Media has drastically changed over the past few years. Decades ago, people bought albums. Then came CDs. Finally, it came down to singles and MP3s.

The same applies to video properties. Few years ago, people paid for what they wanted to watch. Blockbuster thrived on that model, but failed to innovate. Other video stores suffered due to their lack of scale.

However, with introduction of online media, individuality has gone out the door. Services like Pandora, Spotify and Rdio have started a trend towards unlimited access. Netflix has been leveraging the same model — unlimited access to a vast catalog. Not necessarily the choice you want. But the only choice you have.

Amazon has taken the same approach with their Prime offering. Unlimited access to a small library of content. Just like any media property, a catalog grows slowly. And you can bet that Amazon will leverage its bargaining power to make their MP3 service unlimited and fight aggressively to grow its video library as well. In the next few years, it won’t be surprising if Amazon’s media offering is larger than the entire Netflix catalog.

Overall, this trend towards unlimited media is only going to benefit distributors and not customers. There will be a point where consumers and passionate fans are no longer going to accept fragmented offerings. Knowing the media licensing model, there will never be content parity across platforms. And sadly, that is one thing that will continue to hold digital distribution back.

Amazon has been one of my absolute favorite companies. They made buying books easier. They made e-books popular. And their customer-service is stellar. What company gives you money back when their shipping vendor delays a package for 1 day?

A few years ago, they introduced the Kindle. It was priced high for market penetration. However, with their announcements last week — the Kindle is now a mainstream device. Starting at just $79 and all the way up to $199, e-books will be mainstream. As an author, that is great news. No other digital reader or media playback device can even remotely compete in this market.

Another big thing that Amazon has done with the Kindle Fire is firmly established itself in the media space — music and video.

Amazon was the first major player to offer DRM-free MP3s. Apple — the big behemoth had to follow suit. Amazon now has a competitive Prime video offering, which allows users to stream TV shows and other movies on the device itself.

As someone who recently canceled his Netflix subscription, I’m looking forward to exploring Amazon’s media offerings. It’s going to be an interesting experiment.

Last, but certainly not least, the Kindle Fire is very big news and just the beginning.

At one point, Blockbuster used to be the go to place for renting videos. Although their collection was fairly limited, it was the only big player in town. The transition from VHS to DVD was easy. Same content on a different physical medium. Recently, despite desperate attempts, the company has failed miserably to transform from the physical generation to the online generation.

Of all the physical media businesses (books, music CDs, etc.), Blockbuster should have seen it coming a long time ago.

iTunes became popular.

eBooks came onto the market.

People started renting DVDs online.

So why did a company the size and negotiating power of Blockbuster not do anything? They continued to rent DVDs at almost double the price of their nearest competitor, had ridiculous late fees and failed to form partnerships at a time where every medium was going digital.

They should have predicted it by looking at CD sales. They did not. They should have learned from Netflix’s model. They did not. They should have come up with a streaming model. They did not.

When Hulu, a startup has come so far in the past 3 years, it’s baffling why a multi-billion dollar organization failed to sign any deals with their long-term content partners.

Out of everyone remaining in the current playing field, Blockbuster had the best leverage — content. Comparatively, Netflix and Hulu are newcomers.

As someone who used to visit Blockbuster quite frequently a few years ago, it’s still shocking to see that the company hasn’t learned. Their retail stores are packed with junk and there’s no ability to request content that isn’t in store. Even free public libraries have that feature.

As one of the leading forces of content less than a decade ago, why didn’t Blockbuster partner up with hardware manufacturers to leverage a full-fledged streaming service?

Nearly every new device today has Netflix. Hulu is also striking deals at a rapid pace. So, why didn’t Blockbuster?

Over the past 3 years, there has been no improvement in how Blockbuster operates and what it offers. In the digital space, that’s an entire generation.

As much as Blockbuster enjoyed its past, it’s time to pack up. A company that can’t innovate or experiment is a company that consumers don’t want.

Over the past 5 years, media has changed at a pace is that is both thrilling and frightening. A few years ago, touch screens were a fantasy. Apple was still a computer company. Google was just a search company. Hulu was just a word that people made fun of.

