Time to delve back into the world of video. Oh, and don’t forget to watch SharkTank on ABC this friday at 8pm/7pm ..

It has taken some time but Netflix and Youtube have each taken their position in the video entertainment world and I get the feeling that Youtube is not too happy about it.

On Youtube you can maybe change the world. On Youtube you can be discovered and help discover the next Justin Bieber. On Youtube, if one of your videos goes viral, you can make tens of thousands of dollars, and if you can replicate the feat of popularity, you can make hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Those are real commission dollars .

But wait, there is more good from Youtube. Any one around the world can get Youtube to subsidize the cost of hosting their family/wedding/team/business/class/personal videos. Hopefully perpetually.  These are  unique, honorable,impactful and expensive roles that Youtube has chosen to under take.

But if you want to veg out and watch a TV show or movie, the vast majority of  people just turn on the TV. About 11mm people turn on Netflix..

The lines of division between Youtube, Netflix  and traditional TV have become crystal clear.

Traditional TV is where you get entertainment in real time.  Live major sports, the latest movies on VOD, original episodes of your favorite TV shows, all in the highest, no – buffering quality available to your TV. Plus they have smartly opened the door to TV EVerywhere and in home tablet streaming so that there is a pay once, watch anywhere opportunity for their content.

Netflix is where you get streaming access to a growing library of thousands of TV shows and movies, and soon, a smattering of original content as well. Netflix has done an extraordinary job of being available easily on any and every device known to the internet. 11mm (those streaming, not all netflix users) or so users have happily paid Netflix $7.99 per month for this service and it shows no signs of slowing down.

Youtube is the counter-balance to Netflix and Traditional TV.  Youtube is where you know 99pct of what is on the site is pure junk that has no relevance to you.  It’s like walking through the bargain bin at Walmart hoping to find something that might interest you, knowing the price is right.  Youtube is Community Access Television for the world.

Remember back in the day when Cable had A and B sides of the set top box ? You got all the good channels on the A side, and all the community access stuff was on the B side ? Youtube is the aggregation of every B side of every cable system in the world. That is not a knock on Youtube. It just ain’t what it ain’t.

The B side of cable was community driven. The B side of cable was an open door for anyone with access to a video camera. The cable company would let you schedule shows and put them on their schedule . Like Youtube, back in the day, there were shows that would break out and create mainstream opportunities.

I can’t help but include this paragraph from the history of Public Access TV in Manhattan

“Public access has a fundamental PR problem, which one producer summed up with this rhetorical question: “If anybody can do it, who would want to?” I don’t think there is any particular personality type that is drawn to public access; as with anything, it attracts good, bad, and ugly. But these people (each of whom I met by chance through the help of someone else I interviewed) have some things in common. All are creative, and all seem to have a thick skin and a high threshold for frustration. None were paid for their shows. Most actually shelled out their own money for studio time. Three admitted to suffering career setbacks later as a result of appearing on public access. They approached their work in television with a level of intensity and passion that only exists in the realm of avocations and came away with uniquely philosophical perspectives on the nature of television.”

The same thing could easily be said about Youtube producers today. And that is a business problem and social opportunity for Youtube. They have become Community Access for the Internet.  That is a brilliant opportunity if you are trying to change the world or create huge communities . That is a huge challenge if you are trying to maximize earnings per share for your parent corporation.  People won’t pay a subscription fee for any of it and  most of it will never pay for itself with advertising because most of it will never be seen. It is the B side of the content world.

Which is exactly why I believe Youtube is channeling 1998 and gearing up to do quite a bit of live streaming. They don’t like being the third entertainment option . They don’t like being the “b or c side of content”". They are hoping live streaming can change the standings.

Offering everyone in the world the opportunity to stream whatever they want, live to the rest of the world, could actually change the world. But it won’t change the content stratification challenge Youtube is facing now. It won’t change how people see Youtube relative to traditional TV and Netflix.

The reality is that both cable/telco/sat distributors on your TV and Netflix are moving faster in terms of the introduction of technology (TV Everywhere/Remote DVR/IPad and multi device suuport) and the introduction of new and original high value content than Youtube. I think Youtube is hoping that live streaming will change that. It will be interesting to see if it does.

Personally, I’m not optimistic. But hey Youtube, call me. I’ve been there , done that and I can help you  out.

With the great response to Shark Tank (fridays on ABC 8pm/7pm…shameless plug)..I wanted to repost my Success and Motivation series because it answers most of the email questions I get from the show.. Enjoy and post any comments !

Success and Motivation, Part 1

Apr 23rd 2004 9:37AM

Success and Motivation

I did it too. I drove by big houses and would wonder who lived there. What did they do for a living? How did they make their money? Someday, I would tell myself, I would live in a house like that. Every weekend I would do it.

I read books about successful people. In fact, I read every book or magazine I could get my hands on. I would tell myself 1 good idea would pay for the book and could make the difference between me making it or not.

I worked jobs I didn’t like. I worked jobs I loved, but had no chance of being a career. I worked jobs that barely paid the rent. I had so many jobs my parents wondered if I would be stable. Most of them aren’t on my resume anymore because I was there so short a time or they were so stupid I was embarrassed. You don’t want to write about selling powdered milk or selling franchises for TV repair shops. In every job, I would justify it in my mind whether I loved it or hated it that I was getting paid to learn and every experience would be of value when I figured out what I wanted to do when I grew up.

