today, I would likely end up on a terrorist watch list and unbeknownst to me, have all my electronic and telephonic communications monitored by Uncle Sam, courtesy of Google, Microsoft or Barnes & Noble. This month Yahoo has actually been testifying to the FTC on just these digital privacy issues. (BTW, check out Kara Swisher’s Ethics Statement. This is how it should be done.)

And that is my other point. Political commentary aside, consider the military contracts with Blackwater to run operations and provide security. It seems a logical extension that our intelligence services would also contract with our communications channel companies to provide data collection and monitoring services. The telephone carriers have revenue-generating programs available to law-enforcement for just this purpose – with online access to track a mobile user’s location. Unlike wire-tapping, the details are fuzzy about how access to this information is granted. It’s a brave new world out there, so Web poster and cell phone user, or should I say, “youser”, beware.

Okay, before I start sounding too much like a conspiracy theorist – I am actually, a reasonably trusting person - it is the shifting role of media from watchdog to watcher that has me concerned. It should have you concerned, too. The migration of broadcast media to digital, interactive media has transformed what you and I say and do into a youser-generated public channel. We generate the content, but we don’t really control its distribution (ever use a Facebook application?). Our technological advances, particularly in the area of communications technology ALWAYS have a huge social impact – paper and ink, typewriters, the printing press, the telephone, radio, television, the computer, the internet. All have been socially transforming and all have lead to enhanced mass communications – the media channels, as we know them today.

Historically, our media channels played a key role in holding the government, businesses and powerful individuals accountable for their actions. Media companies took this role seriously and applied balanced judgment, not strictly profit-based judgment. Rarely was information taken out of context or someone tried in the court of public opinion to create a titillating headline or sound bite. In short, responsible journalism was the standard.

In today’s society, profits and “the scoop” seem to trump common sense and getting the facts right. Ethical lines have blurred and are justified because, technically, it’s legal. Everyone is a citizen journalist. Once it’s out – it’s difficult to tell what is fact or opinion – spoof or truth. You Channel content can have a lingering affect on persons and organizations, both positive and negative. Education and legislation is woefully behind these technology advances. And as content and market capitalization have shown, there is clearly a tremendous need for personal expression and sharing.

The YOU Channel is here to stay – love it or hate it. So, youser, beware and think twice about what you share, what you say. Contribute responsibly and hope your online neighbor does the same. The only one watching your back is you (and 6,803,370,061* billion of your closest friends).

*US Census Bureau worldwide population

2009-08-31T11:18:00.003-06:00

I just read a very thought provoking article by Jordan Golson of GigaOm entitled: "Book Publisher: e-Books Will Be Our Downfall."

It got me thinking about how technology has changed our personal behavior and along with that, our distribution channels for certain goods & services. E-Books and E-Readers, such as the Kindle, along with distribution "centers" such as Amazon for books or Apple iTunes Store for music, add convenience to the buying process, but they also alter the experience. Sometimes this is good, sometimes, not so much.

What value do they bring beyond price & convenience? Do they market - sort of. They provide a search/discovery tool and can make suggestions based upon what other buyers who have purchased the same movie, book or music have also purchased. They provide a place for users to rate creative content, but most people don't bother taking the time. They don't coordinate book signings. They don't provide book editing services. They don't provide demographic data to writers to help them with plots or sales. There data is different & their resources are limited. Distributors have always had amazing databases. It's just easier to access them now, but it is equally as useful online or off.

There is certainly more that these e-distributors can do, but it doesn't spell the end of book publishing as we know it. It does mean the the book publishers need to do a better job of communicating the value they bring to the writer, the distributor, the retailer (or e-tailer) and the reader. People abandon behavior when it no longer serves any purpose. Book publishing is not dead. Book distribution has transformed and will likely continue its transformation. What happens to book publishers is up to the publishers. Doing nothing gives innovators a chance to gain ground. If they innovate in-house and offer valuable services (and effectively communicate them) to all their constituents then the prognosis is pretty good.

e-books are not our downfall unless they completely replace printed media. Remember, e-books can't be shoved in a back pocket, they don't like water, sunscreen and sand, you can't write in the margins and you can't show-off your first edition Mastering the Art of French Cooking or your author's signed copy of The Mouse the Roared. And, didn't Captain Kirk receive a copy of The Tale of Two Cities (leatherbound) as a birthday gift in The Wrath of Kahn." What year was that???

Life is rich. Life has texture. Television didn't kill radio nor do I believe e-readers will kill off publishing and all printed media. If the printed book dies it's not because of technology, it's because of societal changes in what's valued. Format is format - everyone likes something a little different, but the process of publishing has much more depth than just distribution. If we forget that, then the book publishers are the least of worries.

Just one gal's opinion...

Mobile TV - Are we making it harder than it needs to be?

2009-04-20T11:04:00.006-06:00

I just finished reading the Juniper Research blog by Dr. Windsor Holden about mobile TV standards. My favorite part is about how a new standard has just been adopted, but there is not a single phone that supports it. Each carrier/cable company tries their own version & none have done particularly well.

