its the simplest of ideas. Take any MP3 player, Ipod, PSP, whatever and pre load it with songs. With 30, 60 and 100gbs capacities, the potential is amazing. How simple it would be if the user could sample and choose.

No more having to go to illegal sites to sample music to decide if you want to buy it or steal it (them , not me .. Its all right there.

ITunes Media Store users could let Apple download overnight and fill up your hard drive and let you go nuts.

Think maybe the total amount of music sales might go up ? Of course it would.

Think piracy would go down ? No question about it. Its easy to spend hours on your own Ipod picking and choosing, even for high school kids wit hmore time than money. And it would be fun and a huge value add for music consumers.

So why doesnt it happen ? This old fuddy duddy music licensing organization called the Harry Fox Agency.Talk about an organization so out of step with the times its holding an entire industry back.

How expensive is it to “pay the Harry Fox Piper ?” From their website

“The current statutory mechanical royalty rate is $.085 (8.5 cents) per song per unit for recordings of compositions up to five minutes (5:00) in length. “

Thats alot of money. Do the math. How many songs can you pre load on a 30gbs or 60gbsIPod. How many as those harddrives grow and grow.

At 8.5 cents ea. Thats big, big dollars. Per Ipod. Which is exactly why you cant buy MP3/Ipod devices preloaded with music. Its obscenely expensive .

Why not do it the right way. Since units like the Ipod can track usage, just set a very simple reporting mechanism. Its being done for subscription services. Downloads are tracked. Listening is tracked. Why not apply it to mobile devices ? If the user has privacy concerns, they wont buy the unit with this feature.

There is absolutely no reason for Harry Fox to charge just because a song is preloaded on the Hard Drive. It has every right to charge if that song stays on the hard drive and is listened to.

So why not finally put DRM to ause that actually benefits consumers ? If that song stays on the hard drive 5 daysand is listened to more than 5 times during any period, then Harry Fox can collect on it. It wouldnt be 8.5 cents. Thats a ridiculous number of course when there could be thousands of songs on a hard drive. People who just kept the songs on the hard drive could end up costing the distributor thousands of dollars per Ipod as hard drives grow. But just like the subscription services have worked things out, there is no reason why Harry Fox cant come in to the 21st century and realize that their beneficiaries will make more money by making it easier for music lovers to consume music.

It also takes away some of the incentive for users to troll illegal download sites.ITunes and the other music sites could easily download music overnight and let the users have fun with it.

Wake up with a 1k new songs on your IPod every day, week or month. Pick and choose what you want. Keep what you like, delete the rest. If you dont want to delete, we will remind you that you will be charged for them and we will hit your credit card for them.

Its the 2006 version of the Record Club. Instead of mailing a record or CD, they download to your harddrive. If you dont delete it, you bought it. And deleting a song is a lot easier than returning a CD.

Of course, Harry Fox will probably fight this idea. Why ? Dont know. Ask them. But the labels surely should be fighting to make this happen. Otherwise its just one more blown opportunity.

ShareThis

The braintrust at the NBA never ceases to amaze me. I know David Stern and Adam Silver cant keep their eyes on everything. Sometimes i wish they would. The marketing mavens once again proved they are in the wrong job with the All Star Ballot.

Simple in concept. Difficult in execution. Right ? Its an incredible stretch Im sure for those on this project to have recognized that when the Suns said WEEKS before the season started, that Amare Stoudamire would be out until around the All Star break…that maybe that would be an indicator that he wouldnt have a season that would qualify him for the All Star team.

Yah Think ?

But no. They put Amare on the ballot. After all, its much better to possibly be in a position where fans could vote Amare in. Right ? That would really validate the process.

Of course it must have been because there was no one else to place on the ballot ? I mean why in the world would they add an all NBA quality defender who is putting up double doubles like Josh Howard ? Did they miss Josh Howard in the playoffs last year ?

Im not saying that Josh will be voted in by the fans. thats a long shot. But there is no question that he deserved to be on the All Star ballot. Players around the league recognize his talent, and we at the Mavs certainly do.

shame the NBA shot an airball on it

ShareThis

Over the last 10 years, since the advent of digital cable and satellite, we have seen ratings for top TV shows
decline. Ratings for top 10 shows today, wouldnt have cracked the top 20 ratings back in the 1980s and early
1990s. Call it the longtail affect. More choices allow people to be more selective in their viewing, hence
lower ratings for the top shows.

