I’m all for allowing advertising on NBA jerseys. It’s not my decision, but if it were, they would be on Mavs uniforms already.

Why? Because the NBA is better positioned thanany professional league to benefit from the uniform ads.

Commissioner Stern and the NBA have made a significant investment into making the NBA an international league. Starting with the Dream Team in 1992, the visibility and popularity of the league and our players have exploded. Hundreds and hundreds of millions have watched our games in China. Our games are shownin more than 212 countries. Our merchandise is sold around the world. We are probably the 2nd most popular game around the world, behind only soccer.

What the NBA doesn’t have at this moment (at least that I can otherwise figure out ), is a way to sellall of those fans and eyeballs to international companies that market globally.

7 or 8 million people saw the Spurs play the Suns Monday night on ABC. Far more saw the game and highlights around the world. We can’t sell ads in 212 broadcasts around the world, we can sell branding on our uniforms that will reach those viewers around the world.

Putting a logo(s) on our jerseys is the wayfor us to openthe door to every major international company whomay only do limited business in the US, to become a customer of the NBA and its teams.

We have seen a Chinese Beer Company, Yanjing buy a sponsorship from the Houston Rockets as a way to open up theirUS business, but apparently, it was more important to reach Chinese Beer Drinkers watching Yao Ming play on Chinese TV.If this beer company is paying what has been reported as more than $1mm dollars per year for 6 years, how much would they or another companypay for a patch on the Rockets uniforms?

I’m not suggesting that we sell on-uniform logos to beer companies. There would certainly be limits on what companies and which products we could sell to, but if a beer company is willing to pay that much, how much would another company pay for what would certainly be a unique worldwide opportunity?

Not only would their logo appear on uniforms shown on broadcasts in more than 212 countries, but those logos would appear on replica uniforms sold around the world as well.

That is a unique marketing and branding opportunity that ONLY the NBA can offer. The NFL can’t (although they do offer logos on NFL Europe jerseys), MLB can’t, Nascar can’t. No one else can.

It’s an incredible opportuity for the NBA to monetize the lead we have built in making the NBA an international game and brand. It’s an incredible opportunity for us to reach major international companies for whom we don’t otherwise have products that can reach the multimillion dollar sales figures.

The NBA has the lead. Now. All US based professional leagues are working hard to follow the NBA’s lead and grow their fan bases internationally. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen at some point. There will be competition.

The timefor the NBA to seize this opportunity is now…for the right price of course.

ShareThis

In basketball you have to shoot 50pct. If you make an extra 10 shots per hundred, you are an All-Star. In baseball you have to get a hit 30 pct of the time. If you get an extra 10 hits per hundred at bats, you are on the cover of every magazine, lead off every SportsCenter and make the Hall of Fame.

In Business, the odds are a little different. You don’t have to break the Mendoza line (hitting .200). In fact, it doesnt matter how many times you strike out. In business, to be a success, you only have to be right once.

One single solitary time and you are set for life. That’s the beauty of the business world.

I like to tell the story of how I started my first business at age 12, selling garbage bags. No one ever has asked if I was any good or made money at it. I was, and I did…enough to buy some tennis shoes .

I like to tell the story of how I startedup a bar, Motley’s Pub when I wasn’t even of legal drinking age the summer before my senior year at Indiana University. No one really asks me how it turned out. It was great until we got busted for letting a 16-year-old win a wet t-shirt contest (I swear I checked her ID, and it was good!).

No one really asks me about my adventures working for Mellon Bank, or Tronics 2000, or trying to start a business selling powdered milk (it was cheaper by the gallon, and I thought it tasted good). They don’t ask me about working as a bartender at night at Elans when I first got to Dallas, or getting fired from my job at Your Business Software for wanting to close a sale rather than sweeping the floor and opening up the store.

No ever asked me about what it was like when I started MicroSolutions and how I used to count the months I was in business, hoping to outlast my previous endeavors and make this one a success.

With every effort, I learned a lot. With every mistake and failure, not only mine, but of those around me, I learned what not to do. I also got to study the success of those I did business with as well. I had more than a healthy dose of fear, and an unlimited amount of hope, and more importantly, no limit on time and effort.

Fortunately, things turned out well for me with MicroSolutions. I sold it after 7 years and made enough money to take time off and have a whole lot of fun.

Back then I can remember vividly people telling me how lucky I was to sell my business at the right time.

Then when I took that money and started trading technology stocks that were in the areas that MIcroSolutions focused on.I remember vividly being told how lucky I was to have expertise in such a hot area, as technology stocks started to trade up.

Of course, no one wanted to comment on how lucky I was to spend time reading software manuals, or Cisco Router manuals, or sitting in my house testing and comparing new technologies, but that’s a topic for another blog post.

The point of all this is that it doesn’t matter how many times you fail.It doesn’t matter how many times you almost get it right.No one is going to know or care about your failures, and either should you. All you have to do is learn from them and those around you because…

All that matters in business is that you get it right once.

Then everyone can tell you how lucky you are.

ShareThis

Fifteenweeks in a row. That’s how many weeks in a row that it looks like admissions to theaters for movies will
down. That’s not a streak that theater owners are happy about and rightfully so.

The question of course is why? Is it the quality of the movies? Is it the number of quality movies? Is it the
availability of alternatives? Could it be due to a resurgence of broadcast TV with American Idol, CSI, Desperate
Housewives, Lost and Grey’s Anatomy bringing in record numbers of aggregate viewers? Could it be that it’s becoming
too easy to watch what we want to watch at home because of VOD and PVRs in the home? Are kids, a prime movie
going audience staying at home to play video games or hang out online?

Or could it be that the movie industry has oversold the opening weekend of a movie as “must see” event to the
point that the movie itself is more often a disappointment than an enjoyable reward?

I don’t know. Yet.

But hey, at least it’s a pleasure to not hear theater owners and the movie industry blame piracy as the cause of
the attendance slide.

