Accenture Releases Consumer Broadcast Survey

By Mansha Daswani

Published: April 20, 2009

NEW YORK: Surveying 14,000 consumers in 13 countries, Accenture has found that people are watching more content on a greater number of platforms than they were a year ago, and are more willing to pay for programming via subscription services.

The results of Accenture's second annual Global Broadcast Consumer Survey point to the increasing fragmentation of the traditional viewing experience. Accenture reveals that 40 percent of respondents watch six or more channels, up from 35 percent last year, and 39 percent watch eight or more programs a week, up from 33 percent last year. Plus, 74 percent indicated they would watch TV on a PC, versus just 61 percent last year, and 45 percent said they would watch on mobile devices, up from 32 percent last year.

Accenture also founded a notable difference in consumption between developed and maturing markets. For example, respondents in Mexico, Brazil and Malaysia were nearly three times as likely as those in the U.S., Germany and the U.K., to express interest in watching television content on mobile phones.

“Consumers are making choices based on what they’ve tried, liked and rejected and are now selecting content and its delivery platforms,” said David Wolf, a senior executive with Accenture’s Media & Entertainment practice. “If today’s content services don’t meet consumer expectations, it will be that much harder for providers to sell to them later, even when services improve. Providers face an urgent need to capture consumer loyalty now—and respond to changing consumption habits—or face playing catch-up against other content delivery choices. The modes of consumption that provide an alternative to the traditional TV experience are becoming part of everyday life rather than the occasional novelty. Consequently, providers in this evolving market must drive the consumer experience by offering the right type of content via the right device for a particular market.”

Another key finding from the Accenture survey is that consumers remain loyal to their favorite shows; some 73 percent of respondents said they watch some shows on more than one channel. Respondents also indicated that it is more challenging today to discover new shows. Consumers are still using traditional means to find content they would like to watch, including commercials (40 percent), channel surfing (33 percent), recommendations from friends and family (30 percent) and TV listings (28 percent).

In spite of the recession, consumers are willing to pay for content; 49 percent of respondents indicated a willingness to pay for digital service programming, up from 37 percent in last year’s survey. However, 40 percent said they would prefer to watch ads in exchange for free content.

With paid-for programming, the subscription model was the preferred one, over pay to play. Paying a fee for unlimited programming was selected by 25 percent of respondents, while pay-per-episode only scored 12 percent of respondents or pay-per-season 9 percent. Younger consumers are more willing to pay for content than older consumers are (60 percent for respondents younger than 25 versus 38 percent for those 55 and older). Accenture says that subscription service content appears the most resilient to the economy. “This underscores the recession-resistant nature of subscription models even in today’s tough economic climate,” Wolf said.

However, respondents did indicate that less would be spent on DVD sales, on-demand video and mobile phone content.

http://worldscreen.com/articles/display/20636

Internet Set-top-box Scorecard

Set-top boxes have been poppin’ up all over the place this past year. You can’t swing a dead LOLcat without hitting some newfangled device being built or upgraded to bridge oldteevee with the newteevee. To help you keep up with the growing number of options, we put together this Set-Top Scorecard. It rounds up the major STBs we’ve covered over the past few months, and gives you a quick overview on each product.

Click here for more.

Kid Rock Boycotts iTunes, Champions P2P

The digital music revolution has been compromised, according to Kid Rock, because digital music stores and record labels still manage to hoard the lion's share of music revenue.

He advises fans to download his music for free from P2P services, although he himself doesn't have to. "I don't steal things," he told the BBC. "I'm rich." As for everyone else, he says, "Download it illegally, I don't care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live."

Rock's tirade was apparently precipitated by a request from his record label, Warner Music Group's Atlantic Records, that he publicly denounce file sharing. His response: "Wait a second, you've been stealing from the artists for years. Now you want me to stand up for you?" Ouch.

It seems there's no one way that artists are responding to the opportunities and challenges presented by the internet. It's official now: They're all over the map when it comes to downloads, DRM, file sharing and the rest of it, no longer offering the same rationales for completely different conclusions.

"ITunes takes the money, the record company takes the money, and they don't give it to the artists," added the country rock rapper. Instead, he says, the internet offers a "great opportunity for everyone to be treated fairly, for the consumer to get a fair price, for the artist to be paid fairly, for the record companies to make some money."

This makes a lot of sense, and it's the sort of thing that the digital music optimists among us have been saying for years. However, Rock expands on his idea, positing that anyone who needs something should just take it: "I don't mind people stealing my music, that's fine. But I think they should steal everything. You know how much money the oil companies have? If you need some gas, just go fill your tank up and drive off, they're not going to miss it."

