CBS threatens to pull stations off Dish

Les Moonves, the President of CBS has publicly threatened to pull CBS-owned stations from Dish Network carriage if Dish continues with plans to offer an option that would remove commercials from its new Hopper DVR service.  A key feature of the Hopper service is that it will automatically record all prime-time programming from the Big Four networks and offers subscribers the option to activate the AutoHop feature, which will automatically drop ads and other non-programming content from the playback.

"Hopper cannot exist," Moonves said Wednesday at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference in Beverly Hills, Calif. "We cannot produce episodes for $3.5 million apiece and have the people at Dish say they will pull out the commercials. We will not be on Dish. We will go elsewhere," he added.

CBS is also part of the Big Four networks' legal challenge that charges Dish with copyright infringement.  The case joins a number of others that question whether a number of new digital services operate under "fair use" guidelines or run afoul of one or more intellectual property rights.

  The move could impact on CBS audiences and ratings, if its viewers don't have alternative ways of receiving the signals of the pulled stations.  It could also encourage Dish viewers who want to keep access to CBS programming to shift to an alternative service.  CBS-owned stations tend to be in the largest markets, where competition for multichannel video services is high, so viewers should have options.  Both CBS and Dish are likely to experience some negative impact in the short run, while the legal case is in the early stages.  The real impact will come if another major network or station owner follows CBS' lead.

Read more: CBS threatens to pull stations from Dish over Hopper dispute - FierceCable

Pandora booms

Music streaming service Pandora announced a 48% surge in active listeners, indicating that the service was reaching some 56 million listeners in August.  The even better news was the upsurge in how advertisers viewed Pandora as an advertising platform, and the increased ad revenues that will follow.

“Advertisers are loving Pandora,” came a headline in a report by Wells Fargo’s Marci Ryvicker Friday...  Pandora is viewed as a “very efficient local buy for large, national advertisers.”

In a comment, a professor at NYU indicated that "Puma's effort on the (Pandora) workout stations last spring were a big hit with my students who recognized the excellent fit between target and product."

Source - Pandora Attracts More Listeners, Advertisers,   MediaDailyNews

FCC backs off Internet tax plan

The FCC has now formerly abandoned a proposal from earlier this year to increase funding for broadband Internet access support by placing a tax on that same broadband service.
  The roots of this issue originate with the Universal Service Fund (USF), and a move by the FCC to shift funds from the USF to help subsidize broadband internet access.  Funds for the USF come from a monthly service charge (tax) on landline and wireless phone services, and was initially designed to help provide affordable basic phone service throughout the nation.  Last year, the FCC took $4.5 billion from the USF to subsidize broadband Internet through a new fund, called the Connect America Fund (CAF)  However, with people shifting to email, texting, IP telephony and other online options, contributions to the USF are declining and would not reach the levels the FCC wanted for further support broadband Internet access.

  In April, the FCC proposed a number of ideas for "reforming" the USF contribution system - releasing a Request for Comment document.  (This is the first formal step in the FCC's rulemaking process and doesn't commit the FCC to any specific action).  Among the ideas for additional funding sources were a fee (tax) imposed on broadband Internet service, taxing text messages, and shifting the USF contribution to a flat fee per line, rather than a tax on interstate phone revenues.  The summer saw plenty of public comment.  A few large Internet players (who would likely get some of the added funds) supported the idea; while comments from the public, and from a range of public interest groups grew increasingly negative as news of the proposed new taxes spread.  The public outcry (followed by Congressional "outrage") over a possible fee (tax) on broadband Internet service in particular has now reached the point where the FCC has dropped the idea - as "politically toxic."
  An indication of how negative the public reaction was to a new broadband Internet tax is that no one at the FCC will admit to suggesting the idea - Democrats claiming it was pushed by Republicans, and Republicans suggesting that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's strong support for expanding broadband subsidies and access (and a number of prior public statements) is behind the push for new funding sources.  Playing the blame game, particularly during a heated election cycle, can be fun, but the basic concept of expanding the USF from basic telephone access to Internet access or broadband Internet access has been floating around for decades.  And the FCC, by transferring USF funds to the Connect America Fund last year has at least informally redefined Universal Service to include broadband Internet access.  What the current kerfuffle is about is how and where to raise additional funds to support the expanded definition.