Let’s take a look at this weekend Memorial Day Weekend.

Madagascar, <

BlogBuzz> a family film, and
The Longest Yard,<

BlogBuzz> what I call a Top 40 Film. Then there are some limited release films like
A League of Ordinary Gentleman (from
Magpictures) and BombTheSystem,
but neither was released on more than 2 screens. Put another way, there are only two English language films
opening on more than 2 screens this weekend! That’s not a lot of movies to choose from if I want to
have something cool to talk about at lunch or around the water cooler at work on Monday.

Of course there are continuing runs of movies, 10 or so expensive films, distributed by the Major studios, and
another 20 or so shown in limited release. Of those 12, they are usually split up 1/4(Madagascar, Kicking &
Screaming, etc) or so are for family, 1/2 for Top 40 (Unleashed, Longest Yard, House of Wax, Star Wars, Monster
in Law) and the rest typically fall in the “I want an Academy Award for Something” category (The Interpreter,
Crash, Kingdom of Heaven) for thoseof us who hope to finda little bit ofintellectual stimulation to
go with our entertainment.

So on any given night, for whatever category you feel like putting yourself intofor that night, you only
have 3 or 4 major movies, and unless you live in NY or LA, only 6 or so limited release movies tochoose from.
Is that enough to always have something that the full range of movie going public wants to see?

That’s not many choices. Not many choices for kids 12 -20 who make up the most active film goers. Not many choices
for the rest of the population that goes 1x or less per month.

Then you add the battle you go through of not wanting to fight the crowds and lines and long walk from your
parking spot against not wanting to wait so long that you are one of 4 people in the theater when you see the movie,
or have listened to everyone at work talk about the movie and spoil it for you.

When there are 40k DVD titles, all the TV shows and Movies we can capture on our PVRs and VOD and PPV, you have to
really want to go to the movies.

Which is a very good thing. People really do want to go to the movies. As Jack Valenti eloquently described in a
speech to theater owners “what you offer consumers is an epic viewing experience and an alluring social adventure
they cannot duplicate in their homes – stadium seating, huge screens ripe with luminance, the sensuality of digital
sound, unknown but enthusiastic companions of a single night – all responding to the skills of cinema artists who can
make you laugh or cry or hold you in suspense. Even if families in the future are equipped with the latest
home-theater magic, it’s just not the same as the emotional alchemy in a theater.”

He is absolutely right. Going to the theater is something that will never be replicated at home. However, unless
we give movie goers a reason to go, they won’t.

There are about 175 movies per year that gross $5mm or more. That’sa little more than 3 per week. That
ain’t enough. In a world of choice, we have to provide more, and better choices to every demographic who could be a
theatrical customer.

What will it take for movie producers to produce more good movies and drive more theater admissions?

There are a couple of issues in trying to get there and they are very straight forward.

First,movie producers need to maximize revenue in everymeans possible while a film is
top of mind. That means being able to sell DVDs, PPV, Pay TV and however else we can generate revenues under the
umbrella of a single advertising push. In other words,after spending tens of millions of dollars to get their
attention, why not allowconsumers to buy the movie how they want it, when they want it, where they want
it? That will give movie producers more revenue visibility and return and that will increase the number of
movies they make.

Second,movie producers need to do a better job of defining the value of thetheatrical
experience. Regardless of when a consumer can see a movie, we have already defined theperceivedvalue of
waiting 4-6 monthsfor a movie. Basically, its $29.95 retail,$20 dollarsat Amazon or less at
Best Buy. Then after a couplemoremonths, the price is dropped further to $14.95 or less and a new
and enhanced version is released to grab a hgher retail price from hardcore fans.

Why not price a DVD or the PPVat a significant premiumfor day anddatedelivery? It’s $29.95
retail if you want towait 4to 6 months. If youwant to see it the same day its released in theaters,
its $39.95 retail. Plus, if we are smart, we will provide a $10 or $15 mail-in rebate against that price if you
provide a ticketstub for the movie and a receipt for the PPV or DVD.

Not only does it expand the number of customers who can and will see the movie on opening night, but more
importantly, it enhances the perceived value of going to the theater. 10 bucks to get out of the house, 40 bucks to
stay home. Of course this won’t make everyone happy. Some people will still think that both options are too
expensive. No solution will make everyone happy, but it will expand the number of customers and the revenue base upon
release.

The 3rd option is one that movie producers might not like, but needs to happen. Theater
owners need to share in the backend of DVD sales and rentals. If the goal is to expand the revenue pie for
every film, then as key partners in this effort, theater owners should benefit as well. DVD revenues have
already surpassed box office receipts by 2x or more, but at the same time, the number of DVD sales and rental per
movie release is dropping versus previous years. Rather than stonewalling each other, everyone will make more money
if producers and theater groups work together to increase the pie.

How many DVDs of a title could be sold in theater to viewers who just saw the movie?

How much marketing support could come from DVD retailers and rental outlets to promote both the movie in theaters
and for day and date availablity in their stores?

How big an order would retailers and renters place that could be used to expand the marketing for the theatrical
release?

How much money will be saved by not having to invest in a 2nd wave of advertising for the DVD release?

Would the net value of all the above be more than 1 pct in incremental revenue and cost savings? And if it is,
what would be wrong with sharing 1 pct of DVD sales and rentals with theaters?

If the current box office is $9 billion dollars, and theater owners are netting just a few percentage points of
that, then distributing 1% of the estimated $15 billion dollars of current year movie sales and rentals could plow a
quick $150 million to the bottom line of theater groups.

Itwould not only increase theatre level cash flow significantly, but also push up the price of stocks of
publicly owned theater groups. As an example, if a group owned 6k out of 36k national screens, 1/6 of $150 million
could amount to $25mm dollars. Using Regal Entertainment Group as an example, thats an extra 18 cents per share
or double their income from last quarter. That’s nothing to sneeze at.

Of course all of this is easier said then done. I don’t expect the major studios to jump up and
down to do this. Nor do I expect Regal or any major theatrical group to take the lead.

I do expect 2929 Entertainment and HDNet Films to take the lead. We will
tailor the movies we develop to fit Landmark Theaterscustomer
base. We will work with theater ownership groups, retailers and rental outlets who want to try this experiment to
develop programs that expand the pie and create more cash flow for everyone.

I’m sure mistakes will be made along the way. I’m sure that there will be surprises. I’m sure we will have to do
quite a bit of adjusting to make the program a win win for all involved.

So what?

If it works, everyone, particularly consumers benefit.

If it doesn’t, everyone calls me a dumbass, and we go back to doing it the way it was always done.

I can handle
that.

ShareThis

Fifteenweeks in a row. That’s how many weeks in a row that it looks like admissions to theaters for movies will
down. That’s not a streak that theater owners are happy about and rightfully so.

The question of course is why? Is it the quality of the movies? Is it the number of quality movies? Is it the
availability of alternatives? Could it be due to a resurgence of broadcast TV with American Idol, CSI, Desperate
Housewives, Lost and Grey’s Anatomy bringing in record numbers of aggregate viewers? Could it be that it’s becoming
too easy to watch what we want to watch at home because of VOD and PVRs in the home? Are kids, a prime movie
going audience staying at home to play video games or hang out online?

Or could it be that the movie industry has oversold the opening weekend of a movie as “must see” event to the
point that the movie itself is more often a disappointment than an enjoyable reward?

I don’t know. Yet.

But hey, at least it’s a pleasure to not hear theater owners and the movie industry blame piracy as the cause of
the attendance slide.

Let’s take a look at this weekend Memorial Day Weekend.

Madagascar, <

BlogBuzz> a family film, and
The Longest Yard,<

BlogBuzz> what I call a Top 40 Film. Then there are some limited release films like
A League of Ordinary Gentleman (from
Magpictures) and BombTheSystem,
but neither was released on more than 2 screens. Put another way, there are only two English language films
opening on more than 2 screens this weekend! That’s not a lot of movies to choose from if I want to
have something cool to talk about at lunch or around the water cooler at work on Monday.

Of course there are continuing runs of movies, 10 or so expensive films, distributed by the Major studios, and
another 20 or so shown in limited release. Of those 12, they are usually split up 1/4(Madagascar, Kicking &
Screaming, etc) or so are for family, 1/2 for Top 40 (Unleashed, Longest Yard, House of Wax, Star Wars, Monster
in Law) and the rest typically fall in the “I want an Academy Award for Something” category (The Interpreter,
Crash, Kingdom of Heaven) for thoseof us who hope to finda little bit ofintellectual stimulation to
go with our entertainment.

So on any given night, for whatever category you feel like putting yourself intofor that night, you only
have 3 or 4 major movies, and unless you live in NY or LA, only 6 or so limited release movies tochoose from.
Is that enough to always have something that the full range of movie going public wants to see?

That’s not many choices. Not many choices for kids 12 -20 who make up the most active film goers. Not many choices
for the rest of the population that goes 1x or less per month.

Then you add the battle you go through of not wanting to fight the crowds and lines and long walk from your
parking spot against not wanting to wait so long that you are one of 4 people in the theater when you see the movie,
or have listened to everyone at work talk about the movie and spoil it for you.

When there are 40k DVD titles, all the TV shows and Movies we can capture on our PVRs and VOD and PPV, you have to
really want to go to the movies.

Which is a very good thing. People really do want to go to the movies. As Jack Valenti eloquently described in a
speech to theater owners “what you offer consumers is an epic viewing experience and an alluring social adventure
they cannot duplicate in their homes – stadium seating, huge screens ripe with luminance, the sensuality of digital
sound, unknown but enthusiastic companions of a single night – all responding to the skills of cinema artists who can
make you laugh or cry or hold you in suspense. Even if families in the future are equipped with the latest
home-theater magic, it’s just not the same as the emotional alchemy in a theater.”

He is absolutely right. Going to the theater is something that will never be replicated at home. However, unless
we give movie goers a reason to go, they won’t.

There are about 175 movies per year that gross $5mm or more. That’sa little more than 3 per week. That
ain’t enough. In a world of choice, we have to provide more, and better choices to every demographic who could be a
theatrical customer.

What will it take for movie producers to produce more good movies and drive more theater admissions?

There are a couple of issues in trying to get there and they are very straight forward.

First,movie producers need to maximize revenue in everymeans possible while a film is
top of mind. That means being able to sell DVDs, PPV, Pay TV and however else we can generate revenues under the
umbrella of a single advertising push. In other words,after spending tens of millions of dollars to get their
attention, why not allowconsumers to buy the movie how they want it, when they want it, where they want
it? That will give movie producers more revenue visibility and return and that will increase the number of
movies they make.

Second,movie producers need to do a better job of defining the value of thetheatrical
experience. Regardless of when a consumer can see a movie, we have already defined theperceivedvalue of
waiting 4-6 monthsfor a movie. Basically, its $29.95 retail,$20 dollarsat Amazon or less at
Best Buy. Then after a couplemoremonths, the price is dropped further to $14.95 or less and a new
and enhanced version is released to grab a hgher retail price from hardcore fans.

Why not price a DVD or the PPVat a significant premiumfor day anddatedelivery? It’s $29.95
retail if you want towait 4to 6 months. If youwant to see it the same day its released in theaters,
its $39.95 retail. Plus, if we are smart, we will provide a $10 or $15 mail-in rebate against that price if you
provide a ticketstub for the movie and a receipt for the PPV or DVD.

Not only does it expand the number of customers who can and will see the movie on opening night, but more
importantly, it enhances the perceived value of going to the theater. 10 bucks to get out of the house, 40 bucks to
stay home. Of course this won’t make everyone happy. Some people will still think that both options are too
expensive. No solution will make everyone happy, but it will expand the number of customers and the revenue base upon
release.