Maybe it's time to look at what is already there. The Web. All smartphones already have an HTTP browser. And I suspect most phones (for anyone wishing to access data services) will have a Web (vs. carrier-only) browser within the next few years. The Web is a ready-to-use distribution channel for all kinds of media formats & content. And while bandwidth and performance remain an issue if everything was to turn on (in mass) today, they are steadily improving. Current mobile TV adoption rates - at least here in the US - are so low, that I don't see the Internet crashing from too much mobile TV viewing, anytime soon.

Media players already exist for PC/laptop TV viewers. Perhaps its time to look at mobilizing the technology that is already accepted by consumers of online media and put as much effort and funding into mobilizing existing standards vs. each carrier and cable company trying to create it's own unique distribution channel and supporting technology.

I'm all for innovative, disruptive technology and I'm not suggesting that these companies shouldn't innovate. I just think they need to look beyond their own doors to a world of possibilities that are designed to be used by the masses and not just one company or one set of customers. IPTV, in whatever form it takes, has a much better chance of mass adoption than any closed network solution. It can be previewed by everyone, but monetized via subscriptions or pay-per-view. It can be connected for billing/analysis to any back-end infrastructure accessible via SOA and a Web connection.

Sometimes the simple answers are the best...

Handset App Stores

2009-02-09T09:47:00.002-07:00

Just read this blog from Juniper Research - and the trend continues. Mobile application distribution is moving well out of the hands of the wireless carriers and traditional e-tailers like Handango. A company such as Handango can offer cross-platform support, something that will appeal to many enterprises. But for a consumer, why does an iPhone user need to go anywhere but Apple for application discovery. The same holds true for Nokia/Symbian, RIM, and Microsoft. Will Google become an application distributor for Android? If I have multiple devices (desktop, laptop, netbook, two phones)- where can I consolidate my browsing and purchasing activities?

One thing is for sure, that the speed of change in the mobile computing products, services and distribution is evolving exponentially faster than its PC predecessor.

Digital Distribution - All Things Must Change

2009-02-06T13:23:00.000-07:00

Back in the 80’s, as a computer products distributor we utilized Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) with our large customers such as Toys R Us, Sears and NYNEX, but just the data, not the applications were transferred. Then came the software kiosks – which, after several aborted attempts really never stuck, although some game vendors had a little bit of luck with them. Then came email and the Internet, and several more attempts were made to distribute software under the ASP model, accessed through VPN’s and other application interfaces. Finally, Web 2.0 arrived and software downloads, SaaS and Web services have become commonplace.

Mobile is going through the same evolution, albeit in a much compressed timeframe. First the only applications you could access were those deemed worthy by the carriers and delivered via their walled garden networks. On the enterprise side, handheld computer software, such as that used by UPS or FedEx were provisioned by IT. Up until last year, most Palm and Windows Mobile users downloaded software to their PCs and copying them to their PDAs via a mini-USB or proprietary tether or docking solution. Now nearly every application can be downloaded directly to your smartphone over the Web using your HTTP browser.

Two and half years ago, my partner & I were challenged by IT professionals and investors that no one would download software to a mobile device, even thought the carriers’ top data services money makers were ringtones and wallpapers. Today, downloads have become commonplace. So commonplace that it is forever altering the software distribution channel. I can download mobile apps from Google and Yahoo. I visit the Apple Store for music and iPhone applications. The wireless carriers continue to offer software downloads ranging from ringtones to television programming to personal navigation apps and services. Microsoft and Intel are executing on or planning online software distribution centers for their certified applications, ala Apple.

Software has traditionally offered higher margins than hardware to the entire value chain. With shorter product lifecycles, a multitude of platforms and devices and dropping prices, the traditional method of packaged software distribution is rapidly coming to a close. Will the traditional computer products distributors concede all software sales to these new players or will they find new value to add and restructure their services to reduce disintermediation? As an ISV, I can sell directly to the consumer, electronically manage downloads, licenses and updates – why do I need a traditional distributor or retailer? Software distribution logistics and infrastructure has taken on a new meaning in the last 3 years. The shift is well underway and I’m curious to see who will remain in software distribution.

Regardless of your politics, President Obama is right to include digital infrastructure in the national infrastructure rebuilding priority. Software, music, television, movies, phone calls, pictures, maps, curriculum and even equipment service updates are just a fraction of the data, services and content being distributed via a digital distribution channel.

Women In Cable Technology - "Tech it Out" Conference

2009-01-29T17:32:00.002-07:00

This week I had the opportunity to attend WICT’s Tech It Out conference in Denver. I was amazed with the by the parallels between the cable and satellite operator’s challenges and strategic decisions and those faced by that of the computing industry. In the end, everyone is trying to figure out how best to utilize “the Web” as a distribution channel for content – be it user generated, television, music or motion picture. Issues such as contextual advertising, data privacy, digital rights management (DRM), and supporting a mobile world are all top on the list. The acronyms were different but the general meaning and underlying principles were all the same.

