Lights Out For Media Realism?

 It has been a while since you have heard from me. There is a reason. Over the last six weeks, I have been busier than I been in a few decades. So, today, after 11 years, I am suspending Media Realism. 

Besides my current workload and other commitments there are some additional considerations:

1) There are a number of topics that I have covered thoroughly and do not wish to be repetitive by writing about them again.

2) My wheelhouse re media issues is getting a bit long in the tooth.

3) Readership has continued to grow steadily but at a slower rate than in past years.

So, at some point in 2021, I will be back on a limited basis and then stop MR altogether. I have made many new friends via this blog over the last decade and maintained contact with hundreds of others. Thank you all for your encouragement, support, and lively comments.

Sincerely,

Don

Millennials and The Double Whammy

A number of years back, demographers tagged those born between 1981 and 1996 as a generation that they called Millenninals.  When any new generation is defined, most of us have high hopes for them. Millennials were particularly interesting as they grew up with digital technologies and had little or no fear of them. The thought among many of us is that they could blaze a trail faster and better than those of us born decades before. Some of them did. Many of them, however, got hit by two financial crises that have put their long term prospects in jeopardy. 

The first crisis was The Great Recession of 2008-2009. Unemployment jumped from about 4.8% to 10.8%. Detailed studies from major institutions have shown that if you begin your career during a recession your earning power may be stalled for a decade or more and you may never catch up with those somewhat older than you. Adding fuel to the fire was that companies could be stingy with raises given the low or no inflation environment coming out of 2008-2009.  Once burned Millennials knew the importance of steady employment and were often timid about pushing for higher pay. Prior to the Great Recession, home ownership in the U.S. hit an all time high of about 68%. During the recession, it fell to about 60% and has never returned to the pre-crisis high. Why? Well, Millennials were not as confident as previous generations and also could not save enough to put down a 25% down payment on their first homes. Also, the average student loan debt was at $36,000— a huge millstone around a young person’s neck. You could declare personal bankruptcy but you still owed on your student debt.

In recent years, many Millennials dug themselves out of their financial holes. Things were looking up. All that changed this spring when Covid 19, a once in a hundred year event, hit the global economy hard. Many who lost their jobs in 2008 are again unemployed. Yes, government had provided a safety net for many although further help is in limbo as I write. Many Millennials have to be discouraged. Looking at every net worth statistic that I could find (and I love to dig), Millennials are behind previous generations in terms of net worth at the same age.

Yes, the stock market has rallied back smartly from the March lows so many of us are whole again financially but remember, some 50% of those 55+ have NOTHING saved for retirement so the current spike in equity prices has not affected them at all. Even Millennials who dutifully contributed to their 401k or 403b plans are behind many slightly older Americans. Also, if you are unemployed you are no longer building wealth via contributions to retirement plans and you likely are tapping what you did have to cover living expenses. 

I vividly remember reading Malcolm Gladwell’s first two books, OUTLIERS in 2008 and THE TIPPING POINT in 2010. He alluded to that when you are born has more of an influence on your success in life and your attitudes than you might think. As a Canadian, he gave an example of how junior hockey leagues put small fry born on January first in the same group as those born in late December. The January kids tend to be bigger, stronger, and more coordinated and get more attention and often how more success than those born late in the year. 

I think of my own life as an early baby boomer. Yes, I had to worry about Vietnam and the deep recession of 1974 when entering the job market but the booming 80’s and roaring 90’s more than leveled the playing field for me and my contemporaries who took their work seriously. Certainly, there will be a few million Millennials who will shrug off the Covid 19 deep recession and be great success stories. Realistically, however, I fear that there may well be several million more who will be left behind.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a comment on the blog. 

A Mild Defense of Wall Street

 In some quarters, it is fashionable to trash Wall Street. The media keeps hammering financial executives for their large compensation packages and politicians love to go after them. In 2016, the colorful Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, and an avowed Democratic Socialist, basically gave the same speech at every rally and in every debate. In essence, he repeated the same spiel in his 2020 run for the White House. One line in Bernie’s stump speech that I heard and read so much I memorized. From memory, the lively Senator said, “Greed, fraud, dishonesty and arrogance, these are the words that best describe the reality of Wall Street today.” 

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts also has Wall Street as a target and is far more disciplined in her comments and does a lot of digging before she launches a broadside at Wall Street. While I think she goes too far in her attacks, I must say that I was glued to C-Span when she took apart Wells Fargo executives among others at a Senate hearing a few years back. She moved methodically and relentlessly and would not accept the way that squirmy titans tried to rationalize their actions. At the same time, her solutions, to me, are way too broad. Break up the big banks, put in confiscatory taxes and lay on big regulation. Directionally, she is correct. Something is indeed wrong at times. Yet we need reform, not revolution.

Imagine if Wall Street (the financial world as we know it) did not exist. Do you like your I-phone? Apple products? Your cars? Your credit card with the huge credit limit or cash back features? Amazon Prime? Netflix? Disney Plus?  How about 21st century medicine? Without it and the financial backing that Wall Street provided, I am sure that I would have been dead a few decades ago. Wall Street, by providing big time financing has allowed entrepreneurs to grow far faster. Without a strong finance industry, we might still be living in something akin to feudal or colonial times. With all its flaws, I will take 21st century America without any hesitation. We need a robust financial world that fosters innovation and new ideas and entrepreneurs. BUT, the players need to play by the rules.

I have been following this topic for 50 years. Don’t believe me? Read on, my friends. Get comfortable. This will take a few minutes.

Back in 1970-72, I was studying economics. I did not like it; I loved it. To me, the way markets moved was fascinating and still is. I was taking a course in Money and Banking and another in History of Economic Thought. It was a small school so I was able to work on a detailed paper that would apply to both courses. My topic was Swiss Banks. As I dug in to it, I was fascinated by a group of institutions known as private banks. They were not the kind of entities that would want my or perhaps your checking account. They tended to work for high net worth individuals and also, in many cases, operated as investment bankers, raising money for new companies. Names such as Pictet & Cie, Vontobel and Julius Baer topped the list.  What startled me about studying them was a term in the bylaws of the private partnerships—unlimited liability. In other words, if the investment that the private bank made in an enterprise went south, the partners were literally on the hook for the entire amount of money. Even as a young pup, I understood how that they were putting their ENTIRE personal net worth up in to the private banking partnership. It was no wonder that, at the time, Swiss bankers were viewed as careful and very prudent. My profs liked the paper and gave me constant encouragement. They told me that investment banking firms in New York had the same set up—if they had big trading losses or backed a loser of a new company, the partners passed the hat and made good on it. 

Over the summer, insufferable nerd that I was, I kept digging in to the topic. Reading through old copies of The Wall Street Journal, I saw that on May 26, 1969 Lufkin and Jenrette (known as DLJ), a modest sized investment banking house, had asked the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)  Board of Governors for permission to go public. Their argument was that by turning to the public, they would have the capital to do bigger deals. Prior to that time, the NYSE had to approve all stockholders of a member firm. It was, in essence, a club.

To the surprise of many, DLJ received permission as it appears that the Wall Street insiders recognized that for the economy to keep growing, a cash infusion would help spur expansion. When I excitedly discussed this with my mentors in September, they were, as usual, very polite but did not see it as earthshaking in terms of the industry. So, I got on with my life.

I did notice that some financial people did “eat their own cooking.” Warren Buffett allegedly has some 97% + of his net worth tied up in Berkshire Hathaway stock. A friend once told me he slept well at night owning Berkshire shares as he was casting his lot with Warren. A few boutique mutual funds insisted that their money managers had a large portion of their personal assets in the fund(s) they managed as well.

Being a business news junkie then and now, I noticed over the next 15 years that the DLJ initial public offering  was not a one off. Merrill Lynch went public in 1971 while I was still an undergraduate. In 1981, Solomon Brothers merged with commodities heavyweight Phibro and then went public, followed by Bear Stearns in 1985 and Morgan Stanley the next year. I was busy with a young family and noticed it but shrugged. Finally, the most prominent firm, Goldman Sachs, bit the bullet and went public in 1999 and the super secret Lazard Freres was last to join the party in 2006. All of this got my attention and I noticed one thing. Shareholders of these famous firms received rather stingy dividends while a reading of the annual reports exposed that senior management and some young traders (stock, fixed income or commodity) were taking home multi-million dollar bonuses. It was almost as if they were still partnerships. The shareholders (the public) provided the capital but a disproportionate amount of the spoils went to the management. Far more damning was that when they had a bad year, the stock price tanked but many of the seven or eight  figure bonuses continued. This was often dubbed “corporate welfare” or “socialism for the rich” as either shareholders or, as happened in 2008-2009, the taxpayers had to absorb some of the losses. This really triggered the heated comments of Senators Sanders and Warren.

Congress passed the Dodd-Frank bill to regulate Wall Street. It is an impenetrable 2300 pages. I bet that, other than a bleary eyed Liz Warren, nobody else in the US Senate read the whole thing. Smaller banking institutions are finding compliance onerous and expensive. Dodd-Frank undoubtedly had some good parts. Here is my alternative after my 50 years of observation: Go back to some form of unlimited liability for investment bank senior officers. Think about this. If a bank makes a multi-billion dollar mistake again Chagalls and Picassos would come off walls, the ranch in Montana and the ski lodge in Aspen would go on the block, the beach house in the Hamptons would change hands and god forbid, the duplex on Park Avenue would have to be sold. Bankers would get religion pretty damn quickly.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

The Scariest Demographic Trend

Not quite five years ago, two well thought of academics, Anne Case and Angus Deaton, published a paper with perhaps the most downbeat title ever: “Rising Morbidity and Mortality In Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century.”  It was published in a scientific journal with the catchy name of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. I know, my dear readers, that many of you are envious of me, but seeing clearly how I spend my time must make you even more jealous. I can almost hear you saying to yourselves, “why can’t my life be as exciting as Don’s?”

The prose did not read like a best selling novel. Yet, if you fought your way through it, as I did, there was some sad and startling information. What leapt off the pages was that from 1999-2014 there had been a significant increase in the death rate of white Americans of middle age. It almost seemed un-American to many at first blush. Historically, each American generation had thrived relative to the previous one and improvements in medicine had lengthened life spans. 

To oversimplify, the authors attributed the rise to what they dubbed “deaths of despair”—an increase in drug and alcohol related deaths, suicides, and cirrhosis of the liver. Prior to 1999, deaths among 45-54 year old men were falling in the U.S. almost totally in line with other “wealthy” nations around the globe. Since 1999, they have taken a U-turn and gone upward. Also, and importantly, deaths of African-Americans and Hispanic Americans among the same age group in the U.S. are almost perfectly in line with the global trends NOT those of U.S. white males of the same age.

So, what was and sadly still is going on?

Deaton and Case drilled down in to the numbers and found that the large majority of the deaths were among Men without a college education. Fifty years ago, poorly educated men in the U.S. lived only five years less than high income men of the same generation. Now, the gap is an eye-popping 15 years. A British columnist put it this way in October, 2016—“Dying half a generation sooner than you might have is bad enough. Expecting to die younger than your parents is worse. It goes against what Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, have taken for granted.” *

Some have put the finger on growing inequality. Labor unions are much weaker than 50 years ago and we have a post industrial economy centered on services and information which do not make skills of many blue collar workers financially fit. So, the American working class in in decline and Artificial Intelligence can only make it worse. Some forecasters are projecting that within 15 years some 2.5 million truck drivers will lose their jobs as self drive vehicles become widespread. Driving a truck provided a fine income for many without a college degree. Political analysts say that Donald Trump’s upset victory in the electoral college in 2016 was due to his ability to tap in the frustration and even desperation of the middle aged- middle class who felt that they are being left behind. The work of Deaton and Case seem to put the light on that political narrative really well.

What can be done? Well, for my entire adult life politicians talk about job re-training for displaced persons due to technological growth. I have seen little in that arena that is meaningful.  Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang suggests a minimum guaranteed income for all as Big Data and Artificial intelligence sweep away millions of jobs in the years to come. That does not strike me as politically viable or healthy for a lot of people given the opioid and alcohol use that Deaton and Case found among the premature deaths.

The other argument is that we can simply grow our way out of it? I have heard this argument used regarding our massive budget deficits in the U.S. That might work if we did not continue to increase spending but politicians lack the will to get draconian. A bigger problem with the issue of growth leveling inequality is that to me it has very little to do with it. A growing economy is fine but it does not reveal a damn thing about how that newfound wealth is being distributed. And, as I have often written in this space, there is always going to be inequality in a free market model although perhaps not as extreme as we are seeing today.

