Content Is Advertising; Advertising Is Content... On SNL

from the blurring-boundaries dept

If you're in any business that relies on "advertising" for revenue, you need to stop thinking of it as advertising -- and start realizing that advertising and content are the same thing. All traditional "advertising" is content -- and if you want anyone to pay attention to it, it had better be good content. At the same time, all traditional "content" is advertising -- it's just a question of what it's advertising. But as more companies recognize this, we're going to see an increasingly blurry line between advertising and content. While some purists decry this situation, they shouldn't worry so much. It will improve both the overall quality of the "content" that you see all the time in two ways: it will allow for better financing of that content and it makes sure that the formerly "bad" advertising content isn't sustainable and goes away.

Reader James Thomas sends in an example of this blurring of the lines that occurred recently with Saturday Night Live. Apparently, on the SNL the night before the Superbowl, there were three skits "MacGruber" skits (a parody of the popular classic TV show MacGyver) each of which had a totally over-the-top promotion of Pepsi. That part may seem like traditional product placement (though, oddly over the top), but the interesting part was that the next night, during the Superbowl, NBC actually showed one of those sketches during a commercial break. In other words, the sketch itself was then repurposed as "commercial" content -- thus blurring the lines completely. I'm not sure how effective this was (personally, I don't find the MacGruber skits funny at all), but it does demonstrate some of how things are changing. If you did the same thing with content that actually was enjoyable, I could see it getting a much better reaction.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NBC's Online Olympic Video Not Even Remotely Compelling

from the sharing?-stuff-we-want-to-watch? dept

NBC is hyping up how it's really embracing the web this year in its Olympic coverage. However, the details suggest that (as per usual with NBC Universal) it's taking a very old school approach -- meaning the web is treated as a second class citizen and that it won't be either useful or interesting to people online. That is, there are some restrictions that make its online efforts close to pointless. First, the videos won't be embeddable elsewhere. In other words, one of the key factors for online videos these days -- the shareability of those videos -- won't be allowed. NBC is trying to control and hoard the content -- which goes against everything the web should have taught the big shots at NBC Universal.

Secondly, while NBC is talking up 2,200 live hours of competition being shown online, it's sounding like those 2,200 hours will be of the content that people aren't as interested in watching. That is, the stuff that's being shown on TV will not be simulcast online. In fact, it won't be available to watch online until after it's been shown on TV (so, hardly live). So, any of the big important stuff will have to wait until NBC has shown it on TV (most likely on tape delay). So the only really "live" content you'll see is the stuff that isn't particularly interesting.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Content Is Advertising... On TV

from the but-you-need-to-be-careful dept

Continuing my series of posts on how all content is advertising and all advertising is content, there was an interesting story last week about how a top ad agency is teaming up with NBC to create TV shows around sponsors' products. This is an interesting idea, but the risk is in how it's being implemented. Such a strategy worked well when BMW put together its BMWfilms effort -- but the focus there was very much on making sure that the films were top notch. It involved star directors making quality short films that didn't necessarily promote BMW, but had BMWs in those films. The content itself was quite entertaining, and many people watched them.

And that, of course, is the key element here. The content itself needs to be compelling and stand alone as quality content, no matter what the products being showcased. Also, since the films were clearly labeled and promoted as BMWfilms, there was no "hidden" product placement. Everything was very upfront and aboveboard. What I fear with something like this new experiment from NBC, is that the the advertisers at the table will have too much of a say in the creative content, and will focus on making sure the product is positioned right, rather than making sure the content actually works and has entertainment value.

It will also be interesting to see how NBC handles promotion of this series. Will it be treated like any other series? Will it be available online? Will NBC let others copy and share it? Will there still be interruptions from commercials when it airs on TV? The answers may be very telling in how NBC is approaching this effort. Either way, this will be an experiment worth following. My guess is that, given the players involved, it will fail. The ad agency will push too hard to make the content more focused on the sponsored products. NBC will struggle with how to position and promote the show. And the whole thing will disappear quickly. I'd love to be wrong, and see real quality content come out of this, but, that may be asking too much at this point.

• Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising
• On Content, Promotions, Basic Economics... And Loutish Statements
• Content Is Advertising... In The Newspaper Industry
• Content Is Advertising... On TV
• Newspaper Content Is Advertising For More News Content

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is NBC Built For Failure In The Digital Age?

from the can't-retrofit-a-community-model dept

If you haven't yet read John Hockenberry's fascinating piece in the current issue of Technology Review, you ought to. Hockenberry was a longtime correspondent for Dateline NBC and went from there to the MIT Media Lab. It's hard to think of anyone more qualified to assess the news industry's relationship to new technology. And although the article does eventually devolve into (juicy) carping about his former employer, prior to that point Hockenberry's analysis of the media's failure to meaningfully embrace online technology is incisive.

But Hockenberry also makes this more general point:

Networks are built on the assumption that audience size is what matters most. Content is secondary; it exists to attract passive viewers who will sit still for advertisements. For a while, that assumption served the industry well. But the TV news business has been blind to the revolution that made the viewer blink: the digital organization of communities that are anything but passive. Traditional market-driven media always attempt to treat devices, audiences, and content as bulk commodities, while users instead view all three as ways of creating and maintaining smaller-scale communities. As users acquire the means of producing and distributing content, the authority and profit potential of large traditional networks are directly challenged.

By now everyone is familiar with the "Long Tail" concept, which, among other things, points out that information technology makes niche communities and products viable at a much more specialized scale than was previously possible. It's fairly well accepted that this focus on niche products may decrease the profitability of the mainstream hits found to the left of the long tail (see here for a good example).

But Hockenberry's observation makes obvious a point that's often neglected: that the shift in cultural attention that comes with the long tail may be closer to zero sum than we might imagine. It's not just that the network allows niche communities to proliferate; people also value those precisely-targeted communities more than they value media experiences designed for a general audience.

With this in mind it's a little easier to excuse the lame online efforts cited by Hockenberry. A broadcast network like NBC is fundamentally designed to produce at most a handful of signals, each as broadly appealing as possible. There's just no way to retrofit such a system into something that can compete with the endlessly precise intimacy of online communities. Sure, NBC may have missed some opportunities. But it's hard to believe that any of them would have stopped the inevitable diminution of mass media's importance to the average person.

Tom Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Tom Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is AT&T Siding With NBC To Get Rid Of Neutrality?

from the there's-an-explanation dept

I tend to be skeptical when people start screaming "net neutrality" when it's not warranted, but here's a situation where it may be worth asking a few questions. We've been wondering for some time why AT&T would agree to help NBC try to block the transfer of any unauthorized content on its network. It made very little sense at the time. AT&T (in its previous versions) had actually been one of the big proponents of the "safe harbor" clause in the DMCA that meant it didn't need to police the content on its own network. So why would it suddenly, voluntarily, be saying it wants to spend time, money and energy in an impossible effort to police the content shared across its own network?

A clue may be found in an MPAA FCC filing over the summer, where it spoke stridently against any network neutrality rules, for fear that such rules might make it impossible for ISPs to police content -- something the MPAA has been pushing for over the last few months, resulting in the recent PRO IP bill (which is actually very anti IP, but that's a different story). Basically, the MPAA (mainly NBC Universal) was offering up a compromise plan to the telcos: you support us by policing your network and we'll support you in trying to double charge popular websites.

With that said, it should come as no surprise that NBC Universal and AT&T are now acting like best buddies as they discuss plans for filters. Lobbyists from both companies were at CES saying typically misleading things. AT&T's James Cicconi talked about how what was being done to stop piracy wasn't enough -- but fails to note that it's not his problem. Legally. Legally, AT&T shouldn't even get close to trying to police its own network, as it actually opens the company up to more liability. But, in its greed to be able to set up extra tollbooths, the company appears to recognize that using "piracy" as an excuse for blocking is a way in the backdoor, potentially even around the very promises AT&T made to keep the net neutral for 30 months in order to get approval to buy BellSouth.

The statement from NBC Universal is even worse -- but not at all surprising, coming from the man, Rick Cotton, who gave us the easily proven false statement about how piracy was hurting the poor corn farmers of America (who aren't hurting at all, and on whom piracy has no impact). When it was pointed out to Cotton that blocking content could be legally questionable, his response wasn't to address the actual concerns over filtering, but to go with the ever creative defense of throwing up his hands in frustration: "The volume of peer-to-peer traffic online, dominated by copyrighted materials, is overwhelming. That clearly should not be an acceptable, continuing status." Yes, because as long as the threats to your obsolete business model are "overwhelming," no one else's rights matter in the slightest. It's similar to Doug Morris at sister company Universal Music. Basically: "we're too clueless to recognize that the market has changed and that we need to adjust our business models -- so instead, we will demand that everyone else change in an attempt to keep the world the way it was a decade ago." Back here in the real world, those strategies tend not to work, though they can cause plenty of damage in the short term.

About the only good news concerning all of this is that when asked to join them, Apple told AT&T and NBC Universal to get stuffed. Microsoft, on the other hand, joined right up to help. What we're witnessing is a collaboration among companies too short-sighted to recognize how the market is changing, who will team up to pretend to bolster each other's outdated business model. Hopefully, if Congress and the FCC don't make it impossible, the rest of the world will simply route around them and build the new business models for tomorrow. Still, with the FCC potentially cracking down on Comcast's efforts at traffic shaping, it'll be fascinating to see how the FCC responds to AT&T being even more proactive in blocking content. Given Kevin Martin's earlier statements about ignoring AT&T net neutrality promises combined with his close relationship with the telcos, somehow we get the feeling they won't face very much pressure.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NBC's Love/Hate Affair With YouTube Firmly In The Hate Position