The 3rd option is one that movie producers might not like, but needs to happen. Theater
owners need to share in the backend of DVD sales and rentals. If the goal is to expand the revenue pie for
every film, then as key partners in this effort, theater owners should benefit as well. DVD revenues have
already surpassed box office receipts by 2x or more, but at the same time, the number of DVD sales and rental per
movie release is dropping versus previous years. Rather than stonewalling each other, everyone will make more money
if producers and theater groups work together to increase the pie.

How many DVDs of a title could be sold in theater to viewers who just saw the movie?

How much marketing support could come from DVD retailers and rental outlets to promote both the movie in theaters
and for day and date availablity in their stores?

How big an order would retailers and renters place that could be used to expand the marketing for the theatrical
release?

How much money will be saved by not having to invest in a 2nd wave of advertising for the DVD release?

Would the net value of all the above be more than 1 pct in incremental revenue and cost savings? And if it is,
what would be wrong with sharing 1 pct of DVD sales and rentals with theaters?

If the current box office is $9 billion dollars, and theater owners are netting just a few percentage points of
that, then distributing 1% of the estimated $15 billion dollars of current year movie sales and rentals could plow a
quick $150 million to the bottom line of theater groups.

Itwould not only increase theatre level cash flow significantly, but also push up the price of stocks of
publicly owned theater groups. As an example, if a group owned 6k out of 36k national screens, 1/6 of $150 million
could amount to $25mm dollars. Using Regal Entertainment Group as an example, thats an extra 18 cents per share
or double their income from last quarter. That’s nothing to sneeze at.

Of course all of this is easier said then done. I don’t expect the major studios to jump up and
down to do this. Nor do I expect Regal or any major theatrical group to take the lead.

I do expect 2929 Entertainment and HDNet Films to take the lead. We will
tailor the movies we develop to fit Landmark Theaterscustomer
base. We will work with theater ownership groups, retailers and rental outlets who want to try this experiment to
develop programs that expand the pie and create more cash flow for everyone.

I’m sure mistakes will be made along the way. I’m sure that there will be surprises. I’m sure we will have to do
quite a bit of adjusting to make the program a win win for all involved.

So what?

If it works, everyone, particularly consumers benefit.

If it doesn’t, everyone calls me a dumbass, and we go back to doing it the way it was always done.

I can handle
that.

ShareThis

Fifteenweeks in a row. That’s how many weeks in a row that it looks like admissions to theaters for movies will
down. That’s not a streak that theater owners are happy about and rightfully so.

The question of course is why? Is it the quality of the movies? Is it the number of quality movies? Is it the
availability of alternatives? Could it be due to a resurgence of broadcast TV with American Idol, CSI, Desperate
Housewives, Lost and Grey’s Anatomy bringing in record numbers of aggregate viewers? Could it be that it’s becoming
too easy to watch what we want to watch at home because of VOD and PVRs in the home? Are kids, a prime movie
going audience staying at home to play video games or hang out online?

Or could it be that the movie industry has oversold the opening weekend of a movie as “must see” event to the
point that the movie itself is more often a disappointment than an enjoyable reward?

I don’t know. Yet.

But hey, at least it’s a pleasure to not hear theater owners and the movie industry blame piracy as the cause of
the attendance slide.

Let’s take a look at this weekend Memorial Day Weekend.

Madagascar, <

BlogBuzz> a family film, and
The Longest Yard,<

BlogBuzz> what I call a Top 40 Film. Then there are some limited release films like
A League of Ordinary Gentleman (from
Magpictures) and BombTheSystem,
but neither was released on more than 2 screens. Put another way, there are only two English language films
opening on more than 2 screens this weekend! That’s not a lot of movies to choose from if I want to
have something cool to talk about at lunch or around the water cooler at work on Monday.

Of course there are continuing runs of movies, 10 or so expensive films, distributed by the Major studios, and
another 20 or so shown in limited release. Of those 12, they are usually split up 1/4(Madagascar, Kicking &
Screaming, etc) or so are for family, 1/2 for Top 40 (Unleashed, Longest Yard, House of Wax, Star Wars, Monster
in Law) and the rest typically fall in the “I want an Academy Award for Something” category (The Interpreter,
Crash, Kingdom of Heaven) for thoseof us who hope to finda little bit ofintellectual stimulation to
go with our entertainment.

So on any given night, for whatever category you feel like putting yourself intofor that night, you only
have 3 or 4 major movies, and unless you live in NY or LA, only 6 or so limited release movies tochoose from.
Is that enough to always have something that the full range of movie going public wants to see?

That’s not many choices. Not many choices for kids 12 -20 who make up the most active film goers. Not many choices
for the rest of the population that goes 1x or less per month.

Then you add the battle you go through of not wanting to fight the crowds and lines and long walk from your
parking spot against not wanting to wait so long that you are one of 4 people in the theater when you see the movie,
or have listened to everyone at work talk about the movie and spoil it for you.

When there are 40k DVD titles, all the TV shows and Movies we can capture on our PVRs and VOD and PPV, you have to
really want to go to the movies.

Which is a very good thing. People really do want to go to the movies. As Jack Valenti eloquently described in a
speech to theater owners “what you offer consumers is an epic viewing experience and an alluring social adventure
they cannot duplicate in their homes – stadium seating, huge screens ripe with luminance, the sensuality of digital
sound, unknown but enthusiastic companions of a single night – all responding to the skills of cinema artists who can
make you laugh or cry or hold you in suspense. Even if families in the future are equipped with the latest
home-theater magic, it’s just not the same as the emotional alchemy in a theater.”

He is absolutely right. Going to the theater is something that will never be replicated at home. However, unless
we give movie goers a reason to go, they won’t.