The satellite and cable companies have been brilliant in leveraging new technology to create more value and lock
in their customers. They have used technology to offer more and more channels. The services offered by each
have continued to expand, as has the profitability that comes withoffering, telephony, High Speed Data, Video
on Demand, Subscription Music Services and more.

Technology marches on. BusinessWeek proclaimed this week “The End of
TV (As you know it).” My perception of the article is that they wanted to drive home the point that
technology is expanding how viewers receive content and the number of content choices will result in ongoing decline
in audience sizes. The drop could, in turn could destablize the TV business as we know it.

I think they are wrong. They are leaving out two key technological issues that will completely change the
dynamics of TV, but for the better….for those that recognize what is happening.

First, as i have written in the past, I think its great news for any TV network
that Bob Iger broke the links to the past and opened
new revenue streams by selling hot shows while they are hot. People want content, where and when they want
it. Its found money that will just improve the ability of networks to invest in content. I also
think these revenue streams will end up being driven by out of home, mobile devices rather than being downloaded for
viewing at home.

Thats not to say that downloading of content being offered today wont be watched from media center PCs, laptops,
Ipods, PVRs and other devices when connected to TVs. They will. Because today, DVD quality, or anything close
is good enough for 90 pct of homes.

That will change. Quickly. Very quickly.

Some simpleobservationsto consider:

HDTV pricing is falling like a rock. You can go to Best Buy and get a 27″ HDTV for under 400 dollars. Those
prices will continue to fall. Within the next 2 years, analog TV will have gone the way of black and white. It will
become unusual to see them in stores in all but tiny sizes.

HDTV viewers love HD quality. The more HD you watch, the more important HD quality becomes to you. HDTV viewers
arent accepting by programming type. Once a viewer goes HD, he/she wants all programming in HD.

Now some may question this. I have heard it many times that DVD quality is “good enough”. Back in 1998, VHS
quality was good enough. Its not good enough now. Would you accept VHS quality on the DVD of a movie you just
bought ? Of course not. Nor will you accept DVD quality in a few years when you have expectations of HD 1080i
quality for the shows you watch or buy.

HDTV viewers watch more TV. The increases are in HD channels, with decreases in standard definition viewing.

Now some may say this is no big deal. That all the cable and satellite networks out there will just naturally
migrate to High Definition.

Those same people may say the same thing about video on demand. That the content will just migrate to HD. No
big deal. Insteading of downloading DVD quality video, the content will be upgraded to HD quality and we will
download HD quality.

Thats not going to happen and here is why.

Of all the advances in technology that will occur over the next 5 years in hard drives, CPUs, HDTVs,
PDAs and other mobile technology, the one area that we will see the least amount of improvement is in bandwidth to
the home.

Over the past 5 years, bandwidth to the home has grown from 300k for broadband to 5mbs, and in some cases even
10mbs. But that bandwidth is not dedicated per user. That bandwidth is shared. The number of users
sharing that bandwidth has increased even faster than the size of the pipe. Thats not going to change. Sure we will
see optimizing efforts from network providers, but the average bandwidth available to the home isnt going to change.
In fact, there is every chance it will decrease because the number of homes, the number of users per home, and the
number of tuners in PVRs that are recording simultaneously will increase.

So what does this have to do with HDTV and the future of television ?

Simply put, using all the compression tools and best codecs available today, the amount of bandwidth
required to transmit an HDTV show vs the amount of bandwidth required to transmit a DVD quality show is about 8mbs to
1mbs. Thats for download and doesnt take into account shows that require more bandwidth, like sports and
movies.

For broadcast, again, using compression, it takes 2 to 3mbs to transmit a standard definition show, and
10mbs to transmit an HDTV, non sports program at quality that is equal to what is available from over the air HDTV
broadcasters like CBS and NBC.

Which leads to point. Bandwidth to the home is not expanding as fast as the bandwidth required to transmit
content. So something has got to give.

Satellite companies have recognized their expanded need for bandwidth and have purchased launched multiple
satellites.

Cable companies are doing everything they can to improve bandwidth. Going to IP driven, switched networks.
Using statistical multiplexing techniques. All provide help,but not enough to solve the problem. Plus,
they have another HUGE problem.

Basic cable TV networks, USA, TNT, TBS, CNN, all the networks that have full penetration and reach 95pct plus of
cable homes are carried through your cable provider on analog channels. This means they use 6mhz each. 6mhz is the
equivalent of about 38mbs. Thats a lot of bandwidth.

