It’s Fourth and Long for Big 10 Network
The Big Ten Network is set to kick-off soon, but few fans will be able to receive it. Why? Because no major cable company wants to carry the freshman network, at least not as part of its basic package.
“The cable companies are playing their favorites, and abusing their power,” scream conference officials.
“We are underwhelmed by the prospect of carrying an overpriced niche channel,” a clever cable industry spokesman would say if such a person existed.
As legendary announcer Keith Jackson often exclaimed, “Fum…ble! Whoa Boy!”
My response to all this, is why waste your time with cable, Big Ten Network? Leave cable on the sidelines.
The Big Ten Network coulda been something, Charley. They coulda been a contenda.
The game plan all along should have been to launch as the first major online sports network. All the necessary pieces are in place. The Big Ten Network’s partner is Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also happens to own a minor online player called MySpace. DirecTV, also owned by Murdoch, will carry the network. AT&T’s U-Verse, the internet video provider, is on board as well. Oh, and AT&T just happens to have a little partnership going with Apple and its iPhone.
Satellite, internet, mobile… hmmm.
It’s not too late (okay, maybe it is) to make halftime adjustments. Here then, are my Big 10 (+ Penn State) Reasons the Network should be online:
Number 10 Cable limits exposure to parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. Yawn. Online provides easy access to millions more Big Ten alumni who now live and work all over the world.
Number 09 Most people won’t want to see an increase in their cable bills just to have access to this network, but many fans would probably drop a buck or two a month for an online subscription.
Number 08 An online network creates a dual revenue stream for its partners (Subscriber-based and ad-driven) just as cable would.
Number 07 CBS proved the viability of such a model with its delivery of NCAA March Madness broadcasts via streaming video. Only insufficient server capacity kept this initiative from becoming a true blockbuster.
Number 06 More Bucky Badger and less Brent Musburger!
Number 05 This “niche” network provides advertisers and marketers with an unsurpassed, rich media-powered playground for true interactivity.
Number 04 Online merchandising @ virtual versions of the conference’s campus bookstores, Booster Clubs, Fan Forums, online video games featuring Big 10 sports and teams (Hey, Michigan doesn’t have to lose to Ohio State in football every year anymore if you’re handling the joystick), and other possibilities too numerous to name here.
Number 03 Ability to track viewer behavior gives new meaning to “time out for a measurement,” and accountability means something to more than just coaches with losing records.
Number 02 Every geek can now claim that he had a cheerleader in his room – On Demand!
And the Number One, Big 10 (+ Penn State) Reason that the Network should be online… Imagine the Social Media possibilities. They could launch as InYourFaceBook.com!
Al Ries is Wrong, Part 2
In my last post – on a dare to evaluate an Al Ries video – I launched into a rather lengthy rant about why the internet would lead to the eventual obsolescence of traditional TV. Leave it to one of my colleagues (thank you, Justin) to make my point much clearer: “It’s not about the convergence of technologies, but the convergence of mediums.”
The main thrust of the Ries Report video was not really about TV-PC convergence, but used it as an example of convergence hype gone awry. He mainly employed the concept of convergence to predict the failure of Apple’s iPhone. “All hype, all hot air, no sales in the long run.”
Let me explain. No, there’s no time. Let me sum up. Al Ries believes that divergence is good; convergence is bad.
To demonstrate divergence, Mr. Ries uses several examples, including telephones: first there were regular phones, then cordless phones, walkie-talkies, and cell phones. He forgot two cans with string stretched out between them …
Convergence? “Well, with all the hype, everyone in the world is running around trying to put two things together that don’t belong together.”
As examples of the dangers inherent in the urge to converge, Mr. Ries – and this was hilarious – runs down a list of convergence failures: a Refrigerator-TV, Radio-Binoculars, Radio-Toaster, Camera-Printer, a Hamburger Hotel (a personal favorite), and MP3 Sunglasses.
Mr. Ries compares Apple’s iPod (divergence) with the iPhone (convergence). The iPod is a divergence device because it was the first high-capacity MP3 player unlike the original, low-capacity, versions. He implies that the iPhone is just another cell phone, and is thus doomed to fail. And here is where – if we use his own thesis – he is wrong.
With the iPhone, Apple has created an interactive user experience that surpasses other smart (cell) phones. Its large, touch screen user interface and internet browsing feature represents true innovation (divergence). Every iPhone feature is a simple touch away, and its screen does not offer a menu bar or other confusing buttons.
If Apple’s iPhone fails – as Mr. Ries suggests – it will not be because it is a “convergence device,” but because of flaws in 1-3 of the 4 Ps (no one can argue with how Promotion has been handled):
- The Product does not live up to its hype, or it is not substantially different than other Smart Phones.
- The Price is too steep (Up to $599 is a little pricey for a unique fixer-upper).
- Placement becomes an issue due to the exclusivity deal with AT&T.
Despite all of its recent marketing coups, don’t forget some Apple blunders: the Apple Lisa (1983), or the more relevant point, their refusal to share the Apple operating system with generic (or other) PC manufacturers, which opened the door for Windows and the explosive Microsoft growth that nearly buried them! The AT&T deal could prove to be equally limiting to the product’s success.
In my opinion, the easy to use, interactive experience with fewer features make the iPhone a divergence device not, as Mr. Ries insists, a convergence one. Look for it to be a big hit.
The Battle of Perception
Al Ries and Jack Trout once wrote that “Marketing is not a battle of products; it’s a battle of perceptions.”
A client or prospect’s perception is your reality. Thus, you must sometimes find creative ways to alter their view of the world in order to help them realize their desired goals (and your own). To demonstrate how effective this technique can prove to be, I offer the following:
During his march through the near east, Alexander the Great came upon a mountain stronghold known as the Soghdian Rock.
The rock itself was sheer-faced and – so its defenders believed – impregnable.
At a prelim parley, Alexander offered the occupants safe conduct if they would surrender their fortress.
The negotiators laughed rudely, and asked whether Alexander’s men could fly, adding that they would surrender to winged soldiers, “as no other sort of person could cause us the least anxiety.”
Alexander at once combed through his entire army for experienced mountaineers and found some 300. He called for volunteers to scale the sheer rock face (the defenders only guarded the one direct route to the fortress). He offered vast rewards for the first 12 men up.
Every man volunteered for the perilous operation. They made the ascent by night, an extra hazard, and 30 of them plummeted to their deaths.
At dawn, a flutter of white flags broke out from the summit above the fortress. Alexander sent a herald to tell the defenders that if they looked up, they would see that he had found his winged men.
The Soghdians were so taken aback by this theatrical rearrangement of reality that they surrendered instantly, even though they outnumbered the mountaineers by 30,000 to less than 300 and the rest of Alexander’s men still had no path to the summit.
What’s this story have to do with marketing? Plenty. It is not about a battle of products (Army vs. Army); it is about a battle of perceptions (My Army is better than your Army). Alexander sealed the deal because he was able to create the perception that his men could accomplish the impossible (fly to the mountaintop), and not the reality (no one saw them do it) that led to victory.
Listen to your customers and prospects. Understand what it will take from their point of view to win them over. It may mean altering your own path, but in some cases, they are simply waiting for you to show them your winged men to convince them that it’s time to close the deal.