There are about 175 movies per year that gross $5mm or more. That’sa little more than 3 per week. That
ain’t enough. In a world of choice, we have to provide more, and better choices to every demographic who could be a
theatrical customer.

What will it take for movie producers to produce more good movies and drive more theater admissions?

There are a couple of issues in trying to get there and they are very straight forward.

First,movie producers need to maximize revenue in everymeans possible while a film is
top of mind. That means being able to sell DVDs, PPV, Pay TV and however else we can generate revenues under the
umbrella of a single advertising push. In other words,after spending tens of millions of dollars to get their
attention, why not allowconsumers to buy the movie how they want it, when they want it, where they want
it? That will give movie producers more revenue visibility and return and that will increase the number of
movies they make.

Second,movie producers need to do a better job of defining the value of thetheatrical
experience. Regardless of when a consumer can see a movie, we have already defined theperceivedvalue of
waiting 4-6 monthsfor a movie. Basically, its $29.95 retail,$20 dollarsat Amazon or less at
Best Buy. Then after a couplemoremonths, the price is dropped further to $14.95 or less and a new
and enhanced version is released to grab a hgher retail price from hardcore fans.

Why not price a DVD or the PPVat a significant premiumfor day anddatedelivery? It’s $29.95
retail if you want towait 4to 6 months. If youwant to see it the same day its released in theaters,
its $39.95 retail. Plus, if we are smart, we will provide a $10 or $15 mail-in rebate against that price if you
provide a ticketstub for the movie and a receipt for the PPV or DVD.

Not only does it expand the number of customers who can and will see the movie on opening night, but more
importantly, it enhances the perceived value of going to the theater. 10 bucks to get out of the house, 40 bucks to
stay home. Of course this won’t make everyone happy. Some people will still think that both options are too
expensive. No solution will make everyone happy, but it will expand the number of customers and the revenue base upon
release.

The 3rd option is one that movie producers might not like, but needs to happen. Theater
owners need to share in the backend of DVD sales and rentals. If the goal is to expand the revenue pie for
every film, then as key partners in this effort, theater owners should benefit as well. DVD revenues have
already surpassed box office receipts by 2x or more, but at the same time, the number of DVD sales and rental per
movie release is dropping versus previous years. Rather than stonewalling each other, everyone will make more money
if producers and theater groups work together to increase the pie.

How many DVDs of a title could be sold in theater to viewers who just saw the movie?

How much marketing support could come from DVD retailers and rental outlets to promote both the movie in theaters
and for day and date availablity in their stores?

How big an order would retailers and renters place that could be used to expand the marketing for the theatrical
release?

How much money will be saved by not having to invest in a 2nd wave of advertising for the DVD release?

Would the net value of all the above be more than 1 pct in incremental revenue and cost savings? And if it is,
what would be wrong with sharing 1 pct of DVD sales and rentals with theaters?

If the current box office is $9 billion dollars, and theater owners are netting just a few percentage points of
that, then distributing 1% of the estimated $15 billion dollars of current year movie sales and rentals could plow a
quick $150 million to the bottom line of theater groups.

Itwould not only increase theatre level cash flow significantly, but also push up the price of stocks of
publicly owned theater groups. As an example, if a group owned 6k out of 36k national screens, 1/6 of $150 million
could amount to $25mm dollars. Using Regal Entertainment Group as an example, thats an extra 18 cents per share
or double their income from last quarter. That’s nothing to sneeze at.

Of course all of this is easier said then done. I don’t expect the major studios to jump up and
down to do this. Nor do I expect Regal or any major theatrical group to take the lead.

I do expect 2929 Entertainment and HDNet Films to take the lead. We will
tailor the movies we develop to fit Landmark Theaterscustomer
base. We will work with theater ownership groups, retailers and rental outlets who want to try this experiment to
develop programs that expand the pie and create more cash flow for everyone.

I’m sure mistakes will be made along the way. I’m sure that there will be surprises. I’m sure we will have to do
quite a bit of adjusting to make the program a win win for all involved.

So what?

If it works, everyone, particularly consumers benefit.

If it doesn’t, everyone calls me a dumbass, and we go back to doing it the way it was always done.

I can handle
that.

ShareThis

I’m often hard on the RIAA. I don’t like the
amount of political power they have in DC and at the state level. That said, I do believe in their right to
protect theintellectual property of their members.

There are laws in place that allow them to sue in civil court for damages. There are laws on the books that allow
the government to pursue criminal charges. I don’t agree with all the elements of these laws, and I am absolutely
against the introduction of any new laws, but the laws in place are there and as such, the RIAA has the right
to see them applied.

Music has value. Absolutely no question about it. Music sales are a source of income that its creators have every
right to earn. It’s because of this value and the income opportunity that the RIAA’s members pay it what amounts to
millions of dollars per year. It’s that money that has allowed the RIAA to file about 10,300 lawsuits since September
2003.

I have no problem with that at all.

Unfortunately, the payments by the RIAA member labels don’t pay for the entire expense of enforcing copyright law
and processing
RIAA
lawsuits. For every law passed, there is a cost to get from concept to adoption. For every lawsuit filed, there
is a cost to the municipality, state or federal district where the lawsuit is filed. Tax monies, whetherthey
are local, state or federal pay for those costs. As they should.

The missing link here is the source of the tax money.

We pay property taxes. We pay use taxes. We pay sales tax. We pay income taxes. Beyond taxes, we pay fees. We pay
a fee for our drivers license, our passport, and I don’t know how many other fees that go from our bank accounts to
every level of government. In exchange we get some level of service that enable our public servants to protect, honor
and serve and to support our system.

I don’t like the idea that my tax money goes to subsidize the
10,300 lawsuits the RIAA has filed
since Sept of 2003.How much moneydoes it take from taxpayers to pay for the courts side of the
lawsuits? I’m guessing, but with all the administrative people and lawyers involved, judges, their clerks, overhead,
and who knowswhat else is involved. Is20,000 dollars per lawsuit too high or too low? Could it be 100k
dollars each? I don’t know.

At 20k per lawsuit in top to bottom court costs, that’s more than 200 MILLION DOLLARS in taxpayer money paying for
copyright enforcement.

Then there of course is all the cost associated with the
international efforts the RIAAhas pushed the
government to support and fulfill. Who knows how many millions that adds up to.

Why are every day taxpayers having to foot this huge bill? It’s not like our government is running at a surplus.
In the big wish list of unfunded liabilities our lawmakers have undertaken,I can think of a whole lot of things
that fall above protecting music copyrights.

Unless of course, music copyright holders pay for that unfunded liability.

Which is exactly what should happen.

If copyright holders, of which I am one, want our copyrights protected to the full extent that our government can
offer, we should be taxed for each one ofour copyrights. We should pay for those hundreds of millions of
dollars in costs since we directly benefit from those services.

Somewhere there will hopefully be a smart politician who reads this and quickly introduces a copyright tax.

From where I sit there are two types of copyrights: Commercial and Non-Commercial. Those copyrights you as a
creator think will make money, and those you think won’t.

For non-commercial works, works the creator wants protected and wants to retain the right to use, the courts in
case of an infringement, charge them $100 per year. Because this could be a lot of money for many artists, the
tax could be structured so that the song doesn’t have to be registered and paid for 18 months. Remember, if you don’t
pay, the only thing you are giving up is the right to register the work in a nataional database and to sue in civil
court. So you can own and exploit the copyright forever without paying anything.

For commercial copyrights, charge the copyright OWNER $750 per year (RIAA President Sherman says direct copyright
infringement carries a minimum penalty of $750 per work infringed)to retain the right to use the courts in case
of infringement and to fund the actions of the government in criminal charges andinternational actionsfor
the various types of copyright infringement.

(A note here, I’m sure there are a ton of legal issues here, but I’m sure there are lawyers who will offer the
solutions via comments)

Both could be registered in a database and tracked much like we do patents.

At any point in time, a copyright owner could switch from one status to the other.

The fee is annual.

In the event that the fee is not paid for a period of 1 year, the work can become part of the
creative commons license, you can offer it to the public domain, or you can
just keep it and do with it asyou see fit, but the work is not registered in the national database. As
such,you relinquish the rights associated with being in the list,starting with theright to sue in
civil courts for copyright infringement.

This works because it is based on a very simple concept. The RIAA thinks that $750 is what their members songs are
worth for direct copyright infringement. If as a music copyright owner, you don’t think its worth $750 bucks a year,
then it’s probably not really a commercial work.

A key reasonwhy this has a chance of becoming reality, is not only because it raises the money necessary to
fund protections against copyright infringement, but also becausethis could be the best thing that ever
happened tomusicians whose work is being buried inside a label’s vaults.

More than amillions commercial works are not owned by individuals, they are owned by music labels and other
corporate entities.Most RIAA members. Having a $750 annual tax on a song could create a movement that would
force the label to either monetize the song quickly, or return those it can’t or won’t monetize to its originator, or
their designee. Theycan then chose how to define the work and which tax to pay.

After all, if a song isn’t worth $750 bucks a year, why should it benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars
in taxpayer money being spent to protect it?

With the 500mm dollars or more that could be raised annually, the RIAA, and every single taxpaying copyright owner
would have every right to expect and demand that they receive the fullest protection of the law, but it wouldn’t be
at the expense of more important taxpayer funded services.

I understand that thiscould make music more expensive. I would rather have more expensive music then either
higher taxes or tax money being spent on copyright protection rather than more essential services.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it at least till someone comes up with a better idea.

ShareThis

There is nothing tougher than being in the locker room after losing in the playoffs, particularly this year. Every
man on the roster knew we were capable of playing better than we did. We knew we gave them 3 games that we had won.
In the locker room after the game, it all hits you at the same time.

There is nothing you can say to players with tears welling in their eyes or rolling down their cheeks. You can put
your arm around them. You can tell them how much you care about them.

The players know just how fragile every part of their careers are. You just don’t know where things will go from
here. There are any number of outside elements that impact the physical and business side of basketball,which
makes a lost opportunity all the harder to deal with.

It hurts. It hurts that night. You can’t sleep. It hurts the next day. The only feeling that can Icompare it
tois the one you get breaking up with a girlfriend. Your emotions are tied up for 8 months in the season and
when it’s over. It hurts.

The only saving grace is that I love the team we have and the direction our coach will take us. It still astounds
me that we did as well as we did given that we not only changed coaches with 18 games to go in the regular season,
but we also did 180 degree change in philosophy. Hopefully we will have a full summer to develop our young players
and a full training camp under AJ.AJ is a great teacher and motivator. Training Camp and a full season will
make us far better than we were this year.

At this point last year, Iwas concerned. We lost in the first round. We had multiple players who were asking
to be traded. We had taken some chances in bringing in players, and it didn’t work out. Guys had played for
themselves rather than for the team. It was a team that was going no where fast.

Our first move was totrade Antawn Jameson to get Devin Harris and Jerry Stackhouse.Antawn wanted to be
a started on a team where he could have an impact. He is a first class guy and when Washington called with the offer
of the #5 pick and Stack, it was a chance to keep our word to AJ, reduce our logjam at the Power Forward position and
pick up a backup point guard in training for Steve.

Of course, pretty much the next day Nash decided to leave. At that point I was very concerned. I was concerned as
to what our team would have looked like had Steve stayed, but I was even more concerned about life without Steve
because we now had no idea what our team would look like at the beginning of the year. It was bad enough that I
thought we had made a mistake by not lottery protecting the draft pick we had traded to get Pavel.

We had always expected Steve to stay. I had also given the mandate to Donnie that other than draft picks, our
committed payroll (the amount of money that we owe in total to all players) would have to come down. We were able to
save some money when we traded Antawn.

