POPULARITY
5 episodes with mvpd
2 episodes with mvpd
3 episodes with mvpd
2 episodes with mvpd
2 episodes with mvpd
SVOD grew its share of US home entertainment spending in Q2 2024 by a massive 7%. It took all its share gains from MVPD and vMVPDs, but they still dominate spending.
Jon Ritchie guesses the poll results. What worries/bums you out the most about Bryce Harper's hamstring injury? A. Phillies could lose the divisionB. Could lose homefield advantage in NLCS & World SeriesC. Bryce won't win MVPD. Bryce may not be grooved in for the postseason Also, Drop of the Week and Former Flyer Jeremy Roenick joins the show.
I first met Sgt. Brent Thompson of the Mount Vernon Police Department when I enrolled in the MVPD's Citizens Academy -- a twelve-week program designed to teach folks in our community about how local enforcement works. It's an experience that I recommend for anyone who lives here -- and if you believe that a community gets the law enforcement it deserves, I'm pretty sure you're going to feel better about where you live as a result. But there is another role that Brent Thompson plays. He happens to serve on the board of the Mount Vernon High School Scholarship Foundation -- and it is in that capacity that I interviewed him about the foundation and a particular scholarship drive that he is championing to honor members of his graduating class (Class of '93) who are no longer with us. One of these is very near and dear to Meyer Sign: Gregg Collins. In this interview with Brent we'll talk about the MVHS Scholarship Foundation and what it was like to be in high school in Mount Vernon in the early '90s -- and pay our respects to those in Brent's class who have gone on before us.
This episode of the SeventySix Capital Sports Leadership Show was taped LIVE at The Lab at G2E in Las Vegas, Nevada. Wayne Kimmel interviewed Chris Reynolds, CEO of Epoxy.ai, Scott Sadin, COO of U.S. Integrity and Eric Weiss, President, North America of Odds On Compliance. Chris Reynolds is CEO of Epoxy.ai. Reynolds has been delivering strategic results for organizations and investors for over 20 years as an executive and founder. He is the CEO and co-founder of Epoxy.ai. Epoxy is an AI/ML-based sports personalization technology company providing tools that help sports leagues, betting companies, and media entities develop new forms of customer acquisition, engagement, and retention. Prior to Epoxy, Reynolds was the VP of Product and Technology at Comcast for over 5 yrs, building and scaling the streaming and product portfolio for the company including Flex, Xclass TV, the Xfinity developer portal, Interactivity and sports. Reynolds joined Comcast through the acquisition of OneTwoSee in 2016. He was the co-founder and CEO of OneTwoSee - award-winning sports technology and data company that built immersive game center applications for MVPD's, CE manufacturers, digital publishers, and broadcasters. Prior to OneTwoSee, Reynolds managed B2B and B2C web products for Navteq a wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia including, navteq.com, traffic.com, and map24.com. Reynolds graduated summa cum laude with BA in Film and Media Arts from Temple University and MS in Organizational Dynamics from the University of Pennsylvania. Scott Sadin is the COO of U.S. Integrity. Sadin has experience in operational management stemming from financial services institutions such as Apollo Global Management, Tourbillon Capital and MSD Partners. While working in financial services, Sadin helped develop trading surveillance programs aimed at identifying potentially suspicious equity and debt transactions. Sadin was born and raised in New York City and received his B.A. in Political Science from Lehigh University. Eric Weiss is the President, North America of Odds On Compliance. Weiss was with the New Jersey Division of Gaming (DGE) Enforcement since 1991. He held positions in the Investigative, Technical and Executive Bureaus. Weiss is a graduate of Richard Stockton University and received his MBA from Rowan University. Segments time stamps/chapter 0:00 Intro by Wayne Kimmel of Chris Reynolds, CEO of Epoxy.ai, Scott Sadin, COO of U.S. Integrity and Eric Weiss, President, North America of Odds On Compliance. 9:21 Who does U.S. Integrity work with? 13:37 Why Eric Weiss joined Eric Frank at Odds On Compliance 16:46 How Epoxy.ai maintains a strong team 21:03 Major tech companies joining the world of sports 29:00 How large tech companies in professional sports have affected Epoxy.ai 31:52 Aristocrat X NFL and NFLPA partnership 36:35 The future between U.S. Integrity and Odds On Compliance 39:29 How U.S. Integrity brought the sports betting industry together 43:02 The Sports Betting wave comes into New Jersey 45:00 What will G2E look like in 5 years? 50:01 Shocking events from the last 5 years 52:20 Outro Social Media Handles - Company U.S. Integrity X: https://twitter.com/usintegrity?lang=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/usintegrity Odds On Compliance X: https://twitter.com/OddsOnData Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oddsoncompliance/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/oddsoncompliance/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD1Qv0kLPDWiQKRH_tu7UUg Epoxy.ai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/epoxy-ai/about/
It's pronounced like "apple at'cha," and it is a unique offering bringing three locally produced shows and a slate of PBS programming to an area of rural Southwestern Virginia. But, don't call it a PBS Member station.Introducing "PBS Appalachia Virginia," which bowed on June 10 as an online-exclusive digital offering that enjoys MVPD distribution, filling a void in one of the few places in the U.S. where over-the-air broadcasts for the public television system were absent.To learn more about the launch, RBR+TVBR Editor-in-Chief Adam R Jacobson spoke with VP/GM Julie Newman, a former news anchor for WCYB-5 in the Tri-Cities, Tn.-Va. She shares details about the launch in this exclusive conversation downloadable now in the latest InFOCUS Podcast, presented by dot.FM.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS! There's no better gift than being joined by Capitan McKnight from the Mount Vernon Police Department and Jackie Pack from New Directions for todays episode. These two very special guests highlight the partnership that exists between MVPD and New Directions, the Lethality Assessment Program's role in preventing violence, and tips for safety planning during the holidays.
Convergent TV ad serving solutions are at the heart of what Beachfront provides its partners. What does this mean for broadcast television sales executives looking to maximize ROI for a client?Chris Maccaro, a media and ad tech veteran with more than 20 years of experience leading, transforming, and driving growth across a wide range of organizations who was named CEO of Beachfront in 2018, chats with RBR+TVBR Editor-in-Chief Adam R Jacobson about the power of programmatic and why a cross-platform approach remains key to any marketing campaign.
NOLAN BAYNES is an entertainment marketing executive, media visionary, and production veteran based in New York City. He is currently a managing partner at IAS Agency, a think tank that is heavily focused on brand marketing and tourism for Ghana, South Africa, and New Orleans. He also serves as a senior consultant for an array of entertainment clients such as ground-breaking record label, 300 Entertainment, and DECO Recording Group, home of Grammy Award nominee and Broadway star Deborah Cox. In 2011, he became the head of marketing for Music Choice, a streaming/TV music network, with a reach of over 60MM homes in the US. During his time at Music Choice he led all marketing efforts with major record labels, corporate brands, talent agencies, media, and cable companies. He also worked extensively with MVPD partners including Comcast, Cox, AT&T. Baynes also created branding and partnership campaigns for artists such as Chris Brown, 5th Harmony, A$AP Rocky, Taylor Swift, Luke Bryant, etc. Before his stint at Music Choice, Baynes formed JBF Entertainment, a consulting firm with Jay Fiedler, (former NFL Quarterback - Miami Dolphin). He led business development projects for BET, Rolling Stone Magazine, MTV and NBA legend, Grant Hill. He also forged a strategic partnership with CSM, Inc., a Toronto-based talent agency that represented international superstar, Nellie Furtado, and 7x Grammy Award nominee Tamia Hill, etc. He started his career in the mid-'90s working for the global, media giant, MTV Networks. He created and oversaw marketing programs for some of today's most celebrated artists; Beyoncé, Usher, Kayne West, Cold Play, etc. Baynes oversaw music marketing for the network's marquee events; Video Music Awards, $2 Bill concert series, Campus Invasion, etc. During his time at the network, he worked on the launch team for MTV2, serving as the Production Manager and later the head of Music Marketing. Baynes was also a founding member of the development team that launched MTV Tempo, a network dedicated to Caribbean culture and lifestyle. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/worldmusicviews/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/worldmusicviews/support
Recalling his time in the radio business, guest Lew Dickey tells host James Di Virgilio that, as a CEO, it is important to recognize that you are often forced to take things as you go: “The landscape is changing—you might be able to see a little bit around the corner, but nobody has perfect vision into the future.” Currently, Dickey is the Co-Founder and Chairman of DM Luxury, America’s largest regional magazine company. However, this piece of advice rings especially true considering his background as the former CEO of Cumulus Media, the nation’s second largest radio company. In this episode, Dickey remembers the quick and drastic shift into the digital realm, a time when somebody like Steve Jobs showed up to Stanford University with his latest Apple products and showed them to eager students, including Dickey, who took inspiration from those moments—as well his own father’s history in broadcasting—to create his own company. TRANSCRIPT: Intro: (00:01)Starting and running your own company. It’s not for everyone, but for those who have done it, it can be exhilarating, exhausting, and easily the hardest thing they’ve ever done. So we decided to go on and talk to some of those people and find out what they’ve learned, what they’d repeat and what they’ll never do again. We’ll hear stories from their first year, then from the period when they realized they’re going to survive and how they intend to position their companies for the future. We’ll find out what a CEO’s normal day is like, how they build and manage their teams, what it’s done to their personal lives. And finally, when is it time to move on? Joining us for CEO 101, a limited series of deep looks at people who are their own boss, for better or for worse. Intro: (00:40)Today’s guest CEO, Lew Dickey came to prominence as co-founder and CEO of Atlanta-based Cumulus Media, the nation’s second largest radio company. He is also the co-founder and chairman of DM Luxury, America’s largest regional magazine company. James Di Virgilio: (00:56)Lew, take us back to your first year, starting your venture. How did it feel to take on such a role and how did that necessitate some changes in your life? Lew Dickey: (01:05)It’s interesting because I had a market research business that I was running and had started that when I got out of school back in 1985, and that business I was working for all the major television groups and radio groups across the country doing market research and strategy consulting. My sort of purview was nationwide. I was operating in dozens and dozens of markets from the largest to the smallest providing consulting services and market research, consumer insights. So I understood the landscape and I knew a lot of the owners and managers across the country. And I was doing some work for early stage venture capitalists that own some stations in the Caribbean, and they were a mess and I was down there helping this person try to get them figured out. And I was talking about the telco act, which had just passed. This was in 1996, the telco act that had passed beginning of that year and it was revolutionary. And it’s actually still the statute that governs telecommunications today. And I felt that there was an anomaly in the rules that made for an arbitrage where the mid-size and smaller markets actually could benefit from greater concentration based on the rules than the largest markets that may have 50 signals in them. And I said, look, the capital is sort of chasing the largest markets, and that was Infinity back in the day and Evergreen and a few others. And I said, they’re chasing the largest markets or is it a little more uncontested in the midsize and smaller markets? Lew Dickey: (02:24)So I was explaining this to the VC and his response was, I don’t know anything about radio, clearly based on what you’re seeing with this mess, we’ve got in the islands here, but I do have some connections and we could raise some capital, it sounds like an interesting idea. And so we had that discussion on a long flight back from Barbados. And at that stage, we put it into action and we went out and put together a business plan to do this, to be a consolidator and midsize and smaller markets. Obviously we didn’t have any radio stations. We started with zero at the time. Now my father had some stations in Toledo, Ohio, and then we had as a family, some stations in Atlanta, Georgia. And then I had purchased earlier in 96, a station in Nashville with my brothers. And so we had three markets going into this, but they were in Atlanta, Nashville or larger than the markets we were going to go after, but Toledo would definitely fit, which was my father’s stations that he had had since 1965. So we launched the business, raised about $60 million from some insurance companies and state pensions and a private equity group out of Nations Bank, which is now obviously B of A and got started. But you start, you don’t have any stations. So you have to buy radio stations. You can’t start them from scratch, they’re licensed. So we went out and because of my knowledge and relationships across the country, that’s what I was tasked to do. And so I was on the road nonstop in essence, meeting people and reacquainting myself with others and leveraging relationships with some capital to buy radio stations. And so we bought a number of markets and continued to roll this up. And also keep in mind that to take everybody back to those days, you had top line growing like crazy. You had consolidation happening, and there was no digital competition to speak of here. See, you had a business that was growing nicely on the top line, you had great operating leverage and multiples were increasing. Lew Dickey: (04:08)And so we started this thing in May of 97 after the capital was raised, started doing transactions in 97, and obviously it was at a breakneck pace in 98-99. We took the business public regular way IPO in July of 98, and then did a follow on offering in 99. We were rolling assets up pretty quickly. And so we were scaling this business fast. And then by the end of 99, we had enough critical mass that we now had to shift from sort of purely acquiring mode, just a deal machine, to really an operating business. And so I then shifted my role and became the chairman CEO of the business in early 2000, January of 2000. And we didn’t think about the early years of this. So I was 39 and was a first time CEO, first time public CEO. And we had a ton of radio stations that posed a set of challenges in that we had acquired dozens and dozens and dozens of assets from disparate owners, disparate cultures, competing factions inside of a market. And so the challenges for integration enormous. I remember on the IPO going around and we were meeting with prospective investors and they would ask about integration challenges. And it was somewhat lost on me, obviously, having not been through that. And everybody was learning real time, by the way. There was no handbook on this because the flood gates just opened in 1996, before that you could own 1:00 AM on FM in a market. So there was no consolidation. And so everybody was learning real time and, and as they say, sort of drinking through a fire hose. And so the integration risks or challenges were enormous and could not be foreseen. At least we weren’t smart enough to understand that. And so that was really job once I took over, which was to in essence, create a homogenous operating culture and take all of these sometimes warring factions within a market. Lew Dickey: (05:58)You might buy five radio stations in a market from five different owners, and everyone had a different idea of how they wanted to do things, how they kept their books, what they thought of the other people who was going to survive, who would the manager be. And so these were a lot of challenges; now magnify that by 30, 40 times because of the number of markets that we were in, and it was an enormous amount of work. So on top of that, you also had to run the public company. So I was told early on by one of my mentors, Lowry Mays, who was enormously successful and had Clear Channel back then, now called iHeart. He told me early on, he says, “you’ve really got two jobs here; you’ve got to run the company and you got to run the stock, and sometimes they’re two entirely different jobs and you’ve got to make sure that you’re focused on both of them at all times. And I thought that was good advice. And so I did my best to heed it. And we had to effectively write the rule book in terms of how to bring all of these back to the operation side, how to bring all of these disparate radio stations and cultures and management styles, as they say in systems, and try to homogenize them and try to create a best practices approach to create something that we could scale with as we were going to continue to grow. And oftentimes it was very unpopular and people don’t like change particularly in a mature industry. And so we had to navigate those challenges and a lot of people, in essence, like to design their own jobs and you can’t do something like that when you have to have a smart division of labor, if you’re going to really operate the business as efficiently as possible, which is what the street was looking for. Lew Dickey: (07:27)The other side of the job, to make sure that you had the operating margins that they were looking for in the operating leverage, which is just a fancy way of saying, as you grow a dollar of revenue, you grow a greater percentage of that in cash flow or EBITDA, which is the principal metric that the business was valued on. And so that was the challenge. And that’s what we were very focused on doing in the early days. And again, this was in the very early days in terms of software and how the business was managed and then taking a step back for a second. Prior to my research company that I started after school, I had started a software company in school with my freshmen dorm mate, and we created software for traffic and billing and for music scheduling and callout music research. So my background, the first company I actually started was a company called OmniSoft, was a software company for radio stations. So with that background, I actually brought him in as CTO, and we worked to understanding that the software was sort of a cottage industry broadcast software. And none of it was really very good, and so we wanted to create a really an integrated technology platform, sort of ERP, that would help run the business and would do so and enable us to, as they say, systemize, the approach to running radio stations, particularly the back office and the SGNA function. And so that’s what we did. But again, same sort of thing. You meet with resistance because a program director who was used to their music scheduling system that they had used for a long time, just like viewer on word, perfect. And somebody said, you want to go to Microsoft Word, met with resistance there. And so these are the sort of the things that we had to navigate through. So there were a lot of challenges. The good news is the economy was chugging along and the broadcast business was doing very, very well. So that sort of brings us up to the spring of 2000 before the.com crash. And then that created a whole separate set of challenges that we had to navigate. I can take a pause there if you’d like to ask any other questions. James Di Virgilio: (09:25)So describe the beginning, the feeling, what some of the experiences might have been. And in fact, it might even be instructive to start with your time at Stanford, with a very first company you started. What stands out to you, putting yourself back in that mindset, starting a new venture, looking around and saying, here’s what we’re going to do. Here’s why we’re doing it. What is fresh in your mind about that sort of experience as a leader or a founder of a new venture? Lew Dickey: (09:52)Sanford was a pretty fertile ground for it and you’d see it all around you. So it was easy to get caught up in it. And I can remember being at the undergraduate library and when Apple brought in the early Macintoshes and there was a big table in Meyer library, and a number of us were there and we were asked to use this mouse. And you remember the original Macs and look at this. And Steve jobs was in there walking around, talking to all of us. “What do you think of this? How does this work?” And doing a little focus group with half a dozen of us sitting around a table doing this, and obviously he was already a very big deal and a celebrity in his own right. And enormously successful. And so those were sort of the formative years and you were around that. And so it was easy to embrace that and want to participate and want to do something like that. And I knew the broadcast business because of my father’s stations in Toledo, having grown up in them. I never actually worked there, but I certainly was around it and understood the business. And so they were doing everything manually from music scheduling and tracking and billing. And he was looking to automate that and had proposals. I was out schooling and he said, you’re out there. Tell me what you want, what I should look at, and that’s how it started. I took a look at all these brochures and grabbed my buddy Alford, who was a computer science wizard and said, what do you think of all this stuff? And cocky freshmen. He’s like, hell, I could write that much better. And so that’s when we looked at it and said, all right, well, this is a business. It’s a good industry. Let’s do it. And that’s how we started it. And that was it. You didn’t know what you didn’t know. And at that stage of life, there’s so much success coming out of the young, smart kids that are out there and all around the country now. It’s great because you don’t know what you don’t know. And sometimes you need that blissful ignorance and self-assuredness to just go forward and do it. And that’s what we had. And it didn’t work that well. James Di Virgilio: (11:30)And you mentioned sort of a blissful ignorance, perhaps hubris, right? There’s a lot of benefit to that when starting a new venture. Was there a time in any of your early years at these various ventures that you started, that you were perhaps afraid of failing, or you had a fear that this won’t work or what happens if this doesn’t work? Lew Dickey: (11:47)No, there really wasn’t, I’ve never been afraid of failing. And I’ve always sort of thought when I went into something that I was going to succeed, and I think that that never really entered my mind. I think, you know, later in life, when you have a lot of responsibility, it’s difficult to walk away from something. Then I think it’s just common sense. People are much more risk averse, and it’s very hard to do that. And you have to really think about failure and consequences. Particularly you have real responsibilities, which is why that’s the perfect time to do it when you don’t and you can sort of let it fly and throw caution to the wind and just go and you have a good idea, chase it. And I think it’s the greatest feeling in the world. And I would encourage anybody who’s in a position to do so to do it. And I think as we all go through life and you have more responsibilities as you get older, that’s why, if you think about it and you want to do it as a young person without all of the responsibilities that could potentially weigh you down, do it. But to answer your question, no, I never really thought about failure or what, I was just sure that it was going to work out and it just scoped full speed ahead. James Di Virgilio: (12:41)And looking back now, obviously here you are, right? Lots of experience, all the things you’ve done in your life. Looking back now to any one of those early stage moments, what is some wisdom you would have given to yourself? You’re in a time machine, you go back and you say, “Hey, young Lew, here’s some things at this stage that now I know that you should either not worry about or focus more on.” What are some of those things? Lew Dickey: (13:01)I always try to do this, but you never really do it in the moment – you think about it in retrospect. But I always told myself to pay attention to people that had gone before me and try to absorb as much knowledge as you can from people who have had that experience, lived through it, had the school of hard knocks, paid for it, and trying to benefit from their experience. And even though I told myself that, and I think to an extent I did, and I was very fortunate enough to have some key mentors in the industry who were very helpful to me, in addition to my father, who was my number one mentor and blessed with an enormous amount of common sense and was in his own right, very successful. I just think that I could have done more in that respect, but I think about mistakes that you make, maybe it’s inevitable, but I think if possible, really hone in on and go the extra mile in terms of trying to learn from people who have walked there before you, because it really can provide a shortcut. You don’t have to learn everything. You don’t hear yourself or relearn it. And if some people have trodden that ground before you don’t be a dummy and learn from them. So I think I probably could have done a better job there. James Di Virgilio: (14:01)Wise words there for sure. All right. Let’s take a look at the, we’ll call these the middle years, but really this is going to be anything in your mindset that sits out as middle to you. So you finished the startup years. You finished your early seed years. Now, you’re obviously a CEO you’re established to some degree. How did your normal day change compared to the early years? Lew Dickey: (14:22)It’s less frenetic. You’re more on top of it. You understand the game, if you will. That comes with experience and seasoning. And was, I said, you have two jobs, you have to run the stock and you have to run the company and you just get better at both. And we were very aggressive, you know, continued to push and continued to grow and innovate wherever we could, whether it be new structures, deal structures, or continued to work on the technology platform. So I would just say that you get more comfortable, you know your way around, you’re known to the other people in the industry and in the investment community and Wall Street. And so I just think that it’s pretty much common sense. I just think the longer you’ve been doing it, the better you get. You’re just more productive. You’re not putting out fires to that extent. And you’re building a good team and all that as a prerequisite to building a lasting enterprise. James Di Virgilio: (15:09)You’ve got a foundation set, and now you’re beginning the optimization period, and you mentioned the team. Did your original team change just a little bit or significantly from the early years to more of the middle years? Lew Dickey: (15:20)Yes it did, but that’s inevitable in business. So you think about the C-suite yes. We changed CFO, we changed some of the key operating people, and then obviously you’re constantly having change, which is just the nature of business within business units. And it’s a very distributed business, which is very different from a tech company or a large software company where everything tends to be in one area. Even though you’re doing business around the world. In the radio business, you don’t have a large corporate staff; at the Heights, we had 7,000 employees and we may have had 75 at corporate. And so you’re talking about 1-2% of your employees are at corporate and everybody else’s out in the field and you’ve got business units that run their own P and L’s and they report up. So that’s the way to think about it. James Di Virgilio: (16:01)So you have this obviously changing, as you’ve mentioned, responsibility landscape. Your roles become not more defined, but certainly you take the lessons that you’ve learned and you know some things you want to apply. What were some of the focus points that shifted from the early years to the middle years? What were some of the priorities that perhaps changed as the business grew and there were different challenges that needed to be addressed? Lew Dickey: (16:22)Well, all businesses go through challenges. I think we had early on the need to, I called it professionalize the business from a lot of the mom and pops that sort of ran it out of their checkbook and didn’t have what normal industry practices would be away from the broadcast industry. Something like CRM or an ERP system, the various checks and balances that you would need for timely reporting sales training. These are things that were really done ad hoc. Some of them didn’t do it at all. And so in essence, to professionalize and try to create standards and best practices and drive those through the organization. So you could effectively scale it and leverage your management structure and create something where you could have upward mobility within the company, which I thought was an extremely important part. And if you had a very small market, if you were in Macon, Georgia, or Albany, Georgia, and you wanted somebody to be in a position to be able to run Atlanta, the skillset required to do it is essentially the same. It’s the same business. It’s this question of, if you have the right standardization and processes that are consistent or homogenous throughout the organization, you can really create upward mobility. And there really wasn’t a lot of that, I think in the industry. The people who ascended to roles in markets were generally people who came up in those markets rather than people who came from a smaller market or a hub market and moved up. And so there wasn’t a lot of that in the industry. So I wanted to create something that would give people the opportunity to do that and move if they so desire, it wouldn’t just have to be running the market. Could be a sales manager, could be a key account manager, program, director, music, director, chief engineer, whatever role you would think of within a radio station, marketing promotions director. So those are the things that we wanted to create. Lew Dickey: (17:59)And as I mentioned, it caused an awful lot of consternation to get folks to buy into that. And just simply because people are very, very, very resistant to change. And so that was the bane of my existence in trying to do that. But over time, people self-selected. And we actually went outside the business because we were systematized to that extent, we were able to then hire outside of the business and bring some people in from other industries, from hospitality, from other business services industries, into the broadcast business, which also I think was helpful in growing the talent base. So I think that all of that was very necessary and it was just a lot of hard knocks and scars to get it there, but that started to change over time. And then a lot of industries, particularly as we see now, more prevalent than ever, particularly through the pandemic, the broadcasting business, as well as traditional media, beginning with the newspaper industry, started to experience serious disruption by digital technology. And it happened to them first and they obviously missed the boat by allowing their content to be shared for free. And so in doing so, they devalued their content and consumers really began to believe that information was free. And I talked about this in my book, only a couple of newspapers really, successfully, have survived this; the New York times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and others are working hard to do it. Most did not, and the reason is they let their information out for free, very early on and consumers came to expect it and didn’t value it. And then when they tried to erect a paywall consumers just moved on and there were plenty of others places they can find free information. Lew Dickey: (19:43)So in my judgment, had the newspaper industry adopted the paywall approach early on…they never handed out New York times or Atlanta Constitution Journals free on the street corner. You had to buy them. And now that the information was available digitally on your personal computer, (which was back in the day, now obviously everything’s mobile) they were able to access that for free. And so I think they should have been much more careful about that early on. And clearly I think the motion picture industry was, and to a great extent television and the sports leagues, they understood the value of their content. Newspaper people didn’t. So as a result, newsrooms have been gutted, they’re off 70% in terms of staffing and hundreds of papers have closed and stopped printing, and others will do the same going forward. So it’s a very challenged industry simply because they didn’t get on it early enough. And on the broadcast side, it was really the competition for digital advertising. It wasn’t so much which that they were getting our product for free because in broadcasting, you already got the product for free. Our model was obviously distribute free to consumers and the advertisers pay for it. And there really was no digital competition for local radio per se. You had music services, but you always had record players and cassette players and CDs in the cars. So your music collection already had a separate outlet anyway that competed with broadcast. The difference was it was local advertisers, and national, but local advertisers which always represented about 85% of the business weighted average. They now had another choice and that was search and obviously social, which is why those behemoths now between the two of them, Google and Facebook, now have multiples probably 10 times, if not more, it could be as much as 15 times, the entire size of the radio industry, just in those two companies. So that dollar started moving in that direction. And obviously in a fixed inventory business, I started putting real pressure on rates because these businesses were growing at 20, 30% a year. Lew Dickey: (21:23)And ad dollars tend to grow with nominal GDP, which we know is low single. And so as a result that you were seeing a real share shift away, and that’s why it crushed newspapers. It really began with Craigslist and the classifieds, which represented half of the newspapers’ profits and for a service, it was essentially free that started to decimate them. And then as people wouldn’t pay for their news, that sort of was the nail in the coffin then. And so you saw dollars go there, that business was gutted. And then it started to pick up steam, the shift in dollars away from local media into digital. And that’s what’s caused a great deal of problems today. So the radio industry was, I think at its height, 21-22 billion, and now it’s probably honing in on half that post pandemic. And we’ll see whether or not there is a rebound. I’m highly doubtful that there will be a significant rebound from here. X political, which was sort of supercharged in 2020, but I’m highly skeptical that in broadcast radio there’ll be a significant rebound and in television reruns, which they refer to as their subscription revenue, which obviously is coming from the MVPD now represents between that and political represents half the business. And obviously that never used to be the case. So they’re straight local ad dollars spot advertising is off dramatically as well. James Di Virgilio: (22:34)This is a nice segue from what you just talked about, but now looking as a mature CEO facing a lot of the challenges you just mentioned, you’re in this stage, you’re no longer a disruptive startup force. You’re obviously steering a much larger ship. It’s harder to be as nimble as the college kids who are taking one idea and trying to improve upon it. So how do you handle the pressure as a CEO with all of these different changes that occur in your industry? How do you handle the pressure of the media of public opinion, your own employees when making these decisions? Lew Dickey: (23:04)Well, it’s a good question and there’s no real single answer, I think, that can encapsulate that. You have to look at each of the constituents independently and you have a plan and then obviously you’re going to make mistakes and you’ve got to course correct, and you’ve got to do so as quickly as you possibly can. Some of these things, you have to take them as they come. The landscape is changing. You might be able to see a little bit around the corner, but nobody has perfect vision into the future. I certainly did not at the time predict the speed with which the shift would go to digital, the acceleration and the rate of it, that it would go. And I think that they would inform everybody in terms of balance sheet management, if anybody had that idea, you know, nobody’s downside cases had, I think, much of a shift or this rapid over shift taking place. And anybody who says they did would be fooling you because if that was the case, if anybody knew, then everybody would have put their companies up for sale five years earlier and been on top of it. So you don’t know at the time. And sometimes it’s hard when you’re in the forest to actually see the proverbial trees and understand that because you’re a cheerleader for your own book and what you’re doing, and sometimes it’s hard to have perfect objective information on this. And again, when there’s no precedent for it, it makes it even that much more difficult. So I think we worked very hard to innovate and saw some things coming to our credit. And we looked very hard at commerce and we had a commerce initiative, which was to in essence, look for a different revenue model from the reach. Radio always had great reach and still does have great reach. It’s just got a very challenged ad-based business model because it doesn’t have pricing power. And so you have to look for incremental ways to monetize an audience, which as I mentioned earlier, and as everybody knows, gets it for free. Lew Dickey: (24:42)And so you have to look for smart ways to monetize. And commerce is a very interesting way to do that. We sell our ad units to help other people make money with their businesses. And is there a way to participate in that and have a revenue stream other than just selling commercial announcements? And so we had a commerce initiative. I definitely saw the need for, or the shift with digital, and that everybody sort of gets into everybody’s business because it’s all bits. And so the need for more of a multi-platform brand or approach to entertainment and media. And so we were looking at that. We had a good presence in country, so we created our Nash brand to do just that. Obviously at radio, we had a record label that we put together with Scott Porshanna. We bought country weekly magazine and converted that to Nash magazine that we bought from American media. And we’re looking for a cable channel TV outlet, to create this virtuous circle of content distribution monetization under a brand that could in essence attract a large and loyal audience. And so we were doing that, had a streaming proposal that we were doing with Yannis Frieze, who started Skype and sold it. And so we had some interesting things that we were doing. This is back in 20 13, 14, 15, so long time ago, I think a tad ahead of our time, these things would all be necessary today to evolve immediate business, but broadcast radio company into a modern media business. James Di Virgilio: (26:03)Looking at the various stages that you were in: early, middle, mature, now. You always had to make decisions strategically with how you were going to run the business or compete. What informed those decisions, what was the playbook or the rubric, like how do you go about deciding how you’re going to compete or solve a problem, or basically move the industry forward? Lew Dickey: (26:26)You’ve always got the constraint of your balance sheet, your capital structure. And so you have to weigh everything. So it’s easier to see what needs to be done. At least I always felt this way. It’s easier to understand what needs to be done and where you need to go than it is to actually go and do it based on the constraints that you have with your existing capital structure. So I don’t know if that answers your question, but I think you constantly have to understand sort of leverage liquidity and risk in anything that you do. And I always try to size up problems through that prism. And then in terms of moving the industry, like that was the other part of your question, it’s very difficult to do that. And because you have a lot of headstrong people that run their own businesses and more power to them, and they’re going to run their business as they see fit. And ultimately you compete against them. And if you can show a better way, perhaps they move and adopt your vision, or just try to copy you or emulate you. And so it’s very difficult to try to lead an industry. And I think that a lot of my colleagues, if they were trying to create a consortium to do something, and even if it was an incredibly noble effort and well thought out, my experience was that it was always really difficult to succeed there. And so sort of observing that, I always thought that there’s a better use of time than trying to get a bunch of people who have their own balance sheets and worries and concerns to try to do what you want them to do. And sometimes reflexively people are stubborn just because it’s coming from a competitor. And so those are the kinds of things that industry leadership in that respect, I always looked at as the best way to do that is to just chart your own course and lead by example. And if you’re successful, what you’re doing makes sense from an industrial logic perspective and the results are there, then people will follow. That’s sort of the best way to do it is you just have to lead by example, if you’re really trying to move an industry, there isn’t time for the brain damage that it takes to try and herd cats and get a bunch of disparate folks with disparate agendas to try to coalesce. Very, very, very difficult to do and in my judgment, not necessarily the best use of time. James Di Virgilio: (28:29)Lew, wonderful stuff. Thank you for being with us here on the Radio Cade podcast, for spending a considerable amount of time with us today. And for Radio Cade, I’m James di Virgilio. Outro: (28:36)Radio Cade is produced by the Cade Museum for Creativity and Invention, located in Gainesville, Florida. This podcast episode’s host was James di Virgilio and Ellie Thom coordinates inventor interviews. Podcasts are recorded at Heartwood Soundstage, and edited and mixed by Bob McPeak. The Radio Cade theme song was produced and performed by Tracy Collins and features violinist Jacob Lawson.
MVPD met de geest van opa op de schouder in het gedroomde geel, horrorcrashes, bollenstrijder Ide Schelling, La Course-koningin Demi Vollering en de wedergeboorte van Cav, alles komt in deze jubileumaflevering aan bod. Tafelgast is Frank Heinen, een van onze favoriete wielerschrijvers. Je kent hem van de messcherpe columns voor onder meer HP/De Tijd én weelderige verhalen over vergeten, en meestal enorm kleurrijke voetballer en wielrenners. Daarnaast is hij auteur van het boek dat in geen enkel huishouden mag ontbreken: De Kleine Heinen. Met Frank vragen we ons af: kan Roglic de Tour nog winnen of is die andere Sloveen gewoonweg te sterk? En wat kan Alaphilippe nog?Verder in deze episode wederom de Tacx Klim van de Dag en tips voor je tourpoule. Er zijn er mooie prijzen te winnen en muziek is er van SAULT, Kate Tempest en Big Red Machine. Garmin en Tacx zijn supporter van De Grote Plaat #neverstopcycling See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Katie is the Social Media + Public Relations Coordinator for the Mountain View Police Department in northern California. Katie specializes in social media management, speaking across the country on social media best practices, crisis communications, and forming positive working relationships between law enforcement and the media.Before joining MVPD, Katie worked as a public safety reporter for papers including the San Jose Mercury News, the East Bay Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Published nationally, Katie was an award-winning journalist for my breaking news coverage of the Asiana Airlines crash at San Francisco International Airport and my investigative work on the state Department of Social Services led to major legislative reform to protect elderly residents in California.Find me on Twitter at @katienelson210 and at policepio@mountainview.gov.Support the show (https://t.co/GOmAg9X6e8?amp=1)
Speaker 1 (00:00):[inaudible] Speaker 2 (00:06):Hi everybody. And welcome to this week's podcast, Joe and I am this week with the fabulous Scott Ehrlich, who is the senior vice president for growth networks and content for the Sinclair broadcast group. And I had a chance to be on a panel recently with Scott and the stuff that he has his hands on is kind of a mind blow, um, and sort of the best education of what's happening in television in terms of the distribution mechanism and all the different content models. And so I thought it would be great to talk to Scott about all the things that they're up to, um, at Sinclair, um, because it's, it's a great education, I think, for the current ecosystem. So welcome to the tech cat show Scott. Um, why don't you tell us first about your role? Speaker 3 (00:50):Well, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Um, so I've been at the company for almost four years now. Um, and, uh, I oversee a couple of different units. Um, so my, my, my business unit is called national networks and platforms and, uh, Sinclair is at its heart, um, a local media company. So our biggest assets are our local television stations, um, and the regional sports networks that we acquired about two years ago. Um, and so we're known generally as a local media company and I was kind of brought in to be the kind of national guy. Um, so, um, that means a couple of things. So the national networks part is we have for over the air, um, broadcast networks. So yes, 25 years after I got into streaming, I got into over the air broadcasting with antennas and stuff. Um, and we'll come back to this or why that makes sense to me anyway. Speaker 3 (01:50):Um, uh, and then the other part of the job is, is, um, uh, the platforms part, our OTT platforms. So we have, uh, we have, uh, uh, a service called news on, um, which has well over 200 local newscasts aggregated into one app. And so if you're a local news junkie or your news junkie general, um, it's, it's kind of a, a real buffet. Um, and it's really, it, it, it really hits a stride in, you know, of like a hurricane hits the Gulf and you can go from a station in Shreveport to a station in mobile, to a station in Tallahassee, and you can even kind of go around and see how different people are covering the story. Um, and then of course, if you're out of market, you can, you can see, um, the news from your market and then, uh, stirs our owned and operated OTT platform we launched in, uh, in January of 18. Speaker 3 (02:48):I think it was, um, January of 19. I feel like I've been living in a time where for the last year and a half, does anybody else feel that way? Yeah, we had a year that sort of did no, it was January of 19. Um, so it's not two years old. And in stores, there's a platform that has about 130, um, uh, fast channels, uh, free ad-supported streaming television channels, um, and unique to that space, which is a space that includes people like Pluto and, and, um, uh, Samsung TV plus, and other brands in this space. We have a local curated channel for each of our markets. Um, and so right now we have 85, I think, localized channels, um, that combination of local content, um, syndicated content, um, uh, and just the mix that we think is appealing to the local broadcast audience. But, um, and then the last part of my job is, um, has to do with innovation. Speaker 3 (03:47):Um, and so I oversee a group that, um, we refer to as the content lab. Um, and about two years ago, we decided it would be really, um, helpful for all the things that we were trying to do to have a group that was just dedicated to innovation. And so we put together a cross-functional team and let's get somebody who comes from a sales background. So when it comes from a audience development background, somebody who comes from a, uh, format driven production background, um, uh, another, producer's a bit of a mad scientist kind of, um, producer and, um, uh, some research support and, and, and really kind of gave them a charter to go and break things, um, build things, um, find a different way to do things. Um, and it's been, it's been a really great group to put together and, um, really was really was eye opening, you know, when COVID hit. And we had to figure out things like, uh, like remote production, um, that team was able to dive right in and, and work with different technologies and figure out a solution so that we could, uh, we could, well, we wound up producing a newscast for, I think it was Gainesville, Florida out of a laptop in west Palm beach. Oh, cool. Speaker 2 (05:01):Cool. So like a skull, a skunkworks. Well, I would love for you to, let's take a step back now because I know you have your fingers in all these places and just sort of look at the landscape because most consumers right now have, um, and you and I were talking about this, cause it's awkward for me. I have a LG and I have a, a Firestick in it, and it takes me a while to get to the fire stick on the remote because I'm competing with the LGS own solutions. And then there's all the OTT boxes, then there's the apps. So could you kind of break it down for us? Like what are all these models and a little bit, maybe, you know, if you have any, any insights about what you think is working or why not? Because it is, it is overly complex. And I think more than ever before, especially with like what's going on in the news today with all the re aggregation now of at and T and all that, but also, um, ju just, there's so many choices for consumers. So how do we think about this? So maybe talk to us a little bit about what are all these things, which I know, you know, Sinclair and you've just mentioned has, but give it gives us, give us a sense of what this landscape is. Speaker 3 (06:17):Yeah. I mean, listen, if I really knew, um, bottle it and sell it, um, uh, uh, Speaker 2 (06:24):You know, just, we have connected TVs, right? So what we'll show, Speaker 3 (06:30):If you look the biggest issue, I think we face as a content industry right now is discovery discovery. Like discoverability of content is, is hard and getting harder. And the more content there is, the harder that problem gets. Um, and that is a common problem, no matter what, what platform you're on. Um, but, um, the way I think about it is you've got over the air, um, which is both where television started, um, and has sort of newly found its footing. Um, the largest, I think the largest growing segment of the television audience is the over the air audience. The audience, the part of the audience is getting television, um, over an antenna and digital antennas, um, are the relatively inexpensive. They started at like seven, eight, $9. Um, and you get a lot of channels, uh, here in Los Angeles. The, I actually put an antenna on my roof. Um, and when I asked my installer to do that, he was like, what? Like an antenna, like, yes, an antenna, um, I get 205 channels there, a service Speaker 2 (07:38):You're subscribing to, or it just, you buy the antenna and you just connect to TGV. Yeah. Speaker 3 (07:45):You just connect it to your TV, just old school, like you said, the rabbit rabbit ears right back in the day. Um, this is really not that different. I mean, it's a modern version of that, but it's still, it's an over the air in tennis. So there's your free over the air signals that come over FCC license, spectrum, um, and you know, you get the full uncompressed signal, um, you know, the rebroadcasting services, whether it's cable or satellite, or they have to compress the signals, um, to be able to take maximum, um, use, use their pullout platforms with maximum efficiency should have been easier to say, um, uh, over the air though, you get the full on compressed signal, um, and you know, in areas where it works, it's beautiful. Um, and you do see a lot of consumers taking this kind of hybrid approach where they'll have an antenna, they'll have, um, a streaming box of some kind, um, or a connected TV. And those are getting closer and closer in terms of the functionality that they offer. Um, and maybe they'll have one TV. Um, that's still kind of old school connected to an MVPD. Um, you know, for us as a company, it's, it's, um, it's a little like asking which of your children you prefer, right? You you're, Speaker 2 (09:09):You, you have, you have plays in all those spaces, but if, if I'm watching something over the air, are there commercials? Yep. And so, and, and there's, is there a guide or just a budget? Speaker 3 (09:22):Yeah. So the TVs, the TVs for the most part, have the guides embedded in them. Um, so the TV I have here, I plugged it into the antenna. Um, what'll happen is then it will automatically scan for channels. So the same way, like if you think about your car radio and the scan feature, um, your TV does exactly the same thing by, by, um, by default. Um, and in America you can't ship a TV that doesn't have a TV tuner. Um, so TVs all have tuners, um, but they require external antenna. So you have to plug an antenna in, um, so you probably the antenna and, and it scans for channels. And then it builds a program guide. Um, generally, um, there are some over the air DVRs, but they're all third party kind of things. I, I, haven't seen a connected TV with a built-in record function. Speaker 3 (10:12):Um, but the rest of it is built in, um, the tuners built in, uh, the program guides built in, um, all of that information gets pulled, you know, pretty big connected TV. It gets pulled through, um, through, I think he gets pulled through an internet connection. I actually don't know, but, um, but it builds the guide based on what channels it scans. Um, and one of the challenges in the, over the air space as the channels move. Um, and so we do, we did tell our audience fairly frequently to re-scan cause you might find new channels, you might find some channels have moved. Um, and so people that are regular users of antenna based TV, no to re-scan their TVs. Um, but, um, you know, like here in Los Angeles, uh, K TLA is channel five. And so that used to be channel five. Now it's technically channel five.one and this channel five, but two, and there's a channel five, three, and there's a channel five dot four. So channel five is now actually four channels Speaker 2 (11:12):And those are all intent-based or they could also be what comes with the connected box, which is another model, right. Speaker 3 (11:22):Dreaming is a different model than broadcast, right. Um, and the way that you license content, generally you will, the studios would have a different structure for, for streaming versus versus broadcast in less you're packaging them together. So for our networks, um, not all over their network stream, but ours do. Um, so TBD comet charge stadium, uh, which are four over the air national channels. Um, they all also stream, um, which we think is kind of the right approach. Like we, you know, are like my view of this is, is all broadcasting like broadcasting at the end of the day is the art of putting, putting a piece of content out, getting the broadest audience possible and then selling advertising against that audience. Um, and a free streaming channel, fast channel, um, does that a free over the air channel does that. Um, and so from my perspective, they're, they're sort of the same thing. Um, but technologically, they are different. Um, one is purely coming through the internet and the others literally coming through the air. Speaker 2 (12:34):Got it. And so for, I understand from your perspective, you're hitting all the notes because that's the way that you can incrementally build an audience, right? I mean that, that way get audience, if you're streaming, um, if you're getting it over the air, if you're getting it through your cable box, if you're getting it through a streaming streaming box or the connected TV streaming services. So all of these things, so is everyone just out there shopping for content to put on all of their different services and creating content? I mean, it seems to me an explosion of, of choices, Speaker 3 (13:12):Which leads back to the discovery issue. I was mentioning earlier. It did, there is, there's a lot of content out there right now. There's a lot of, and Speaker 2 (13:19):On all these different ways to receive the content Speaker 3 (13:24):And ways to license the content and platforms to create content for and on and on and on. Um, it's a problem that keeps sort of multiplying on itself. The more platforms you have, the more channels you have, the more programming brands you have. Um, the more acute that discovery problem gets, which is ironic. Um, I look at it a little bit differently. Um, you know, our kind of, um, mantra as a company is connecting people to content everywhere. Um, and so what that implies is it's not up to me, how you want to watch content. It's up to you. If you want to watch it on your phone, great. You want to watch it on a connected TV. Awesome. You want to watch it on a laptop? Cool. You want to watch it connected to an antenna? Awesome. Then it's then it's, then it's my job as a programmer to make sure that my product is available to you when and where you want to consume it. Speaker 3 (14:22):It shouldn't be the consumer's challenge to figure out, um, what they need to buy to experience my content as a practical matter. There's very little content that is so compelling. It gets people to buy a new device, to change a platform, um, to improve the speed of their internet connection, whatever it takes to get that content. Most people aren't willing to go that extra mile for any particular piece of content. There's some content that is so unique and so valuable. It gets people to change devices. Um, but once you get outside of sports, which is the best repository of that kind of content ever, right? And if you're a fan of the New York Yankees, and you want to watch the New York Yankees, there's only the New York Yankees there isn't, there is, I believe there is a team called the Yokohama Yankees, but it's not the same thing. Speaker 2 (15:15):You're going to find your way to, to, to get that content, whether you're paying for that sports service on whatever solution you have, but you're going to figure out how to get it. Cause it's, cause you're a fan, Speaker 3 (15:27):A