Kid Rock's iTunes boycott is already in full effect. As of right now, none of his Warner-era albums are available on iTunes, and only his rarely heard debut album -- 1990's Grits Sandwiches for Breakfast on Zomba Recordings -- is available (clicking the link spawns iTunes).

Meanwhile, Metallica has been busy apologizing for its management company's testosterone-fueled deletion of early reviews of their upcoming album -- more on that soon.

http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/06/kid-rock-boycot.html

Digital music firms pay heavy price for labels' support

By Antony Bruno Sat Apr 5, 6:31 AM ET

DENVER (Billboard) - A stark truth facing any aspiring digital music service these days is that working with record labels is going to carry a hefty price.

The last 18 months have seen the major music labels accept new technological and business models -- such as dropping digital rights management and allowing ad-supported free music -- that have given rise to a new generation of digital music services. But the flip side of this willingness to experiment is a demand for higher upfront advances for licensing music and in some cases a substantial equity stake in the company.

Ad-supported download service SpiralFrog, for instance, paid more than $3 million in upfront advances to Universal Music Group alone before it even went live, and has paid additional millions in licensing fees since the original term expired. Imeem is said to have paid advances as high as $20 million and gave labels equity in the company. (Imeem disputes that figure but the equity stake is now a matter of public record.)

Sometimes the price is so high it sabotages the deal. A mobile messaging company recently walked away from negotiations in which a label demanded 85% of the company's gross revenue, even though the deal didn't involve any music licensing.

Labels say it's just the cost of doing business in today's music industry. Critics say it's stunting the establishment of a viable digital entertainment marketplace.

With CD sales in continuing decline and digital revenue still not making up the difference, labels are unapologetic about their insistence in mining every new revenue stream to its fullest potential.

"If you were opening up a retail store on Madison Avenue, I think you have to get a lease for the space," one major-label executive says. "If you want to build a legitimate business, there are costs associated with doing it, and that's no different in the virtual world than the physical world."

Truth be told, digital services -- or their forebears at least -- bear some of the blame for the deal terms getting to where they are today. Just a few years ago, revenue-sharing deals weren't that uncommon. However, according to former EMI digital executive Ted Cohen, labels soon soured on that model as services began gaming the system so that labels ended up with nothing.

That led to labels building "perceived value" of music into subsequent agreements along with various other checks-and-balances and advances designed to mitigate the risk of entering experimental deals. But even Cohen, now a consultant working on behalf of several digital music services, says the practice has gotten out of control to the point where economics are simply unsustainable.

"What was once considered a major advance -- $500,000 or $1 million -- is becoming a $2 million or $5 million advance and really over-the-top requests for equity," he says. "The deals are still unrealistic. If you raise $15 million to start a business, and have to spend $12 million just to pay off the content companies, that leaves you with $3 million to run a company. I don't know anybody able to do that."

Many rankled by these front-loaded deals accuse labels of going for the quick buck in order to meet quarterly revenue objectives at the expense of cultivating a lasting partnership -- essentially treating digital music startups as quick-fix ATMs rather than long-term investments.

"They're trying to match every dollar against a lost dollar, not nurturing new markets," Digital Media Assn. executive director Jonathan Potter said at Billboard's Music & Money Symposium in March. "That's not helping build a business. You need each party to have an equal incentive."

Yet one of the more controversial label demands -- an equity stake -- may in fact prove advantageous for services entering into such a deal. Labels receive dozens of partnership requests almost daily, many of which they don't think have any chance of surviving with or without their help. As such, they are only too happy to forget about them once the check clears.

But if the labels have an equity stake in the company, they have more skin in the game and a greater incentive to nurture the company along. Imeem, considered by some as the poster child for predatory label deals, is actually a case-in-point. Sources on both sides say Imeem's relationship with labels is proving extremely fruitful as a result of the equity deal--with Imeem executives advising some label execs on technical matters and some label execs clearing the lines of communication to their imprints. Imeem would likely prefer more access to labels' potential advertisers, but the deal is still young.

Imeem, however, is considered the exception, not the rule. Unwieldy usage restrictions and expensive licensing fees have already forced several promising partners out of the digital music space (Yahoo, Virgin, AOL). If the music industry wants to collect that Madison Avenue rent from the services of tomorrow, it may need to invest a bit more democratically today rather than trying to recoup the losses of yesterday.

