Joe Wikert's Publishing 2020 Blog

The Game, by Ken Dryden

As a hockey fan growing up in the late '60's and early '70's, Ken Dryden was one of my heroes.  The Canadiens seemed to always win the Stanley Cup in those years and Dryden was the goalie to watch in the '70's.  The Game chronicles the latter stage of his career and provides a great deal of insight into the NHL, the Canadiens and, of course, Dryden himself.

My favorite part of this book is when he takes the time to drill down deeper into the quirky personalities of certain teammates.  When you think of the Canadiens of the '70's, players like Guy Lafleur, Larry Robinson, Bob Gainey, Guy Lapointe, Steve Shutt, and of course, coach Scotty Bowman come to mind.  Dryden devotes much of The Game to coverage of teammates, coaches and even trainers, all written in the cerebral style he was known for throughout his career.

Any true hockey fan will want to read this book, regardless of how much or little you know about Dryden and Canadiens history.  Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the NHL today is where it stands after the 2004-05 lockout.  Although Dryden didn't touch on this in The Game, he offered these prescient thoughts towards the end of the book (and his NHL career):

Expansion and the WHA behind it, it will be a time to turn inward, to put its (the NHL's) unwieldy house in order.  Like an aging adolescent having grown too fast, it will get reacquainted with its parts, get them in hand, and do something with them.  It will be a time for realism, and stability, for chastened hopes and dreams deferred--except one.  Off ice, the whispered word will be "cable."  But it will represent a more modest dream this time, and more realizable, if the promised bonanza is only for some.  It is time for a deep breath, a pause, a time to return the game to the ice.  For that is the real tragedy of the 1970s, and the real opportunity for the 1980s.  It is on the ice that its next great challenge lies.

Gee, he could have written much of that in the last 3 years and it would have been just as applicable.  The league is on the rebound but the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals, the ultimate hockey championship, are relegated to the Versus network.  Ugh.  I even had to bite the bullet and sign up for Versus network service yesterday so that I could watch games 1 and 2, featuring my beloved Pittsburgh Penguins against the evil Detroit Red Wings.

How sad is that?  The Stanley Cup Finals start out on some third-tier cable network.  Maybe it's time to toss Gary Bettman out as NHL commissioner and replace him with someone like Ken Dryden...

TV Rants

The writer's strike is paying dividends for me.  I used to DRV every Tonight Show and Daily Show episode and then just watch the first 15 minutes of each.  Sometimes I'd fall behind though and have to invest a couple of hours in non-stop skimming to catch up.  That hasn't been a problem the past few weeks.  The writer's strike means no new episodes of either show.  NBC is showing really old re-runs (from 1992) and while Leno looked funny at first the novelty quickly wears off.

The result?: I stopped DRV-ing both shows.  I think I've finally weaned myself off the Tonight Show.  I doubt I'll bother recording it after the writer's strike is over.  I can't seem to completely break away from Jon Stewart and the Daily Show though.  I kind of miss that one.  I might drop it as well though if the strike lasts another month or so.

My bigger gripe has to do with two relatively new networks: The Big Ten Network and The NFL Network, neither of which deserve a link.  Both of these greedy networks are taking programming that was once free and making it part of a premium package on cable/satellite.  The Colts game on Thanksgiving night was on the NFL network but broadcast locally so I had a chance to see this channel in action.  Unimpressive.  They somehow managed to find the two least insightful commentators and put them together for one game (Cris Collinsworth and Bryant Gumbel).  A a bonus they periodically showed a "special new feature for the NFL Network."  It was nothing more than pictures from the game.  Is that really groundbreaking?

I haven't seen the Big Ten Network and it wouldn't break my heart if I never do.  Gone are the local broadcasts of Purdue and IU football and basketball games.  Oh well.

The bright side in all of this is that I suddenly have a lot more time to read some of the great books that have piled up at home!

Are You Watching This?

Does anyone remember that TV/online hybrid opportunity I was lobbying for last fall?  I figured ESPN would launch something like this, but like just about any other innovation, it's up to the little guy to figure it out.  The little guy I'm referring to in this case is a website I just discovered called areyouwatchingthis.com.

It's not the complete solution I was looking for, but it's an interesting start.  The free service alerts you to games of interest and lets you join a discussion forum for the game you're watching.  I'd still like to see them add some of the functionality I had in my original post, including more customization with access to live stats and video, especially for replays.  Yes, I know this opens up an enormous can of worms of rights issues, but what a great service it could be!  Also, private forums where it's just you and your friends arguing about the big game...that's a key feature they need to add, and should be able to charge for!

