Parents like Michael Steele have long fought the same battle with their children: how much (if any) TV to watch. At the center of the fight is the amount of commercials young children are exposed to. But now, companies like Netflix ($NFLX), Amazon.com ($AMZN), and Hulu have created a compromise solution for parents and their offspring: advertising-free streaming.
The battle for the hearts and minds of parents between the competitors has heated up this year, as I explained in this freelance story I wrote for The Motley Fool recently: Video Streaming Companies Fight to Win the Battle for Parents. Who will win in the end? Netflix, with its exclusive content deal with Disney? Amazon with its Viacom license? Or the newcomer to the fight, Hulu, with Jim Henson shows? The monetary size of these deals shows that parents are a lucrative market to win over in new age of streaming television.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Michael Steele Helps You Bet on "House Hunters"
Crown molding. Granite. Stainless steel.
Around a year or two ago, we used to watch "House Hunters" and "House Hunters International" on HGTV a lot. Back when we were watching 2-3 episodes a week, we could pick the winning house 80% of the time with this simple formula:
Oh, you're a young couple with a 6-month-old infant and two 16-year-old dogs? Odds are you'll pick the smallest house that's furthest from your jobs and is the most expensive, ignoring the toddler death-trap spiral staircase with no railings, because it has a fenced yard for your dogs. Besides, the house that was already child-proofed had that ugly paint color in the rec room and the house that was a half-mile from work didn't have stainless steel appliances or crown molding.
Corollary guide points to picking a winning house:
Around a year or two ago, we used to watch "House Hunters" and "House Hunters International" on HGTV a lot. Back when we were watching 2-3 episodes a week, we could pick the winning house 80% of the time with this simple formula:
Pick the house that's the most impractical for the couple involved.
Corollary guide points to picking a winning house:
- If a buyer bemoans the lack of granite counter-tops or stainless steel appliances in a particular house, they will not buy the house. They will not factor in the cost of just replacing the counter-tops or appliances.
- If a buyer has dogs, they will always favor any house with a fenced yard, regardless of all other factors. They will not factor in the cost of putting up their own fence.
- If a buyer initially says they want to be near their work, the beach, a nightlife district, etc., they will end up in the house furthest away.
- On the International edition of the show, the house that is the least habitable and needs the most work has the best chance at being picked. The buyers will see it as a blank slate for their remodeling dreams. Bonus points if it's so run-down that wild animals have taken up residence.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Investing Philosophy from "The Hobbit"
An interesting book on investing philosophy that I read recently was The Hobbit by JRR Tolkein. It's an epic allegory for focusing on your potential human capital and taking a "Rule Breaker" approach to your retirement planning.
Rather than spending your days sitting in your little hole in the ground over-analyzing things, investors should set out with a company of dwarves and a wizard to focus their investing energy on liberating ancient dwarven treasure from an evil dragon's lair in a far away land. Obviously, you'll have an opportunity for huge wealth accumulation -- and as far as I can tell from the book, untaxed wealth! But don't overlook other smaller benefits like meeting powerful elves who can help you with retirement living arrangements later in life, conquering your fear of spiders, and possibly even picking up some fancy jewelry along the way.
Rather than spending your days sitting in your little hole in the ground over-analyzing things, investors should set out with a company of dwarves and a wizard to focus their investing energy on liberating ancient dwarven treasure from an evil dragon's lair in a far away land. Obviously, you'll have an opportunity for huge wealth accumulation -- and as far as I can tell from the book, untaxed wealth! But don't overlook other smaller benefits like meeting powerful elves who can help you with retirement living arrangements later in life, conquering your fear of spiders, and possibly even picking up some fancy jewelry along the way.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Michael Steele is Hooked on Netflix's "Arrested Development"
I haven't watched any of Netflix's other original series before, but I have been excitedly watching Arrested Development. I'm up to episode 5 so far, and I'm loving it (I was a fan of the show in its original run too). I watched the first 3 episodes the first night, and one episode a night since then.
My non-spoiler observations so far:
1) The plots are indeed non-linear and intertwined, as all the pre-release media coverage said. You probably could watch the episodes (at least the ones I have seen so far) in nearly any order, and the plot would make sense. Maybe you'd need to watch episode 1 first for the set-up and episode 15 last for the wrap-up, and then watch the rest in any order. (I'm watching them in order.)
2) While the plot would work, not all of the jokes would work if you played them out of order (which creator Mitch Hurwitz has been saying as the release date got nearer). A lot of the jokes depend on dramatic irony, where the set-up for the irony comes from having seen an earlier episode. Also, some of the gags are very linear, and should be watched in order to maximize their effect; for example, when they show the same scene over and over again from slightly different perspectives, building and revealing a little more of the full picture each time.
3) Having said that, I keep noticing weird things that are clearly jokes that I won't get until a later episode. I remembered and retroactively laughed at several scenes from episode 3 (Lindsay's story) while watching episode 5 (Tobias's story). So maybe, after seeing all the episodes, you really could go back and re-watch in any order to pick up on other non-linear jokes.
4) If you had never seen seasons 1-3, you would be lost at the beginning. I think that by the time you got a few episodes in, it would start making sense. There are a lot of characters to get to know. The first episode included flashbacks to season 3 to fill you in (which is good for my memory, because I last watched seasons 1-3 when they were on the air originally years ago), and the narrator clues you in from time to time when you're supposed to remember a minor character or plot point from the original series.
5) I'm concerned that with the non-linear, intertwined plots and jokes, that I will lose something if I don't watch all the episodes close to each other. We will see how it goes when my wife leaves on a business trip tomorrow and I'm on the honor system to not watch without her for a week.
6) I like the single character focused episodes. It's a different way to tell the story. I have seen shows do this before to a more limited extent. Like on The Simpsons, sometimes there's a Marge or Lisa-centric episode. Actually, come to think of it, The Simpsons episode "Trilogy of Error" already did the intertwining non-linear plots thing too. So, once again, "Simpsons Already Did it".
I have been a long-time subscriber to Netflix, both the DVD-by-mail and Internet streaming varieties, but Arrested Development is the first of their original series to get me excited (I'm a comedy person). I also like Netflix enough that I'm also a $NFLX shareholder. So for many reasons, I'm happy for Netflix this week.
My non-spoiler observations so far:
1) The plots are indeed non-linear and intertwined, as all the pre-release media coverage said. You probably could watch the episodes (at least the ones I have seen so far) in nearly any order, and the plot would make sense. Maybe you'd need to watch episode 1 first for the set-up and episode 15 last for the wrap-up, and then watch the rest in any order. (I'm watching them in order.)
2) While the plot would work, not all of the jokes would work if you played them out of order (which creator Mitch Hurwitz has been saying as the release date got nearer). A lot of the jokes depend on dramatic irony, where the set-up for the irony comes from having seen an earlier episode. Also, some of the gags are very linear, and should be watched in order to maximize their effect; for example, when they show the same scene over and over again from slightly different perspectives, building and revealing a little more of the full picture each time.
3) Having said that, I keep noticing weird things that are clearly jokes that I won't get until a later episode. I remembered and retroactively laughed at several scenes from episode 3 (Lindsay's story) while watching episode 5 (Tobias's story). So maybe, after seeing all the episodes, you really could go back and re-watch in any order to pick up on other non-linear jokes.
4) If you had never seen seasons 1-3, you would be lost at the beginning. I think that by the time you got a few episodes in, it would start making sense. There are a lot of characters to get to know. The first episode included flashbacks to season 3 to fill you in (which is good for my memory, because I last watched seasons 1-3 when they were on the air originally years ago), and the narrator clues you in from time to time when you're supposed to remember a minor character or plot point from the original series.
5) I'm concerned that with the non-linear, intertwined plots and jokes, that I will lose something if I don't watch all the episodes close to each other. We will see how it goes when my wife leaves on a business trip tomorrow and I'm on the honor system to not watch without her for a week.
6) I like the single character focused episodes. It's a different way to tell the story. I have seen shows do this before to a more limited extent. Like on The Simpsons, sometimes there's a Marge or Lisa-centric episode. Actually, come to think of it, The Simpsons episode "Trilogy of Error" already did the intertwining non-linear plots thing too. So, once again, "Simpsons Already Did it".