Now common sense might say, why not just switch them to digital and send them using 3mbs for standard definition
and 10mbs for High Definition. Well the problem is that not all homes have digital cable, which means thatif
the networks were willing to give up their 6mhz of spectrum, they wouldnt be able to reach the 50 plus percent of
cable users that dont get digital. Which means that its not going to happen anytime soon. In fact, in response to
this problem, some cable systems are trying to go “pseudo digital” , but thats going to take years and years to
rollout.

So in a nutshell, at the very point in time when a rapidly growing number of consumers are going to be expecting
programming at the highest possible High Definition bitrate, there isnt enough bandwidth to deliver it.

THats unbelievably good news for the cable and satellite companies and for cable networks like ESPN, HDNet, TNT
and Discovery that have invested in high definition.

As i said earlier, consumers are going to expect more and more High Definition programming. They will be buying
10s of millions of High Definition sets over the next couple years and the more HD content, they get, the more they
will want.

Cable and satellite companies are going to have to compete in a high def world. People with high def
sets are going to buy their video content fromproviders who provide the most high def content. Having the 5 or
so broadcast networks that only broadcast in HD 70pct of primetime, plus 2 or 3 cable networks in HD is not going to
be enough.

So why wouldnt every cable network just switch to broadcasting in High Definition ? For3 reasons;
cost, licensing problems and because a lot of their content is worthless in high definition.

It costs millions of dollars to build or convert a network to High Definition. Given that you can count the number
of independently owned networks on one hand, that means that all the major media companies have multiple
networks that they have to convert.If theyown a news network.. The cost is enormous. Thats a sunk
cost that cant be recaptured.

What makes a program worthless in High Definition ? If it was shot or mastered on tape.Shows fromthe
1980s, 1990s, and even some shows today, are shot using standard definition tape. Other shows and movies were shot
using film, (which is high resolution and can be nicely converted to HD), but were edited and had special effects
added using tape as the master format. Why is it worthless ? Because standard definition video doesnt have
enough resolution to look good inhigh definition. To up convert it to HD would be like upconvertingmusic
frommono to 5.1Surround Sound. You can fake it and improve it a little, but when compared to music
captured in Surround Sound or even stereo, its obviously inferior.

If you go through the schedules of many cable networks, some are made up completely or substantially of shows shot
or mastered on tape. The networks that are full of music videos from the past 20 years. Networks with comedies from
the 1980s and 90s. Science Fiction created for syndicated TV (Most primetime scifi was shot on Film and then
HD). THere is nothing their owners or licensors can do to make them look good in HD. I dont
think they will even try. Which in turn means we are going to see some of those cable networks that are dependent on
these shows just disappear.

Then there is the cost of converting shows that can look good in HDinto High Definition quality. There are
two ways to convert programs that were not created in High Definition into high definition content.

The cheapest is called upconverting. Quick and easy, a standard defintion master tape of a show is
just run through some software which tries to create pixels and resolution that are not there through and render out
a higher resolution version . The problem is that it looks like crap once its converted. The only reason
is still exists is that some current networks that are broadcasting in High Definition dont feel the need to spend
the money to do it right. Probably because they dont think the audience size is big enough. Personally, I
think they are killing their brand equity with HD viewers. The difference in quality is obvious.The recurring
comment I hear is “whats wrong with XYZ show on XYZ network it doesnt look near as good as HDNet” So for that reason,
I hope they continue upconverting content although they are making a huge mistake doing so.

The more expensive option is for shows that are shot on film, to go back to the master elements, clean them
upand telecine themto high definition. From there they can be touched up even further to look really
good. Unfortunately its not cheap. The cost can start at 20k for a movie and go up from there. The good news is that
this is happening more and more because some smarter content companies are preparing for converting to HD and because
they realize the same HD version can be used as a master to sell a DVD today, and an HD version of that DVD in the
near future.

But not all the networks can afford to pay the cost to convert. If they licensed 100 eps of a single show that was
shot on film, at 10k per hour minimum, thats 1mm dollars for a single show ! Mutliply that by all the shows and all
the episodes involved , and it can turn into millions of dollars per network.

Then there are the licensing problems. A lot of programs were licensed as part of long term deals before High
Definition was even contemplated. In some cases the High Def rights were split apart from the standard definition
rights. Which means that some networks either have to go back and procure the HD rights, or they cant get them at
all.