Today, running a media property is more than content and advertising. Technology is not just a privilege. It is a necessity. However, changing companies the size of broadcast and cable networks is not an easy task. It requires a complete re-haul.

Over the next week, we’ll focus on the four core aspects of running a large scale content business in 2010. These four categories are: content (and cost of acquisition), monetization solutions (advertising and integration), web platforms (user engagement and social media) and technology (television, IPTV and mobile).

Earlier this year, Cablevision got into a heated and very public dispute with ABC regarding retransmission fees for WABC-7 in the New York area. While the dispute was short lived, it was an indicator of things to come.

This year we’ve seen more public retransmission disputes between content providers and distributors. However, the largest one thus far has to be the dispute between Cablevision and FOX (also in the New York metro area).

Since October 15th, Cablevision subscribers have not had access to certain FOX programming in the midst of the fall TV season as well as highly rated sporting events. While this is expected to continue for some time, the scary part of this dispute is that FOX turned off access to Hulu.com and Fox.com for a little while. It’s clear that content companies are treating web and TV properties as similar entities, since the content is transmitted via the same pipe. Although access to web properties was restored very rapidly, this is not the last time this issue is going to come up.

The way the cable business works today is very complex and the revenue numbers associated with content transmission are significant. While we’re still a little ways off before this becomes a significant issue, it will be interesting to see how cable companies deal with customers that have a data-only connection, but not a content connection (cable TV subscription).

[Image from Consumerist.com]

Technology has come a long way in just the past 5 years. Companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have not only changed the way we do business and communicate, but these companies have also created entire economies. Today, there are thousands of social media consultants (good, bad and terrible) as well was hundreds of social media advertising agencies. By creating new technologies, entire ecosystems have come alive.

The same applies to mobile platforms including the iPhone and Andorid. These platforms did not exist a few years ago. Today, they’re thriving and are the future of communication

Despite innovation, there are people who choose to complain and dispute the benefits of technology. Ask anyone in the media and entertainment space and they will say that these advances are tools. They are.

Just like you can use a hammer to build or destroy a house, these new tools can be used for good and bad.

Often times, it’s hard to distinguish good from bad because a certain technology hasn’t been fully developed and nor will it ever be. Technology evolves. Companies need to evolve with them.

I have the privilege of working with some of the best media companies in the world. Often times, my advise to them is simple – try. Some initiatives work. Others fail. But, until someone tries, you won’t be able to determine the good from bad.

If a company the size of Google can experiment in it’s own domain with failed products such as Wave, media companies can and should experiment outside their core space. If it doesn’t work, there will always be another thing around the corner.

The biggest advantage of experimentation is the first mover advantage. Often times, the first company that enters the market with an innovative product gets to set the tone and others follow. A great example of this is the New York Times iPad app. The company developed the app and are now licensing it.

Disputing technology is neither helpful nor productive. Adapting technology is.

Last week, Roku announced the release of its new set-top boxes. Starting at just $59.95 and along with a few new partnerships, Roku has effectively made itself a very serious contender in the set-top box market.

Pricing:

The Roku HD box starts at just $59.95 — a price that is almost half of the latest generation Apple TV. This low price point is significant because it makes the device affordable in a market where traditional (cable, satellite, etc.) content consumption prices are increasing. With Roku, a user also does not pay any additional content access fees. The highest model Roku — the XDS is priced at $99.99 — the same price as the Apple TV.

Features:

By and large, this particular update doesn’t introduce any ground breaking features. However, the Roku XDS model has the ability to display content from USB drives. This makes the device an excellent choice for presentation and demo purposes on the road.

Content:

Today, Roku supports more premium content than the Apple TV and for that matter, most set-top boxes. With access to Amazon Video on Demand, Pandora, Netflix and now Hulu Plus, the device can access a significant amount of premium content at very minimal cost ($20 per month for Hulu and Netflix). And, with the XDS‘ upcoming ability to play content from an attached drive makes the device even more attractive.

Apps:

As of this moment, the Apple TV doesn’t offer the ability to install Apps. Roku does. Roku calls their apps “channels.” And, the ability to create apps and market them on a growing platform is win-win for any media organization — small or large. Broadcast networks could potentially create their own channels and introduce new revenue streams.

