Aereo Disrupts NFL's TV Business Model with a favorable Supreme Court Decision

Aereo, the Barry Diller backed company that I've written about in numerous posts on SMM is certainly a hot topic these days.  Since it launched, it has been embroiled in legal battles which have pushed their way through the court system where as early as today the Supreme Court could issue a ruling in the dispute between the broadcast networks and the startup streaming service. Although it more than likely will be some time before the courts ruling may actually come down, the media is a "buzz" about the topic. Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article that claimed that, if Aereo wins, “the foundation of the NFL’s television business could crumble” because “a thriving Aereo could help fans bypass the broadcasters, devaluing their expensive contracts with the NFL.” In my opinion this claim is bias and full of false statements but I am not the final judge that will determine the faith of this industry disrupter. Truth be told, I honestly hope that Aereo if not some spin on it's technology will prevail however, I'm acutely aware of what a big stakes game this is.  

The Little Antenna that could
change the broadcasting industry

Read up on it at: The Washington Post - Cecilia Kang's 06/17/14 - How the Supreme Court’s ruling on Aereo could change how we watch football and also review a good contrasting perspective with Chris Morran' 06/18/14 piece on Consumerist - No, A Supreme Court Victory By Aereo Would Not Crush The NFL. I'll be interested to read your feedback as well as watch how this all plays out.

"The Fair Elections Now Act" - Political Pickpockets

Congress is looking at forcing stations to cut their lowest unit political rates by an additional 20%. According to the NAB, candidates already get an average 30% discount through the current use of the existing lowest unit rates (LUR). The proposed government backed campaign-funding program that the Senate is considering, is a bill that would cut LUR to even lower levels. It's known as The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 1285) and I certainly don't think it's fair to everybody. The bill not only reduces rates, kill scheduling options, expands the pool of advertisers receiving discounts and directly taxes broadcasters. The new bill would force stations to offer a fixed rate 20% below LUR (it's monpreemptable as it is currently as well), and would apply during the 45-day period prior to a primary election and 60 days before a general election. In addition, it would extend these rights to the federal party committees. Finally, adding to the pain, it would impose a 2% tax on gross broadcast advertising revenues to give politicians and committees a "Political Advertising Voucher Account." They say that history repeats itself and it this case it appear to be true. In 1980 Congress tried to put a similar system in place with little success do to the powerful broadcast lobby. NAB Chief David Refr is running point for the industry on this and insiders say its prospects appear dim.

Politicians Scrutinize Pharmaceutical Advertising

Advertising of pharmaceutical drugs to the public is a peculiar U.S. phenomenon, which has allowed great expansion of the pharmaceutical business by pushing demand. Hedonistically I've always enjoyed the windfall that the Ad business has enjoyed as well over the past decade however I have wondered about downside of going to our own doctor and announcing our own prescription.

Apparently I’m not alone in this thought process and the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health is looking over a multi-pronged bill concerning health in the US. Some of the items being considered are an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act "to improve drug safety." Advertising Policy is one of the primary concerns. Here are some of the proposed changes: an ad may need government approval: "the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for a drug may require that the applicant submit...advertisement of the drug for pre-clearance." The appropriate authorities would have 45 days for review. Second, if there have been any "significant adverse events" or other risk associated with the drug, this must be part of an advertisement, and "advertisements lacking such disclosure would be false or misleading." Finally, the bill states that "the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for a drug may require that for a fixed period after initial approval, not to exceed three years, the applicant not issue or cause to be issued direct-to-consumer advertisements..."

I’m all for putting a few controls into place however this sounds like bureaucratic BS at it’s finest. One thing we know for sure is nothing will change fast. There are far to many companies involved with very large vested interests.