Ok, let’s not kid ourselves: for us folks who work online, the past 3 years have been rewarding in the sense that our friends and families thought that we were nuts to work online after the dot com meltdown of 2000-01 have come around to realize that the Web ain’t a bad place at all to try to earn a living. Heck, it could be so good that people start gunning for you when you do. But that’s another story altogether…
Of course, while the tide began to change in 2003, ’twas only in 2005 that people realized that the future of media would be determined by the Web, and not vice versa. That is not to say that the Web will supercede other media when things are said and done, after all, those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat history’s mistakes, but the fact of the matter is that by virtue of being a new, dynamic medium, the Web will impact print, radio and TV considerably over the next few years as offline companies chase growth.
But in 2006, something strange is happening: the Web is not putting its head down and charging ahead online, rather, it’s using its much ballyhooed current status as media darling / flavor du jour to leave its footprints on TV. I think the reason why the Web is so in love now with TV is because with broadband penetration being what it is, Web TV is a reality.
I know it, you know it, the American people know it, and apparently, the Web and TV execs know it, too.
Call it the Web’s way of “buying low and selling high.” After all, this might be the only time when TV execs will openly listen to their Web counterparts. With Google being worth more than Viacom, Disney and News Corp. combined, you can’t blame them, now can you?
It’s odd that an industry that still generates so much more money that the Web (be it print, radio or TV) is suffering from such an inferiority complex.
All to say, two cases caught my attention.
The second one is Google’s attempt to launch a TV guide style of programming guide.
Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, comments that their mission is to provide access to everything, including television content. Using Google search capability, coupled (for instance) with Media Center or an XBox, this vision could potentially be realized. There are questions, of course, about Internet connections fast enough to withstand the bulky data transfer that such content requires. This may ultimately get supported by a new format of advertising that Google is continually testing on a weekly basis.
The first one however is what is going on with News Corp’s FIM property IGN. The reason why this one is key is because IGN has the largest concentration of men 13-34, 18-24, 18-34 (you name it, they have cornered it) online. So what they do by default has the chance of becoming important by nature of the demographics they command.
Some background: when the deal (News Corp. buying IGN) went down last October, conventional wisdom stated FOX would try to prop up all of its online properties (be it through acquisitions, like IGN, Scout and MySpace, or through organic development, like FOXSports.com, AmericanIdol.com, etc) to generate considerable revenues from them. This year, FOX interactive is gunning for some $300M in revenues from the FIM division, which is a good amount of revenue, no doubt.
To help bolster its ROI though, FOX has launched on IGN the http://TV.IGN.com vertical as its own TV guide of sorts. While some cynics would say this is FOX trying to wring out as much value from the deal as they can, oddly enough, this channel could prove to become a great asset for IGN. First off, while I was expecting a heavy dose of FOX programming news, truth is that the vertical does an honest job of balancing out information on FOX with programming from ABC and company. It has a FOX slant, that’s to be expected, but it is not blatant to the average user who cares little about the business side of media.
What this shows is that TV execs have decided not to sit idle as their audiences turn to the Web, rather, they are using the Web to drive audiences back to television. After all, why would Web execs be so interested in driving audiences back to TV, where ad revenues dwarf those of their Web counterparts.
Whether this pays off or not remains to be seen, after all, online audiences are a fickle bunch, but the idea of using the largest concentration of men 18-34 on the Web to bolster interest for TV programming ain’t a bad idea at all for FOX. I’ll give them that. But when you think about it, it ain’t a bad idea for IGN either.
If over time, the channel remains neutral enough and not showcase FOX programming, then it might prove to become the online TV Guide that Google is looking to develop through algorithms alone. And in the end, let’s face it, as great as the Web might be, TV ain’t too bad. So if the average 13-34 online becomes used to going to http://TV.IGN.com to see what’s on the boob tube, then FOX and IGN win, which technically at least, is the goal of any M&A.
What FOX Interactive and/or IGN should do immediately to blow this up and cement this channel as the place to go for pertinent TV programming for men 13-34 is to leverage either MySpace or IGN’s social networking platforms and allow the 13-34 to develop their own TV guides… this could combine the mass market appeal of TV with the individuality of the Web.
This should serve as a lesson to Mr. Lloyd Braun, Mr. Terry Semel and company at Yahoo! who for the last two years have sat on the fence vis-a-vis developing original programming for the Web versus becoming a beachhead for TV programming online.
Subscribe: