This year’s Super Bowl to be held in New Jersey could be the coldest on record.  (Super Bowl VI which was played at Tulane Stadium was 39 degrees at kick-off).  Swedish retailer H&M is hoping to heat things up with a 30 second commercial that not only features super hunk and former soccer player David Beckham without a shirt, but will also allow some viewers to purchase items from the David Beckham Bodywear collection directly from the TV.

Say hello to “t-commerce”, a new technology that takes advantage of smart TV’s.  Delivery Agent, a company that creates and develops apps has come up with one that will allow you to make purchases through a Shop TV shopping platform.  Currently, only viewers watching the ads on a Samsung Smart TV will be able to take advantage, but expect the technology to extend to other Smart TV models soon.

In case you’re worried about your buddy interrupting the game to buy some boxers; don’t be.  A small part of the screen will present a pop-up menu while the ad runs on the larger part of the screen which will, offer product information, the ability to send that info to another device as well as the option to buy the product directly. And, if the game gets boring, the ad will still be interactive and available for purchase to consumers who rewind back to it using their DVRs.

To make sure everyone knows to take their bathroom breaks during the game and not when the commercials are on, Beckham will make his first appearance at the new Times Square H&M location (where the in-store music is louder than a Seattle Seahawks home game) to get you pumped up for what is sure to be another epic night of advertising and football.

Hold onto your beer can sports fans because there is trouble brewing on the sports television landscape that does not involve Jim Crane and Comcast Sports Houston.

There is a new player on the television scene called Aereo. Aereo is a new way for consumers to drop cable-TV subscriptions. Anyone with a television can buy an “antenna” from Aereo and get free access to broadcast channels via the Internet. Cable programming such as HBO and ESPN are not available so for now, Aereo (which is available in Houston) is simply a convenient way to record and watch local television.

So why should the mighty NFL be worried?  All their games are broadcast over the air in their respective markets. Theoretically, Aereo could put up antennas in NFL markets and sell a package which would provide subscribers to buy online access to NFL games broadcast anywhere. This would allow Aereo to offer a similar version of DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket without paying the NFL anything.

The timing could not be worse for the NFL. The NFL Sunday Ticket agreement with DirecTV is set to expire at the end of next year. DirecTV pays a reported $700 million per season for having exclusive rights to all the games. It does not take a Warren Buffet to figure out the value of those rights would drop faster than Enron stock.

But wait, there’s more. Aereo could also undercut the NFL’s plan to dole out the way people watch the games. Currently the league has an agreement with Verizon to show games on smartphones, but for whatever reason, restricts it being shown on tablets. Aereo could let people watch games on whatever device they want.

The NFL and MLB are not taking this lightly. In a recent friend-of-the-court brief, they claim Aereo “has no purpose other than to avoid compensating the copyright owners whose programming Aereo exploits.”

Broadcasters are also fighting back, but are down in the scoreboard early on. Federal judges in Boston and New York have ruled that Aero could operate during the legal fight, giving it time to spread to new cities. Look to see this case make its way to the Supreme Court sooner than later.

It has long been thought that all major sports programming would cease to be offered on over-the-air television outlets and move to a paid, or pay-per-view model. Aereo could just be the final nail in the proverbial coffin to make that happen.

The way you pay for cable television may soon change if Senator John McCain gets his way.  He has introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act which would allow consumers to subscribe to only the channels a la carte instead of having to pay for packages of channels they’ll never watch.   No more paying for ESPN for those not interested sports or the WE channel for viewers who are not interested in Bridezillas.

Senator McCain recently wrote an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times saying…

“Many industries over the years — from the stagecoach builders and saddle makers to those who made the eight-track tape and the Sony Walkman — didn’t much like the change forced on them by the tide of history. Sooner or later, companies standing in the way today will face a similar choice: Meet consumers’ demands or become obsolete.”

Locally, the interesting question is what would happen with Comcast Sports Houston.  As many frustrated sports fans know, CSN Houston has not had much luck being picked up by a number of the major cable providers.   If this bill passes, CSN Houston will be in the position of having fans choose whether or not they want to watch the games and the other ancillary programming they provide.  The sports channel has been adamant about being made available to every subscriber on the basic service level and being compensated for that number.  That all becomes a moot point if Senator McCain’s proposed bill actually becomes law.

More and more, we are living in an on-demand world.  Services like iTunes, Netflex and Hulu are proving that consumers want, what they want, when they want it.  It’s time the cable industry take a hard look at where this is going and get ahead of the curve before they become the way of the 8-Track.

