Content Strategy for the Masses

Over the last two days, two different types of interactive billboards have come to my attention. One bus stop billboard advertisement for Vitamin Water, which allows users to charge their phones using a USB port under the guise the drink gives you alternative energy. Another ad, from Australia and promoting the Sun Smart Cancer Council Western Australia, offers passersby free sunscreen. These ads show an incredible use of interactivity and neither of them involve a screen!

This interesting blog post from Razorfish’s scatter/gather discusses how typical digital/interactive approaches are making their way into print and other platforms, and how it affects the digital content strategist. The author points to the increased use of QR codes in print magazines, Wired Magazine’s web-inspired layout and Yahoo!’s Bus Stop Derby promotion where San Franciscans played games with people waiting at other bus stops across the city.

Since traditional media is creating real-world interactive experiences, this offers a great time for the online world to understand these different communication worlds and, as the author says: “start thinking about handoff opportunities, places where our work can pass the baton.”

I feel lucky to have a basic understanding of international TV program distribution, broadcasting strategies and TV series production works as it translates into being able help television show producers effectively create digital media entertainment for their linear experiences.

By wanting to learn how other medias communicate in your industry, you could help eliminate silos and create the next cross-media experiences that reach out to audiences in a new and interactive way.

If you’re Canadian and already upset you can’t watch content that’s blocked in this country, or frustrated your internet bill keeps getting higher as you watch more online content, it might get worse. Canada is experiencing an interesting struggle right now between emerging online business colliding with traditional cablecos, particularly when it relates to open web and Net Neutrality.

Cable TV and Internet providers in Canada, such as Rogers and Bell, currently implement a form of User Based Billing on their customers by putting a cap on internet use, and then charging additional $2 per GB when they go over (even though bandwidth costs are dropping). Customers who didn’t wish to go with User Based Billing used to have an option to sign up with other internet providers, some of whom purchase their bandwidth from larger ISPs at a bulk rate. Not anymore, though – the CRTC last week allowed Bell, Shaw and Rogers to place a cap on these wholesale suppliers, meaning these independent ISPs must cap their plans at 25GB a month. To put it in perspective, that’s about five HD movies from iTunes, without even touching your email, YouTube or Skype.

The major ISPs say this is an important step to prevent those who use a lot of bandwidth from creating congestion. The CBC reports, however, on-demand video services provided by Rogers and Bell do not fall under these caps, meaning you can watch a bandwidth-hogging TV show on Rogers On Demand Online without fear of additional cost, but try to do the same with Rogers’ competitor Netflix, and you could see your internet bill jump.

Here’s a good explanation from the CBC’s George Stroumboulopoulos.

OpenMedia.ca, a NFP site, is collecting signatures to encourage the CRTC and government to rethink its stance on allowing these companies to meter the internet.  Backlash against bandwidth caps appears to be growing in Canada, with the site gaining approximately 110,000 signatures in the last week. I’ve included the petition here for anyone interested:

The same organization’s website points to further CRTC discussions on the merger of BCE and CTVGlobemedia. Michael Geist writes a fantastic article on what this merger should be addressed during discussions, alluding to the recent takeover by cable giant Comcast of NBC Universal in the States. Whereby the FTC stipulated that merger must support net neutrality and could not negatively impact growing competition from companies such as Hulu and Netflix, Geist is concerned the CRTC isn’t addressing these same concerns in Canada.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t have cable anymore. As someone who LOVES television, this was an adjustment in how to spend my spare time. While I don’t miss it, I’m thrilled to see more options to catch great content without a cable subscription.

Thank you, Netflix Canada. Sure, it’s has only one season of Hoarders (not… that… I.. watch… it…) and some sub-par programming choices (no, Netflix, I am not interested in anything from Jeff  Dunham). But it also has the first three seasons of Mad Men, all seasons of The Kids in the Hall, Faulty Towers, documentaries galore and tons of A-list movies.

This is why I’m perplexed to read some statuses updates on Facebook and Twitter where people are thinking of quitting. Is it that these people have a cable subscription and are used to a wider selection of programming choice? Or is this service actually more expensive for Canadians than Netflix’s $8/month subscription fee?

A recent Credit Suisse study outlined in Forbes suggests a Canadian Netflix subscriber watching a standard definition video would see his or her broadband usage go up by roughly 1GB an hour. “Based on Rogers Communications’ data pricing structure,” the study says, “this would have resulted in a $12 per month increase in broadband for our test home.”

