Jessell at Large

TV Stations' Mantra for 2009: Ubiquity

Television stations need to work together to find a way to get their 24-hour-a-day channels of news and entertainment that have defined them for the past 60 years available to the proliferating second and third screens. How about forming an Open Web Video Coalition whose first job would be to sort through the technology and come up with a foolproof way of keeping streamed TV station signals from slopping over into other markets?
TVNewsCheck,

The word for 2009 is "ubiquity."

There was a time when broadcasting and ubiquity were, in the world of mass media, synonymous.

Story continues after the ad

But those were the days before the Web and cell phones and other hand-held gizmos had emerged as honest-to-goodness TV outlets.

Now that they have, TV stations can't be said to be everywhere. They may offer news and weather clips on their Web sites and various mobile platforms, but they don't yet make their fundamental service -- the 24-hour-a-day channel of news and entertainment that has defined them for the past 60 years -- available to those proliferating second and third screens.

And I think they must if they intend to be major media players in the 21st century.

The good news is that they are close to halfway there.

Through the Open Mobile Video Coalition, leading broadcasters are developing a system that will allow any station to use a small portion of its digital spectrum to be a part of the burgeoning mobile world.

In relatively swift and painless fashion, the ATSC has settled on a DTV mobile technical standard. And repeated real-world testing shows that it works.

Now, the focus is shifting to turning the technology into a business.

Media General's John Conschafter, who heads the OMVC's business group, said this week in our Executive Session that much non-technical work needs to be done before DTV mobile is a revenue-generating enterprise.

According to Conschafter, he and other mobile proponents must convince copyright holders, syndicators and the networks to permit mobile simulcasts and persuade manufacturers to put DTV mobile receive chips into cell phones and other portable devices.

Conschafter seemed confident that those negotiations would go well and that later this year consumers with the latest MP3 players or PDAs would be able to tune into their favorite TV stations while on the go just as they do when they are sitting in their living rooms.

I've got a feeling that it's going to be a lot tougher than Conschafter lets on, but, what the heck, January is the month for optimism.

Unfortunately, broadcasters are making far less progress on the getting their signals onto the Web.

It's a whole lot trickier.

Before stations can even think about simulcasting on the Web, they must figure out how to restrict their signals to their local markets since they have the rights to air syndicated and network programming only within their markets.

Unlike DTV mobile, which is inherently local, the Web is inherently global. When you put it on the Web, you are distributing it to the world.

WRAL Raleigh, N.C., owner Jim Goodmon, one of broadcasting's true visionaries and a strong believer in putting TV stations on the Web, actually came up with a scheme for geographically limiting the reach of a TV signal on the Web.

It involves a dongle, a small device that plugs into the USB port of a computer. The dongle would tell the computer which signals it could receive based on instructions broadcast by a local FM station.

So, in Raleigh, for instance, the dongle would allow the user to receive WRAL, but only if he or she were in the presence of that local authorizing FM signal. Take the dongle into another market and it wouldn't do anything.

The dongle-FM scheme is not ideal. It's probably too costly and difficult to implement and some believe it would be easy to hack.

But so what? It's the concept that matters.

As I argued here last July ("The Web Won't Wait for TV Stations"), if the dongle doesn't do it, figure out something that will.

What broadcasters need is another team effort along the lines of the OMVC. Let's call it the Open Web Video Coalition and let's recruit all the leading station groups as members.

This new coalition's first order of business would be to sort through the technology and come up with a foolproof way of keeping streamed TV station signals from slopping over into other markets.

Once that is accomplished, the coalition would try to persuade the copyright owners, the networks and other program suppliers to play along just as the OMVC is doing in mobile today.

In an Executive Session interview slated to be posted next Tuesday, CBS research guru David Poltrak talks about the new audiences that CBS's steaming of primetime shows on the Web is beginning to deliver.

According to Poltrak, the online audience for How I Met Your Mother in fall 2008 was up 65 percent over fall 2007. More important, he notes, the median age of the online audience was 28, 16 years younger than the median age of the broadcast audience.

With such evidence piling up, TV stations simply cannot afford not to have their channels on the Web, just as they cannot afford not to have them in every cell phone, PDA, iPod and laptop. To ignore these new TV media is to ignore the new generation of viewers.