What is clear is that AoIP (anything over IP) – seems to be the best distribution approach when trying to reach customers on multiple devices. So while optimizing content presentation for different devices will likely require multiple distribution channels (open and closed networks), it seems clear that the Web will play an important role for getting cable content out of the living room and onto our laptops and smartphones.

While I was a bit of a conference outsider - mobile SaaS vs. cable industry, I was joined by cross-over vendor Sling Media) and a panel was exclusively set aside to discuss the happenings at CES. The bottom line - it is clear that many of the solutions to achieve the cable industries goals will be enabled by technologies born in the computer products and Internet sectors.

I had the chance to sit in on sessions and chat with cable operators, such as Time-Warner Cable and Comcast. They have some exciting new things coming our way so get ready to hit the sofa, or your desk, or the commuter train, and enjoy the ride that is coming!

Mobile Commerce Zones

2007-08-11T17:59:00.000-06:00

Today, my channel of choice is mobile marketing via the Internet. It’s a bit of a departure from my usual channels discussion, but customer discussions have me thinking about mobile marketing, and the Forum Oxford has me thinking about community, so here I am.

The holy grail of mobile marketing is to push offers to consumer mobile phones when they are in proximity of a merchant’s location. So today, after creating a demonstration coupon service supported by 5o9™ Context Manager software (my shameless plug for my company) all the pieces fell into place. Granted, to make this happen some big players would need to come together in the co-marketing initiative of the century, but if they did, the benefits to all involved would be huge. So here’s the idea:

Pull together two giants – Microsoft and Sprint – to target commercial districts across the country. Microsoft sells a community Web server (or perhaps partners with local ISPs) for a shopping district, such as LODO, Cherry Creek, Downtown Boulder or 29^th Street in Colorado. Wi-Fi or Wi-Max access points are installed by Sprint in these relatively defined areas (could also work in shopping malls). With a little help from coupon generation software and online campaign management tools supplied by Microsoft ISVs, and with location and shopper data supported by 5o9 software, consumers in the vicinity of a Mobile Commerce Zone could either search for coupons and specials from the local merchants, or give the local merchants permission to push them offers while they visit the area. Users can define a 1 mile, 2-mile or 5-mile radius from which they are willing to receive offers, and each consumer can determine if they are willing to receive all, some or none of the offers based on category or interest (dining, music, beverage, clothing, household, etc.). And they could even get walking directions to the store or restaurant based upon their current location.

Push marketing via the Internet. Supported by any phone with an Internet connection. Delivered via high-speed Wi-Fi or Wi-Max networks. Supported by local advertising. Backed by respected industry leaders. Driven by consumer choice and permission. Closed loop, time-restricted, measurable marketing for local businesses. A social, mobile shopping community. Everyone wins!

And of course, this can be extended to other countries based on infrastructure partnerships with top mobile network providers there. And it can also be extended to other communities, such as theme parks, ski and beach resorts, city museums/botanical gardens/zoo complexes, or even college campuses.

The only question that remains, is will companies like Microsoft and Sprint take a leadership position to demonstrate the power of how the Internet can support both community and commerce by giving consumers control of their contextual data via the Web-connected mobile phone? The technology exists today. We as commercial entities simply need to relinquish a bit of control back to the consumer in exchange for accelerated adoption of mobile marketing, and cost-effective, targeted, measurable, affordable mobile marketing for local businesses.

Pairing Content and Application Distribution

2007-06-13T21:34:00.000-06:00

This was a post to discussion thread on the Oxford University Next Generation Mobile Forum I felt it had good applicability to the differences and similarities of mobile vs. internet and physical distribution channels.
(Select iTunes as an Application Distribution Mechanism discussion)

Ajit - good question.

I do think that content supported by apps (or more accurately, apps supported by content) increases the value of downloading the application, but so much depends on the content, the application and its practicality/benefit on mobile.

In the case of Apple, the question remains whether or not there is benefit to provide downloads of anything that does not support the sale of more Apple Store content – a basic business decision they will make. Media players, media editors, graphic/video manipulation tools, media generators - all of these applications should have great appeal to both Apple and Apple consumers, however these tools are often ill-suited for mobile. Content creation is doable on a mobile - photos & videos, but editing is very difficult on the small screen - both control manipulation and presentation/review is less than ideal. A face twisting widget may be fun, mobile song-sharing or group podcast software or services work, but something like mobile Garage Band, or Photoshop may be tough to translate to mobile. Application developers will certainly need to get creative to make it worth theirs and their customers’ time.

I'm not convinced that this model will necessarily work for other app developers, content providers, or even the carriers, as their user bases are often much more diverse, so marrying apps to content is not as simple for Apple and the number of app vendor/distribution relationships a carrier would have to have to make this profitable could be thousands and require an update to their evaluation, distribution, and relationship management processes. Apple, by keeping a media focus has a limited number of licensing/reselling agreements with media companies, but just like the carriers, they will have to update their operational/staffing infrastructure to support application vendor contracts, management, reporting etc. It can be done, but it is costly and takes time. (Ask Ingram Books, Ingram Entertainment or Ingram Computer Products Distribution).

