Two news items : - BSkyB trials stereo 3D and Odeon/UCI Cinemas Further Extend Digital Screens Across Europe
If cinemas charge £10 a ticket for a celluloid presentation then they are unlikely to generate a sustainable premium simply because its digital.
Is 3D presentation the answer? There is a novelty element which may draw in a larger audience and or enable a premium ticket price. But a sustainable increased ROI, I doubt it.
In the UK BSkyB has already done some trials with 3D as it seeks to differentiate its service. BSkyB are masters at differentiating their services and increasing ARPU with multi-room. Sky+ and HD services. As other broadcaster catch up BSkyB look for the next and 3D is it, at the moment.
If the public places a value on 3D that BSkyB can defend or improve ARPU they will go hammer and tong to establish a market. Therefore 3D in cinemas could soon simply be a “me too” proposition rather than a killer differentiation.
Investing in a digital projector for cinema will depend on the ability for the cinemas to have sufficient ROI.
If I bought a HD digital TV and only connected to a DVD player friends would soon be advising me that I needed to get connected to an aerial, satellite dish, cable or IPTV, to get the most out of it. A digital projector connected to a local server is no different to a TV and a DVD. Limited content, recorded (old), dependant on limited content suppliers. Cinemas need to, get connected, get new and get relevant. They need to increase utilisation. Novelty presentations may help but are not enough.
Monday, 22 December 2008
Friday, 28 November 2008
I couldn't have put it better myself!
BBC has a right to be in the local arena
The Guardian, Thursday November 27th, 2008
© Copyright 2008. The Guardian. All rights reserved.
I t looks as though the BBC will be banned from introducing local online video services. An independent report commissioned by Ofcom, its regulator, says the service would have "a significant negative impact" on commercial providers. Well, that's that then. The BBC should not be allowed to do something that might have a "significant negative impact" on its rivals, should it? But what is the scale of this negative impact - 30% or 40% or more? No, the negative impact is reckoned to be 4%. Actually, it is "up to" 4% - so it could be as little as 3% or even 1%. Is the future of the BBC's local services to be decided by an amount so small it almost falls into the margin of statistical error?
It is a principle that, if applied to the rest of the BBC, would mean it would never exist at all. Imagine if the BBC were just a website and suddenly announced plans to move into television. An independent assessment would probably find it could harm up to 25% of the commercial activities of incumbents. The same would be true if the BBC had been assessed before introducing its very successful web activities. They would simply not have happened and the synergetic competition between the BBC's website and others - including the Guardian's - would not have happened.
For decades the economic model of a commercial sector selling advertisements and a publicly funded one that can't has worked very well and improved performance on all sides. There are times, such as now, when an economic downturn hits advertisements and gives the BBC a relative boost - and other times when the commercial sector is awash with advertising and cash. That is what should apply to local services. Video, through sites such YouTube, is becoming a critical conduit thorough which younger people learn about what is going on. For the BBC to be deprived of this at a local level is condemning it to compete with its hands tied behind its back and preventing it from doing what it ought to be doing to justify a national licence fee: providing a nationwide service.
The argument that local BBC video will depress commercial activity could be turned on its head: the presence of the BBC in many areas covered by local newspaper monopolies may be just what they need to galvanise them out of complacency. I come into contact with local papers in London and Herefordshire. In London my local paper covering Paddington, Marylebone and Pimlico last had a video on its website more than three weeks ago. In the country example, there are two papers in neighbouring country towns owned by the same company. I can't find any videos at all. If I owned them, I would like to keep the BBC out too.
We have been here before. Not long ago there were regional TV monopolies. One by one they were merged on the argument that only by doing this could they become a global force. Whatever happened to those ambitions? The only global media force - apart from the Murdoch empire, the Guardian and one or two smaller exceptions - is the BBC. The BBC is the most trusted media brand in the world. But instead of the government coming to the BBC and asking what it can do to help preserve this rare advantage, it chips away at its activities.
This reached its barmiest when the usually highly respected Ofcom actually suggested that one way of dealing with criticism of the BBC's success in selling its programmes abroad (coming almost entirely from competitors) would be to hand much of the business over to a rival, Channel 4.
At a time when the government is pouring billions of pounds into failed banks, it might be a good time to pay respect to a successful organisation. We don't have that many of them. This doesn't mean giving the BBC more money. It just means standing beside it rather than constantly wielding an axe.
vic.keegan@guardian.co.uk
The Guardian, Thursday November 27th, 2008
© Copyright 2008. The Guardian. All rights reserved.
I t looks as though the BBC will be banned from introducing local online video services. An independent report commissioned by Ofcom, its regulator, says the service would have "a significant negative impact" on commercial providers. Well, that's that then. The BBC should not be allowed to do something that might have a "significant negative impact" on its rivals, should it? But what is the scale of this negative impact - 30% or 40% or more? No, the negative impact is reckoned to be 4%. Actually, it is "up to" 4% - so it could be as little as 3% or even 1%. Is the future of the BBC's local services to be decided by an amount so small it almost falls into the margin of statistical error?
It is a principle that, if applied to the rest of the BBC, would mean it would never exist at all. Imagine if the BBC were just a website and suddenly announced plans to move into television. An independent assessment would probably find it could harm up to 25% of the commercial activities of incumbents. The same would be true if the BBC had been assessed before introducing its very successful web activities. They would simply not have happened and the synergetic competition between the BBC's website and others - including the Guardian's - would not have happened.
For decades the economic model of a commercial sector selling advertisements and a publicly funded one that can't has worked very well and improved performance on all sides. There are times, such as now, when an economic downturn hits advertisements and gives the BBC a relative boost - and other times when the commercial sector is awash with advertising and cash. That is what should apply to local services. Video, through sites such YouTube, is becoming a critical conduit thorough which younger people learn about what is going on. For the BBC to be deprived of this at a local level is condemning it to compete with its hands tied behind its back and preventing it from doing what it ought to be doing to justify a national licence fee: providing a nationwide service.
The argument that local BBC video will depress commercial activity could be turned on its head: the presence of the BBC in many areas covered by local newspaper monopolies may be just what they need to galvanise them out of complacency. I come into contact with local papers in London and Herefordshire. In London my local paper covering Paddington, Marylebone and Pimlico last had a video on its website more than three weeks ago. In the country example, there are two papers in neighbouring country towns owned by the same company. I can't find any videos at all. If I owned them, I would like to keep the BBC out too.
We have been here before. Not long ago there were regional TV monopolies. One by one they were merged on the argument that only by doing this could they become a global force. Whatever happened to those ambitions? The only global media force - apart from the Murdoch empire, the Guardian and one or two smaller exceptions - is the BBC. The BBC is the most trusted media brand in the world. But instead of the government coming to the BBC and asking what it can do to help preserve this rare advantage, it chips away at its activities.
This reached its barmiest when the usually highly respected Ofcom actually suggested that one way of dealing with criticism of the BBC's success in selling its programmes abroad (coming almost entirely from competitors) would be to hand much of the business over to a rival, Channel 4.
At a time when the government is pouring billions of pounds into failed banks, it might be a good time to pay respect to a successful organisation. We don't have that many of them. This doesn't mean giving the BBC more money. It just means standing beside it rather than constantly wielding an axe.
vic.keegan@guardian.co.uk
Monday, 24 November 2008
BT Vision
This article (BT’s blurred vision) in Marketing Week makes some good points. One of its points is that BT Vision needs to get its hands on Sky’s sports package. The article has a disapproving tone of BT asking the regulator (Ofcom) to force Sky to make its premium content available at wholesale rates in the same way that BT is forced to make its network available to Sky (for broadband and telephony) at wholesale rates.
Debate that all you want but the real problem is what differentiates BT Vision from alternatives. Currently it’s the PAY-AS-YOU-GO option. But if 80% are taking out subscriptions then that is clearly not the driver.
To me the problem is that ALL the content on BT Vision can be seen elsewhere first, from the films in the library to the catch-up TV offering and even the Santanta sports highlights package.
BT Vision has not established an identity beyond a limited library of video that you can see or buy through a number of different outlets. It relies on the established broadcast market to make or purchase content for the UK and then uses the marketing done by these established broadcasters to promote the BT Vision service.
BT Vision needs to carve out some clear brand identity. While I doubt that it is ready to take the risk of commissioning original content there is no reason why it could not purchase content (from the US) which is not picked up by the old school broadcasters – then promoting them as exclusively available on BT Vision. Select a genre or two such as science fiction and crime drama to establish BT Vision as the place to see cutting edge versions of this genre.
BT Vision needs to establish it self with a clear identity about the content rather than the technology and how you pay.
Debate that all you want but the real problem is what differentiates BT Vision from alternatives. Currently it’s the PAY-AS-YOU-GO option. But if 80% are taking out subscriptions then that is clearly not the driver.
To me the problem is that ALL the content on BT Vision can be seen elsewhere first, from the films in the library to the catch-up TV offering and even the Santanta sports highlights package.
BT Vision has not established an identity beyond a limited library of video that you can see or buy through a number of different outlets. It relies on the established broadcast market to make or purchase content for the UK and then uses the marketing done by these established broadcasters to promote the BT Vision service.