Add all of this up and it creates a very unique dynamic in the TV world. There are some networks where it doesnt
make any sense for them to even try to go High Def. Whether its cost, licensing issues or lack of HD quality, its
just not going to happen. Which in turn is going to lead to a CONTRACTION in the number of total TV channels in the
HD universe.

Then you have the issue of available bandwidth on cable and satellite providers. Because HD versions of
networks take 4x to 5x as much bandwidth as their standard definition counterparts, even with full compression,
there isnt enough bandwidth available for all the networks that feel like they can and have to go High Def.
Which will result inany of three outcomes

1. There will be a standard definition ghetto created on cable and satellite. Just as talk radio and niche
stations are now on the AM radio dial, there will be an analogous area where networks that cant or wont go HD can
reside. Of course the bad news is that with just a few exceptions, these networks will be considered 2nd class
networks and the rates they receive and can charge advertisers will be far less than their HD counterparts

2. Cable networks will trade the bandwidth being consumed by “cant go HD” networks and/or analog carriage for
bandwidth for their biggest networks who got to the HD party late.

3. Five or so years from now, those networks who didnt think HD was important will find themselves on the outside
looking in, realizing that there isnt enough bandwidth and they will have to pay for carriage.

There are going to be fewer networks being broadcast in the future. Not more. That should lead to ratings
expansion, not contraction as some would have you believe.

But wait, there’s more. In an HD universe, not only will there be fewer channels to compete with
in the lnng term, but because the adoption of HD will happen faster than most people realize, the ratings for those
networks that do broadcast in HD will EXPLODE in the next two to three years. The next few years will still have
alimited number of HD channels available to viewers while conversion and bandwidth issues are worked out. Which
means in HD households, rather than a 150 channel universe, there may only be a 30 channel HD universe. Thats a
goldmine for those networks in HD.

Not only that, but the HD universe has several advantages for advertisers over the standard def world, which of
course is money in the bank for networks and their distributors.

First is that 99 pct of the PVR/Tivo devices already installed in homes that go HD, dont support HD programming.
Which means no skipping commercials in HD programming until they upgrade.

More importantly, with more resolution, a wide screen and 5.1 audio, advertisers have a bigger and better pallete
to work with and get creative with. Which just might enable commercials we like to watch for a while.

Then there is the competition from the internet that is supposed to make things so difficult for tv networks.

Unfortunately for the internet, offering high definition downloads isnt cost efficient. Its down right expensive.
And its god awful slow.Sure, companies like Redswoosh.net will provide
better bandwidth solutions, and we have tested it at HDNet. But its still going to take 10gbs to deliver a movie, and
its going to take over night downloading todeliver that movie on 99 pct of home connections. And its not going
to get any better for a long long time. Which in turn makes downloading High Def content a very small internet
business. Which in turn means that all the prognosticators who think that internet download to the home will replace
the rental business and rival cable or satellite are just plain wrong.

In fact, I think that smart rental companies like Hollywood Entertainment and Netflix will embrace HD on
DVD. Whether its for the Xbox 360 or PS3 which will both be inexpensive HD playback devices, or on future
HD DVD and Blu Ray Devices, rentals for HD content will bring people back to the stores because of higher buy to own
prices of the disks.

So when you add it up.

Consumers are going HD. HDTV will replace analog tv as surely as DVDs replaced VCRs. Those consumers will demand
HD programming. The distributor that can provide it, will get their business. That competition will push networks to
go HD, but for a variety of reasons, not all can or will, which means there will be fewer networks competing for
viewers and some of those networks will be “AM band”, reducing the competition for viewers and advertisers even
more.

HD technology will also bring more viewers to watch programming on HDTVs because its so new and different. Which
in turn will bring advertisers and will extend the life of the 30 second commercial.

The impact of the internet on inhome viewing will diminish until bandwidth to the home can increase by the same 4x
or 5x that HD programming bandwidth increased. I dont see that happening for a long time.

And I didnt even get into the demand creation for HD programming that HD gaming and its devicessupport
ofplayback ofHD content will have

We are entering the Golden Age of Television.
Television like you have never seen it before, and of which you will want more more
more

ShareThis

.5 seconds on the clock. Mavs up 81 to 80. Darrell Armstrong at the foul line to shoot 2. He makes the first.

Does he try to make the 2nd free thro or intentionally miss it ?

