Perspective relative to the bigger and smaller views has always been a critical part of good business. And the U.S. TV business is no different.In the TV business, that sometimes means not only comparing yourself and your performance to others in your same class or industry subsector. It also means sometimes gauging yourself against others in other industries.

Pay TV Service vs. Others

Taking that assumption and moving it forward, the pay TV industry providers, such as Dish and DirecTV in the DBS world, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Charter and Cablevision in the cable realm and Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse in the telco video space, all need to realize that although their relative performance serving customers may be satisfactory compared to one another, that same performance is probably not satisfactory for a pay TV manager comparing his/her services to those of other industries.

And that is the paradigm the best pay TV providers need to seek. The best pay TV providers will find some way to measure what they do against some greater standard of excellence.

It’s Us Versus the World

Thus, how much more effective and believable will it be one day when Dish can argue that it not only is at the top of its pay TV class of competitors, but, in a really impressive measure, the customer service it provides is better than that of the airlines, better than that of other utilities, and better than that of my local mechanic or plumber?

Or won’t a Comcast customer know that Comcast considers him or her THAT important, such that the top cable operator has gone out and found a way to balance what it does versus what other product and service providers do?

And if that is done consistently, won’t the Verizon subscriber then be that much more likely to take the time to call, and thus quickly eliminate the frustration of such a call, knowing that it will be likely handled quickly and the problem or concern corrected the first time, without having to escalate to a second, third or even more calls?

Most importantly, knowing that this is the measure of quality — and that customer service normally gets treated and done that well –  the likelihood of churn by that customer decreases incrementally. With reduced churn typically comes a plethora of financial measurements that represent the real business reason for being in pay TV in the first place.

New Standards To Get Us There

Thus, when, as has been the rule for decades, JD Power (or another survey company) delivers a quarterly comparison of customer service in the pay TV category, that needs to be shown not only relative to other pay TV providers, but as (or more), importantly, compared relative to other products and services. That way the best level of customer satisfaction is gauged among multiple categories of similar customer service.

For example, Cox could then show that in category one, i.e., it against its immediate peers, it scored a 7 on a scale of one to ten; but in the second measure, Cox would brag that it scored an 8 compared to the customer service consumers expect from those airlines, utilities, mechanics and plumbers.

More importantly, what that second measurement would do is effectively raise the bar for the entire industry, such that it no longer relies on other mediocre performances to try and measure what may not be a truly superior performance level.

Put another way, if you only measure yourself against a small, controlled pool of lesser performers, then you ultimately never really reach that higher level of performance. That means your customers and your company continue believing in the wrong measures, wrong standards, and wrong performances. And that is where we are in today’s pay TV industry.

End The Lie

It’s time to get out of the rut called current pay TV customer service measurement scheme. Indeed, it’s time to completely remeasure.

Doing that is not as easy as maintaining the status quo, but without it, today’s measurement of pay TV customer service remains a lie.

Jimmy Schaeffler is chairman and CSO of Carmel-by-the-Sea-based The Carmel Group.

Years ago, indeed, even decades, many looked at the Direct Broadcast Satellite industry, where they had found much of their early career development, and guessed that it would very likely be consolidating soon.

Based upon that assumption, I, too, figured that, to maintain my future in, and maintain my relevance to, the real industry I really believed in — which was the greater multichannel, pay TV industry — I would have to expand my knowledge to other areas that were similar to what DBS did.

Twenty years later, and still deploying that philosophy, Mixed Signals is addressing the recent GeoWeb conference in Vancouver. There, the interest centered on finding information about the delivery of video content to locations and to people based upon those locations, in particular through an interesting sub-area called Location Based Services (LBS).

What was once, when I began in this business more than 35 years ago, nothing more than a dream — of carrying data and video to devices that go wherever you go, and having that video relate to that location — is now in its infancy.