BT Vision needs to carve out some clear brand identity. While I doubt that it is ready to take the risk of commissioning original content there is no reason why it could not purchase content (from the US) which is not picked up by the old school broadcasters – then promoting them as exclusively available on BT Vision. Select a genre or two such as science fiction and crime drama to establish BT Vision as the place to see cutting edge versions of this genre.
BT Vision needs to establish it self with a clear identity about the content rather than the technology and how you pay.
Friday, 24 October 2008
BBC to drop licence fee
Be careful what you wish for: -
“BBC is going to stop being funded by the TV licence”. That head line might be greeted by applause and gasps of “at last” But with reference to my last blog what would that mean?
From the 1st of November BBC will become a subscription or pay per view service only.
If the BBC became a “for profit” organisation the senirio would be different and the changes more radical, but lest assume that they remain a “not for profit” organisation at first.
From the BBC’s perspective they need the same money as they did before. They have no guarantee that they will get the same number of subscribers as licence fee payers so will have to charge more per subscriber than the licence fee cost.
As a consumer I may be happy with that as I never watch BBC. So what would be the choice for millions of people that do watch BBC? Pay more or give up BBC.
Suddenly freeview/freesat doesn’t look so attractive so subscribe to Sky/Virgin but to get BBC in the package there is a premium to pay. I could go for BT Vision and only pay for the programmes I want. But if I say watch Never Mind the Buzzcocks, Have I Got News For You, Top Gear (building a profile of me?) Heros, at £1.50 each per week that’s £6 per week. I know these are not on 52 weeks a year but 4 programmes a week would not be unreasonable compared to what I watch now. Suddenly without any effort I’m into £312 – considerably more than my licence fee and that doesn’t include the broadband, cable or satellite basic subscription I would have to pay also.
What looks good up front isn’t going to benefit me (or most people) in the long run financially – the effects on the content long term is another matter, as is the BBC becoming a for profit organisation.
“BBC is going to stop being funded by the TV licence”. That head line might be greeted by applause and gasps of “at last” But with reference to my last blog what would that mean?
From the 1st of November BBC will become a subscription or pay per view service only.
If the BBC became a “for profit” organisation the senirio would be different and the changes more radical, but lest assume that they remain a “not for profit” organisation at first.
From the BBC’s perspective they need the same money as they did before. They have no guarantee that they will get the same number of subscribers as licence fee payers so will have to charge more per subscriber than the licence fee cost.
As a consumer I may be happy with that as I never watch BBC. So what would be the choice for millions of people that do watch BBC? Pay more or give up BBC.
Suddenly freeview/freesat doesn’t look so attractive so subscribe to Sky/Virgin but to get BBC in the package there is a premium to pay. I could go for BT Vision and only pay for the programmes I want. But if I say watch Never Mind the Buzzcocks, Have I Got News For You, Top Gear (building a profile of me?) Heros, at £1.50 each per week that’s £6 per week. I know these are not on 52 weeks a year but 4 programmes a week would not be unreasonable compared to what I watch now. Suddenly without any effort I’m into £312 – considerably more than my licence fee and that doesn’t include the broadband, cable or satellite basic subscription I would have to pay also.
What looks good up front isn’t going to benefit me (or most people) in the long run financially – the effects on the content long term is another matter, as is the BBC becoming a for profit organisation.
Carpet Baggers
Here is a thought: -
A few years ago the “carpet baggers” went around the mutual financial institution, forcing or at least encouraging them to become commercial operation. Building societies became banks. Savers, mortgagees and other account holders got some money depending on their stake in the company.
Some of the organisations management got pay and status increases and the companies changed there paradigm from a non-profit making organisations run for the benefit of their account holder to profit making organisations run for the benefit of the management and the shareholder.
The vast majority of the people went along with the change, either actively for, or passively led. A minority actively opposed. I have to say that I was in the passive mode.
One of the results of this is that come the “credit crunch” none of the remaining mutual societies have made even the slightest noise about financial difficulty. None of the account holders is withdrawing their money or having their house repossessed because they are worried or they had their mortgage over sold.
A part of me hopes that those that actively pursued and gained from the demutualisation craze have reaped their just deserts.
A few years ago the “carpet baggers” went around the mutual financial institution, forcing or at least encouraging them to become commercial operation. Building societies became banks. Savers, mortgagees and other account holders got some money depending on their stake in the company.
Some of the organisations management got pay and status increases and the companies changed there paradigm from a non-profit making organisations run for the benefit of their account holder to profit making organisations run for the benefit of the management and the shareholder.
The vast majority of the people went along with the change, either actively for, or passively led. A minority actively opposed. I have to say that I was in the passive mode.
One of the results of this is that come the “credit crunch” none of the remaining mutual societies have made even the slightest noise about financial difficulty. None of the account holders is withdrawing their money or having their house repossessed because they are worried or they had their mortgage over sold.