In 1962, Jack Kennedy, trying to sell a tax cut to Congress and the public, said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” He was wrong then and he would be wrong now. This generation of middle aged men unmasked in the Deaton and Case report is discouraged and increasingly feeling forgotten and their future prospects look pretty awful. Turning around their lives is a big problem that we, as a nation, must deal with. There is no evidence that the situation has turned around in the last five years. It may get a terrible spike as we struggle through the Covid 19 pandemic as well.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

* Edward Luce, Financial Times, 10/9/16

Marketers, Post a Video!

Way back in 1995, I was doing some unusual things for a media executive. One issue was that I was helping to take some infomercial marketers from Direct Response TV (DRTV) to retail. They were a motley crew of Runyonesque characters but for 18 months or so they broke up the monotony of discussing Reach & Frequency estimates or the pattern of frequency distributions with conventional marketers perhaps far more bored than I. One day, my favorite infomercial guy called me and we had a long talk. He said something very interesting. Apparently, his call center was getting jammed with calls at certain times from people inquiring how his gadget worked. So, he started sending videos of his informercial in with every DRTV sale. Magically, sales continued to grow and the phone only rang a fraction as much as it did a few weeks earlier. He said he planned to do that permanently. I laughed and said it sounded great but told him the TV billing that we did for him might plummet (It did!). My friend asked me what this kind of advertising he was doing and I said it reminded me of an article that I had read recently. I told him that he could call it “content marketing.”

Well, a lot of things have happened since 1995. And, content marketing, truly novel then even when discussed in a package, still has a very nice future. Why? There are a few reasons from my perspective and they are:

1) People watch videos and they like them! Stuck too much at home during this horrendous pandemic. I bet that Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and perhaps Disney + is getting a lot attention from you. Some prognosticators have fragmentary research that says online video viewing is up more than 50% in the last 24 months. It may be a lot higher over the last 90 days.

2) I am an outlier in that I read all the time. Most people do not but their preference for getting information tends to be with videos. They keep their attention, educate in many cases and are considered entertaining. Two recent studies indicate that people learn about a product through word of mouth to a large degree but two thirds say that, all things being equal, they would prefer videos. A textual description only gets the stamp of approval from 18-20%.

3) The track record for videos is strong. Nearly 90% of marketers say that embedding a video in an e-mail increases website traffic significantly. Also, the “pass-along” audience is very solid. It appears that people may not forward a verbal product story to a friend, associate or relative but they will if it is a short video.

4) Videos appear to turbo-charge e-mail marketing. What triggered me to post this is that in recent months, a few readers have contacted me and stated that their e-mail blasts are getting diminishing returns. To a person, none have used a video. In a world where we use FaceTime, What’s App, and Skype with friends, relatives and business associates, a simple video in the mix can certainly help. Amazingly, people are not doing it some 25 years after my friend stumbled upon it.

If this post seems mundane, too bad. Sometimes, people ignore the simple blocking and tackling that all marketers need to do.

Should you wish to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

The Aging Tsunami

So people just will not let go. For a few decades, I have beat the drum saying that essentially “Demographics are Destiny.” Recently, as I was updating some figures, I went back and forth with someone whom I have known for many years. When I told him what I was working on he snapped, “So, Don. You are going to tell me that Republicans are finished as all young people are Democrats and all senior citizens are members of the GOP.” I paused and counted to 50. No, all of any group does not believe to a particular political persuasion. Ronald Reagan, for example, was very popular with young voters as president.

Studying demographics has to be a key factor for all for are marketers or members of the investment class. To me, demographics are a steady and relentless tidal wave that are headed right at the western world. Can they be shifted a bit? On paper, it seems possible but it has not gotten much traction in the real world. Countries as widespread as Singapore and France have provided bounties to families who had more children but the programs have not shifted birthrates with any significance.

So, why bother to study the topic? It is an excellent, and some say the best, long term forecasting tool. Consider this—United State population growth has slowed to the lowest level in 80 years. The under 18 population is actually lower than it was in 2010 when our last formal U.S. census was taken. Many pundits saw the birthrate decline beginning in 2007 and shrugged saying that it was due to the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Well, the birthrate has not snapped back. The U.S. fertility rate is now the lowest in history. And, a survey on family growth recently found that more than half of U.S. Women with one child said that they would not be having another.

You have all heard of Zero Population Growth (ZPG). Women are now having their first child at 27. When I was in college, it was 21. America is now below ZPG (2.1 children) so we cannot replace our existing population. We have now joined most of Western Europe as a rapidly aging society. Census adjusted figures indicate that US residents under 18 have fallen about 1% since 2010 but those over 55 have moved up 8 percent. The New England states and parts of the industrial midwest are getting older the fastest.

Another factoid has come to the fore which surprised me. The mobility of Americans are at a historic low. I understand it now during the Covid 19 pandemic but even before this crisis, people were not moving for jobs as much. Perhaps the high cost of living is keeping people out of San Francisco, Seattle, Boston and New York even though that is where the super high paying jobs are.

What does all of this mean? The math is scary. Our health care system is buckling at present due to the pandemic but what about 30 years from now? How can we keep the current Social Security system going (fewer people paying in and more taking out) not to mention Medicare/Medicaid and some provisions for senior housing? Estimates say that the shortfall for these items is as low as $70 trillion up to $210 trillion. Can these relatively few young bail out us greybeards? The math does not work. We will need reform in entitlements and higher taxes. And, we cannot grow our way out of demographic shifts.

One answer is heightened immigration but that tends to be a tinderbox political issue with many Americans who sadly do not realize that we are a nation of immigrants and young hard working immigrants could really help bail us out of this mess.

Villages in the Great Plains are becoming ghost towns and the trend is showing no signs of slowing down. What happens to small isolated towns when the few youngsters move away and schools close and the nearest doctor is 40 miles away? These are issues that are upon us.

So, the future demographics of the US and Western Europe are nearly set in stone. People who dismiss it as a political hot button miss the point. It will affect the media world, the marketing world, healthcare and stunt economic growth if it considers on its current path.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Mediocrity is the Enemy

A long time ago, I was about to graduate from college. I went to say goodbye and thank a man who had encouraged me and mentored me for two years. It was very pleasant and, as we were wrapping up, I asked if he had any advice for me. He said he did not like to give life advice but I persisted. “Okay, Don. Here it is. Don’t live a mediocre life.” Surprised, I promised him that I would try not to. He got a bit stern and said, “Don’t be mediocre. Most of us are.” I did not think a lot about it but, as I have gotten older, I see what he was telling me.

Let’s face it. Most of us do live mediocre lives. We get up each day and go to a job that pays the bills but we do not really love it. In many cases, we are “underemployed” and spend our days doing tasks below our skill level. We never have an impact on our industry or community and more damning, we never achieve our dreams. People start talking about living for the weekends and vacations. They have effectively given up and I have heard them refer to themselves as survivors. It is sad but normal. And, some of them are not even 40 years old.

I have observed a lot of mediocre people and see a dreary sameness to how they spend their free time. They watch too much TV, party a lot, or escape in to a ridiculous obsession with sports. They also (sadly) have certain things in common:

1) They never think big. Not mindless daydreaming of winning the lottery but they have no life plan. They do not live life—it happens to them. And, they wind up bitter.

2) They rarely take thought out and calculated risks.

3) They surround themselves with people who have the same fears of unemployment or winding up broke and with few friends.

So, my young friends out there, may I offer the following advice that I  was given. Don’t live a mediocre life. Look at your environment. Are you friends and family holding you back? Do those close to you tell you that you are lazy or not good enough? Do you go to the same websites all the time? Are you in a comfortable rut? Maybe that is a large part of what is holding you back. Remember the old adage—“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten.” A cliche, yes. That does not mean that it is not true.

Most advertising is mediocre. Did you notice now how a good commercial stops you in your tracks even in this age of commercial avoidance? Most people are mediocre at their jobs, most Americans of a certain age are overweight, others are close to broke after a lifetime of work but hurt by bad decisions. If you really care about your life, then you should be insulted if you consider yourself to be mediocre. If something is REALLY important to you, you will find a way to change.

Warren Buffett tells graduate students to not “go sleepwalking through life.” That was what my economics mentor was trying to tell me. Find your passion, follow it, and your life will be anything but mediocre.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Imposter Syndrome

Happy Birthday, United States.

Virtually all of us at some point in our careers suffer briefly or significantly from what psychologists often refer to as “Imposter Syndrome.”  We may fear that we are not good enough or do not belong in our job or be the person to give a major presentation to a big client or to an industry forum. This often triggers a great deal of anxiety—some people freeze and procrastinate while others bury themselves in work and then their lives get way out of balance. Over the years, many people came to me about it especially before a major event or on taking a new job. Here are some things that I suggested to them:

1) Stop beating yourself up—most of the time, when you present to a group, you are THE expert in the room (it can get tricky at industry gatherings) and, if you have prepared properly, you should be able to field questions and make a favorable impression. Also, make a list of questions that could be asked and prepare answers so, from the floor, you look on top of your game.

2) Look at real evidence—pull out your resume. Is it all true? Then you should have some confidence about what you are doing. Think of your past successes. Did bosses or clients ever pay your compliments in writing? Re-read them. You are not a fraud.

3) Share your fear with friends is what many tell you to do. I would be VERY careful about that. If you do, make sure it is someone NOT connected to your business or someday it may be used against you. If you want to keep a secret, tell no one has always been my mantra. Sometimes people will slip and tell your fears to others with no malicious intent but it can come back to haunt you. I was flattered when people told me of their fears and I tried to encourage them but it stopped with me permanently.

4) Discount outside sources—people would tell me that they were where they were due to 100% luck. Maybe, if Mom or Dad owned the business but usually you were in the job you have or given a major assignment due to your abilities. There is no question that being in the right place at the right time happens but you still have to prove yourself.

What about the famous advice of “fake it until you make it”?  I have very mixed feelings about that. If you are nervous or awkward socially, then stepping outside yourself and exuding some confidence can be quite beneficial both personally and professionally. Yet, at times, I have seem too many people confuse confidence with competence. Clearly actions can follow feelings but you still have to know your stuff. With some people there is a blurry line between confidence and lies.

About 20 years ago, a media salesperson asked me to attend a meeting with a foreigner who was going to launch a service in the United States. He had a wonderful British accent and made a fairly interesting case for getting Angel investors such as my friend and others present to get on board as financial backers. With him, was a wildly ebullient young fellow who said that he was an investment banker. He took a fair part in the Q&A session after the pitch deck was reviewed. Then, he said that after a brief launch in the states, shares would be available to the general public. I innocently asked if they had plans to issue ADR’s or perhaps an ADS? The young man got flustered and told me that I was not fair and that I was using some new financial term to embarrass him. “When did these ADR’s come in to the stock market”?, he asked. “Last week?” With a soft smile, I answered, “1927.” Getting red in the face, he asked how long  that I  been buying them. “Since 1973”, was my reply. Clearly, the young guy was trying to fake it until he made it. Not that day, and my friend and his associates saved their money. I followed up for a few years and the fledgling company never saw the light of day in the United States. Were they con-men? Hard to say for sure but the young “investment banker” did not pass the smell test.

Finally, the best advice for defeating Imposter Syndrome that I have seen was in Dr. Gay Hendricks book, THE BIG LEAP. The good doctor wrote, “ The things you most love to do reflect your unique abilities. When you are doing what you are really meant to be doing, you don’t have to generate self doubt.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Follow-up--Advertising Agencies and the Covid 19

Earlier this week, I put up a post on Advertising Agencies and Covid 19. It generated a great many comments from agency principals and senior staffers. Many of the respondents wanted to know why I did not contact them for their opinions, some agreed with the people whom I paraphrased and others weighed in on what was not covered.

So, with a sense of fairness, here are a few issues raised by those whom I did not contact in the first round:

1) “Cole, the pandemic is hitting my business really hard but it is a foreshadowing of what is to come in the workplace. The press is covering the hardship faced by service workers in a variety of fields from food service to uber driving. What they do not seem to grasp is that another shoe will drop months from now. White collars jobs are going to get hit in a big way and many will NEVER come back. My own firm with under 50 employees will survive but will definitely be smaller in 2021. I have found out clearly for the first time who the keepers are in my organization. Some of my employees have surprised me and really “risen to the occasion” and performed very well. Others are not cutting it and complaining to me more than ever about minor issues ignoring that I am trying to live to fight another day. When the smoke clears, we will be leaner, much more efficient and I bet more profitable. My clients are telling me similar things and my network of business contacts echos that sentiment as well.”

2) “Has any good come out of this crisis? Yes, and I did not see it coming. There is very little politics now at the firm. Many are happy to be still drawing a paycheck so there is less bitching about who gets plum assignments. Also, with 80% of the team working at home, I don’t have to listen to the prepubescent B.S. about comparative office square footage or  nice desks or lamps anymore. When we come back, my tolerance for that old nonsense will not be tolerated.”

3) “I see things much more clearly now. To survive, I am going to have to change the inner workings of my shop. That will be a huge challenge. Why? The late Eugene Kleiner, an early player in venture capital in Silicon Valley, once said, “It’s difficult to see the picture when you’re inside the frame”, which is so true. I used to see my team as a family. A lot has come to the surface the last few months. When the new era begins sometime next year (I hope), I will hand pick my team. Each employee will need to be flexible, humble and a team player.”

4) “ I used to float a major media client a lot of money for several years. One year he was in to us for a million dollars and I paid the media as I knew that he was good for it. He asked me to do it again for later this year. I had to say no. He was hurt but I offered to open my books and I did not have the cash cushion to help him and I was not sure that he would ever be able to pay me back. He went to a media buying service and offered a nice fee but wanted them to pay the media first. The buying firm leader called me and I said have the media bill him directly or do not take the business. He passed on the account as he wondered when he would even get his fee. Long standing deals and relationships are unraveling. I am asking for fees upfront and am not wasting time or money on speculative new business pitches at present.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Advertising Agencies and the Covid 19

This post is in response to the requests of several MR readers regarding the impact of the Covid 19 pandemic on advertising agencies in the United States. As is often the case, I was surprised at the candor of agency principals and management who agreed to weigh in on this very difficult issue.

Before, we go in to specifics, a few caveats:

1) I did not ask anyone from a major holding company ( WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, or Interpublic ) to participate. The people who responded were from independent mid-sized or small shops.

2) Currently, I reside in Towson, Maryland. I deliberately did not call anyone in the Maryland/DC area or local readers would try to figure out who the players were.

3) To further protect sources, I edited their comments partially to avoid repetitive statements, kept real names out of it, sometimes changed genders, and, as a former altar boy, cleaned up a lot of the language when comments were heated.

4) This does not pretend to be a representative sample of the agency universe. I talked to people who trust me and have known me for a long time or who read MR and frequently contact me directly.

Here are some edited verbatims from my sources:

—Fairly large mid-sized company CEO—“this pandemic amazingly has helped me separate the “wheat from the chaff” among my employees. Some people, even the older ones, are doing a great job working remotely. They stay in touch, are on time with everything, and do not need as much hand holding as I expected. Two have told me that they are terrified of being let go so appear to be more conscientious than ever. On the other hand, a few are big disappointments to me. They appear to be spending more time on Netflix and Amazon Prime Video than working. When we return, our company will be smaller as we have lost some business that is not coming back. My lease on office space runs through October and I had a candid talk with my landlord via FaceTime. He will put us in smaller space and understands my situation. I have problems for sure but over the next few years commercial real estate has to be a nightmare.


—Creative Chief, Mid-Sized—“every year I would hire maybe two new creatives fresh from college or art school. This year, only one. The guy says he will stay with us if he can work 100% remotely. It is insane. He is 23! I am a hands on executive. My team has always learned from one another and a coffee in the break room or poking my head in to someone’s office for a minute or two a few times per day helps our product and brings along the rookies. Yes, the kid is tech savvy compared to my two 50+ team members. But, I do not know his work ethic and he needs supervision and how to become a team player.”

—Principal, Small Agency—“I caught two employees doing freelance and late with our client work. The idiots used company e-mail instead of their personal e-mail. I told everyone I would check in daily and sometimes look at all correspondence. They say I cannot stop them from doing freelance. True, but as long as they draw a salary from me, my work comes first and is on time.”

—President, Mid-Sized—“Some people need the structure that an office setting can provide. One of my stars is really struggling at home. He has small kids and loves spending more time with them but his work is weak these days. I have him come in to our empty office two days a week now and it seems to be helping.”

—Principal. Smaller Mid-Sized—“I have a long term employee who has always been a pain in the ass. He managed one of our larger pieces of business and the client loves him. Well, the client told me that she will close her doors by September 1st. I will say adios to the arrogant jerk at that time. His protector will be gone."

"What some of my staffers do not seem to grasp is that we are in a small city. I will have to lay off several staffers and job opportunities will be VERY scarce. Everyone needs to excel right now.”

—Independent, Successful Graphic Designer—“Some people, not I, have terrible issues with child care right now. Trying to juggle little kids and getting assignments done is hard these days. Also, some people are not emotionally equipped to work solo as I am. CEO’s need to understand this. I have been getting extra business during the pandemic as freelance is my game and my turnaround time is very good. Everyone is not able to do it.”


Everyone is nervous about the long haul picture. Not a single person said that things will ever be “normal” pre-March 2020 again. To a person, all said that the pandemic has sped up the decline of conventional media significantly.


If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.

1% Television

Surprisingly, in recent months, several people have asked me to comment on what they are calling 1% Television. Most of them were academics although a few are happily ensconced in the private sector in advertising or broadcasting. The term is not used particularly widely in lieu of what I and others in the game for years referred to as “Aspirational Television.” It is programming where the protagonists tend to be in the top 1% of wealth or income and often live life on their terms sometimes operating on the edge of the law or societal norms.

The people often asked me why these shows are popular when most Americans (especially during the Covid 19 pandemic) are struggling. They speak of “Billions”, “Empire”, and “Succession” as examples of such programming. To me, this is all more than a bit of a surprise. They act as if it is something new. If you are 30 or under, I can give you a pass. Those of us longer in the tooth have to remember “Dallas”, “Falcon Crest”, and “Dynasty” where the wealthy cavorted illegally or in dodgy transactions via Primetime soap operas that delivered killer Nielsen ratings. Today’s shows, on HBO or Netflix or Amazon Prime Video are far racier given the times but are similar in many ways.

Want to go back farther and have a look? In the 1930’s at the bottom of the Great Depression, Hollywood studios, particularly MGM and Paramount ,were grinding out countless films that depicted life among the uber-wealthy—perhaps .1% of the population. And the films were very popular. I remember asking my father about why people enjoyed them so much. He said that times were really tough for so many Americans that watching a screwball comedy or elegant drama or Thin Man Mystery let one escape from their precarious existence if only for two hours. Smoothies such as Robert Montgomery, Brian Aherne, and, of course, Cary Grant, were on hand in many such films and, if you could not truly aspire to that lifestyle, you could at least dream about it.

So, not much has changed. People want to escape their hum-drum lives and 1% Television can do it and often the programs are very entertaining. There is one area that is lumped with 1% Television by some that I feel is very misplaced. That is programming often shown on PBS. The most famous was “Downton Abbey” which featured the aristocratic Crawley family in the 2nd and 3rd decades of the 20th century. Critics raved when the final episode drew 9.6 million viewers. That was indeed super for PBS but the audience was not not as blue chip as some wanted you to believe. The audience skewed older and certainly intellectually leaning as most PBS “Masterpiece” telecasts do. Yet it did not wildly overachieve against the real 1%, especially the younger upscales. To put it in perspective, “Empire’s” premiere back in 2016 averaged 12.2 viewers and “Billions” premiere scored 6.6 million before hitting its stride as word spread of the exploits of the central character Bobby Axelrod.  

Yes, there have been exceptions. “Roseanne” gave a look at blue collar life in the 1990’s and other sitcoms have followed suit but most, while claiming “everyman” or middle class status, are really upper middle class or top 10%. Do most people want a steady diet of “inequality entertainment”? I do not think so. Americans, especially now, get enough reality in their daily lives. Streaming video provides a much appreciated escape these days.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

One Challenge Too Many

For a few decades, I have seen data on the death rate of restaurants. A study from The Ohio State University, released in 2019, mirrored the results that I have observed forever. In brief, they found that 60% of restaurants failed in the first year and 80% did not stay open long enough to celebrate their fifth anniversary. Reasons are many but big ones include the owners chasing a dream but not having enough experience in the field and not realizing how hard the job of running a profitable restaurant can be. Also, financial issues dominate led by poor cash flow management.

Today, as the shutdowns of businesses continue due to the Covid 19 pandemic, it appears that many restaurant owners consider this horrible event to be one challenge too many. They have survived previous recessions, blizzards, hurricanes, change in consumer tastes but many much loved dining establishments are closing for good. A restauranteur in the midwest put it to me this way: “Mr. Cole, we tried to do curbside for a few weeks. It went okay, I suppose, but, even with a skeleton staff, we are losing money. Few people are ordering alcohol and that is where are big margins always were. No one wants to hear about my spectacular wine pairings these days when we put  a to-go dinner in their trunk. I am 62 and my wife and I are tired. It is time to go.” Another in the Northeast wrote that most restaurants operate on the edge and, even if you last a while, you are often not super profitable. “Why work 12 hours a day when you will be in a deep hole for at least 18-24 months. My landlord is a decent sort but I have to start paying him soon.”

Others have hinted plus the media has covered that with 25-50% capacity allowed as states “open up” their economies, most restaurants can not make money. Others fear that many regulars (the mainstay of successful independent restaurants) will stay away out of fear of the virus. So, the outlook, always a challenge, is now scary.

Some financial analysts have hit the issue from another angle. There are some very high end restaurants that cater to the wealthy. They have what analysts might call “fortress balance sheets.” They can ride out this unpleasantness not forever but for a long time. The individual restaurants that are unique and perhaps small but part of our lives are really under siege. So some pundits say our choices in dining out in about two years will be the high end who will be a bit bruised but resilient and chain restaurants which have stronger investor backing. Also, it will be harder for dreamers to get funding for a new restaurant as Angel investors will be more gun shy than ever when it comes to funding a dining establishment.

Casualties may also be in places that are not top of mind. The small lunch counters in the backroads of rural America may not reopen. Many faced closure when the talk of a $15 minimum wage was floated a couple of years ago. If such a plan takes hold or something close to it, the little guys in small towns will likely not survive in most cases.

So, there is one thing that we all can do. Each week since the lockdown my family and I have picked a couple of local places that we have always liked. We get a lunch or dinner from them and will continue it for some time to come. These restauranteurs have brightened our lives and survived while most have not. As they face their greatest challenge ever, they deserve our business. So support your favorite local restaurants. If you help them get through this once in a lifetime event, they just may be around when some sense of normality returns.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Greedy Landlords?

I hate to admit it but 50 years ago this week I was introduced to economics by reading a little book by Henry Hazlitt entitled ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON.  It set me back 75 cents! The paperback changed my life as I shifted from being a history major to an Economics major and I have never looked back. While Hazlitt, a journalist who is widely respected in libertarian and conservative circles was prolific (he lived to be 98), his little book had a different message. Simply put, the one lesson was that most people think only of the immediate effect of government policy actions in the economy and few, especially politicians, think of how their actions effect the long term. The erudite Thomas Sowell of Amherst and Stanford fame, expanded on the argument in a brilliant but much heavier book entitled APPLIED ECONOMICS. I recommend both highly.

Okay, what does that have to do with our title of greedy landlords? A lot. Our friends in the media continue to do slice of life stories about people suffering horrible economic conditions due to the pandemic. Some are heart wrenching and the stories need to remain front and center to the national dialogue during an election year. To their great credit only CNBC, our leading business cable channel, has effectively expressed how small time real estate operators better known as landlords are also in a terrible bind.

When one hears the term landlord most people conjure up the presence of an older person who is very affluent or wealthy with dozens or hundreds of rental homes or apartments. While they exist and most are fair sized corporations, several million landlords are basically what I would describe as bootstrap entrepreneurs. They may live in a duplex and rent out the upstairs to a tenant who helps them pay for their home. Or, they may have a small apartment building with six to 10 rental units. Almost all are leveraged unless they have held the properties for 15-20 years. So, what is happening to these greedy millionaires? Many are in a spot not dissimilar to many of their tenants. If you have a 10 unit apartment building, you easily may have a million dollar mortgage on it depending on its location.
If your tenants, who have been legally excused from paying rent for a few months, do not pay as many are out of work, you still owe the bank the mortgage payment.

A small player in central California who has read MR for years put it to me this way: “Don, for the moment, I am really lucky. I have 10 tenants. Two are in small bungalows and eight are in my apartment building. Only two have not paid rent the last two months. One honest young woman came to my office and paid her May rent saying that with her $600 weekly bonus in federal unemployment pay, she is more flush than when she is working. She could have not paid for a while but has earned my everlasting respect. Many times, I have vacancies and repainted or repair a place after a tenant leaves so missing two payments for a few months will not kill me. Yet, I still to have pay my real estate taxes at the end of June and, so far, our county has not offered any delay in payment. I have been doing this for 30 years so I know dozens of small real estate players across the state. I even mentor some of the young ones. They are really in a bind. One wonderful 35 year old immigrant has eight properties. All of her tenants have lost their jobs and no one is paying her. She does not have the kind of relationship that I have with my community bank and is getting hassled. She is a complete wreck even though she is the hardest working and most resourceful person that I have ever met.”

There is another shoe to drop as time goes on. Let us say the country opens up and many of these tenants get their old jobs back. Remember, a few years back when the Federal Reserve published the now famous report that more than 40% of American households could not readily pay for a $400 auto repair bill or an emergency room visit? The Fed was telling us that a huge minority of Americans were living on the edge. They were a paycheck or two from being close to homeless. So, assume many of the renters get their jobs back after a four month hiatus from paying rent. They still owe the rent and the landlords still owe the bank for their mortgages and the counties for their real estate taxes. If people were fighting to pay their rent PRIOR to the pandemic, how will they be able to come up with the money to pay the back rent. Most landlords will stretch out the payments to be sure but if you were living hand to mouth before the crisis, can you afford an extra $150-200 per month in rent once work resumes. Am I exaggerating? Well, Fed chair Jay Powell rattled markets a few weeks ago when he stated that 40% of persons earning less than $40,000 per year were currently unemployed. A few will take their extra unemployment compensation and $1200 recovery checks and be very disciplined about using it. Many, not used to such a cash infusion, will likely not plan properly for a “return to normalcy.”

So, I did not post this to defend landlords. I am not one and have never been one. My point is that the media, with few exceptions, have done a poor job to date, of really examining the ripple effect that the pandemic is having on many people whom you may think are sitting pretty.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Media in the Era of Coronavirus

Since most of the readers of MR are sitting at home, I thought it best not to comment over the last few weeks about the impact of the Coronavirus on the media world. Now seems as if it is an appropriate time to make a few observations.

Here goes:

1) Clearly, conventional over the air TV is generating higher ratings. Some broadcasters, invariably in smaller Designate Market Areas (DMA) have written to me with a certain amount of breathless excitement. They think that the newly acquired viewing that they have over the last month will be “sticky.” People will enjoy local news and weather and come back to over the air TV. I try to be kind in my replies but I just do not see it. A big problem many local stations face these days is the lack of car sales. With millions out of work and more millions sittingat home, car sales at a standstill and dealers are not advertising. In some DMA’s, it is not unusual for car dealers to be 40% of a station’s revenue in a given month. Yes, broadcasters in certain markets will get a nice boost in the second half of the year from political spending, but things will still be tough.

2) The streaming services are getting great usage and trial. Netflix reported an eight figure jump in global subscriptions in figures released early this week regarding first quarter performance. Many have e-mailed me saying that they are binge watching series after series that were on their “to do list.” A lady in Spain wrote to me that she felt guilty about letting her children watch so much video but it kept peace in the family.  Speaking of Spain, Disney + had an impressive launch in several Western European countries in late March. On day one, some five million people downloaded the Disney + app. Clearly, Disney as a company is taking it on the chin with movie theaters empty, theme parks and cruise ships closed, and ESPN now posing as ESPN Classic 24/7. Long term, Disney + should gain faster traction than projected earlier due to the global lockdown. Corporate earnings of Disney may be down for a couple of years, however.

3) The pipeline of program content is getting empty as production is shut down around the world. Disney and Netflix with their extensive libraries have something to offer. Rumor has it that some smaller movie producers have approached Netflix to offer their new films to them as they do not know when they could get theatrical release. Amazon Prime could buy the rights to certain series and films as they have deep pockets.

4) Quibi TV—this mobile only service has gotten off to a hot start with 750,000 subscribers in the first few days. They may have a severe pipeline problem as their content tends to be in 10-12 minute segments. We wish then well.

5)) What about sports?  This is a big one and not just in North America. Sports starved readers have been emailing me from all over the globe. One fellow told me it was fun to watch the Golf Channel cover tournaments from many years ago for several days. Now, many people crave some live action. Baseball fans have lamented that it was not April without opening day and I agree. A few people have told me that sports will not do as well when societies open up as people will have found new outlets to spend their time. I do not see that happening. Pent up demand with be great. Fans may not visit their favorite event or hometown stadium for a year or so but they will be glued to the tube across the world.

6) Newspaper—as critics mount about the ham handed approach of some politicians toward the crisis, major papers such as The New York Times, Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal have for sure generated more readership. Whether this sticks and lasts into 2021 is iffy at best.

7) Radio—probably getting a bit hurt as millions more people are at home and using video for their media preference. Little in car listening these days.

In future weeks, I will fulfill reader requests that I address what might happen as the economy in North America opens again.

Until then, stay safe, my friends.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Update on the Global 1%

As markets are in turmoil with the spread of the coronavirus, many of us have a bit a time to put things in perspective.

The World Inequality Database recently released data on what it takes to be in the top 1% of annual income in many countries around the world. The results were a bit surprising and here is how things fall in a number of countries:


NATION INCOME NEEDED TO BE IN TOP 1%*


India $77k
Italy                                 169
Canada                             201
France                              221
United Kingdom              248
Bahrain                            485
UAE                                 922
China.                               107
Brazil.                               176
South Africa.                    188
Australia.                          246
Germany.                          277
United States.                   488
Singapore.                        722

Source: World Inequality Database, 2020

*all figures in US dollars

In the U.S., the top .1 (one tenth of one percent) earned approximately $2 million while the .001 earned an eye-popping figure close to $10 million

Surprised by these numbers? I thought that Canada and Germany would be somewhat higher but was not surprised by low population countries in the Middle East nor Singapore, long a high growth country in Asia.

As we have often written, there will always be some measure of inequality in free market nations but it seems to be cresting right now. When I can get clear data on median income for these nations plus wait for the fallout to settle from the pandemic, I will update this information and provide more detailed comments.

