Information and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of KSL TV, KSL Radio, KSFI, KRSP,, or any DMC management or ownership.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

TV has the best Ad recall among Adults

Click here to view/print from Google Drive

TV is best for targeting Gen X Adults

Click here to view/print from Google Drive

Millennials Remember TV Ads

Click here to view/print

2014 Fall Network Primetime Calendar 8/5/14 update (Eagle/KATZ)

Click here to view/print from Google Drive

October 2014 Primetime Network Calendar - updated 7/30/14 (Eagle/KATZ)

Click here to view/print from Google Drive

September 2014 Primetime Network Calendar - updated 8/5/14 (Eagle/KATZ)

Click here to view/print from Google Drive

August 2014 Primetime Network Calendar - updated 8/5/14 (Eagle/KATZ)

Click here to view/print from Google Drive

Thursday, July 24, 2014

article: Aereo Now Claims It's a Cable Company, Reveals it Has Very Few Customers

Aereo Now Claims It's a Cable Company, Reveals it Has Very Few Customers

Jason Mick (Blog) - July 22, 2014

From Daily Tech

Service had next to no subscribers as it struggled to sell customers on its role as a pricey cloud DVR for public TV
Aereo -- a once-promising New York City startup owned by InterActiveCorp/IAC (IACI), the internet company led by former broadcast executive Barry Charles Diller -- crashed and burned hard last month when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that its business model was illegal.

The company had provided cloud DVR services which allowed customers to record and view -- at their convenience -- publicly broadcast TV.  Aereo insisted this didn't constitute "reselling" or "rebroadcasting" rival TV broadcasters' work.  However, that defense was weakened by the fact that Aereo's rates came at a significant premium ($8 USD/month for ~20 GB (20 hours of standard definition video)) over similar cloud DVR/storage services (indicating part of the value was in the ability to intercept broadcast content).

Aereo tried to strengthen its case by building a highly specialized backend with thousands of individual dime-sized antennas -- one per user.  It argued it was behaving no differently than any other viewer, and was simply providing convenience to its users.  The argument didn't impress in the end, though.

In the aftermath of the Aereo's collapse, paperwork filed from the U.S. Copyright Office indicates it was pretty much a moot point, even if Aereo had won.  Even before it lost, Aereo appeared to see the writing on the wall and began filing requests with the U.S. Copyright Office to be treated as a cable broadcaster.  However, the outlook revealed was grim.   According to the filing, first reported by Re/Code, it had only 77,596 subscribers at the end of 2013.

Its top 3 markets were:

  • New York City, N.Y. -- 27,000
  • Boston, Mass. -- 12,000
  • Atlanta, Geor. -- 10,000
Aereo is continuing the fight, with the new legal plan looking to rebrand itself as a "cable" provider.  It writes:

Under the Second Circuit's precedents, Aereo was a provider of technology and equipment with respect to the near-live transmissions at issue in the preliminary injunction appeal. After the Supreme Court's decision, Aereo is a cable system with respect to those transmissions.
According to a letter [PDF] obtained by CNBC, the Copyright Office granted provisional acceptance to the plan, but warned it likely would be rejected in the long run, writing:

Internet retransmissions of broadcast television fall outside the scope of the Section 111 license.

Reuters reports that the broadcast companies who sued Aereo called the scheme "astonishing".  They've asked a federal judge and the Copyright Office to summarily strike it down.

Even if Aereo were able to unfathomably survive, it looks like its business model is next to dead given the subscriber numbers.  Unsurprisingly it's reportedly exploring other options, including using its dime-size antennas in small set-top budget DVRs.

Sources: RE/Code, Aereo [PDF, 1], [PDF, 2], The Verge

Article: Aereo loses to broadcasters in Supreme Court fight for its life

Aereo loses to broadcasters in Supreme Court fight for its life

From The Verge

The Supreme Court struck a dramatic blow against Aereo today in a ruling that puts the TV streaming service as it currently exists on its deathbed. In a 6–3 ruling, the court found that Aereo's service violates the Copyright Act by playing back recordings of broadcasters' TV shows — even though it legally captures those shows over the air and obtains individual copies for each viewer. Aereo had argued that it was merely providing technology that its subscribers were renting in order to watch TV, positing that the viewers were responsible for playing back those recordings.
"Insofar as there are differences, those differences concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technological manner in which it provides the service," the ruling reads. "We conclude that those differences are not adequate to place Aereo’s activities outside the scope of the [Copyright] Act."
The ruling is one of the most important seen by the television industry since the 1984 Betamax case but in many ways will have an opposite effect, stifling one area of innovation that was beginning to force the industry out of its comfort zone. Some broadcasters had even said that they would open their own Aereo competitors if the service were found to be legal. Instead, this ruling fully removes Aereo and copycat services as a threat.

That's a huge issue for Aereo, as its current business has just been found illegal. Aereo will likely have to pay licensing fees to broadcasters if it wants to continue operating, but that's if Aereo can afford them. Certainly, it would be difficult to pay those fees and continue offering its service, which costs $8 per month, at such a low price.
Aereo may choose to reinvent itself, but up to this point it's said that a Supreme Court ruling against it would essentially mean the end. "If it’s a total straight-up loss," Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia told The Verge earlier this year, "then it’s dead. We’re done."
"Today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer," Kanojia says in a statement following the ruling. "We’ve said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today’s decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry."