September 2007 Archives

There may come a time when more online content is consumed via video than print.

Clearly it won't be this year or next, but what about five, 10 or 20 years from now? For people in the online content-delivery business -- not to mention IT pros running resource-challenged networks -- it's a critical question.

And while a recent survey commissioned by Google and AOL can't directly answer that question, the results (as reported by internetnews.com) reveal an unmistakable trend:

75% of nearly 2,400 respondents said they watched more video online than they did a year ago

52% expect to watch more online video over the next year

84% said they watch online videos when it is convenient

57% said online video offers much control over content

The survey was conducted by market research group TNS. Its real point is to help persuade marketers to pour money into online video advertising instead of television.

Indeed, results include data relevant to advertisers:

78% agreed that online video ads offer as much or more opportunity to learn about an advertiser than does television

63% said they prefer video sites with advertising if it keeps content free

64% said they have taken action after seeing an online video

The survey included respondents from ages 18 to 54. I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of the responses by age; the trend toward video undoubtedly would be stronger among younger respondents.

While I never would suggest that print will become obsolete, or even secondary to video, the habits of younger content consumers are vastly different from those of their elders. Online video isn't a novelty to Gen Y; it's a major -- and expected -- part of the mix. Content providers ignore this at their own peril.

Not that this comes as a surprise, but a new survey of more than 1,000 Americans shows that we are a nation obsessed with the Internet.

The data released by advertising giant JWT paints a troubling picture:

15% of respondents said they could go without Internet access only for a day or less

28% say they spend less face-to-face time with peers because of the Internet and electronic devices

20% say they have less sex because of the Internet

Eye-opening indeed, but even more amazing is some of the data that JWT didn't release*, which shows our unhealthy fixation with the Internet reaching new heights:

71% of Americans say they can find the Internet on a U.S. map

36% of married Americans wish their spouses "were more like the Internet"

28% of Americans would vote for the Internet for president

19% admit to loving the Internet, but "only as a friend"

6% say they would like the Internet even more if it had some porn

1 Oval Office occupant believes there is more than one Internet

I think it's time to admit we have a problem.

* (And which I made up.)

I have a friend who once suggested that our society would be more just if every worker -- from gravedigger to CEO (his examples) -- were paid the same.

While I appreciate my friend's ridiculously naive utopian sentiment, removing all financial incentives for people to pursue high-skill and high-risk professions would wreak havoc on the GDP, to say the least. It would create a nation of underachievers, robbing us of talent in critical professions. Why go through years of medical school to become a brain surgeon, say, only to end up making as much as the guy who's sweeping the hospital floor, or the president?

Still, when one reads stuff like this...

Between 1990 and 2000 in the U.S. worker pay and inflation remained approximately equal, while corporate profits rose 93% and CEO pay rose 571%.

...and this...

[B]y 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

...it's hard to argue that the current system is a whole lot more rational than the flat-pay model. It certainly isn't more fair.

I was reminded of all this when I read a CNET blog post titled Are technology CEOs overpaid?.

The answer, of course, is that they mostly are overpaid, some obscenely so. The blog's author argues that "CEOs are our nation's business leadership. In aggregate, they are the embodiment of U.S. market capitalism. As individuals, they take on huge responsibility, risk and work loads."

Agreed, but only up to a point. I don't necessarily buy the "risk" argument. Sure, if you're a founding CEO who has invested his or her own money into a company, or if you left a lucrative career as a paid employee without a fall-back, that's risk. But if you're a member in good standing of the informal CEO/executive network, well, let's just say that Carly Fiorina and Terry Semel aren't going to be homeless any time soon.

I bet almost everyone reading this has worked for a chief executive who was incompetent, someone who either was handed the job or stayed on past any point of usefulness. How many of them ended up crashing and burning? More likely, they just moved on to the next lucrative (and undeserved) gig -- another CEO job, a consultancy, a think tank, whatever -- with the help of one of their business buddies who had been hand-picked to serve on the board of directors. Or the fallen CEOs just live off the "golden handshake" that they negotiated when they were hired.

It really is nice work if you can get it.

If I were one of the initial purchasers of Apple's iPhone, I'd consider the company's offer of a $100 store credit to assuage anger over the huge iPhone price cut to be the cheap buyoff that it is. From CNET News.com:

The company on Thursday posted an open letter from CEO Steve Jobs on its Web site defending the decision to cut the price of the 8GB iPhone from $599 to $399, but acknowledging that Apple shouldn't have treated its early adopters in such a fashion. Jobs had announced the price cut just a day earlier...

Granted, I'm not an Apple diehard and therefore can't possibly think like one, but the company's message as I interpret it is "we're only ripping you off for half the previous amount." Not exactly the stuff viral marketing campaigns are made of.

I mean, you'd think they'd at least throw in an "I was gouged by Apple" t-shirt or mug. Make it a badge of honor or something.

Seriously, I see readers online defending the iPhone's 33 percent price cut, but what they're really defending is the huge mark-up. Look, just 10 weeks ago people lined up -- and not just regular people, but among Apple's most devoted product users -- and essentially paid $200 extra to help cover the costs of the iPhone promotional blitz.

News flash to kneejerk Apple defenders: Apple can do wrong, like any other company run by human beings. Jobs conceded as much when he wrote on the company's site that "we need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price. Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these."

That's a pretty unambiguous admission that Apple breached the trust of early iPhone buyers, and I give Jobs credit for acknowledging this.

Well, only half credit.