tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56952074222659374042024-03-14T02:52:38.403-07:00Miklos on MediaMikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-64622761519507227092016-03-28T09:07:00.002-07:002016-04-05T07:31:54.390-07:00Social media and democracy<a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/03/economist-explains-23?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/howaresocialmediachangingdemocracy">This</a> is an interesting study by The Economist and resonates to our research on newsproviders competing in contests. While these authors argue that it is random things that get important topics emerge from the chaos (e.g. the personality of the person posting) much like it is the case for entertainment content in general, we argue that it is the contest nature of competition between suppliers of "hot news" that makes topics emerge in a random fashion. What is clear from both processes is that there is much less consensus on what the "agenda" is, or should be and that may or may not be good for democracy. The debate just gets started.....Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-14210194621185387842016-03-03T06:04:00.001-08:002016-03-03T06:04:13.169-08:00Facebook privacy concerns and anti-competitive behaviorGermany has just accused Facebook of abusing its market dominance by somehow 'forcing' consumers to accept its data usage terms. The <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1f4afa34-e05e-11e5-96b7-9f778349aba2.html#axzz41qd3XU3A"><i>FT</i> reports</a> that the German competition watchdog is launching an investigation into the matter. I can definitely see a case for privacy concerns in the context of Facebook (and other websites that use consumer data for selling advertising) but connecting this issue to anti-competitive behavior and market dominance is a stretch. Is the argument that "because of its market dominance, consumers don't have a choice but to share their private data with Facebook"? This is not really the case. Rather the issue is that it is hard for consumers to figure out the correct privacy settings. Unfortunately, the authorities don't seem to be very clear about their reasoning. Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-16500183196562257062016-01-13T11:59:00.001-08:002016-01-13T13:08:45.015-08:00And another mogul - from the same country<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7YoIoTN_93sWuujW8z959GIjZu0IGHT2_LQ6oBqdR74osRsn0mtI7lTugWYydJhBlTJXoE4HntN8GJUYgrTP6Cf6larXFU_0Etse2NX5DJ42CMdRxx6Z2kUNPRGRHuZqUrCPHSjDwX_sE/s1600/Wanda.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7YoIoTN_93sWuujW8z959GIjZu0IGHT2_LQ6oBqdR74osRsn0mtI7lTugWYydJhBlTJXoE4HntN8GJUYgrTP6Cf6larXFU_0Etse2NX5DJ42CMdRxx6Z2kUNPRGRHuZqUrCPHSjDwX_sE/s1600/Wanda.png" /></a></div>
Wang Jianlin, China's richest man has been reported to acquire a controlling stake in Legendary Entertainment, one of the large Hollywood studios responsible for the recent movie hits <i>Godzilla</i> and <i>Jurassic World</i>. The <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/56bd04ea-b8f3-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2016113/nbe/CompaniesBySector/product#axzz3x44z5GY6"><i>FT</i> article</a> reporting the transaction talks of a $3.5 billion deal, the biggest ever in China, in film. Mr Wang's conglomerate, the Wanda group is quite diversified with a large enough media chunk that includes content creation packaging and distribution (Wanda also owns AMC Theater chain in the US, and has important sport assets among others). And his ambitions will probably not end with this latest deal. Clearly, Mr. Jianlin wants to be well-positioned to take advantage of the fastest growing media market in the world. According to a recent Economist <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/business/21643123-chinas-biggest-property-tycoon-wants-become-entertainment-colossus-its-wanda-ful-life?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/itsawandafullife">article</a> he is at the right place.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-34017938932056456362015-12-14T11:43:00.001-08:002015-12-14T11:43:27.570-08:00A classic "Media Mogul"<a href="http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20151212_WBC739.