Skip to main content

You Don't Have to Pay for Cable TV

As an update to an earlier post I made on canceling my cable television... Yahoo recently did an article - "You Don't Have to Pay for Cable TV" - on how feasible it is becoming to live without a cable feed.

Great article, but disappointing at the same time. No mention of NetGear, bit torrent, newsgroups, etc. - essential components to accessing content.

Also, it doesn't mention the greatest benefit... which is access to ALL content. With traditional cable you only get access to certain channels. Up here in Canada that means limited access to US content. But through the internet you can get all that content - HBO, Showtime, etc.

One of my favorite new shows is Penn and Teller's 'Bullshit'



You can't see this show if you are in Canada. You can watch past episodes on YouTube though. But if you want to watch new episodes as they air each week, you've got to know how to get that content.

This goes to show how important public relations / media relations is to a company. The fact that Netgear wasn't mentioned in this article is horrible. While the article lists offerings that will be coming to market over the next year, Netgear has product in the market right now (and I would argue those products trump the ones the story does list).

The article references a lot of subscription-based options such as Hulu, Netflix, Apple TV... but fails to talk about Netgear.

So why no mention of Netgear? Probably because the reporter didn't know who Netgear was. When they began researching for their story, they probably contacted the main players. When asked things like 'who else is playing in this space?' they probably got answers that lead to names such as Hulu, Netflix, etc.  None of the players likely mentioned Netgear (probably because Netgear is in the market already with product).

Which is why it is so essential that companies staff themselves with proactive PR folks so that this kind of thing doesn't happen.

I would argue that 20 percent of  a PR person's week should be spent reaching out to (key) reporters just as a function of staying on their radar.  Sounds like a lot right? I mean, that's one full day a week.

In reality, I'd be willing to bet that most PR people don't even spend one full day a month on relationship building. Some probably go a whole year and never proactively outreach other than when they have a news release.

It's not really their fault, they are swamped with the pressing concerns of the day. In addition, management rarely understands the value of outreach outside the news release cycle, much less spending four days a month on it.

But the cost of not putting aside time to this activity is that you get left out of articles that you should be in. What would have been the impact on sales if Netgear had been a part of this article? I bet you that they would have made a few sales from it if they had. Not to mention the benefits of their brand being mentioned along side Google and Apple.

One of the things they never tell you when you are in school is how important tracking the media is and outreaching to key reporters is. People think it's just about articulating a message, writing a news release and the press come to you.

But good PR folks are always on top of what is being said in the media, building relationships with those reporters, and doing the best they can to ensure that their organization isn't left out of articles that they should be in.  But that takes time - often time folks don't have - which is why for a lot of good PR folks it means putting in an extra two or three hours a day on top of their normal work day - staying abreast of what the media is saying and making sure reporters know to contact their organization for future stories.

And just how big a difference can it make? Well, imagine if Netgear started to really gain mindshare in the marketplace. If common consumers started to know who they were.

They might end up on the shelf in Best Buy (which currently they aren't). It might spark M&A activity among the Googles and Microsofts of the world. It might spark investment interest.

When you are on the media's radar it empowers your organization in all kinds of ways that aren't readily apparent at first. A strong, growth brand is never, ever, a bad thing. And you simply cannot have a truly strong brand without strong PR folks backing it up... because as in this case, you are left out of the media articles that define which brands matter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Featured Post: Where Can You Buy My Books?

Interested in purchasing one of my books? Below are the links that will take you to the right place on Amazon. A Manufactured Mind On Amazon On Kobo On Barnes and Noble On iTunes Obey On Amazon On Kobo  On B&N  On iTunes  The Fall of Man Trilogy Days of Judgment (Book One) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes System Crash (Book Two) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes A Fool's Requiem (Book Three) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...

More evidence of the Internet Revolution

Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal  So Bell has purchased CTV.  Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it... Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized. You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content. When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As ...