As if Venezuelans do not have enough challenges.

Facing a 50% devaluation in their currency (announced by Chavez this past weekend), record crime rates, power outages, collapsing industrial infrastructure and food shortages, President Chavez is asking film producers to alter Venezuela’s beloved soap operas or telenovelas to make “socialist soap operas” as part of his plan to reduce the amount of capitalism on television.

This movement by Chavez is not a total surprise. Chavez has made it clear that he wants to eradicate free-markets and capitalism from the country. In the process, gaining control of the media – especially TV and radio programming – has been an important element of his government. Over the years, Chavez has established many limitations on television and radio – suspending licenses of stations that aired opposition programming, expanding government control over broadcasters and using political pressure to alter programs in ways that support the government’s socialist agenda.

However, Venezuela is one of the largest producers of telenovelas in the world. Programs are diverse and have romantic, criminal, comedic, working class and other angles. They are a popular draw for actors and actresses from different Spanish-speaking countries, and generate a sense of pride in Venezuelans (as well as provide a valuable source of regular entertainment).

Chavez has indicated that his model of replacement would be Cuban soap operas. But Cuban programming, subjects to its tough state controls, tends to not only be low-budget, but include bland socialist political philosophy that render programs dull. Gone are typical dynamics seen in most latin telenovelas today.

How exactly Venezuelans will react to one of their leading and most popular enterprises undergoing such drastic content changes is unclear. But with so many challenges facing the country, Chavez’s latest effort to control the masses to build his socialist state could have the reverse effect his desires and bring about a more steady erosion of this popularity over the next year.

Posted By: Michael Hackmer
Follow me on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/hackmer

A colleague of mine forwarded an article by Mike Bloxham from the MEDIA Post blog, entitled “At a TV Screen Near you: Facebook and Twitter”. In this article, Bloxham refers to social media as having a “benignly parasitical relationship with TV” and that this relationship was somehow benefiting social networking sites.

This irks me a little bit.

There is no doubt that more and more people on television are talking about social media. TV and radio broadcasters, as well as the rapidly decaying newspaper industry are all experimenting with Twitter, social networks, blogs and other forms of technology, and reporters are talking about the growth of online media and social networks. But they are not doing this because social media is the parasite (benign, aggressive or otherwise). That would not make much sense.

Is TV responsible for social media’s growth?

The truth of the matter is that social media has grown in popularity, because the number of people who use the Internet is on the rise. Broadband expansion into households all across the country and the world (see eMarketer) has made online interactivity, including photo and video sharing, easier. The more people online, communicating and sharing information, the faster social media gains in popularity.

I mean, let’s face it, you do not see commercials for Twitter sandwiched in between advertisements for diet soda and cars on your television screen, do you? Social media knows what it is about, and mass media is not its shtick.

Now, that is not to say that some people watching CNN, and seeing Wolf Blitzer read comments posted on Twitter to his cable tv audience, would not get curious about microblogging, fire up their computer and check it out. Could a bunch of people in the 40 and older crowd be responding to this trend through their television? I suppose anything is possible. However, when you think about the typical television viewer in higher age brackets, you realize that these people are the exception – they are not the norm.

TV = The real parasite

It is my belief that TV, not social media, is the parasite here. Wolf may be mentioning Twitter during the broadcast, but he is doing that to try and get people who use Twitter to watch his program. Wolf and CNN are trying to stay relevant by doing what television broadcasters always try to do – appeal to the masses. Only, they are doing it in a way that is uncharacteristic of television – engagement.

How we are changing is what drives changes to media

Plain and simple, TV is a passive medium, whereas the Net is active. When you think about engagement – television is not what springs to mind. There is a reason why we invented terms around tv viewing such as “couch-potatoes” and the “boob-tube”. But television is changing, in large part, because its audience is changing. This is where people who analyze the future of the television industry need to look if they want a clear picture.

Look at how society exists today and where it is going. In doing so, I am speaking in terms of how our generations are impacted by technology. What we’re seeing is a transitional period for television, for sure. But to pose the questions that Bloxham offers, “How will Facebook and Twitter manifest themselves on TV” and “Will CNN still use Facebook or will it develop its own means of going it alone” really misses the point of what the post-digital age is going to be like.

Think about it this way… On the one hand you have a generation that grew up in an industrial age – mass production, large institutions, standardization, etc (see Toffler). Now you have a new generation that does not respond to that structure. It’s built on demassification, individualism and customization. Television, at its core, is designed to push content to the masses, and it is not designed for telling stories and disseminating information… at least, not like the Net…

TV is more geared towards one-size-fits-all model that is perfect for mass advertising. TV is a classic product of industrial age technology.

The Net, meanwhile, is faster, easier to develop programming for and more customizable. The Internet is what has brought about the digital age, including the values, culture and mindset of the people living in its wake.

And as the Gen Xers get older and the Net Generation gets older, fewer and fewer people will turn to TV.

More channels = more niche programming = the demise of television

Why?

The systematic expansion of niche programming in television is part of the transition we are seeing, but it is in the early stages. CNN might exist in 20 years, but I would not count on it. Would you watch the kind of programming that appears on CNN now, if instead you could access reports on your own from citizen journalists you trust and have relationships with?

Social media connects people and builds relationships in a truly global sense. Within the next 10 years, people will start tapping into their global connections to access news from all over the world and use their computer systems to tailor news feeds, special interest stories, sports and entertainment. Your mobile device will be a key driver in all of this and your home entertainment system will be computer driven.

My bold prediction

So, what does this mean for the future? Well, for starters, we are not going to be watching TV in 20 years. What purpose will television have if my friend, Meena, who lives in India and used to work for the BBC sends me a message about a car bombing? She is live and on the scene and ready to file her report. And since I know Meena, I am not worried that she is conveying some network or hidden bias. I know her bias, because I know her and… most importantly… I have a relationship with her and trust her. TV no longer has that.

The bottom line is this… to think that TV will play an important role in maximizing Web 2.0 brands is just ridiculous. When you look at how technology is shaping the emerging generations, it is pretty clear… Web 3.0 and 4.0 will eat TV up and drive it to extinction.

A lot of buzz recently has been how Twitter was faster to alert people around the recent earth quakes than news organizations. This has led to some conversation about Twitter’s business model and potential applications for businesses.

A few weeks ago I had some thoughts about Twitter and its possible development of an emergency alerting tool (I’ll post sometime soon – though I may back-date it) – among other things. However, in reading some recent blog posts, I see Twitter’s ability as a Web 2.0 news and information aggregator as being the immediate advantage because unlike many news organizations – people consider Twitter “faster, unspun” with the negative of news organizations being that they are not participatory or focused on sharing.

WAIT A SECOND! HOLD THE PHONE!

No sooner had the statement about news organizations not being “focused on sharing” sprung forth and into this blog post, than I discovered a news organization mentioned in a blog post that IS using Twitter to reach out to its specific communities and engage people in conversations (I am sure there are many more, btw).

NBCi4 – MIDWEST

Using Twitter allows reporters, editors and columnists the ability to get real-time stories from people on the ground as well as drive content to people via Twitter, and get specific feeds mentioning their news organization in the different Twitter search engines. So, Twitter is a natural fit for every kind of mass media.

See page where I got the above screen shot at: http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news/nbc4now.html.

The value for radio, tv and newspaper is clear… engage your audience, expand your coverage, grow your audience, and help drive people back to your web properties (where monetization can in many instances occur).

From a marketing perspective, I think a key development strategy (for companies involved in the widget / desktop application space) is integrating Twitter with social communicators / desktop applications / widgets. Doing so would create a “must have” application for news organizations (as well as other markets). Direct Twitter conversations could fuel traffic to radio contests, news / network events, broaden community activism, and much, much more.

As far as emergency managers are concerned, using Twitter within a desktop application or somehow finding a way to convert the Twitter feed (this would take some technical experience with the Twitter API to determine if such an approach were possible) into a CAP (common alerting protocol) message, would create another inbound and outbound communication stream. Alert managers could receive real-time information that could be shared with first responders and others. Likewise, alert managers also could distribute messages via a CAP-based system to Twitter, and thereby reaching their constituents through another touch point. Such an option, for example, would prove enormously useful on a college campus.

In the end, I think the technical and business applications for a simple micro-blogging platform, like Twitter, are starting to come to the head. The question on my mind now is… is Twitter already working with a company on integrating its system with an emergency alert solution, and how many other widget / desktop application / social communicators out there will heed the call and integrate Twitter functionality into their products for the benefit of their customers.

We’ve known for some time that the number of people viewing online video is on the rise. With the expansion of broadband and high speed internet access, more people finally have the bandwidth to support video downloads. But where do we really stand?

In 2006, the number of Americans between the ages of 12 and 64 that viewed online video content every day was 9 percent. This year however, that number has grown to 14 percent and could end up being higher. Frequency of viewing online video also is on the rise. Last year, 44 percent of 12 to 64 year-olds watched video online at least once a week. This year – that number is up to 52 percent.

YouTube is driving much of the rise in online video consumption with 20 million or more viewers per month watching over 100 million video clips per day (Let’s just not forget there are numerous providers of video content, including Yahoo!). Though YouTube and others provide some news content, they traditionally reach audiences interested in viewing comedy and what some may call “fringe” or alternative content (like Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace, which has reemerged as a cult favorite online), as well as those posting personalized content as opposed to news and special interest stories – a backbone of most television programming.

In point of fact, research demonstrates that the most popular video downloads on the Internet are news and special interest stories, with comedy, television programming, movie clips / previews, and weather the next most popular selections.

This means that the interests of Americans who view video online plays directly into the strengths of television stations, which have access to video content that they produce, as well as the ability to offer network and audience produced content that may not normally be aired in regular programming cycles.

Another facet to the trend of people viewing video online includes the growth of people who are online while they watch television. According to a study conducted by the Solutions Research Group (highlighted in a recent Time magazine article), 37 percent of the US population over the age of 12 use their computers while they watch television. This means that close to 100 million Americans are multitasking – shifting between watching television and online computer use. Other research shows that the longer people use the Internet (in numbers of years they have been online), the more their television viewing decreased. Though the time spent online per day remains less than total time watching television, such a trend represents viewers lost from television stations’ over the air service, but in fact they could be recaptured with on-demand and download Internet based services delivered to the computer.

One way to both maximize the trend towards online video viewership and combat declining market share and audience is to implement a desktop application or widget to deliver video and other programming directly to the computer desktop. Desktop applications and widgets are particularly effective in driving viewers to a station’s website, because they offer one click access to any portion of a website. Desktop applications reside on the computer desktop of a specific viewer giving a television station the ability to stream video and audio content directly to the desktop, as well as alert messages, RSS feeds, weather, and other forms of content. This has the effect of creating a communication bridge between the station and the viewer whenever the viewer is online.Once the communication bridge has been established, a desktop application or widget can then drive viewers back to a station’s website for additional breaking news, severe weather bulletins, school closings, community updates or contest and promotional information.

Given the growth of online video consumption by Americans, the growing trend of multitasking between television and online viewership, and the possible decline in television viewing in favor of Internet use, television stations have the opportunity to enhance their online presence by delivering interactive content through desktop applications that also help to funnel these viewers back to their websites. This is where ActiveAccess and BIA can be a tremendous help.