If you look at physical world distribution, people choose where they will purchase based on several factors - convenience, price, affiliation, trust/expertise, exclusivity. The carrier or Apple may be convenient for some people, affiliation may come into play with Apple (media stuff), expertise - probably not so much – no real support for that. Companies like FeedTribe are trying to address simplified billing (think mobile PayPal), so that users can conveniently purchase content or applications on any site and not have to be tied to a walled garden distribution/payment network for app or content purchase. Specialty distributors exist everywhere – CE products, entertainment (video, DVD, games), books, software, hardware, storage, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, etc. It seems likely the reasons for creating this diverse distribution and retail structure in the physical world and the Internet, will also apply to mobile. (Ajit – I think it was you who addressed this issue of affiliation in a post a few months back).

So while Apple may take the lead on music media content distribution and be able to drive some supporting application sales, this may not be extensible to other content/application categories. Smart application vendors and content providers will continue to do what they do – deliver their products through all the channels that customers want, as long as they can make money doing it. The risk of the walled garden approach is that the more successful the gardeners get, they have a knack for biting the hands that feed them. Margin squeezing, poor service/reporting, difficult evaluation cycles, etc. make it more expensive and/or inconvenient for the media/app suppliers to distribute through that channel. And since water flows along the path of least resistance, other tributaries are likely to present themselves over time.

The good news is that the market is so large there is room for many winners. The key will be to make it relevant, easy, and convenient for the consumer, AND keep it easy, convenient, and profitable for the content/app creators and distributors. Both the supply chain and the value chain have stakes in this game.

Liz

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Ad Dollars

2007-04-17T11:47:00.000-06:00

The purchase of Double Click by Google is a confirmation that Google has two core competencies – search and advertising. Search is what they do, but advertising is how they make their money. The fact that Microsoft and others were bidding the business talks to the driving power of advertising within the interactive media channel. The acquisition news this week, along with several other articles about carriers, media companies and technology companies got me thinking. And then, I woke up this morning to the following picture in my in email box:

Well then, I just did the happy dance. This picture, along with some other things my company has been developing in the localization, mobilization and personalization space pulled it all together for me.

Mobile has limited real estate. On-screen navigation of Web sites is difficult on most devices. And the mobile phone is viewed as much more personal than a desktop or laptop computer. So as a marketer, I have to ask myself how can I get my message across quickly, effectively and in a manner that consumers will accept? As a business owner, I want a single infrastructure that will support all of my web services and marketing campaigns and deliver them efficiently to my customers on whatever device they choose to use. So what’s the least common denominator to reaching them on any device using my existing infrastructure? The Browser. So let’s look at what’s working and not in the realm of mobile data services and advertising:

The downside to carriers – the walled garden approach – limits access to things users want

The upside to carriers – menu-based navigation – easy, intuitive, works with any device

The downside to text ads – doesn’t grab attention – may be overlooked

The upside to text ads – contextual relevance, space savings – required for mobile

So why not combine the best of all digital advertising practices and use the browser to navigate, brand, provide contextual relevance and catch the consumer’s eye. Technically, this is not an easy task, but I believe its power and practicality are undeniable. While mobile will never provide the full visual impact or amount of data displayed on a television or a 15” monitor, we can do much better than we are doing right now.

So as mobile marketers, we just need to grab enough attention to get someone to see and select our menu item (the equivalent of a click-through). If it can take them directly to the action we want, right there inside the menu – all the better, as we limit the barriers to the desired action. We want maximum customer choices (open garden) as this leads to more marketing revenue. As long as the attention grabber fits within the context of the menu structure or mobile page content, it will be viewed as relevant and should have a higher response rate. The attention grabber can be a photo, logo or icon and can be accompanied by text, as in the first image. So if the first image, which is a bit busy, did not drive home the concept of how powerful menu-based web services and marketing and can, this one, which is not quite as flashy, should:

This includes links to on-device applications, links to web sites (think favorites or bookmarks in the menu), location-based services in the menu, and mobile marketing in the menu. Now go back and add the Google logo next to the search item, a CNN logo instead of the words “CNN”, a picture of the Sun next to weather or a logo or stylized text in place of the “Your ad here” text. And as I consumer, I can add a photo or image to my application links, creating the equivalent of a mobile shortcut from my browser. Ease of use and navigation just got a whole lot easier, and marketing just got a whole lot more powerful.

As humans, we are programmed to respond to visual stimuli. Users can personalize their menus (just as I attach a photo to my contacts and many of us do to our blog profiles) and marketers and leverage menus both contextually and visually. I truly believe that what we have developed opens up a whole new world of mobile marketing, personalization and Web services. We have extended browser capabilities and addressed the root problems of convenience and size that drove the bifurcation of the Web (Web/Mobile Web). This approach can merge the two back together, making it much more cost-effective and consistent in terms of how businesses deliver their services and messages to connected consumers.

