Netflix On Demand Streaming Service Coming To Canada Fall 2010

Photos

Netflix Coming To Canada

Netflix Coming To Canada

see larger image

uploaded by Sudha Krishna

Netflix Launch In Canada Signals Seismic Shift In Canadian Media Industry 

The popular on-demand TV and Movie streaming service, Netflix, is coming to Canada.

<!– –>

Canadian Netflix members will be able to instantly watch a broad array of movies and TV episodes right on their TVs via a range of consumer electronics devices capable of streaming from Netflix, as well as watching on PCs and Macs.

In addition to representing its inaugural international market, Canada will also mark the first streaming-only service promoted by Netflix.  

<!– –>

This is the first expansion for Netflix outside of its home base in the United States. At first, content will only be available in English but Netflix said it will be adding French language services soon after the launch in the autumn of 2010.

Though Netflix does provide DVD deliveries in the USA, in Canada, Netflix will be a “streaming only service.”

The news of Netflix’s  launch in Canada should have Canadian broadcasters and the cable and tele-communication companies that own them, worried.

Netflix provides an on-demand service for high quality TV shows and movies without the high cost and hassle of paying for channels, and channel bundles that cable companies offer.

Other companies like Hulu Plus, Apple iTunes Video all operate in this space, all are gradually eating away at the revenue model of cable companies. 

The market in the USA for these services is small but growing fast, very fast – the people who are making the shift to watching TV content online are sometimes called cord cutters. Right there are an estimated 600,000 cord cutters in the United States with that number expected double in 2010.

<!– –>

Cord cutters don’t yet represent a serious threat to the $84 billion cable/satellite/telco TV access industry, which counts an estimated 101 million subscribers. But they are a leading indicator of the shift to TV viewing on the Web. The cord-cutters make up less than 3 percent of all full-episode viewing on the Web. The rest comes from people who are only beginning to watch occasionally online. An estimated 17 percent of the total weekly viewing audience watch at least one or two episodes of a full-length TV show online. Last year, that percentage was 12 percent, and next year it is forecast to grow to 21 percent.

<!– –>

 

Plus, Netflex delivers content to multiple devices including iPhone, the iPad, Xbox, Mac’s, PC’s and of course flat screen TV’s.


But all these on demand streaming services have been unavailable in Canada, until now.

Canadian broadcasters rely for much of their profits on U.S. television shows bought usually every year in Los Angeles. 

Telecommunication companies like Roger’s, Shaw, and Bell all own Canadian TV stations of one kind or another, and they too want to deliver that content, and deliver it to multiple devices just like Netflix but they are big ships often slow to roll out easy-to-use innovative products and services.

Judging by Netflix’s services which I have tried in the USA, Netflix is smaller, more agile, and more in tune with customer needs than bulky, plodding cable and TV companies in Canada.

The TV companies should be particularly worried after all, they are completely dependent on U.S. television shows for the majority of their revenues – revenues that are dependent on an old terrestrial model that simply made money by running Canadian advertisement against U.S. sitcoms, dramas, and movies within Canada. 

For decades it has been like that for media executives in Canada – But some American TV shows, run some Canadian spots against them – and count the cash.

Increasingly, that model is being challenged. 

If media executives don’t figure out how to adapt in this fast changing market the product their peddling on TV may well be available elsewhere online, on mobile, on TV, directly streamed from the United States, with a level convenience and cost that may have Canadians the cutting cord on domestic cable companies thereby cutting the cord on the entire Canadian Media Industry.

That sort of seismic shift won’t come in the form of a dramatic earthquake rather the change will occur like erosion over time.

No, the answer is not to complain to the CRTC to keep Netflix out of Canada.

Netflix has an Canadian email sign up form for Canadians interested in receiving its streaming service.

Tags: | | | | |

  • Slashdot
  • Bebo
  • Facebook
  • NowPublic
  • Digg
  • Ping
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • FriendFeed
  • Fark
  • Share/Bookmark
 

Lebron James Website vs Chris Bosh Website – Two Distinct Styles

Lebron Website Carries Extended ESPN Interview | Chris Bosh Website Thanks Toronto – Contrasting Online Communication Strategies

Now that it seems everyone is dumping on LeBron James from the jersey burnings, to the poster removals it is instructive to look at the Lebron James official website and compare it to the Chris Bosh official website.

In terms of public break ups with a city Chris Bosh handled his break up with Toronto with a greater grace than LeBron James handled his break up with Cleveland – granted LeBron is more profile, had a deeper connection with the city and so on.

But focus if you will on the subtle things for a moment like their respective websites.What does Chris Bosh do prominently on his home page? Thank Fans of Toronto, thanks the management of the Raptors, and thanks the entire city of Toronto.

“I just want to thank you guys for one of the best experiences of my life.”

From a web communication perspective Chris Bosh got it right – the tone of the writing was and humble and gracious with the full message of thanks to Toronto visible on the most prominent left hand side of the home page. And then he goes on to acknowledge his new home in Miami on the right hand side – a simple effective splash page.

Photos

Chris Bosh and Lebron James Websites

Chris Bosh and Lebron James Websites

see larger image

uploaded by Sudha Krishna

Now take the web site for Lebron James instead of delivering a simple elegant splash page the user is greeted by his ESPN video interview from Thursday – an extended one no less. 
There is a thank you, of sorts…

<!– –>

Next year, I will be playing for The Miami Heat. I would like to thank all of my fans for supporting me and I am looking forward to seeing you guys next season as I chase the NBA Championship

<!– –>

There is no mention of thanking Cleveland, no mention of thank the Cavaliers franchise, and most critically no mention of thanking the Cleveland fans.

To be fair to Lebron he does thank the city and the fans of Cleveland during the ESPN interview but the web communication is about immediate impressions and that is where the Lebron James website falls flat.

What Lebron should have done and maybe still could do (although it could be too late) is to do a video speaking directly into the camera without anyone (ie ESPN’s Jim Grey) interviewing him.

An unfiltered direct to camera address would change the tone of the video (an opportunity to leverage Youtube here as well)  on the Lebron James website – it would have been unfiltered and authentic.

Instead by displaying the ESPN interview so prominently LeBron James is only extending and reinforcing the antagonism of Cleveland and its fans towards him.

Plus, in this case the Bing sponsorship does not help,only reinforcing the corporate nature of the LeBron brand and detracting from what was needed – a personal message from LeBron.

From an online brand management perspective it is the wrong strategic thing to do, and more importantly it shows a remarkable disregard for a city that celebrated him for seven years, and a state that LeBron calls home.

Tags: | | | | | | |

  • Slashdot
  • Bebo
  • Facebook
  • NowPublic
  • Digg
  • Ping
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • FriendFeed
  • Fark
  • Share/Bookmark
 

Hulu Plus Subscription Service , Canada Lags Far Behind

Photos

Hulu Screen Grab, Not Available Outside USA

Hulu Screen Grab, Not Available Outside USA

see larger image

uploaded by Sudha Krishna

Hulu Rolls Out Hulu Plus Subscription Service : Regular Hulu Still Not Available In Canada: Time For Canadian Broadcasters, Cable Companies To Wake Up
Hulu rolled out its new paid subscription service,Hulu Plus, on Tuesday. The Hulu blog says it is not a replacement for the traditional Hulu. 
Hulu streams televisions shows, movies and content from a number of different studios inlcuding Fox, ABC, Disney, MTV, Sony, Warner Bros, National Geographic, PBS, Lionsgate, Biography, and NBC.
Hulu Plus will still have ads but for about $10 month viewers will get a more comprehensive set of TV shows.

<!– –>

For almost all of the current broadcast shows on our service, Hulu Plus offers the full season. Every single episode of the current season will be available, not just a handful of trailing episodes.

<!– –>

In addition, Hulu Plus content will be available across multiple platforms, online, iPad, Sony PS3, Xbox 360,and certain TV models like the Sony Bravia. 

<!– –>

With Hulu Plus, we believe we’ve met that goal. For our end users, we’re offering them the most convenient way to access their favorite shows, on devices they love, in high definition, at a fair price. For our advertisers, who allow us to keep our Hulu Plus price low with the support of ad revenue, we offer one of the world’s most effective advertising platforms, with the ability to speak effectively to users across a variety of devices, anywhere they happen to be. And finally, for our content partners, we offer revenues that compensate them fairly for bearing the cost of producing the shows we love.

<!– –>

Hulu Plus is currently available on an invite only basis in the USA. The subscription service costs $9.99/month

Hulu and Hulu Plus Not Available In Canada
Hulu in any shape or form is not available in Canada. Technically there is no reason why Canadians should not be able to watch Hulu or subscribe to Hulu Plus. The main reason is control over digital or streaming rights for content. When broadcasters buy TV shows they usually control the digital rights to their shows for the country from which they are broadcasting. Hulu says it is trying to make content available in Canada and other countries. A pop on the Hulu website says.
Hulu is committed to making its content available worldwide. To do so, we must work through a number of legal and business issues, including obtaining international streaming rights. Know that we are working to make this happen and will continue to do so. Given the international background of the Hulu team, we have both a professional and personal interest in bringing Hulu to a global audience.

In Canada, the online rights to deliver many of the TV shows audiences enjoy is in the hands of the countries main broadcasters, CTV, Can West Media, and CBC. 
So far Canadian broadcasters seem to be on a “go it alone” strategy so users don’t have a one stop shop for all their TV shows.
Plus, the private broadcasters are owned by larger cable and telephone companies,  Rogers, Shaw, and Bell and they have their own strategy for delivering content on demand to audiences.
Simply put the consumer solution on demand, online streaming of television content in Canada is an awful mess.
The online video delivery business in Canada is piecemeal, haphazard and ill conceived. Hulu provides an elegant delivery mechanism for audiences –  customers seem to love the ease and convenience of Hulu and it is time the Canadian TV industry figure the delivery of video to customers.
Here are some factors to consider:
Should Canadian TV and cable companies just do a deal with Hulu? Provide a Canadian version so to speak with some sort of fee negotiated for the Canadian territory? 
Should Canadian broadcast, digital and cable companies create their own branded version of Hulu-type service for the content they have online rights for?
One thing is clear the current model, or lack of one, is not working. TV shows that are available online are had to find and it is hard to know exactly what TV shows are available online in Canada.
The average Canadian consumer is adopting to technological change (iPad, iPhone, etc) far faster than the companies that provide the technology to us – that is untenable.