  But the blame game is fun, so here's my take.  The specific proposals most likely came from FCC staff, who were charged with finding ways to increase USF/CAF funding.  It is true that the sole Republican commissioner at the time supported looking for ways to expand the funding base, as did at least one Republican senator.  But so did the Democratic commissioners, and Democratic congress members on the FCC oversight committees.  In addition, FCC chairman Genachowski has long been a very vocal proponent of the development and expansion of broadband Internet access.  So basically everyone thought looking for additional funding sources was a good idea; yet it seems likely that none of these major players made a specific recommendation for a broadband Internet tax.  Under that kind of directive to search for additional funding options, staffers are usually tasked with coming up with as many different proposals as they can, so that policymakers have a range of options to consider.  It often starts with ideas for new fees for related services that aren't already taxed.  Normally these ideas and proposals are pre-screened to remove those proposals that aren't politically, legally, or economically feasible - but in this case they either didn't, or they missed a few.
  However, if you need to lay the blame on either Republicans or Democrats, I'd give the edge to the Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell over Chairman Genachowski (D).  When the public concern over the proposal first surfaced, his initial reaction was to question whether the FCC had the legal authority to impose the tax.  In contrast, spokesmen for Genachowski said that the Chairman was skeptical that the tax on broadband Internet services would work, but floated the various proposals to judge public reaction - and afterwards blamed Republicans.  In addition, these kinds of policy proposals always come through the Chairman's office and with his (or one of his staffers') approval.  So the buck stops at the Chairman's office - they're at least responsible for the decision to include the various digital IP service fees/taxes in the formal request for comments, if not for coming up with the specific proposals themselves or supporting any one specific proposal.

Source -  FCC backpedals from Internet tax, Hillicon Valley blog, the Hill
 

Nintendo joins screens wars

Nintendo will soon enter the video streaming marketplace, with the launch of their newest game platform - the Wii U gaming console.

  The new console will include an application, called TVii, that Nintendo says can be used to navigate live TV programming through the included touchscreen game controller.  The company indicated that it had reached deals with Tivo (allowing the device to access content on Tivo DVRs) and streaming services from Netflix and Amazon, among others.  Nintendo didn't indicate any specific deals for accessing live programming from cable and satellite providers. (Microsoft has deals with Comcast and Verizon FiOS allowing access to some live programing through apps on its Xbox 360 game console).
  Nintendo joins an already crowded program access marketplace, where game consoles, OTT boxes, BlueRay disc players and connected TVs competing to be the device used to access video programming.  As for programming services, a recent quote from Time-Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt sums it up nicely -

"If somebody wants to use the interface that comes with one device or another, that's fine. We're going to continue to have ours. If there's a better one--as long as they buy video from us--I don't care."

Source - Nintendo challenges cable IPGs with TVii user interface - FierceCable

Report: Apple's iOS and Google's Android to split mobile market

Research from Global Equities Research suggest that the Apple and Android operating systems are likely to increase their dominance of the mobile marketplace, eventually coming to share 98% of the market.  After talking with app developers, they concluded that

"98 percent of [the mobile market] will be shared by Google Android and Apple iOS. There will not be any third spot left. Nokia, Microsoft and RIM will struggle in the remaining 2 percent of the market."