If I ever grew up, I hoped to run my own business some day. It’s exactly what I told myself every day. In reality, I had as much doubt as confidence. I was just hoping the confidence would win over the doubt and it would all work out for the best.

I remember being 24 years old, living in Dallas in a 3-bedroom apartment with 5 other friends. This wasn’t a really nice place we all kicked in to move up for. This place has since been torn down. Probably condemned. I didn’t have my own bedroom. I slept on the couch or floor depending on what time I got home. I had no closet. Instead I had a pile that everyone knew was mine. My car had the usual hole in the floorboard, a ’77 FIAT X19 that burned a quart of oil that I couldn’t afford every week.

To make matters worse, because I was living on happy hour food, and the 2 beers cover charge, I was gaining weight like a pig. My confidence wasn’t at an all time high. I was having fun. Don’t get me wrong. I truly was having a blast. Great friends, great city, great energy, pretty girls. Ok, the pretty girls had no interest in my fat and growing ass at the time, but that’s another story….

I was motivated to do something I loved. I just wasn’t sure what it was. I made a list of all the different jobs I would love to do. (I still have it.) The problem was that I wasn’t qualified for any of them. But I needed to pay the bills.

I finally got a job working as a bartender at a club. A start, but it wasn’t a career. I had to keep on looking during the day.

About a week later I answered a want ad out of the newspaper for someone to sell PC Software at the first software retail store in Dallas. The ad was actually placed by an employment agency. The fee was to be paid by the company, so I gave it a shot.

I put on my interview face, and of course my interview suit, which just happened to be one of my 2 polyester suits that I had bought for the grand total of 99 dollars. Thank god for 2-fer, 2-fer, 2-fer madness at the local mens clothing store. Grey Pinstripe. Blue Pinstripe. Didn’t matter if it rained, those drops just rolled down the back of those suits. I could crumple them. They bounced right back. Polyester, the miracle fabric.

I wish I could say the blue suit and my interview skills impressed the employment agency enough to set up the interview with the software store. In reality, not many had applied for the job and the agency wanted the fee so they would have sent anyone over to interview. I didn’t care.

I pulled out the grey for my interview at Your Business Software. I was fired up. It was my shot to get into the computer business, one of the industries I had put on my list!

I remember the interview well. Michael Humecki the Prez, and Doug (don’t remember his last name), his partner double-teamed me. Michael did most of the talking to start. He asked me if I had used PC software before. My total PC experience at the time was on the long forgotten TI/99A that had cost me 79 dollars. I used it to try to teach myself Basic while recovering from hangovers and sleeping on the floor while my roommates were at work. They weren’t impressed.

I was trying to pull out every interview trick I knew. I went through the spiel about how I was a good salesperson, you know the part of the interview where you are basically begging for a job, using code phrases like “I care about the customer”, “I promise to work really, really hard” and “I will do whatever it takes to be successful”. Unfortunately, I was getting that “well if no one else applies for the job, maybe” look from Michael.

Finally, Doug spoke up. He asked me. “What do you do if a customer has a question about a software package and you don’t know the answer?” All of the possible answers raced through my mind. I had to ask myself if this was the “honesty test question” you know where they want to see if you will admit to things you don’t know. Is this some trick technology question and there is an answer everyone but me knows? After who knows how long, I blurted out that “I would look it up in the manual and find the answer for them.” Ding, ding, ding…Doug just loved this answer.

Michael wasn’t as convinced, but he then asked me the question I was dying to hear: “Would you not go back to the employment agency at all, so when we hire you we don’t have to pay the fee?” I was in.

What does all this mean? Nothing yet. It was just fun to tell. You have to wait till part 2, if you care, and if there is a part two. Right now, it’s much more important that I go play with my daughter.

Success and Motivation, Part 2

Apr 25th 2004 3:41AM

So my career in Dallas begins. I’m a software salesperson with Your Business Software in Dallas. $18k per year. The first retail software store in Dallas.

I have to sweep the floor and be there to open the store, but that’s not a bad thing. When I tell my future ex-girlfriends that I sell software and am in the computer biz, I’m not going to mention the sweeping the floor part. Plus, I had to wear a suit to work, and the 2-fer madness specials looked good at happy hour after work. Better yet, the store didn’t open till 9:30am, which meant if I had a fun night, I had at least a little time to sleep.

I bet right about now you are questioning where my focus was? Where was my commitment to being the future owner of the Dallas Mavericks? Please. I was stoked I had a good job. I was stoked it was in an industry that could turn into a career. At 24, I was just as stoked that the office was close to where the best happy hours were and that I might finally have more than 20 bucks to spend for a night on the town.