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="175" src="http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20151212_WBC739.png" title="" width="400" /></a>After becoming a billionnaire from his e-commerce site, Alibaba, Jack Ma, moves on to become a media mogul (see The Economist's article <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/business/21679809-jack-ma-chinas-biggest-e-commerce-tycoon-wants-be-media-mogul-too-mission-improbable?fsrc=email_to_a_friend">here</a>). In many ways this is not too surprising. Alibaba's origins can be seen as copying Amazon (although arguably, by now, it is quite different), so maybe Mr. Ma is following Jeff Bezos' footsteps, heavily investing in media assets of 'all sorts'. The emphasis, of course, is on "all sorts" as it doesn't look like there are a lot of synergies between the various media businesses that he bought a controlling stake in. But maybe this doesn't matter.... If he looks for inspiration in the West, he will find plenty of large diversified media companies considered to be "successful".Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-4421568804833955062015-12-08T10:19:00.001-08:002015-12-08T10:19:40.975-08:00WeChat's diverse use in China<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiztDuy0nweK-2vyTqIotAZthoicN4TkwEuG2l-e6sx8c6WasdxIU15btv44MPnUGMf0UMTRy54sOBLfcFIyVR3zS8U-fM6yBH5SKUCw1mAda5o0XZz4aR7Sw96QWcgNmKxtI9cDLv_vxVt/s1600/WeChat+logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiztDuy0nweK-2vyTqIotAZthoicN4TkwEuG2l-e6sx8c6WasdxIU15btv44MPnUGMf0UMTRy54sOBLfcFIyVR3zS8U-fM6yBH5SKUCw1mAda5o0XZz4aR7Sw96QWcgNmKxtI9cDLv_vxVt/s1600/WeChat+logo.jpg" /></a>WeChat, the Chinese messaging app keeps pushing the concept of social media further and further. Originally a product of Tencent designed to migrate the social network to mobile, it has eclipsed its internal competitor (the Tencent app) as well as its PC-based parent and has become a full fledged mobile social network. What is remarkable though is that - in contrast to western social media, that are still largely just entertainment platforms - WeChat integrates virtually all Internet applications, from mobile payment, to online shopping and services including even some pretty sophisticated banking products. A good summary of the crazy things that can be done on WeChat can be found <a href="https://www.techinasia.com/how-wechat-is-really-used-in-china/">here</a>. The list drives home the point that long gone are the days when Chinese social media is just a copy of their western equivalents.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-84812404246879382132015-11-30T14:49:00.000-08:002015-12-08T10:05:00.926-08:00Digital currencies<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCk2K7mtwfXcM5WHOT8JFOeXfRI282egIShU-5qp4m2qoG0xK7JuVAFIZe_Mu79JaSYRqJ2LGPF2ws8wPQbSbkji6X5MX5Q1aJxAuDOvRzKZWWKz6KKvNrqVnb6fB-6ig-BFVwB3be6aMZ/s1600/BitcoinBook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCk2K7mtwfXcM5WHOT8JFOeXfRI282egIShU-5qp4m2qoG0xK7JuVAFIZe_Mu79JaSYRqJ2LGPF2ws8wPQbSbkji6X5MX5Q1aJxAuDOvRzKZWWKz6KKvNrqVnb6fB-6ig-BFVwB3be6aMZ/s200/BitcoinBook.jpg" width="129" /></a><a href="http://works.bepress.com/halaburda/">Hanna Halaburda</a> and I have written a new book about digital currencies - it will be out at the beginning of 2016. Yes, we do talk about Bitcoin (and its many many competitors) but the book also covers, what we call "platform-based" currencies: currencies introduced and centrally managed by large digital platforms (social networks, retail platforms like Amazon or video game platforms). These have exploded in recent years and we believe that this trend will just accelerate. What might be its implications? This is what we try to answer in the book.<br />
<br />
And now we also have a facebook page. Check it out <a href="https://www.facebook.com/HalaburdaSarvary/">here</a>.<br />
<br />Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-6662863014138772242015-10-30T13:16:00.000-07:002015-10-30T13:16:07.394-07:00Net neutraility in the US and the EUEurope has just proposed its own version of net neutrality law and critics are already tearing it apart. This <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/business/21677175-eus-new-internet-rules-will-hurt-continents-startups-multi-speed-europe?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/network_neutrality">article</a> from <i>The Economist</i> compares it to the US version and broadly concludes that the European law is looser on net neutrality than the US, which will result in less innovation on the Internet. The article claims that the main reason for this difference between the two continents comes from the fact that in Europe, the balance of lobbying power is in favour of the large infrastructure (telco) companies instead of Internet platforms. In fact, European telcos - many of which are close to the government it is claimed - find eager listeners in regulatory bodies who are tired to witness the crushing success of American Internet giants on their continent. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This view is quite superficial. First of all, I don't think that there is such a large difference across the two continents in their approaches to net neutrality: there are loopholes large enough in both laws as well as many uncertainties concerning details of implementation - The Economist ends their analysis acknowledging that the US law faces many hurdles still. Second, it is not clear that European telcos have more leverage with their governments than say AT&T (which has just managed to reassemble itself to control a large chunk of digital traffic), or say, Comcast and some other large cable networks. Third, expensive infrastructure for consumers is just as much a roadblock to innovation on the Internet than net neutrality - in fact, arguably more so. European broadband costs are much lower than equivalent service costs in the US and as a result Internet usage is way ahead in Europe compared to the US. Fourth, net neutrality is not an unambiguous good thing so that more of it is automatically better. Network management is complex and priority needs to be provided to some content to avoid congestion - finding the right balance is extremely complex. While some bandwidth needs to be guaranteed to poor new application providers, it makes sense for intense users to pay more for the infrastructure used. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Innovation on the Internet has been dismal in Europe when compared to the US. This however, does not come from overregulation of the Internet but much more from the lack of appropriate financial infrastructure and the lack an investment friendly economic environment. Indeed, the gap in innovation across the two continents is also present in other industries, not just technology.</div>
Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-5459268306653418562015-10-08T09:28:00.000-07:002015-10-08T09:28:39.667-07:00Adblocking on the rise<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm8Wdj4GEOFebTN35yQLBnpflc5o_UD1IHVgTGIO0mmoc-SqCNi2DTHVAe1jMs2gKRPWXW3CvnhZWcDyEmx6rmvv5IZLV1ObpmqYP9elpbooChb6C2pV5wAqwhu_feNM-kksKQkGbfX6Qu/s1600/Adblockers.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm8Wdj4GEOFebTN35yQLBnpflc5o_UD1IHVgTGIO0mmoc-SqCNi2DTHVAe1jMs2gKRPWXW3CvnhZWcDyEmx6rmvv5IZLV1ObpmqYP9elpbooChb6C2pV5wAqwhu_feNM-kksKQkGbfX6Qu/s1600/Adblockers.png" /></a>Adblocking became a real problem for advertisers last spring as the number of users installing such software rose to over 200 hundred million users across the planet (see article <a href="http://miklosonmediaandmarketing.blogspot.com/2015/06/blocking-ads.html">here</a>). Early in the summer, I thought that this problem might matter for the long tail of content providers, largely sparing the big ad platforms (Google, Facebook, etc.). Not withstanding problems related to net neutrality, I thought that by and large the digital advertising market will remain the same as it is already concentrated in the hands of the large ad platforms.<br />
<br />
Today, when infrastructure providers also consider adopting adbloking technology, it is clear that I couldn't have been more wrong. It is precisely the large ad platforms that might be hurt the most. Two particular events raise concerns. First, Digicel, a large mobile service operator decided to block ads on mobile phones. If other infrastucture providers follow a bitter negotiation can emerge, not unlike the one we saw emerging from time to time between cable operators and content providers (Comcast vs. Netflix or CBS vs. TWC). Such fights and the resulting settlements usually leave consumers worse off by introducing inefficieny in the market leading to high prices. The second event consists in Apple's large scale adoption of adblocking apps, some of which even block ads running within apps (e.g. Facebook's ads). Again, if a large platform like Apple blocks similarly large ad-based paltforms like Facebook and Google, then a lot of inefficiency can creep into the system.<br />
<br />