  There's numbers backing that conclusion.  Apple's sold more than 400 million iOS devices, and the number of people who have set up one-click-billing accounts has doubled in the last year (reaching 435 million accounts - last year there were 180 million).  Google's Android is also doing well, with more than 1.2 million device activations a day.  And there is cross-over as well - the recent Google YouTube iOS app was downloaded a million times in the first 24 hours.
  In contrast, analysts were cautiously mixed in their predictions about the heavily hyped Nokia Lumia 920/Windows Phone 8 product launch.  Some even called the product pair "poor industrial design" and "dead on arrival."  (In large part because the screen is too large for easy one-handed operation).  While the Nokia just launched, the new RIM - Blackberry product launch has been pushed back to January.
  In the meantime, Apple recently launched the iPhone 5, and analysts expect an iPad Mini to be available next month.  On the Android side, Kindle just launched a new family of Kindle Fire tablets, and October should see the new Android OS (Jelly Bean), some 30 new Google apps, and at least 15 new Android-running smartphones.

"The innovation rivalry between Apple and Google will not leave any third slot in the mobile space," concluded report author Trip Chowdhry. He added, "Innovation velocity of both Apple and Google far exceeds that of its peers."

  The analysts see one potential ray of hope for a challenger OS - the fact that Apple and Android dominance (and their competition) have forced wireless operators to heavily subsidize many of the newest products.  Some financial analysts have warned that the iPhone 5 launch would likely result in a significant hit on wireless operator profits.  The various wireless operators could help a third OS challenger by pushing a third platform; but this is only likely to help if that third platform could offer highly capable, competitive, smartphones at low price points.  Microsoft has the funds to subsidize product lines if it wants to, and has been very innovative in the past.  Its had a problem, though, getting many of those innovations adopted by consumers.

Source -  Android, Apple Dominance Leaves No Room for Third Platform: Report,  CIO Insight Mobile & Wireless.

Pew: Visuals as Social Currency

A new Pew research study suggests that photos and videos are becoming key online social currencies.
  Almost half (46%) of adult Internet users post original photos and videos online (that they themselves have created).  Pew identified this group as creators. Almost all in this group have posted and shared photos (45% of all adults, 98% of creators); what was more surprising was that more than a third of them created and posted videos (18% of all Internet users, 39% of creators).

  The study also found that 41% of adults using the Internet were curators - people who have taken photos or videos they found online and posting them on a site used for sharing them with others.  Over a third (35%) of adult Internet users have done that with photos (85% of curators), and a quarter (25%) of adult Internet users have done so with videos (61% of curators).  There is a large overlap in the creator and curator groups - almost a third (32%) of all adult Internet users are both creators and curators, and 56% of all Internet users have engaged in at least one of the creating or curating activities.
  The rise and diffusion of social visuals-sharing systems have certainly contributed to the growth of these activities.  Clearly YouTube has made video sharing (whether your own or someone else's) quite easy, and most basic social media systems have incorporated the capacity to share images and videos.  The Pew study focused on several of the newer social media-sharing services - Pinterest, Instagram, and Tumblr.  They found Pinterest was predominantly used by women (1 in 5 women, 12% of all Internet users).  Instagram had a similar overall penetration (12% of all Internet users), but was dominated by younger users - more than 1 in 4 people in the 18-29 age group (27%) have used Instagram.  Only 5% of adults using the Internet reported using Tumblr to share images.  The report provides additional demographic breakdowns.

  As indicated above, if there was a real surprise in this study, it was the numbers on creating and sharing videos.  While the development of social media systems for sharing photos and videos is likely the most immediate factor contributing to video creation and curation, I'd add two other enabling factors - first, the expansion of video capabilities into most digital cameras and many mobile devices, which has given many more people the capacity to shoot video; and second, the expansion of broadband Internet access, which has boosted the ability to watch, and share, online videos of increasing quality.

  What makes creation and curation activities social currency is the notion that the content provided drives a lot of the increased attention to, and use of, social media and the Internet.  They provide the value that guides audience actions.

Source - Photos and Videos as Social Currency Online,  report from the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project.