Edit Article

Comments (8) -

Sid Guel posted over 3 years ago
Wouldn't it be nice if broadcasters could turn the tables on networks and syndicators regarding programming. For example; Let's say an Internet end-user or Mobile end-user is watching programming in your TV broadcasting coverage area, have the network or syndicator pay the broadcasters. If broadcasters have exclusive rights to network and syndicated programming in your respective market, broadcasters should receive compensation for revenue generated by Mobile or Internet use. Wishful thinking maybe, but it's an interesting thought to ponder.
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
Television stations have no one to blame for their troubles but themselves. Every time a TV station promotes their web site, or any web site for that matter, they are screaming, "Stop watching me and go play with your computer." TV can and has survived just fine without the web. On the other hand, all billion web sites need TV to tell consumers of their existence. TV stations should protectively do what they do best, and that is TV. TV stations should return to delivering quality products and services to their legally mandated audiences and stop competing with themselves.
Man4Media Nickname posted over 3 years ago
Gentlemen, to ignore the web is certain peril. Have we not learned from what the music industry experienced? Younger viewers want programs at their disposal -- when and where they want to watch them. If they are not provided that they will pirate the programs. What has to be done is to find the right financial model to make it work -- because that is far from happening now. Additionally stations must concentrate even more on their localism. As for compensation for programming in their local market I believe stations should be able to work out remuneration from networks and syndicators since mobile and internet are keys to the viability of all parties involved. As the article mentions, however, the technical aspect of determining attribution is still not there yet. Stations need to be as tough with their netwroks as cable networks are with program distributors. No cable network would ever buy the rights to a series without getting the rights to stream the series online. Stations should work with suppliers to similarly gain access to digital revenues.
BennyJets Nickname posted over 3 years ago
I truly believe that progress must be embraced if we're all going to succeed. Despite the fact the no one really predicted the impact and attention the internet has already achieved, now I believe we're all starting to see just where it can lead. Add in mobile possibilities and you’re looking at a prospectively large shift in the habits of the American, and world wide, people. To not peruse this avenue would be similar to those who refused early to accept non-linear editing as the emerging standard technology, but instead spent hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars building D1 or D2 or other digital tape post facilities, only to find them antiquated just a few years later. I must confess, I am at a loss as to the full opportunities available, and I confess I can barely manage, on a personal level, to get past text messaging, however, on the profession side, it's obvious that WiFi/DTV and WEB Broadcasting is our future. Who knows, maybe we can even find more revenue from these outlets…a way to get rating adjustment perhaps? I just know that I love what I do and I want to keep doing it. Since I made remarkable strides, starting with ¾” reel to reel machines to now, almost completely tapeless…I’m ready to adjust as much as necessary to maintain doing what I do best! Play TV!
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
With the economy failing, jobs disappearing, and advertisers retreating, we are seeing a growing number of Americans dumping their cable and other paid services in favor of over-the-air TV. Now, with the advent of digital TV, the public can freely view an increased number of free TV channels with much enhanced quality. What is a web site worth versus the worth of a TV station? Is a TV spot worth more than a banner Ad? Of course it is. The trouble is everyone thinks they can make a fortune with a laptop from their bedroom, yet no web sites are profitable, except for porn, day trading, and e-bay. TV stations are totally failing in their efforts to monitize their websites. TV stations' revenue streams are 99% commercial airtime TV sales. TV web pages are just an expense. Think about it. "Let's drive our viewers to our website." WHY? If your website disappeared tomorrow, would anyone notice? If your TV station disappeared tomorrow, everyone would notice. It's time TV executives stop blowing sunshine up their own skirts and return to serving the public with quality content. That's how broadcasters make money. The advertisers want quality programs they can sponsor, not banner ads.
Thomas VanBenschoten posted over 3 years ago
Local TV stations, acknowledge it or not, are in a pitched battle for digital consumers; not viewers, surfers, twitters or whomever, but share of the digital consumption for information and entertainment in their respective local markets. And more and more of this consumption will be sought 'on demand'. As long as the local television broadcasters fully appreciate the worth of their home-grown productions, community impact and historical allegiance, and they can successfully transpose their valuable content to fit the vital intricacies of the various digital platforms, they will continue to hold the hyper local high ground. But, to give up that ground to unrelated, mercenary solutions to fill the vacuum of not having a downrange strategy, risks fragmentation that has lessened the overall value of other media in recent times. As the economy rebounds, advertisers of all persuasions will flock to the higher ground. There are vendors and solutions available that respect the local television station promise and they're the ones to seek partnerships with, to build captivating content for today and tomorrow, for all distribution platforms. A litmus test is to see which ones put the local television station first.
Andy Bater posted over 3 years ago
The technology broadcasters should embrace for the web is called IP Geolocation which allows a user's Internet address to be resolved down to the town level. Admittedly Geolocation isn't perfect as sometimes it can be fooled by large corporate WANs that span the nation. Generally it seems to work pretty well though. Not only would it allow content to be restricted within a DMA, perhaps more importantly it would allow commercials to be targeted towards individual areas. New Jersey car dealer ads only airing in New Jersey, etc. Such finer level geographic targeting, which BTW already exists in the OTA DTV standard as Directed Channel Change, could be a way for broadcasters to super serve selected segments of their market.
Kevin Mirek posted over 3 years ago
Local TV stations own an indisputable edge. That is, their Federal License to exclusively display that content which they own or purchase. One can only lick one's chops at the prospect of litigating for damages when any Internet carrier or anyone else encroaches on their Designated Market Area and rips-off their product. Viewing "Stewie Beats-Up Brian," from Family Guy or a Local News clip, is much more enjoyable on a 32inch DTV set than on a 12 inch pixelated, non-synced audio track Internet version. Plus, they have no right to display that content. Personally, I look forward to three or four times the number of free Digital TV signals compared to what is currently offered. Take away "Stewie Beats-Up Brian" from the Internet and what do you have? Certainly not Family Guy. TV executives are lemmings. They do not know, appreciate, or understand what power they have been granted, so they neither know how to protect their turf nor their revenue sources. There are very few businesses in this country that are granted exclusive licenses to make money. My lifetime will not see the era when a TV's web site outperforms its own signal in ability to generate revenue. TV executives need to rethink their attraction to the Internet. A web site's bandwidth cannot handle one million hits at once, as during 9-11. Everyone turns to TV.

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2905.66 +45.98 (+1.61%)
NYSE 8060.43 +115.00 (+1.45%)
S&P 500 1344.90 +19.36 (+1.46%)
Updated 02/04 4:04a ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for February 3, 2012
  • 1.
    3.9/11
  • 2.
    3.5/9
  • 3.
    2.5/7
  • 4.
    1.5/4
  • 5.
    1.5/4
  • 6.
    0.9/2
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • Robert Lloyd

    Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, veterans of Fox's sketch comedy MADtv, have a new series of their own, Comedy Central's Key & Peele. It is a genial, at times almost genteel, half-hour in which the pair's obvious niceness shines through even their more pugnacious characters. (Key's version of road rage is to shout, "Selfish!") In a roundabout way, that's the point. The sketches are consistently smart and smartly acted and flow easily from ordinary premises to weird conclusions.

  • Hank Stuever

    Discovery's Bering Sea Gold doesn’t seem at first like it has crossed any new reality TV frontier, relying on elements and structure familiar to the form. Enticingly (to the network), it combines the ocean and the gold and the cold and the reactive testosterone among bad-tempered desperados. To which I am surprised to cry: Eureka, they’ve found it! Bering Sea Gold is a testament to how thoroughly absorbing the genre can still be, when it’s done right.

  • Neil Genzlinger

    All Star Dealers, Discovery Channel's sports-memorabilia addition to the bloated auction/pawnshop/storage locker subgenre of reality television, should have been a winner, with endless stories to draw on and a built-in fan base. But rather than find its own formula, it was content to borrow from existing shows, and it borrowed all the wrong things.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Kiefer Sutherland displays his softer side in Fox's Touch, a touchy-feely drama merging paranormal, spiritual and sweetly familial elements. shows off his acting chops, long forgotten, in scene after scene. It's heavier lifting than usual for the actor who was often reduced to caricature in 24. Sutherland is all about vulnerability in a show whose goal is nothing short of proving the interconnectedness of human life. We'll see if audiences can tolerate the notion of profound interrelatedness as weekly entertainment.

  • Tim Goodman

    Let's jump right to the most obvious of all sentiments when it comes to HBO's new horse racing/gambling series Luck: Do not bet against David Milch in this one. Like a lot of HBO series, Luck will require patience. It's telling a dense story with nuanced characters and it doesn't feel the need to rush in, like a network series, and hammer home the main themes. But each episode is more enriching, more engrossing than the last and there's Hoffman's superb turn at the forefront, even though his story unfolds with the least rush. Luck is a smart and ambitious series that looks to truly pay off in the home stretch.

  • Mike Hale

    The timing of FX's animated series Unsupervised is unfortunate. A kind of reversed Beavis and Butt-Head — in which the teenage heroes, while losers in just about every way, are also social strivers yearning for suburban domesticity and dispensing Oprah Winfrey-style affirmations — it has the bad luck of coming along three months after the original was revived by MTV. The new show looks awfully pale by comparison.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad