Mediaboss Marketing

In Microsoft's perfect world, the Xbox One Media Remote wouldn't exist. Everyone would be happy controlling the Xbox One using their voice or gestures, and remotes would be a relic of our TV-watching past.

In reality, the Xbox One experience -- outside of the gaming realm -- can sometimes be a frustrating one. You have to give credit to Microsoft for recognizing that with the release of the Xbox One Media Remote (US$25/20/AU$30). In reviewing the Xbox One's living room capabilities shortly after its launch, I wrote that it "cries out for a dedicated remote", and that's exactly what the Media Remote delivers, letting you do simple tasks like adjust the volume without using your voice or breaking out the controller.

The small clicker is well-designed, with nice touches like a velvety texture and backlighting that turns on as soon as you pick it up. It can't completely fix all the Xbox One's living room shortcomings -- DVR control is still an issue -- but it makes it a much more tolerable conduit for your cable box.

The Xbox One Media Remote may not be the remoteless future Microsoft envisioned, but it makes using the Xbox One fit into your living room a whole lot easier -- and that's well worth your $25.

$25 may seem like a lot for an add-on remote, but the Media Remote feels particularly well-made. It had enough weight to feel substantial, without being heavy, and it's covered in a soft, textured finish that's pleasant to hold. Pick up the remote and its backlighting immediately kicks in, making it easy to see its buttons even when your living room is dim.

Sarah Tew/CNET

The buttons on the Media Remote are unusually flat, raised ever-so-slightly above the front of the remote. Even the directional pad is just slightly recessed, except for the button in the center. Typically, remotes with such a relatively even surface is a bad sign, but there are enough subtle tactile cues that it's actually pretty easy to navigate without looking. The button rockers for volume and channel changing are large and centrally located and even the completely flush mute button in the center has a texture that lets you know it's there.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Read the original here:
A must-have clicker to simplify the Xbox One

Heres a question to ask yourself if you arent sure whether media mogul pay reflects merit or cronyism: DidViacom and CBS executive chairman Sumner Redstonedeserve $93M, an 80% year-over-year increase, in the combined compensation he received from the companies in 2013? The answer to this query, and others like it, seems especially relevant here in Deadlines fourth annual effort to try to make sense of the outsized sums media companies pay their leaders. Theyre among the most lavishly compensated in corporate America where CEOs made 206 times what the average worker did in 2011, up from 26.5 times in 1978, economist Thomas Piketty notes in his surprise bestselling new book about growing wealth disparities.That strikes many as fundamentally unfair: The California legislature is weighing a bill that would raise tax rates for companies that give their CEOs more than 100 times the average pay for their workers.

Heres our contribution to the discussion: a tally of the highest-paid executives in media, with metrics and analysis to help you decide what theyre worth. The chart on the right (click to enlarge) shows media execs whose compensation exceeded $10M in 2013 according to company proxies.Below youll find our in-depth look at the top 11 earners on the list. Why 11? That enables us to add Rupert Murdoch, who shouldnt be left out of any discussion of media wealth and power. Those in this Group of 11 collectively made $448.6M in 2013, +15.6% vs 2012, with their median pay +8.3% to $32.5M.

Related: Out Of Whack 2012 Out Of Whack 2011 Out Of Whack 2010

One of the things youll see is how much Redstone contributes to the high level of executive pay in media. He and other leaders at corporations he controls occupy four of the 11 spots on our list. That has a ripple effect: All companies represented here (with a caveat, discussed below, for News Corp) include Viacom and CBS in the list of peers against which they benchmark pay for their own execs. And Redstone isnt all that unusual. You frequently see high pay at enterprises, like many in media, run by families that own little equity but control decision-making by virtue of their supervoting shares.

Boards usually justify their high outlays by pointing to metrics of company success, which they credit to the CEOs. But while those on this list are smart and shrewd, its worth asking how much of their good fortune including their rising stock prices also represents good luck. Keep in mind that all of the media powers represented by this years top 11 own broadcast and/or pay TV channels. Cable and satellite companies complain that these programmers have oligopoly power to raise prices on distributors. Many are aggressively doing so, which distributors say pressures them to raise your rates. Programmers also benefit from a new source of cash: license fees from digital services including Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Our list and the charts that follow include Deadlines annual Out-of-Whack analysis. It illustrates not only that CEOs make vastly more than the public. Some boards are far more generous to the top dog than they are to others in the C-suite. Thatcould be a sign that directors are in the CEOs pocket, or lack confidence in their executive bench, many corporate governance experts say. In any case, research shows that lopsided outlays promote groupthink, damage morale, and often depress a companys stock price. Its a judgement call as to how much of a disparity is too much. Yet those who track the phenomenon typicallybecome alarmed when a CEO makes more than three times the median for the four other top execs whose income must be disclosed to shareholders per SEC rules. Eighteen of the 30 companies we monitor and that have filed information for 2013 failed the test, often miserably, up from 14 out of 31 last year.