Goin' Mobile - Adoption Expands (even before iPhone 5)

  There's no question that the use of smartphones and mobile devices is growing rapidly and becoming mainstream.  There's some question, though, as to the precise level of adoption.
  Recently released Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life research indicates that close to half of U.S. adults now use smartphones (45%, in fact).  Another third own "feature phones" (cell phones with added features, but not full internet accessibility), and 5% aren't sure what type of cellphone they have.  That leaves only 15% with no cell phone.  Last year, Pew reported that 35% of U.S. adults had smartphones.
  On the other hand, a Nielsen report indicates that 55.5% of mobile users have a smartphone. The discrepancy isn't that bad, however, as the Pew number translates to about 53% of "mobile users".
  Adoption of smartphones continues to be differentiated.  The Pew study indicates that more than two-thirds of young adults (18-29) have smartphones, as do two-thirds of adults in households earning more than $75000 annually.  In addition, Blacks (47%) and Hispanics (49%) remain slightly more likely than Whites (42%) to have smartphones.
  The Nielsen results also have younger users leading the charge, with 58% of teens (13-17) having smartphones (up from 36% the previous year), as did three-quarters of those in the 25-34 age group.  The Nielsen report also shows the Android OS continuing to lead, with over half of smartphone users using Android OS phones, and a slight drop in the last quarter in Apple's share.  Many analysts felt that the slowdown in Apple iOS growth was at least partially due to expectations for a new iPhone release delaying purchase decisions (with Apple's share of the market increasing again after the release).
   And it looks like those expectations will be met with the iPhone 5.  Apple reported getting 2 million pre-orders for their upgraded device within the first 24 hours they were available, with demand already outstripping supply (the iPhone 5 won't be officially launched until this Friday, Sept. 21).  With a global launch, some analysts are predicting Apple will sell 100 million iPhone 5s by the end of December, if manufacturing can keep up.

Sources -  Smartphones Ring Up Popularity Stats,  OnlineMediaDaily
Young Adults and Teens Lead Growth Among Smartphone Owners, NielsenWire press release
Apple's iPhone 5: 2 million preorders, 24 hours and a unique upgrade cycle,  ZDNet
Smartphone Ownership Update: September 2012, report from Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project

Update - Research from Frank N. Magid indicates that half of U.S. Internet users have also downloaded an app to a mobile device.  Looking deeper, only one in four app users have paid for an app, but one third of those who haven't used an app feel that they are likely to start doing so within the next three months.

Source -  Survey finds half of U.S. online users have downloaded mobile apps, Fierce Mobile Content

Time at Work - Social Media no problem, but Meetings and People are.

A recent survey of IT Staffers, conducted for for IT vendor TrackVia, included some interesting questions.  One asked respondents to identify the biggest time-wasters at work.  (The report only included slides, so I'm not sure of some of the wordings used).
  Asked to identify the top "time-waster" - 14% indicated "water cooler conversation" or chatting with co-workers; 11% identified Meetings; 11% indicated buggy hardware/software; 9% said web-surfing; and 5% indicated social media.
  Looking at meetings more closely, more than 1 in 5 said they spend at least three hours a week in meetings.  Among those who attend meetings during a typical week, 37% felt that at least half of the time in meetings was wasted, and only 7% indicated that meetings were 100% productive.
  Another set of questions dealt with the time spent on intra-office communications and relations.  Fifteen percent of the sample indicated that they spend 1-2 hours in a typical week dealing with things related to misunderstandings or miscommunications with coworkers.  Slightly more (17%) spend 1-2 hours a week dealing with office politics.
  The result - for managers worried about staff "wasting time" with social media - there are likely much bigger problems you need to deal with first.

  And on a personal note - the IT staffer comments on meetings and politics sound a lot like what happens in academia.


Source:  IT Management Slideshow: Social Media at Work: Not Our Biggest Time-Waster,  CIO Insight

New niches and targets? New research on online & mobile

There have been several interesting reports on how various segments of the audience are using, or are impacted by, aspects of the evolving media world.

  Mentioned in a previous post was the interesting finding that college students felt that advertising is still the most influential medium for ads, although.  New research reported by the Association of National Advertisers suggests that company and product websites are the best way to reach multicultural audiences.  And consulting firm Altman Vilandria & Co.  is reporting that use of tablets for TV and movie viewing is growing most quickly among older viewers. The use of tablets for video viewing grew, in the last year, from 11% to 19% among those 55 or older, and from 15% to 24% for those in the 45 to 54 age group.

