JayWeintraub.com - Internet Advertising Analysis and Growth Insights

Time Warner Cable versus CBS - Who Wins? And Have You Even Noticed?

I'm old enough to be of the generation that watches TV. I know plenty of my peers in the same geriatric age bracket that do not. But, their lack of TV viewing is not cultural the way it is for net natives. 

This isn't my first TV blackout, but it's arguably going to be the most significant.

For you youngins, a blackout is when the cable/satellite company gets into a pricing piss fight with the content owner. Net natives can probably only think of YouTube taking down videos because of copyright issues not because the content owner didn't pay YouTube enough. 

Who wins a blackout is a lot like housing prices. Each takes a side and you see what the market says. The market in this case is usually the TV viewer, and while I don't have any hard data, I suspect that because the cable/satellite companies have the direct relationship with the viewer, they tend to win more times than not. 

This blackout affects Time Warner Cable customers and CBS owned and operated stations. For everyone it means Showtime. For those in a handful of major metropolitan areas, it means their CBS network station too, the one most people think of as free. 

Time Warner Cable (TWC)

If I were Time Warner, the media powerhouse that owns HBO, produces Game of Thrones, and released movies, I would end the licensing agreement that allows Time Warner Cable, a separate entity, to use the Time Warner name. 

Anyone who lives in New York City can attest to the sheer frustration which is being a Time Warner Cable Customer. Unlike traditional and newer suburbs, residents of NYC will often live in a location where the only option is Time Warner Cable. 

Living in a Time Warner Cable only area trumps the DMV in terms of excruciating experiences. The DMV is at least infrequent. Time Warner Cable is every day. Using the Treat versus Chore Index described in my previous post, TWC is almost all chore. 

Inventing Ways For You To Enjoy Better

That's really TWC's slogan. 

If you have ever listened to Chris Rock, you will understand TWC completely. As a company, they want credit for sh*t they are supposed to do. It's like a deli not charging you for lettuce and tomatoes and wanting you to feel appreciative - it's the baseline. Providing onDemand TV, DVR, and a mobile app (which is horrendous), is not inventing ways for me to enjoy better.

Here is my favorite example. Upwards of 15% of my commercials are switch to Time Warner Cable commercials. I'm your customer already, you nincompoops. Nothing makes me want to switch more than seeing how much cheaper it would be were I not already customer and seeing the immense amount of money being spent to hire celebrities to be in your commercials. If you ever want to understand the imbalance in dollars spent for acquisition versus retention. Look no further than TWC. 

Seriously, though, how hard is it to show different ads to your existing subscribers? Is it really that hard? Or, why not give a price match to existing customers who see your ad? Anything that shows half a brain and consideration for your customers would be welcome.  

This one case where I hate the player but also the game. It's an unfortunate byproduct of contract driven businesses. 

TWC Conversations

TWC customers get to enjoy ads telling us that CBS is asking for outrageous demands (price increases I assume) for its shows, directing us to their special site on the topic. What they don't tell you is that this fight isn't about CBS the free network station with the highest brand recognition, but the premium channels such as Showtime. 

And these outrageous demands? How much can it really be? And, if moving all McDonalds employees to $15 per hour (almost double what they make today) would increase the cost of a big mac by $.80, how much would it really cost us, the viewer, if TWC passed on the costs pro-rata. $2/month? 

TWC once again once again shows their lack of cultural and customer awareness. We have moved to an always connected, ever transparent world. By creating a barrier and then obfuscating the details, TWC just looks like AOL trying to save the dialup business.  

Who Wins?

Now, that I have touched on the pain of being a TWC customer, you can see in my biased view, that the real loser is TWC. A search on the topic seems to concur, with plenty of articles such as, "Is Life Without CBS Really So Bad for Time Warner Customers?" It doesn't yield angry posts or news articles condemning CBS. 

Right now, though, we all lose as we watch a pissing match between two large companies, but it's a pissing match that for the first time shows the power of the internet over the power of the cable provider. It's a tricky play for TWC since they power both and have been toying with the idea of making CBS' online content unavailable to their cable users.   

In our forever multi-device world, I at least have access to what I want to watch despite the lack of cable. Last weekend, I was able to watch live Tiger Woods win The Bridgestone Invitational. It was not as convenient as watching on my couch with my TV, but I didn't blame CBS. Lucky for me, TWC gives me Starz - which I already have - on CBS to make up for no CBS and access Starz for those who have the currently off-air Showtime. Way to invent - trading 3 channels for 10. No offense to Liberty Media, but no one is ever going to think Starz for Showtime is a good trade. 

Who Wins? Who cares. That's what is pretty cool. 

Who really wins? Google, as they get to be the beneficiary of ad campaigns by both sides, have more consumers wanting their cable product, and even more people using their core consumer products. 

Treat Versus Chore - Using behavioral economics to explain my iPhone frustration and what it means for Apple and others

I've had this post in my drafts for six months if not longer, and as a topic that I've wanted to discuss, the actual time is much, much, longer

It wasn't until I read HBS Professor and Behavioral Economist Michael Norton's book, "Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending" that I finally had a framework to articulate what has been, for lack of a better word, nagging me non-stop for far too long. It should be world peace, but it's Apple. 

My first laptop was an Apple PowerBook G3. I owned the first iPod. My phone is an iPhone. I work on an iMac and a MacBook Air. Two Apple TVs call my televisions home. 