Something scandalous is happening with reality TV.  It turns out many of the reality programs aren’t very real at all.  The latest revelation comes from A&E’s hit show, “Storage Wars”.   Former “Storage Wars” star Dave “Yuuup” Hester is suing A&E, alleging that substantial aspects of hit reality show are fake (insert gasp here).

Hester asserts producers of the program plant expensive items in storage lockers that its “stars” are supposed to bid on.  It has also been alleged that producers have asked some of the cast members to give them special pieces that are planted in the lockers.  The production company would then pay a rental fee to the “star” for using their items.

Now this isn’t the first reality show to be accused of not being real.  A contestant on HGTV’s “House Hunters” reveled back in June that she would not be featured in an episode until she had already closed on a home.  Yet, she was still required to view other homes even though she had already purchased a home.  And then there’s TLC’s “Breaking Amish” whose cast members supposedly lied about their backgrounds and had left the Amish community several years before the show began.

You would think most people would be outraged, but many viewers don’t seem to care.    “Who cares, it doesn’t matter to me” to the sarcastic, “Really, it’s a fake?  I am shocked!!” fill up message boards by people who follow such programs.  The posters seem more amused people actually thought the shows were real, than the fact the producers take “creative license” with many of the story lines.

But it seems to be a sad state of affairs for people like Dave “Yuup” Hester that, when it comes to reality TV, things just aren’t always as they seem.

If you spend any time on Facebook recently, you have probably seen one of your friends post this statement…

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos and similar in line with the Berne Convention.

For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times. (Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws) By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates.

At first glance, language looks very official and binding, except for one little problem; it’s a bunch of mumbo jumbo that would make even Perry Mason blush.    Let’s break it down…

1. To begin with, posting anything on Facebook does not supersede the user agreement you agreed to (and probably never bothered to read) when you first signed up.
2. Citing the Berne Convention should be enough to make Facebook quiver in its tracks, except that the Berne Convention has nothing to do with the Internet.  The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty was developed in 1996 to deal with issues raised by information technology and the Internet that the Berne Convention does not cover.
3. Using the word “communiqué” (while very official looking even though it’s roots are French), simply means an official announcement about a usually very important piece of news and has no legal bearing or merit.
4. Referencing a law by its number certainly conveys importance, however the law cited in the post (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-013) concerns Commercial law – that’s why it’s called “Uniform Commercial Code” and is meaningless in this context.
5. This next one is my personal favorite, the Rome Statue.  This statue summarizes who can investigate and prosecute core international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.  Makes you wonder just what people are posting in their status update to warrant this type of protection.

Facebook has addressed all of this on its Facebook and Privacy page (although admittedly, it is difficult to believe a company whose stock value has lost what economists described as “a crap load of money”).  Still one has to wonder what possesses people to copy and paste with such reckless abandonment.    Maybe we have become a generation lemmings that jump off the cliff screaming “they can’t put that on the Internet if it wasn’t true!”

We learned two things about last night’s Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Lance Armstrong.  One is that Armstrong is not a very nice person and the second is that Oprah is not as smart as we all thought.

Let’s start with the first point.  We all knew (or at least suspected) that Lance cheated and threw anyone and everyone under the bus (including filing a lawsuit against his former masseuse Emily O’Reilly for outing him).  Armstrong came across as a very cold and calculating human being who would stop at nothing to win for fame and glory (what the hell did Sheryl Crow see in him).  Look up “Control Freak” in the dictionary and you’ll see his picture next to it.  That part of last night’s interview was actually not that shocking.

What was surprising is how Oprah handled the broadcast.  Many blogs and pundits are heaping praise on the former Queen of daytime talk, and while she did create a lot of buzz for OWN (The Oprah Winfrey Network), there were several places where she dropped the ball.

The actual interview took place earlier in the week.  Trying to keep what was said secret was like trying to keep Lindsey Lohan from getting in trouble; it wasn’t going to happen.  Even Oprah appeared on the CBS Morning Show to promote the interview and all but said he admitted to cheating.  So what was left to watch?   There is no denying she did her homework and delivered what she promised (a no-hold bars interview), but unfortunately the news cycle had already moved on.

Sports fans had already turned their attention to the captivating drama surrounding Notre Dame super star Manit Te’o and his mystery girlfriend.  The window of public interest closes quickly, and Oprah did herself no favors by pushing the interview back.  She also could have saved the mea culpa for later in the broadcast.   The broadcast opened with her asking yes and no questions and we knew immediately that Armstrong doped in all seven Tour de France victories.