There aren't only negative effects associated with these developments. The average quality of ads will rise partly due to the weeding out of really bad ads but also due to advertisers increased investment in ads that are relevant and impactful. Pages will load faster, a major concern for users that is driving in part the ad blocking trend. Still, adblocking may have just opened the next huge battle between large Internet platforms (just when we thought that patent wars might taper off as a result of a few reasonable settlements).Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-35142000500246556222015-09-29T12:05:00.004-07:002015-09-29T12:05:35.587-07:00Contest between news providers<a href="https://insights.ap.org/industry-trends/going-niche-but-at-what-cost?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=insights">Here</a> is a nice short video on the Associated Press' new website summarizing our conclusion on news industry competitive dynamics.<br />
<br />Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-27790775129559143312015-08-31T06:48:00.004-07:002015-08-31T06:48:53.564-07:00Google fights the EUGoogle decided to put up a strong fight against the EU anti-competitive charges. See FT article <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4f7f236e-4ccb-11e5-b558-8a9722977189.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2015828/nbe/BusinessEducation/product#axzz3kOs0NyiN">here</a>.<br />
It will be an epic battle lasting years. Hopefully, it will not consume the company's energies the way a similar war has weakened Microsoft, that barely recovered from it if ever.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-43733301663280062332015-08-21T10:59:00.001-07:002015-08-21T10:59:12.852-07:00A busy summerA lot happened in media this summer. First, the world has really woken up to the fact that streming is going to kick a real dent into the TV/Cable business. As a result many large media conglomerates owning TV or Cable assets saw a drop in their share price. Another interesting news is that News is back in vogue! Pearson has sold the FT to Nikkei for a nice price and The Economist has also been sold at a price comparable to that of Buzzfeed, the hot new media startup in which Comcast made an important investment. Who would have thought a couple of years ago that news (printed news) will still be alive in 2015? A lot happened on the new media/tech side as well. Google reorganized to become Alphabet to become more transparent about its diverse ventures. The bulk of the revenues still come from Google of course.... Facebook surged ahead of other social networks, LinkedIn and Twitter, in particular. It is becoming clear that the scale now matters more than what teens find sexy on social media. We will have an interesting Fall!Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-55366299732489695782015-06-10T09:05:00.000-07:002015-06-11T09:36:20.941-07:00Blocking ads<br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<a href="http://espresso.economist.com/cdn/farfuture/zRTwQdpkgNV8YVxDwDGWNOCX9gCbuAxxt_qKgxWGMO8/mtime:1433352384/sites/default/files/styles/500_wide/public/images/20150606_DAC471.png?itok=bOzYgccy" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://espresso.economist.com/cdn/farfuture/zRTwQdpkgNV8YVxDwDGWNOCX9gCbuAxxt_qKgxWGMO8/mtime:1433352384/sites/default/files/styles/500_wide/public/images/20150606_DAC471.png?itok=bOzYgccy" height="193" width="200" /></a>Ad blocking can become a real problem for the media industry (see article from <i><a href="http://espresso.economist.com/200e7a94201495147f973ca74bbdeee9">The Economist</a>, </i>see also this <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-269B-3731"><i>WSJ</i> article</a>). Ironically, I dont think it'll really affect the big advertisiers (Google, Facebook, etc.). These firms can negotiate with Adblock tech firms to pay a toll for their ads to pass. Similarly, they might be able to force consumers to look at ads: e.g. Google can deny service if adblock is installed - will people say, no I am not using Google? Not clear. On the other hand, what might happen to small sites living of advertising is not clear. In other words, Adblock might lead to an even more concentrated ad market. </div>
Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-25621878689155916982015-06-05T14:17:00.001-07:002015-06-05T14:17:08.669-07:00Credit Rating Agencies<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifLUBHqP789k7gdIlERbbnuPF9CveUjA3UBgpI9svqsNXpjXDdsXE_z0AymiHL6rUaEpmAkZ8aIOmj6qcxZ9xwDYlXFeQWxGBajs8cIpdaE-3F5xXhojaUV0Rq-ExTHG97iHkEP8SXAw66/s1600/Rating+agencies.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifLUBHqP789k7gdIlERbbnuPF9CveUjA3UBgpI9svqsNXpjXDdsXE_z0AymiHL6rUaEpmAkZ8aIOmj6qcxZ9xwDYlXFeQWxGBajs8cIpdaE-3F5xXhojaUV0Rq-ExTHG97iHkEP8SXAw66/s320/Rating+agencies.png" width="310" /></a></div>
Top Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) have never done better. Their revenues and profits are up - way above levels seen before the crisis. This picture from <i>The Economist</i> shows that their market shares haven't moved a notch after the financial crisis when "aggressive" regulation was introduced to curb CRAs powerful influence on markets. What is ironic, is that this increased monopoly power largely originates from the very regulation that was supposed to introduce more competition in the sector, thereby - as was hoped - also providing more discipline in ratings. None of this happened. Why? The detailes can be read <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21652364-regulation-helping-very-firms-it-designed-tame-undue-credit?frsc=dg|c">here</a>. The bottom line is that regulation made it so hard to comply with the law that would-be competitors decided never to enter the market. Meanwhile the established agencies with established large market shares could easily amortize the additional fixed costs of compliance. A classic case of bad regulation..... Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-78584307616416272522015-05-12T12:10:00.000-07:002015-05-12T12:10:32.060-07:00Publishers on Facebook<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizjpnwphA0t-fGfJ6-izQWWQ8YfudGVNt88TQvn4MbacwN2tQlLCV8J9Fsgb21aKYidaWeWWa6YPQtkVr_bcfmjAfyaBtmFg-g0C6MLj4scOsDEJICcZb3MXhkpOR5RlEbj2gbQbS6UzoN/s1600/facebook-pub.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizjpnwphA0t-fGfJ6-izQWWQ8YfudGVNt88TQvn4MbacwN2tQlLCV8J9Fsgb21aKYidaWeWWa6YPQtkVr_bcfmjAfyaBtmFg-g0C6MLj4scOsDEJICcZb3MXhkpOR5RlEbj2gbQbS6UzoN/s320/facebook-pub.jpg" width="177" /></a>Facebook has pretty much managed to convince publishers to put their content on its powerful platform. The value proposition is simple: Facebook knows how to sell mobile ads against that content as opposed to helpless publishers whose current revenues from mobile ads are very small. Publishers can keep 70% of the ad revenues sold by the Facebook (they can keep 100% of ad revenues they generate). For publishers, this is a substantial revenue potential, while they have no real alternative. Facebook's mobile display ad revenue share is 35%, by far the largest and still growing fast. Moreover, an overwhelming proportion of the traffic to publishers' sites already comes from Facebook (see <i>WSJ</i> chart), which is mostly accessed by via smartphones. If this trend holds up - as it seems to - publishers have no choice but to upload (some) of their content on Facebook. </div>
Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-72528060032338424952015-04-20T12:53:00.004-07:002015-04-20T12:53:58.274-07:00“Mobilegeddon”This is a cool! Google re-evaluates search rankings based on whether sites are mobile friendly or not. Many will complain but this shows how this general pressure overall benefits consumers. Read more about it at this <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/507f1fda-e510-11e4-bb4b-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2015420/nbe/CompaniesBySector/product#axzz3XscEIyjR">FT link</a>.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-91378192785214508882015-04-15T08:13:00.001-07:002015-04-15T12:25:20.490-07:00Europe going crazy on Google againEurope has decided to really go after Google by filing formal charges against the search engine (see <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/643f49ec-e285-11e4-aa1d-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3XCBhNNvT">FT article</a>). 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 <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8df8fd66-e28d-11e4-aa1d-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2015415/nbe/CompaniesBySector/product&siteedition=intl#axzz3XCBhNNvT">FT article</a> 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.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-51965541722762025942015-04-06T11:44:00.000-07:002015-04-06T11:44:01.186-07:00Agenda Chasing by the NewsThe Reynolds Journalism Institute (RJI) published a <a href="http://www.rjionline.org/rjiapresearch/chasing-agenda-economics-behind-news">short blog</a> on our paper with <a href="http://facultybio.