More On Joost

I continue checking in on the Joost beta from time to time.  As I noted earlier, bandwidth and reliability issues still exist, but that's exactly what you'd expect from a beta like this.  After watching a few different sample videos on Joost, however, I'm discovering one critical fact about my online video viewing habits: I lose interest after about 3 minutes.

There are quite a few lengthier videos available on Joost.  Some of the more interesting ones are the National Geographic shows that provide an insider's view of The White House and Air Force One.  They're well-produced and very fascinating...but too long for online viewing.  What is it about my attention span that causes it to shrink when I'm in front of a computer?  I'd probably have no problem watching those same videos in their entirety on my TV, but I can't watch them all the way through on my computer.

I keep thinking, "I wonder if there's a new message in my Gmail in-box...maybe I should check."  Or, "what's the score of the Yankees game...I should click on that mlb.com tab in Firefox to see."  I guess Jerry Seinfeld was right when he said that "guys don't care what's on TV...they just want to know what else is on TV."  That problems seems to be even worse when applied to online video.

I'm guessing I'm not in the minority on this and despite the convenience of online viewing, the more popular videos will be the shorter ones.

Joost Beta

I signed up for Joost's beta program earlier this year and was excited to get an activation notice from them late last week.  The Joost promise is "The magic of television, with the power of the internet built right in. Joost puts you in control, and TV will never be the same again."  I was intrigued...

After playing around with Joost a bit this weekend I have to say the results were mixed.  It's important to keep in mind that this is just a beta stage, so I'm hoping they'll smoothing things out before a formal launch.  To truly be successful and pull in the mass market, however, Joost will need to work on overall reliability.  There were far too many times when the screen would get grainy or simply freeze.  Again, I know it's just a beta, so my fingers remained crossed.

On the plus side, when the system worked it worked quite well.  There were some points where I felt like I was watching a DVD on my screen; pretty impressive and a much better experience than you'd typically get with something like YouTube, for example.  Also, all my testing was done via wireless, which made the high points even more impressive.

I plan to check back in on Joost from time to time to revisit the service level issues as well as the depth and breadth of content, which also was about where you'd expect it during a beta.

How Not to Knock Off YouTube

According to this report, all of the major networks not named ABC are in talks to create a YouTube knockoff.  Good luck.  Sure, thanks to YouTube's renewed efforts to remove copyright infringing content from its site, many of the more popular videos are quickly disappearing.  And yes, that makes YouTube a less desirable destination...unless you happen to be looking for more Mentos/Coke videos.  But when was the last time two or more networks came together and created something interesting and sustainable?  Has it ever happened?

Will the networks ever really even be able to agree on design, terms, etc.?  We're talking about some pretty large egos around the table, so I'm skeptical.  Then there's the fact that ABC isn't even interested.  The article notes that ABC "wants to rely on the strength of its own brands."  In other words, ABC's ego was so large it couldn't even fit in the room with the others.

I truly believe these networks have the content most viewers want to see.  It's just that I can't imagine them collaborating to create a better (and more attractive) solution than YouTube.  Just look at the NFL Network for a great example of how even a small player can suffer from a huge ego.  Your cable company doesn't offer the NFL Network?  I rest my case.

The best solution here is to work with YouTube and figure out how to monetize their existing platform while also dramatically reducing the number of illegally-posted videos.

YouTube: Friend or Foe?

"YouTube Won't Cannibalize TV?"  Ha!  Funny one.  Actually, that's the title of a ZDNet blog post by Donna Bogatin.  She sounds as skeptical as I am about this.  Btw, be sure to read this YouTube article in the latest issue of Wired -- the Ball State sportscaster video cited in the article is highly entertaining.

The latest YouTube debate seems to be whether they can really introduce a more lucrative advertising model to their platform without alienating all their current users.  Although you see banner ads on the site, pre- and post-roll ads are thought to be the only way to truly monetize the traffic.  I disagree.  Why not simply reserve the top 20% or so of the video area itself for some sort of embedded banner advertising?  It would either overlay the video itself or push the screen down a bit.  YouTube could create an algorithm that splices in relevant ads on the fly, just like they do with AdSense today.  Besides the obvious benefit of not forcing people to wait for the "main attraction", it also presents the advertising message along with the content itself, likely leading to a much stronger impression.  It's just like all those crawlers you see on CNN and other cable networks -- we're so used to them that we don't really mind them anymore, but they represent an excellent piece of real estate for online video advertising.

Bogatin's blog post goes on to talk about how YouTube really lends itself to "short bursts of content" rather than full-length shows.  That's true today but I seriously doubt it will be a long-term limitation.  Why couldn't YouTube host 20-, 30-minute (or longer) videos?  My attention span while I'm online does seem to be shorter than when I'm watching TV, but not by much.  We'll definitely see longer videos on YouTube in the future, especially once they get that advertising model in place.

