Many  of us would love to get rid of our cable TV provider.  The cost is out-of-whack high and – with the availability of digital and mobile television – cable is fast becoming irrelevant.

A Belkin and Harris survey of many disgruntled cable customers predicts that those who view at least one television show per month over the Internet will grow sharply.  The Internet-as-TV users had been chugging along at 6.9 percent growth rate, but this firm forecasts that those rates will jump to  37 percent in four years. By next year, more than half of all Internet users will be watching on Internet-capable devices.

What to do if you’re Time Warner Cable or Comcast?

Get in the game.

Time Warner Cable, for example, offers an app to watch TV channels based on subscriptions, but it limits customers to home-use only.  Beyond that, it offers no on-demand option so customers may view live shows. Worse, the number channels is limited because many networks have their own apps.

Basically, the Hulus and Netflixes of the world are grabbing market share from cable because cable television clings to an outdated model.

If the established cabled providers don’t innovate, they will fail. The upside? We’ll finally be able to cut that cable television cord.

Al Gore has sold his Current TV network to Al Jazeera. The pan-Arab news organization plans to shutter Current and replace it with another news network: “Al Jazeera America.”

Al Jazeera has had a difficult time gaining traction in the U.S. and the issue has always been a brand problem. The American market refuses to give Al Jazeera permission to be a viable news alternative. I say this without regard to the quality of its programming, depth of its coverage or due to its real or imagined political agenda.

The U.S. broadcast news industry does not demand unbiased coverage. In fact, it has room for every type of newscast except unbiased and fair. Fox News on the right and MSNBC on the left are watched more for affirmation than for information.

Still, Al Jezeera, was not given permission to play here and its new brand, “Al Jezeera America,” won’t be accepted either.

A few months back, a representative from Al Jazeera contacted us at Stealing Share and asked for a proposal for a new branding exercise. We never heard back after our proposal was submitted.

If “Al Jazeera America” is a result of that initiative, the company either hired fools or decided on a do-it-yourself rebrand. Either way, watch the total failure of this enterprise.

Brand repair can never be done in-house because nobody on the inside can look dispassionately at itself to address the real problem. It’s a bit like looking at your own children dispassionately and admitting they’re unattractive.

New and expanded bureaus are not what bring success to news organizations. Success comes from understanding the target audience and delivering a new brand, free from baggage. A brand that proclaims loudly — “this is for you!”

Good luck Al Jezeera. Let me know when you are serious.

During an almost two-week long blackout, millions of DirecTV customers were unable to watch about a dozen popular Viacom channels, including MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central.

The stand-off between Viacom and DirecTV over fees might have ended last week, but neither brand comes out a winner.

DirecTV was already in a tough spot. Few rave about his or her television, Internet, or cell phone provider, which means it is easy to get mad at DirectTV in this instance.

It did not matter who most pointed the finger, Viacom or DirecTV, because a lapse in service meant the service provider failed. The bright spot for DirecTV is that since all providers are viewed negatively, there is no impetus necessarily for viewers to switch. The blackout, however, did help further perpetuate a negative brand perception.

The flip side to that customer perception is the value Viacom placed on its own brand. Owners of content can thank Netflix for spotlighting just how much power they wield. Distribution once was a massive undertaking. Netflix’s DVD service was unmatched because the start-up costs for distribution of that magnitude were prohibitive. Where there was a greater dependency on physical distribution, the changing environment of digital distribution has increased control for those with the content.  I say “increased control” rather than “complete control” because content providers are not yet confident enough in their brand or their content to capitalize.

The great thing about content is that in addition to defining your market it acts as a differentiator. Make great content worth watching and customers have a reason to switch and increase usage. A good example of this is comedian Louis C.K., who avoided traditional distribution channels and sold his latest standup special digitally through his website. His success proves that, if your content is worth consuming, customers will inconvenience themselves in order to get it.

If Apple has taught us anything, it’s that there is a thriving market for simplicity – in usability, design and consumption. If ever there was an industry where simplicity was lacking, it is television. DirecTV and Viacom did little to elevate either of their brands during the recent dust-up and, in the process, demonstrated weaknesses in the system and highlighted change that might be slow but is inevitably coming.

Since the first time I watched the NCAA basketball tournament using streaming services, my selfishness has pined for the day when the rest of television makes the same transition. The simplicity of signing on and watching, without a contract, a high bill and still in HD, has made me wonder, when will the change happen universally?

HBO Go is a good example of this, bridging the divide between streaming and cable, while not currently committing to fully streaming without being a cable subscriber anytime in the future. My only hope for a more simplistic future where I choose only the channels I want rests in Apple or another company with enough brand permission to allow for such a drastic change.

Brand permission dictates what the customer is willing to believe about the claims a brand makes. Tablets, for example, seemed like a long shot at catching on initially. (They didn’t replace a phone or a computer, but instead added a new category.) Not everyone could have pulled it off, but Apple had the brand preference as well as the brand permission to prop up the category and facilitate the transition. It was a big idea and far away from the status quo, which is what Apple represents.

So this is my plea to the Apples of the world. “Please do something about cable.”

My second plea is to those without the brand permission for it. “Please don’t do anything about cable. In fact, stay away.” For change to happen, it must be an unavoidable wave of change. And it must be believable.

Until this change is tackled by a brand with adequate permission, the inertia of rest will continue, and I will have to keep using Time Warner Cable. Sigh.

The conundrum of cable and satellite companies is a failure of recognizing who the customer is, which means it is a failure of brand. The industry is in trouble because more and more consumers are switching to the Internet option, in which viewers simply watch Hulu, Netflix and combine it with Apple and Amazon to watch the latest shows and movies.

The only supposed ace in cable’s sleeve is breaking news and sports, and even that is becoming less exclusive as many of those can be seen on the Net as well. (You can even buy an iPad version of NFL Ticket.) Even Time Warner Cable doesn’t carry the NFL Network.

The size of your cable bill is considered the largest issue, but I think it speaks to something deeper. It has to do with the world in which we live today. We, the consumer, are gaining more and more control. We control what music we listen to, and even when and what we watch. Having a time set for a particular TV show or, egad, a movie is becoming as extinct as listening to the radio for music.

One of the solutions bandied about is letting viewers choose the channels they pay for. But as reported here in an incisive column, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said the answer of giving viewers the choice of networks instead of the 500 in your package is because there are too many networks. That is, it’s the fault of the networks that negotiate contracts that include all those less important networks and the fact that there’s so many of them.

That may be, but providing fewer networks or making different kinds of deals with networks is a pipe dream. Viewers do want choice. They just want to pick it.

There are all kinds of solutions being bantered about, with even TMC in talks with Netflix. And, while I think it would be a mistake for Netflix, it might be right for TWC, if it does it right.

There’s something to the pay for play model that intrigues me – and gets a bit at the cost and control issues. The problem with this, for at least the cable companies and the content providers, is that it’s difficult to build an audience that way. There would be little discovery, which means you might not have a “Mad Men” or a “Breaking Bad” succeeding under that model. But you might pick a channel – say, the Netflix channel – that combines the different offerings of different networks. They might even try something akin to what YouTube is developing.

The real problem is that no cable company or satellite provider has given consumers an emotional reason for them to trust the provider to figure it out. The “too many networks” idea of the tier system feels like more balderdash to a consumer, and may result in the anger consumers currently feel toward banks and car dealers. It doesn’t help matters when companies promote bundling, especially with home phones, when that goes directly against the idea of consumer control.

In essence, the cable companies and satellite providers are losing their importance. While the model is breaking, the first step for all of them is to reach audiences emotionally so they feel like leaving the plan is more dangerous to their own self-identification (and sense of modernity) than simply going it alone.

In this day and age of hyper-segmentation, with broadcasters and media providers developing programming for a specific audience (i.e., those they deem they can market to), there is still a single bastion of commonality that brings consumer segments spanning the gambit together for no less that 4 hours – the Super Bowl.

Some companies spend nearly their entire annual advertising budget on a 30-second ad, hoping it will be the subject of “Super Bowl top 10 commercial” lists or get the all important social media title of “viral.” For advertisers, the Super Bowl has become more than a football championship. It’s become the championship of advertisers and their agencies.

Analysts, bloggers, newscasters, and everyone in between will spend the weeks and months before and after the Super Bowl dissecting the ads, saying which one they believe were the most entertaining, provocative, and funny. There is often a hush at Super Bowl parties at the first commercial break with viewers expecting to see a commercial that will blow their minds. For many, the ads have become as important as the game itself.

This year’s Super Bowl will change everything. For the first time, the Super Bowl will be streamed on the Internet. Viewers will have unprecedented control over camera angles and replays.  Computers, hand-held devices, and Internet-capable TVs will be tuned in to the game like never before, giving users of these devices a novel way to see an event they have come to love.

This is exactly why streaming the Super Bowl heralds in a new era of media.

First, viewers who are seeing the game streamed on the Internet now have the ability to easily navigate away from the torrent of advertising that accompanies the game. Not to say that those who have no interest in the ads previously did not get up to go to the bathroom, get another beer, or refill their plate of food. But watching it on a phone or computer, it is much easier to open a new tab or check email during the ad breaks.

Secondly, and more importantly, streaming the game is a signal that the NFL understands that the world is changing and that perhaps it will eventually not need traditional over-the-wire or cable broadcast to get their product out to the masses. Though the game will still, and probably always, be on a major over-the-air network, the shift in strategy by the NFL is a signal to viewers and advertisers alike that the world of programming transmission is changing, forever.

For advertisers, bringing the Super Bowl online means viewers will have the immediate ability to interact with a message, including choosing what messages to view, interact with or avoid.  For the viewer, it means more control over the content and, equally important, a reminder that they do not need a cable subscription to get content. Although the Super Bowl will continue to be broadcast, cable companies should be very concerned about a program with this much impact being broadcast over a different venue than their own.

For local cable providers as well as local major network affiliates, the time allotted to local advertising ceases to exist when the Super Bowl is streamed. Though they are not getting the obscene money the national broadcasters are getting, they were getting a sizable amount of revenue for their local ads. It does not seem so far fetched to think that one day the NFL may just decide to stream the Super Bowl ONLY and profit from the entire program, including the ad revenue that is now being collected by the network. Clearly, it sees the possibility.

The writing on the wall has been there for a couple of years. The Internet allows viewers to control the content when and where to see it, and eliminate the carrier. Rather, they are going directly to the content producer and will be doing so more and more as all forms of media displays, TVs, phones, and computers are designed to do one thing: deliver content regardless of its source.  The old saying “content is king” is absolutely true in this age of the Internet and it is the content creators who stand the most to benefit from the demise of traditional media.

A letter sent Sunday evening by Netflix’s CEO Reed Hastings begins with an apology, followed by an explanation of the future of Netflix. Or should I say, the future of Netflix and the beginning of Qwikster.

The current shape of Netflix and its future uncertainty is in fact a case study in what happens if companies only focus on the business of their business, and never develop the business of their brand.

In the letter, Hastings writes, “So we realized that streaming and DVD by mail are really becoming two different businesses, with very different cost structures, that need to be marketed differently, and we need to let each grow and operate independently.”

The idea that the two services exist in a realm so separate from one another that they warrant two separate companies is only reinforced because Netflix has never told us what its brand represents and who as consumers we were when we chose Netflix.

The focus of Netflix has always focused to heavily on its process. Its business is streaming movies and sending DVDs by mail. But its brand could have represented, and could still represent, much more than that. The power of brand is that brand creates the deeper level by which products and services become connected. Netflix DVD and Netflix streaming did not work together because Netflix never told us the “why.”

Take Apple, for example, and its long-running “Think Different” campaign. It was not about a technology. It was about its brand. Apple even changed its name to Apple Inc from Apple Computers to avoid limiting itself by the the products it could sell. Why be limited in the products you can offer if brand permissions can allow for so much more? Netflix has never recognized this and it is why, if you ask someone what the brand of Netflix represents, the response is rarely more than “movies” or “DVDs.” If you represent “movies” or “DVDs” than you have diminished your value to the consumer to the likes of Vudu, Hulu, Amazon, Crackle, Redbox or any other distributor of “movies” and “DVDs”.

The recent split by Netflix is not the solution to the problem. In fact, if past performance dictates future results, all Netflix has accomplished is creating more market confusion and hurdles for preference with two companies lacking brand instead of one.

I always liked Netlfix, primarily for its streaming. But, like most first movers of a technology, if value is created simply because of that technology, then the value is lost when the competition arrives.

Again, I reference Apple and its iPad. Value for the iPad was built through the Apple brand. It is why tablet sales outside of the iPad have been failures in comparison and why if you buy a tablet you either buy an “iPad” or a “tablet”.

Hastings’s letter closes, “Both the Qwikster and Netflix teams will work hard to regain your trust. We know it will not be overnight. Actions speak louder than words. But words help people to understand actions.”  

The fastest way to gain that trust is talking about what is emotionally intensive to consumers. For anything Netflix says to be resonate, it means it has to be said by the brand itself.

If there’s one thing we’ve all learned in the business world, it’s that technology can knock you down faster than a punch to the jaw. And it feels more painful.

Streaming video put Blockbuster out of business. Digital photography made Kodak irrelevant.

Now we have to wonder about cable TV, especially Time Warner Cable. As we’ve said many times, the content developers – TV networks and movie studios – are realizing they don’t need the middle man. They can provide content to the viewer themselves. Or, they can simply go through Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, iTunes or their own apps and websites.

All those market forces threaten the survival of the cable companies and the slowest to adapt will be the ones who will be falling down the Blockbuster/Kodak rabbit hole.

We’re seeing that now with Time Warner Cable.

Recently, HBO released an app called “HBO GO,” in which the entire HBO library is available to those who have an HBO subscription. Right now, it is available to most cable subscribers – except those who subscribe to Time Warner Cable. News reports say that negotiations are continuing, but the stubbornness of Time Warner Cable – not to be confused with Time Warner, which does own HBO, but the cable system is a different company – will eventually lead content providers like HBO to simply bypass it.

What’s to prevent HBO from simply delivering the content straight to your iPad with its own iPad subscription? Right now, it’s only contracts with the cable companies. It’s only a matter of time until HBO or The NFL Network – which also has failed to reach agreement with TWC – bypass cable systems altogether or negotiate contracts that allow them to reach the consumer directly.

Already, with certain mobile systems, you can get a version of DirectTV’s NFL package straight to your mobile device or computer by simply paying a fee. Think about the implications of that now that we live in the age of Internet-equipped televisions. Already, a handful of Stealing Share employees have canceled their TWC subscriptions and now simply watch content through those Internet-equipped TVs.

Being shortsighted, stubborn and the last to adapt to market and technology is what brought Blockbuster and Kodak down. The cable systems, especially TWC, are coming strikingly close to performing the same pratfall.

After months of waiting with baited breath it is now safe to exhale. Howard Stern will remain with Sirius satellite radio for another five years.

But while this might be great news for Howard Stern and his listener base, it does little more then buy Sirius more time to transform the market as it promised.

The problem with basing a brand identity around a personality is that the brand is only valued as much as the personality. If that entertainer leaves or becomes a damaged brand somehow (think Tiger Woods), the brand itself is damaged. The importance of great branding is that it safeguards against such instances. That means Sirius should establish Howard Stern as an extension of a brand, not the entirety of it.

Another problem lies in Sirius’s focus. “The best radio on radio”, as they advertise, positions them against radio. The problem is that’s outdated positioning. The FM dial isn’t its main rival. It’s the iPods and iPhones of the world. I remember listening to Sirius once when the host was prompting a mobile Sirius unit you can carry with you as you work out. “Imagine,” he said, “all that music without commercials.”

“Yeah,” I thought. “But Sirius picks the music. I want to pick my own, so I’ll use an iPod.”

Howard Stern will continue to attract listeners to Sirius, but that is a testament to the strong brand of Howard Stern not to that of Sirius. In fact, the Sirius brand has so little brand power that the FCC allowed it to merge with its only competitor, XM, an activity that would have been considered monopolistic if either had been viewed as competitive in the market.

Until Sirius reexamines its brand and finds the emotional triggers that will create brand equity and not just station equity, it will continue to be the service that most users let disconnect after their “free with purchase of a new car” subscription expires.

1. Never define your brand by a technology or delivery system. No one has seen, let alone watched, a “video” in to years or more. When you define your brand by what it is you are selling, you open yourselves to the risk of a change in technology that renders your brand obsolete. Look to Apple as an example of a brand that has defined itself in terms of a brand promise rather than a technology. That’s is why the company is no longer called Apple Computer but rather just Apple, Inc.
2. Evolve your brand constantly to reflect and anticipate changes. All economies trend towards efficiencies (that is why they are called economies). This means that all markets will inevitably evolve towards the most efficient delivery system of the served benefit. If you can receive a benefit, without the inconvenience of having to go somewhere to purchase it, the destination aspect of your brand business will become a hindrance rather than an asset. Netflix is an example of this principal with its Instant Viewing availability. However, Netflix is in violation of the first principal if the delivery system moves from Internet to some other delivery system. After all, “Net” is part of their name.
3. “Local” is a value only in a market with inefficiency. Having stores on every corner is not a value. It is a cost. It only speaks to the brands inability to attract loyalty beyond what is “on the correct side of the road.” Markets trend once again to efficiencies and the value of local (as in your local bank) becomes way overstated. Anyone who forms an attachment to a brand believes the attachment is local and personal. Fashion has understood this for years. When someone buys a designer purse, they have developed a personal bond that transcends distance.

Brand evolution too often is shelved because the price of diligence and change is not insignificant. It requires every CEO and CMO to constantly reevaluate the brand’s proposition and adjust it to reflect customer changes. It is the textbook example of the epoch battle between what the company wants to have transpire and what the customer desires. At the end of the day, all that matters is the customer’s beliefs. The brand’s proposition needs to reflect it.

If we do not heed the lessons of Blockbuster and invest in the brand’s evolutionary cycle — recognizing that the investment may not be a short-term profit center but a long-term strategy — there will be a cost to sticking our head in a hole like an ostrich. Just ask Blockbuster. Unless it asks for help from us, whatever it does will be too little to late.