Meanwhile, stay safe my friends.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

The Streaming Wars--Conclusions

This post will conclude (at last!) our series on The Streaming Wars


When you look at the media landscape, most of us who analyze the streaming arena come to pretty much the same forecast—Netflix and Disney will likely be the big winners when the smoke clears in five years or so. Here is how I have come to that conclusion:


1) Netflix is without question the global leader in both usage and content in January, 2020. RBC Capital (Royal Bank of Canada) projections are that 95% of their subscriber growth will come from OUTSIDE the U.S. going forward. They still may add two to three million per year in the U.S. but the explosive growth will come from overseas. Also, they are developing original content (programming) in many languages and with interest to people in far flung places around the globe. For the foreseeable future, Netflix has won the streaming war if you look at the company from a global perspective. They do have one big problem and that is that producing the tremendous amount of quality content they air each year costs a great deal of money. Last year, they were said to have spent $12 billion and some of that was borrowed. At some point, their new competitors with deep pockets such as Apple and Amazon might be a white knight and form an alliance with them. Apple would be a great partner as would Alphabet. They could provide endless financial resources and let Netflix produce world class content. If we ever go in to a global economic downturn, this might happen faster than you think. Netflix is a wonderful service but they may have to blink if competition gets fierce and money gets tight. Remember, as more financial powerhouses enter the streaming space, it will be very expensive for Netflix to bid for old TV series and films and even to produce new content. Also, and very importantly, when Netflix had streaming largely to themselves, they had pricing power. This is no longer the case so they need to grow even faster to cover their production commitments and still make money.

2) Disney is the global leader in entertainment. Their streaming service is off to a fine start but, on a worldwide basis, they have a long way to go to catch Netflix. They should get significant traction in the U.S. with their inexpensive trifecta package consisting of Disney +, ESPN + and Hulu in the U.S. Their movie studio continues to grind out blockbuster films and the merchandising profits from their franchisees are significant. Remember that they have been realistic about Disney + growth projecting that they may not see a profit until 2025. Disney is in the game for the long term but they will not kill off Netflix even though they have a lot going for them. Also, don’t forget Hulu.

3) Amazon is now the world’s leading retailer. They have positioned  Amazon Prime Video as “free” with an Amazon Prime subscription. Content is improving each year and they can buy up the rights to a great deal of high quality content if they wish. A relative handful of people get Amazon Prime Video on a subscription basis but are not Amazon Prime members. As Amazon Prime expands overseas in the next few years, their now small video division may get a real lift.

4) Apple’s foray into streaming does not make huge sense to me. They have some big names and billions to sink into content although, to date, not much is there. As written in earlier posts they have HUGE cash balances that they can deploy in to developing or buying content. So, they can do what they want. When I think of them re streaming, I wonder about Warren Buffett’s famous comment about sticking to your “circle of competence.” Why are they doing this? However, when the inevitable shakeout occurs in the space with 24-36 months, Apple could buy their way in by purchasing struggling smaller services or even an elephant such as Netflix.

5) Cable has to be in a bad spot looking ahead. Every month, thousands of American households “cut the cord.” As people analyze the new offerings, you can receive Amazon Prime Video, Netflix and Disney + for around $21 per month. Add Apple and maybe HBO and you are still under $40. Cable defenders tell me it will be hard for Disney. They are not used to service. What if they do not get billing right? What if there is a service issue with transmission? Are they equipped to respond? That is truly the pot calling the kettle black? How many of you have been tickled with the service you received from Time Warner and Comcast over the years? Disney is a mega-company. They can handle billing and will learn quickly how to best deal with service issues.

I have also been told of a straw in the wind as streaming services are gaining ground. Reputedly, some 500,000 Americans have over the last few years purchased a TV with rabbit years and a basic antenna. So, if they cancel cable and put together their customized package of streaming venues, they can get over the air TV as well. Apparently this has some appeal and there is no monthly bill. It this turns in to a trend, it may gallop modestly at some point. Cable would really get hurt. People have learned that they do not need or use 250+ channels. Streaming services give them content and that is what they want. Why spent $150 per month for cable when you can get the streaming services that you want for $20-40 per month and you still would not have time to digest all the good content? Also, whenever the next recession occurs  a number of people who will be struggling may cancel cable but still have significant entertainment options by subscribing to a few streaming services for a fraction of their then cable bill. They may never go back.

6) ROKU—their long term hope to me is to be a server for competing services. One stop shopping has lots of appeal.

7) Over the Air TV—the slow death will continue. The reversion back to rabbit ears will not be done by everyone and young adults are addicted to streaming and are deep in to commercial avoidance.

8) Minor players—consolidation will take place in a few years and programming will shift over to the majors. Some sports channels may move from cable to a successful streaming king.

So, Netflix and Disney look like good bets although Netflix may be short on cash at some point. Amazon, Apple and Alphabet (Google) have the money to do what they want for a long time and AT&T’s new HBO entry may survive as well.
The consumer will have a field day sorting through the options and financial people will do some sharp figuring sorting through the rubble of failed streamers and seeing what can be salvaged.

It is going to be very interesting and fun to watch. As Yogi Berra allegedly said, “The future ain’t what it used to be.”

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

The Streaming Wars--Part V

Special Situations

If you take a look at the whole cavalry charge of players that is unfolding in streaming it is clear that several large players have the best chance of surviving and ultimately winning. Yet, there are a host of other players out there who are worth a look or may go the distance when consolidation occurs in the space in a few years. Today, we talk about a few of these players:

Roku

This is a both a hardware company and content platform. They provide some free content from the internet and also take some advertising and have subscriptions. They serve the majors such as Netflix and Amazon Prime plus have a modest service called Roku TV and well as sell actual TV boxes. The service could thrive if they can maintain relationships with the major providers—their low cost may have appeal to the likely wave of cable“cord-cutters” to come.

Quibi TV—this was profiled quite a while back in MR (see update on Quibi TV--MR, 5/30/19). Available only on mobile phones this spring, they will provide some original video content in “bite size” offerings of 12 minutes or less. The assumption is that it will be a go-to place for millennials and those on the move in the course of a day. Have strong management team led by Meg Whitman and Jeff Katzenberg. Here is the link to a 1/8/20 interview on Bloomberg TV—https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B0Of5XV7no

My bet is that Apple TV Plus, Disney, or Amazon Prime will gobble this service up if it clicks.

IMDB TV—somewhat quietly owned by Amazon, this contains some original programming and it’s FREE!

You Tube TV—You can view live TV here and over 70 channels from parent Google. This is not cheap—$49.99 per month at present

Acorn TV—a personal favorite with a nice mix of British and international shows, some of very old vintage. Has narrow appeal but only $5.99 per month.

There are dozens of others that are free, sports oriented, or with very narrow breadth of content. Candidly, the average consumer will have a hard time sorting them all out which may help a non-controversial carrier such as Roku that can offer several for one stop shopping.

Next up—Conclusions

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com