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty-list/katona-zsolt">Zsolt Katona</a> 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.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-47168638417213048422015-03-20T11:35:00.005-07:002015-03-20T11:35:59.584-07:00TV disruptionMaybe the moment has come when enough pressure is built to blow up the traditional TV industry. Today's <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6f6a9a72-cbda-11e4-aeb5-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2015320/nbe/CompaniesBySector/product&siteedition=intl#axzz3Upjae1jH">FT article</a> 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.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-19674337440306181662015-03-04T14:30:00.003-08:002015-03-04T14:30:52.685-08:00NYC Media Seminar by Justin Rao<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVlNA5CJ54iYmFf2Ge5ILGUuulGXFVz7TRkIlnYgNps__xbAzrTo1BqxQ9ZEnKjiMfzzomrJpI-EJCEISnT2Rin9iJgZCkuzqlC_39yPrNVrODvTfq4Do5OXPqsoCfjEcSJTZVrwm8pe0e/s1600/NYC+Media+Justin's%2Bpaper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVlNA5CJ54iYmFf2Ge5ILGUuulGXFVz7TRkIlnYgNps__xbAzrTo1BqxQ9ZEnKjiMfzzomrJpI-EJCEISnT2Rin9iJgZCkuzqlC_39yPrNVrODvTfq4Do5OXPqsoCfjEcSJTZVrwm8pe0e/s1600/NYC+Media+Justin's%2Bpaper.jpg" height="117" width="400" /></a></div>
Justin Rao, from Microsoft Research presented a great <a href="http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/media/sites/media/files/JustinRaoMediaBias.pdf">empirical paper</a> 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!Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-45093507264612632702015-02-26T10:12:00.000-08:002015-02-26T10:12:19.013-08:00Social Media Week in NYC<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlzM0OXyPAFanL01_24IPZRcqXN8FfH7d3qWScLXrBCw-Eudorl3ohPW-gN8iz9zrF6T8XU7Qo-ctcpX49w1BTy3NR3yPNIVqSkxcd4TOyVZKdww_vA2DqhvvJkAbAnoUxNqRC7QmKGHY/s1600/Social+media+week+in+NYC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlzM0OXyPAFanL01_24IPZRcqXN8FfH7d3qWScLXrBCw-Eudorl3ohPW-gN8iz9zrF6T8XU7Qo-ctcpX49w1BTy3NR3yPNIVqSkxcd4TOyVZKdww_vA2DqhvvJkAbAnoUxNqRC7QmKGHY/s1600/Social+media+week+in+NYC.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
Yesterday we had a great discussion about the effect of social media on the news industry and in particular on "agenda setting". The panel was composed of a mix of academics and practitioners from traditional media as well as some new entrants. The discussion suggested that it was a little too early to see but we all shared the view that the role of brands in setting the news agenda will be larger in the future. It was a wonderful event thanks to the AP.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-58791259289909112492015-02-23T05:47:00.003-08:002015-02-23T05:47:40.360-08:00The oscarsAnd just one day after the results <i>The Economist</i> (see article <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/02/oscars?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/birdmanascendant">here</a>) 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.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-2726026166789893972015-02-05T06:04:00.000-08:002015-02-05T07:23:06.312-08:00New York City Media Seminar: Vertical integrationAt last week's <a href="http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/media/faculty/researchseminars">New York City Media Seminar</a>, <a href="http://www.econ.uzh.ch/faculty/crawford.html">Greg Crawford from the University of Zurich</a> presented a fantastic paper on vertical integration yesterday. The paper examined whether and when an integrated content owner and content distributor would foreclose their content from a rival distributor. They collected data on the availability of regional sports networks on multi channel cable and satellite services across the US. They definitely find evidence that the integrated entities tend to optimize the joint profit of the enterprise (maybe not fully but almost). Yet, for this particular content it is not obvious that this necessarily leads to foreclosure of content. This depends on the demand (consumers' willingness to pay for the content). The paper is remarkable in its treatment of institutional details - rarely seen in empirical work, especially for such a complicated problem. And, again, it shows that regulation is extremely complex for these industries.<a href="http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/media/faculty/researchseminars">http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/media/faculty/researchseminars</a>Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-89851570895545796842015-01-30T09:13:00.003-08:002015-01-31T12:43:52.057-08:00Net Neutrality<br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<a href="http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150131_LDC877.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150131_LDC877.png" height="164" width="200" /></a>This short <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21641201-why-network-neutrality-such-intractable-problemand-how-solve-it-gordian-net?frsc=dg|c">article</a> in <i>The Economist</i> nicely concludes on the extremely complex issue of net neutrality. (A slightly more detailed report can be read <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/business/21641257-rules-road-internet-will-always-be-work-progress-be-continued?frsc=dg%7Cc">here</a>). The basic point is that precisely because it is very complex, the problem should be dealt with light regulation setting only broad guidelines and still leaving room for the market to figure out an efficient allocation. It is becoming increasingly clear that the core issue is the lack of competition for consumers to access broadband. Introducing competition would go a long way to make the net neutrality problem go away. It seems that US regulators seem to move in this direction. </div>
Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-72116945536831852222015-01-23T13:25:00.002-08:002015-02-05T05:50:19.640-08:00New Editor in Chief at The Economist<a href="http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/abf3dc94-b3f7-49ad-bc85-1d7672ccd977.img" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 25JAN13 - Zanny Minton Beddoes (L), Economics Editor, The Economist, United Kingdom; Global Agenda Council on Fiscal Sustainability and Guido Westerwelle (R), Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany are seen during the session 'Open forum: Eurozone - Solidarity or Domination?' at the Annual Meeting 2013 of the World Economic Forum at the Swiss alpine high school in Davos, Switzerland, January 25, 2013. Copyright by World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo Michael Wuertenberg" border="0" src="http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/abf3dc94-b3f7-49ad-bc85-1d7672ccd977.img" /></a><i>The Economist</i> has chosen a new editor and the choice boiled down to (see <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f1796582-a0d0-11e4-8ad8-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2015123/nbe/CompaniesBySector/product#axzz3PeKz6R9P">FT article</a> for details) Zanny Minton Beddoes. She is the first female editor of the 150+ years old magazine that has defined adverse industry dynamics with its unique editorial model. Minton Beddoes has all the right lines on her CV to become a very successful editor. She is an economist from Oxford and Harvard, worked at the IMF and has been involved with global policy advice across the planet. She has been with the magazine for over 20 years.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5695207422265937404.post-59410677138092072202014-12-12T10:26:00.002-08:002014-12-12T10:26:48.821-08:00Google's European battles continueIt is actually pathetic how far European regulators are capable of ruining their economies. <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dc875aca-8100-11e4-896c-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=crm/email/20141212/nbe/CompaniesBySector/product#axzz3LhvbJTnF">The recent decision by Google</a> to shut down its news service in response to the Spanish government's idiotic new law shows the extent to which politicians are captured by the local press. The law actually <u>forces</u> publishers to charge Google for linking to their sites, in other words, publishers are not allowed to let Google report their articles for free. No doubt the law was inspired by the German experience (where powerful national papers were also bullying the government). In Germany many papers opted out of charging Google. Spain forces the publishers to charge Google with a minimum fee, essentially creating a powerful newspaper union. Not only does this protectionism hurt the economy, it also weakens the government that is - evidently - already at the mercy of the national press.Mikloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297595405878997411noreply@blogger.com0