A tiny miscommunication. A little misspelling. A huge miss.
“This is the start of an exciting relationship between Facebook and Trendrr. The potential development of an open system for accurate measurement of the entire Facebook platform will provide our clients and the larger Social TV ecosystem with more insights and tools to make better decisions.”
Those words (the top quote; not the “whoops”) according to The New York Times‘ Vindu Goel, were uttered by the people Trendrr, one of the best dissectors of social media the World Wide Internet has today. It happened about a month ago. The company was coming off releasing information it found that stated Facebook hosts five times as much television-centric chatter as all the other social media tools combined. Fat cats high-fived. People smiled. Zuckerberg sneered. And all seemed right in Facebook land.
Turns out Trendrr decided to leave the dance with the girl it didn’t pick up a few hours earlier. Twitter, of all things, bought the company, slicing the knees of The Almighty Book Of Faces in a bit of a snickering move. I’d go into details, but that would mean you wouldn’t click over to Goel’s article, and that wouldn’t be right now would it?
Either way, this means Twitter means business when it comes to being the go-to place to discuss television online. I, myself, wouldn’t have a Twitter account if it wasn’t so journalistic-y these days, and as far as Facebook goes, I don’t even know how that thing works. I do know this, though: As somebody who has to wait to watch these new “Breaking Bad” episodes until the Monday night after they first air … I learned this week I’ll be staying off Twitter from here on out.
Oh, this generation. Why must we all have opinions?
Hey, remember that post I wrote last week about ESPN throwing its hat into the Internet television ring? Where did that go again? Oh, that’s right. Thanks, mean Web-ruining ruiners. Thanks a lot.
Anyway, Jennifer LeClaire of CIO Today had some interesting follow-up information today when she wrote about the possibility of The Worldwide Leader getting into the race for Web TV domination. And because last week’s post is forever gone, lost into the ether of the endless Internet, why not take a look what she had to say, right after reading this ditty about Fox Sports 1, no?
“Bloomberg quoted ESPN president John Skipper saying the Internet TV provider would have to pay as much as or more than cable and satellite services to get its content,” she wrote a few hours ago. “He said Internet TV services would have to buy ‘the whole suite of products. We’re not going to offer one-offs.'”
Also of note, though, is this ditty: Traditional cable customers paid an average of $5.06 a month for ESPN last year. ESPN 2? Eighty-two cents. Question: Was this before or after the debut of “Olbermann”?
What will be interesting to watch play out is how big of a pay day The Worldwide Leader might one day get as a result of all this. Remember — as I wrote last week, the network is very literally the most valuable institution on television. If the chips are all in the possession of ESPN (and they are) then how lucrative might this whole thing get? More importantly, could it set the precedent for other major networks who want to make the jump to streaming online content?
I mean, no matter how you cut it, you can’t tell me this guy is cheap to keep around …