"Here's the big disconnect," Cohen says. "In the physical world, they're paying Wal-Mart for the privilege of selling their music. In the digital world, they're asking the partner to pay them for the privilege of selling. The middle ground should be both sides treating each other with respect and both sides making money."

Reuters/Billboard

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080405/tc_nm/digital_music_dc_2

Club Penguin kids can make donations

By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer

LOS ANGELES - Kids who earn virtual cash in the popular online world "Club Penguin" can give some of it to charity as part of a program announced Monday by the Web site.

"It's showing the kids they can truly make a difference," said Lane Merrifield, a co-founder of Club Penguin, which is based in British Columbia and was purchased last summer by The Walt Disney Co.

In the Club Penguin world, kids win gold coins by playing games such as sled racing and, with a paid membership, buy virtual items like furniture and clothing.

Starting Dec. 14 and running through Dec. 24, kids can choose to donate their virtual money to support the environment, children's health or children's education.

The company will then split $1 million in real dollars among three charities — the World Wildlife Fund, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation and Free The Children.

The Canadian Web site donated a little more than $30 million to charity after Disney agreed to pay $350 million for it. The sellers could get another $350 million if certain profit goals are reached.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_hi_te/virtual_charity_2;_ylt=AnSNP0dZVO74mi9qd8C6Gl9k24cA

An Allowance That’s Measured in Minutes, Not Cents

By JULIE BICK
Published: November 25, 2007

HOWARD AND LIZZIE SHERMAN, ages 15 and 9, know that they need to complete all their homework and chores in order to receive their weekly allowance. The amount may be a little less than usual if they’ve misbehaved, or a bit larger if they have done some extra work around the house.

When the children want to use their allowance, though, they don’t go to the mall. They turn on the family’s computer or television because there’s a parallel economy in place at the Sherman home, with a currency most often known as “screen time.”

Screen time can be spent playing computer games, watching TV or movies or, for older children, visiting social networking sites like MySpace or instant messaging with friends. This new currency, used in a growing number of households, works as an allowance because screen time is highly valued by children and teenagers, and usually restricted by parents.

They may feel that their children’s time would be better spent reading a book, playing outside or talking directly to another person, according to Richard N. Bromfield, a psychologist on the staff of Harvard Medical School. But for the most part, screen time is seen as acceptable in moderation.

Families dole out the commodity in a variety of ways. Some have their children keep a log book of time used, or have them “spend” it from a stack of 30-minute allotted “tickets.”

For parents who don’t want to keep track themselves, there are devices that will turn off the television or computer automatically when the user has reached a time limit — (although some of today’s children may be more likely to know how to reset the device than their parents do). Some families grant extra screen time based on how much a child reads or practices piano, for example, or the number of days that they’ve avoided fighting with a sibling.

Kathleen Dayton of Seattle lets her twin 10-year-olds, and their little brother, age 7, earn extra screen time for minutes spent on extra math drills. “We reinforce things they’re learning in school,” she said, “and screen time is a really a strong motivator — it makes math happen in my house.”

Household chores stay out of the equation, though. Setting the table, unloading the dishwasher and putting away groceries, come with being a family member, Mrs. Dayton says: “They’re not negotiable.”

And while she sees the value in doling out screen time, she doesn’t want to overdo it. “Screen time isn’t evil — it’s fine in small doses,” she said, “but I feel pretty mixed about giving them much extra.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no more than two hours of screen time a day, and many parents feel that less is better.

Screen time can be a useful currency for teenagers who might be earning their own money through baby-sitting or other jobs, leaving parents looking for a new form of incentive or punishment.

Karen Vekasy of Stow, Ohio, said that as her son Mike Bailey “grew out of being sent to his room” at about the age of 11, she found that “electricity” — the family’s name for screen time — was his most valued commodity. “It’s entertainment to him and it’s social because he meets his friends online,” she said.

Mike, now 15, earns additional time by assisting his mother with office projects including PowerPoint presentations and video editing, or helping his grandfather with grocery shopping and other household maintenance. “I like the system,” Mike said, adding that it made him more likely to do extra work and less likely to break household rules.

Ms. Vekasy also used a reward of extra electricity to encourage Mike to start volunteering at a hospice. “These days he enjoys going, but without the incentive I don’t think I could have convinced him to try it out,” she said.

Sarah Chana Radcliffe, author of “Raise Your Kids Without Raising Your Voice,” (BPS Books), views screen-time allowances as a great motivator for children. She takes a long-term view of it. “Which adjectives do you want your child described as when they are 20?” she asks. “Do you want them, for example, to be known as responsible, respectful, generous and determined? Then start rewarding them for those behaviors from a young age and slowly phase out the rewards as the actions become more automatic.”