By the sound of it, I could easily pass for an Apple fanboy. Yet, the list doesn't tell the story. My laptop (the G3) was a horrible choice. The first iPod a gift, same with both Apple TV's. I spent five years running Windows on my Mac computers. My primary laptop until six months ago was a Windows machine. My first iPhone was the 4. In other words, it has been anything but a love affair. We, those who have given in to Apple, have driven up Apple's stock price. We are also the large majority ready to move away. 

It's easy to talk about momentum, sales, market share, competitive advantage, etc. That is the vocabulary of public investments. The stock market, though behaves, like any sport, irrationally. When you are hot, you get a lot of latitude. When you are hot for a long time, you get way too much latitude. 

Apple was granted too much latitude, and while you could point to its current stock price today compared to 11 months ago, the conversation should have started years ago, but the vocabulary didn't exist. 

Today, consensus, at least from a Wall Street prospective seems to think we are now entering Act 2 of Apple, and its quest to stay on top. And, like Act 1, Apple has the very real chance of becoming marginalized, albeit at a level magnitudes bigger than before. 

The vocabulary that I wish I had earlier is a simple one. Treat Versus Chore.

Treat versus Chore

Treats are universal. It works for animals as well as people, and with humans, it works for kids and adults. We all need treats. The biggest difference is that over time the treats we seek become multi-layered, blending both biology and psychology. We are manipulatable. It is both a blessing and curse. 

All too often our manipulability comes in the form of game mechanics, the blunt instrument of reward that does not quite capture the nuance of affinity. That's where Treat versus Chore comes in. 

Think about your first experience with the iPhone. Was it perfect? No, but it was so far and above better than anything else. But, it wasn't just that it was objectively better, e.g., browsing the web. It was emotionally better. Using it was a treat. And, the joy of the touch screen, the absolute perfection of the gesturing for a first go-round, had the power to help us overlook the things that other phones did much better - like texting. The Treat to Chore Index (TCI) was so high that we agreed to relearn our behavior. 

Treats, like any other psychological tool, need freshness to stay a treat. Otherwise, our ability to habituate will dictate what was once a treat is neutral. It is expected. The treats of the first iPhone - others have caught-up, and now, instead of a treat, fast, responsive touchscreen gestures are the norm; they are necessary to play. That means in absence of treats, the things that we overlooked become chores. They are the constant pinpricks that have us question our decision. And, when there are a lot of pricks, they don't have to break the skin. Sheer quantity of pin pricks is what matters. 

My list of Apple pinpricks is lengthy. Apple has a two pronged problem. They have a control issue, and they don't in this mature product environment have a feel for the areas they should solve versus letting others. 

iPhone/iOS Pinpricks - An abbreviated list from this week

• On the calendar, why can I only move appointments that I create? I can't move or modify meeting requests sent by others. I can on Google Calendar. 
• Speaking of calendar invites, why is the only way to get a phone number to highlight to put it inot the "Description" section
• Why are only certain "native" apps able to be put into a folder but others, like the Newstand, they must be on their own
• While it is probably safest to have certain core apps unable to be deleted, that I can't remove or at least hide some gets back to the control
• It took me three years to figure out how to insert an image into an email after starting the email. I'm retarded, but on every other similar mail application, there is a clear icon to click on instead of an obscure arrow only available after the equivalent of right-clicking
• Why is it that Google's apps have a better keyboard than Apple? Why can't I customize the keyboard?
• Enough has already been written about Apple Maps, so pointing out continued flaws with it is unnecessary, but it leads to the more important point about preferences
• Why can't I dictate where links open? Why can't I choose which Map application opens addresses?
• When I click on a link in an email and have that app installed, why doesn't it open or at least ask to open in the app? Google now enables them between some of their apps, but Facebook and LinkedIn kill me. Click on an email and you get in LinkedIn's case a splash screen to download the app and in Facebook's a login screen, which just defeats usage for all parties.
• I would have already built a preferences app, but it would never have gotten approved because it takes away control from Apple
• Why can't I mark voicemails unread? 
• Why can't I mark text messages unread? 
• Why is there no searching text message content?
• And those are just the ones on the top of my mind.
• Let's not even talk about the App Store amazing as it is
• Unfortunately for me, I have a similar list for MacOS and especially iTunes but not enough real estate here to share.

The Treats

• Watching the company self-aggrandize on TV about its importance? The Apple of old didn't sell their products by telling me how great they are. 
• Autocorrect that is very good about knowing Apple products so that app store is App Store and ichat is iChat? I want it not to have take 20 tries before you didn't stop "correcting" Jay to Kay
• Unfortunately for me, the list of Apple loves is short, because the chores dominate.

The Trap

I switched to Apple because once you have two Apple devices, the ability to get the most out of them is maximized with a unified OS, and the company did a good job of making the features so compelling by running all Apple OS software. It's a great business move. But, it's fine line between device interoperability and feeling trapped. 

What's In Store

Apple has a unique situation. It won't apply to every company. Their Treats and Chores will be different. For Apple, they need to realize that when others build better products to get out of the way and let them make your platform better. Facebook is not immune. I signed up to receive emails when my close friends do certain actions, but if they use Instagram for a photo, all I get is an email with nothing inside except that they added a photo. Greaaaat. And, I'm really going to want to click to the site to see every photo? No, I'm going to unsubscribe from the emails and then my usage drops. 

Treat versus Chore is universal. Net Promoter Score is one thing, but a high Net Promoter Score can't save or help Apple understand when there is high unrest and the potential for major disruption.