Time Warner is planning to end access to free content online by making consumers of Internet TV prove they’ve already paid for it.
As the largest owner of cable networks, which include TNT, Cartoon Network, CNN and HBO, Time Warner has been closely watching broadcasters ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX work through the process of distributing TV online. Bewkes, Time Warner CEO, is planning to provide cable programming on the web in places like Hulu, MySpace, Yahoo TV and even YouTube.
The catch: To view the content for free, you have to be able to prove that you subscribe to pay TV through cable, satellite or Telco.
Free access for those already paying for service. Beweks told Advertising Age, “If you want to watch your favorite TV network or shows through broadband on any device – PCs or mobile – you can do it as long you subscribe to any multi-channel provider.” He goes on to say, “It’s a natural extension of the existing model.”
What’s the benefit? Some media experts are skeptical of Beweks’ plans, but there are also many who feel like a change is in order. After all, a year ago most doubted Hulu would be found appealing to online users. Some fear online programming distribution could soon replace cable TV and destroy the industry.
Time Warner’s cable CEO Glen Britt sees the phenomenon of viewers dropping cable for free content online as a significant growing problem.
What do you think?
Peter Koeppel is a Wharton MBA and president of Koeppel Direct, a full-service media buying agency based in Dallas.
Some mainstream media outlets like Fox News continue to shape this debate within their own agenda’s terms, such as cropping this photo in an online article to distort the poster’s actual message.
The poster actually read “We Will Not Fight H8 with HATE.†When it comes to California’s gay marriage opponents, I’m beginning to wonder—are they the ones actually playing with fire?
The Obama campaign has already received flattering press concerning its multichannel marketing and online efforts, especially considering McCain’s lackluster presence in those spaces. Much like in Obama’s case, those who voted no on Proposition 8 tend to be younger and more tech savvy than their “Yes on 8†counterparts.
California has seen an outpouring of demonstrations ranging from quiet vigils to noisy street protests against Proposition 8, including rallies outside churches and the Mormon temple in Westwood, as well as boycotts of some businesses that contributed to the “Yes on 8†campaign.
Many of those activities have been organized not by political professionals and established leaders in the gay community, but by young activists working independently on Facebook and MySpace. The grassroots activism is a tribute to political organizing in the digital age, in which it is possible to mobilize thousands of people with a few clicks of a mouse.
“There is an incredible outpouring of energy, of people wanting to do something†says Trent Thornley, a San Francisco lawyer who created his Facebook group, “Californians Ready to Repeal Prop. 8,†the day after the election. Thornley said his roommate told him to expect a few hundred people to join. Instead, a week later, the group has more than 200,000 members. Another Facebook group, “Repeal the California Ban on Marriage Equality 2010,†also has attracted more than 200,000 members. Many say the protests also mark the rise of a new generation of gay activists.
The Prop. 8 protest activities are more effective than old school protests because those unable to attend a rally can still donate money, join groups or send out messages that translate onto the Facebook homepage and news feed for all to see. Additionally, while only some might see the protests in the streets live, others on social networks are aware that they’re happening and are conscious of the numbers involved, regardless of how the media covers it. The implications are similar to the current outbreak of youth protests in Greece, which, according to The New York Times, the rioters used texting and websites to organize and communicate their responses against the police and other security forces.
When I pondered social media colliding with young, gay activists, my mind drifted towards “The Real World: Denver†cast member Davis Mallory. Throughout the show, Mallory strived to shed stereotypes by talking honestly about being both gay and a devout Christian. Since the show, Mallory has been using social media to continue his outreach on gay issues. “I was speaking on National Day of Silence, which is when people honor those that can’t come out around the world for fear of losing their life. I found out during the speech that picketers were there in the audience, and they started drilling me with questions. Someone filmed it all and put it on YouTube and titled it ‘Davis Mallory Twists Scripture,’†he says. Turning his opposition’s efforts on their head, he posted the videos to his Facebook and MySpace profiles because he felt his message was in tact, regardless of the video’s title.
Mallory believes the unexpected passage of Prop 8 was the kick in the butt that his generation of gays needed to get involved. “I never saw any viral videos about Yes on Prop 8. I saw tons of No on Prop 8 stuff. A lot of people’s Facebook status would be: check out this link or video, or you go on Perez Hilton and he’s linking things to other people. You go to YouTube and it’s one of the most visited things of the day,†says Mallory. He’s hopeful from the sense of community recent events have mustered with gay youth. Mallory still receives about a message a week via social networks from other gay kids telling him that he gave them the courage to come out. These efforts have real life economic effects, as well. “A lot of my friends have found out which companies have said yes to Prop 8, and they’ve agreed not to go to those restaurants or shops as another way of revolting. We finally as a community have found a cause and are doing something to fight for it.â€
This cyber activity isn’t limited to reality television stars. Mainstream Hollywood actors recently collaborated to create a video parody musical for Will Ferrell’s site Funny or Die, clearly in opposition to Prop 8.
Obviously, some will simply chalk this up to the Hollywood elite literally acting holier than thou, but there’s a bigger story here. This viral video has already gotten huge buzz and views. While people may not agree with it, they’re exposed to it, watching it and discussing it in ways not possible a few years back. The discussion of gay rights is no longer something kept inside one’s home, but has literally been brought to life through discussion boards and the like. Consequently, given the advent of Facebook Connect, those active in social media will be able to use their Facebook identities to connect with friends on various sites all over the web.
In the midst of all this, the California Supreme Court has decided to hear the cases filed against Prop 8. “Hopefully, we do continue to use viral videos and technologically savvy solutions to now show that it’s gone to the California Supreme Court and we’re trying to make a change. Obviously, it worked for Obama and it can work for us,†Mallory says of multichannel marketing efforts. While change won’t come overnight, if I was an avid “Yes on 8†supporter, I’d be concerned that I just awoke a sleeping giant.
Allowing colleagues and co-workers to view your Facebook and MySpace page has been a conflict my friends and I have struggled with since graduating from college. Is it appropriate to allow your workplace access to your college pictures? And more importantly, will we be judged based upon these pictures? This argument has plagued my generation. When the following question came across our ASAE listserv, I couldn’t wait to see what other people thought. The original post was from a communications company looking to hire an assistant. While the employer was browsing applicants’ Facebook pages, they found “stuff that was disturbing and raises questions about the suitability for a couple of the candidates.†The employer wanted to know if it was appropriate to mention/question an applicant about his or her Facebook profile, and was “looking for tips on how to navigate this situation.†The listserv took off like rapid fire as my inbox proceeded to be inundated with opinions and tips from all over the map!
Some people felt the candidates should have cleaned up their Facebook page and that my generation is too open with social networking. One woman stated, “Bottom line: I think job seekers should be savvy enough to know their stuff is out there and self-censor, or not, as they feel is appropriate. A friend of mine de-activated her totally tame profile for a while during a federal hiring process, and I think that’s wise in this climate.â€This really made me think: De-activate my profile over a frat party in college? Get real?!?!
The beauty of Facebook is being able to keep in touch with numerous people, as you can send messages, write on their wall, and even tag pictures of events you have participated in. In a day and age where time is valuable, it makes keeping in touch easy. I immediately knew there would be one person who could relate to me on this issue. “Pat you have to come in here. I can’t believe this,†I yelled to Pat Cauley, whose office is across the hall from mine. He was in shock too, “Do they even know how Facebook started?†he asked. “Obviously not, we have to set the record straight.†Pat and I collaborated and came up with this Listserv response, “I joined Facebook in the fall of 2004 as a college junior. At the time you needed an .edu e-mail address to even join the site, as it was an online social diary/interactive yearbook. As the place where we like to connect with and keep in touch with college and high school friends, this should not represent a young professional’s work ethic or ability. Imagine if your employment qualifications were based upon your pictures from Woodstock that suddenly surfaced online.†Again, my inbox was like rapid fire—e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, I couldn’t believe how many responses. Some responses agreed with my view while others didn’t. However, I found the most surprising post came from a CAE (certified association executive). He has hired two people in the past six to eight months and actually passed on dozens of applicants who had no findable Internet content. Why? He felt just because questionable behavior wasn’t on Facebook, doesn’t mean the applicant didn’t partake. He decided he knew more about those applicants who were engaged on the social web than those who weren’t.
So, I guess you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t? I welcome you to check out my page and let me know what you think. Or better yet, why doesn’t everyone relax and enjoy this humorous infomercial parody video of Facebook.
Katie White is ERA’s retailer relations manager.
If you’re an events manager with a death wish, invite Jason Calacanis to deliver the keynote address at your next conference. Sure, Calacanis—a serial Internet entrepreneur who made the bulk of his fortune with the sale of his company Weblogs, Inc. to AOL—will deliver an engaging, thought-provoking and sometimes flat-out inspirational talk. But then again, he might just start a riot.
After all, this is the guy who, at SES Chicago in 2006, announced—to a group of search professionals—that “SEO is bullshit!†and compared those engaging in SEO to “snake oil salesmen.†It didn’t go over well.
Having escaped Chicago, living to speak another day, Calacanis recently addressed a room full of affiliate marketers at the Affiliate Summit West. Apparently unruffled by the flap and furor over his SEO comments, Calacanis explained to the affiliate folks that the rest of the industry saw them as the bottom rung of the food chain, wired to make the quick buck.
There was no standing ovation.
But to be fair to Calacanis, he’s not some sort of egomaniacal misanthrope who gets a perverse pleasure out of standing on a stage and belittling the audience. (Actually, he might just take a little pleasure in it.) In fact, the point he’s trying to make is a valid and intriguing one.
First of all, Calacanis was over-generalizing for effect: he sees value in ethical SEO and understands that there are legitimate best practices to follow in designing, maintaining and promoting a site that will allow it to rank higher in search results. And he certainly doesn’t see anything wrong with the fundamental concept of affiliate marketing: engaging a group of websites to help sell product or generate leads as a sort-of extended sales force.
Calacanis has a problem with those interested in gaming the system to make a quick buck—whether it’s the black-hat SEO firm that exploits a weakness in a search engine algorithm to garner a temporary high rank for an undeserving website (until the search engine closes the loophole and the site plummets off the search results page) or the affiliate who steals content to game the search engines to generate more traffic and commissions, or the marketer who floods blogs, message boards and social networks with paid posts.
According to Calacanis, it’s all borne out of a misguided ethic that has pervaded the Internet since the mid-’90s: if one is technically capable of doing something, then it’s OK.
But he—and others—see reason for optimism. As more and more black-hat marketers exploit the various systems, these systems eventually break down, to be replaced by ones that are more resistant to gaming. Consumers are helping to drive change, too. We leave MySpace to go to Facebook and then to LinkedIn as policing technologies are developed that help eliminate spam or fraud. Sites like Angie’s List—a ratings and reviews site for home-improvement contractors—take off because they are curated to ensure the reviews’ (and reviewers’) legitimacy. In other words, because they earn our trust. Calacanis himself has developed Mahalo.com, a search engine that uses human beings to find and organize the best links for given search terms—and to filter out irrelevant or spam results.
A new ethic is evolving: trustworthiness is good for business.
First they give us a vegan with Alicia Silverstone swimming naked in a pool in support of animal rights. Now they’ve gone on the attack against Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen for wearing fur. Dubbing them the “Trollsen Twins,†and more specifically, “Hairy-Kate and Trashley,†PETA has seriously stepped up its provocative awareness tactics. But, is this effective?
We know that celebrities can help sell products, such as Guthy-Renker’s Proactiv. But do we really care whether or not they wear fur or support animal rights? Are Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen as instrumental in halting the production of fur garments as those who actually make the business and distribution deals in the fur industry? The billboards featuring the Olsen twins that read, “Fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people†debuted yesterday in L.A., and will also run in magazines. In addition, PETA has launched a microsite with videos and interactive games, as well as a MySpace page for its “Trollsen Twins†campaign.
Has PETA gone too far? Or will this multichannel marketing effort prove effective?
 Yes, the way we young folks consume our media has changed. On a recent Sunday evening with friends, I watched in awe as my MacBook became the center of attention in the room. “Press mute on the TV,†Steve said commandingly. It was only a matter of seconds before he had the YouTube homepage on the screen. He played songs and videos that he liked. He even played a sports-themed video on the site as we all ignored the actual live sporting event that played in the background on my television. Right as it seemed we were done with YouTube and ready to go back to the TV, next thing you know, my friend Melissa asked Steve if he was on Facebook or MySpace. Like everyone else in the room, he was a member of both.
Along with ignoring the sporting event, we were also ignoring the advertisements you paid such a dear price from your media budget. Are you happy with your return on investment? If my friends and I are anything like the norm, then media loyalty and viewing habits are rapidly shifting. Are you prepared to engage the Gen Y consumer on our turf?