She tells parents to find a currency that their children care about, like screen time.

Mrs. Dayton sympathizes with her son’s desire to check sports scores on the Web and spend time on a Wii game console. “I read the news online; I do my e-mail,” she said. “I like my screen time, too.”

A household’s screen-time allowance system may morph over time. A few years ago, the Shermans, who live in Basking Ridge, N.J., established the rule that all homework, chores and instrument practice had to be completed before their children were allowed to turn on the television or play a video game. “It made sense in theory, but it turned out the kids would just rush through their work in a slapdash way, to get to the electronics,” their mother, Amy Sherman, said. “So we got rid of the weeknight time entirely.”

The Sherman children have learned to abide by the system. Howard knows he needs to keep his grades up or he won’t be allowed to join his friends at the local Friday night video game hangout place. His little sister Lizzie takes care of her real pet dogs before she feeds and pampers her Webkinz, penguins or other online pets. Mrs. Sherman says her children’s screen-time allowance has taught them about prioritization and how putting in extra effort can yield more of what they want out of life.

Dr. Bromfield, the author of “How to Unspoil Your Child Fast,” (Basil Books), cautions parents not to overuse household currency systems. Children are motivated both externally by pleasing their parents or by getting a reward, he said, as well as intrinsically, where they want to do the right thing, or high-quality work, because it feels good inside to do so.

REWARDING all a child’s good behaviors with toys, points, money or screen time can override the child’s burgeoning sense of self-motivation. “When used too much, rewards can quash a child’s internal desire to do well and do right,” Dr. Bromfield said. “Then a child’s attitude may turn to: ‘What’s in it for me?’”

As long as screen time or another reward system is part of a larger arsenal of flexible parenting strategies, Dr. Bromfield said, it can be very effective.

And parents can aim to use it to their best advantage. Or, as Mrs. Sherman says: “My son doesn’t ask for more computer time. He asks if he can do the dishes this week.”


Permalink

TV Tied To Blood Pressure In Obese Kids

Doctors Recommend Limiting Television To 2 Hours A Day And Forbidding TV While Eating

(WebMD) A new childhood obesity study links watching lots of TV to high blood pressure in obese children.

The researchers advise parents to heed recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) about limiting kids' TV time.

The AAP doesn't recommend TV for children aged 2 or younger. The AAP recommends no more than one to two hours per day of educational, nonviolent programs for older children.

Other tips include removing TVs from children's bedrooms and forbidding TV watching while eating, note the new study's authors, who included Perrie Pardee and Jeffrey Schwimmer, M.D., of the pediatrics department at the University of California, San Diego.

Television and Obese Children

Pardee, Schwimmer, and colleagues studied 546 obese kids and teens (average age: almost 12).

The children sought obesity treatment between 2003 and 2005 in San Diego, San Francisco, or Dayton, Ohio.

The kids had an average BMI (body mass index, which relates height to
weight) of 35.5, putting them in the top 5 percent of BMI for their age and sex.

The kids' parents reported how much TV their child watched on a typical day.
Children aged 8 and older helped their parents report TV time.

More than three-quarters of the kids -- 78 percent -- reported watching at least two hours of TV per day.

The children got their blood pressure recorded once for the study. Nearly half of the children -- 43 percent -- had a blood pressure reading that was in the hypertension range.

The heaviest children were the most likely to have a high blood pressure reading -- and to watch lots of TV.

Children who watched 2-4 hours of TV per day were 2.5 times as likely as kids who watch no more than two hours of daily TV to have high blood pressure.

Cause and Effect Unclear

The study, which is due to appear in December's edition of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, has some limits.

As an observational study, it doesn't prove cause and effect. That is, the findings don't prove that watching TV raised the kids' blood pressure; other factors may have been involved.

An editorial published with the study raises these questions for further research:

# Why is obesity increasing while TV viewing isn't increasing?
# Why does obesity increase in adolescence, when TV viewing decreases?
# Why do boys, who watch more TV than girls, show less obesity and more physical activity?

"Focusing on just one set of behaviors may not be enough," writes editorialist Stuart Biddle, Ph.D.

For instance, Biddle points out that turning off the TV doesn't make for a more active child if that child just starts playing computer games.

Biddle works at the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Loughborough University in Leicestershire, England.


By Miranda Hitti

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/30/health/webmd/main3432331.shtml