fan of that. You're going to figure out how to get it. And if you have to pay for it, then you have a decision to make, right. Um, it's either worth it to you or it's not worth it to you. Um, and again, that's the, then it's our job to get it to when and where you want to have it. And that's why you'll hear us talking as a company a lot about direct to consumer, um, for the sports business. Um, and that's an important thing going forward. If you're a fan of a team and you're not a cable subscriber, you know, you should be able to still buy access to that, um, to that season or whatever. Um, and we see that more and more that people want to be. Um, people want to be connected to their content in their own ways. Um, and you know, we need to preserve value for our partners in some cases, but overall we want to make sure that the content is where the consumers want it to be. Um, so that they have an opportunity to see the thing they want to see. Speaker 2 (16:29):Now, what about, um, we also have mobile, we also have the web and we also have a VOD and STD, which is more on the cable side of things. So are you also looking at placements of content and all those other sort of models as well? Speaker 3 (16:46):Um, I mean, we work a lot in the, in the Avon space. So, um, on stir, so at the local station level, we have streaming rights to most, if not all of the syndicated content we put on there and so on a market by market basis. So part of what we've done with stir, which really from a technical standpoint, was not trivial at all, was set up a geo-fencing system so that the right shows or geo-fence to the right markets. And so it's a market where we have Ellen, you can see the last five episodes of Ellen if you're in that market, um, or for the market where we have jeopardy or Maury Povich or whatever your favorite show is. Um, and that local station is the only one that's able to present. Um, the ability to on demand, catch up with that show. Um, and that's proven to be really, really, um, popular. Speaker 3 (17:40):Um, we thought it would be, these are popular shows and they're well-known shows and well-established shows. And, um, there isn't a lot of places where they're available on demand. So, um, that was a big initiative for us. Little Ash cheer, I think. Um, uh, so we do, we are in the Avon business from the perspective of a platform of a distribution platform. Um, I don't know, um, really that we do much in the S VOD business and the subscription, the on demand business, um, tennis channel has a really cool subscription product called tennis channel plus, um, that if you're, and you don't have to be a tennis channel subscriber necessarily to, to buy it, but it gives you kind of an all access pass. So like for the French open, you can watch all of the courts and pick the match that you want to see at any given time. Um, so we do have some stuff, uh, that is in the subscription business. I think we'll have more subscription businesses in the future. Um, but today we're mostly in, you know, most of, most of the businesses I'm involved in, um, tend to be on the ad supported side. Speaker 2 (18:49):And the, the thing that I keep hearing from you too, is these, these, uh, like vertical content areas. So you mentioned sports, you mentioned tennis. Um, do you see also other models, uh, growing, um, finance, the finance channel, or like back in the early days of cable or, or that kind of famous Saturday night live episode where the mall had just a masking tape store, you know, these like really specific, um, verticals of content channels all over the place, like it was cable, but now it seems to be being born again in this world. Speaker 3 (19:27):Well, it is sort of a, you know, what what's old is new again, kind of thing. Um, when we started working on stir, we started, you know, the phrase that we used was the basic food groups of content. And if you look at basic cable, the, the original, basic cable that early eighties, basic cable, it covered the basic food groups, right. There was a news channel, there was a sports channel, there was a youth channel, there is a, a lifestyle channel. Uh, there was an, a general entertainment channel or two, um, the factual channel, right. Basic food groups. And so when we looked at how we were going to program stir for the over the air audience, uh, I mean, it's no duty service, but it's promoted a lot to an over the air audience. Um, that was the first thing was okay, well, let's make sure we have those basic food groups covered. Speaker 3 (20:22):Um, and as we've been building our own channel portfolio, um, our network portfolio is similar kind of thing, right? So comedy is a science fiction channel, uh, charges in, uh, action show channel. Um, TBD is a youth oriented channel. A stadium is a sports channel. Um, and you can see these patterns and they do repeat because there was a version of the basic food groups of cable in the eighties. And then in the nineties, when you went from analog cable to digital cable, then there was the digital tiers with whatever sorts of expanded, basic food groups right now, the luxury food groups, not the basic ones, even Speaker 2 (21:06):Now spectrum is still sort of organizing it like that. And it's very confusing, I think. But, um, so you'll see, you'll start to see. And then the other announcements that came out of, um, the new fronts a couple of weeks ago, what was the sort of talk of augmented reality and shopability, so are you guys looking at shopability for all your different channels and things like that, you know, the ability to really bring that Jennifer Anniston t-shirt metaphor that T commerce thing to make happen? Is that something that, that is of interest right now that maybe your skunkworks is looking at, or you're already playing with models? Speaker 3 (21:46):Um, I can't imagine there's a business model in the media business. I either haven't or won't play with, um, definitely it's fun Speaker 2 (21:56):To talk to you cause you've got your fingers in everything right now. Speaker 3 (22:00):Uh, well, listen to the, the, the, uh, the labs team is a, is a great, I mean, for me personally, it's a great outlet to, to work with really creative people on projects that aren't necessarily tied to an operating business, and that are really just about, you know, figuring out how we can skate to where the puck is going. Um, uh it's um, it's, it's been a lot of fun, um, in terms of commerce. Um, there are a couple of different ways to think about commerce. Um, we do have a couple of shopping channels on stir. Um, we're talking to others. Um, so my guess is we'll have more of that activity on the OTT side, um, to learn really as much as anything else. Um, I mean, some of those are big established businesses that have legacy and history and they really do know what they're doing. Speaker 3 (22:57):And, um, there are others that we're talking to, they're taking a newer fresher approach to, um, to how you combine content and commerce. Um, there's a food company that I think is, is, is doing some really interesting work, um, and, and a few others. So, I mean the short answer, yes, we're, we're playing with those kinds of models, but, uh, I think it's it, it's also, you know, how are you using your airtime? What are you, what are you, what are you using your time to sell? Um, so, you know, the notion that, you know, maybe there's products that we have to sell and we use some of the airtime to sell those products. Um, uh, maybe we partner with people, um, and, and have a, um, a deeper relationship than just a, you're an, um, uh, you know, I don't work a lot on our sports side, but, you know, look what the sports division did with ballet. Speaker 3 (23:52):Um, you know, the, all the networks are branded as valley. Um, um, that's about as deep as a partnership as you can get is, is putting the partner's name on the door. Um, so I, I think that there's a lot of room to experiment in this. Um, I also think that, um, just as everything else evolves, advertising models have to evolve as well. Um, you know, I'm sure, you know, you know, before I came to this company, I was doing a lot of work in branded content and producing movies for Marriott. And, you know, we did spots for Fiat and, uh, we also worked for companies that didn't Brian, but, um, um, but this happened, um, but, um, but you know, that notion of sort of a brand being part of the content and part of the storytelling, um, I believed in for a long time and, and we certainly haven't seen the end of it. Speaker 3 (25:02):And, um, the 32nd spot model has been a very good one for our company and continues to be. Um, but it's, you know, you have to continue the course and the pace of innovation, you can't sort of sit back and say, okay, well, this worked for 20 years or to work for the next 20 years. Um, the one constant has changed. We all know that, um, and in this, and, and, and, you know, when it comes to the, you know, the basic mechanisms by which we make money, um, we're constantly examining those to make sure that, that in a dynamic industry, um, we're up to speed. Speaker 2 (25:38):Hmm. When, if you looked at your crystal ball, we have another 10 minutes. I just want to talk about the future a little bit. And I know we mentioned discoverability, but do you think there'll be a point where literally you could go up to your TV and just say, you know, female comedy, you know, romcom, you know, meet cute or whatever your words are, and it will bring up whatever Sinclair say has on all your various things. And it'll give me a choice, you know, are we going to ever get there where you're going across all the different models and services, and it will pluck out of it, you know, what I want to watch or serve up to me, something that it thinks I want to watch based on data? Speaker 3 (26:23):Well, it's, it's the same sort of answer. Like if I, if I had the answer to the discovery problem, um, I, I, I be implementing it right now. Um, yeah, look, I think things like, uh, artificial intelligence and machine learning, um, I think we have reasonably good hopes that those will, will help us solve this discovery problem. I mean, look, I, I, for me, I, I prefer the TV. Didn't need me to ask it a question. If the TV understood my viewing habits and viewing patterns to the point where what I turned it on, my ex-husband, let me just tell you. Speaker 2 (27:04):Right. But you would prefer if it just knew Speaker 3 (27:07):Yeah. Certain level, like, you know, if the machine is able to track your consumption, it should be able at some point to predict your consumption. Um, and you know, I made some sort of, uh, uh, not too far fetched thought. Um, you know, if you, if you look at some of the services now, um, uh, one of the virtual MVPD is that I subscribed to actually does a pretty good job of figuring out what I want to watch based on my viewing patterns. It knows that, you know, when I first turned on the TV in the morning, I tune it to a news specific news channel. Um, it knows that the afternoon I tend to go to something else. And so it's, it all orders, the choices it offers me based on, on, um, based on what I've consumed. Um, and I think that's an interesting path because I, you know, I do get, um, I do get concerned when I hear people talking about personalization and customization and whatnot, because a lot of times that leads to a consumer experience. Speaker 3 (28:16):That's a lot of work for the consumer and it needs to be work for the consumer, right? The more work you make it for the consumer, the less often they will do it. It's just a general. Um, and you know, the beauty of ad supported is, um, you know, it adheres to one of the key rules of things you never have to do research on. People will always like free. Right, right. I don't feel like I need to research that. Um, but at the same time you need to connect them to the right thing. Right. Um, and my hope is that that, that as the machines get smarter, the path between consumers and the thing they want to consume get shorter. Um, and that's, you know, that's kind of the, the, the, the high-level way I like to view it. Um, now how much of that will come true? I don't know. I don't really actually have a crystal ball. Um, although if I had a time machine, that'd be pretty cool. Um, go back to my team. I go back to 1998 and buy a lot of apple stock. Speaker 2 (29:28):Where, where can we Scott learn about all the things that you're doing? Is there anywhere that folks can, can dial in so they can learn more? Speaker 3 (29:36):Um, well, certainly all the stuff that we're doing at Sinclair, um, we talk about, um, on our website, which is, uh, gi.net. Um, um, but I think, you know, stir, uh, which has to ours, second art for flavor, um, function, fun fact. They presented the brand stor, uh, when we were looking at brand choice and I was like, eh, and then the branding team came back and edited a second or two. And I'm like, now it's really cool. I thought who thought misspelling, it was the way to go. Speaker 2 (30:11):Um, it is more sexy in a way, but that's economic. Speaker 3 (30:15):It kinda, it kinda is that there's, there's actually the, the, uh, just inside baseball, but the, the development name for that, for that, uh, for that logo is the naughty ours. Um, we'll just, we'll just leave it at that. Um, but, uh, so stir.com uh, is where you can access. So you can access stir on the web. You can also access it in, uh, obviously primarily meant as an app. So, um, iOS, Android, um, uh, Roku fire, uh, we just launched on the Samsung platform, um, last week or week before last, sorry. Um, so it's now available on there. Um, news on is on all those platforms as well. Uh, except Samsung, um, that might happen soon though. Um, and, um, where else, uh, and then, you know, the, the stations, if you live in one of our markets, all of the stations have their own, uh, apps and websites as well. Um, so I think at the moment we have, we maintain, we maintain some ridiculous number, like nearly like a couple of hundred apps. Yeah. Speaker 2 (31:33):I love though the thinking around a lot of this is how a consumer consumes you, you know, which is that direct to consumer piece that you were talking about. It's just so smart. Um, well, Scott Ehrlich, who is the vice president, the senior vice president of growth networks and content and Sinclair broadcast group. Thank you so much for enlightening us. I love talking to you because honestly it is a confusing marketplace right now, and I think content creators need to understand what's going out to consumers and how to plug in, and then consumers need to understand what their options are and, and the advertising and brands in the middle of need to get like where their content is going. So it's very helpful to hear, you know, from the, from the front seat, you know, what what's happening out there. So thank you so much anytime. All right. We're going to be, um, coming back, hopefully in another week with another great episode, probably not as good as this one, cause God is so smart and interesting. Um, but we will be back again. Thanks everybody for listening and thank you again, Scott pleasure.
Keith and Jackson ask will Radio.com be a better brand than Entercom? What is Jeff Smulyan going to do with $200M in SPAC money? How to sell against Google/Facebook other than begging. And Ed Stolz story may be over as well as the NAB basically pleading poverty with hundreds of millions in the bank!
For just $20 a month, Philo offers consumers more than 60 cable channels. It's a simple value proposition that has helped this venture stand out in a crowded marketplace of so-called virtual MVPDs. And as Philo CEO Andrew McCollum explains, he's not about to make the mistake that has the prices of many of his competitors soaring.
For just $20 a month, Philo offers consumers more than 60 cable channels. It's a simple value proposition that has helped this venture stand out in a crowded marketplace of so-called virtual MVPDs. And as Philo CEO Andrew McCollum explains, he's not about to make the mistake that has the prices of many of his competitors soaring.
ITVT/TVOT is pleased to present another episode of “Televisionation,” our new video/audio podcast exploring the advanced/interactive-TV industry in the Coronavirus/Covid-19 Era. This episode features long-time TVOT attendee and TV-industry veteran, Curtis Barone, VP of Advanced TV at Movio, recounting his experience of being the first person in Oklahoma to test positive for Covid-19, as well as the travails he and his family endured as a result. He has since been able to help in the struggle against the virus by donating plasma for experimental treatments. Barone also discusses his work at movie-marketing company, Movio, where he develops and maintains relationships with OTT services, MVPD’s and other TV-industry players; and gives us a tour of his extensive beer can collection! (Note: If you would like to share your thoughts on how the Coronavirus/Covid-19 crisis will change the TV and advertising industries, and tell us what your company—or you yourself—are doing to prepare for this new reality, please contact us at tracyswedlow@gmail.com.) For more:http://tvotshow.com/televisionation
These days, every video provider is looking to land ad dollars with a one-two punch of broad but targeted reach for brand awareness, matched with proof of performance -- or business outcomes -- via addressability or attribution. A+E Networks calls the combo "Precision + Performance." In this bonus episode of Insider Interviews I thought it was important to get some terminology down for future episodes dealing with the business of television today. So, Ethan Heftman, senior vice president of Precision + Performance took me through the group's approach to me and also discussed A+E's first-to-market guarantees to advertisers of some select business outcomes. (The following overview of the conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.) I asked Heftman for specifics, starting with the way A+E defines attribution. "For us, it's … tying a media exposure on A+E Networks to a specific business outcome," he explained. "It's going beyond simply the discussion of what type of media metric we delivered [like an "impression"] to what type of action or behavior that impression caused. For example, is it fueling a behavior at the top of the funnel -- the awareness area -- or the middle, the consideration area. Or, is it impacting the bottom of the funnel, a sale or specific outcome type?" A+E markets its Precision + Performance product as impacting outcomes in each of those three areas, versus just the expected top-of-funnel. Historically, "television hasn't been properly credited with outcomes in the real action area: driving a web visit, driving a store visit, driving a specific sale," Heftman said. Next, Heftman explained A+E's view of precision and performance. "Precision is our advanced audience targeting tools; that is, through the use of advanced data sets — whether it's MRI, set-top-box data from an MVPD..., Axiom or Polk data, or first-party data that an advertiser provides us," he explained. "Performance are the tools that we use to discuss, find, and prove specific outcomes within that purchase funnel. The better job you do of identifying and finding those discreet audience segments, the better job you do of picking dayparts and programs that deliver against them, the better outcomes you will have." Sort of like this: If I'm watching Married at First Sight on their Lifetime network -- and I'm not saying I do...well maybe I do -- A+E is willing to guarantee to the national retailer that advertises in that show and other Lifetime or A+E programming, that by precisely targeting people like me with some fancy data they can show that people like me went into that store or visited the retailer's site (performance). Guaranteed. You really should listen to the entire episode for Heftman's explanations and insights. He also shared the categories that perform well and which platforms A+E can precision target (hint: all) and measure performance across (ditto!): "We've always been able to talk about performance outcomes in the digital space, in the OTT space. We believe that the real game-changer is being able to have that conversation in the linear space and then marry that with the existing conversation in digital and over the top." A version of this bonus episode of Insider Interviews with E.B. Moss originally posted on MediaVillage 3/5/20.
School is officially back in session, which means so are our School Resource Officers!MVPD is proud to be able to have a robust school resource officer program, where officers are assigned specifically to Mountain View schools to help keep students and staff safe. Get to know one of the most beloved SROs -- Officer Bobby Taylor -- as he talks about his journey to becoming a part of the unit, some of the trends he is seeing that could impact your child's safety, and he also provides some tips on how to have those tough conversations with your kids.This is an episode you don't want to miss.Enjoy this next edition of the Silicon Valley Beat. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.
ITVT is pleased to present a free audio recording of the TVOT SF 2019 session, "Addressable TV Leaders Roundtable." While we are making the recording available free of charge, you can also purchase a transcript of the session, for a nominal fee ($35), here: https://gumroad.com/l/DZVLMBThe session was described in the show brochure as follows:"According to the Video Advertising Bureau, spending on addressable TV advertising will rise to $3.3 billion next year, and 55% of advertisers who are currently using addressable plan to increase their spend. However, while the space is clearly experiencing significant growth, spending on addressable still accounts for a mere fraction of the $70 billion spent each year on television advertising. This session will bring together representatives of the companies and consortia that are most responsible for addressable TV's growth to date, in order to discuss important new developments in the space, and debate how the industry can best address market fragmentation and other factors (expensive CPMs, "over-targeting," etc.) that could stand in the way of its continued growth. Topics of discussion will include: Recent significant innovations in addressable advertising on live-linear TV and VOD and on MVPD and connected-TV platforms respectively; the impact of recent mergers and acquisitions; the prospects for industry-wide standardization; the significance of new initiatives such as Project OAR and OpenAP 2.0, and of developments such as Xandr's launch of its Community marketplace and Nielsen's creation of its Advanced Video Advertising Group; the potential impact of AI, blockchain and other emerging technologies on the space; how best to measure the effectiveness of addressable-TV advertising; and more." Panelists included:•Kevin Arrix, SVP, DISH Media Sales•Andy Barnet, VP of Western Advertising Sales, Xandr•Jason Bolles, SVP of Advanced Advertising, Nielsen•James Moore, CRO, Simpli.fi•Zeev Neumeier, Founder, Inscape•Gerrit Niemeijer, CTO, NCC Media•Chris Pizzurro, Head of Sales and Marketing, Canoe (Moderator)Note: We will be announcing our next TV of Tomorrow Show event, TVOT NYC 2019, soon. Stay tuned for details!
Join Ted Hicks as he moderates the #LNPShow that discusses today's current events, social topics & raising kids in this current time. Guest: Shawn Armor @Tru_Armor joins us to provide his unique commentary on today's topics. Ted Talks about: Blockchain MVPDs Teaching Kids about Finance
Join Ted Hicks as he moderates the #LNPShow that discusses today's current events, social topics & raising kids in this current time. Guest: Shawn Armor @Tru_Armor joins us to provide his unique commentary on today's topics. Ted Talks about: Blockchain MVPDs Teaching Kids about Finance
As we honor all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our community, we take this unique opportunity to interweave old interviews with former MVPD officers into a very special podcast to see how policing has changed since our inception in 1902. We also get the incredible chance to speak with two of our newest officers and how their journeys to becoming police officers has sculpted how they want to help define a better future for all. Sit back, relax, and be inspired by the past and the present and how that is going to help us all build a pretty spectacular future. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.
Raise your hand if you're a fan of that TV show 24 and if you're an even bigger fan of 24's Chloe O'rBrian? Oh really? Us too! And guess what, we've got the real deal -- meet MVPD's very own crime analyst Kelly Knauer, who makes sense of every number, stat, and trend to help make our department better serve you. Plus, she's a huge fan of cat videos. Like, who isn't?We'll deep-dive into Kelly's job and take a look at how understanding and investigating crime has changed over time as technology and techniques have changed and advanced. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.
ITVT is pleased to present an audio recording of the TVOT NYC 2018 session, "Envisioning the Evolution of the TV UX." The session was described in the show brochure as follows:"This session will identify the new developments--in technology, UI/UX design, our viewing habits and even the way we live--that will have the greatest impact on television's user experience, and will attempt to envision the exact nature of this impact. It will also debate which--if any--of these developments have been overhyped. Panelists will examine such recent and imminent innovations as voice control and personal assistants, use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to provide programming recommendations and even to drive entire programming line-ups, personalization of both programming and advertising content, and--thanks to such phenomena as self-driving cars and the rise of ride sharing--the possible emergence of the automobile as television's 'new living room.'" Panelists included:•Tim Cutting, VP of Consumer Electronics, Digital and MVPD, Gracenote•Field Garthwaite, CEO, IRIS.TV•Michael Jeffrey, VP of Business Development, Music and Video, TiVo•Gabriella Mirabelli, CEO, Anatomy Media (Moderator)•George Tsipolitis, Director, Fire TV, Amazon•Jeff Weber, CEO, Zone TV(Note: the next TV of Tomorrow Show event, TVOT SF 2019, will take place June 12th-13th. Purchase your Early-Bird tickets here before April 1st, and receive a $300 discount on the regular price.)
In April 2018, shortly after the shooting that took place at YouTube’s headquarters by 38-year-old Nasim Najafi Aghdam in San Bruno, California, the media learned from Aghdam’s father that she had been confronted by Mountain View Police Department officers prior to the shooting taking place. Before MVPD had time to make this connection themselves and gather the necessary information, news of this fact quickly went viral with the media, local communities, and the general public demanding answers and speculating on what the answers to those unanswered questions might be. In this episode of The Invincible Brand Podcast, Melissa Agnes sits down with Captain Chris Hsiung of MVPD and Katie Nelson, Social Media and Public Relations Coordinator for MVPD, to discuss the behind the scenes of what happened, how it happened, and the crisis ready strategies that MVPD quickly put into place in order to regain control of the narrative of the incident and mitigate the risk of losing trust and credibility with their community and the general public. Learning of a serious issue or crisis once it has already gone viral against your brand is a business risk that applies to any type of organization in this day and age, and the tips, strategies, and insights that Captain Hsiung and Katie share in this episode are relevant to all businesses whether you’re a brand of one, a mega corporation, or whether you’re in the public or private sectors. This episode explores: How a Crisis Ready organizational mindset prepared MVPD for this moment before it happened The Ultimate FOMO moment when Captain Hsiung was “off the grid” on a cruise for the initial 18hrs of the event Behind the scenes decisions and discussions The strategy of communication: how MVPD rolled out the video footage of the event – and the importance of providing context to what viewers would see in the footage Links discussed in this episode The first response statement published by MVPD before they could release the video footage of the incident The official response published by MVPD with the video of the incident Follow and connect with MVPD on social: Facebook Twitter Instagram
She was someone’s daughter, sister, friend. Whoever she was… … she wasn’t supposed to be here. If you have any information regarding this case: Mount Vernon Police Dept Detective Chris DiMase / 914-668-6841 Or Anyone with a cell phone may send an anonymous tip to us by texting MVPD and their message/tip to 847411 (tip411)
Bringing you the latest in video technology, OTT, online streaming, and digital video is VideoInk, the top resource for industry analysis and breaking news in the video world. Heading its operation is this week’s Tech Cat Show guest, Jocelyn Johnson, VideoInk Founder, delivering us what’s current in online video and streaming, as well as social video vs. Multichannel Video Programing Distributor’s (MVPD’s) and cable OTT (Over The Top). All it takes is one hour to be au Courant in online and video - get it right here on the Tech Cat Show!
