<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Tom Markiewicz &#187; Media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/category/media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com</link>
	<description>Thoughts on technology, marketing and entrepreneurship.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:02:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Hulu first impressions</title>
		<link>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/hulu-first-impressions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/hulu-first-impressions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:56:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Markiewicz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Apps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hulu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online tv shows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online videos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[videos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web tv]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web tv show viewing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/hulu-first-impressions/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I recently received a beta invite from NBC Universal and News Corp&#8217;s new video venture, Hulu. After watching some videos, I&#8217;m impressed with what they&#8217;ve done for a beta release. Hulu offers both full-length shows and clips from current programming as well as classics from its back catalog. In their words, Hulu offers current primetime [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently received a beta invite from NBC Universal and News Corp&#8217;s new video venture, <a href="http://www.hulu.com/">Hulu</a>. After watching some videos, I&#8217;m impressed with what they&#8217;ve done for a <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/28/hulu-launches-private-beta-first-impressions-very-good/">beta release</a>. Hulu offers both full-length shows and clips from current programming as well as classics from its back catalog. In their words,</p>
<blockquote><p>Hulu offers current primetime shows like The Office, Prison Break, Bionic Woman, House and Bones, and episodes from TV classics like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Miami Vice, Arrested Development and more. We&#8217;ve also partnered with premier content owners like E! Entertainment, FUEL TV, SciFi Network and USA Networks to add to our growing collection of premium programming.</p></blockquote>
<p><img src="http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/images/hulu__Watch_your_favorites._Anytime._Anywhere.-20071208-161027.jpg" class="left" /></p>
<p><strong>Viewing</strong><br />
I watched a variety of shows in Firefox on both Mac and Ubuntu Linux with no issues whatsoever. Your mileage will vary based on bandwidth and video support, but everything was smooth in my testing using Comcast broadband. All the standard viewing options are there with the inclusion of a &#8220;lower lights&#8221; feature. Turning this option on dims the background around the video clip in the browser for easier viewing.</p>
<p><strong>Sharing</strong><br />
Hulu is somewhat of an anomaly for a large media company like NBC. With all the notoriety they&#8217;ve received for blocking videos on YouTube and copyright infringements, Hulu strongly supports video sharing. The embed feature enables users to share the video on their own website. Hulu even has the option to let users create heir own video clips of shows they&#8217;re watching.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/images/hulu__Early_Release__My_Name_is_Earl-20071208-161246.jpg" class="left" /></p>
<p><strong>High Definition</strong><br />
Hulu also recently announced the launch of high definition video clips in their <a href="http://blog.hulu.com/2007/12/4/the-future-of-online-video">HD Gallery</a>. The selection is currently limited, but I expect the content to grow as rapidly as the rest of the site.</p>
<p><strong>Risks</strong><br />
After <a href="http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/09/04/who-needs-itunes-nbc-will-sell-shows-on-amazon-unbox/">pulling its content</a> from the iTunes store and <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/09/nbc-and-missing.html">moving to Amazon</a>, NBC appears to have a lot more riding on Hulu&#8217;s success. There still seems to be a conflict though &#8211; why would I purchase a video on Amazon Unbox when I can stream it for free via Hulu or via NBC.com itself? The main advantage to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/b?%5Fencoding=UTF8&amp;node=16261631&amp;tag=evolvepoint-20&amp;linkCode=ur2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325">Amazon Unbox</a> is obtaining a downloaded file that is owned and portable versus streamed content. With <a href="http://newteevee.com/2007/12/06/more-people-watching-full-tv-shows-online/">more people watching full TV shows online</a>, I&#8217;m not so sure the downloadable model is the winning choice.</p>
<p>I occasionally buy movies and will watch them again over time. With television, though, I  rarely watch repeats. I don&#8217;t save shows that I&#8217;ve taped and subsequently watched on my DVR. Streaming TV shows makes a lot of sense, especially after I&#8217;ve already turned to ABC.com and NBC.com to watch some episodes of shows I&#8217;ve missed over the past year.</p>
