Slicing up billboard audiences

We've been seeing new digital billboards popping up along the city's busy thoroughfares and they're getting lots of attention from local and industry media.

The safety concerns are obvious: as electronic billboards become more attractive, they become more distractive to commuters. That's common sense. The very idea of targeting the commuting public flies in the face of all traffic safety initiatives. And although some state laws are prohibiting animated, moving or flashing campaigns, the wholesale concept of taking drivers' attention from the task at hand is a dangerous one.

On the other hand, the outdoor advertising market has been hit hard by the economic slowdown, so the outdoor industry is struggling to innovate. And in the digiboard, they've found some new life.

But in claiming "more advertising opportunities", they're making a very thin slice of the audience even thinner. Now instead of knowing your image will appear on a busy highway 24/7, you now only get a few seconds.

The advertising market is clearly heading for a state that's so fragmented that the only survivors will be large corporations who are in a position to use duplication and automation technologies to multiply thin local profit margins into usable revenue on regional and global scales. In that vein, there's no economic benefit to small businesses, nor the local community at large.

The fact is that what's bad about billboards is even worse when you digitize them.

VIDEO: Snow Plows vs Cars

I always find myself quite irritable by January, I think because the cold, snow and ice are wearing on me. One of my biggest annoyances this time of year has to be cars left on curbs during and after snowfall. Perhaps a few more of these plow vs parked car instances will get people motivated to move their cars.




click here to download

Mediacom vs. Sinclair - the public fight continues

Mediacom, the cable company, and Sinclair, the TV conglomerate, are fighting in public again, just as they did three years ago. Mediacom is claiming on their website that Sinclair is trying to gouge its cable TV customers by overcharging the provider for the right to include its affiliate stations in its cable line-up.

A 3-year agreement between Mediacom and Sinclair ends December 31st and negotiations for a new agreement appear to have stalled over transmission consent fees.

HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING HERE?

For a little perspective, on its website, Mediacom puts the demand amount at "millions", but neither party will provide a specific amount. AP reports puts the number of affected cable subscribers at 700,000 -- 400,000 of whom are in Iowa.

Let's do some rough guesswork. If Sinclair is demanding Mediacom fork over $5 Million a year, that's about 60 cents per month per cable customer. $5 M divided by 700,000 divided by 12 months. If 100 non-premium channels each charged 60 cents a month for every subscriber, that's about $60 in consent fees per cable viewer every month.

Consider also that Sinclair as more than $1 Billion in debt, nearly half of which is coming due in the next year and a half.

What strikes me in this battle is the utter lack of transparency on each party. What was the old rate? What's the new rate being demanded? What percentage of an increase would that represent? Neither are willing to have an honest debate out in the open.

Viewers who will be affected by losing a channel can complain to the cities' cable franchise liaisons and the bickering parties.