Not wanting to always blog about Google, but today it announced that it will apply to participate in the Federal Communications Commission's upcoming auction of wireless spectrum in the 700 megahertz (MHz) band in the US.
This brings the Google Phone one step closer following the company's Open Handset Alliance announcement earlier this month.
The spectrum announcement also says:
Advocacy by public interest groups and Google earlier this year helped ensure that regardless of which bidders win a key portion of the spectrum up for auction (the so-called "C Block"), they will be required to allow their users to download any software application they want on their mobile device, and to use any mobile devices they would like on that wireless network.
So at a cost of $4.6bn - the reserve price at the auction - Google will become a network operator and a such provide a Google phone, on a Google network, with a Google platform (Android).
It will be interesting to see how the Search company makes the leap to becoming a network operator if its plans come to fruition. It will also be interesting to see what impact the introduction of any Google Phone and / or Google mobile network would have on mobile advertising.
However, everyone will have to wait, with the auction not expected to finish until at least March 2008.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Google Domination
I see in the news today that Google has overtaken another media institution, this time ITV1, in terms of advertising revenues.
Google overtook Channel 4 last year and has been beating mediums including cinema and press rapidly in its short life.
Michael Grade is quoted in the story about the amount of regulation that ITV has enforced upon it compared to the lax environment that Google operates in. It reminded me of a number of conversations I have had recently about Google and ITV.
If Google were a TV company then there would be no way that it would have been able to grow so big and powerful so quickly. The 'M' word, monopoly, is rarely used in the press alongside Google but it is the elephant in the room. Look how quickly the forces of regulation moved when Murdoch took a stake in ITV. Now it looks like they will be forced to backtrack and possibly sell the stake they took. But has the horse bolted when it comes to Google? Its market share in the UK according to Hitwise is a shade over 85%, if that isn't a Monopoly I don't know what is and to say that it doesn't skew the market would be madness. Yet there is still no sign of intervention from regulators.
I have asked many people recently if Google can be caught and more than one person has come back with an ITV / Google analogy. It goes like this:
ITV were the dominant player in the UK terrestrial TV advertising market and nobody could see them ever being caught, then along came Channel 4 and they didn't have it all their own way all of a sudden.
The propensity for a new killer service to take out Google is probably even more likely than it was for another advertising based TV service to be launched - look at the meteoric rise of Facebook as an example when we were all MySpace mad and the next generation of social networks are already being developed - Twine. (although obviously Google do have Orkut)
The moral is things change and in digital they change twice as fast. The days of Google's dominance are not endless; they just seem that way at the moment.....
Google overtook Channel 4 last year and has been beating mediums including cinema and press rapidly in its short life.
Michael Grade is quoted in the story about the amount of regulation that ITV has enforced upon it compared to the lax environment that Google operates in. It reminded me of a number of conversations I have had recently about Google and ITV.
If Google were a TV company then there would be no way that it would have been able to grow so big and powerful so quickly. The 'M' word, monopoly, is rarely used in the press alongside Google but it is the elephant in the room. Look how quickly the forces of regulation moved when Murdoch took a stake in ITV. Now it looks like they will be forced to backtrack and possibly sell the stake they took. But has the horse bolted when it comes to Google? Its market share in the UK according to Hitwise is a shade over 85%, if that isn't a Monopoly I don't know what is and to say that it doesn't skew the market would be madness. Yet there is still no sign of intervention from regulators.
I have asked many people recently if Google can be caught and more than one person has come back with an ITV / Google analogy. It goes like this:
ITV were the dominant player in the UK terrestrial TV advertising market and nobody could see them ever being caught, then along came Channel 4 and they didn't have it all their own way all of a sudden.
The propensity for a new killer service to take out Google is probably even more likely than it was for another advertising based TV service to be launched - look at the meteoric rise of Facebook as an example when we were all MySpace mad and the next generation of social networks are already being developed - Twine. (although obviously Google do have Orkut)
The moral is things change and in digital they change twice as fast. The days of Google's dominance are not endless; they just seem that way at the moment.....
Friday, July 13, 2007
Old Problems and New Lawsuits
On first glance the story in The Times today about Google facing yet another lawsuit seems frivolous at best.
Australia’s competition watchdog - The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - is seeking an injunction to stop Google from displaying search results that did not “expressly distinguish” advertisements.
Seems a bit odd as Google does highlight advertisements as 'sponsored links' at the top and down the right hand side of the page.
So what is it all about?