Thank goodness Im not the coach. I would have missed the 2nd shot, hoping the scramble for the rebound eats up the remaining half a second.

After the game, Avery Johnson explained why he wanted DA to make the 2nd free throw

If you miss and it’s a simple rebound, the clock doesn’t start till its touched.They would have told the refs they wanted an immediate time out on the rebound before the shot. So little time comes off the clock.

So they would probably have .4 left on the clock (If its lower, the refs probably reset it to .5).With a 20sec timeout remaining, they would have taken it and gotten the ball past half court.

If he makes the 2nd free throw, they take the same 20 sec timeout, and get the ball past half court

ShareThis

In the beginning there was betamax vs VHS. VHS won the fabled battle with an army of content and simplicity of price and purchase.

VHS quality begat DVD quality and DVD quality begat HDTV quality. As the people experienced each for the first time, they were happy. They were content receiving that which entertained them because it was new and better. But the law of technology pricing, being what it is, led to falling prices. That which was once unattainable became cheap. That which once was the province of only those living in castles, became presents under the Christmas Tree and for Hanukah. That which was daunting and seemingly complex, became simple.

Stories were written by elders of how digital came and conquered the analogs. Resistance appeared, but was futile. Children can recite chapter and verse of lessons learned in their classrooms. The coming of the Emailers, The Interneters,TheIpodders, The Cellphoners and the seperation of theDigital and High DefinitionTV Clan. How eachgeneration of elders convened in the media of yore and preached that “what is, shall continue to be”.

They were wrong.

No one expected the breakup of theDigital andHigh Definition Clan, nor the pain, loss and suffering involved. They were of the same ancestry. The parchment of the day proclaimed that TV is one and one is for all TV. Twas not to be.

The Digital clan became complacent. Unaccepting of change. Forest turned to town and town turned to city. Progress to the digital was at one time natural. They encouraged the High Def towalk among them. Some even allowed for marriage between the clans, knowing what had been digital would have to continue on as High Def. On these families, the lightshined bright. To these families, unbeknownst to the Digital at the time, were born the leaders.

Carriage was drawn to both land and sky as landlords realized that only these offspring could survive the coming turmoil. The firstborn of these families were athletes. The ESPN HDfamily, breaking away from their Disney brother and sisters, excelling atFootball, Hockey, Basketball, Baseball and Soccer. They were travellers and scientists. The Discovery HD family, led by a tiny breakaway branch of a largely disconnected family,excelling at education and enlightenment.

Then of course there were the native HDTVers. The HDNet Clan. Excelling at introducing new and original content and possessing the books of NHL and MLS, they set standards for the media that now populates our time. It was and is the HDNet Clan, that extends the HDTVdynasty through its HDNet and Movie families. The rules of day and date that destabilized the media monarchies prosper through HDNet.

But while more and more began following the HDTVers, the Digital closed their eyes. They perceived that the defections were minor. More importantly, the Digitalers took false comfort in thinking that followers of HDTV, would retain their loyalties to their families because they were still Digital by birth. That when the time became right, the hundreds of Digital families who had remained loyal to the digital TV standards could easily adapt to the HDTV Clan standards and the HDTV adherants would return to the fold.

Alas, that was not the case.

No one quite remembers what day it was. The turmoil was large. Days and months are unaccounted for. The stories passed down by the surviving HDTVers tell a story of a time when many of the Digital Families took a closer look at their schedules and libraries and came to the realization that they were not worthy of becoming part of the HDTV clan, and that the HDTV adherents would not accept them as being merely digital. From this time come the earliest stories of discrimination. Resolution discrimination. WideScreen Discrimination. Surround Sound discrimination.

The Landlords were the first to see the storm clouds brewing. They were the first to understand the problem. They worked hard to convert land that was once the provence of analog, but held by the Digital, to space worthy of HDTV clan carriage. The most powerful of the Digital families thought this was a sign of respect. They thought that the HDTVers were returning to their homeland. Such was not the case. The Landlords had reclaimed the land for HDTVers. HDTVers were happier tenants They enjoyed the families of the HDTV clans, and the clans enjoy the fruits that their followers bestowed upon them.

The HDTVers had long since passed accepting the Digital as a peer. Digital was 2nd class. Digital was not worthy of their newly claimed homeland. Resolution, WideScreen and Sound discrimination was acceptable and expected.

