Quote Of The Day

From a recent interview in ClikZ with Mitch Joel, author of "Six Pixels of Separation"  On  Human Interconnectedness in the new marketing landscape....

"We Are All One Click (or pixel) Away From One Another"

Famous Past Quotes:

In 2000 we were developing a marketing Campaign for a computer software company. If you recall, this was the time of the Big Scare of what would happen when all the computers had to switch over to the year 2000. This was known as Y2K.

We had the opportunity to ask Yogi Berra his thoughts on what Y2K would mean. 

Yogi gave this some thought and responded:

"Y2K???....What's that???...Some Kinda Lubricatin Jelly"  !!!!!

You gotta love a guy like that!

Rules Surrounding TV Ads Could Be Scrapped... Ofcom/London

This just in from our Linked-In Producers Network:

LONDON - Ofcom (The independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries) has today launched a consultation on the rules governing the way TV broadcasters sell advertising, and has admitted current restrictions 'may no longer be appropriate' due to fragmenting audiences.

Ofcom has proposed scrapping the rules that force the commercial public service broadcasters to sell all their ad minutes and restrict the way broadcasters sell bundles of advertising airtime. It could pave the way for broadcasters being able to generate tens of millions of pounds in additional advertising revenue each year.

The regulator has also proposed that the industry-wide ban on conditional selling should be removed, and that any anti-competitive effects be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Such a change would prove significant as broadcasters look to boost their digital channels.

In January, Ofcom said it was committed to "removing unnecessary burdens" from TV, and suggested that ITV, Channel 4 and Five could be allowed to limit the number of ad slots available.

Under rules devised in 2003, ITV, Channel 4 and Five are forced to sell all their advertising minutes, which prevents them from withholding ad airtime to drive up prices.

Today (29 March), Ofcom said the PSB broadcasters no longer had any incentive to withhold ad minutes as it would be unlikely to deliver more ad revenue and profits, and so the rule should be relaxed.

Ed Richards, chief executive of Ofcom, said: "In the last few years, the TV sector has moved on, with substantial increases in the take-up of digital services and in the number of available channels.

"We are proposing that these rules be removed in light of broader developments in the sector. Underpinning all of our work this year on advertising is a commitment to reduce and simplify regulation whenever there is no clear evidence of a public interest which requires regulation."

The 10-week consultation closes on 7 June. Ofcom has said it hopes to publish this autumn, in time for the TV ad trading season.

Any new rules will come into effect from 1 January 2011.

Ofcom also said it will publish proposals on whether to amend the rules that set the maximum amount of ad minutes and determine break patterns for commercial TV channels, in the spring.

Such changes could mean broadcasters including ITV could offer more ad slots during high-value shows, such as Saturday night primetime, or spread their ad minutes across a week rather than a day.

Broadcasters are also waiting on Ofcom's decision on whether Sky should be forced to wholesale its premium pay-TV content, such as sports and film, to its competitors.

A spokesman for Ofcom said the decision on pay TV should be announced "before the end of the month".

U.S. TV market..anyone?

How Turbo Tax is using Social Media

In her BlogWell San Diego case study presentation, “TurboTax and Social Media,” TurboTax’s Social Media Marketing Manager, Christine Morrison, covered how they’re applying the fundamentals of word of mouth marketing to social media.

Christine shared how social media is helping them build a persuasion engine, how they’re making user reviews more relevant, and how they’re using Twitter for customer support.

Google and SEO China? Wassup?

China thwarts Google's detour around censorship

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
AP Technology Writer 

 

Google's attempted detour around China's Internet censorship rules was met with countermeasures Tuesday by the communist government, which blocked people on the mainland from seeing search results dealing with such forbidden topics as the pro-democracy movement.

China's maneuver, as well as its public rebuke of Google's decision to stop censoring searches for the government, rattled some of the company's investors, advertisers and users.

The chief concern is whether Google poisoned its business in one of the world's most promising Internet markets. One analyst critical of Google's move predicted the maneuver will cause the company's stock to fall by as much as $50 — or about 10 percent — in the coming weeks.

The stock fell $8.50, or 1.5 percent, to $549 Tuesday.

Last month, Google said it no longer felt comfortable complying with the country's demands that it censor Web content deemed objectionable by the communist rulers. On Monday, Google began sending Web searchers in mainland China from the China-based Google.cn to Google.com.hk, based in Hong Kong. The former British colony has an open Internet, and Google is not legally required to censor results there.

But that end-run doesn't prevent China's government from using its Internet filters — known as the Great Firewall — to block some search results and Web sites from being seen in the mainland.

On Tuesday, a search request from within mainland China about the 1989 Tiananmen democracy protests returned a notice that the "page cannot be displayed." It also caused the Web browser to disconnect for several seconds. Under the old google.cn, a similar query usually returned a list of sanitized sites about Tiananmen Square.

If the Chinese leaders really want to foil Google, they could block all mainland access to the Hong Kong service. Or they could exert their control of Chinese telecommunications companies to slow the speed of queries and responses, to help drive traffic to homegrown rivals.

"It really comes down to the extent of their vindictiveness," said Duncan Clark, managing director of BDA China Ltd., a technology market research firm.

The tensions between Google and China's government already appear to be denting the company's business.

TOM Online, a provider of online and mobile services in China that is owned by a Hong Kong tycoon, said it would not renew an alliance with Google to avoid violating any Chinese laws. Owners of Chinese businesses also may be more reluctant to advertise on Google for fear of reprisals.

If that happens, Google may reduce its sales force in China. For now, the company is maintaining both its engineering and sales staffs in the country, reflecting its hope that the Chinese government's anger will cool off. Google also believes it will be able to revive plans, delayed for now, to have its Android software support more mobile phones and applications in China.

Other foreign companies that have angered the Chinese government have been stymied in the country. American defense contractor Raytheon Co. closed its Beijing offices last year in frustration over its inability to win contracts for commercial aviation and consulting services. American executives believed Raytheon was being penalized for selling its Patriot missiles to Taiwan.

Although Google discussed various options in talks with the Chinese government over the past two months, the company made its decision to shift mainland traffic to Hong Kong without the ruling party's approval.

Google makes relatively little of its money in China now. Analysts have estimated the country accounts for $250 million to $600 million of its $24 billion in annual revenue.

But the pie is expected to get substantially bigger as China's economy expands and the country's Web audience increases beyond the roughly 350 million people online now.

Susquehanna Financial Group analyst Marianne Wolk expects China's Internet ad market to grow from about $3 billion last year to as much as $20 billion in 2014. Google appeared to be well positioned to pick up about $5 billion to $6 billion of that projected 2014 revenue, Wolk said, because its Chinese search engine has a roughly one-third share — a distant second to the homegrown Baidu Inc.

But Google's share is likely to shrink if the Great Firewall blocks or slows traffic.

BGC financial analyst Colin Gillis said he expects Google's dustup with the Chinese government to reduce the company's market value by $10 billion to $15 billion, or $30 to $50 a share.

"What Google has done is a slick trick, but it's also a direct slap in the face to the government," Gillis said. "The repercussions from this will be going on for several years."

In China some Internet users mourned Google's exit, placing flowers and chocolates at the large Google sign in front of the company's offices in Beijing. But others noted that the situation could raise awareness about China's strict online censorship.

Zhang Shihe, a freelance Chinese journalist and well-known blogger, said coverage of Google's departure could spur Chinese to demand more free speech online and offline.

"The incident has angered and saddened a lot of netizens, and now they will understand what type of country we live in," said Zhang, who blogs under the name "Tiger Temple." "This is another win for freedom of expression."

TV Everywhere!

By Edgar Villapando - SVP Marketing/Active Video Networks

Perhaps it’s just my post-holiday pre-CES mood, but something has me thinking that somewhere along the line we’ve lost the true message of TV Everywhere.

It’s not as strange as it seems — or maybe it is, who am I to judge? — but the combination of a holiday filled with home electronics and big screen TVs and an upcoming trade show that is founded on the concept of highlighting what’s coming next in the wide world of consumer electronics lead me down the path that TV is the center of the universe.

At least when it comes to home electronics.

Yeah, there are computers, computer games, computer games on TV, PDAs and what used to be PDAs now called MP3 players, or, to breach the dreaded brand name space, iPods and iPhones. And there are DVRs and TiVos (again, breaching into the brand name space) and video-on-demand and pay-per-view. There are smartphones and hardly any dumb phones other than the ones that are still tethered to your walls. And there are home entertainment centers into which any and all of the aforementioned devices and applications can be plugged but which ultimately have one centerpiece: that’s right, the television.

So while the idea of taking television and putting it on any of those new devices is fun and something you definitely want to do when you leave the home entertainment cocoon, the reality is that when you’re in that cocoon you want TV that provides you with the same functionality as those outside devices. Why only have the latest TV applications on devices that aren’t TVs? Why only have access to Web video on your cell phone or computer when the best screen in your house is your TV?

