CBS Admits Aereo Supreme Court Win Wouldn't Hurt CBS, Might Make Things Better For Everybody

from the we-really-feel-for-you dept

Last year CBS joined a number of broadcasters in whining incessantly about how if Aereo was allowed to continue living, the "struggling" networks would be forced to pull their content from over the air broadcasts and move to cable. It's part of a long, long history of broadcasters pretending that if things don't go just they way they want them to, they'll surely go out of business. The threat to pull broadcasts was aimed at scaring Congress into passing protectionist legislation, and as we noted at the time it's something CBS should just shut up and do -- given the public could probably come up for better uses for their spectrum.

After insisting for some time that big bully Aereo will drive poor little CBS out of business (the same CBS that posted record earnings last year and 20% higher profits in the fourth quarter), it's rather amusing to see CBS CEO Les Moonves insist in an interview with CNBC that CBS won't feel any financial impact from a Supreme Court win. In fact, Moonves notes the win will likely result in a slew of new innovative products as cable companies -- and in response the networks themselves -- rush to follow Aereo's lead:

"Look, we expect that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and side with the people who are providing the content. Not the people who are taking our content and using it illegally, which is our point of view. However, if that should happen, if the worst should happen, there are so many other alternatives that will not; so this will not affect our bottom line. Obviously the networks collectively could do their own version of Aereo, there's a way to put our signal on cable without putting it over the air. There's also over-the-top for us. So, there are many, many alternatives to allow people to receive our signal no matter what happens. It's something that the Supreme Court will decide, but it's not anything that we're deeply concerned about because we have alternatives."

In other words, an Aereo Supreme court win not only wouldn't dent CBS in the slightest (something we already knew), it would result in a variety of new ways for people to receive content. In fact, it seems like an Aereo win would probably be good for pretty much everybody but Aereo. Should Aereo win, they would suddenly face all of the satellite, cable and pay TV companies offering similar or better services over the Internet to help slightly reduce retransmission fees. That would in turn result in broadcasters coming up with more innovative Internet TV services of their own to balance any retransmission fee losses.

More products, more options for consumers, more innovative services, more money for everyone and less time in court; it sounds like a real nightmare scenario for CBS and everybody involved.

Filed Under: broadcast, cable, les moonves, supreme court, television
Companies: aereo, cbs

Nielsen Backs Off Reporting Data On Cord Cutters Because The Cable Industry Prefers Fantasyland

from the Plato's-cave dept

For many years we've discussed how the cable industry is in stark denial about cord cutting, insisting at different points that the cord cutter was a mythological beast akin to yeti or unicorn, despite very obvious stats showing they're a small but growing and very important statistical reality. When the industry wasn't busy insisting that cord cutters didn't exist, they were busy trying to argue that they were an irrelevant niche market of uneducated, middle-aged dolts (not that there's anything wrong with that) living in mom's basement, even though the data shows that cord cutters tend to be young and highly educated.

As such, it has been fun watching the legacy TV industry (and those that exist and profit comfortably within it) perform 180s when confronted with data that has become less and less "negotiable." For example, one of cord cutter's biggest opponents was former Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, who spent years insisting to any media outlet who would listen that cord cutters weren't real, only to recently move to his own firm, where he now readily admits cord cutting is an important trend (you're to ignore the fact he was not just wrong, but aggressively wrong, for many years).

Also amusing to watch has been TV ratings firm Neilsen, who has an obvious vested interest in keeping TV ecosystem executives happily believing whatever they'd like to believe about the current TV ad market. Nielsen over the years has gone out of their way to proudly proclaim cord cutting was "purely fiction," yet despite this certainty, the firm only about a year ago announced they would finally begin the process of figuring out how to track viewership on alternative devices (consoles, iPads, smartphones) and services like Netflix and Hulu. Around the same time, Nielsen began manipulating their definitions, calling people who don't watch TV on a TV "zero TV households" -- just so they didn't have to use the term "cord cutter" and admit what they'd spent years denying.