I have been a long-time subscriber to Netflix, both the DVD-by-mail and Internet streaming varieties, but Arrested Development is the first of their original series to get me excited (I'm a comedy person). I also like Netflix enough that I'm also a $NFLX shareholder. So for many reasons, I'm happy for Netflix this week.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Michael Steele Invests Like a Ferengi
No race of aliens has taught us so much about finance, markets, and economics as Star Trek's Ferengi. The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, a personal and financial code of ethics, offers a buffet of aphorisms on making money by any means necessary. Greed is the number one virtue for the Ferengi, and they use the word "ethics" only in its loosest form. But some of their rules may have some truth for investors on Earth.
Today, Michael Steele uses the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition to teach you about investing. (Follow the link for the full details.)
Paying attention to the the Ferengi Rule 45, "Expand or Die", shows you why Chipotle Mexican Grill ($CMG) saw its share price plunge last fall. Rule 89, "Ask not what your profits can do for you, but what you can do for your profit", teaches us about dividend reinvesting with dividend growing companies, like Coca-Cola ($KO) which has raised its dividend for 50 straight years. Rule 162, "Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit", leads us to Costco ($COST), which increased its sales and retained its membership while the 2008-09 recession was hurting the rest of the retail sector.
But not everything the Ferengi say is wise. If you followed Rule 261, "A wealthy man can afford anything except a conscience", you might forego investing in socially responsible companies like Whole Foods Market ($WFM), whose CEO is a leader in the Conscious Capitalism movement. And if you listen to Rule 94, "Females and finances don't mix", you ignore investor psychology studies that say women generally make better investors than men here on Earth; Warren Buffett used "feminine" investing traits to increase the book value of Berkshire Hathaway ($BRK-A, $BRK-B) 586,817% since 1965.
Today, Michael Steele uses the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition to teach you about investing. (Follow the link for the full details.)
Paying attention to the the Ferengi Rule 45, "Expand or Die", shows you why Chipotle Mexican Grill ($CMG) saw its share price plunge last fall. Rule 89, "Ask not what your profits can do for you, but what you can do for your profit", teaches us about dividend reinvesting with dividend growing companies, like Coca-Cola ($KO) which has raised its dividend for 50 straight years. Rule 162, "Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit", leads us to Costco ($COST), which increased its sales and retained its membership while the 2008-09 recession was hurting the rest of the retail sector.
But not everything the Ferengi say is wise. If you followed Rule 261, "A wealthy man can afford anything except a conscience", you might forego investing in socially responsible companies like Whole Foods Market ($WFM), whose CEO is a leader in the Conscious Capitalism movement. And if you listen to Rule 94, "Females and finances don't mix", you ignore investor psychology studies that say women generally make better investors than men here on Earth; Warren Buffett used "feminine" investing traits to increase the book value of Berkshire Hathaway ($BRK-A, $BRK-B) 586,817% since 1965.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Michael Steele Takes a Closer Look at Warren Buffett's Annual Shareholder Letter
With the 2013 installment of Warren Buffett's annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway ($BRK-A, $BRK-B) shareholders hitting the Internet recently, plenty of stories have been published highlighting the most quotable passages from the letter. News articles abounded with the best examples of Buffett's traditional wisdom and wit. But Michael Steele delves deeper into the letter and finds six more notable passages that nobody else is talking about.
Why is nobody talking about Buffett's demand that we bow down before his lieutenant? Or Buffett's false assertion that hamburgers and Chinese food cannot co-exist in one restaurant? Or Buffett throwing down and trash talking one of his company's biggest rivals in the insurance industry? Because most financial commentators do not analyze Buffett's writing with the skill and tenacity of Michael Steele.
Why is nobody talking about Buffett's demand that we bow down before his lieutenant? Or Buffett's false assertion that hamburgers and Chinese food cannot co-exist in one restaurant? Or Buffett throwing down and trash talking one of his company's biggest rivals in the insurance industry? Because most financial commentators do not analyze Buffett's writing with the skill and tenacity of Michael Steele.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)