On Jul 7, 2014, at 5:02 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Here's something for Craig to ponder. A few key excerpts (emphasis added by > me): > > "The viewers are spending more time on devices where **media brands are not > affecting them**." > > "This is the wave of the future, 'follow-me' content with **a** brand coming > along for the ride." Yup! This is entirely consistent with the move to VOD consumption of serialized TV programming. When we watch MAD MEN, House of Cards, or Game of Thrones via an OTT service we are only concerned with the content, not who produced it or what network it may have run on when it premiered. Gone are the days when we had 3-4 program choices, closely tied to the networks that offered these shows. The networks still do extensive cross promotion of their shows and stars, but the results are far different today; great shows may still draw millions of viewers, but most network shows now have audience sizes comparable to the better cable network shows. As if to confirm this, look at the shows just nominated for Emmy Awards. More than half never aired on broadcast television. > > "Morgan believes that the function of television remains the same throughout > all its many changes: 'People want to be entertained, informed, engrossed, > and engaged.' The content such as supplied by ESPN will not go away. It will > be there **regardless of how it's delivered to viewers**. He believes that > the amount and variety of content will increase to serve the demand of > smaller demographics of the larger audience." Again, this is hard to disagree with. People will place value on the content they want, and will pay for it. What Morgan does not address is how the marketplace will evolve to deal with the new realities. It could easily be said that "the bundle" will not go away. The issue is no longer the network brands. The issue is who controls the programs, and how will we pay for them? > > As to the way he separates TVs from PCs, in terms of viewing habits and money > spent by global media on these platforms, that would be purely a function of > how the CE companies design their smart TVs. In principle, there could and > should be no difference. Don't place too much emphasis on the Smart TV. It will be a gateway to content, but the brand of TV will largely be irrelevant, unless it is accompanied by "must see" content. In this, brands like Amazon, Apple, Google and Netflix, will likely be more important than Samsung, Sony, LG and Vizzio. You ignored what may be the most important takeaway from the EETimes story: > He believes the third wave is smart TV that targets smaller demographics with > compelling content that provides advertisers a rifle shot at their potential > buyers, versus carpet-bombing a population. Morgan said smart TV is about a > new economic model and new relationship with the viewer and advertiser. This > is made possible by cloud-based television service for smart TVs and > connected devices such as supplied by Net2TV. Engaging viewers individually > and paying for it will require new forms of programming and advertising and > will also require the delivery of both to viewers. The real question is who will figure this out. The broadcast networks would appear disadvantaged, except for the fact that they control the largest chunk of the TV advertising pie, AND they are collecting billions in subscriber fees... Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.