A few notes on the data: Most comes from information that the SEC requires publicly traded U.S. companies to disclose. That means we dont have compensation info from some media powers including Sony (based in Japan) or MGM (privately held). Regulators require companies to disclose pay figures for the top execs, usually the top 5. We dont know when a high-ranking, but unlisted, leader at a very large company makes more than a top 5 officer at a smaller one. Weve tried to determine whether the CEOs were job creators, but the SEC only requires companies to report year end employment a figure that can rise for companies that buy properties and fall when they sell. We made a judgment call to include Internet companies heavily focused on content creation, AOL and Yahoo, but not giants only tangentially involved in media such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Also, weve provided our admittedly subjective assessment about whether the exec is a flight risk, a potential justification for an over-the-top package.

Heres our tally of the media worlds top-paid execs in 2013:

1. Sumner Redstone, Executive Chairman Viacom & CBS: $93.4M, +80.5%. CBS paidthe 90-year-old executive chairman $57.2M, +83%, while Viacom awarded him $36.2, +77%. What did he do to earn such prodigious sums and raises? The proxy statements dont really say.CBS directors note that while he was executive chairman last year the Company had exceptional results in key metrics, strengthened its financial position, and executed strategies to create and deliver value to its shareholders and to positionthe Company for long-term success. Viacom was more glowing, crediting Redstones leadership and vision as factors that enhanced [the company's] financial position and continued to strengthen itsoverall business in the current economic environment.

Heres another ingredient to consider: Redstone controls National Amusements. It owns relatively little of the equity in the two media companies, but it has supervoting shares that give it and, therefore, him 80% of the votes at CBS and 79% at Viacom.Flight risk: none.

Read more from the original source:
Big Media Moguls With Out-Of-Whack Compensation: Exclusive Deadline List

Evan Schuman | May 7, 2014

Marketers will want to use tools like Snapchat's Here feature to bend consumers to their will. IT has to inject rationality into the resulting discussions.

Marketing has gone gaga over social media. (Come to think of it, gaga may be marketing's default state.) Marketers being who they are, they are trying to figure out ways to use social media to control consumers and bend them to their will. As they seek to do that, they will look to IT to make their visions reality. It's up to the adults in IT to inject some rationality into those discussions.

What brings this to mind is an interesting and deliriously over-the-top feature announced by Snapchat on May 1 and called simply Here. The intent of the program is innocuous enough. It's supposed to allow people to pop up on your mobile screen without the phone ringing and here's the tricky part without you agreeing to it. If you have ever seen marketers in action, you can probably see why I think this will appeal to them.

The video that Snapchat made shows how the program would work when everything goes perfectly. And it indeed looks like an attractive feature if you buy into Snapchat's assumptions about how people should interact. As a Business Insider piece described it: "It's all part of Snapchat's strategy called 'Here,' which strives to make all users feel like their friends are constantly present and attentive."

The catch is that friends especially the rather all-encompassing definition of friends adopted by users of Snapchat and other social media are in fact not constantly present and attentive. What better way to drive that point home than to force people to make a binary choice: interact with me now or not at all?

Snapchat differentiated its original photo-messaging service with its Mission: Impossible twist: Photos and videos vanished 10 seconds after they were viewed by the recipient. The Here Feature introduces social risks, though. With the original service, you sent an image, and if it was ignored, no one was insulted. But the more personal and real-time the conversation attempt, the more insulting it will feel when it's ignored or rejected. Bizarrely enough, this is why email is arguably the most polite of communication methods. You can send an email whenever it suits you, and it quietly and politely waits until the recipient has the time to deal with it. With Here, you show up on the recipient's screen instantly, and the recipient is either going to start to talk to you right then or just swipe you away into non-existence. Ouch!

Here's the IT headache. This is going to plant ideas into the heads of your marketing counterparts. "Gee, I'd love to be able to pop up on the screens of our customers whenever I want. Make that happen, IT. Of course you can do it. Snapchat's already done it." (As a grown-up, you will want to resist the urge to respond, "And if Facebook jumped off the Empire State Building . . . ?")

1 2 Next Page

See the article here:
Snapchat's latest feature shows why IT must tame marketing's inner monster

A group of Korean immigrants in the U.S. are planning to run a full-page ad in the New York Times condemning South Korean President Park Geun-hye and members of her government for their handling of a ferry tragedy that made global headlines in April, reports the Korean-language news website, Newsis.com. The sinking of the passenger ship claimed the lives of some 300 mostly high school youth.

Under the headline, Sewol Ferry Has Sunk, So Has the Park Administration, the advertisement slated for the New York Times depicts a drawing of the doomed ferry, slipping underwater off South Koreas coast. Overlaid on the image are numbers relating to the death toll, the average age of those who perished, and the number of days that lapsed before rescue efforts were undertaken.