<p>While this isn&#8217;t frequent behavior, with advanced services that make it easier to watch TV over the web, I can see myself relying more of these types of services.</p>
<p>Hulu appears to be a success. As the begin to add more users to the beta, we&#8217;ll start to see how they handle scaling issues. The bigger questions is whether they&#8217;re too late to the game. Without available options, many have been relying on torrents, YouTube, and other &#8220;unapproved&#8221; sources of these videos. Will these users switch their viewing habits?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/hulu-first-impressions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wall Street Journal adds Technorati to articles</title>
		<link>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/wall-street-journal-adds-technorati-to-articles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/wall-street-journal-adds-technorati-to-articles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:47:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Markiewicz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs and Blogging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/wall-street-journal-adds-technorati-to-articles/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I noticed an interesting feature this morning as I was reading the Wall Street Journal online. At the bottom of every article, a Blog Watch section is displayed powered by Technorati. Clicking on &#8220;Most Blogged About Wall Street Journal Articles&#8221; take you to a page at Technorati where they list the top ten blogged articles [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I noticed an interesting feature this morning as I was reading the <a href="http://www.wsj.com">Wall Street Journal</a> online. At the bottom of every article, a Blog Watch section is displayed powered by <a href="http://technorati.com/">Technorati</a>. Clicking on <a href="http://technorati.com/pop/wallstreetjournal/">&#8220;Most Blogged About Wall Street Journal Articles</a>&#8221; take you to a page at Technorati where they list the top ten blogged articles from the WSJ. Kudos to Technorati for continuing to make inroads with the mainstream media. I know they have a similar feature on articles from the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com">WashingtonPost.com</a> called &#8220;Who&#8217;s Blogging&#8221;, but it doesn&#8217;t link directly back to a specific page in Technorati that aggregates the those articles. They also have an <a href="http://technorati.com/press/20060523.html">arrangement</a> with the Associated Press linking the &#8220;Top Five Most Blogged About&#8221; AP articles.</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t see any press releases on the Technorati site with regards to the WSJ feature nor the Washington Post one earlier. I wonder if these are trials to see the response and if so, what the metrics for success are for each. How many readers are actually clicking through to find more related stories written by bloggers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/wall-street-journal-adds-technorati-to-articles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Streaming video via MLB.com</title>
		<link>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/streaming-video-via-mlbcom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/streaming-video-via-mlbcom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Markiewicz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sports]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/?p=326</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today regarding MLB.com and how they outsource their streaming video technology and expertise. I watched some of the NCAA tournament games in the first round via CBS Sportsline which was powered by MLB.com. This is a great example of turning your leadership in a market niche into [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114342609372208749.html?mod=hps_us_pageone">Wall Street Journal</a> has an interesting article today regarding MLB.com and how they outsource their streaming video technology and expertise. I watched some of the NCAA tournament games in the first round via <a href="http://cbs.sportsline.com/">CBS Sportsline</a> which was <a href="http://www.ncaasports.com/mmod">powered by MLB.com</a>. This is a great example of turning your leadership in a market niche into a nice burgeoning revenue stream.<br />
<span id="more-326"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>More than five million people have flocked to CBS Corp.&#8217;s Web site to watch March Madness college-basketball games free online. For that, they and a growing number of sports fans world-wide owe some thanks to the entrepreneurial efforts of another sports leader, Major League Baseball.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s one of the more unlikely stories of Internet-inspired business evolution: In just a few years, Major League Baseball&#8217;s Web site (www.mlb.com) has become a major force in providing live streaming video &#8212; the equivalent of live television on a computer &#8212; for large audiences. MLB.com&#8217;s success isn&#8217;t just helping to transform the business of sports; it&#8217;s also transforming consumers&#8217; expectations of what the Web can deliver.</p>
<p>MLB.com first mastered the technology to show baseball games live on its own site, itself a wildly popular business. Now, it sells its expertise, having already signed up 25 clients, including CBS, Major League Soccer and the World Championship Sports Network. Entertainers Jimmy Buffett and LL Cool J, too, have hired MLB.com to promote albums and concerts by streaming video of interviews and live performances.</p></blockquote>