“The implications for marketers and the future of advertising are profound: video advertising on tablets can be more timely (inserted at time of viewing), more targeted, and more interactive than has yet been possible with TV advertising,” said Jonathan Hurd, author of the (Altman Vilandria & Co.) study.

There's other interesting research coming out about "second-screen" viewing (watching TV & video on a device other than a TV set). Research from TDG suggests that second-screen viewing doesn't detract much from regular TV viewing - they found that in key demographics there was little impact on regular TV viewing (only a "negligible" proportion of those 50 or older reported a decline in normal TV viewing, while for the key 18-49 demographic, only 15% reported a decline in regular TV viewing. In fact, for that demographic, 39% of those watching video and TV on tablets said that their tablet viewing led them to increase their regular TV viewing. The idea that tablet or mobile TV viewing supplements traditional TV viewing rather than acting as a substitute is also supported by the recent Nielsen Cross-Platform Media Report (see this post).
  And then there's the MediaMind study results that suggest that online video ads are much more effective (in generating click-throughs) than online banner ads or rich media ads.

What all of these results suggest is that "second-screen" TV viewing through online and mobile devices may be more efficient and effective outlets for marketers and advertisers who are interested in targeting particular niche audiences. As these outlets continue to develop, they should be able to attract advertising and marketing dollars - especially once reasonable audience measurement metrics emerge.

Sources - Tablet Viewing Rising In Popularity For Older Viewers, Not Hurting TV Viewing, VidBlog
Digital Marketers Reach Multicultural Demos Best On Web Sites, OnlineMediaDaily

A Primer on "cherry-picking" stats

Most people treat numbers as real and reliable - and in most circumstances they are.  But they can also be used to be purposefully misleading, or picked through to find whatever set of numbers makes the best case for a given circumstance.  It's just part of "How to Lie With Statistics."
  The professional association of pollsters, AAPOR, knows well how this is done in the selective reporting of polls, and has guidelines for what information people really need to provide when making arguments based on polling results - guidelines that are for the most part ignored in journalistic reporting.  "Cherry-picking" results can be as problematic, particularly when only a pre-selected set of results is reported.  It's quite natural for someone who wants to use stats to support their argument to pick among the myriad variations of numbers and results those that best support their position.  And, regrettably, its quite natural for journalists to accept those numbers, or at most just verify their accuracy, rather than wondering why that particular set of numbers was used and looking at the larger picture and whether the cited results accurately reflect the underlying reality.
  There's an interesting video out that illustrates the potential issues of cherry-picking.  (While this particular one dissects an Obama campaign claim, cherry-picking is an almost universal tendency).

  Journalists in this increasingly competitive news market don't always have the luxury of time to critically evaluate every claim, even with the access to information and analysis that the Internet offers.  So when should they wonder if a claim's an accurate reflection of the larger reality?  As the video points out in its conclusion, one dead give-away is if the claim is very precisely phrased, or uses ranges or measures which don't seem to be the typical usage.    In the video's example, picking "27 months" and "7 years" as the time periods to consider.  Another is when different terms are used for the stats being provided.  In another case I recall, it was comparing "new jobs" (only those created - not considering those ending or lost) to "gains in employment" (comparing net job increase - newly created jobs minus jobs lost).
   When journalists run into these, it might be useful (not to mention enlightening) to look a bit deeper into the claims and measures.  At the very least, though, they need to be careful to use exactly the same phrasing in their reporting of the claim - even though it may make for better headlines to generalize that narrowly defined claim into statements like "Obama's created more jobs than Bush did."  Because that broader statement is not even "technically" accurate, and is easily refuted. Misinterpretations of that sort, intentional or not, can raise questions about the competence or fairness of the reporter and news organization. That kind of error or sloppiness may contribute to the public's growing mistrust of news media, and might possibly be a contributing factor to its decline.

edited to fix typos in title and body.