Category Archives: Huh?

June 18, 2014 · 9:14 am

Alienation As A Business Model

After a very large sports weekend the trade press is filled with the various reports from the broadcasters about their record-breaking audiences.

no-cable-tv

(Photo credit: hjl)

The World Cup is generating huge viewership on TV as well as online.  The NBA Playoffs had massive audiences.  The Stanley Cup Playoffs did exceptionally well.  While the U.S.Open audience was down a bit there was still massive interest.

It wasn’t just sports either.  There was the usual slew of primetime shows that, in the aggregate, bring together a majority of the population across broadcast and cable networks.  I’ll admit to having watched my fair share of both sports and entertainment (and a little news thrown in).  As I was doing so, a thought came to mind.

All of these content providers (that’s what they are, you know) do their best to attract large audiences.  After all, a big part of their business model is selling the viewers’ eyeballs to advertisers.  Why does it seem, then, that every one of them goes out of their way to alienate the audience with way too much non-program material?

I’ll give you an example.  I tuned in the golf on Father’s Day at noon with my dad and my brother-in-law, also a golf fan.  From noon until around 1:30, we saw very little golf as NBC decided to show us feature after feature and do analysis of what the leaders would do when they teed off 2 hours later.  Even though some big names and popular players were on the course, they didn’t show us how the course was playing, how the greens were breaking, or anything else.  They also showed lots and lot of commercials.

I don’t mean to single NBC out.  Just look at how often something important on the screen is obscured by a promotional overlay, something common to every network these days.  Nielsen did a report which looked at 20 cable channels’ commercial loads in the first quarter of 2013. The results: Some nets don’t even fill 40 minutes of programming time per hour.  Nielsen told Adweek that the average clutter time today is 13:32 on broadcast; 16:59 on cable (so the program time averages barely 43 minutes).  You wonder why Netflix is so popular?

When we promise our customers one experience and then deliver something quite different, we’re in trouble.  I don’t tune in to any show to watch the ads or the promos and I’m sure you don’t either.  Yet those seem to be the focus for the program providers.  You can’t build alienating your customers into your business model.  All of us need to align our interests with those of our customers no matter what the business.   What’s your take on this?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, Huh?

Tagged as , , , ,

June 16, 2014 · 11:42 am

Canada Gets It Right

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t even try to play one on TV.

English: Supreme Court of Canada building, Ott...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That said, the screed today is one citizen’s view of something that happened with our neighbors to the North and why I think it should serve as an example for us.  As has been happening here, the Canadian government is trying to expand the scope of warrantless, voluntary disclosure of personal information via digital.  There are bills before the legislature which would permit many of the same activities that have been occurring here for years to go on in Canada.   These include the warrantless disclosure of data to law enforcement as well as immunity from any criminal or civil liability  for companies that do so.  The Canadians are also considering allowing organizations to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breech or possible violation of any law.  Read that carefully – ANY organization – including non-governmental.

The other day things changed:

The Supreme Court of Canada issued its long-awaited R. v. Spencer decision, which examined the legality of voluntary warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information to law enforcement. In a unanimous decision, the court issued a strong endorsement of Internet privacy, emphasizing the privacy importance of subscriber information, the right to anonymity, and the need for police to obtain a warrant for subscriber information except in exigent circumstances or under a reasonable law.

Revolutionary?  One might think, except we’ve had a similar law on our books for a hundreds of years.  It’s called the Fourth Amendment and it protects each of us from unreasonable searches and seizures.  It also states the government must have warrants which are specific as to what the search is about.  No fishing trips permitted.  I’ll wait while the lawyers tell me I’m missing nuance and maybe I am.  That said, I’m outraged and sickened by what has been occurring with much regularity over the last 13 years and the fact that companies are complicit in allowing fishing trips by government.  It’s just as bad in my book that businesses grab data from users without explicit permission nor do they disclose what data is taken, how it is to be used, and when it is sold to third parties.

Today isn’t meant to do anything except call your attention to the issue.  If you’ve not been paying attention to it you should.  No one can enter your home without permission or a warrant.  Why would you allow them into your digital home without either?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , , , ,

April 14, 2014 · 8:38 am

Why Facts Matter

I read a disturbing, though unsurprising report this morning. It’s from the Union of Concerned Scientists and has to do with climate change. Since this is a business blog we won’t get into the politics of that issue. I will, however, use my bully pulpit to remind you that unlike many of the challenges we face, money or power won’t buy you a different planet on which to live so you won’t have to deal with Earth’s climate.

Back to business.  The report looked at the three main cable news channels and the scientific accuracy of the statements they made with respect to climate change.  This is important since CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are the most widely watched cable news networks in the United States, and their coverage of climate change is an important source of information for the public and for policy makers. Thirty-eight percent of American
adults watch cable news and cable news coverage of climate science often reflects and reinforces people’s perceptions of the science, as the report states.  What did they find?

Using specified criteria, we determined whether the individual segments identified dealt with climate science and whether the portrayal of climate science was consistent with the best available scientific evidence at the time of broadcast.  Of the CNN segments that mentioned climate science, 70 percent were entirely accurate, while 30 percent included misleading portrayals of the science.  Of the Fox segments that mentioned climate science, 28 percent were entirely accurate, while 72 percent included misleading portrayals of the science. Of MSNBC segments that mentioned climate science, 92 percent were entirely accurate, while 8 percent included misleading portrayals of the science.

My point here isn’t to promote to bash one network over another.  If you’re making business (or other) decisions based on what you hear from a particular source, you might be missing quite a bit of information.  Even worse, as this study shows, you may have quite a bit of wrong or misleading information.  If the most accurate network got a bunch of critical information right only 92% of the time, how accurate can your facts be if they come from any single source?

Facts matter.  Just because a news organization (or a bright consultant) tells you something doesn’t make it factually accurate.  When a few independent sources do so, you’re probably on solid ground.  That’s the place we need to find.  Are you coming with me?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Helpful Hints, Huh?, Reality checks

Tagged as , , , , , ,