<p>Additionally, MLB.com says 15% of its total revenue last year came from these types of deals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/streaming-video-via-mlbcom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NBC Chief Mulls Blogs for Top News Anchors</title>
		<link>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/nbc-chief-mulls-blogs-for-top-news-anchors/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/nbc-chief-mulls-blogs-for-top-news-anchors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Markiewicz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs and Blogging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/nbc-chief-mulls-blogs-for-top-news-anchors/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NBC&#8217;s President, Jeff Zucker, wants his top news anchors (Brian Williams, Katie Couric) to have blogs. Zucker said he was considering a blog for Williams and could envision a similar blog for Katie Couric, the co-host of NBC&#8217;s &#8220;Today&#8221; show. He noted that the morning program hadn&#8217;t changed its format much in more than a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NBC&#8217;s President, Jeff Zucker, wants his <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2275-2005Apr19.html" target="_blank">top news anchors (Brian Williams, Katie Couric) to have blogs.</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Zucker said he was considering a blog for Williams and could envision a similar blog for Katie Couric, the co-host of NBC&#8217;s &#8220;Today&#8221; show. He noted that the morning program hadn&#8217;t changed its format much in more than a decade.</p></blockquote>
<p>Does anyone really care? Will the fact that these two have a blog make me want to seek out NBC for news and information? I think not. This is a perfect case of big media jumping on the bandwagon. And if it&#8217;s not painfully obvious, way late I might add.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/nbc-chief-mulls-blogs-for-top-news-anchors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Gawker site Sploid launched</title>
		<link>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/new-gawker-site-sploid-launched/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/new-gawker-site-sploid-launched/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Markiewicz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs and Blogging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/new-gawker-site-sploid-launched/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gawker launched a new site in their network yesterday called Sploid. From the site&#8217;s description, Sploid is a news site with a tabloid mentality &#8212; top stories up top, played big, as fast as they break. If there&#8217;s a political line, it&#8217;s anarcho-capitalist: sniffing out hypocrisy and absurdity, whether from salon left or religious right. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.gawker.com" target="_blank">Gawker</a> launched a new site in their network yesterday called <a href="http://www.sploid.com" target="_blank">Sploid</a>. From the site&#8217;s description,</p>
<blockquote><p>Sploid is a news site with a tabloid mentality &#8212; top stories up top, played big, as fast as they break. If there&#8217;s a political line, it&#8217;s anarcho-capitalist: sniffing out hypocrisy and absurdity, whether from salon left or religious right.</p></blockquote>
<p><span id="more-88"></span><br />
It looks like a tabloid and reads like a tabloid, so its not really my cup of tea. But it is interesting to watch how blogs continue to evolve and the different niches they&#8217;re filling.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure they have the site optimized for the Firefox browser though.  When I view the site a large square Vonage ad is being covered up by the Sploid logo. I doubt that was their intent. Every refresh is also getting a different size banner ad, very strange.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/new-gawker-site-sploid-launched/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Digital music players market penetration report</title>
		<link>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/digital-music-players-market-penetration-report/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/digital-music-players-market-penetration-report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Markiewicz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=51</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/p/1047/pipcomments.asp" target="_blank" rel="tag">survey</a> from <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/index.asp" target="_blank" rel="tag">Pew Internet</a> shows that 11% of U.S. adults (or approx 22 million people) have <a href="http://www.apple.com/ipod/" target="_blank" rel="tag">iPods</a> or MP3 players. The study didn’t take into account teens or younger as the survey was only taken from those 18 years or older. Some of the other interesting stats from the survey:
<blockquote>- iPods/MP3 players are gadgets for the upscale. Fully a quarter (24%) of those who live in households earning more than $75,000 have them; 10% of those living in households earning $30,000 to $75,000 have them and 6% of those living in households earning less than $30,000 have them.<br /><br />- Those who use the internet are four times as likely as non-internet users to have iPods/MP3 players, probably because internet users can get much of the music they enjoy online. Fully 15% of internet users have iPods/MP3 players, compared to 4% of non-internet users. And the more advanced the internet user, the more likely it is that he has an iPod/MP3 player. Those with six years or more of internet experience are twice as likely to have them as those who are relative internet newbies (those with less than three years experience).<br /><br />- Broadband access is strongly associated with ownership of iPods/MP3 players. Some 23% of those with broadband at home have iPods/MP3 players, compared to 9% of those who have dialup connections. And those who have broadband access at home and at work, are the most likely of all to have iPods/MP3 players. Almost a third (31%) of those with broadband all around them have iPods/MP3 players.</blockquote>
Additional details can be found <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/pipcomments.asp" target="_blank">here</a>. The study illustrates an impressive market penetration for these devices, but I’d be interested in seeing some trends. Is the market growing? Has it stabilized? I’m especially interested in seeing how digital music player usage correlates with the gains in the satellite radio market. Are these complementary markets or are the mutually exclusive? I own both, but as we’re starting to see convergence, it will be interested to see how it all plays out.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A recent <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/p/1047/pipcomments.asp" target="_blank" rel="tag">survey</a> from <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/index.asp" target="_blank" rel="tag">Pew Internet</a> shows that 11% of U.S. adults (or approx 22 million people) have <a href="http://www.apple.com/ipod/" target="_blank" rel="tag">iPods</a> or MP3 players. The study didn’t take into account teens or younger as the survey was only taken from those 18 years or older. Some of the other interesting stats from the survey:</p>
<blockquote><p>- iPods/MP3 players are gadgets for the upscale. Fully a quarter (24%) of those who live in households earning more than $75,000 have them; 10% of those living in households earning $30,000 to $75,000 have them and 6% of those living in households earning less than $30,000 have them.</p>
<p>- Those who use the internet are four times as likely as non-internet users to have iPods/MP3 players, probably because internet users can get much of the music they enjoy online. Fully 15% of internet users have iPods/MP3 players, compared to 4% of non-internet users. And the more advanced the internet user, the more likely it is that he has an iPod/MP3 player. Those with six years or more of internet experience are twice as likely to have them as those who are relative internet newbies (those with less than three years experience).</p>
<p>- Broadband access is strongly associated with ownership of iPods/MP3 players. Some 23% of those with broadband at home have iPods/MP3 players, compared to 9% of those who have dialup connections. And those who have broadband access at home and at work, are the most likely of all to have iPods/MP3 players. Almost a third (31%) of those with broadband all around them have iPods/MP3 players.</p></blockquote>
<p>Additional details can be found <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/pipcomments.asp" target="_blank">here</a>. The study illustrates an impressive market penetration for these devices, but I’d be interested in seeing some trends. Is the market growing? Has it stabilized? I’m especially interested in seeing how digital music player usage correlates with the gains in the satellite radio market. Are these complementary markets or are the mutually exclusive? I own both, but as we’re starting to see convergence, it will be interested to see how it all plays out.<br />
<!--break--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/digital-music-players-market-penetration-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GoDaddy.com Super Bowl commercial pulled</title>
		<link>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/godaddycom-super-bowl-commercial-pulled/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/godaddycom-super-bowl-commercial-pulled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Markiewicz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=48</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>On the way home, I listen to <a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/cnbc/tv/default.asp" target="_blank" rel="tag">CNBC</a> on <a href="http://www.xmradio.com" target="_blank" rel="tag">XM Radio</a>.  Dylan Ratigan, host of the Bullseye segment, had an interview with the CEO of <a href="http://www.godaddy.com" target="_blank" rel="tag">GoDaddy.com</a>, <a href="http://bobparsons.com/WhathappenedtoGoDaddyssecondSuperBowladspot.html" target="_blank" rel="tag">Bob Parsons</a>. Apparently, the NFL contacted Fox after <a href="http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/superbowl05/landing.asp?isc=bpshdr001" target="_blank">their commercial</a> aired in the first quarter and requested Fox pull the commercial. Fox complied and the spot was <a href="http://epicenter.gregscher.com/archives/2005/02/go_away_daddy.html" target="_blank">not aired a second time</a>.</p>
<br />