Since I’m talking about partying, I do have to say that my friends and I were very efficient in that area. Beyond living off bar food and happy hours, we literally would agree that none of us would bring more than 20 bucks for a weekend night out. This way we all could pace each other. At least that was the way it was supposed to work, and it did until we figured out the key to having a great night out on the cheap. They key was buying a bottle of cheap, cheap champagne. I can’t even spell the name, but it was a full bottle, and it cost 12 bucks. Tear the label off and as far as anyone knew it was Dom. Each of us would grab one, and sip on it all night. It was far cheaper than buying beers or mixed drinks all night, and we never had to buy a drink for a girl, we just gave them some champagne! Of course the next day was hell, but since when was I responsible enough to care about a hangover…

But I digress. Back to business. As fired up as I was about the job, I was scared. Why? Because I have never worked with an IBM PC in my life. Not a single time, and I’m going to be selling software for it. So what do I do? I do what everyone does: I rationalize. I tell myself that the people walking in the door know as little as I do, so if I just started doing what I told my boss I would do, read the manuals, I would be ahead of the curve. That’s what I did. Every night I would take home a different software manual, and I would read them. Of course the reading was captivating. Peachtree, PFS, DBase, Lotus, Accpac… I couldn’t put them down. Every night I would read some after getting home, no matter how late.

Of course it was easy on the weekends. After drinking that cheap champagne, I wasn’t getting out of bed till about 9pm, so I had tons of time to lie on the floor and read. It worked. Turns out not a lot of people ever bothered to RTFM (read the frickin’ manual), so people started really thinking I knew my stuff. As more people came in, because I knew all the different software packages we offered, I could offer honest comparisons and customers respected that.

Within about 6 months, I was building a clientele and because I had also spent time on the store’s computers learning how to install, configure and run the software, I started having customers ask me to install the software at their offices. That meant I got to charge for consulting help: 25 bucks an hour that I split with the store. That turned into a couple hundred extra bucks per month and growing. I was raking it in, enough that I could move from the Hotel (that was what we called our apartment) where the 6 of us lived, into a 3 bedroom apartment across the street, where instead of 6 of us, there were only 3. Finally, my own bedroom!

I was earning consulting fees. I was getting referrals. I was on the phone cold calling companies to get new business. I even worked out a deal with a local consultant who paid me referral fees, which lead to getting a $1500 check. It was the first time in my adult life that I was able to have more than 1k dollars in the bank.

That was a special moment believe or not, and what did I do to celebrate? Nope…I didn’t buy better champagne. I had these old ratty towels that had holes in them and could stand on their own in the corner, they were so nasty I needed a shower from drying off after a shower…I went out and bought 6 of the fluffiest, plushest towels I could find. I was moving on up in the world. I had the towels. Life was good. Business was good and getting better for me. I was building my customer base, really starting to understand all the technology, and really establishing myself as someone who understood the software. More importantly no, most importantly I realized that I loved working with PCs. I had never done it before. I didn’t know if this was going to be a job that worked for me, or that I would even like and it turns out I was lucky. I loved what I was doing. I was rolling so well, I was even partying less… during the week.

Then one day, about 9 months into my career as a salesperson/consultant, I had a prospect ask if I could come to his office to close a deal. 9am. No problem to me. Problem to my boss, Michael Humecki. Michael didn’t want me to go. I had to open the store. That was my job. We were a retail store, not an outbound sales company. It sounded stupid to me back then too, particularly since I had gone on outbound calls during the day before. I guess he thought I was at lunch.

Decision time. It’s always the little decisions that have the biggest impact. We all have to make that “make or break” call to follow orders or do what you know is right. I followed my first instinct: close the sale. I guess I could have rescheduled the appointment, but I rationalized that you never turn your back on a closed deal. So I called one of my coworkers to come in and open up, and closed the deal. Next day I came in check in hand from a new customer and Michael fired me.

Success and Motivation, Part 3

May 7th 2004 1:48AM

I’m going to make this short and sweet. In the year 2011, I’m not sure I have a need for beat writers from ESPN.com, Yahoo,  or any website for that matter to ever be in our locker room before or after a game.  I think we have finally reached a point where not only can we communicate any and all factual information from our players and team directly to our fans and customers as effectively as any big sports website, but I think we have also reached a point where our interests are no longer aligned. I think those websites have become the equivalent of paparazzi rather than reporters.

Have you ever watched TMZ where they catch someone walking down the street and ask questions like “are you upset about your divorce ?” or “Who is better, Kobe or Babe Ruth”. You know the type of questions that make the recipient look at the person asking and either roll their eyes or wonder why that person is even there. Those are the type of questions asked in locker rooms today. They are asked not for some journalistic purpose, but as a traffic generating opportunity.

Do we really need to ask Dwight Howard and Deron Williams where they think they will be going in TWO YEARS  ? Do we need to ask players “are you upset about the loss ?”

There is never a loss of words or lack of depth in questions asked in the locker room after a game.  Which got me thinking. Why are they there ? This isnt 1983. This isnt 2000. In the year 2011,we are in a completely different media landscape.  So let’s take inventory of the platforms in the locker room

Newspaper: Newspaper has to be in the room. I know this is counter intuitive to some, but it is a fact. Why ? Because there is a wealthy segment of my customer base that does not and will not go online to find out information about the Mavs.  If I don’t have a PRINT beat writer and /or PRINT columnist showing up and writing about the Mavs, both sides lose.  So congrats Eddie, DP and friends. You are safe to dance another weekend.  If you work for the local paper and only publish online…you could still be in the bottom two.

TV: The same logic that applies to newspapers, applies to TV. They own a segment of the population that doesn’t always read the sports section, but will turn on the TV to catch up. It may be the local news broadcast for some. It may be ESPN.  In any event, they get their news the old fashioned way, they find the remote. Unfortunately for the Mavs, we don’t always have someone from the local news or espn in the locker room with a camera. They pick and choose when they think they should be there to get original footage, or to just pull highlights or other shared footage and add some voice over.  We like anything that gets us on TV to reach our fans for whom TV is their primary source of Mavs info. TV, you are safe to dance another week.  Producers of internet video on TV network/station websites… Your fate is not yet known. You are not at the top of the food chain.