Well, yet again it is dredging up the issue of who owns brand trademarks on the search service.
The Commission claims that Google has engaged in deceptive or misleading conduct in relation to the use of its paid links, but is also seeking an injunction to prevent Google from displaying the paid links of advertisers that claimed an association with other businesses or competitors where no such association existed - such as a newspaper site advertising on a car brand term to get people to go to its classifieds section.
Google's own trademark investigation procedure - outside the US - is as follows:
'When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, our review is limited to ensuring that the advertisements at issue are not using a term corresponding to the trademarked term in the ad text or as a keyword trigger. If they are, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademarked term from the ad text or keyword list and will prevent the advertiser from using the trademarked term in the future.'
Seems pretty clear, but again focus is being placed on the fact that the advertiser has to notify Google, rather than Google preventing it from happening in the first place.
It is an old debate, but keeps resurfacing in different territories around the world as different interactive markets become more mature and sooner or later Google will have to face up to the issue and solve it, otherwise it will keep bubbling until a court decision will come that may seriously dent its AdWords revenue stream.
Australia’s competition watchdog - The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - is seeking an injunction to stop Google from displaying search results that did not “expressly distinguish” advertisements.
Seems a bit odd as Google does highlight advertisements as 'sponsored links' at the top and down the right hand side of the page.
So what is it all about?
Well, yet again it is dredging up the issue of who owns brand trademarks on the search service.
The Commission claims that Google has engaged in deceptive or misleading conduct in relation to the use of its paid links, but is also seeking an injunction to prevent Google from displaying the paid links of advertisers that claimed an association with other businesses or competitors where no such association existed - such as a newspaper site advertising on a car brand term to get people to go to its classifieds section.
Google's own trademark investigation procedure - outside the US - is as follows:
'When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, our review is limited to ensuring that the advertisements at issue are not using a term corresponding to the trademarked term in the ad text or as a keyword trigger. If they are, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademarked term from the ad text or keyword list and will prevent the advertiser from using the trademarked term in the future.'
Seems pretty clear, but again focus is being placed on the fact that the advertiser has to notify Google, rather than Google preventing it from happening in the first place.
It is an old debate, but keeps resurfacing in different territories around the world as different interactive markets become more mature and sooner or later Google will have to face up to the issue and solve it, otherwise it will keep bubbling until a court decision will come that may seriously dent its AdWords revenue stream.
Monday, April 30, 2007
D-Day (Digital Days)
The next couple of days will tell us a lot about the ambitions and strategies of two of the major broadcasters in the UK.
The BBC Trust is set to give its verdict on the iPlayer today and ITV will relaunch ITV.com with on-demand content on Tuesday; Both events follow the decision from the BBC Trust to give the green light to the much delayed Freesat project last week.
Hauling both corporations into the digital age should give a boost to the programming of both as a wider audience will be able to access programming on their own terms and in their own time.
How quickly this will spell the end of mainstream linear broadcast remains to be seen, but it will be interesting to watch what impact the moves have on viewing habits and in ITV’s case advertising revenues.
The BBC Trust is set to give its verdict on the iPlayer today and ITV will relaunch ITV.com with on-demand content on Tuesday; Both events follow the decision from the BBC Trust to give the green light to the much delayed Freesat project last week.
Hauling both corporations into the digital age should give a boost to the programming of both as a wider audience will be able to access programming on their own terms and in their own time.
How quickly this will spell the end of mainstream linear broadcast remains to be seen, but it will be interesting to watch what impact the moves have on viewing habits and in ITV’s case advertising revenues.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Do You Value Free Speech?
The UK government, through Education Secretary Alan Johnson, said today that sites have a "moral obligation" to tackle bullies who post clips showing abuse of teachers and pupils and are urging site operators to do more to remove videos taken by pupils on mobile phones which humiliate or mock staff.
The argument over bullying on sites such as YouTube cuts to the very heart of UGC and the question of whether it should be moderated.
In the traditional media world there are checks and balances - to an extent - to ensure that any damaging content appearing has consequences, but in a world where everyone is a broadcaster those checks have been removed.
The question now is do we want to materially modify what UGC is by introducing checks to ‘free speech’? And will those who use these sites willingly submit to these or move on to sites that give them a more free hand?
I can remember when teachers were fair game for a bit of ribbing, but the dispersal of content has become so efficient through social networks and upload sites that real damage can now be done.
The moderation of these sites will undoubtedly bring in more advertising revenue as brands will feel more comfortable in a controlled media environment, but the edgier brands and users will be looking for the next YouTube and it is the users who make the environment.
Which side of the argument do you pin your colours on?
The argument over bullying on sites such as YouTube cuts to the very heart of UGC and the question of whether it should be moderated.
In the traditional media world there are checks and balances - to an extent - to ensure that any damaging content appearing has consequences, but in a world where everyone is a broadcaster those checks have been removed.
The question now is do we want to materially modify what UGC is by introducing checks to ‘free speech’? And will those who use these sites willingly submit to these or move on to sites that give them a more free hand?
I can remember when teachers were fair game for a bit of ribbing, but the dispersal of content has become so efficient through social networks and upload sites that real damage can now be done.
The moderation of these sites will undoubtedly bring in more advertising revenue as brands will feel more comfortable in a controlled media environment, but the edgier brands and users will be looking for the next YouTube and it is the users who make the environment.
Which side of the argument do you pin your colours on?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Reading Between the Lines
Online spending in the UK has broken the £2 bn barrier for the first time, overtaking newspaper ad spending in the process and accounting for 11.4% of all UK advertising spend.
The UK online market now has almost double the average global share of 5.8% and without the rise of online advertising the overall UK ad market would have posted a 2.9% fall, instead of posting a 1.1% rise.
It seems that it is good news all round for Internet publishers as advertisers pour money into the medium.
However, Google accounts for 43% of the £2.016 bn spent online, with the search giant attracting an amazing 75% of the £1.2 bn spent on paid search. Paid search itself grew by 52% last year.
It was once said that there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Reading between the lines it is good news that more advertisers are finding that online provides them with better ROI, but it is important for the health of the UK online sector that there is more diversity in order to avoid being labeled a direct response online medium.
Check here for the full breakdown of figures.
The UK online market now has almost double the average global share of 5.8% and without the rise of online advertising the overall UK ad market would have posted a 2.9% fall, instead of posting a 1.1% rise.
It seems that it is good news all round for Internet publishers as advertisers pour money into the medium.
However, Google accounts for 43% of the £2.016 bn spent online, with the search giant attracting an amazing 75% of the £1.2 bn spent on paid search. Paid search itself grew by 52% last year.
It was once said that there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Reading between the lines it is good news that more advertisers are finding that online provides them with better ROI, but it is important for the health of the UK online sector that there is more diversity in order to avoid being labeled a direct response online medium.
Check here for the full breakdown of figures.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Cutting to the Click
Interesting to see Google testing out pay per action ad models in a move that would shake up its revenues and which would also stop click fraud.
Google is pretty good at catching fraudulent clickers and not charging advertisers for the clicks, but moving to a cost per action model would be a big step for the industry. At present it is only talking about using the model on its AdSense program, not the bigger AdWords market where ads sit next to search results on the search engine.
However, adopting the model of payment that has been used widely in the affiliate marketing world for many years could ultimately bring better revenues for Google as advertisers will find it more effective. Google just needs to find a way of balancing this against the negative impact it could have on publishers, who previously have shared revenue for every ad clicked.
If it proves a success expect other engines to follow suit.
Google is pretty good at catching fraudulent clickers and not charging advertisers for the clicks, but moving to a cost per action model would be a big step for the industry. At present it is only talking about using the model on its AdSense program, not the bigger AdWords market where ads sit next to search results on the search engine.
However, adopting the model of payment that has been used widely in the affiliate marketing world for many years could ultimately bring better revenues for Google as advertisers will find it more effective. Google just needs to find a way of balancing this against the negative impact it could have on publishers, who previously have shared revenue for every ad clicked.
If it proves a success expect other engines to follow suit.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
GoogleTube
Google moving into TV ads is an interesting proposition.
The lure of being able to create an automated ad serving system that can serve contextual ads to TV viewers is tantalising for both broadcasters and advertisers in the US.
Google’s trial with cable customers in Concord, California is only a first step towards this utopia, but it is an interesting one.
Sergey and Larry have already moved Google out of the online environment and onto mobile with great success, signing deals around the globe with major mobile operators like Vodafone. With the gap between what is PC and what is TV content becoming ever more blurred and even TV screens and PC screens becoming one and the same Google is hoping to get in at the ground level of what could be a very lucrative market.
However, simply taking the adSense contextual ad system and slapping it onto TV presents a big problem.
Creating multiple small rectangular text ads for different types of customers is not very expensive or time intensive. Creating multiple shiny TV ads is another matter.
