Category Archives: digital media

May 26, 2015 · 10:09 am

TV And Disruption

I have been thinking about a conversation I had with someone about the future of TV. OK, to be totally accurate, the chat was about the massive disruption that’s going on across all legacy media – newspapers, magazines, and radio as well as TV. I said that while that disruption is just now really beginning to be felt on a mass scale by TV, the TV industry seems to be learning from the mistakes made by newspapers and radio. I thought those learnings would help mitigate the disruption somewhat. Let’s see what you think.

Over the last year you’ve probably watched less live TV (other than sports and breaking news) than you have in the past. You’re not alone – live viewership of broadcast TV is down 30 percent since 2008 according to some measures. Time-shifted viewing is up quite a bit, however. Obviously it’s not a lack of interest in the programming but a desire to watch it on the viewer’s own schedule via whatever device is handy at that time.

Unlike the newspaper folks, who vigorously resisted the “what I want, where and when and how I want it” reality of the digital transformation, TV seems to be getting it. In fact, total overall consumption of video based content is skyrocketing. Admittedly some of that is from non-TV content sources (YouTube channels, etc) but as more TV content becomes easily available to cord-cutters and cord-nevers, I suspect what we’re seeing with CBS (CBS primetime is generating more viewers now than it did in 2003) will be true of most TV networks.

Some of my former colleagues in TV are finding ancillary benefits as well.  None of us were ever delighted with the Nielsen ratings system and the vast amount of viewing and audience information that’s now accessible through other channels is incredibly useful from both a programming and a sales perspective.  Frankly, the TV set is the viewing channel from which we get the least data and what information we do get is probably the least accurate.

All of the above is a long way of saying that despite my occasional jabs at TV clinging to their old business ways and traditional business model, I do recognize that they’ve quietly been changing and adapting to the new realities of digital disruption.  It’s encouraging and a good lesson for any business.  Do you agree?

1 Comment

Filed under digital media, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , , ,

May 22, 2015 · 11:57 am

Pretty Pictures Or Perfect Food?

It’s Foodie Friday and I’m shaking my head today.  No, not at the fact that we’re still walking around the Northeast wearing sweaters entering Memorial Day Weekend but at something I read about a “marketing” effort being made by the folks at Chili’s.  This from the AP:

Chili's Grill & Bar logo

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Chili’s says it’s spending about $750,000 a year for an egg wash that gives its burger buns a photogenic glaze. It’s part of an effort by the chain to get you to take pictures of its food and post them online.  In addition to using burger buns with an egg wash…the chain also recently started serving its fries in a stainless steel holder that “looks cool.” And ribs are no longer served in big slabs reminiscent of The Flintstones cartoons, but are cut into sections and stacked.

Hmm.  Why risk bad photos?  How about plastic food that’s perfect in each lobby?  Perhaps a little booth into which you can cart your burger and fries that’s perfectly lit?  Maybe the servers and bartenders need to be more photogenic while we’re at it. Even better – provide digital downloads via your free wi-fi so customers don’t risk getting their phones messy.  What’s that?  You don’t have free wi-fi?

This is not a great use of funds, but it’s also selfish.  This move is about Chili’s and not about their customers.  Chili’s wants to “go viral” with pretty pictures and good-looking food.  I wonder how viral really great food is.  Judging from what I pick up in my news feeds on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, great food gets posts (yes, I have a lot of foodie friends) and while some of the photos are lacking in composition or badly lit, I’d try anything my friends think is worth the calories.

In each of its past two fiscal years, sales at established Chili’s locations rose less than 1 percent.  Maybe better looking isn’t the answer.  I’m willing to bet better tasting, reasonably priced and served efficiently with a smile are ahead of it in line.  You know – that silly customer-focused stuff you’re ignoring in your quest for social traction.

What do you all think?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, food, Huh?

Tagged as , , , , , ,

May 21, 2015 · 11:17 am

Faust And Facebook

You might be aware that Facebook has started yet another new program with a few publishers.  Called “Instant Articles”, the program lets a select number of news organizations publish stories directly to Facebook and the publishers keep the ad revenue. There are nine launch partners, including BuzzFeed, The New York Times and NBC News.  If you use the Facebook app on an iPhone you might already have seen it.

Facebook logo

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A number of news reports have used the term “faustian” to describe the program and I agree.  You’ll recall the legend of Faust and his deal with the devil – he got something he wanted in return for the devil owning his soul (and eternal damnation!).  While it’s a bit of a stretch to equate Facebook with the devil, it’s an apt metaphor.  All publishers – especially those whose business models are dependent upon lots of content views – want greater visibility.  Facebook is the largest platform and in this case the publisher can monetize those views.  Makes sense, right?

Not really in my view.  Sure, if you’re happy with “one and done” traffic it’s fine but this is no way to build a loyal audience.  Many of the publishers I know count repeat visits as a KPI.  This doesn’t build that.  It’s especially bad if any of your model counts on subscription revenue.  The breadth and depth of your content offering – the quality that drives the justification for the subscription – is negated.

Facebook controls the terms of this news-publishing deal.  Ask any brand if they’ve experienced Facebook changing the game in the middle of play and they’ll say yes.  After all, this is the platform that encouraged brands to build pages and followings and then took away news feed access while encouraging ad spend.  Who is to say that this program won’t change again in a few months?  It’s especially troubling that news outlets will be able to publish so-called “branded content” directly to Facebook.  I’ve made my views on native ads that are indistinguishable from your own news content well-known.  Embedding them on Facebook makes them even more difficult to identify as sponsor messages (and who is to say when Facebook will demand their cut).

Don’t misunderstand.  I see high value in using Facebook both for publishing and for advertising.  I just think that abandoning the efforts to drive users to your own platform is ultimately self-defeating.  When you think about it, Facebook doesn’t produce content. They produce a platform but users and brands populate that platform with the real value – content. Companies that don’t produce value in the long run disappear and if you’ve put your eggs in the Facebook basket rather than continuing your own efforts, it really may be a deal with the devil.

Make sense?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?

Tagged as , , ,