Walk (Antoine Walker) had asked to be moved. I had promised him we would do our best to accommodate him. Walk was
always very professional with me. We had talked through the summer to that point. I kept him up to speed on the
discussions going on, but made it clear that I wasn’t going to take back more salary. That if we could do a deal that
was salary neutral with him and any other players, and that would help the team, we would do the deal. Unfortunately,
to that point, we hadn’t received any offers that would meet those criteria.

I also was trying to keep my options open in case the chance to trade for Shaq could become a reality. In talking
to the Lakers however, they made it clear there was zero chance of a trade with us. Front door, back door, with one,
two, three other teams, it wasn’t going to happen.

As of Draft Day, our starting lineup was looking to be the exact same lineup as the one we had ended the previous
season with Nash, Finley, Marquis or Josh, Dirk and Antoine Walker. On the bench we would have Eddie Najera,
Shawn Bradley, Devin Harris, Stack and we knew that Danny Fortson would be turned into Calvin Booth.

One of the reasons we traded our pick to get Pavel on Draft Day was that we knew we didn’t have a great team, and
that a big part of this season was going to be developing young players. We could make the playoffs, maybe do some
damage there, but our biggest upside from this season would be indeveloping our young guns around Dirk, Steve
and Fin and seeing where they could take us in the future.

Then Steve left for Phoenix. If we had questions about our team before he left, we had more after he left. We
started to scramble. Our first order of business was to re-sign Marquis. Nellie liked to use him as a point guard, so
it gave us some stability there.

After that, Donnie went to work. His first dealgot usJason Terry and Hendu from the Hawks for Tony
Delk and Walk.

That gave us a point guard with experience and that had had individual, if not team success in the league. At that
point, we honestly didn’t expect Hindu to play at all. He hadn’t played the year before due to back problems, and we
expected to be able to collect insurance money on his contract. (Obviously it didn’t turn out that way, and Hindu
more than paid for himself with his contributions this year). So at that point in time, the economics of that deal
actually saved us money.

With the money that we had saved when Steve left, I could have just put the money in my pocket, and I seriously
considered doing that.

Around that same period in time, I started having conversations with Avery Johnson about coming back as a player
and then at some point after he retired, becoming a coach. I really wanted AJ here. He was the unsung hero of our
2002-3 playoff run. He ran practices and got in people’s faces when it needed to happen. When Portland ran off 3
straight against us, he was the voice in the locker room pushing the guys and the guys loved him and responded well
to him.

Avery still wanted to play at that point, so we signed him to a 1 year deal as a player. He also told us that we
should be going after Erick Dampier if we could work out a sign and trade with the Warriors.

The thing about a sign and trade is that it’s just that a trade. I told Donnie that as long as we gave up
enough salaries, plus what we saved from Nash, to be less than or equal to what we guaranteed Damp in his deal, I
would give it my blessing. It took what seemed like months to work out, but we were able to trade basically Laettner
(who we got in the Stack/Devin deal) andEddie Najerafor Damp and Evan Eschmeyer.Wehad stuck
to our financial parameters, saved moneyand got to a point where we felt we had the nucleus to have a very good
team. In fact, it was the first time we had what looked like a traditional team, with a post up center and 3 young
perimeter players who were good and could be great defenders.

I need to also mention that although I was upset when Steve left, that was tempered becauseI was mad at how
his agent handled theentire situation.Steve is a first class guy. Someone I think is amazing in so many
ways on and off the court. His agent I don’t feel the same way about. (And for those whocare about
trivia,I would rather get beat by Steve, someone I like then someone I don’t think much of)

What hurt far worse than Steve leaving for more money, was having to trade Eddie Najera. Free Agents leave of
their own accord. When we trade someone, it’s usually not their choice. Eddie didn’t want to leave. He loved it with
the Mavs and we loved having him here. He would be in and out of Nellie’s doghouse, but he always had a smile on his
face and picked up the energy and spirits of everyone around him. He not only was a crowd favorite, he was a locker
room favorite as well. It was not a fun day when the trade went down.

So that was how the team of 2004-5 was put together.

Unlike last year, this year ended completely differently. I’m proud of what we accomplished, on and off the court.
To a man, every new player came up to me,and thanked me forbringing them intothe organization. Guys
thanked each other for a great year.Our young playerscontinued to develop and will beeven better
next year.I think our veterans will thrive as theyget more comfortable with Avery’s system.

It doesn’t take the hurt away from losing this year. But it sure makes it easier to look forward to next year

I want to bring up one more thing that I am incredibly proud of this team for. Starting with the first game of
this season, Michael Finley asked that every player on the team put his hand over his heart during the National
Anthem. Although we have players from around the world, every player, coach, trainer and throughout the organization,
followed his lead as a sign of team unity and as a way of saying thank you, and did so every single game of the
year.

I thought that other teams might follow our lead. I thought that the media might pick up on it and maybe even give
us a hard time about it since we had players from around the world. None of the above happened, which made it all the
better. It was something that was uniquely our Dallas Mavericks.

I have to tell you, that as owner of the Dallas Mavericks, win or lose, I started every game, with my hand over my
heart, grateful for the opportunity to live in this great country and incredibly proud of every single person
representing the Mavs on that court.

ShareThis

Ok, not yet. But they are coming. I promise.

Not that I ever want to see anyone lose their jobs, but it will be nice for music label employees to have all the subsidies they are paying the RIAA go to their artists. (Yes you were supposed to laugh at that one.)

As Barry Ritholtz smartly pointed out in his blog, the introduction of Yahoo’s Music Unlimited Service sets the new marketvalue for all the music you can download in a month…5 bucks.

The RIAA can no longer claim that students who are downloading music are costing them thousands of dollars each. They can’t claim much of anything actually. In essence, Yahoo just turned possession of a controlled music substance into a misdemeanor. Payable by a $5 per month fine.

Of course, RIAA staffers won’t go quietly into the night. They will continue to scream loud and hard about evils of illegal downloading. The question is, will they move the money they are currently spending on court cases and filing suit, towards promoting the new subscription services that are available. Particularly Yahoo’s dirt cheap service.

Will they have the sense to say…”Ok kid, you are about to get sued, which will mean we both spend money on lawyers, and then we kick your butt in court and you pay a multi-thousand dollar settlement, OR, you can sign up for any of the all you can eat music subscriptions, Rhapsody, Napster or Yahoo Music. Your choice. 5 bucks a month. Or thousands of bucks.

Will the RIAA mitigate circumstances and turn their efforts toward promoting legal downloads, or will they still get their jollies from suing their customers?

And what about our favorite back pocket politician, Orrin “but Im a songwriter too” Hatch. What will he get on his knees for in order to get money from the music industry? Could he possibly still get worked up and spend our hard earned taxpayer money for crimes whose total economic value is 5 bucks per month. (yes, you were supposed to laugh again.) Will he try to induce people to spend the 5 bucks, or will he still think its necessary to destory users PCs?

How about this Orrin, why don’t you introduce a Utah Loves Music bill, that requires every citizen of the lovely state of Utah (dont laugh here, it really is pretty), to pay a $5 per month music tax?You could negotiate a statewide discounted deal with Yahoo Music Unlimited, grab a few bucks off the top for yourself and the state, and you would have completely rid the entire state of Utah of illegal downloading!

By offering music so economically, Yahoo has changed how the RIAA should and can spread Piraphobia around the country. It should also change the perspective our politicians have about the subject as well. How can the Attorney General divert resources to save the music biz 5 bucks a pop? How can bills be proposed that try to save the music industry 5 bucks a month?

Of course it won’t happen in a straight line. There are RIAA jobs and political contributions to protect. And although the Yahoo and other sub services are not perfect, they will get continuously better and support more and more devices and have increasing flexibility.

This is the low point for subscription services. Which is a good thing. It’s going to get better and better every year.

Anyone want to show RIAA lawyers how to use Craigslist?

See what the blogosphere is saying about Yahoo Music Service

ShareThis

Of all the topics I thought I might cover in my blog, I never imagined that blog etiquette would be one of them. Yet here I am…

One of the beautiful things about blogging is thatI can present ideas, concepts, situations or hypotheticals about anything and then open it up to comments. Often I have found the comments offered by readers to provide more value and insight than what I originally wrote. Sometimes they prove me right, sometimes they prove me wrong. Either is a value add to the original blog post.

One of the nuisances of running a blog is having to delete extraneous comments and spam. Every blogging service is fighting commercial spam in its comments. We are getting better at excluding them.

Even the spam from the juvenile, the “you suck” or “eat shit and die” variety is manageable because it doesnt take that long to delete it.

This week was the first time I had to deal with “babba booey” (sp ?) spam from a website. For those who arent fans of Howard Stern’s radio show, his fans would often call other talk shows or live events and spit out the now infamous line to the host. A nuisance for sure, but not much more.

This week on the ESPN.com Page 2 column, Eric Neel decided to do aparody of what a David Stern blog might contain. No question that it was a fun premise. Unfortunately, part of his article suggested that the readers come over to blogmaverick.com and post the comment “nice hair” on every post.

And they did.

I spent hours deleting posts from the idiots that took what he wrote literally. Great threads were pushed aside and filled with this spam.

Collateral damage and just the cost of writing a blog? Sure. Avoidable, yes. Especially from a major media organization like ESPN.

I expect the Naked Short idiots to flame the site when I write something they don’t agree with. I expect Republican and Democratic swarms from zealot websites to spam the site when I write something they don’t agree with. Thats part of the deal. Cleaning them up is part of the expectation when I write the post.

WhatI never expected was that a Howard Stern moment would come from the Disney Company. That a call to spam would come fromone of the largest media companies in the world. The last thing the blogosphere needs is one outlettrying to diminish the voice of anotherby initiating an avalanche ofspam.

I don’t think Eric Neel was trying to do anything nefarious or intended to flood blogmaverick with spam, however that’s exactly what happened.

The lesson learned is that we as a medium need to set some groundruleson comment spam.

For commercial blog hosting sites likeweblogsinc, livejournal, blogspot, or other portal offered sites, one of the terms of service should preclude spamming or spam promotion.

For media or corporate websites, it should be an editorial common sense.

Otherwise, we might find ourselves slidingdown a slippery slope that ends up silencing what some might think is the most valuable part of a blog user comments.

ShareThis

It’s no shock to anyone who reads this blog that I’m not a big fan of some in sports media. I have a particular aversion to those who just make things up and try to pass them off as “factpinions” knowingly wrong information presented by columnists hiding behind the facade of it “just being opinion”.

Sam Smith is the all time worse offender, but there was a recent new addition to the list Mike Celizic of MSNBC.com

Celizic wrotea column saying I turned down a deal for Shaq. Anyone who listened to any of the 100 interviews I did on the topic this summer knew that we tried, but there never was a deal discussed Ever. I asked if they would consider trading Shaq to us, the Lakers said they didn’t have an interest. End of story.

I wrote an email to Celizic and we had a back and forth where he said it was purely opinion on his part . It certainly didn’t read like opinion and there were plenty of people emailing me who thought it was a factual report rather than opinion, so I wasn’t the only one who thought it could be misleading.

So, I wrote an email to Celizics editor, and wonder of wonder he responded. Not only did he respond, but he told Celizic to run verbatim the email thread that occured between us in his blog and that they would publicize the correction as much as the original article.

A big thumbs up to Danny an editor at MSNBC.com for recognizing what happenedand using internet media the way it should be used.

Thanks Danny. I’m so impressed, I’m linking to MSNBC.com and what’s his names blog and article rather than reposting it all here!

ShareThis