Fast forward to this week with the news that Nielsen is bowing to broadcaster pressure to delay publicizing data the cable industry may not like. After fielding complaints from NAB, Nielsen is withholding broadband-only household data from the firm's local TV ratings service "for the time being." Their explanation:

"In early 2013, the decision to include broadband-only homes in Nielsen's television universe estimate was made to measure the media behavior of the average U.S. viewer in this fast-changing and evolving technological landscape,” Nielsen Senior Vice President-Insights and Analysis Pat McDonough said in a statement. “This change was made with specific and strategic measurement benchmarks in place as a way to study how this small segment of the vast viewing audience might affect the larger sample. "Based on a thorough evaluation of the viewing patterns in broadband-only homes and industry feedback on the need to maintain stable measurement in local television," she continued, "we have decided to exclude broadband-only TV homes from local TV measurement and ratings for the time being."

That's long-winded code for: "the cable industry wants to remain in fantasyland and our data upset them, so because they pay us we're allowing them to remain willfully oblivious until they're better able to acknowledge reality." There's been a lot of pressure for Nielsen to modernize their viewing analytics, and pretty clearly those folks will be waiting a little longer. Kind of amusingly, you'd be hard-pressed to find TV ratings operations or analysts that even try to include (genuine) piracy statistics, lest that data further force the cable and broadcast industry to actually pay attention to the real world and changing consumer trends.

Filed Under: cable, cord cutting, ratings, television
Companies: neilsen

Apple's Promised TV Revolution Will Be More Of The Same Crap, Thanks To Terrified Cable & Broadcast Executives

from the killing-innovation-in-the-cradle dept

For countless years we've all been inundated with rumors that a television revolution would soon be delivered any day now by Apple, whose legendary former CEO at one point claimed he had "cracked the code" on delivering a truly disruptive, intuitive and innovative TV platform. Yet this miracle TV revolution never seems to materialize, and it's not (outside of perhaps Apple's marketing machine) really the fault of Apple. The road toward TV disruption is littered with the corpses of countless similar projects from the likes of Sony, Microsoft and Google. With a few small successes, every last one of them has inevitably run, face-first and at full-sprint, into a restrictive broadcast-industry content licensing wall used to prevent disruption.

The press certainly shares some of the blame as well for over-hyping products on demand, as most recently made evident by the collapse of Intel's TV ambitions. Intel's OnCue system was presented in 2012 as the next great TV revolution that was sure to arrive any day now. That was, until a slow drip of reports indicated that they too couldn't get around broadcast-industry licensing restrictions. That technology has since been sold on the cheap to Verizon, who'll utilize the useful bits and sit on the rest, afraid of offering anything that could possibly cannibalize their legacy TV FIOS user base.

Apple has been hammering their head against this same brick wall for the better part of a decade now, and even though the business and earnings potential of a well-built Apple-based hardware partnership could potentially be immense, the broadcast and cable industry is too terrified to budge. Rumors have ranged over the years from an Apple TV set to a live a la carte TV subscription service, and now have skidded to an underwhelming halt with Apple having to settle for what's just an Apple TV hardware and GUI refresh with a lovely coat of underachieved ambition. From the Wall Street Journal:

In 2012, the Journal reported that Apple was talking with cable operators like Time Warner Cable about a set-top box and was approaching media companies to gain rights for an ambitious Internet-based digital-video-recording service through the box. At the time, it was looking to offer full seasons of current shows, as well as live programming. Last year, it approached media companies with a proposal to pay extra for ad-free programming.

But it couldn't complete a deal. Programmers resisted the idea of ad-free TV, and Time Warner Cable balked at some of Apple's early proposals, which included Apple essentially taking over the cable operator's video-on-demand service.

Worse, the Journal notes, is that Apple was only able to acquire "just the most recent five episodes of current-season shows," and is having to battle for the ability to fast-forward commercials three days after they air (which they may not even get). So Apple's ambitions went from Steve Jobs dreaming about revolutionizing the sector, to yet another product intentionally hamstrung so it underwhelms (in much the same way the industry has relentlessly crippled Hulu). Can't you just feel the cutting edge excitement?

Many like to argue that Apple managed to help revolutionize music sales and can do the same here, but it's precisely the cable and broadcast executive fear of that history that has made securing flexible licenses such a Sisyphean feat. On the bright side, like any good disruption-phobic legacy industry, they can only delay inevitable evolution, not kill it. It might be Apple, it most-likely will be somebody else, and it may take the better part of the next decade -- but it's coming eventually whether the myopic and timid cable industry likes it or not.