A part of me hopes that those that actively pursued and gained from the demutualisation craze have reaped their just deserts.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
ITV emergent strategy matches their declared strategy
What happened to September? Well IBC for one thing. Preparing and being there was one thing but we didn’t expect the level of interest. Even the real BBC has given us an opportunity. I say “real” but I mean the ones I would most like to do business with. Not for the sake of the business but for the opportunity to meet them at their offices…The BBC in question is the Barbados Broadcasting Corporation…
Enough drivel. What inspired me to log on and write a blog, was the news that ITV have bought 51.2% of Imago TV Film, a German TV production company. This is a sign that Micheal Grades declared strategy of making ITV a production company that happens to be a broadcaster rather than the other way round is underway.
As well as Imago providing content and formats for the ITV stable they also have the relationships with the German broadcasters to ease the sale of ITV’s formats, content and archive into the German market.
ITV will need a few more deals like this to reinvent itself and PDQ if it is to avoid the speculation of takeover following the decision that BSkyB have to sell their 17.5% stake in ITV.
Watch this space!
Enough drivel. What inspired me to log on and write a blog, was the news that ITV have bought 51.2% of Imago TV Film, a German TV production company. This is a sign that Micheal Grades declared strategy of making ITV a production company that happens to be a broadcaster rather than the other way round is underway.
As well as Imago providing content and formats for the ITV stable they also have the relationships with the German broadcasters to ease the sale of ITV’s formats, content and archive into the German market.
ITV will need a few more deals like this to reinvent itself and PDQ if it is to avoid the speculation of takeover following the decision that BSkyB have to sell their 17.5% stake in ITV.
Watch this space!
Friday, 29 August 2008
20th Century Fox - Have they learnt from the record industry?
My expertise (such that it is) is primarily around the logistics of moving video content around the “broadcast” industry. My expertise extends into the business models and the consumer technologies, habits and demographics as a way of understanding the drivers of the B2B market that my company sells services into. However like Joe Public I have an opinion on what was and is wrong with the broadcasting from a consumer perspective too.
So my opinion about this press release from 20th Century Fox is from my consumer perspective. Having closely followed the music industry’s consistent miss handeling of digital, the internet, MP3, consumers, artists to the extent that EMI now stands for Every Mistake Imaginable. I have observed TV trying to apply lessons learned from music to their own industry. Some of these lessons don’t apply, more in later blogs maybe. However taking the Fox press release at face value it would appear that they have learnt the lesson of bending to meet what consumers want rather than opposing it. In this case consumers (at least some) want simple and easy. I’ve paid for the content and I want to make a copy or watch on some other entertainment device then I’d like to be able to do that as simply and easily as possible. Make it difficult as record industry did with DRM and you through down a gauntlet to the “would be” hackers and you piss off some consumers most of the time and most consumers some of the time.
Make it easy, as Fox appear to be, and even if there are limitations the effort an complexity of bypassing it, is not worth the gain.
Have you ever seen that sequence in Indian Jones where someone waves a sword around skilfully and trying to threaten Jones. Jones simply shoots him. Well the one of the mistakes the record industry did was to skilfully wave DRM (Digital Rights Management) around their CD’s but with some electrical insulation tape or a dense (water soluble) black marker pen you could negate its presence on the disc. Highly skilled programmers, expensive development complicated algorithms, just so a reasonably dextrous seven year old could bypass it in seconds.
So my opinion about this press release from 20th Century Fox is from my consumer perspective. Having closely followed the music industry’s consistent miss handeling of digital, the internet, MP3, consumers, artists to the extent that EMI now stands for Every Mistake Imaginable. I have observed TV trying to apply lessons learned from music to their own industry. Some of these lessons don’t apply, more in later blogs maybe. However taking the Fox press release at face value it would appear that they have learnt the lesson of bending to meet what consumers want rather than opposing it. In this case consumers (at least some) want simple and easy. I’ve paid for the content and I want to make a copy or watch on some other entertainment device then I’d like to be able to do that as simply and easily as possible. Make it difficult as record industry did with DRM and you through down a gauntlet to the “would be” hackers and you piss off some consumers most of the time and most consumers some of the time.
Make it easy, as Fox appear to be, and even if there are limitations the effort an complexity of bypassing it, is not worth the gain.
Have you ever seen that sequence in Indian Jones where someone waves a sword around skilfully and trying to threaten Jones. Jones simply shoots him. Well the one of the mistakes the record industry did was to skilfully wave DRM (Digital Rights Management) around their CD’s but with some electrical insulation tape or a dense (water soluble) black marker pen you could negate its presence on the disc. Highly skilled programmers, expensive development complicated algorithms, just so a reasonably dextrous seven year old could bypass it in seconds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)