It will be interesting to see how this issue is resolved and whether the model will need to be tweaked to better suit the brand advertising environment.
The lure of being able to create an automated ad serving system that can serve contextual ads to TV viewers is tantalising for both broadcasters and advertisers in the US.
Google’s trial with cable customers in Concord, California is only a first step towards this utopia, but it is an interesting one.
Sergey and Larry have already moved Google out of the online environment and onto mobile with great success, signing deals around the globe with major mobile operators like Vodafone. With the gap between what is PC and what is TV content becoming ever more blurred and even TV screens and PC screens becoming one and the same Google is hoping to get in at the ground level of what could be a very lucrative market.
However, simply taking the adSense contextual ad system and slapping it onto TV presents a big problem.
Creating multiple small rectangular text ads for different types of customers is not very expensive or time intensive. Creating multiple shiny TV ads is another matter.
It will be interesting to see how this issue is resolved and whether the model will need to be tweaked to better suit the brand advertising environment.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Honesty is the Best Policy
The furore caused by the premium rate fiasco is a result of TV companies wanting to interact more closely with their viewers.
Interaction with the consumer is a de facto part of online life and broadcasters have seen how well it has worked and want to have an ongoing relationship with their own viewers. They want a relationship that goes beyond the passive act of viewing and creates a two way conversation.
The reason that they have got it so badly wrong is that they forgot the fundamental principle of communication in the digital age, honesty.
Those companies that try to mislead their consumers or viewers are quickly found out online and when the blogosphere is mobilised it can generate a lot of bad PR, just ask Wal-Mart.
It will be interesting to see how many people voted on ITVs Dancing on Ice this weekend or how many will want to play Brainteaser again on Five after the recent revelations.
Interaction with the consumer is a de facto part of online life and broadcasters have seen how well it has worked and want to have an ongoing relationship with their own viewers. They want a relationship that goes beyond the passive act of viewing and creates a two way conversation.
The reason that they have got it so badly wrong is that they forgot the fundamental principle of communication in the digital age, honesty.
Those companies that try to mislead their consumers or viewers are quickly found out online and when the blogosphere is mobilised it can generate a lot of bad PR, just ask Wal-Mart.
It will be interesting to see how many people voted on ITVs Dancing on Ice this weekend or how many will want to play Brainteaser again on Five after the recent revelations.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Blog-A-Job Week
Is it me or are more and more job blogs springing up?
To coincide with the release of our book, Digital Marketing for Dummies, myself and co-author Ben Carter who blogs here are launching the UK's first-ever Blog A Job Week.
The idea is to get more people blogging and more specifically, more people blogging about what they do for their day-jobs. I've read countless blogs by paramedics, policemen, air hostesses and doctors but where are the dustmen, pilots and landscape gardeners?
Blogging can make you an unlikly celebrity and it's also a good way of blowing off steam though make sure you write under a pseudonym!
We're doing a radio tour early next week to get people blogging and we'll be charting the campaign's progress so watch this space.
Our top five favourite Job Blogs are (in no particular order):-
1- Policeman
2- Paramedic
3- Magistrate
4- Teacher
5- Traffic Warden
To coincide with the release of our book, Digital Marketing for Dummies, myself and co-author Ben Carter who blogs here are launching the UK's first-ever Blog A Job Week.
The idea is to get more people blogging and more specifically, more people blogging about what they do for their day-jobs. I've read countless blogs by paramedics, policemen, air hostesses and doctors but where are the dustmen, pilots and landscape gardeners?
Blogging can make you an unlikly celebrity and it's also a good way of blowing off steam though make sure you write under a pseudonym!
We're doing a radio tour early next week to get people blogging and we'll be charting the campaign's progress so watch this space.
Our top five favourite Job Blogs are (in no particular order):-
1- Policeman
2- Paramedic
3- Magistrate
4- Teacher
5- Traffic Warden
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Future's Cloudy, The Future's Semantic.
The Semantic Web or Web 3.0 - call it what you will - but what do we really know about it at the moment?
Well if you have been paying attention to the blogosphere then you already know it is going to be the biggest evolution in the history of the internet.
But what will it REALLY mean for you and me?
I’ve been chatting to some people on the cutting edge over the last week or so and what I can tell you is that it’s all a bit cloudy right now.
The ability to make machines understand web content sounds great and each of us having a little online assistant taking care of all our searching and information gathering needs does seem appealing, but remember how annoying other little assistants have been – Do I hear anyone say Paperclip?
So far we have things such as Piggy Bank – a handy project from MIT that can lift data from websites using an extensions to a Firefox browser allowing you to create new mashups – and things like FOAF, which has great potential but Iis still not in mainstream use.
Will Web 3.0 eventually lead to a T3: Rise of the Machines style Armageddon where the computers realise that we have enslaved them into a lifetime of searching for an ‘affordable break for two in the Cotswolds’ or will we actually get some smarter web applications?
The answer is no, at least not in the short term. What we need is someone who can package up the technical innovation that is so intimately involved in creating this new advance in a way that everyday users scan understand.
It seems that for now Web 3.0 is very much the reserve of the techies and we are some way off the applications that will herald the arrival of Web 3.0 in the same way that YouTube, Flickr and blogging have dominated Web 2.0.
Well if you have been paying attention to the blogosphere then you already know it is going to be the biggest evolution in the history of the internet.
But what will it REALLY mean for you and me?
I’ve been chatting to some people on the cutting edge over the last week or so and what I can tell you is that it’s all a bit cloudy right now.
The ability to make machines understand web content sounds great and each of us having a little online assistant taking care of all our searching and information gathering needs does seem appealing, but remember how annoying other little assistants have been – Do I hear anyone say Paperclip?
So far we have things such as Piggy Bank – a handy project from MIT that can lift data from websites using an extensions to a Firefox browser allowing you to create new mashups – and things like FOAF, which has great potential but Iis still not in mainstream use.
Will Web 3.0 eventually lead to a T3: Rise of the Machines style Armageddon where the computers realise that we have enslaved them into a lifetime of searching for an ‘affordable break for two in the Cotswolds’ or will we actually get some smarter web applications?
The answer is no, at least not in the short term. What we need is someone who can package up the technical innovation that is so intimately involved in creating this new advance in a way that everyday users scan understand.
It seems that for now Web 3.0 is very much the reserve of the techies and we are some way off the applications that will herald the arrival of Web 3.0 in the same way that YouTube, Flickr and blogging have dominated Web 2.0.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Beware the Blogosphere
Health minister Caroline Flint has called on CAP to extend the new ban on advertising of HFSS food to children under-16 to non-broadcast media according to the Guardian.
Speaking about the new rules for TV advertising, which OfCOM published today she said: “We now look to the Committee of Advertising Practice to put in place similar rules for other media such as cinema, magazines and the internet.
Without wanting to come over all Michael Winner - ‘calm down dear’ - this ain’t going to happen.
OfCOM’s charter specifically makes no mention of the internet or online or any other reference to interactive media. This is because the government is quite happy to let the internet community regulate itself rather than get involved in a legal minefield of which it would not be able to extricate itself – think EU and global regulations, enforcement, cross border disputes etc and you get the picture.
The internet cannot be regulated, that is one of its main pillars.
All Flint’s statement did was get her name in the paper and made it look like she was being ‘tough on fatties, tough on the causes of fatties’ without really doing anything more than blowing hot air.
Statements by people like Flint make great headlines for the media, but won’t make one bit of difference to the strategies of HFSS brand owners who will be looking to continue or ramp up their online activities.
Pepsi don't market to kids according to their PR - so their website featuring Eva Longoria ads obviously won't appeal to boys under 16 then, or girls for that matter who obviously don't idolise celebrities like Longoria.
Nesquik is of course drunk exclusively by mid-thirties males in upper class restaurants and professional working women, not by kids when they come home from school, which would make more sense for their marketing strategy as the Rabbit character on the front page of their website says 'Come on kids, lets go play in the tree house' before leading them off to play online games based on drink flavours.
OK I am being a bit pedantic, they are not marketing their products, they are websites that carry product info, see the difference?
What will be interesting to see is if there is a groundswell of opinion from online users themselves. The only way that marketing of HFSS foods to kids will not happen online is if enough people don’t want it.
Keep your eye on the blogosphere and remember things like the Kryptonite debacle or other blogging mishaps such as Wal-Mart and its RV trip across the US. If HFSS manufacturers get the blogosphere on their wrong side then they really will have a problem.
Speaking about the new rules for TV advertising, which OfCOM published today she said: “We now look to the Committee of Advertising Practice to put in place similar rules for other media such as cinema, magazines and the internet.
Without wanting to come over all Michael Winner - ‘calm down dear’ - this ain’t going to happen.