Tags: | | | | |

  • Slashdot
  • Bebo
  • Facebook
  • NowPublic
  • Digg
  • Ping
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • FriendFeed
  • Fark
  • Share/Bookmark
 

Nancy Pelosi Death Threats: Gregory Lee Giusti Used Magic Jack

Videos

FBI Arrests Calif Man for Alleged Pelosi Threats

see larger video

sourced by Sudha Krishna

FBI Arrests Calif Man for Alleged Pelosi Threats

Nancy Pelosi Death Threats: Fox News Blamed, Incitement of Gregory Lee Giusti, Used Magic Jack For Threats

A California man, Gregory Giusti arrested for making death threats against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Dem-California) could face up to 2 years in prison and be slapped with a $250 thousand fine if found guilty a court hearing heard on Thursday.

Gregory Giusti reportedly called Speaker Pelosi’s office and home, using the Magic Jack computer based internet phone, which belonged to a friend, at least 48 times, according to Politico.

<!– –>

Pelosi was so offended with the language used on the message, she declined to recount it to agents in an interview.

Giusti, 48, admitted to officers that he made the calls when the officers played the recording for him at his San Francisco home, according to the criminal complaint released Thursday.

<!– –>

Gregory Gisuti’s death, threats and threatening phone calls were instigated by Fox News according to Giusti’s mother, Eleanor Giusti. The 83 year said her son has a history of mental illness and can be easily influenced and apparently he was angry about the Democrats Health Care Plan.

<!– –>

Greg frequently gets in with a group of people that have really radical ideas and that are not consistent with myself or the rest of the family, which gets him into problems,” Eleanor Giusti said. “I say Fox News, or all of those that are really radical, and he, that’s where he comes from.”

<!– –>

This arrest is now the third arrest involving death threats against members of congres, threats that are primarily based on oppostion to the Obama Health Care Plan.

Gregory Giusti makes another court appearance on Monday.

Tags: | | | | |

  • Slashdot
  • Bebo
  • Facebook
  • NowPublic
  • Digg
  • Ping
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • FriendFeed
  • Fark
  • Share/Bookmark
 

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission & Campaign Finance

The  Supreme Court Campaign Finance ruling involving Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission  has dramatically changed the rules around campaign finance reform, clearing the way for unfettered and unlimited corporate and union campaign financing. Before Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission companies and unions would have to do it through Political Actions Committees (PAC’s).

The Atlantic has a good summary of the Supreme Court campaign finacne decision, saying the change in the Citizens United case eliminates the “middleman” (the PAC’s).

 ”Now, however, the accounting firewall is gone, and Wal-Mart or the Service Employees International Union, for instance, can spend their corporate money directly on candidates.”

The 5-4 Supreme Court decision essentially means the sky is the limit for political donations by corporations. Writing for the majority Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote

”We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.”

Justice John Paul Steven writing for the minority (all 4 Liberals on the Supreme Court) said the decision was an abrupt shift in first amendment precedent that had been established since the 1940s writing it was a ”radical departure from what had been settled First Amendment law.”

The decision has outraged public interest advocates like Ralph Nader. 

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process.

Nader’s statement on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission continues,

 It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.

Videos

Hillary the Movie Trailer

see larger video

sourced by Sudha Krishna

Hillary the Movie Trailer

This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate person hood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is indeed time for a Constitutional amendment to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the civic and political voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow “King Corporation” and restore the sovereignty of “We the People”!

Supporters of Citizens United and its campaign like the Cato Institute had this to say

“Today the Supreme Court struck a major blow for free speech by correctly holding that government cannot try to ‘level the political playing field’ by banning corporations from making independent campaign expenditures on films, books, or even campaign signs. …In short, the Citizens United decision has strengthened both the First Amendment and American democracy.”

One thing is clear that the campaign finance industry has changed, for both Democrats and Republican candidates. They now have the ability to raise money from more sources than ever before and with mid-term elections on the horizon political fund raisers will be knocking on corporate and union doors with more vigor then ever before.

Background Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission stems from 2008  case involving a conservative non-profit organization that wanted to run ads to promote its documentary on Hillary Clinton, called Hillary: The Movie (see video). The Federal Election Commission decided that the ads could air at the time they were slated to run – the eve of the democratic primaries. The Federal Election Commission sited a restriction o “electioneering communications” 30 days before the primaries.

Citizens United appealed and the case would its way to the Supreme Court.

Tags: | | | | | | |

  • Slashdot
  • Bebo
  • Facebook
  • NowPublic
  • Digg
  • Ping
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • FriendFeed
  • Fark
  • Share/Bookmark