Internet Reporters: Reporters whose primary job is to write for an internet site typically fall into two categories. Paid and unpaid. Unpaid writers typically do it as a labor of love and IMHO far exceed the influence and impact of their paid counterparts.  Sure there are many who just rant and rave, but enough realize that if they work hard and provide support for their writing, they may just get noticed by a big website who will pay them to write . If you can back up what you say with well thought out and in depth analysis, you know the things that some people used to call journalism, you are welcome in the locker room

The internet reporters who get paid , IMHO , are to the Mavs and any sports team, the least valuable of all media . I’m a firm believer that their interests are not only not aligned with sports teams like the Mavs, but in fact are diametrically opposed.  They tend to look at the number of page views they get for any article as ‘their ratings”. More is better. Which in turn leads them to gear their work towards generating more pageviews.

Now at this point traditional wisdom might say ” well if its about the Mavs and its generating pageviews, then it must be something that Mavs fans are interested in, so it must be a good thing. Its the equivalent of one of the dumbest sayings of all time “all press is good press”. All press is not good press for a sports team.

Internet writers will tell you, transaction rumors generate the most traffic.  From a sports team perspective, this is not good. Why ? Because internet writers have so little creativity and originality.  Any idiot can start a rumor, at which point the writer says (and to be fair, its not just internet writers who ask, but its 99pct internet writers who publish), “I hate to ask this but the rumor is out there that you are being traded to the pismo beach panthers. Can you comment”.  From that point until the trade deadline, the same question in some form is asked over and over and over again of everyone in the organization.  The hope isn’t that someone will say “yes its true”. The hope is that it will elicit a comment that is headline worthy. “George Mikan said he would happily consider a trade to Pismo” And on it goes and goes and goes. The result is that the team is often negatively impacted. Players get distracted. Team personnel get distracted and spend too much time dealing with the rumors.  Its a negative for any team.

Of course rumors wont go away if a writer doesn’t have access, but we can reduce the stress of a player having a mike shoved in his face and asked the same question day after day. We also don’t have to legitimize the writer by giving them access to the locker room. We are better served making them the equivalent of the random “Maryslittlesportsblog.com” written by a 13 year old.

Right behind trades ? Negative Headline Trolls. . Talking to the Mavs internet writers, you would think we were out of the playoff race and had lost 60 or more games. Every loss is a catastrophe of epic proportions. It is as if every other team in the league is winning every game. Only the Mavs lose games. Again, we can’t stop anyone from writing what they want. Nor do we expect every article to be positive. If you want to disagree 100pct of the time and you back it up with facts. More power to you. But instead we get the equivalent of “Because I said so” as the depth of analysis. As one writer told me, his opinion counts for more because he is informed  And he considers himself informed because he has access to the organization. I can fix that..

I’m not saying that all questions and columns are bad. But it is much, much harder to find the good. It is rare for me to encounter an article/post on one of the sites and think to myself ” that is really good for us”. And that is from a franchise that has won 50 or more games for more than a decade. I can’t imagine how other teams feel.

So  why do we let them in the door ? What value do they serve to the Mavs ? Its not like they are journalists. They are Fox News/MSNBC for sports.  They may be popular, for now, but whatever benefit they served 4 or more years ago seems to have quickly disappeared.

Unlike TV and Newspaper,  I have access to reach their online audience. Not only do I have access, but so does each of my players through their own twitter and facebook accounts. Why not just use twitter, Facebook fan pages, Mavs.com and  or our own media platforms to communicate with online Mavs customers and fans ? How many customers and prospects could we possibly be missing  by losing internet writers ? And could we just spend money to reach whatever of their audience we don’t currently cover ?

By competing with them as an information source, can we pre empt their negativity with information that does a better job of selling the Mavs ?

By leaving them out of the locker room and organization, do we reduce their ability to have a negative impact on players ?

The last few years have brought about a lot of change in how people publish and receive information .  It might just be time to change how teams communicate as well

What do you think ?

Over the last two years things have changed. We all found twitter. We found Facebook. Not only did we find twitter and fb, but our phones got much, much smarter. Tablets popped on the scene. We were able to get everything sports we wanted in the palm of our hands. No matter where we were.

ESPN responded. THey knew that twitter was becoming a HUGE generator of pageviews. The lifeblood of ESPN.com. If you couldn’t reach an audience on twitter , those with an audience on twitter could and will take pageviews from ESPN.com. Sending them elsewhere.  COuld it be big enough to be a game changer ? Maybe.

In the past, sports fans first stop in the search for sports news would be  ESPN.com .  Twitter changed all that. Twitter means we dont have to go to ESPN.com, we just check our twitter stream. Those people we follow always send us the updates we needed right to us. And we like it.  And if we want more information, we just clink on the links they send us.

Today, sports news finds millions and millions of sports fans first via twitter. Unfortunately for ESPN.com, they don’t control any ad space on your tweet stream.  ESPN no longer makes a penny from the first sports news you receive. Thats not good for them.