Efforts to raise money for the ad began in April when the user of a popular online forum for immigrant Korean women in the United States, called Missy USA, posted the following: Lets place an ad in the New York Times to press charges against the South Korean government for its incompetence and media control.

A campaign was launched soon after on the popular crowd-funding site Indiegogo.com. Visitors to the campaign page are greeted with the message: Bungled rescue efforts. Fabricated mainstream news coverage. Loss of 300 innocent lives. SK Government MUST take full responsibility of their man-made disaster!

Within days, some 400 people had come forward with offers to donate. That number has since grown to nearly 3,000, with donations totaling $135,000 as of this writing. The campaign runs through May 29, with the ad expected to run soon thereafter.

The organizers say their aim is to increase scrutiny of the South Korean government over its alleged mishandling of the rescue effort, and for limiting news medias ability to report about the tragedy and its aftermath.

The campaigns home page states: While this event has raised specific concerns about the Park Administrations disaster control efforts, it has also ignited outrage over a larger issue in South Korea; government censorship and the suppression of free speech.

As an example, the campaign website notes that mainstream South Korean media reported the government had launched a massive rescue operation, including around 600 divers, 70 rescue vessels, and 29 airplanes shortly after the sinking. Family members of the victims challenged those figures, however, saying they saw no such operation until days after it had been reported.

The campaign also alleges many of the surviving family members were told by South Korean officials that their social media postings would be monitored for any comments critical of the government. These allegations have not been verified, though another incident involving a Korean reporter in Germany shows South Korean officials there demanding she retract statements in a German publication painting the Park administration in a bad light.

These people (the South Korean government) are most afraid of international media, not their own citizens, wrote one member of the L.A. group on the campaign site.

Read more from the original source:
Ad Campaign Blasts Seoul for Media Censorship in Wake of Ferry Tragedy

AROUND this years World Press Freedom Day (May 3) the Pakistani media received considerable attention at home and abroad, and it must calmly address some of the issues raised concerning its rights and responsibilities, and the challenges it is facing.

The Amnesty International report on attacks on journalists in Pakistan released last week offered a precise summing up of the national medias tribulations. Recalling that at least 34 journalists had been killed during the post-Musharraf period and the culprits were at large except in one case, Amnesty concluded that Pakistans media community is effectively under siege.

The effect the killing of the journalists and the threats to many others had on the peoples right to be adequately informed of events and trends that affect them was thus described: Journalists, in particular those covering national security issues or human rights, are targeted from all sides in a disturbing pattern of abuses carried out to silence their reporting. Covering almost any sensitive story leaves journalists at risk from one side or another militants, intelligence agencies or political parties putting them in an impossible position.

The Amnesty report derived its title A bullet has been chosen for you, from a warning the head of one of the two Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists factions had received. It underlined one of the major causes of the journalists misfortune a most regrettable split in their union that must be healed at the earliest.

A similar question was put to Pakistan by a US assistant secretary of state while releasing a press freedom report: How can you be free when some of your best journalists are targeted and killed? The US report put Pakistan at number 141 in a list of 197 countries, ahead of Afghanistan and Somalia but trailing the largest Saarc neighbours India and Bangladesh.

At the same time, the International Federation of Journalists called upon the Pakistani government to end impunity for perpetrators of violence against journalists. EU missions in Islamabad also expressed concern over the steadily deteriorating environment for the media in Pakistan.

It is clear that attacks on the media are harming Pakistan as a whole. Lack of reliable information will create insurmountable problems for both the rulers and the ruled. The government, political parties and the security agencies must ensure an environment free from coercion and threats, not as a favour to journalists but to save themselves from the terrible consequences of ignorance.

Concern over security matters was not the only issue in reports about the media last week. During the ongoing confrontation between the security agencies and a section of the media, journalists were being targeted by some politicians, public figures, clerics, militants and ordinary citizens. While some of this criticism is apparently inspired by ulterior motives, media leaders would do themselves and the people wrong if they failed to analyse citizens complaints against them. They must ponder over the attacks on their right to freedom of expression.

The questions being asked now usually arise when people feel that the media is using its freedom to report half the truth and not the whole of it. Are the people unhappy about the degree of power to control their minds the monopoly houses enjoy or are trying to secure?

The people also get angry when they believe, rightly or wrongly, that the media is using its freedom and privileges to further its own interests and not paying due attention to the plight of ordinary citizens. The media is perhaps in need of redefining the parameters of its freedoms and responsibilities and removing any cause of the citizens alienation. The media needs public support and respect not only to win the battles its calling will always force it into but also to remain true to its ideals.

Read the original post:
Media: the threat of co-option - Newspaper - DAWN.COM