The return of the HDTV families to the Digital land created turmoil among those digital families who were unprepared for the response. They had believed the bigger and stronger families , related or not when they foretold that “Once you go HD, people will always come back”. They believed when some false prophets proclaimed “be not important why ye resolution be. Worry not if you are not widescreen or surround of sound in ye family. Thou shall be accepted as equal, now and forever more”.

Sadly ,such was not true.

Digital families came to the realization that they were not of HDTV clan quality. They were of standard definition. They were of tape. Some were of film, but the cost of surgery necessary to repair to HDTV standards was much. They could not reach the heights ofHDTV.

The Landlords tried to mitigate the pain. They offered locations of sky and land where those not of HDTV quality could congregrate and live together. Some partook of the offer. Knowing that the HDTVers considered them of inferior quality. Sure they would come visit out of nostalgia. Maybe because a friend was still in the family. Many let time and natural causes take its course. Finally buried in on demand server farms throughout the netosphere.

Its been many, many years since the seperation of the Digital and HDTV clans, and the eventual extinction of the digital. There have been many lessons learned. Time has not completely forgotten the families who were of standard definition and never prepared for the change. Never procreated with the HDTVers to rejuvenate their families.

So many of the VH1 and MTV family. Gone.

ShareThis

The RIAA and to a lesser extent the MPAA would like us to believe that every song or movie illegally downloaded equates to a lost sale for that product. Of course that is not true.

Many of us have illegally downloaded songs, CDs or movies that we never would have purchased, but were curious enough to sample them because it was free. Inturn many of us have also purchaseda product that we never would have otherwisepurchased had we not decided to sample it first through an illegaldownloaded.

Arguments are made to both sides of the balance sheet, but the inescapable truth is that not every illegal download erases a certain sale.

Its different for written,copyrighted content on the Web.

Today, any and every single website can gain revenue for every pageview and every click generated by a page supporting Adsense, Yahoo Publishing or any of the other competitors. For small and unknown websites, we may be talking only a $2 CPM, or less than .2 cents a page view, but the inescapable reality that every page view lost because content is stolen and posted on an unauthorized site and read in full, is money truly and actually lost by the content creator.

If I were to copy and paste the entire NY Times article that I referenced in my blog, that would have been stealing. There is no hypothetical loss involved. Its not a “maybe a lost sale “, like the music or movie industry. Its a loss of real money every single time it happens. I dont know what the NY Times earns in PPC or CPM priced ad revenue per page, but how ever many people clicked through, that earned the Times their money.

If I had cut and paste the article, and someone had come to and stayed on the page toread the article, I would have gotten paid my share of the CPM paid for ads on my blog. The Times would have lost themoney of those who wanted to read or sample that article. That would have been wrong.

Which leads me to the point. The entire content industry is missing a unique opportunity to eliminate most content piracy and more importantly, togenerate a whole lot more revenue by offering revenue sharing. If the NYTimes, to use them an example, were to offer 50 pct of the revenue generated from traffic deliveredbyaffiliated websites, not a single website with half a clue would steal your content. Instead, every blogger, splogger and small content creator would look to find ways to link to your content and drive you traffic. Companies like LinkShare offer revenue sharing programs for product sales, why not offer the same for advertising sales ?

Rather than trying to find ways to push people to adsense or yahooPPC ads, websiteswould work to create traffictorevenue sharing sites instead. Why ? Because if someone on my site clicks on a google text ad, thenI get paid once. For one click. One and done.

If I get paid for the traffic I send as someone navigates through your site, I get paid by the CPM for page views generated by the user I send, plus my share of a PPC exit click through if there is one.

Then of course there is rich media. Audio and video CPMs are huge these days. There isnt enough inventory to match the demand from advertisers. Splitting rich media advertising revenue could mean a huge payday for all involved.

Given that the destination site, in this example the Times, probably has more depth of content than an individual driven website or blog, the chances of an extended number of page viewsand multimedia views that the sending site gets paid on increases. Which means the revenue potential for the sending site increases. More reasons to find ways to work through your site rather than PPC engines like Adsense

Of course, this isnt limited to newspaper sites. Any site that is advertising or subscriber supported would benefit. Yes, Yahoo and Google could easily get in the mix and pay for delivered traffic, but it wouldcost them a fortune. It would be interesting if they paid for more than the types of traffic they pay for now. If they did, it would bea huge change in the financial dynamics of the net.