So they responded. THeir reporters started tweeting. Tweeting in whatever ways they could come up with to generate pageviews. Because pageviews on ESPN.com still paid their bills and allowed them to keep their jobs.

It hasnt worked.

ESPN.com reporters havent had a lot of success getting followers on Twitter.  Some columnists like Bill Simmons have. The vast majority of their reporters have under 100k followers and many of those, as best I can tell, have under 10k . Which in a nutshell means, the world wide leader in sports doesn’t have much in the way of muscle to drive traffic from twitter users to their sites. That is a risk

Their deficiency in twitter followers is not for lack of trying.  Over the past 9 months or so, their reporters are becoming more and more like tweeting columnists and less and less like tweeting reporters. Which makes a ton of sense if you think about it. THeir reporters have a far better chance of attracting a following if they are throwing out witty one liners ala Bill Simmons than by throwing out dry facts or quotes. Facts and quotes   aren’t  going to entertain or attract the masses.  Wit and controversy and rumors might.

But they haven’t . That might turn into  a real problem for ESPN. Twitter and Facebook are becoming primary traffic drivers to websites. Other sports sites now have an open window to drive traffic by attacking ESPN on the twitter and facebook front.

Will they put espn out of business. Of course not. But its not inconceivable that by hiring writers with big , loyal twitter followings, a competitor or upstart could take over the first level of access to sports fans  Something that ESPN has owned for years.  That would be a twitter problem for ESPN. It may already be a twitter problem for ESPN.

It always cracks me up when someone repeatedly peppers me with a product/service/idea and hits me with the refrain “i won’t take no for an answer” or “would you take no for an answer ?”.  Let me answer that question for you right now.

Hell Yes I take no for an answer. I try to sell good products and services and to have ideas that I hope will be successful. If I am selling any of these to someone and they say no, I will always ask for their objections with something like ” Thank you for taking the time to listen/read. Would you mind sharing with me what you didnt like about the product or why you like the product you chose ? “.  And if I have a good counter to their objection(s), I will let it fly and see what happens.

If they still respond negatively to my efforts. So be it.  At some point, and that point should come quickly, you have to move on.  If you have a good product/service/idea, there will be someone who will understand the value and that will want the product.  If you keep on pushing with someone who obviously does not want the product, for whatever reason you are making multiple mistakes:

1. You are wasting your and the prospects time.  Wasting your time means you are not selling to the next prospect . Always remember what I tell myself :”Every no gets me closer to a yes”.  You have to move on and start communicating with someone you know might buy your product rather than wasting more time with someone you already know won’t buy your product/service/idea

2. The more you push someone who has said no, the more likely you are to appear desperate, and that desperation impacts you brand as a salesperson and the brand of the product.  Just because it worked for Bud Fox doesn’t mean it will work for you. That was a movie.

3. It’s also a sign of fear and laziness. It takes work to find qualified prospects. It also takes courage to overcome the fear of not knowing what will happen next. It is very, very easy to send someone an email every hour or daily.  That is what  a lazy person is going to do.  Spend all of two seconds hitting the resend button. A smart, focused and successful salesperson will gear up and do the homework necessary to find their next customer. That is a sign of confidence . Knowing that you believe so much in what you do, that it is going to be fun and exciting to find your next customer and show off with how amazing your products/service/idea is. If the last person didn’t get it. That is their problem. Not yours.

That is what successful business people do. What do you do ?

and of course dont forget Shark Tank every friday on ABC 8/7pm… to see all of this in action !

No. But Amazon’s new prime streaming program did keep the slim prospect of Over The Top Video impacting traditional TV’s business on life support.

Netflix will be the first to tell you that streaming video is a complement to TV. You might even call it a compliment to traditional TV.  There isn’t much of anything on Netflix that hasn’t been on TV first. Brian Roberts was right when he said that what people today call Netflix content, everyone used to just call re-runs. That isn’t a knock on Netflix, we all love it for what it is. The worlds best DVD library at our fingertips.  But that doesn’t change the fact that everything was on TV.

There is a reason why its all re-runs.  No one in the online world has the balls to take the risks on new content that the TV world does.  Multiple pilots costing millions of dollars each ? That’s real money. Multiply that times the broadcast and cable networks that invest in real content and you have a hundred million dollars and more  a year being risked on new content. Then of course you have the hundreds of millions of dollars spent to promote all that content every year.  It takes a lot of money, luck and success before a tv show can get to the point that people bitch when they can’t watch it for free on the net.

Compare that to the TOTAL amount of money spent on original content destined first or exclusively for the net. What could the total cost of net original programming be every year ? Ten  million dollars ? Across thousands of websites ? It is bupkis compared to what happens in the TV world.  Which is exactly why the internet is no threat to traditional TV. There is no way to return those hundreds of millions of dollars that is spent just on NEW programming, much of which wont even see the light of day on TV .

HOWEVER, because Amazon entered the market, they just made it more attractive for those “re-runs” that haven’t made it to the net to re-consider placing their content online. Why ? Because up till now, deciding whether to put content online has for the most part been about partnering with Netflix.  Netflix does a great job of putting together deals, and as I have written in the past, they don’t buy on consignment, they pay money up front. But if the amount of money from Netflix wasnt enough to entice the content owner to take it online, it stayed on the shelf . Sheltered from Netflix and online streamers.