<p>When asked on CNBC why he thought the <a href="http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005007.php" target="_blank">ad was pulled</a>, Parsons stated that it was the NFL censoring GoDaddy's parody of censorship stemming from last year's Super Bowl half time show controversy. Watching the commercial, I have to agree with Parsons as this is the only rationale that makes any sense. Fox reviewed the commercial two weeks in advance. In addition, the ad itself was rather tame when compared with standard beer commercials and the coverage of NFL cheerleaders on the sidelines. Honestly, I think the NFL is going overboard here and the league appears hypocritical.</p>
<br />
<p>Additional info:
<a href="http://bobparsons.com/index.php?/archives/27-Was-the-Banned-Go-Daddy-Super-Bowl-ad-indecent.html" target="_blank">Was the banned Go Daddy Super Bowl ad indecent?</a>
</p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the way home, I listen to <a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/cnbc/tv/default.asp" target="_blank" rel="tag">CNBC</a> on <a href="http://www.xmradio.com" target="_blank" rel="tag">XM Radio</a>.  Dylan Ratigan, host of the Bullseye segment, had an interview with the CEO of <a href="http://www.godaddy.com" target="_blank" rel="tag">GoDaddy.com</a>, <a href="http://bobparsons.com/WhathappenedtoGoDaddyssecondSuperBowladspot.html" target="_blank" rel="tag">Bob Parsons</a>. Apparently, the NFL contacted Fox after <a href="http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/superbowl05/landing.asp?isc=bpshdr001" target="_blank">their commercial</a> aired in the first quarter and requested Fox pull the commercial. Fox complied and the spot was <a href="http://epicenter.gregscher.com/archives/2005/02/go_away_daddy.html" target="_blank">not aired a second time</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>When asked on CNBC why he thought the <a href="http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005007.php" target="_blank">ad was pulled</a>, Parsons stated that it was the NFL censoring GoDaddy&#8217;s parody of censorship stemming from last year&#8217;s Super Bowl half time show controversy. Watching the commercial, I have to agree with Parsons as this is the only rationale that makes any sense. Fox reviewed the commercial two weeks in advance. In addition, the ad itself was rather tame when compared with standard beer commercials and the coverage of NFL cheerleaders on the sidelines. Honestly, I think the NFL is going overboard here and the league appears hypocritical.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Additional info:<br />
<a href="http://bobparsons.com/index.php?/archives/27-Was-the-Banned-Go-Daddy-Super-Bowl-ad-indecent.html" target="_blank">Was the banned Go Daddy Super Bowl ad indecent?</a><br />
<!--break--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/godaddycom-super-bowl-commercial-pulled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marketing satellite radio</title>
		<link>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/marketing-satellite-radio/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/marketing-satellite-radio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:13:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Markiewicz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=16</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This morning on <a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/cnbc/tv/default.asp" target="_blank" rel="tag">CNBC</a> I heard that <a href="http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/index.dsp" target="_blank" rel="tag">DirecTV</a> is considering entering the satellite radio business. Who knows what level of accuracy this report has, but I made me think about the current media coverage of the satellite radio industry. Most of the hype surrounds the recent signings of big-name talents and content providers to the two main players: <a href="http://www.xmradio.com/" target="_blank" rel="tag">XM Radio</a> and <a href="http://www.sirius.com" target="_blank" rel="tag">Sirius</a>. I’m talking about Howard Stern (Sirius), Major League Baseball (XM Radio), the National Football League (Sirius), Opie &#038; Anthony (XM Radio), NCAA March Madness (Sirius), Dr. Laura Schlessinger (XM Radio), G. Gordon Liddy (XM Radio), NASCAR (XM Radio), and the list goes on.  As a subscriber to XM radio, the feature that actually sold me on the service was the music programming itself(shocking, isn't it?). Granted, all the other features and programming allowed me to justify the monthly subscription fee, but what struck me was the tremendous music selection on XM. Now, this is not to say that Sirius doesn’t have great music, but the key is the human factor of actually creating the play lists and having excellent DJ's run the show. When I initially listened to XM, there were a handful of stations that made me say, "hmm, if I were to personally put together a radio station and play the songs that I wanted to hear, this would be it." Now isn’t that the point of radio? Maybe it’s the original and most pure point of radio from a listener's point of view? Why do we listen to any particular station? A radio station is selected that best suits one's listening interests and preferences. So it was with XM Radio for me. Everything else was fine - the technology cool and the programming extensive - but the selling feature was great music 24/7 that freed me from trying to find it myself. I’ve found I spend less time messing with my MP3 player and more time just enjoying music.

<p>With that point made, it strikes me that none of the coverage on these satellite radio services actually speaks to the music. This point specifically strikes me as significant when there is talk of DirecTV getting into the market.  I've had DirecTV for years (specifically for the NFL Sunday Ticket to watch my beloved <a href="http://www.steelers.com/" target="_blank" rel="tag">Pittsburgh Steelers</a>) and the service has always provided 30+ digital music channels. In the most generous terms, these channels were bad. I hope there wasn’t any active human intervention in the programming. So, if DirecTV plans on entering this business, I surely hope they have plans to upgrade their current music offerings. For this nascent industry's sake, I hope a little more emphasis is placed on the music.

</p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This morning on <a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/cnbc/tv/default.asp" target="_blank" rel="tag">CNBC</a> I heard that <a href="http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/index.dsp" target="_blank" rel="tag">DirecTV</a> is considering entering the satellite radio business. Who knows what level of accuracy this report has, but I made me think about the current media coverage of the satellite radio industry. Most of the hype surrounds the recent signings of big-name talents and content providers to the two main players: <a href="http://www.xmradio.com/" target="_blank" rel="tag">XM Radio</a> and <a href="http://www.sirius.com" target="_blank" rel="tag">Sirius</a>. I’m talking about Howard Stern (Sirius), Major League Baseball (XM Radio), the National Football League (Sirius), Opie &#038; Anthony (XM Radio), NCAA March Madness (Sirius), Dr. Laura Schlessinger (XM Radio), G. Gordon Liddy (XM Radio), NASCAR (XM Radio), and the list goes on.  As a subscriber to XM radio, the feature that actually sold me on the service was the music programming itself(shocking, isn&#8217;t it?). Granted, all the other features and programming allowed me to justify the monthly subscription fee, but what struck me was the tremendous music selection on XM. Now, this is not to say that Sirius doesn’t have great music, but the key is the human factor of actually creating the play lists and having excellent DJ&#8217;s run the show. When I initially listened to XM, there were a handful of stations that made me say, &#8220;hmm, if I were to personally put together a radio station and play the songs that I wanted to hear, this would be it.&#8221; Now isn’t that the point of radio? Maybe it’s the original and most pure point of radio from a listener&#8217;s point of view? Why do we listen to any particular station? A radio station is selected that best suits one&#8217;s listening interests and preferences. So it was with XM Radio for me. Everything else was fine &#8211; the technology cool and the programming extensive &#8211; but the selling feature was great music 24/7 that freed me from trying to find it myself. I’ve found I spend less time messing with my MP3 player and more time just enjoying music.</p>
<p>With that point made, it strikes me that none of the coverage on these satellite radio services actually speaks to the music. This point specifically strikes me as significant when there is talk of DirecTV getting into the market.  I&#8217;ve had DirecTV for years (specifically for the NFL Sunday Ticket to watch my beloved <a href="http://www.steelers.com/" target="_blank" rel="tag">Pittsburgh Steelers</a>) and the service has always provided 30+ digital music channels. In the most generous terms, these channels were bad. I hope there wasn’t any active human intervention in the programming. So, if DirecTV plans on entering this business, I surely hope they have plans to upgrade their current music offerings. For this nascent industry&#8217;s sake, I hope a little more emphasis is placed on the music.</p>
<p><!--break--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tmarkiewicz.com/marketing-satellite-radio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.611 seconds -->