Would I pay 50pct of my ad revenue generated to people who link to Icerocket.com , Box.Net, NetIdentity.com or blogmaverick.com. Yep. I would even have to consider offering an annuity for users that you send that are first time users that turn into recurring users.

Traffic on the net is becoming more and more valuable. A little bit of sharing can go a long way.

Stay tuned and let me know your thoughts

ShareThis

For whatever reason if I write about something in my blog, some people think Im mad about it. Im not. I write about the things that I would enjoy sitting down and discussing with someone else interested in that topic.

There are probably only three places on this planet where I actually do , or used to get mad and raise my voice. The first is on the golf course. Im the guy who would throw his clubs or bang them on the ground in anger after any of many misplayed shots. So i dont play golf anymore. I dont have the time or patience to spend hours practicing to get better, and I have less patience to spend hours playing. Im just not a fan of golf. I dont hate it. I just dont want to play it.

The 2nd was playing rugby. I played till my body wouldnt let me and I loved to hit and be hit. Getting mad helped me play. It takes a lot to get kicked out of a rugby match, but I managed to get booted for fighting playing for the Pittsburgh Harlequins.

The other is playing or watching basketball. Forget what has happened since I bought the Mavs, you could go back to me playing on my 6th grade basketball team, in high school, in rec leagues. I have a temper on the court. I wont screw up a pickup game by yelling the entire game. But, if there is a ref, and they are keeping score on the scoreboard, it brings out my temper. Dont know why. It just does.

Im the same way watching the Mavs play. I was that way before I bought the team. I am that way after I bought the team. I guess I expected a lot from myself, I expect a lot from the players and I expect a lot from the officials. I used to get mad at the officials. Now I know better. I dont get mad at the refs (with one exception), I get mad at the system. Ive spent enough time in the league , and have enough data to recognize where the system often (but not always), puts officials in a situation where it is very difficult for them to succeed.

This isnt to say I never get mad away from these situations, but its very rare. When i ran MicroSolutions, my first company, I would raise my voice with my partner. When I ran Broadcast.com, it happened far less often, but it happened. Today, i might send off a terse email now and then, but thats as far as I go. On the flipside, I actually like it when someone is passionate and prepared enoughto raise their voice to me. It doesnt bother me at all.

Which takes me back to all these people thinking Immad about things.

Im not mad at the TNT team. I actually really like Kenny and Charles. They are good guys. Ijust dont like the way they do their jobs. Thats my opinion.Thats what blogs are for.To write about whats on my mind.

Im not mad at a company when they do things differently than I would. Contrary to what the NY Times says, I wasnt mad at anyone. I made good money on that deal and was very happy about the way it turned out. It wasnt the perfect ending, but it was good enough.

Like I said earlier, I dont get mad at referees when Im watching Mavs games. I do get mad at the system in place for officials. Which is exactly what i told a room full of basketball refs last week at the Texas Association of Officials luncheon. They gave me a standing ovation.

Im not mad at the RIAA about copyprotection. I just think they are wrong. Being wrong has a negative impact on our entire society. So i said so. I financed the Grokster response to theSupreme Court. It didnt go as well as I hoped, nor as poorly as it could have.

Im not mad at Hollywood. Ithink they have opened the door for a very unique opportunity forour entertainment companies to excel with the day and date release ofmovies.

Im not mad at Donald Trump. I dont care what he says about me, how his show does, how much money he has, whatever. I do however have fun tweaking him when I get asked. Call it a guilty pleasure.

Im not mad at Google over Splogs on blogspot.com. I just though it was an issue that people in the industry needed to be aware of. As it hs turned out, it has increased the visibility of the problem and multiple companies, including Icerocket.com are working on making things better.

Im not mad at people that try to leverage me to get publicity by irresponsibly saying a movie HDNet Films released, The War Within, could some how be considered unpatriotic.Im not mad at the 100 people who sent me emails detailing how “me and everyone I know should die”. I simply pointed them to The Fallen Patriot Fund that I started and most emailed me back apologies.

Im sure there are other things that im supposed to be mad at that I havent listed here. Just so you know, Im not mad.

ShareThis

I stand by everything i said in my last blog.

Actually you guys proved my point.

Did you read the blog at all ? It was nice that TNT left out the reference to us tracking our results on defense and going to and away from what was working or not.