But now Amazon is  offering to pay for content. This is a critical step because now, when a content company off the net is considering whether to go online, they can now look at the total of Netflix and Amazon. Which just may be enough to get them to put their shows online. Amazon money plus Netflix money might just make it impossible for the owner of those TV reruns or movies to say no.

Amazon’s entrance might also be enough  to push Hulu and MicroSoft to take the same approach to content.

If there are 4 streaming media companies paying legit money for content, up front. Not on consignment. The dynamics of the industry start to change. It begins to present the net as a place that could maybe create a predictable enough revenue stream that it has to become part of the life cycle of all new TV shows. It becomes a revenue stream that is budgeted into future revenue streams and may actually keep shows in production.

And if its enough to keep shows in production, it may also be enough someday to become an exclusive destination.  There is no way Netflix can currently afford to pay to subsidize future seasons of Law and Order in the manner that Dick Wolfe is accustomed to . Amazon, Netflix , Hulu and MicroSoft splitting runs just like USA , TNT, Bravo and A&E might split Law & Order ? That could change things.

Having multiple players paying for content is absolutely what the streaming industry needed to let it hold on to that remote chance that it could actually have a real business built around cord cutters.

Which takes me back to Amazon and E-Books. We had a saying at Broadcast.com that bits are bits. They don’t care if they are music, video, text or even ebooks.  No matter what they are, because they are digital , the marginal cost of delivery is tiny.  What  could it possibly cost to deliver an E Book to a reader of any sort ? A millionth of a penny ? Its nothing. Nada.

So now that we know that the cost to deliver an E-Book is nothing. Let’s ask the zillion dollar question:

How long before Amazon does a Netflix for E-Books as part of Prime ?

Netflix in its brilliance helped content owners monetize their libraries. Their re-runs . All those shows and movies that were gathering dust earning bupkis. Who else has huge libraries of content that is gathering dust and earning bupkis ? Publishers. Book publishers to be specific.

Who is going to be the first to go to those publishers and offer the biggest publishers 10,20, 30, 50mm dollars for multiyear rights to freely distribute their books online to E-Readers ? How many readers of E-Books would gladly continue to be part of Prime from Amazon in exchange for the right to have any book in the Amazon E-library that is more than 1 year old and off the top 20 sales lists (the publishers arent going to give everything,  including new titles any more than movie  producers will) to read until they are done ? I think millions will.

Why not ? Download and read any book you want from our collection of 10s of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands. When you are done with it. “Return it” by simply deleting it from your library and pick another to read.  Read as much as you want as fast as you want. Add our kids subscription for another $1 per month. More than one kid, get one for each !

Bits is bits. There is no reason for Amazon to separate this from their streaming offering on Prime.

And then again, there is no reason for Netflix not to offer Netflix for E-Books is there ? They know how to model the content costs as well as anyone. They have the subscribers. They could include it or charge whatever extra to subscribers. Whatever they think works.

Or maybe google does it. Or someone else like the cable/sat/telcos as a value add to their TV subscriptions. Again, why not ? .

Bottom line is that it won’t be long before a Netflix or Prime for E-Books happens and takes hold. Someone is bound to do it. The publishing industry needs the money far worse than the movie industry did. Their monetization of their libraries is horrid. The kneepads are at the front door …..

The more monetization from each subscription (video/books/music ?), the more money available for content. Which increases the opportunity for more money to be paid by net content aggregators to creators of original content.

It’s only when the internet can compete for original content with traditional tv distributors  can the net be a true threat to traditional models.

The chances are slim and none, but at least slim hasn’t left town yet.

with out question is…… drum roll please…. 3D

the fact that no one asked if the game was being televised in 3D before hand.

No one talked about wanting to  watch in 3D

No one was upset that the game was not broadcast in 3D. There weren’t irate call ins to talk radio. In fact, I don’t think anyone realized that it wasn’t being broadcast in 3D because no one cared.

It was the same thing earlier in the season when the NBA did a game in 3D. Not a single person asked me about it. No one in the media brought it up. No one talked about watching it.  That is saying a lot.

The future of 3D is not sports. A bunch of guys are not going to spend a lot of money on glasses to look goofy sitting next to each other.  Nor will they sit on top of each other  to watch a non glasses 3D . (non glasses 3D requires viewing from right in front of the TV.)

That’s not to say that 3D doesn’t have a future on TV. 3D will work for things people tend to watch alone or with one other person. If you bought the 3D TV. If you bought the glasses . You probably bought just a pair for yourself. Maybe a significant other or child.  Noticing that a movie is on in 3D and grabbing the glasses, that could work. Noticing that a travel show is in 3D (say… Get Out from HDNet , now shooting in 3D) and grabbing your glasses works. Again, any show that you would typically watch by yourself, it’s no problem grabbing the glasses and chilling in front of the TV.  It’s a unique experience when you want something different. It can really make some shows a lot more interesting.

Having to buy a bunch of glasses for you and your buddies to watch the game…..too much risk that someone takes a picture of the group and posts it on Facebook. That shit lives forever…..