Filed Under: cable, television, time warner
Companies: apple

Comcast: Allowing Us To Get Immensely, Inconceivably, Ridiculously Massive Is 'Pro Consumer'

from the now-witness-the-fire-power-of-this-fully-armed-and-operational-battle-station dept

Comcast has confirmed reports that the company will be acquiring Time Warner Cable in a deal estimated to be worth around $45 billion. With the ink on their NBC acquisition only just dry to the touch, the deal will tack 8 million broadband subscribers onto the company's existing 22 million broadband customers. Comcast is already the nation's largest fixed-line broadband company, largest cable TV provider, and third largest fixed-line phone company -- and that's before you include the company's NBC or other assets. From a geographical perspective the deal makes sense; Time Warner Cable filling in Comcast's coverage gaps and in particular giving Comcast the prized markets of Los Angeles and New York City, where Time Warner Cable has traditionally under-performed.

The problem is less of market share (the two companies didn't compete directly) but one of consolidated power; allowing one, massive company to control both the content and the conduit to your home across the vast majority of the country -- then just hoping they'll play nice with smaller competitors, startups and consumers. Never worry, insists Comcast, who states that they'll divest a few of these markets (most likely to failed Time Warner Cable suitor Charter Communications) so that they won't be quite as absurdly massive as they might have been.

In a memo (pdf) paving the way for what's sure to be a tough attempt at regulatory approval, Comcast's David Cohen trots out Google Fiber as an ambiguous example of why vertical integration and market dominance concerns no longer apply:

"In today’s market, with national telephone and satellite competitors growing substantially, with Google having launched its 1 GB Google Fiber offering in a number of markets across the country, and consumers having more choice of pay TV providers than ever before, Comcast believes that there can be no justification for denying the company the additional scale that will help it compete more effectively."

Except, well, not. Google Fiber is only available in two actually-deployed markets currently, and despite being a great price-disruptive product in those locations, likely won't be expanding beyond more than a handful of cities. As for "growing" national telephone competitors, both AT&T and Verizon are in the process of gutting regulations across dozens of states so they can begin hanging up on unwanted DSL and phone customers they don't want to upgrade. They're effectively ceding all competition on the fixed-line front in half of their markets so they can focus on wireless, signing co-marketing deals with cable directing those users to what will be their last fixed-line choice for broadband.

That choice is going to be Comcast, and with less competition than ever across huge swaths of the United States, you can be certain the company will be bringing their planned usage caps to your neck of the woods before long -- impacting consumers, startups and small businesses across the country. Again, no sweat argues Comcast. In a "public interest benefit summary," (pdf) Comcast again states you don't have to worry about any of this, because, well, Google Fiber and Netflix. Or something like that:

"A number of online businesses like Apple, Google, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, and a host of smaller companies are entering the online video space and trying to position themselves as competitors. While we view online businesses as complementary to our business, previous antitrust concerns about further cable consolidation are truly antiquated in light of today’s marketplace realities."

Right, because there's no way that a massive company like Comcast with that kind of lobbying power and market leverage could find it easier than ever to squeeze these companies through restrictive content licensing deals, regulatory capture, or usage caps, right? And oh, just a reminder Comcast, you own Hulu, and alongside other broadcast owners have worked hard to ensure it never disrupts the legacy TV apple cart. All in all, Comcast would prefer you not worry your pretty little head about any of this stuff as we wait to see whether new FCC boss Tom Wheeler (formerly a lobbyist for the cable industry) approves Comcast's latest adorable growth spurt.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, television
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

DirecTV Combats Weather Channel Price Hikes By...Actually Showing People The Weather

from the you're-really-not-very-good-at-your-only-job dept

The Weather Channel has been well-deserving of mockery over the last few years, whether its for their efforts to sex up storms by naming them (in the process creating a nation of weather neurotics who become hysterical about drizzle), or for an ocean of TV and website content that has absolutely nothing to do with the weather (here's some funny faces, yuk yuk). As such, their recent battle with DirecTV over retransmission fees doesn't find the company getting much sympathy. Especially when the channel tries to argue that people will die without their inane assortment of non-weather-related content.