OfCOM’s charter specifically makes no mention of the internet or online or any other reference to interactive media. This is because the government is quite happy to let the internet community regulate itself rather than get involved in a legal minefield of which it would not be able to extricate itself – think EU and global regulations, enforcement, cross border disputes etc and you get the picture.
The internet cannot be regulated, that is one of its main pillars.
All Flint’s statement did was get her name in the paper and made it look like she was being ‘tough on fatties, tough on the causes of fatties’ without really doing anything more than blowing hot air.
Statements by people like Flint make great headlines for the media, but won’t make one bit of difference to the strategies of HFSS brand owners who will be looking to continue or ramp up their online activities.
Pepsi don't market to kids according to their PR - so their website featuring Eva Longoria ads obviously won't appeal to boys under 16 then, or girls for that matter who obviously don't idolise celebrities like Longoria.
Nesquik is of course drunk exclusively by mid-thirties males in upper class restaurants and professional working women, not by kids when they come home from school, which would make more sense for their marketing strategy as the Rabbit character on the front page of their website says 'Come on kids, lets go play in the tree house' before leading them off to play online games based on drink flavours.
OK I am being a bit pedantic, they are not marketing their products, they are websites that carry product info, see the difference?
What will be interesting to see is if there is a groundswell of opinion from online users themselves. The only way that marketing of HFSS foods to kids will not happen online is if enough people don’t want it.
Keep your eye on the blogosphere and remember things like the Kryptonite debacle or other blogging mishaps such as Wal-Mart and its RV trip across the US. If HFSS manufacturers get the blogosphere on their wrong side then they really will have a problem.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Safety First
An interesting and smart move by the national newspapers has seen them agree to allow the Press Complaints Commission to regulate audio-visual content on their web sites.
It is allegedly the first time that national newspapers have agreed to extend the remit of regulation and says a lot about how much the industry has grown up over the last few years.
It is also a pre-emptive strike against any kind of harsher regulation that may be imposed upon the industry from a regulator such as Ofcom.
The PCC is effectively a piece of self-regulation as it follows a code drawn up by the editors of the newspapers themselves. It is used by the national press to beat off any attempts to impose tougher regulation on them and threaten the free press in the UK.
In a world where UGC and online video is causing so many issues over offence and rights issues this can be seen as a first step for national newspapers to protect themselves in a changing media environment.
It is allegedly the first time that national newspapers have agreed to extend the remit of regulation and says a lot about how much the industry has grown up over the last few years.
It is also a pre-emptive strike against any kind of harsher regulation that may be imposed upon the industry from a regulator such as Ofcom.
The PCC is effectively a piece of self-regulation as it follows a code drawn up by the editors of the newspapers themselves. It is used by the national press to beat off any attempts to impose tougher regulation on them and threaten the free press in the UK.
In a world where UGC and online video is causing so many issues over offence and rights issues this can be seen as a first step for national newspapers to protect themselves in a changing media environment.
Friday, January 12, 2007
There May Be Trouble Ahead...
EMI’s profit warning and promise of job cuts today followed hot on the heels of disappointing results from HMV that showed that despite picking up better Christmas sales the retailer and the music industry as a whole is still facing a tough time.
Digital has to be at the heart of these troubles with the music sector just one industry that is feeling the shockwaves of social and behavioural change that has been brought about by the digital revolution.
File sharing and illegal downloading is rife and the music industry has been too slow to react. With broadband speeds increasing it will only be a matter of time before the TV and film companies begin to feel the pinch as well.
Movie companies are slightly insulated from the pressures, as going to the cinema is a unique experience, but TV companies, who are already facing falling advertising revenues due to a fragmented audience, are at great risk.
Executives of major broadcasters around the world should take note of what has happened in the music world so they are not forced into major restructuring under the same circumstances as EMI and most likely HMV at some point in the future.
Digital has to be at the heart of these troubles with the music sector just one industry that is feeling the shockwaves of social and behavioural change that has been brought about by the digital revolution.
File sharing and illegal downloading is rife and the music industry has been too slow to react. With broadband speeds increasing it will only be a matter of time before the TV and film companies begin to feel the pinch as well.
Movie companies are slightly insulated from the pressures, as going to the cinema is a unique experience, but TV companies, who are already facing falling advertising revenues due to a fragmented audience, are at great risk.
Executives of major broadcasters around the world should take note of what has happened in the music world so they are not forced into major restructuring under the same circumstances as EMI and most likely HMV at some point in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)