TV Everywhere Scheme Includes Ads Everywhere, Too

So, Comcast is getting ready to roll out its attempt to compete with Hulu and Bittorrent and the host of other options to watching traditional cable television, something they have given the misnomer of “TV Everywhere.”

As defined by NewTeeVee:

TV Everywhere is an authentication system whereby certain premium content (TV shows, movies, etc.) are available online — but only if you can prove (or “authenticate”) that you have a subscription to a multiservice operator (e.g. cable, satellite, telco TV).      LINK

So, by everywhere, they don’t actually mean, say, being able to download the show to watch offline on an iPhone or to burn onto a DVD to take on a trip.  Sure, the same can be said for Hulu or any other streaming solution, but it isn’t TV Everywhere.

Now comes word that TV Everywhere will also include ads everywhere:

The Wall Street Journal follows up this morning with a story about how shows from OnDemand Online participant Turner, including My Boys and The Closer, will both carry their full load of ads from traditional TV, which is more than four times as many ads than the typical ad load on many sites. And as a bonus (for advertisers), the ads can’t be skipped.       LINK

So, once again, the corporate giants are making the key mistake of pretending to offer a better service when they are really offering something less than what is already readily available.  Unlike, say, DVR’ing a show and being able to fast-forward the ads, or watch via Hulu and get limited ads, TV Everywhere forces the viewer to sit through the entire ad-load, something most of us haven’t done for years, outside of major sporting events.

As competition to either Hulu or file-sharing, TV Everywhere strikes me as a weak entrant into the field.  It also doesn’t help anyone who has already severed ties with the cable company for being over-priced and offering poor customer service.

Web Content Finds Coin in Niches

Good article from WSJ about a number of niche web-video content production companies that are succeeding even in this economic downturn:

Several start-up Web sites such as SB Nation, Seeking Alpha Ltd. and HealthCentral Network Inc., which create and aggregate content about topics like sports, business and health, are recording sharp gains in visitors and — in many cases — revenue. They are outpacing other sites on similar topics through business models that allow them to create niche content with little financial investment. Many also are landing distribution partnerships with big media brands eager for cheap content during the recession.

There seems to be two keys to the success of these companies.  The first is that they each target a specific and, perhaps, underserved, niche that many larger distributors would also like to serve.  Also, because these are new companied devised and created in the digital age – as opposed to the myriad old media companies currently struggling – they have found much more low-cost business models that allow them to make a profit even with relatively little revenue.

The digital age is one that will be marked by a growth of smaller, independent producers but it will also have to rely on bigger players to get that content to as many eyes as possible.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Niche Online Content Sites are Thriving, Wall Street Journal (beet.tv)
• Magazines don’t look so slick now (buzzmachine.com)

Trident Viral Fails on Many Levels

WSJ has a look at a newish “viral” campaign made for Trident by  Dandelion and WPP ad agency JWT.

The problem is that it refuses to go viral and for good reason.  Not only is the content itself completely uncompelling, nobody was sure how to “promote” a viral:

Digital marketing experts point to a few stumbles by the Trident campaign. First, they say, its idea of promoting fake videos on the Web site of a fake TV show drew attention to doubts about the Internet’s credibility, undermining the brand’s message. And unlike the successful Levi’s video, Mr. Blackshaw said the technical quality of the videos and caliber of the acting was too high to be mistaken for an amateur effort.

Dandelion says the videos were shot with a $300 camera to resemble home videos. Trident says it didn’t mean to deceive consumers; it meant to be ironic and funny in building the campaign around a fake TV program.

Got that? It was shot on the cheap to look ironic, not cheap.  Nobody was trying to fool anyone, they swear – unless you were fooled and then that’s good…

Product Placement Paranoia is Pathetic

There were a whole bunch of articles over the past few weeks about the supposed dangers and threats caused by the rise of product placement in television programming.  The UK looks like it’s going to try to ban it completely.  HuffPo reports:

“Product placement on broadcast TV is soaring — up 39% in the first quarter of 2008 alone. Federal regulators are taking note. According to an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required), the Federal Communications Commission recently voted to “open a formal proceeding about new rules requiring more disclosure of product placement.”

Nanny-state, anyone?  And as TechDirt points out:

“All content is advertising in some manner or another. A TV show acts as advertising for the network it’s on, for the actors in the show, for the producer of the show and as “endorsers” of the products in its ads. Does that all need to be disclosed as well?”

Come on, people.  Everyone knows that it is advertisers who pay for television programming.  If we’e going to continue to find ways like TiVo and downloads to get around traditional ads they have to find another way to reach us.  Otherwise, they will stop paying for the programs that were created for the sole purpose of selling things in the first place.

That’s why they call ‘em “soap operas.”  They were developed by the dishsoap companies as radio dramas for the housewives home alone all day – and they all sold dishsoap.

The idea of going back to the days when a can of coca cola has to say “soda” on it instead is absurd. We live in a branded world.  Just because we’re putting our world on TV is no reason why the brands should all disappear.

And who is the government afraid all this product placement is hurting?  Do they think it is causing subliminal urges in people to buy things they don’t need?  That’s the backbone of our economy!

Related articles

• FCC Targeting Stealth Advertising [via Zemanta]
• Ads in TV Shows Come Under Scrutiny [via Zemanta]
• FCC Probes Sneaky Advertising [via Zemanta]