Multiple Screens Can Mean Multiple Concerns

The news that broadcasters are withholding content from Google TV shows that even with all the talk, numbers, studies and predictions of online/mobile video viewing and associated targeted/interactive advertising, core issues of how to manage content distribution and revenue creation remain.

As entities that once ruled the television marketplace, broadcasters know what dominance can mean and Google's perceived power and presence in online advertising provide caution.

While its far too late to pull back on offering mobile and younger consumers video on laptops and smartphones, and the formats for presenting content and deriving revenue (ads/subscription) remain in evolution, traditional and new players eye each other warily around the digital poker table.

Consumers have made their desires known: content wherever and whenever we want it. The brand that fronts the screen and the technology that manages the ad inventory is of far less importance than the access and quality of experience. Money is on the table--some cards are being kept close to the vest and calls are soon to be made.

Retransmission Battles

With the Fox-Cablevision retrans battle going seeming to go down to the wire in a public and contentious way, as similar retrans negotiations have, calls for some kind of retrans reform are heard. Cablevision ask for arbitration, Fox declines. Local area members of Congress cite concerns over access to major sports coverage. Neither the FCC nor Congress has expressed interest in acting, and if last minute resolution keeps channels on, many will say the market has worked. Yet, with news that cable and DBS subs are finding online video access an attractive alternative and concerns over subscription costs in a tough economy, retrans has become the poster child for rising program costs and fights between corporate heavyweights over money. In this kind of volatile market, some kind of government action should not be ruled out.

Searching For A New Content Business Model

The search for a new business model that bridges and encompasses traditional and new media continues. The value and price points for content will likely vary among platforms and factors that include interactive features and video/graphic quality will help determine the calculation. The lure of TV Everywhere does not necessarily mean the same content presented in the same way. While some balk against the iTunes model, the mix of ad supported and subscription components will probably remain fluid as technology and consumer adaptation and choices evolve.

The Clash Over Privacy

Google argues that it has simplified its privacy policy and made it much more transparent. Critics argue that, through its stripped down simplicity, Google is taking user information and sharing it across platforms and uses, thereby denying the user choices as to how specifically allow use of particular information.



This represents a fundamental and ongoing conflict as to what privacy means in an online environment of increasingly sophisticated applications, cookies and integration of services. The market's drive for targeted and behavioral marketing and analytical services comes up against traditional understandings of privacy which often aren't stirred until the reality is revealed to the user.


What the public really wants, and what the courts and Congress will say, are all still in play and the technology is likely to stay ahead of the statutes and the concerns.