Crossing Channels

2007-03-02T22:03:00.000-07:00

Just got back from the movies – went to see Wild Hogs. There were some funny moments, but it won’t win any awards. What it will do, is change our entertainment experience. If you want to see the movie, stop reading now…

Wild Hogs is the Touchstone Pictures (Disney) film about 4 middle-aged friends who take a road trip on their motorcycles. As expected, there is some serious product placement, courtesy of Harley-Davidson, and even a cameo appearance by the Teutel’s, of American Chopper fame (no Discovery is not owned by Disney, I checked), so I’m going to chalk that one up to “product placement” for a media property versus physical product – which is news in and of itself. I took note, but it didn't send off alarm bells.

For those of you who follow both television and the movies there is a surprise at the end. For the first time that I am aware of, there is a direct cross-promotion between a film and a television show. The ABC hit, Extreme Makeover – Home Edition. Self-promotion is nothing new and characters from one television show often appear on another, but from one “screen medium” to another – or more aptly put, from one content distribution channel to another. This is a big deal (or is it an old deal borrowed from the record labels - Yellow Submarine or Help)?

I don’t know if the original script was written with this in mind, or if it was added as a marketing afterthought because the plot lent itself to it, but to me, this was a new high (or new low, depending on your perspective) in marketing strategy. I checked out the movie web site and there are plenty of games and activities to satisfy the interactive mind – expected for a film such as this. What I was surprised not find was a tie-in to Harley-Davidson for the ‘Build a Hog’ simulation, since they blatantly promoted the entry level Sportster model in the film. (although, secretly I’m glad Harley didn’t sink that low). I also did not find any tie back to the film on the Extreme Makeover - Home Edition site.

Given that, I’m leaning towards the cross-promotional afterthought theory. Why? If this was truly an integrated entertainment/marketing strategy, it just seems that there would have at least been a cross promotion online. Were we all spared, or did someone miss a huge opportunity? I welcome your thoughts…

Mash-Up or Cash-Up?

2007-02-26T11:19:00.000-07:00

User Generated Content (UCG) has been receiving a lot of press these days. It can take the form of videos, slide presentations, photos, stories or modified commercials. In fact, some media companies and ad agencies are encouraging their “viewers” to modify the original content and share it. Why not? It’s free advertising for the original content, even if it’s in the form of a parody. All press is good press, right?

But what about content providers who are not using content to promote something else, but their content gets used in mash-ups by somebody else? Basically, a mash-up combines multiple sources of Web content (usually something original with something that already exists). Much of the Web 2.0 phenomenon and is based upon the mash-ups. It’s a low cost way to deliver something unique. My company uses this technique to demonstrate local, mobile search using TrueLocal’s search engine (with their permission). We were also using Mapquest mobile maps, until they made some changes that disabled their use.

In our case, we use mash-ups to demonstrate something back to the original content providers. We do not profit from another company’s original or licensed content. That, however, is not the case with all mash-ups and many venture capital firms are actively funding Web 2.0 mash-up, based companies – which could be a pretty risky business.

Content has value. Some content costs a lot to create, some took creativity that the rest of us don’t have, and of course, a lot of content is copyrighted. It appears that some early movers, like Mapquest are making changes to protect their investments and/or content property rights from what some believe is the Web equivalent of squatter’s rights. In the case of Mapquest, they license their maps from companies such as NAVTEQ and I suspect that it’s based on content usage rates. If increased map usage is not being supported by Mapquest advertisers or subscribers, than costs go up without the offsetting revenues - ouch!

I suspect that others will follow Mapquest’s lead - business, is business, after all. Will NAVTEQ and Mapquest alter their business models to support a mash-up resale channel? Will mash-up companies have to put cash up front to continue their business operations? It will be an interesting few years as the technical, legal and financial issues of interactive media usage and distribution get sorted out. It will be interesting to see if map, game, video and other original content providers adopt similar techniques to the digital image “watermark” practice in use today to discourage “for-profit” or mass distribution mash-ups of their content.

Oscar with a Digital Twist

2007-02-25T23:00:00.000-07:00

As I was watching the Academy Awards this evening, I took special note of the mention of yesterday’s awards for technical achievement. Coming from the technology world versus the actual content generation world I’ve watched from the wings as the “geeks” and “cool dudes” have formed a unique partnership to create some truly phenomenal art, entertainment and educational content. Special effects labs such as Industrial Light & Magic and Pixar get a lot of the attention. Very cool stuff – I even ran a computer reseller promotion back in the late 1980’s where the prize was a trip to ILM.

More recently, however, I was introduced to the American Film Institute Digital Content Lab (DCL). I had no idea the AFI had a digital content lab. And after speaking with several friends and family members in the entertainment industry – neither did they. The AFI has a broad focus on the advancement of content designed for presentation on a screen - silver, TV, and PC – and who knows, maybe even mobile… The DCL is focused exclusively on digital media ranging from interactive television, games and computer content.

The Digital Content Lab is a hands-on production lab. So if you have a digital content project that you want to take to market and are looking for mentors, collaboration partners and a supportive environment in which to get your project ready for market, I encourage you to check them out and submit your project for consideration in their next lab session.

And while the silver screen may be grabbing the spotlight tonight, who knows, your digital content may be premiering to an audience of millions tomorrow.

2007-02-13T19:55:00.000-07:00

For those of you following Interactive Media Channels, I highly recommend reading this blog from Baris Karadogan at Always On. This will definitely drive some juicy discussions over the next several months...

Advertising - The Price of Free Content

2007-02-11T18:08:00.000-07:00

A little off-base today, but still somewhat connected to the world of interactive channels. I want to talk about local search and the advertising opportunities that come with knowing WHERE someone is. I will also preface this with the fact that my company, 5o9, Inc. has a direct interest in this topic, so forgive my blogging transgression, but this is too important to ignore. That being said…

This blog is inspired by Truelocal.com, an Australian “Local” search engine. Yeah, I know there are lots of local search engines out there, so why am I excited about this one. Quite simply, it’s the company behind the Web site - News Digital Media. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is the digital arm of News Corp (Fox & MySpace), one of the key players in the Interactive Channels space. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. News Corp’s holdings are global and their only real weakness is in the interactive advertising space. When I heard about True Local I was hoping to see something exciting on the local or digital advertising fronts. As far as search sites go, this one has a nice mapping feature that pops up next to the listings, but their advertising seems very weak.

This may be a function of culture, but secretly I was hoping for something ground breaking in the local search and advertising areas. Local search is achieved by typing in postal code, city or state – same as with every other search engine. The advertising was almost non-existent. To me, this signaled that Google still holds the lead in digital advertising infrastructure – the primary component that is defining the shift in interactive channel development. It's time to shake things up.

So what is the next big innovation? Local advertising – or more precisely, automatic local advertising. Particularly in the arena of mobile search and mobile social networking, the less a user has to type in on their tiny keyboard the better. This is THE technological breakthrough that that all the key players are trying to achieve. So how far off is it?

It’s here! Automatic local search from GPS coordinates is technically feasible and is demonstrated here. Demo Instructions: (Just use the 3^rd entry box and select one of the photos. Location is being pulled from the photo metadata. The demo is live, so feel free to replace the search for ‘pizza’ or ‘hotels’ with whatever criteria you like). Our use of selected search engines is entirely arbitrary and we are not endorsing one service over another.

So if the location data makes it to the Web server, then truly local and personalized advertising is now available to whoever adopts it. So who will be first to personalize interactive content, search and advertising based upon WHERE you are, WHAT device you are on and WHO you are (your personal preferences)? Google? News Corp? Microsoft? Or maybe Comcast or Cox? It’s hard to say but before the decade is out, our interactive media and the ads that pay for it will go beyond targeted, to personal.

Exciting times!

IPTV - The Personal Factor

2007-01-29T18:52:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading an International Herald Tribune article regarding IPTV that compelled me to put down a few more thoughts on the converging media channels. This article, along with Bill Gates interview on this morning’s Today show on NBC both paint a consistent picture of IP-based interactive television coming sooner than we may all think. But are we ready? Companies like mine work feverishly to resolve the conflict between a businesses need for commerce and a user’s need for privacy. Personalization, if done correctly can deliver a great user experience and strong enterprise profits. If done incorrectly it could set initiatives such as IPTV and mobile marketing back a few years.

But who will do it correctly? Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s Live Search are much further ahead in being able to deliver an advertising model that supports interactivity than the broadcast and cable networks. It remains to be seen if they can get the personalization factor right, so as to not be viewed as invading viewer privacy. They will also need to address the issues of professional content generation. This is the area where the networks have a huge lead. Personally, I think the winner will be a merged television/Portal organization – the only way to overcome the chicken & egg dilemma.

But as the song goes, “Money makes the world go ‘round.” Both broadcast TV and the Web are ad-supported content channels. No ads – no professional content. My money’s on the best ad engine and ad sales network that does personalization right. Doing it wrong could be incredibly damaging to the entire industry. So while money may, indeed, make the world go around, if personalized, interactive advertising ever makes me feel “uncomfortable” in my living room, I’m blocking that channel.

The PC in the Living Room

2007-01-23T21:41:00.000-07:00

ABC News had a very interesting article out today entitled Making Peace with the PC. I strongly recommend that organizations within the content generation and delivery channels read it a couple of times through. Effectively the combination of PCs, media center PCs and software from companies like HP and Microsoft, and the Internet combine to form the most powerful interactive media channel to date. Yes, I know this is not new, but what is so exciting is the confluence of all these great other technologies that will soon make this common place and truly personalized and interactive.

Anyone watching television these days cannot miss Cisco’s dancing kid in the green shirt ad. Their Human Network campaign shows user-generated content on all three screens – living room, laptop and phone. Home routers and mobile are a strategic focus for Cisco and with their Linksys brand, their relationships with many of the set-top box and cable companies, and a growing distribution channel in the mobile and converged spaces they are a serious force to drive home entertainment/work connectivity to new adoption levels.

Connectivity is the key to this equation. If your “TV” is now connected to the Web and you are watching content on demand, and if you could communicate your preferences, screen size and location back to the video server mother-ship at Comcast, ABC or YouTube, think about what that does to the current broadcast TV advertising model. Holy cow! Television networks could go beyond the current local/national ad mix and deliver ads specifically tailored to me and my neighborhood, not the typical program demographic or regional cable office. Effectively it could drive a search-like advertising model into the living room.

The technology exists today to make this all happen. Adoption rates are unpredictable and a lot of human, infrastructure and process change is required before this will show up in every living room across America (or the world). But the train has left the station and in some shape or form will be arriving in your town in the not too distant future.

Whether or not you think this is a good thing or a bad thing – it is a BIG thing - and one that has tremendous implications for the content and media distribution channels. From my perspective, this is the ultimate reality TV show to watch as the decade comes to a close.

The Impact of Changing Digital Entertainment Channels

2006-12-11T19:57:00.000-07:00

A presentation by Spencer Wang at Bear Stearns caught my eye. He talks about why aggregation and context, not content will be “king” in the future of entertainment. He has taken a different view than many out there, but does a good job supporting his theory. I happen to agree with his analysis – it is the reason why the existing media companies must acquire digital assets, and why many of the large digital channels are acquiring radio, TV and print assets. Without them they cannot remain competitive.

There are two points, which I find particularly intriguing – one technical, one social.

The first is Mr. Wang’s reference to needing filters to manage all the content choices. It already takes several minutes to scan through all 600 digital cable channels – how long will it take you or me to “surf” through an unlimited number of Internet channels. Filters that can be personalized for user preferences are an absolute must in this scenario. Since I’m a big fan of personalization (incoming or outgoing) and in the Internet communications space, I’m looking forward to the opportunity that this can create.

The second thing that struck me is his reference to the increasing demand for entertainment. I am curious as to why demand is increasing at such a rapid pace. Could this be an indicator that basic human needs, in most countries, are being met and the world’s population has time to enjoy life vs. simply surviving, or is the populace seeking refuge in entertainment because the complexity of the “flat” world is simply overwhelming? This will likely not be answered for years to come, but presents an intriguing dissertation topic for some enterprising doctoral candidate.

For now, I’m just enjoying the digital ride of my life.

Multiplying the Value of User Generated Content

2006-11-20T11:56:00.000-07:00

I’ve done some digging around this recent blog from Tomi Ahomen. It talks about a Nokia sponsored “Every Second Counts” contest for 24 second films that must be created on a mobile phone. The quality of the video will vary widely based upon the sophistication of the phone’s camera and “editing” tools on a mobile are few and far between. If you do a quick search, the top listed tools on Google come from Muvee Technologies, which of course is bundled with Nokia phones, the contest sponsor. It is also one of the only “on phone” editors I found with several searches on multiple engines. How long before we start seeing more (or at least better coverage for those that exist).

The “Every Second Counts” contest, taken in context with recent changes at Fox and Time Warner (see the Zachary Rogers, ClickZ article on changes at Fox Interactive) provides a hearkening of things to come. The chessboard is re-arranging itself for the converged channels. User generated media + consolidated advertising and programming infrastructures should dramatically decrease costs and bolster profits. As smartphones, Pocket PCs and PDAs gain ground over candy bar phones, the screen size becomes large enough for short content viewing and it appears, even content generation.

While I don’t believe the mobile phone will ever become the primary platform for video creation, it’s handy in a pinch, has an intrinsic entertainment factor and provides a convenient medium for creating unique, relevant and personal content. Content that can be used multiple times across multiple channels, supported by multiple advertisements targeted at multiple audiences with multiple devices in multiple locations.

And the big winners of this multiplication contest will be the media companies who embrace both UCG and traditional programming strategies, while leveraging the best location, device and consumer aware, ad-supporting technologies across a converged distribution channel network.

Faster, Cheaper, Easier.

2006-11-15T05:34:00.000-07:00

USA Today posted an article this week regarding Sprint’s “Cable’s Cell Phone Service”. Add to that the AT&T television commercials that promote all three screens for program viewing (TV, Laptop, Cell Phone). I am watching these trends with great interest because it signals the commercial beginnings of the interactive media channel consolidation that has been quietly taking place behind the scenes for several years. So now the real question is how long before consumers make the shift and consolidate their services.

I believe the following 4 things must happen to gain widespread adoption:

A single point for billing can be compelling. It’s easy to manage and means that I only have one bill to pay – via check or online. – faster & easier
With more to lose, service providers may be willing to spend a little more time and effort on customer service - easier
A single interface – cable, mobile phone and Internet are all bi-directional, interactive channels. If I can access my content the same way across all three devices, that rocks – faster & easier
And if the consolidation of all three includes a common back-end infrastructure, then it should be less expensive for me – cheaper

If you come from a product marketing background - faster, cheaper & easier are three value propositions that win every time in an established market. Now that consolidation has a public face, we’re not going backwards. The game is on. Will a “partnership” strategy such as the Sprint’s be able to achieve the faster/cheaper/ easier consumer benefits we all hope for, or will it require an M&A strategy to get there in a profitable fashion? So far the cable companies have done a much better job of improving service, services, consolidated billing and their user interface. Sprint obviously sees the need for a consolidated channel – can they pull it off?