The reason this freight train of thought is driving through my mind these days is that a collision, of sorts, is on the horizon. The CE manufacturers and cable TV service providers, seemingly forever at odds, are moving closer to each other in a friendly manner. TVs are becoming acclimated to cable and cable is becoming less hostile to TV. TV has the screen and the capabilities to deliver a variety of what cable does best: programming. Cable has that programming and the delivery method to get it to the TV.

What once seemed like an inevitable derailment caused by the collision between two forces moving purposefully and speedily on the same tracks in different directions now looks to be an opportunity to couple two powerful trains and move in the same direction. Again, it’s the holidays so toy trains are on my mind.

The coupler that puts this all together is ActiveVideo. We bring the Internet content — and the myriad media types that exist there — from the Internet via the network cloud to any set-top box allowing subscribers to have TV Everywhere on the screen where it matters the most: the TV.

But it’s not just about bringing Web video to the TV. Just as important as a piece of media is the ability to infuse TV with the same constantly evolving innovation that happens on the Web. ActiveVideo not only brings you online media, but by supporting Web functionality it brings the infinite possibilities of connecting and integrating that media into your digital lifestyle.

As I say, TV Everywhere, while seemingly a concept that drags consumers off the television and into the realm of other Web-enabled devices, is actually the magnet that can draw them back to the place where they are most comfortable; the home entertainment center. Sure, take as much content as you can and spread it to as many devices as you like, but don’t forget the centerpiece. It is, after all is said and done, TV Everywhere; let’s keep the TV at the forefront of the experience.

3D TV- What's On?

Ok, we ran a little behind this week due to a corporate project so we're catching up this weekend! Here's something of interest for you gadget freek types. From the 3D TV Blog:

If you’re the early-adopter type who doesn’t mind paying top dollar for the latest tech gear, 3D TV may tickle your buying bone. But once you’ve shelled out thousands of dollars for 3D-enabled hardware, such as a Panasonic, Sony, or Samsung 3D TV, a 3D-capable Blu-ray player, and two or more pairs of 3D glasse, well, what’s on 3D TV anyway? Here’s your 3D programming guide for 2010.

ESPN
ESPN in June will launch a 3D TV network that will show at least 85 sporting events this year. Its inaugural 3D show: the first 2010 FIFA World Cup match between Mexico and South Africa on June 11. The network says it has tested ESPN 3D for more than two years, and is optimistic that sports fans will cheer the new technology.

One question: Will soccer players be encouraged to gratuitously kick the ball at 3D cameras? The ten people watching in 3D will be thrilled!

ESPN will beef up its 3D programming schedule next year, adding the 2011 BCS National Championship Game, other college football and basketball contests, the Summer X Games, and up to 25 World Cup matches.

Discovery
It’s a shame that “Crocodile Hunter” Steve Irwin had an unfortunate run-in with a stingray back in 2006, because his high-energy outdoor antics would’ve been a natural for 3D. Then again, plenty of nature shows are a good match for the in-your-face realism of 3D, which is why Discovery Communications is teaming up with Sony and IMAX to launch a 24/7 3D television network.

The new channel will offer programming best suited to 3D, covering such topics as engineering, natural history, space, science, technology, and so on. Sony and IMAX will obtain television rights to 3D movies, which will air on Discovery’s 3D network.

DirecTV
Starting in June, DirecTV HD subscribers will get a free software upgrade that allows them to watch three 3D channels. One pay-per-view channel will show movies, documentaries and other fare. The second, 3D DIRECTV on Demand, will have sports, music, and other content. A third channel will have free 3D sampler demos. DirecTV is working with a number of big-name content providers, including CBS, Fox Sports, MTV, NBC Universal, and Turner Broadcasting, to develop shows in 3D.

Blu-ray
Three-dimensional Hollywood blockbusters such as “Avatar,” “Up,” and “Alice in Wonderland” are a natural for 3D home theater–or so Hollywood hopes. We’ll find out later this year when the first 3D Blu-ray discs begin to ship. Better get your earplugs ready, because the marketing hype for “Avatar” in particular is bound to be deafening.

More:
HDTV 2010: The 3D Revolution Is Coming. Not surprisingly, 3D TV programming pickings will be slim this year, but your 3D-viewing choices should increase considerably in 2011, particularly if 3D TV sets gain favor with consumers–a development that’s far from certain right now.

More Commercials On Web Video?

Get Ready For More Commercials On Web Videos 

Recently in: Advertising Age:                                                     

In the short history of online TV-watching, one standard has largely held fast: Shows that run online have significantly fewer ads than shows that run on the boob tube.