The greatest lie ever told used to be Wall Street telling main street to “buy and hold”.  Of course thats what they told you every chance they got. It’s not what they did.  The holding period for stocks dropped from 8 years in 1960s to 2 years in the 1990s and 8 months in the 2000s.   Today, stocks are bought and sold in milliseconds.  Which is one of the big reasons you don’t hear much about buy and hold any more. That and the fact it didn’t work.  I think individual owners of stocks  finally came to understand that old saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me for 50 years, shame on me. “

But Wall Street needs a marketing slogan doesn’t it ? How else are they going to get all the suckers back into the market ? (Great article on the Stock market is for Suckers from Macleans.ca). So what’s the new mantra that all those brokers, mutual funds and ETFs want you to buy in to ?

Asset Allocation (Aka diversification) is the best approach to investing.  Everyone is talking about asset allocation.  It’s not a surprise given all the new funds, REITs and ETFs that have popped up in the last couple years. The more diversification sold to individuals, the more money to buy them all.  Wall Street has to sell what it has doesn’t it   ? It’s just good business for them. But not for you.

No longer does Wall Street  even want you to consider buying what you know. Remember Peter Lynch describing how buyers of stocks should pay attention to what they see in the mall and elsewhere and use that as a source  of ideas and information ? Or Warren Buffet suggesting that we should actually invest in things we know and look for the value there ?  Well you can forget about that kind of investing.

Today, your investment advisors want you invest in things you have absolutely no fricking clue about and have pretty much absolutely no fricking ability to learn about.

They want you to diversify into Emerging Markets, Commodities, International Bonds, Munis, Real Estate Investment Trusts, ….and.. well, a lot of different “stuff”. Here is an excerpt from an article from a Sarasota  paper today:

“For context, I will provide the performance of my “moderate investor’s asset allocation” for both 2010 and with its predecessors for the period since 2000. For the previous 10 years, its predecessors were up about a cumulative 104 percent.

Last year’s version of the allocation was:

Fifteen percent in an S&P 500 index fund (IVV).

Five percent in a small-capitalization value fund (VBR).

Twenty percent in a diversified international stock fund (VEU).

Five percent in an emerging markets international fund (VWO).

Five percent in Real Estate Investment Trusts (VNQ).

Ten percent in large and mid-capitalization stocks with a history of paying competitive and increasing dividends (VIG).

Ten percent in a diversified portfolio of convertible securities (ACHIX).

Five percent in a U.S. Treasury inflation-indexed bonds and notes (VIPSX).

Fifteen percent in an international bond fund with traditional fixed coupon bonds (GIM).

Five percent in an international bond fund for inflation-indexed bonds (WIP).

Five percent in cash equivalents.”

That is a suggestion for a “moderate investor” . Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t“

Asset allocation is about making you a sucker.  Do you seriously want to put a significant percentage of the money you will need for your future in funds that put your money into things you have absolutely no idea about? Will you have any clue about when to change your asset allocation ?  Will you change it based on changes in the dollar ? Changes in domestic inflation ? Changes in European inflation ? Inflation in China ? Changes in tax laws in Italy and Greece ? Changes in interest rates ? Trade balances ?

It comes down to this. Do you want to invest in something you know, or in something Wall Street wants you to believe ?

Do you really think your broker, his boss and the analysts at their firm really are being completely honest with you about how much they know about these investments they want you to make ?  Ask them if they are making the exact same investment with their money. Ask them if they would make the same investment if they were not allowed to look at a quote screen all day long like you aren’t able to – which tells you if they trust the investment or want to watch it second by second knowing they may have to pull the trigger and get out on a moments notice.

Ask your broker for the names of people they have had to call or get a call from and let them know that their investment has  been wiped out. Talk to those people to understand what the ramifications of making in an investment in something you know nothing about might be.

Don’t be a sucker. Remember this. It’s better to make less, or next to nothing than to lose everything. Don’t get greedy.  Don;t get desperate. The stock market can’t save your financial future, but it can end it .

http://blogmaverick.com/2010/08/20/the-stock-market-is-still-for-suckers-and-why-you-should-put-your-money-in-the-bank/

A week before Auburn vs Oregon came down to the final play we made the inquiries.  Could TCU play the winner of Auburn vs Oregon ?  TCU had only played 13 games. Oregon would only have played 13 games. Auburn, 14 games.  If Oregon won , would it be possible to play TCU as their 14th game ?

The schools, on an off the record basis, were not opposed to it.  They didn’t come out and agree to it, but they certainly were not opposed to the idea. The problem ? It wasn’t money.  The problem was that when we asked anyone who could know whether or not the NCAA would approve another game , a +plus one playoff game, the response was unanimous , and I’m paraphrasing here “There is no way in hell the NCAA would approve a +1 playoff game between any two teams .  There is no way TCU vs anyone could happen”

Hey. We asked.

We projected that there would be about $50mm available to the schools. But it wasn’t a question of money. It was a question of yes or no from the NCAA.  We decided it was better not to actually pop the question to the NCAA. We decided to rethink the question of whether or not there should be a BCS playoff.

The first step in rethinking the process is to first work from the most likely premise and try to adapt it to the goal. So we started with a simple perspective: “What if the current BCS system is a good system and the only system available to determine which two teams should play for the national championship ?”.

To some, this may be a non-starter.  They believe that the BCS is so flawed and incapable of crowning a true national champion that it’s not worthy of consideration. I disagree. When you look at the system, the current BCS system it is actually a very, very good starting point for determining a national champion. It is not perfect. It is far from  perfect from a financial perspective. It leaves a lot of money on the table.  But maximizing revenue is not a stated goal of the BCS system. So you can’t really blame them for that.