Normally in such retransmission disputes the content company has some leverage over the satellite or cable TV provider because what they're withholding has somewhat irreplaceable value to the viewer (say, like "Breaking Bad"). In The Weather Channel's case, their belief that they somehow held an exclusive over weather forecasting, combined with the fact that they have increasingly gotten worse at their one and only job, has given DirecTV the upper hand in the ongoing feud. After pulling the channel from the lineup back in January, DirecTV continues to battle The Weather Channel in a very simple way -- by simply offering viewers the weather for a change:

DirecTV on Monday unveiled a suite of new weather services for its subscribers, including a feature that allows customers to gain access to local weather information at any time...The satcaster said customers tuned to WeatherNation can press the red button on their remote to access instant local weather conditions and outlook. Later this week, short term and extended weather forecasts by zip code will also be integrated into the live WeatherNation broadcast and run automatically on the channel every 10 minutes.

Surely being offered actual information on the weather will outrage viewers who love sitting through a half hour of off-topic infotainment and dreck just to get the snow forecast totals for their neighborhood. Seriously, without The Weather Channel, who'll tell us which celebrities like to hunt or provide recipes for cheesy chicken bites? Usually these retransmission feuds resolve with cable and satellite companies buckling and agreeing to some sort of significant hike (then passed on to you), though with the sort of stuff The Weather Channel has been producing in recent years, it's not clear if customers will want DirecTV to cave.

Filed Under: business models, television, weather
Companies: directv, the weather channel

HBO's One Attempt At A Standalone Digital Service Sucks

from the surprise-surprise dept

In my recent post about the fragmentation of online television, there were a few aspects and details I left out because they seemed worthy of a separate, closer look. One is the oft-forgotten fact that HBO does indeed offer one lonely digital-only subscription service... to customers in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway. That program was announced last year and seemed like a promising step for the notoriously cable-dedicated HBO—but the customer feedback is coming in, and the results are not encouraging:

A list of complaints include HD content is (was?) only available on Samsung Smart TVs, meaning you were only given SD quality when streaming through your computer or any other device. Same goes for surround sound and 5.1, which are only available through the Samsung TV app. Other complaints I've heard includes buffering problems with the Widevine plugin (at standard definition), and lack of Apple Airplay support. The product is available as iOS and Android apps, but Xbox and Playstation apps are still said to be under development.

The online UI is nice to look at but was poorly designed; initially HBO only allowed you to search for TV shows by alphabetical letter. The results were underwhelming and exaggerated how little content HBO was offering.

...

It should be noted that you're not given access to the full back catalogue, several classics are not available such as Deadwood and Oz, which apparently have some copyright restrictions.

Some might claim it's still a good deal at €9.95/month, considering most people can't access any of these shows legally without a full cable package. Of course, Netflix only costs €7.99/month in the region, and has a larger selection, which makes the price a little less impressive. Then there's the fact that HBO initially promised much, much more:

• Every episode of all HBO series available online
• All new episodes available within 24 hours of the US premiere, with local subtitles (dubbing is rare in the Nordics, foreign TV shows and movies are usually subtitled in the local language)
• Works on practically all devices: smartphones, tablets (Android, iOS), computers (Windows, Linux, Mac), video game consoles (PS3, Xbox), Samsung Smart TVs and Blu-ray players, and Sonera IPTV service
• Full HD 1080p picture quality
• Surround sound

Compare that to the list of complaints, and you realize HBO isn't doing a great job of living up to the expectations it created. Then there's the other truly insane catch: customers are locked into a 12-month contract, after which they must give 3-month notice for cancellation. Yeah. Moreover, the terms stated that simply logging into the service once waives your ability to cancel it because you're not satisfied (despite using the service being the only way to know if you are satisfied). After facing significant criticism for this move, HBO backtracked and offered subscribers the chance to use the service until the end of this month without a longer commitment—but only those subscribers who also signed up for the HBO Nordic newsletter. Classy.

It's no real surprise that HBO's first attempt at a standalone online offering is a disaster. HBO approaches the internet with extreme trepidation, but revolution requires gusto. Digital distribution—especially when it comes to competing with piracy—is a go big or go home endeavor. Or... go halfway, and watch your customers go elsewhere.

Filed Under: denmark, digital, finland, norway, sweden, television
Companies: hbo

Aereo Wins Round One Against Broadcasters; Judge Rejects Injunction & Allows Service To Live

from the how-do-you-define-your-antenna dept

We've been covering the ridiculous legal fight over Aereo for a few months now. If you don't remember, Aereo is a company that offers -- for a fee -- to let people watch over-the-air broadcast TV (not cable, so just the small number of broadcast stations) online. Basically, what they do is set up antennas in a building in Brooklyn -- with one antenna per customer -- and then connect that antenna to the internet so the person can watch. The TV broadcasters flipped out and sued.

As we've noted, in essence, this is another lawsuit that asks the question: do the copyright rules change depending on the length of your cable. That is, we know that it's legal to put up an antenna yourself and watch what you get. That's how broadcast TV works. We also know that it's almost certainly legal (it hasn't directly been tested) to take the legal TV you are accessing and then place-shift it so you can watch it over the internet (like with a Slingbox). So, if you combine those two things, why would it suddenly be illegal? The only real difference is that the antenna and the place shifting device sit in Aereo's building rather than in your own home. So, it's just that the "cable" length between the users and the devices is longer. Why should the length of the cable determine whether something is infringing or not? In a few related legal cases, the rulings have been mixed.

There was the ivi case, where the company offered a very similar service, but went with a different legal theory (relying on compulsory licensing rules)... which has so far been shot down in court. Then there was the Zediva case which relied on a very similar theory, but with DVDs (i.e., the company had a separate DVD player for each customer and let you watch movies streamed from that individual player). In that case, the court issued an injunction and the company shut down. Finally, there's the Cablevision ruling in which the TV guys went after Cablevision for offering a remote DVR feature. In a somewhat convoluted, but important, ruling, it was found that a remote DVR could be legal and non-infringing.

While the networks seriously argued that anything that caused anyone to think about cancelling their cable subscriptions could be illegal, the judge in the Aereo case, Alison Nathan, has refused to grant a preliminary injunction (basically doing the opposite of what happened in the Zediva ruling). Zediva was in a different court (and only reached the district court level anyway) so that ruling had little direct influence here. The Cablevision ruling, however, was pretty clearly instrumental in saving Aereo from being shut down.

Much of the ruling focused on what seems like a relatively tangential question: whether Aereo is really creating an individual antenna for each customer, or if it's just building a giant single antenna. More or less, it's a question of whether or not each individual antenna works with the others to better capture the signal. This is also known as a totally stupid debate. I mean, if you were to step back and just look at this from a common sense standpoint, you'd say the fact that Aereo has to set up a different antenna for each customer is pretty stupid. There's no technical reason to do so, only a legal one. It is an expense that serves only to satisfy a legal demand, which is by definition an inefficiency introduced into the market for no reason other than to keep lawyers happy.

But, here, the judge ruled that the individual antenna theory applies, and thanks almost entirely to the Cablevision ruling, there's no reason to issue a preliminary injunction. The networks tried some bizarre theories about why Cablevision didn't apply, but the judge saw through all of the attempts at misdirection:

Despite this creative attempt to escape from the express holding of Cablevision, for the reasons discussed below this Court finds itself constrained to reject the approach Plaintiffs urge. Contrary to Plaintiffs' arguments, the copies Aereo's system creates are not materially distinguishable from those in Cablevision, which found that the transmission was made from those copies rather than from the incoming signal. Moreover, Plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish Cablevision based on time-shifting fails when confronted with the reasoning of that case, particularly considering that the Second Circuit's analysis was directly focused on the significance of Cablevision' s copies but did not say one word to suggest that time-shifting played any part in its holding.

