Brian Grey Blog

A couple new moves at some old media dawgs will be interesting to keep an eye on in 2009.

First, thanks to the CNET acquisition, CBS now owns one of the more coveted media URLs “TV.com”.  They apparently are in the midst of rolling out a new programming approach according to PaidContent.org.  The idea is to turn a “water cooler” site that covers TV and gives people a place to come together to talk about TV into a video distribution outlet.

So how will this come together.  The struggle to get multiple content providers to syndicate their content to a site like TV.com that is operated by a competitor can be mitigated by enabling the monetization to ride along with the content.  For example, let the Hulu player be embedded in the TV.com site so that Fox and NBC content can show up there.  So long as the ad sales team at Hulu can get good analytics to roll in the views that they get on TV.com, it should work for content producer and distributor.

And where’s the rub?  Well, first, most of the money will be made in ads around the video — not pre-rolls, mid-rolls or post-rolls.  So, will Hulu (or any brand name 3rd party syndicator) require certain restrictions on advertisers who show up in standard IAB units next to their video content?  I would think so.

The other big issue to be solved is who gets to “engage” the user around the video.  Part of the benefit for a distributor in carrying the other guy’s video — and letting them sell it — is that you get to layer in your social networking tools and features.  But does that mean you have to get the content guy’s embedded video player to strip out their “social” elements?  Hmmm, that will be an interesting discussion.

And speaking of aggregating content, the new GM of the NY Times Denise Warren talks to PaidContent.org little about the idea as part of the ongoing evolution of the Gray Lady.  I am not sure I think of the Times as enough of a media hub or starting place to put a lot of value in being able to access other non-Times content as part of the experience via widgets or what not.  In my mind, the Times is a professionally produced, branded content publisher that gives me a specific voice in several topics.  They are one of the RSS feeds that I happily pull in to my My Yahoo! aggregation page.  Maybe as a West Coast guy I’m different than somebody who lives in Manhattan and sees the Times differently?

Think of it this way.  I just don’t see the Times in the same light as an ESPN.  I could see ESPN being my “hub” for sports content.  A place where I would look for branded, premier quality content around which I would pull in other 3rd party content about my teams, players, etc.  Maybe the Wall Street Journal could serve that role for business/finance content?

I just don’t see the Times in this light, but rather a content source that I could pull in to my sports or business hubs when the Times had content relevant in each of those areas.  I’m not sure if I were GM of the NYTimes that I would be spending a lot of time trying for this “aggregator” mindset with my audience.