Monday, 20 April 2015
Wednesday, 15 April 2015
Europe has decided to really go after Google by filing formal charges against the search engine (see FT article). It is quite clear that most of this is driven by politics (a former settlement was objected by finance ministers from France and Germany). The French lead the way, of course, by proposing a law whereby Google would need to hand over its proprietary algorithm to the French government so that it can check whether the search engine is fair to its rivals. This level of intervention is totally crazy. Even if one can argue that damage has been done to rival businesses, the resources dissipated in the legal process, lobbying and politics is by no means beneficial to society. To see the unreasonable lobbying that puts pressure on politicians, consider this other FT article on major music groups' attack on Google. The Internet is a fast evolving space with incredible benefits to consumers. Holding back investment and providing negative incetives for innovators is not a wise policy.
Monday, 6 April 2015
The Reynolds Journalism Institute (RJI) published a short blog on our paper with Zsolt Katona from Berkeley's Haas School of Business. It is about Agenda Setting in the News and it argues that with lower barriers to entry and lower customer switching costs agenda setting is more "Agenda Chasing" by news providers who are in a contest to become the 'go-to-place' for a particular topic.
Friday, 20 March 2015
Maybe the moment has come when enough pressure is built to blow up the traditional TV industry. Today's FT article nicely summarizes the many initiatives that all aim at securing a strong place in the new TV ecosystem. Interestingly, these initiatives no longer come from startups like Netflix and Hulu only. Instead, the new business-model innovatiors are Dish, Apple, Sony and HBO, in other words, traditional large companies. Another important observation is that consumers may not pay less for TV than before. When these fragmented services' fees are added up the check might be very similar to current typical cable bills ($100-$125). Consumers' choice will look very different though, which is a major improvement in terms of the overall quality of TV experience. What will definitely change is the distribution of revenues across players in the ecosystem. Cable networks - especially the small niche ones - might lose revenues. Cable providers will also lose revenues from cord cutters. Some newcomers - e.g. Apple - might win revenues. Profitability might not follow revenues though. Cable companies might actually become more profitable as their margins on Internet services is higher than the margin on the distribution of content.
Wednesday, 4 March 2015
empirical paper on media bias. Using a variety of techniques from machine learning to crowd-sourcing, they find that while media bias exists it is small: news outlets present news and cover topics more or less identically, except for the coverage of political scandals. However, by far the most interesting finding is that "news organizations express their ideological bias not by directly advocating for a preferred political party, but rather by disproportionately criticizing one side". The media seems disappointed by politics no matter which side they are standing. Really nice research!
Thursday, 26 February 2015
Monday, 23 February 2015
And just one day after the results The Economist (see article here) does a wonderful analysis of the Oscars putting into perspective the change that slowly happened over the last 10 years and explaining why the industry has become more "open minded" in its praise. The highlights: less risk taken by big studios to create original content, more experimentation, especially by TV series and more openness for indie and foreign productions.