But that could soon change.

Starting this fall, Nielsen intends to start making available data that take into account viewing of commercials that run in a particular show, no matter whether they are seen online or on TV. The data will be made available for evaluation starting this September and are intended to become the basis for ad negotiations in February 2011.

But here's the catch: For Nielsen to be able to provide the commercial rating, shows seen online will have to have the same group of commercials that run on TV. If this system were adopted en masse -- and it's not clear that it would be -- online viewing might be crammed just as full of commercials as the more traditional TV-watching experience.

"That in itself is a challenge," said Rino Scanzoni, chief investment officer at WPP's Group M. "The consumer has been used to getting [online video] with either limited commercial interruption or no commercial interruption."

Indeed, viewing programs on Hulu, the online video site owned by NBC Universal, News Corp. and Walt Disney, means encountering significantly fewer ads than one would see watching TV. And Disney's ABC.com has met with some success by running ABC shows with just a few ads, often from a single advertiser.

But many TV executives say these methods don't bring much, if any, profit -- and therefore cannot continue.

Solutions
"The financial models used for the current large video hubs in the online space are not sustainable," said Jack Wakshlag, chief research officer for Time Warner's Turner Broadcasting. One way to make online viewing more financially lucrative, several TV executives suggested, is to use it to aggregate viewing of popular shows across TV, online and other emerging media -- and then use that rating as a means of negotiating for the cost of an ad against the program.

What's lending traction to the idea of increasing the number of commercials in online TV runs is the "TV Everywhere" concept currently embraced by industry players Time Warner and Comcast, among others. Under the plan, cable subscribers would be able to watch their favorite shows via broadband for no extra fees, while non-subscribers would be blocked. If the media companies can use this idea to control how consumers watch TV programming, they may also be able to force a more traditional amount of advertising on them, too.

Nielsen says it is simply trying to come up with methods it believes its clients truly want -- and that this idea is only one solution among many it intends to offer.

"Ultimately, the programmers -- the guys who own the TV content -- they're all struggling to find out what the best business model is that works for them. There is a divide," said Sara Erichson, president–media client services, North America, at Nielsen.

She's not kidding. Some TV executives envision a day when ad-free online viewing might have to include a subscription of some sort to make it work financially. When faced with that prospect, said one TV-network executive, research suggests that 80% to 90% of people would rather watch TV online with the same load of ads as a traditional TV show. "People don't want to pay more subscription fees on top of their cable subscription fee," this executive said.

Consumer response?
Yet others are more wary. Media companies "can monetize their internet video, but it's all going to come down to how the consumer actually responds," said Colleen Fahey Rush, executive VP-strategic insights and research, Viacom's MTV Networks. If "the ad load is higher than it currently is," she asked, could it "tamp down" consumption of video online?

One academic thinks consumers will, over time, accept more advertising in the digital realm. "It's not so much the ad load. It's much more about the convenience," said Tom Ksiazek, an assistant professor of communication at Villanova University. Research suggests that "viewers will watch those ads as long as the program is on the best available screen" for them at the time they want to view a program that is important to them.

Already, Mr. Ksiazek's theory has borne out under other circumstances. In 2008, ABC said it would increase the availability of popular shows such as "Grey's Anatomy" for video-on-demand viewing on cable systems -- as long as consumers had no ability to fast-forward past the commercials. Citing a trial of the concept it ran on a cable system owned by Cox Communications, ABC said 93% of people who had their fast-forwarding capabilities removed when watching ABC programs on-demand found having to watch ads an acceptable exchange for getting to see the programs free. About 20% of users said they used on-demand to watch an ABC program rather than using a digital video recorder.

At the very least, media companies appear ready to test out Nielsen's idea, though many of them say they will also embrace other experiments that bubble up in a time of great change for the industry. "We are exploring revenue models with various ad loads and promo loads," said Turner's Mr. Wakshlag, "but we won't really know what will shake out until the marketplace develops."

Flash Is Not a "CPU Hog" Like Apple Claims!