Geoweb, however, seems as a conference clearly more focused, for now, on delivering pure information based upon Geographical Information Services. GIS involves the merging of cartography, statistical analysis, and database technology. Yet, make no mistake, video, especially consumer entertainment video, is about ready to connect BIG TIME with GIS and, more directly, with its cousin, LBS, which involves a true emphasis on mobile devices.

In more detail, LBS involves identifying the location of a person or object, such as discovering the nearest banking cash machine or the whereabouts of a friend or employee. LBS can include, for example, parcel tracking and vehicle tracking services. Or LBS can include mobile commerce, when taking the form of coupons or advertising directed at customers based on their current location. And LBS can include personalized weather services and even location-based games. It is an example of continued and enhanced convergence in the telecommunications sector.

Five human traits, will drive this video-to-LBS transition: 1) to have fun; 2) to compete; 3) to stroke one’s ego; 4) to drive business; and 5) to motivate others.

If those in the business of transitioning video toward LBS can remember to include these “motivators,” just like any other avocation or occupation, they are more likely to be successful.

Yet, where it gets really interesting is when LBS and video information and entertainment find one another. And that is coming sooner than most in the pay TV industry fathom.

Sponsored at the top level by Google and a GIS company leader, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., last month’s fourth annual version of the GeoWeb conference offered several hundred participants a chance to sample a good cross section of the future of this medium.

Interestingly, indeed ironically, the tag line or theme of the GeoWeb 2010 conference was, “Everything Is Connected.” Which brings this column full circle.

Look for more thoughts on this video-meets-LBS trend in the coming months.

Jimmy Schaeffler is chairman and CSO of Carmel-by-the-Sea-based consultancy The Carmel Group.

In too many parts of today’s telecom worlds, including those run by Silicon Valley’s top “communications” companies — specifically Apple, Google/YouTube, and Yahoo! — they just don’t seem to properly understand what they are really doing, i.e., communicating.Moreover, they certainly don’t understand the idea of doing that in a respectful, civil, and professional manner. In short, they repeatedly and consistently act uncaringly, uncivilly, and unprofessionally toward the media, and many others.

Who They Hurt and Why

Importantly, by treating the media rudely, they are, by extension, treating consumers and the public rudely. This is because for most of the public, and many of these companies’ business peers, the media is one of their few and foremost sources of objective communication with that company or industry subsector. Whenever a timely and professional return call or email might do the trick, they simply - either purposefully or negligently, but either way, certainly unprofessionally - do not return the call/email. Or when they do, the actual response is woefully rude and/or inadequate, as noted further below. By treating the media poorly and with a lack of respect, they are, as publicly-held companies, arguably violating their duties of transparency under federal and state securities laws

And why is this? Well, some would blame their arrogance, which is very likely true. Others would point to immaturity, because these are all relatively young companies. Still others would say it’s an abundance of secret-keeping. I would say it’s just a downright lack of caring, which equates to a solid lack of professionalism.

Ultimately, one has to think that they, themselves, as “communications” companies, suffer too, because they miss the dialogue and opportunities those dialogues represent.

Another Time, Another Profession

I used to practice law. Unfortunately, and again so ironically, I found too many lawyers who were poor communicators, and who often exhibited that illness by acting rudely. When I transitioned into the media and analyst communities, especially with highly paid “communications” departments, I was again surprised, because the last thing I expected was their lack of communication and rudeness.

Indeed, I’ve always been amazed when “communications” companies - and especially when the specialized “communications departments” of these communications companies — end up being such abysmal communicators. The irony simply astounds me.

Another Example: Bad Manners Spread

But, alas, modern telecom has apparently become like the practice of law and many other traditional professions; and unfortunately, I have another recent example to prove it. This one has to do with a media request I made Wednesday, Aug. 25, for an in-person interview a week later on Tuesday, Aug. 31, for two topics I was writing about.