from the bye-bye-youtube dept

Perhaps no company has had more of a love-hate affair with YouTube than NBC. On practically a weekly basis over the past year or so it seems like NBC's official position on YouTube switches back and forth. First, they hated YouTube because the SNL Andy Samberg video "Lazy Sunday" was widely available on it, requiring NBC's lawyers to demand it get taken down. This seemed odd to us, as it was a great promotional vehicle for Saturday Night Live. And, in fact, for a little while, it seemed that NBC agreed, as they set up an official NBC channel on YouTube where they released lots of content, including newer Samberg videos. NBC execs started to talk about how great YouTube was for promotional purposes and some even hoped that NBC would put more content on YouTube. Of course, then Jeff Zucker took over, and one of his first public statements involved slamming YouTube even as his executives were talking about how useful a tool it was. NBC soon filed an amicus brief against YouTube in a lawsuit against the company and, more recently, have been speaking out against the company. Perhaps this isn't too surprising, as the company has teamed up with News Corp in a weak attempt to create its own online video property.

So, with that flip-flopping in mind, it should come as little surprise that NBC has now completely shut down its official channel on YouTube according to Valleywag. This is pretty weak, though, as many people who enjoyed getting NBC content that way now have had that rug pulled out from under them. NBC still seems to be under the entirely wrong belief that people will come to them. People want to get content however it's convenient. That means offering it in a variety of places and a variety of formats so that people are more likely to view the content. Taking away options doesn't help things, it just pisses off more fans.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

CBS More Focused On Keeping Fans Happy

from the keep-the-fans-happy,-and-business-models-work-out dept

It's fascinating to watch the different approaches that competitors NBC and CBS are taking to dealing with the online video market. NBC has seemed almost to have a new strategy every day, happily putting videos up on YouTube, pulling them down from YouTube, being happy with YouTube, being upset with YouTube, putting videos on iTunes, pulling them down from iTunes. It's as if NBC doesn't have a real strategy at all -- or, at the very least, different factions within the company "win" every few weeks or so. In contrast, you have CBS, who recognized the importance of online video at nearly the same time as NBC. However, rather than going with a constantly shifting target, CBS's strategy has evolved in a pretty straight line. The company quickly realized that distribution and awareness was a lot more important than protection and focused on getting videos available wherever people wanted to view them (not just where CBS could control everything). That meant syndicating the content as widely as possible and even embracing the benefits from people sharing CBS content on YouTube and other sites. That's why it's not too surprising to hear CBS' Les Moonves respond to questions about NBC's decision to take its content off iTunes by saying that CBS is thrilled with iTunes and sees no reason to follow NBC's decision. The really telling statement is this one: "We look at iTunes as much as a promotional vehicle for our shows as a financial vehicle." That's why NBC is focused on putting up barriers for viewers, while CBS appears to be focused on taking them down.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Group Behind 'To Catch A Predator' Claims Wikipedia Is A Corporate Sex Offender

from the might-be-a-bit-personal dept

We've seen all sorts of criticisms of Wikipedia over the years, but this might be a first. Apparently the group "Perverted Justice," the controversial online vigilante group that tries to lure online pedophiles out into the open (and is the group that is used by NBC Dateline's equally controversial "To Catch A Predator" show) is now claiming that Wikipedia is "a corporate sex offender." Apparently, if you follow the links from Wikipedia to Perverted Justice's site, it has a screed against Wikipedia -- claiming "each article on Wikipedia that deals with any issue relating to pedophiles or internet predators has been heavily targeted and edited by the online pedophile activist movement." Of course, there's a bit more to the story. Apparently, Perverted Justice's founder was recently barred from editing Wikipedia after people felt that he was flaming other users, deleting any negative reference to his organization, accusing others of being pedophiles without substantiation and when asked about it, replying "with invective." This suggests the anger at Wikipedia is a bit more about the guy being barred than any sort of official Wikipedia issue. If anything, it seems like yet another case where Wikipedia's neutral point of view has resulted in confusion. There's no doubt that Perverted Justice's reason for being is good -- but calling Wikipedia a sex offender seems quite extreme and unreasonable.

74 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NBC-iVillage Marriage Already Loveless And Dull After One Year

from the nice-and-functional dept

Last year, when NBC bought out iVillage, the women-oriented online content firm, it looked like a classic case of major media company thinking it could evolve by buying its way onto the internet. Predictably, the company tried to portray the move as something more than a land grab, trotting out terms like "synergies", as it extolled the potential for cross promotions between iVillage and the Today show. The New York Times reports on how the marriage is doing one year later, and not surprisingly, many of these lofty ambitions haven't panned out. Although ad revenue has been solid, iVillage hasn't shown itself to be a strategic asset. Cross promotions with Today have been a total flop and other attempts to put iVillage content on TV have also been a failure. At this point, the deal is panning out very much as we anticipated. From a purely monetary perspective, you could argue that NBC made out okay. But if it really thought that the purchase could help it successfully orient its business around the internet, iVillage hasn't had much of an effect.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..