What was left after that?  Now we’re going to show what a real asshole you are?   No thanks, I get it.   It reminds one of a public flogging where crowds got to watch someone get punished in a public arena, but did you really feel Armstrong was getting beaten up by her questions?   If you didn’t get enough you’re in luck; the whipping continues tonight with Part Two.

There are many lessons to be learned from the horrific events that took place at last
Friday’s massacre in Connecticut.  Debate on gun control, dealing with people who suffer from mental health issues and how, we as society cope with what can only be described as unimaginable are all being talked about around water coolers and dinner tables.

There’s another part to this tragedy that we can’t over-look; the way the media is covering breaking news stories.  In an effort to “get it first”, they threw out misinformation with reckless abandonment.  The best of the worst was identifying the shooter as Ryan Lanza, 24, and tweeting his Facebook profile picture around cyberspace.  The news outlets had to correct themselves when it turned out that the shooter was 20-year-old Adam Lanza, his brother.  (Ryan ended up posting “Fuck You CNN, it wasn’t me” on his Facebook wall in an attempt to help clear up the confusion)

There were also reports early on incorrectly reporting Lanza’s mother taught at the Newtown elementary school which again, proved to be flat out wrong and massive confusion as to what, and how many, weapons had been used.

And, even before the dust had settled, there was a statement attributed to actor Morgan Freeman in the wake of the shooting that spread faster than nude photos of Princess Kate Middleton that spoke of how the media is making these psychopaths into super heroes.  The problem?  He did not write it, nor had no idea where it came from.   It doesn’t matter though, because it’s still being shared on Facebook and Tweeted at warp speed.

All of this is misinformation is leading us down a very slippery slope.  Why is anyone going to pay attention, and much less believe anything the media reports from the scene of breaking news, when so much of it turns out to be wrong?   It has become such common practice that most outlets don’t even bother to acknowledge their mistakes anymore, but simply remove the page from their website in the hopes no one will remember and then let some PR flak try to explain it away.

Can you imagine what it must have felt like if you had a child in that school, or knew somebody that worked there and you were trying to find out what happened?  In a world where instant gratification is quickly becoming the norm, perhaps a little more homework and a little less rush to be first would be one lesson we could learn this horrible tragedy.

The battle for your ears has taken an interesting twist.  Traditional over the air broadcasters and internet radio companies are duking it out over something called the “Internet Radio Fairness Act”.  This bill, introduced in both the House and the Senate, tries to level the playing field and put the fees internet radio pays for music at the same rate as other digital music providers.  Last year, according to Pandora, it paid roughly 50 percent of its total revenue in royalties, more than six times the percentage paid by satellite radio provider Sirius-XM.

“On the surface, the rates paid by PANDORA and other online radio services appear onerous and in need of congressional relief” wrote Richard Greenfield, a media analyst for BTIG.  “However, the reason why companies such as PANDORA pay such high royalty rates as a percentage of revenues is because they severely limit audio advertising to protect the user experience and keep people on the platform.”

So their answer is to have Pandora run more advertisements to make up for the revenue (God forbid anyone should “protect the user experience”).   A recent radio study by ALAN BURNS AND ASSOCIATES and TRITON DIGITAL showed that radio is less strongly bonded to listeners under 35 because younger listeners want music control and fewer commercials.  The response by BTIG brings to mind the infamous quip; “let them eat cake!”

Radio will point to studies showing how many people listen to them during the week, and that number is very impressive, but Internet Radio also has a compelling story to tell.   Pandora reported that, in September of 2012, it showed an increase of 67% from 687 million to 1.15 billion of listening hours during the same period last year.

Another point Greenfield raised in his report was “why should the U.S. government allow musicians to be harmed simply to help PANDORA and its investors generate enhanced returns?”   It’s an interesting argument because it is the same one used by the radio industry.   Many radio executives feel they should pay smaller royalties to musicians because they help promote artists and sell records.  Both points of view have merit, but you can’t play both sides.

If radio were smart (and there are many smart people working in radio), they would develop new ways to advertise that continue to produce a healthy profit while enhancing; not hurting its user experience instead of trying to thwart companies like Pandora.  Product placement type ads, shorter commercial breaks and smoother insertion of advertisements could all lead to increased listening among younger demos which would result in higher revenues.

Will anyone in radio willing to take the chance, or will they end up listening to Wall Street instead of Main Street.