For all of you that have been wondering about Flash for your video delivery...Read this, from  Streaming Media Mag:

There's been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks due to Steve Jobs being quoted as saying one of the reasons Apple won't support Flash video on the new iPad was due to Flash being a "CPU Hog". Apple's workaround to Flash video is to use HTML5 and that encouraged some to even suggest that HTML5 would kill off Flash, which couldn't be further from the truth.
But rather than debate this topic, Jan Ozer, a technical writer for Streaming Media and encoding guru, decided to spend the time to actually test Flash versus HTML5. 
Here are some of the highlights of what he says.
When it comes to efficient video playback, the ability to access hardware acceleration is the single most important factor in the overall CPU load. On Windows, where Flash can access hardware acceleration, the CPU requirements drop to negligible levels. It seems reasonable to assume that if the Flash Player could access GPU-based hardware acceleration on the Mac (or iPod/iPhone/iPad), the difference between the CPU required for HTML5 playback and Flash playback would be very much narrowed, if not eliminated.
Overall, it's inaccurate to conclude that Flash is inherently inefficient. Rather, Flash is efficient on platforms where it can access hardware acceleration and less efficient where it can't. With Flash Player 10.1, Flash has the opportunity for a true leap in video playback performance on all platforms that enable hardware acceleration.
Apple complaining about Flash being a CPU Hog while not exposing "the appropriate hooks" to enable Adobe to access hardware acceleration seems disingenuous at best. To be fair to Apple, though, the iPad related timing was unfortunate, with the bulk of the development work done under the shadow of Flash Player 10.0, which didn't offer hardware acceleration other than full screen on any platform and was clearly less efficient than the HTML5-based approach Apple adopted. Now that Adobe has proven the concept on Windows, perhaps Apple will cooperate with Adobe to make hardware acceleration on the Mac, iPad and future devices happen. If they choose not to, however, they should quit pointing fingers at Flash.

Online Video On Your TV?

This is on our radar thanks to "The Diffusion Group"

One more indication of Video ubiquity!

Cablevision is at it again. With its newly announced PC-to-TV ‘Media Relay’ service, the MSO is set to once more provoke Hollywood, only this time it has nothing to do with networked DVR services (at least not overtly). Instead, Cablevision wants to give consumers TV-based access to any and all Internet media content, as well as content stored on their PCs and (eventually) other networked media devices. While the latter application is interesting, the former could be game changing.

Is this simply a legal maneuver intended to irritate content providers and force the issue of multi-screen distribution rights, or is there something more going on here?

Essentially, Cablevision’s PC-to-TV Media Relay (a lab name, for sure) enables consumers to view any online video (yes, even Hulu) directly on their TV set with quality of service guarantees that only a broadband operator can provide. How can it guarantee quality-of-service (QoS) if the video is transmitted via the open Internet? Good question.

Here’s the way I understand it. Online video is sent over Cablevision’s last-mile broadband pipe to a software-enabled consumer PC, after which it is “shifted” to the operator’s backend and then sent over Cablevision’s TV network to a set-top box that displays the content as a TV channel on a regular TV set (yep, just a regular old set-top box with no broadband capabilities).

In June, the Company will conduct a technical trial of the Media Relay solution. That’s about all we know at this point, as details are scarce. This may be just another version of ZeeVee’s solution or more likely, Sling. Nevertheless, it is perfectly prudent to ponder the implications of this particular application.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, one major negative for the model is its potential to suck up tons of upstream bandwidth. Should this service get legs (which Cablevision expects to happen), this will no doubt become an issue, one with the potential to disrupt its QoS pledge. Yes, the operator will have total control over the content once it shifts to its private networks, but control in this case implies direct responsibility for QoS. Careful what you promise...

Funny, though. Cablevision COO Tom Rutledge said this service would “move [Internet video] to the television with the click of a mouse.” A mouse…really? Does this mean it resembles Netflix in that it requires TV streamers to use their PC to populate a queue of some sorts, or did he mean to say “TV remote control” instead of “mouse”? Let’s hope he meant the former, for the sooner this application can be enabled via a regular TV remote, the sooner it will be embraced by mainstream consumers.

But here’s the big hiccup in all this. Certain online content aggregators owned by certain film and TV big-wigs (can you say “Hulu”?) are adamant about consumers not having the right to stream or retransmit their online programs to other devices like the TV. If you want to watch programs using Hulu, pull up a PC my friend!

Do you see the legal ramifications of this position, how a few feathers might be ruffled? Cablevision is certain to claim fair use and Hulu investors (News Corp, NBC, and Disney) are certain to claim copyright violation. The stage is thus set for a clash of the titans, operators looking to leverage their existing distribution rights to reach into OTT video versus content owners looking to get extra money for extra screens and subvert these types of “magical solutions” that blur established lines.

Put another way, the stage is set for a legal battle that will determine the future of over-the-top video delivery to the TV.

At this point, few specifics have been shared by Cablevision. We will keep you posted on specifics as they come through the pipeline.