I haven’t heard from others whether they’ve experienced this type of sticker shock by watching video with Netflix. The main complaint I see revolves around content selection.

For me, however, the no commercials (yet?), fast streaming (due in large part to my good internet connection) and number of titles (including those I wouldn’t pay iTunes to watch – see mention of Hoarders) makes it worthwhile.

Maybe that’s the point… Perhaps Netflix is only really good to someone like me who has been away from cable television for over a year. Even if I were with Rogers Internet and needed to purchase a higher broadband subscription, $20/month is still worth it. It’s still cheaper than what I was paying for cable with, to be honest, some really horrible programming choices.

What about you? If you subscribe to Netflix, do you like it? If you don’t, what’s holding you back?

While it’s not yet a phenom in Canada, a number of apps are popping up for mobile to merge television watching with a social experience. Think of it as a Foursquare or Gowalla for the couch potato – you check-in, you let people know what you’re watching and you have the opportunity to earn badges as a reward. Additionally, these apps can recommend similar content to users based on the content that’s being viewed. Here are three that are getting some attention:

Get Glue is a social app that allows a user to let others know what arts and entertainment they’re consuming. Log in to this service, and you can let strangers and friends alike know what book you’re reading, TV show you’re watching, video game you’re playing, etc. There’s also a wine ‘check-in.’ Based on your check-ins, you get recommendations for other content you might enjoy. 

Miso is a similar app, but focusses on television consumption.  The TV show “Bridezillas” partnered with Miso to provide a unique badge and an opportunity to win a book to those users who checked in while watching an episode of the program.

Clicker is getting a lot of press – (ed note: I’m impressed they managed to get a .com account that’s a real word – not clickr.) The app works pretty much the same way – check-in, favourite shows, follow your fave shows, get recommendations on other shows and movies to watch. This app is getting particular attention because:

• It shows you how to access episodes online by free or pay (in the U.S.)
• It was used as an example of the applications that could be used when Google TV launches

These apps make it very simple to see what early tech adopters are watching, liking and recommending. Also to note - they’re great for people like me who don’t have cable to know what’s popular and trending.

If you love television, keep an eye on these apps. If you create television, these apps might end up on your marketing plan.

Better yet – sign in – become a part of the experience of turning your passive TV watching into a activity. Let me know what you think.

This post from @kevinrose (founder of Digg.com ) suggests television will never be the same after Apple launches its rumoured $99 set-top box. From a consumer POV, this device or the new Google TV may check all of the boxes for those people who want to cut their TV cable cord (see my earlier blog post about my experiences without cable) but a game changer? Read the comments on his blog to get a glimpse of the doubters, and here are some further considerations I’d like to hear more opinions on:

- Programming costs a lot of money to make. $100K per half hour is considered cheap. After Apple gets it cut, how many episode purchases from consumers will need to be made in order for the producer to break even, and who will fight for the international programming distribution rights?

- Broadly speaking, successful television programming in Canada is made with funds provided by the government and cable companies, who are mandated to reinvest some dollars into the local industry. To get access to this funding, a broadcaster also needs to invest in the TV program. The broadcaster makes its money for content from advertising dollars. Like it or not, reducing the power and influence of cable companies such as Rogers, Bell, Shaw, etc.,  as well as the broadcaster and the advertisers will greatly diminish the funding available to television producers to create new products for both linear TV and online (unless, of course, Apple and Google are mandated to invest in local programming and are considered by the CRTC as ‘cable company’).

-  Broadcasters want to be in this multi-screened space and are investing additional financial and people resources to make it happen. Given the extra resources it takes to put broadcasted episodes on third party content aggregators such as Apple, profit (if any) is invested back into making this content available on digital media. The industry might be willing to play with AppleTV and GoogleTV if that’s what consumers want, but in the end, each broadcaster and cable company would rather create their own walled garden for maximum return on investment.

- This tweet from Modern Family creator, Steve Levitan (@stevelevitan) brings up a good point. It’s not only broadcasters and cable companies who want a return on their investment.

It’s about choice. If anything, Apple TV and GoogleTV will help offer new choice to the user, but will it actually change the industry forever?

What do you think? Will the cable industry crumble when these devices launch, or are there other examples pointing to why Apple TV will be just another player in the marketplace?