Conclusion:

The new release by Roku is a huge leap forward, not just for the company, but for the set-top box market. Highly recommended.

For the past few weeks, I’ve been hard at work creating something that not many people across the world will see, but something that will still get coverage on primetime broadcasts in the United States. What is it? Multi-screen content for NBC News’ Education Nation. Through my employer, we were hired to do multi-screen video content for the event in 3 weeks worth of time. Calling that time-frame aggressive was being polite. We had to produce 2 significant pieces of content — one for a 14-screen installation and one for a 4-screen installation. Teams worked round-the-clock to gather high-quality images from across the country and we had to use robots to get our most crucial shots. Impressive? Yes. Hard-work? Yes. Worth it? Absolutely. If you’re in NYC and would like to see the exhibit, send me an email — aanarav [at] sareen [dot] tv and I’ll be your personal tour guide this week.

Production & Technology:

I’ve been creating content for 9 years professionally. During that time, I’ve worked for local public-access stations, advised broadcast networks strategically and played a crucial consulting role for companies that enable media to progress. However, the art of creation is still one of the most challenges components in entertainment. Digital media thus far has primarily been a technological advance, not a creative one. Working on the above project over 3 weeks round-the-clock makes the best digital media advocates realize that although we should be focusing on technological advances, we shouldn’t forget what most people are still interested in — big, beautiful and inspirational. Web doesn’t do that. Yet.

Content creators need to keep pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. Real-time instantaneous web broadcasts are fine. But, what’s the production quality? Digital-only content creators have littered the web with poor-quality content. There have never been financial incentives for poor quality work. Nor will there ever be. Despite technological advances, people still come back to watch content that inspires them. Content that looks good. As content creators, producers and marketers, we should be aiming for better.

Retail businesses have been around in varying forms for centuries. The premise behind a retail presence is simple — setup a (preferably convenient) location, allow people to visit, browse and purchase. Get more people to come in by using coupons, discounts or other incentives. However, the basic sales technique behind a retail location has been the same despite the changes and advancement in technology and media. Today, apart from using paper coupons, stores are simply using digital coupons. That is a good step forward, but very few retail stores are truly making use of technology to create a better environment for their customers.

For those in the retail business, here are some ideas:

1. Digital Displays: Retail locations have limited space and therefore clothing stores only use a handful of mannequins to display their best (and often times, most expensive) products. Furthermore, every person is different physically. So, why should a potential customer purchase an item just by looking at a mannequin that doesn’t resemble their physical characteristics and/or taste. A solution for this to have tablet-like interactive displays that allow users to visually select and modify their body type as well as different types of apparel. Combining these together would result in a display that is far more personal and appealing to the end user.
2. Email Receipts: Few companies have started doing over the past couple of years. However, why can’t more companies simply email you receipts from your store purchases? With the amount of paper and junk mail, it’s easier to categorize and archive emails than it is to locate a flimsy receipt.
3. Convenience: Ever walk into a store only to find out that the product is out-of-stock? Retail stores could avoid (a lot of) frustrated customers by having them order a product from a store’s digital display and having it delivered for free. A few bookstores have implemented this practice, but a wider adoption would be beneficial.

The possibilities for engaging customers via digital media in a retail location are significant. However, very few companies try these techniques because of the investment required. While that’s understandable, these investments are going to get larger in size as time progresses.

For the past week, there has been a considerable amount of buzz regarding Google/Verizon and Net Neutrality. Both companies have published public statements regarding their stance on net neutrality. We’ll discuss the specific situation tomorrow on the Digital Media Podcast. However, before we get to the specifics, it is important to understand the basics of net neutrality and why it is important.

Here’s how net neutrality is described on Wikipedia:

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.

Simple terms: Net neutrality means that all data will be treated equally. For example — if you drive car X and your neighbor drives car Y on the same highway, you cannot pay the government more money to go faster on the same road.

The same applies to data on the Internet. ISPs and other controlling entities cannot restrict access to content A because they produce content B. That’s unfair.

Net neutrality isn’t a major issue at this moment, but it is an important one to discuss now so that those that can influence such policies don’t implement disruptive policies. This is especially important for independent content creators.