The BCS system actually reaches quite a few of its goals. It retains tradition. It makes every game of the regular season important. It retains some semblance of normality for student athletes schedules and it allows them to enjoy the unique experiences of the bowl system – a week in a cool location with family, friends, fans and teammates.  You may argue about these goals, but the current system gets there from here.

The one goal that is not arguable is that the best two teams are always in the BCS Championship game.  Even the staunchest BCS supporter will tell you that every year there are going to be disappointed teams and fans who feel that the only barrier between their team and a National Championship is the lack of a true playoff.

So I set off to think about whether or not there is a way to work within the current BCS system to optimize the likelihood that the last two teams playing were the two best teams.

In technology there is the very simple principle of GIGO. No matter what the algorithm, if the data going in is incomplete or misapplied then the results will be less than optimal or just plain wrong.

THe problem with the BCS is that the data going into the system is bad.  I’m not talking about the polls. Yes we can argue about the polls the BCS uses and their problems of which they are many. But no polling or ranking system, whether built on votes or on technical analysis is going to be anywhere near perfect. (And for the record, in FOOTBALL  the margin of victory weighted and re-weighted for the quality of the competition  should be a factor in ranking teams )

The biggest  problem with the BCS system is that there are no parameters or constraints on who BCS eligible teams schedule. Pretty much every BCS eligible school tries their best to game the system to put themselves in the best position to qualify for a bowl and to go undefeated. Put another way, almost every school schedules at least 2, if not 3 “cupcakes” every year.  There in lies the rub of the BCS system. Cupcakes distort the system.  Rather than playing games that could further contract the number of teams in the championship hunt, these games increase the number.  GIGO.

The way to fix the system is to replace the cupcakes with a mid-season playoff system .

The first question in replacing cupcake games with BCS impactful is to ask whether or not teams can change their game schedules, many of which are planned years in advance. In the words of an AD “changing games is a lot easier than you think”. Particularly when you realize that the cupcakes take on the role of sacrificial lamb purely for the money. It would be relatively easy to buy out the cupcakes.

Then there is also the consideration that the cupcakes are scheduled so that schools can become bowl eligible. Bowl eligibility is not just about the experience, but also about the bonuses. Get to a bowl. Get paid. Nothing wrong with that. But in order for some to consider making their schedules more difficult they are going to want to have their bowl bonuses covered.  We can do that as part of this new approach.

With those little inhibitors eliminated the question becomes “what is the optimal approach to an in season tournament”  ?

I don’t have the perfect solution, which is why I wanted to throw it out for people to discuss on http://www.facebook.com/pages/HDNet-CFB-Playoff-Series/171212686252635

My first thought on this is that we ask the BCS to require any school that would like to be considered for the BCS championship game to be leave as open dates on their schedule the 6th , 7th and 8th  weeks of the season.   Then we take the published BCS rankings and we “playoff ” zero loss teams against each other. We do the same with 1 loss teams, 2 loss teams, etc.  So the best undefeated teams play each other in a 3 game playoff. In the event there are an uneven number of undefeated teams, we take the highest ranking one loss team (s).  You do the same all the way down the line.

In the first round the highest ranked undefeated team plays the lowest ranked. The teams are then re ranked after the results of the first games. Then we do the same thing all over again.  Formerly undefeated teams are placed in the 1 loss ‘division’ , 2 losses in the 2 loss division, only this time there is one huge change. Starting with the 2nd round, each team plays the team ranked directly below them . So 1 plays 2. 3 plays 4. 5 plays 6, all the way through however many eligible teams are participating.  Then we do the same thing all over again in the 3rd week.

By the end of these 3 weeks the number of undefeated teams are reduced, and there is the real possibility that there are no undefeated teams left. Any and every Non AQ undefeated team is going to get their chance.  We will have had some amazing matchups between conferences and probably even intra conference.   And on the bottom of the heap, every winless team is going to face another winless or at worst a very poor team and have a chance to get on the board with a win. More importantly, the rankings in the BCS system will now reflect the results of games designed to be competitive. By the end of the season, the likelihood that they two best teams are competing in the championship game has increased substantially.

What about the money ? How much do you think the value of these games will increase for current TV partners ? Auburn vs TCU as the 7th game of the season vs Auburn vs Chattanooga ?  How much will sponsors pay to brand this tournament ? How much more excited will fans be ?  Of course there is the issue of who gets the home game in this series, that can be handled via a flip of a coin. And there is the costs associated with uncertain travel expenses, which can easily be picked up via sponsorship and increased TV revenues.

And what about the Bowl Games ? They can continue on as they always have, BUT, they have the opportunity to create “re-matches”.  If Boise State knocked Penn State from the ranks of the undefeated in the first match-up game, but both ended up with 2 or 3 losses, why not a re-match ? In addition, if there is a Cinderella team(s) from the tournament, they now have a much higher national profile which in turn will make the bowl game they are involved in much more attractive.

What does everyone think ? I’m not saying this is a perfect solution. That doesn’t exist. Even in a playoff system, someone will always be disappointed. But I do think that this works within the current system in a manner that is completely in control of school ADs who do the scheduling and works within the guidelines set by the BCS and the NCAA (as far as I could tell in a first pass look), and results in a far better chance of the BCS Championship game hosting the two best teams.

How can I make this approach better ?