Advertising OS or Channel Mogul?

2006-11-10T10:48:00.000-07:00

I just read a very interesting analysis by Robert Young at GigaOm.

He notes that Google's end-game is to become an Advertising OS. I like his analysis, and it strengthens Google's position even more. However, I'm not convinced that this is Google's goal. As you can see from my previous entry, that it is not Microsoft and Yahoo! that are the "competitors", but rather someone like News Corp. (the Fox/MySpace parent company). They have way more to loose than the online guys. The TV/Print/Radio/Satellite distribution networks & content providers have owned the advertising channel and most content production for years. Along comes Google and they build a more efficient ad processing/management engine AND access to cheaper User Generated Content (UCG). YouTube gives them both additional consumers of advertising AND a really cost-effective way to create content that millions of people want to consume. The beauty is that they paid a one time production fee for it, rather than paying writers, producers, actors & cameramen for every episode of every show. Very smart.

Social networking is about UGC. We are social and creative creatures. We crave interaction, not only consumption. I think Google & News Corp. understand this. In fact, many of the TV network's understand this - American Idol (Fox) and Dancing with Stars (ABC) both depend on people to interact with "unscripted" programming. So the Google/You Tube purchase makes perfect sense. I'd be watching out for News Corp. to buy Yahoo! or Ask. It puts them in the game with Google. The traditional media giants will not "go gently into the night" and they already have ad sales organizations and the human network to cross all but the interactive channel. Don't count them out of the game. There are billions of dollars at stake.

As for mobile - a comment topic to Robert's Ad OS blog - Web content is available to smart phones & Pocket PCs right now. Carriers are scrambling to build an advertising network to play in the game. I don't think they can catch up fast enough. Sprint appears to be the only one who is actually buying into the other channels. Everyone else is doing the marketing partnership thing, which doesn't provide the economies of scale required to compete with the giants. Location, device and user information is now available over the Internet (that's what my company - 509, Inc. does), so the carrier assisted/walled-garden approach to Web access will eventually crumble for all but voice-centric entry phones. When it comes to data (and arguably voice with VOIP) "mobile" is just another content distribution channel.

How we connect to all these channels may require different devices, but content is content - we all just pick our favorite kind and live with the advertising or subscription fees that support it.

Google vs. News Corp?

2006-11-09T02:14:00.000-07:00

The balance of power in the media world is shifting. Google is not a search company – it does search. Google is a media distribution company. It is covering all of its bases by building the ad infrastructure to support Web, Radio, Print & soon, TV, utilizing both today’s processes and building tomorrow’s cross-channel advertising tools. Because of its Web/Interactive expertise, and because it is going to own the majority of the Web backbone, it is positioned to control media distribution and ad management as the broadcast, cable print and interactive media channels converge.

Sure, Google & Microsoft compete, but I’m not convinced they are the fierce direct competitors that many suggest they are. In fact, when you speak with Microsoft employees, they are not gunning for Google. Well perhaps the Microsoft Live group is, but the rest of the company is focused on selling software products, not search and advertising. With all the brain power in Google, it’s hard to believe that the crap they deliver on the application side is their best effort. I think it’s a bunch of noise to keep the spotlight off their real focus.

No one but a handful of Googleites really knows for sure, but here’s my guess. We hear a lot about Google’s personalization efforts as they automate location awareness, demographic and psychographic profiling. Yeah, yeah, it may improve search, but those are the building blocks of effective advertising. Now, if you put some of those PhDs to work building tools that can integrate marketing across TV, radio, print and the Web – watch out! Now you’ve got something that makes their current market cap look small.

Like Microsoft, Google is embedding itself into the global infrastructure. Search is just the tip of the iceberg. The real power comes from what’s underneath – the infrastructure. What Microsoft has done better than anyone else on the software side is become part of the global infrastructure – communications, entertainment, business, and with Windows embedded and mobile products, that reach is extending into areas such as automotive and household goods. Google, with this latest move is extending the depth of its reach to compete against media giants like News Corp., betting that channel convergence is not too far away. And with today’s Red Herring article about You Tube deals with Verizon & Comcast a lot of other media distribution companies want to make sure they can profit from that convergence.

He who controls the distribution network controls the billions of advertising dollars which must flow through it. So even though companies such as Riya, Like and Ask.com may have better, or at least alternative methods for searching or ad delivery, the time and money required to build an advertising infrastructure is enormous and beyond most company's means. Now should one of these guys just happen to pair up with someone who already has this infrastructure, then things could get really interesting!

Mr. Murdoch, are you watching?