CB, get a 2 way with internet access. There is some good info out there that could make you better at what you do. More importantly, when you say people out there that spend their days on computers have no life.. time to step into 2005. When you said that , TNT and the NBAs audience that advertisers covet the most looked at each other and laughed. THen they IMed or TXT messaged their buddy list and called you out again. Get that 2 way CB. It will make it easier to keep in touch with the family and to do your job. You will love it.

And comparing your basketball IQ to mine isnt quite apples to apples given that Im not the coach. Im willing to compare the basketball knowledge of AJ, Del Harris, Joe Prunty and Larry Riley to the two of you anytime. My guess, you guys are on the short end of the stick

Nothing personal guys, but working off generalizations of how the game was played when you played doesnt get it done. Our coaches know the game. They dont just coach on reputation, they coach the game and coach to improve the team forJune.

Of course all of this is only talk. It all comes down to our guys doingtheir jobs.Theydo whatever it takes to make our team better every day. They dont just show up and play because “they know how to play”. Hopefully it will win us a championship

No matter what your profession, if you arent busting ass to be prepared and to get better, you are falling behind. Im not sure the TNT guys understand that concept.

Its not personal, its just business advice.

ShareThis

Its only 1 game. We hopefully have more than 100 to play this year. But what a great way to start the season. Who cares if its 4am and we just got to Utah and I know I wont be able to sleep for awhile. I hope the guys can.

We didnt do a whole lot right the first 3.5 quarters. We didnt seem comfortable at all. It wasnt completely suprising. The Suns run and gun style is at a gear higher than anything the Mavs have done over the past 5 years, so its hard to prepare for and takes some time to get used to.

Big time Kudos to Darrell Armstrong (or BC as he prefers… dont ask), for coming in and providing a huge energy and veteran spark. BC told me last year that his goal was at least 2 charges per game, no matter how many minutes he played. He got em last night and they were the turnovers we needed. BC knows how to play. He got the ball to Dirk and JT where they needed it and both came through. DIrk hitting 3-3 3pointers in the 4th. KVH ,now officially known as Keith Van Halen for makingeveryone on the bench ‘Jump’ with that big 3 (Ok, he actually got that name when he was guarding David Lee of the Knicks in preseason , and JT realizing he couldnt be stopped and could get to the basket whenever he wanted, turned the light bulb on . Then the defense took over.

An insider note. The thing our guys noticed in the first OT, their guys seemed more tired than we were. Maybe because it was the first game. Maybe it was our imagination. Maybe it was making their defense work with longer offensive possessions. Will know for sure when we get our stat. But it gave us some confidence in OT.

What a funnight.

We win. I get to wear my blue sportscoat again for the first time since 1992. You know how everyone has a closet with stuff you pretty much forgot about, but never got around to throwing or giving away ? Well completely by accident I noticed the coat , and decided to have some fun. Now i have to decide whether to wear it again, do it again with another jacket…..or come up with something new.

Only downer of the night was listening to the idiots on TNT after the game. Its not unusual if we win a TNT game for us to turn it on in the locker room and hear what Charles, Kenny and co have to say. They havent gotten any better.

Let me just say this. There is a reason why Kenny and Charles havent gotten head coaching jobs. THere is more to running a team these days then thinking you know what you are talking about. Kenny, if you want to bust on us for switching on the pick and roll, get some stats to back it up. We track conversion rates on everything we do. High pick and roll, elbow pick and roll, whatever, we track it. If its not working Kenny, we adjust. I know that is probably a new concept to you and Charlie B, but thats the NBA of 2006. With all that money you guys make (hey if you are going to talk salaries, lets see how you like it), go out and hire some kids to track what actually happens in a game rather than having TNT bring in kids to go out and get donuts.

Here is a little test. How many deflections did we have last night versus our season average last year. Do you remember what a deflection is guys ? Its a nice indicator of defensive effort.

And rook..I mean Reggie Miller. Remember this rook. Every year TNT brings in the guy who was good, but retired last year, and puts them in that same seat you were sitting in. You may have noticed that they arent there any more. Do something more than just try to be another guy who tries to fit in and trade nonsensical barbs with the boys. Charles has earned the right to be the comedian who has some insights. Kenny wants to be the coach, but wont do the work, so never will be more than a sidekick. Rook, you need to add some value, or in a few weeks we will see someone else sitting in that seat. Maybe Derrick Coleman can come in and give us a Whoop De Damn Do…

But I digress. After listening to some of the idiocy, we just turned it off.

ShareThis