[itvt] is pleased to present an audio recording of the TVOT SF 2017 keynote fireside which featured Chris Ripley, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, in conversation with Rick Howe, The iTV Doctor The session was described in the show brochure as follows:"Under Chris Ripley's leadership, Sinclair Broadcast Group has been at the forefront of driving advanced-TV innovation, particularly when it comes to pushing forward adoption of the new ATSC 3.0 standard. This year alone, the company has teamed with Nexstar and Univision on an ATSC 3.0 consortium tasked with "promot[ing] innovation and develop[ing] and explor[ing] products and services associated with ATSC 3.0 and monetization opportunities such as spectrum utilization, virtual MVPD platforms, multicast channels, automotive applications, single frequency networks and wireless data applications, among others"; and has also announced a program to give away 1 million ATSC 3.0 receiver chips to mobile phone manufacturers. And Sinclair's efforts to boost ATSC 3.0 aren't the only area in which the company is driving innovation: it recently announced plans for a programmatic ad-selling co-op for TV stations, and its pending acquisition of Tribune is widely expected to open up substantial amounts of inventory for addressable TV.In this keynote fireside chat with Rick Howe, The iTV Doctor, Ripley will outline the various ways in which Sinclair is embracing advanced-TV innovation; discuss the importance of ATSC 3.0 to broadcast television's future; and explain why he believes local broadcasters are in the catbird seat when it comes to bringing about the TV of Tomorrow."http://itvt.com - news, interviewshttp://thetvoftomorrowshow.com - bi-annual conference (SF & NYC)
"The Battle for TV Everywhere: MVPD's vs. Networks. Who Will Win?" at TVOT 2015[itvt] is pleased to present an audio recording of the TVOT 2015 session, "The Battle for TV Everywhere: MVPD's vs. Networks. Who Will Win?" The session was described in the show brochure as follows:"As OTT TV usage booms, the battle for control of TV Everywhere is on. Who will win? The MVPD's who control the Internet for 85% of the US population? Or the networks who control all of the content and much of the viewer loyalty? Based on moderator Alan Wolk's controversial piece, "It's Always the Ones You Don't Suspect," this debate will involve much audience participation, shouting, and laughter as we attempt to determine, once and for all, just how the future will play out." Panelists included:Sean Besser, Head of Platform, PeelColin Dixon, Principal Analyst, nScreenMediaErik Schwartz, Head of Product--Live, BitTorrentSeth Shapiro, Governor, Television AcademyJeremy Toeman, VP of Products, CNETAlan Wolk, Senior Analyst, TDG/Chairman, 2nd Screen Society (Moderator)
What is the Future of TV? We came across an article written by Jason Hirschhorn posted at LinkedIn titled 7 Deadly Sins: Where Hollywood is Wrong about the Future of TV. It is a very well written, thought provoking article with a great deal of supporting data. And charts. Lots of charts. This is our re-tweet/re-linkedin of Jason's post, with a bit of our own reaction to and discussion of his points. “Over the past few years, the television landscape has been as dramatic and character-filled as the best of Game of Thrones episodes. To that end, it should come as no surprise that there have been threats that have gone unseen or under-addressed by the major and minor television networks. After a few lively conversations ... we came up with “7 Deadly Sins: Where Hollywood is Wrong about the Future of TV”... Not every threat applies to every network – nor are they equally menacing – but as a whole, we believe they're critical to both understanding and planning for the future of television.” – Jason Hirschhorn 1. By the Time You're Ready for OTT, You've Already Been Supplanted The article surmises that the traditional TV networks are still playing a wait and see game with respect to Over-The-Top content delivery. Not eager to disrupt the existing revenue model, they will hold onto their cash cow for as long as possible before making any drastic shifts in delivery. But this is a risky strategy. While they wait, the OTT providers are growing, expanding, generating more content and gaining viewers. It might even be too late already for some of the traditional providers. “In the first quarter of 2015, Netflix's 41M US accounts averaged nearly 2 hours of video on the service each day – making the “network” bigger than two of the four major US broadcasters and twice as large as the largest cable network. At its current pace, the OTT giant will become the most popular video provider in the US by the end of 2015. Not to be forgotten, Amazon Instant Video and Hulu are roughly 75th and 100th largest respectively, and continue to grow quarter over quarter.” Our take: We agree, this is certainly a risky move, but we do see the networks starting to embrace OTT. In fact, CBS's Video Streaming Service Now Offers Live TV In Over 60% Of The U.S. Live TV is something the big OTT providers still aren't doing. Nothing live on Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. With the advent of time-shifting, live may not be all that important anymore, except for events and some contest shows. As long as traditional TV is the only place to get the content live, at the time it is occurring, they still hold a very strong hand. It'll all go OTT eventually. But if traditional TV can hang onto the live content, or if Netflix and Amazon ignore that segment, traditional TV will still be in high demand, either via OTT or the good old living room set. 2. The Future of Millennials and Pay TV Here the article discusses how the younger generations may not reach the point where they want to buy into traditional TV. The theory is that they all will eventually, when they make enough money, have a family, buy a house, etc. But what if that isn't true? What if they decide the right way to consume content is the same way they've gotten used to since adolescence? What impact would that have on traditional TVs revenue model? “However, Millennials and Gen-Z's are first generations to have these non-traditional substitutes available – and they show levels of engagement with this content that far exceeds that of traditional TV. As a result, we truly cannot know what the future holds. What we do know is that young audiences love these substitutes today.” Our take: This is a genuine risk. Our children love the big TVs and projectors we have, and they demand watching movies and sports in the traditional way, however they watch a ton of content on their phones and tablets. Braden's two year old is just as content with an iPad as he is with a 100” screen. And when they grown and have kids of their own, their kids will probably be fine with tablets too, so why go traditional TV? There will always be the enthusiast, the one who wants a big screen and traditional TV for movies, sports, etc. But could this become the exception, not the norm? During the 2000s, pay TV service penetrated nearly 90% of US households. Imagine if even half the households in America didn't have a traditional TV set. This would be a huge cultural shift, but would also be a gigantic blow to traditional TV. There's no reason the big networks couldn't go OTT and thrive in that model, but they're behind. 3. Outdated Organization Model and Priorities The argument here is that the model of thousands of channels to try to appeal to anyone and everyone at any time of the day is broken. Pay TV providers continue to add more channels in an attempt to gain more eyeballs. Love golf? We have a channel for that. Love game shows? Yep, we have that too. But with these extra channels comes a substantial increase in price. Something that is driving millions to cut the cord and drop traditional pay TV. “In a digital environment, "TV networks" face none of the limits of the linear television model. There's no limit to the amount of programming a network can offer, no cap to the number of genres and demographics it can serve, “no one size fits all” lead in show and no single performance metric. Netflix, for example, is targeting TV and film viewers of all kinds – even kids – under a single brand. This not only creates a simpler consumer offering, but provides Netflix with numerous strategic benefits, such as the ability to program for the individual, rather than a specific channel or genre. Though this approach defies years of industry beliefs around building audiences and launching series, the results speak for themselves. In the first quarter of 2015, Netflix delivered more minutes of video in the United States than two of the four broadcast networks, twice as many as the industry's largest cable network (The Disney Channel) and more than the bottom 117 (of some 200) cable networks combined. What's more, this figure is up an estimated 45% (or 38 billion minutes) year over year.” Our take: Netflix represents both the broadcaster responsible for generating content and the pay TV provider, like a cable or satellite company, responsible for aggregating it and getting it into your home. This advantage cannot be overstated. CBS generates enough content for their network. A standalone CBS app can't compete with Netflix or Amazon. Same with NBC, ABC, FOX, and others. Either the broadcasters will need to work together to provide a single interface to aggregate all the content in once place, or they will continue to be outpaced by the large digital providers. 4. “Winner Takes Most” Competition This point builds on number 3 and expands it somewhat. The thinking is that all networks benefit in the current model by being in the same distribution package. You can't get just Viacom shows or just Time Warner shows. You get them all, whether you like it or not, and everyone gets paid, whether they deserve it or not. However, online the networks are currently running as separate apps, almost like a la carte programming. Users are free to pick what channels they pay for. This could really hurt traditional TV and make it very difficult to pick up new viewers. “The average Pay TV household today watches roughly 210 unique hours of television each month, spread across only 17.5 of the roughly 200 channels it receives. Given the surplus of content available and the breadth of content offered by each of the major network groups (which count 13 to 25 24-hour channels apiece), many households will likely find they need only 2-3 consolidated offerings to meet their video needs. What's more, the friction involved in paying for and managing multiple apps will give subscribers an incentive to watch more of the content they've already paid for instead of adding a third or fourth network for another $10 or $20 each.” Our take: This is a very interesting point that actually applies to any a la carte programming scheme. If you have to pay more to add a channel, will you really do it for just one or two shows, or will you instead find other shows you can enjoy on the networks you're already paying for? This could have a dramatic impact on traditional TV's move to OTT. Competing with the total volume of content available at the digital providers isn't going to be easy. You may be able to pick up a few viewers who really love your shows, but probably not nearly as many as who would have watched something simply because they stumbled onto it while channel surfing. 5. The New TV Bundle “Historically, the TV business has been an end in and of itself, but as Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe has demonstrated, video can also play a far more lucrative role: establishing or supporting a broader storytelling platform. In fact, many digital-first content companies already depend on brand extensions (e.g. events and apparel) to make video ends meet. As the TV bundle is reconstituted and diversified, what role will pureplay TV networks (as opposed to production companies) play? How much value will they be able to capture? How many can survive?” Our take: This one feels like a non-factor. We may have edited the list down to the 6 deadly sins. There's nothing preventing the traditional TV providers from doing the same bundling available on the digital-first options. Sure, they need to figure out that model, but the only risk here is that they refuse to do so and try to just move the same pureplay content delivery style to OTT. Doing that would be foolish. 6. Loss of the “Middle” This sin points to the fundamental difference between traditional TV viewership and on-demand viewership. In the traditional model, total viewers is king. Ratings are all that matter. Sure ratings in key demographics are important, but you really just want to attract as many viewers as possible. In the on-demand paradigm, user devotion or dedication is what matters. How passionate your viewers are, not how many there are. “This shift has profound consequences for content monetization – and not just because it challenges decades of network television performance metrics (i.e. ratings). First, true hits will be more valuable than ever before (and thanks to OTT distribution, they'll be bigger, too). Second, content that connects with a passionate but niche audience becomes an asset – not a missed opportunity or failure that needs to “broaden its base” to be renewed. However, the remaining content (shows people watch “if it's on”, but never specifically look for or plan around; broadly targeted but “well-rated” series) will be severely squeezed. Not only does this “middle” content represent the majority of programming today, it dominates the industry's most lucrative revenue stream: syndication. Similarly, the shift to on-demand consumption means that middling content can no longer rely on a strong lead-in program to boost or incubate its ratings. Finally, this tightening will also make select genres particularly hard to program. Much has been said about the death of the sitcom, but comedy tends to be the most particular of tastes. In the on-demand era, comedy lovers no longer need to settle for “I guess that's funny” – making sitcom audiences inevitably small in size.” Our take: This is a very interesting point. The article quotes Amazon Studios head Roy Price and his claim that a lesser watched show with a more devoted audience is more important to him. He isn't charging for advertising, his viewer has already paid for their subscription. He needs to ensure that user will continue to renew their subscription, which only happens if they have something on the service that they really want. If they're somewhat lackluster about the content, they won't be as likely to return. This is true in our own lives. We watch a bunch of decent shows because they're there. But if we had to pay for them, we might reconsider. 7. The Original Series Crash “In 2014, there were roughly 400 original scripted series on television, up from only 125 at the turn of the century. Though this growth is often attributed to the proliferation of television networks, the majority has stemmed from what might be called the "AMC Effect". For nearly 25 years, AMC existed as a stable, if unambitious Tier 2 cable network. Ratings were reliable, but unexciting; content was strong, but also old; profits reliable, but far from lucrative. With the start of its original series (Mad Men in July 2007, Breaking Bad in January 2008), the network began a rapid turnaround that transformed it into one of the strongest, most prestigious brands in cable. With this newfound fame came increased ratings and added MVPD negotiating power that helped the network grow ad revenue by nearly 200% and affiliate fees by more than 75% over the next seven years.” “Solving the original series crunch will therefore require a profound change to the television business model, as well as its key performance metrics (not that this isn't already overdue #3). Consider the programming model today. For most of the major networks, programming efforts and spend focus on the “primetime” window, during which the US television audience typically peaks. Though the duration and type (scripted v. unscripted) of content varies, it's the timeslot that defines the number of original series. For digital video providers such as Netflix or Amazon, however, there is no “right” or “required” amount of programming. Are 12 series enough? 13? 20? 40?” Our take: Obviously original content isn't going away. But if the traditional providers can no longer rely on the primetime window to artificially boost the popularity of a show. And they can't count on strong lead-ins, they're going to have a glut of unsuccessful shows on their hands. This, for us the viewers, could be awesome. Shows will survive based on how good they are, how many dedicated fans they can draw. Shows we've loved, like Alcatraz and Backstrom, would have a high chance of survival, while other shows that have clearly outlived their prime, would be eliminated. We don't want to see shows eliminated, but if that's what it takes to keep the good ones, we're all for it.