From there, the ruling goes into a wonderfully thorough debunking of the networks' attempt to ignore the ruling in Cablevision and a detailed explanation for why Aereo is quite similar to Cablevision. In the end, the judge also bars the preliminary injunction due to the lack of irreparable harm if the service keeps going for the duration of the trial. The court actually says that it can see how there is a clear case that the networks could suffer irreperable harm, in the form of losing viewers and advertisers -- but that since that "harm" is a longterm one, there's little reason to issue an injunction right now. Separately, the court recognizes that an injunction would almost certainly be "irreparable harm" for Aereo, as it would effectively be a death sentence (as was the case with Zediva). Either way, however, the level of detail the court uses in laying out why Aereo is so similar Cablevision does not bode well for the networks' overall case.

This case is far from over, but in round one, the networks' key argument appears to have taken quite a beating.

Filed Under: broadcasting, dvr, place shifting, television
Companies: aereo, cablevision, ivi, zediva

Viacom Uses Fans As Hostages: Blocks Daily Show, Colbert Streams For Everyone To Spite DirecTV

from the um.-overkill dept

So, as the dispute between Viacom and DirecTV over how much money Viacom wants for its channels wore on, the various Viacom channels like MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodian disappeared for DirecTV subscribers. As often happens in such situations, DirecTV told its customers that they regretted the situation and were working on it, but in the meantime, they could check out missing programs online. Viacom's massive overkill response? Pull the free streams it offers online of two of its most popular shows: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. For everyone. Not just DirecTV subscribers. Because, apparently, pissing off consumers and driving them to unauthorized means, is... um... I don't know... supposedly going to get them on Viacom's side? This is the kind of "strategic" thinking that goes on at Viacom, apparently. Of course, this really highlights the exceptionally distorted economics of the cable/satellite TV business, where it makes more sense to block your direct relationship with fans and piss them off... in the hopes that it might make the satellite provider to pay you more money. Viacom's new motto, apparently, is: Using our fans as hostages. This is why the TV market is so ripe for disruption.

Filed Under: stephen colbert, television, the daily show
Companies: directv, viacom

CBS Mocks Its Own Failed Copyright Lawsuit By Sarcastically Announcing New 'Completely Original' Show 'Dancing On The Stars'

from the the-snark-is-strong-with-this-one dept

A few weeks back, we wrote about a silly lawsuit from CBS, arguing that it could basically hold the copyright on some of the most basic concepts in reality TV. CBS was suing ABC, because ABC was about to put on Glass House, which was similar to CBS's Big Brother. Of course, this is the nature of TV and most people deal with it. You can't copyright an idea (or so we're told) but that doesn't seem to stop big companies from pretending otherwise. Here, at least, the judge wasn't convinced. He refused to issue an injunction blocking the showing of Glass House, and noted that it certainly looked like the ideas were different:

"I think is very likely to induce quite different behavior than one would expect to see in the 'Big Brother' show."

CBS had put out a statement saying that it would keep fighting the lawsuit, but apparently it decided on another way to fight this as well: by snarky press release. In something that honestly reads like it was meant for April Fool's Day (and caused many people to wonder if CBS's system had been hacked), the company put out a mocking and sarcastic press release supposedly announcing a "groundbreaking and completely original new reality program" called Dancing on the Stars. Here's the full press release:

CBS ANNOUNCES DEVELOPMENT OF “DANCING ON THE STARS,” AN EXCITING AND COMPLETELY ORIGINAL REALITY PROGRAM THAT OWES ITS CONCEPT AND EXECUTION TO NOBODY AT ALL

Los Angeles, June 20, 2012 – Subsequent to recent developments in the creative and legal community, CBS Television today felt it was appropriate to reveal the upcoming launch of an exciting, groundbreaking and completely original new reality program for the CBS Television Network.

The dazzling new show, DANCING ON THE STARS, will be broadcast live from the Hollywood Forever Cemetery, and will feature moderately famous and sort of well-known people you almost recognize competing for big prizes by dancing on the graves of some of Hollywood’s most iconic and well-beloved stars of stage and screen.

The cemetery, the first in Hollywood, was founded in 1899 and now houses the remains of Andrew “Fatty” Arbuckle, producer Cecil B. DeMille, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Paul Muni, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, George Harrison of the Beatles and Dee Dee Ramone of the Ramones, among many other great stars of stage, screen and the music business. The company noted that permission to broadcast from the location is pending, and that if efforts in that regard are unsuccessful, approaches will be made to Westwood Village Memorial Park, where equally scintillating luminaries are interred.

“This very creative enterprise will bring a new sense of energy and fun that’s totally unlike anything anywhere else, honest,” said a CBS spokesperson, who also revealed that the Company has been working with a secret team for several months on the creation of the series, which was completely developed by the people at CBS independent of any other programming on the air. “Given the current creative and legal environment in the reality programming business, we’re sure nobody will have any problem with this title or our upcoming half-hour comedy for primetime, POSTMODERN FAMILY.”

“After all,” the spokesperson added, “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

Yeah, that last sentence might push this one a bit far over the top, don't you think? This is the kind of response that people have and joke about internally. They don't release it to the world. I will grant you that it's amusing, but it also seems pretty petulant for a company having lost the basic argument in its lawsuit. If it really is going to fight on with this lawsuit, perhaps so publicly mocking the judge who ruled against you isn't such a good idea.

Filed Under: big brother, glass house, reality tv, television
Companies: abc, cbs

Google Books Data Mining Reveals Mad Men's Big Historical Flaw: Business Lingo

from the keep-a-low-profile dept

The TV show Mad Men has quite a reputation for going to great lengths to be as authentic as possible. The clothes, the props, the scenarios are all supposedly thought out in great detail. While some who were actually in the business at the time quibble with certain aspects of the show, it cannot be denied that the show's producers certainly go way beyond other period pieces to try to make keep everything accurate for the time period. However, it turns out that there's one area where it appears the writers have completely flopped: period-specific language. On The Media ran an absolutely fascinating clip about a researcher who has shown how frequently Mad Men uses words or phrases that were not in popular usage at the time, but only came into the lexicon at a later date:
This is actually a cross-broadcast of another podcast, Lexicon Valley, and it's covering the work of Ben Schmidt, who has produced a software algorithm that compares the Mad Men scripts... to a searchable database of language from Google's book scanning project. Schmidt's algorithm compares the language from the show with scanned books from the same period. Schmidt has a website, Prochronism, which covers his findings. I can't quite explain why, but it's really quite fascinating.

Schmidt has found that the show is pretty good about getting language about technology right (with one exception). It knows that there aren't fax machines and computers and stuff. The one area where it gets things wrong, is with the phone. For example, using the phrase "on hold." He notes that phones had hold buttons, but there wasn't yet a concept of the state of being "on hold." That showed up in the 70s.

What Schmidt has also found is that the show is absolutely terrible about getting "business" terms correct in a period specific way. That same post about "on hold" also chides the show for using "defining moment," another phrase that showed up in the 70s, but was basically stuck in academia until the late 80s or early 90s when it became a popular phrase.


Honestly, Ben's site is really fascinating. I could spend hours on it (and actually had to stop going through it post by post to finish this post). There are also discussions on phrases like "focus groups" and "leverage." But one more awesome chart from Ben, discussing the use of both "moral high ground" and "consumerism," both of which were barely in use until much later:


On the podcast, they discuss how part of the reason that the show gets the language about technology right, but not business, is because we know that technology rapidly evolves and we're more attuned to it. But people don't pay nearly as much attention to how business changes and especially how the language of business changes over time. I guess that's true, though it doesn't surprise me that "consumerism" and "moral high ground" are both more recent phenomena. "Defining moment" and "on hold" are a bit more surprising to me.

Either way, I also wanted to highlight something else about all of this that I find fascinating. For all the talk by some about just how evil Google's book scanning project is, this kind of effort and research wouldn't be possible without large scale scanning of books. While this particular example may appear (on its face) to be a frivolous (even if it's fascinating) area of research, it does highlight just how collection of certain data can open up vast arrays of data that can be mined in useful ways. When people freak out about new technologies and services, they almost always focus on how it impacts the old offerings. So most of the talk was about book scanning and its impact on book sales. But what almost no one talks about is how it enables new things that simply weren't possible before -- such as being able to build an algorithm like the one Ben built. Those kinds of innovations -- the unexpected "externalities" of projects like the Google book scanning project -- shouldn't be ignored, because there's tremendous value that can come out of them.

Filed Under: ben schmidt, data mining, google books, history, language, mad men, television