Comcast and Time Warner just can't control themselves

Comcast and Time Warner are awaiting regulatory responses to their application to merge and become the dominant player in cable television provision in the U.S. If permitted, the combined firm will control about 2/3rd of the broadband cable market and about 40% of the entire broadband market in the U.S. (which is used for both cable and the Internet).

Independently, the two firms both have reputations for poor installation and repair services, poor billing and collection practices, high prices, and price increases above inflation levels. No one seriously believes their claims that the merger will be pro competitive, lead to more consumer choice, better service and lower prices.

The companies have not been helping their case by appearing to be operations out of control when it comes to their customers.
 
In recent months customers seeking services have been kept on the phone for hours and forced to undergo forms of psychological abuse while they tried to get the changes they wished. 

Customers who have complained about billing practices and service have had their first names on their accounts changed to names such as “asshole,” “cunt”, “whore,” “dummy”, and “super bitch” and subsequent mailings were sent to their homes with those names on the official company correspondence.

If they can’t manage the firms now, imagine what it will be like if the larger combined firm is permitted and has even less incentive for better behavior.

The internal cultures of the companies apparently do not make treating customers badly risky for employees and the cultures may even provoke it through the high pressure placed on customer service representatives to retain customers and processes designed make it difficult for customers to switch services. The fact that there is a continuing litany of poor behavior indicates the their managers are unwilling or unable to control their employees and that they can't even structure their information systems to stop such things from occurring.

The companies' long histories of treating customers poorly obviously rubs off on their workers. It reminds one of comedian Lilly Tomlin’s character Ernestine, a telephone operator, who reacted to customer complaints saying "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."

The fundamental root of the Comcast and Time Warner problems is that there is essentially no discipline in the market for cable services.  Because  both companies tend to have local monopolies in the locations in which they operate, and face limited competition from satellite TV, the market itself is not correcting for bad behavior. This problem is compounded because there is essentially no regulatory oversight for cable services and customer service either. The cable companies have the best of both worlds: no market pressure and no regulatory pressure.

None of that will change if the merger of the two companies is permitted. It will only get worse.

Customers are valuable to companies and the two companies continue to mistreat them at their peril. A significant number of customers are already stopping cable services in favor of video downloads and streams from the Internet. In time, this may increase to the point it forces the companies to treat their customers better. But it will probably be too late.

In the meantime, the only hope is that regulators will try to keep things from getting worse by refusing to allow the two firms to merge.

The critical distinctions among news provision, information provision, and journalism

The explosive growth of digital news and information providers is forcing news organizations to recognize their diminishing significance to users of digital devices, but many remain bewildered about how to respond.

This challenge is difficult because many news personnel do not make distinctions among news provision, information provision, and journalism. Consequently, the strategies of many news organizations approach each as equally valuable. They are not.

News provision involves providing reports about contemporary events and developments locally, nationally, and globally. Information provision involves providing non-news content that meets audience interests and needs. Journalism involves researching and producing news, features, and analytical stories based on professional practices and norms.

In the past, news organizations tended to have strong control over journalism, news provision, and information provision in their markets. However, they began losing that control with the arrival of multichannel terrestrial/cable/satellite television, the growth of magazine titles, and the appearance of the Internet.

It is this loss of traditional market domination over the provision of news and information that most news organizations are struggling with today.

The problem is clearly illustrated by newspapers that typically offered readers non-advertising content that was about 25% news (created through original journalism or provided from news agency stories) and 75% information (either self produced or provided by news agencies and syndication services). It was a cost effective and holistic way to serve readers news and information needs.

That strategic formula doesn’t work today, especially on digital platforms, because there is a plethora of digital information provision about weather, entertainment, food and cooking, sports, automobiles, and hobbies and crafts and because there is a surfeit of news providers about national and international events and developments.

This high level of competition means that newspapers and other legacy news organizations have a much harder time becoming or remaining the digital choice for news and information provision. There is little additional value they can provide by merely being a conduit for flow-of-events news and information available elsewhere.

Value can be created by practicing quality original journalism, however, and by providing context, analysis, and understanding to news and creating better information, provided in better ways, than competitors.

Only by understanding the differences between news provision, information provision, and journalism, by being different from other news and information providers, by having a distinct approach to news and information, by engaging in high quality journalism, and by helping audiences better understand the world and the topics in which they are interested will news organizations become successful in the digital world.

Why attacks on journalists are inevitable

The attack on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo that killed at least 12 people today is probably the largest deliberate killing of Western journalists since the bombing of the Los Angeles Times a century ago.  It draws attention to the fact that journalism is becoming an increasingly dangerous profession and reminds us that at least 61 journalists were killed worldwide in 2014 alone.

It may sound indifferent, but such attacks actually signify an important reality: journalism matters.

In an age where so much “journalism” involves coverage of entertainment, celebrities, fashion, food, and lifestyle topics, journalists that question social values and pursue accountability in ways that anger or offend should to be celebrated. Nobody attacks those who write or say insignificant things. Asking questions that some people don’t want asked is journalism at its best and that kind of journalism needs to be revered.

Charlie Hebdo has a history of lampooning politicians and providing irreverent commentary on politics, religion, and popular culture meant to spark public discussion and debate. It has faced backlashes before.  Whether it can survive to do so again is uncertain.  Even if it doesn’t, other voices will continue to raise important questions about society and the world in which we live.

It is regrettable that carrying out journalism can lead to death and injury and we need to denounce such attacks and do all we can to prevent them. But we also need to take pride in journalists whose information and ideas are so consequential it results in their deaths.