Welcome back everybody for another inspiring day at The Live Show.If you would like to comment on the show, you can do so on Twitter @Jason_Stapleton, it comes straight to the desk right here. You can email to Jason@TheLiveShow.TV as well.In today’s episode, the news goes everywhere today. It crosses the spectrum.There’s updates on the beheading that I talked about yesterday, the ebola crisis, we’ve got some political news, we’ve got stuff on Eric Holder and the controversy there with subpoenas of reporter’s emails.And we’ve got an incredible story out of the Justice Department, claims Blacks and Hispanics are dumb and unsophisticated, I am not kidding you. That’s a real thing, we’re going to talk about that today as well.Maybe the biggest news on the front today is what the Federal Reserve did yesterday on it’s bond buying and asset purchase program. They ended up ending it.Now, many of you probably don’t care about that because you don’t understand it. And what I want to try and do is to shed some light on the Federal Reserve, the policies they institute, the way the banking system in America and really around the world works.Now, I know what a lot of you are thinking, that theres nothing that I want to do less than listen to explanations about how banking structures work. But I’m going to make this interesting, it’s going to be fun so that you can walk away with a better understanding of how your economy functions.Because it’s critical that you understand this in order to be an informed person. And, if you are a Black or Hispanic, I want you to understand that although your government, although the Justice Department thinks you’re slow, I in fact know that you are not. That you are more than capable of handling this type of information and being empowered to make better decisions and, more importantly, when you go to the polls, be able to vote more intelligently who are going to be serving you.We’ve got the FCC out with new regulations. Google has a really awesome new heart attack and cancer detector that we didn’t get to in the stack yesterday, which we’ll get to today. -----If you would like to discuss anything with John about the show, email him at Jason@TheLiveShow.TVYou can also use the hashtag #TheLiveShowFollow Jason on Twitter: www.Twitter.com/TheLiveShowTVFollow Us on Facebook: www.Facebook.com/TheLiveShowTV-----If you are really enjoying the show and would like to support what we're doing at The Live Show, please consider donating to our cause. You can do that at www.Patreon.com/TheLiveShow-----Are you interested in advertising on The Live Show?Reach out to us at Advertising@TheLiveShow.TVWe’d love to talk with you.-----SponsorsTrade Pro Futures: http://tradeprofutures.com/The industry's top futures and forex trading platforms.Trade Empowered: http://www.tradeempowered.com/Learn how to day-trade, swing-trade, or become a profitable long term trader.Main Street Alpha: http://mainstreetalpha.com/A social site that links up professional successful traders with verifiable track records to capital.----- Well, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking I’ve got to hear this story about Blacks and Hispanics. This is out of RedState.comJustice Department claims black and Hispanic voters are dumb and unsophisticatedhttp://www.redstate.com/2014/10/25/justice-department-claims-black-hispanic-voters-dumb-unsophisticated/Eric Holder and the wannabe-fascists in his Justice Department are carrying out a jihad on behalf of vote theft. They are doing this by contesting Voter ID laws that are being passed in many states despite a nearly unbroken string of defeats in appeals courts.To make their case that Voter ID laws are discriminatory the Justice Department has testified time and again that black and Hispanic voters are less capable that white voters of obtaining the necessary ID and in understanding the candidates and issues.They are making a case here, the Justice Department and the NAACP are in court, making a case for voter ID and there should not be any voter ID laws because it unfairly discriminates against minorities.Well, how can that be? I mean, we have cars and anybody can get an ID. How could it possibly discriminate against minorities? And so you can’t really make the case that it’s discriminatory on a financial basis when it’s so easy to get a photo ID.Let me preface this by giving you my opinion about voter ID. I don’t care.There are so few recorded cases in the history of elections of verifiable voter fraud. I’m not saying it doesn’t take place. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a voter ID law.I’m just saying all of those Republicans out there who are talking about voter fraud and how it’s costing us elections, it isn’t the case. The reasons Republicans can’t win elections is because they don’t stand for anything. That’s why they can’t win elections. It’s because they’re lukewarm on every issue. They’re kind of for it but not really for it. And so when you don’t stand for anything, you don’t inspire confidence in anyone. And when you don’t inspire confidence in anyone, they don’t feel like you’re really there to support them, which you’re not.The left, on the other hand, the progressive movement, boy you know where they stand. There’s no wishy washy questioning about their position like gay rights, immigration, healthcare. And what’s unfortunate is that the Republican Party has taken on a tact that says we want to be the same but just a little different. And that’s why they can’t win elections.At the preliminary injunction hearing in July, before Judge Thomas D. Schroeder in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, the government produced Professor Charles Stewart of MIT’s political-science department. According to the transcript of that proceeding, when Stewart was asked why he believed that eliminating same-day registration (which only eleven states have) was discriminatory, he said that same-day registration provides “a mechanism and a time that’s well situated for less sophisticated voters, and therefore, it’s less likely to imagine that these voters would — can figure out or would avail themselves of other forms of registering and voting” (emphasis mine).And who are those “less sophisticated voters” who can’t “figure out” how to register to vote? They “tend to be African Americans,” according to Stewart. He added that “people who register to vote the closer and closer one gets to Election Day tend to be . . . less-educated voters, tend to be voters who are less attuned to public affairs.” Stewart said that these voters “tend to be African Americans.” Of course, the voter-registration data in North Carolina directly contradicts this, since Stewart was forced to admit that blacks in North Carolina actually “were registered at a higher rate than whites” before Election Day in the 2012 election.Stewart leveled the same type of criticism at a measure to reduce the number of early-voting days. African Americans would be deterred from voting, he said again, because they are “less sophisticated voters.” He denied that he was racially stereotyping blacks — even when he said that they have a harder time figuring out how “to navigate the rules of the game.” He admitted that he did not survey black voters in North Carolina to ask them “directly about understanding the rules of registering and voting.”The NAACP’s expert was another professor, Barry Burden, of the University of Wisconsin. Burden claimed that blacks and Hispanics are less able “to pay the costs of voting” because of the “stark differences between whites, on the one hand, in North Carolina and those of blacks and Latinos in North Carolina.” By costs, Burden was referring to “the time and effort that a voter has to put in in order to participate.” That includes “locating the polling place, getting the right paperwork, understanding who the candidates are, becoming informed.” From his testimony, it was clear that Burden did not think that blacks and Hispanics have the same ability as whites to accomplish basic tasks such as locating a polling place, filling out a one-page voter-registration form, and learning what issues candidates support or oppose.They are literally saying that it is an undue burden on minorities to force them to find their polling place, fill out a registration form, and to do their own research to understand who they’re voting for and why because Blacks are not sophisticated enough to understand that.This is what the government is using to make their argument. To those of you who are African Americans or Hispanics, because they’re basically saying the same thing about Hispanics. But specifically, to the African American community because there seems to be a lot of divide between Blacks and Whites.There seems to be a lot of racial tensions going on right now. This is what your government thinks of you. This is what Eric Holder of the Justice Department thinks of you. They think that you’re stupid. They think that you are less intelligent than White people. Less capable of understanding the vote and the people who are running for political office. And so, you need special privilege, someone to hold your hand and make sure that you get walked to the right polling station and somebody fills out the information for you, someone sits down and explains to you the candidates.I would be more than offended. I would be outraged. I just can’t believe that they would actually in open court make these kinds of accusations against the Black community.It’s got nothing to do with you, the Black voter at the end of the day. It only got to do with being able to put as many people in the polling place who have no idea what the issues are and getting them to vote a specific line. To get the most amount of uninformed people to the polling place to vote. And to get them to the polling place, to get them to vote a straight line Democratic vote.That’s what this is about. And if they have to make you all out to be stupid, ignorant, less than human, in terms of your intellect and capacity, well that’s fine because it accomplishes the goal so they’ll do it. The goal of getting Democrats elected. It’s appalling. And you all ought to be outraged about it so I’m just letting you know what’s going on. It’s your responsibility to take action. Articles Jason covers in today’s episode:Holder says ‘subpoena’ to Fox News reporter is his one regrethttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/29/holder-says-subpoena-to-fox-news-reporter-is-his-one-regret/Attorney General Eric Holder says he has one regret: his department's court order for Fox News reporter James Rosen's emails labeling him a criminal "co-conspirator."The outgoing attorney general, who recently announced his retirement, addressed the controversial episode during the "Washington Ideas Forum" on Wednesday. Asked what decision he wishes he could do over, Holder said: "I think about the subpoena to the Fox reporter, Rosen."Holder was referring to a 2010 search warrant application seeking Rosen's emails. The Justice Department at the time was investigating who leaked information contained in a series of reports by Rosen in 2009 about North Korea's nuclear weapons program.In the course of seeking Rosen's emails, an FBI agent submitted an affidavit claiming there was evidence that Rosen broke the law, "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator." The affidavit went so far as to invoke the Espionage Act -- pertaining to the unauthorized gathering and transmitting of defense information.On Wednesday, Holder said that application could have been done "differently" and "better.""I think that I could have been a little more careful looking at the language that was contained in the filing that we made with the court -- that he was labeled as a co-conspirator," Holder said, while claiming they did that "as a result of the statute."What they did was they called Rosen a traitor to his country. The only way to get the authorization was to lie about what he was doing. Now, they knew from the beginning that he was not a co-conspirator, aiding and abetting terrorists.It was only through your dishonesty, your lies, through your corruptions that you were even ever able to do this. This is another example. People rail against big government but they don't about big government.The thing about big business is that it is subject to the whim and will of buyers. If you don't like Walmart, you don't have to shop there, you can go to Target. You vote with your dollars.The government is something totally different. When you give them the power to regulate, there is no one in there to regulate them. The Justice Department is suppose to be the regulator, to look into corruption. But they are bought and paid for by the Obama Administration. There is no justice there. It is corruption on an absolute scale.And I get nervous even talking about this stuff. I got to be honest with you. We just watched a video of a guy who put out a few humorous tweets about the President and Secret Service showed up to his door. I keep waiting for them to show up at this door. To try and shut me up. They have absolute power and no oversight. So who regulates the regulators?We have to be so careful with the power and authority we give to the government. Dirty tricks of the student loan industryhttp://money.cnn.com/2014/10/29/pf/college/student-loan-servicers/The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau put student loan servicers on notice this week with a report detailing industry practices it found suspect.These companies help collect on the $1.2 trillion in student debt, but the report didn't name names of shoddiest actors. FCC Chairman looks to spur online video futurehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2014/10/28/fcc-tom-wheeler-online-video/18081215/The FCC chairman on Tuesday formally asked the rest of the commission to consider new "technology-neutral" rules to update the agency's definition of what amounts to a pay TV service or a "multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD).""Today the FCC takes the first step to open access to cable programs as well as local television," he wrote. "The result should be to give consumers more alternatives from which to choose so they can buy the programs they want."If approved by the commission, the rules would give Internet-based video providers "the same access to programming" as cable, satellite and telco-delivered pay TV services," Wheeler said in a blog post on the FCC website.The move would encourage current and new video providers to take advantage of Internet-delivered content and boost competition, he says. And new over-the-top TV providers might offer "smaller or specialized packages of video programming, so consumers will be able to mix-and-match to suit their tastes," Wheeler says.Now, first of all, congratulations to the FCC. I'm ecstatic that they are doing this. But my question is why did they have the authority to do this?Why is there a rule of what constitutes a paid TV service? And why do we need new rules to create technology neutral services?Because a long time ago, somebody said under the guise of protecting you that we needed a FCC to regulate the airwaves and make sure everything is right for you the consumer to protect you. It's because of rules and regulations like this, it hampers growth and limits competition and it's always done under the guise of protecting you. Fed ends bond buying, shows confidence in U.S. recoveryhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/29/us-usa-fed-idUSKBN0II20O20141029The Federal Reserve on Wednesday ended its monthly bond purchase program and dropped a characterization of U.S. labor market slack as "significant" in a show of confidence in the economy's prospects.In a statement after a two-day meeting, the central bank largely dismissed recent financial market volatility, dimming growth in Europe and a weak inflation outlook as unlikely to undercut progress toward its unemployment and inflation goals."On balance, a range of labor market indicators suggests that underutilization of labor resources is gradually diminishing," the Fed's policy panel said in an important departure from prior statements, which had described the slack as "significant.""The committee continues to see sufficient underlying strength in the broader economy," it said.Now the question is will the market be able to sustain this growth?I want to explain exactly what has happened. Right now, our government has to issue debt every single month in order to pay it's bills. It runs a deficit of half a trillion dollars a year.In order to spend that money, we have to borrow that money. The government does that by issuing debt and that debt goes out into the open market. Anyone out there is allowed to buy it.What has been happening is, right now, in order to keep interest rates low, in order to keep money flowing into the economy, the Federal Reserve has been buying those bonds in order to keep the bond prices down.And, then what happens is, the remainder of the bonds are at a lower interest rate because there are less of them, which causes a higher demand on them. So, that's the way they've been doing this purchase. Make sure you don't miss Jason's brief analysis about how the Federal Reserve works to educate and empower you.Hope you enjoyed today's episode but we are out of time and we'll continue this conversation for even further analysis tomorrow.Support the show.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