I also expect to see an explosion of custom channels on YouTube.  You'll have channels for every niche imaginable.  That will also lead to more video links being embedded in blogs and other websites.  For example, if there was a good publishing/media channel on YouTube I'd be interested in including a widget-like link to it from my blog.  Again, the advertising model comes into play.  Think of Google's AdSense, but for video.  If you insert a custom channel on your blog, everyone who clicks and watches a video contributes to your income.  I tend to think the click-through rate for that sort of object on the screen would be much, much higher than the click-through rate for the typical AdSense block.

If you're in the TV/video business and you're not working on a strategy to either work with or compete with the Google/YouTube juggernaut, you're kidding yourself.  They're coming and they have all the weapons to be very successful, at your expense.

Sports Illustrated Trash Talks ESPN

If you’re a sports fan you’ll get a kick out of reading Jon Friedman’s article about SI/ESPN on MarketWatch. My favorite quote comes from Terry McDonnell, editor of the Sports Illustrated Group, who says this about ESPN:

They’re a TV network. We’re playing in a completely different league.

Huh? If ever there was a case of someone with their head in the sand, this is it!

Let’s compare the scores on this, OK?:

TV presence: ESPN wins, hands down.

More recognizable personalities: Again, ESPN with the advantage (Reilly and Rushin are great, but how can any team hold a candle to Bill Simmons, Stuart Scott, Chris Berman, etc.?)

Website traffic: According to the article, ESPN holds an almost three to one advantage; makes you wonder what stats McDonnell is looking at, doesn’t it?

Risk-taker mentality: ESPN, again in a landslide. Sure, it leads to mistakes. (Remember the ESPN cell phone?) But it once again shows ESPN is always looking for new and innovative ways to extend their brand.

If you don’t buy into any of those points, how about this one: How many times have you asked one of your friends if they’ve seen the new, hilarious ESPN ad? (My favorite is the latest one with Dale Earnhardt trying to install a screen saver. Btw, why doesn’t ESPN put all these on their website so you can always catch the latest one?!) I’ll bet you’ve never had the same reaction to a Sports Illustrated advertisement…

Digital Cable 2.0…Revisited

A couple of months ago my cable provider (Insight Communications) sent us an announcement regarding their planned upgrade to “digital cable 2.0.” I was thoroughly unimpressed. That was then…this is now.

One of their new features that sounded lame at the time is actually pretty cool. I initially thought the enhancements to the free On Demand TV service were going to feature nothing but shows nobody watched the first time around. I was wrong. After flipping through the menus, I can see plenty of shows and videos I’d like to watch. Here are a couple of other reasons why I’m warming up to it:

Shows from channels that aren’t part of my subscription package. Videos from the NFL Network and a slew of other premium channels are available for on demand viewing. I don’t want to pay for full access to those channels but I’ll gladly watch some of the shows they’re offering for free.

Condensed versions of sporting events. Missed the Colts game on Sunday? No problem. Use this service to watch a version of it that’s compressed into about 15 minutes. The same service is offered for a limited number of hockey games as well.

On a related note, here’s an article in today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required) talking about how homegrown videos are slowly finding their way from the web to on demand TV services like this. Does it open the door for YouTube to cut deals with all the cable providers? Or do the cable companies try to create their own user-generated content sites? Probably a bit of both.

The YouTube (or any website) interface is a better fit for such breadth and depth of content though – the Insight menu system is clunky and the lag time from when you press “Play” till when the video actually starts is also a drawback vs. a web-based approach. Then there’s the advantage a website has for searchability vs. trying to find a particular video via your TV’s remote control.

Each platform has its strengths and weaknesses, but it will be interesting to see how quickly the YouTube phenomenon migrates to TV.

NHL + Google Video = Smart Move

I’m a huge hockey fan. I was greatly disappointed by the lockout a couple of years ago and even more irritated by the NHL’s subsequent move from ESPN to what was the Outdoor something-or-other network and now goes by some other goofy name.  I’m thrilled to see this recent announcement that the NHL is partnering with Google Video to offer access to (not-quite) live games as well as classic games from their archives.

This is precisely the right next step for a struggling league like the NHL. They need to embrace as many new fans as possible. The announcement says the content will be available for free for the first two weeks of November. Bummer. I predict very few people will want to pay anything for this.  What they really ought to do is offer it free for the entire season, then, based on analysis of traffic levels, repeat visitors and maybe an online survey or two, decide what to do with it next year. By that point I would imagine Google/YouTube will have figured out how best to monetize all those free videos they’re serving up.

Btw, why Google Video and not YouTube?!