The irony would almost be fun, or perhaps humorous, were it not so wasteful, illogical, and unprofessional. In many ways, one can’t help but to compare this trend to Communist Russia of 20+ years ago, where the idea of something not working (that should be working) was the very essence of everyday life.

As yet another recent embarrassing example of this pathetic consumer- and media-centered saga, the following series of communiqués and attempted communiqués took place with a company that may one day end up running the world’s - or at least the U.S.’s - video and TV businesses. We’ll call the two entities the parent, Company XYZ-A, and the child, XYZ-B.

Monday July 26: At the GeoWeb conference in Vancouver, I met and talked at length with a Company XYZ-A rep, and respectfully ended the conversation with a polite explanation of several unprofessional dealings I had had with Company XYZ-A’s communications, press, and PR departments. My hope was that my experiences might help to one day address and correct the problems of Company XYZ-A;

Wednesday, Aug. 25: I asked my new contact with Company XYZ-A for help getting to the right Company XYZ-A person. However, he could only tell me to write to an anonymous nobody at press@companyxyz.com, which I promptly did;

Thursday, Aug. 26: Having heard nothing back (and time running out on my Tuesday meeting request), I emailed and called the main Company XYZ-A telephone number, also leaving a message. By now, I had left three voicemail messages, all civil and polite, yet also somewhat urgent, within about a 36- to 48-hour time frame;

Friday Aug. 27: A pleasant, NYC-based, but very apologetic, young man, who shall also remain anonymous, said he represented Company XYZ-A and XYZ-B, had gotten one of my requests. He said that he would make sure that the two meetings were arranged, and in a timely manner. Indeed, I did hear back from XYZ-B, whose response was close to nothing, but was nonetheless wonderfully ironic. It’s written again below. I never did hear back from anyone at XYZ-A, the parent company;

Friday Aug. 27: A person calling himself the “Head of XYZ-B Communications” emailed the following obvious brush-off: “Hi Mr. Schaeffler: Thanks for your interest in [XYZ-B]. Unfortunately, we’re not able to accommodate your request to visit [XYZ-B] headquarters next Tuesday, August 31. Best, Head Communicator” (emphasis supplied). This was the entire email!;

Friday, Aug. 27: I responded a few minutes later: “[Head Communicator]: Thank you for getting back to me. Would it be possible to arrange another time? Thank you. Jimmy Schaeffler” And can you guess the next result…? “Head Communicator” has not at any time or in any manner chosen to respond to this communication;

Friday, Aug. 27: I called Company XYZ-A/B rep in NYC and requested his email address, which I never received;

Monday, Aug. 30: I again called Company XYZ-A/B rep in NYC and told him of XYZ-B’s “Head Communicator’s” response, which he said he could do nothing about. He said he would check back with Company XYZ-A, to again try to get a response for a meeting the next day, Tuesday. Needless to say, in keeping with my theme and overall message, I have not heard back from him or Company XYZ-A either.

Indeed, this last email response above from XYZ-B was simply the paradigm of the truly meager communications skills of XYZ-B through its “Head Communicator” [unbelievably, really, that’s the title XYZ-B supplies this person]. For here, we have XYZ-B’s “Head Communicator” communicating on the level of someone who doesn’t speak the same language as just about any recipient of such an email. He certainly doesn’t speak a language of business, which is a language of getting things done. Why? Well, for one, he waits two and a half days to answer a media inquiry that was clearly timely. Then, I have to ask here, “What does XYZ-B’s ‘Head Communicator’ think I am going to do in response to this rather rude brush off?” Could he not have, in professional response, have offered…”Can we try another day for the interview?” Or, “Can we try a telephone conversation instead?” Or, maybe even an extraordinary, “Call me later today, on Monday, and we can talk further about it?”

Brin’s Gift To America

In this case, I am so taken aback at the level of basic communication for Company XYZ-A and its subsidiary XYZ-B that I need to be reminded that the Company XYZ-A communications company I am actually not communicating with, calls itself Google. Perhaps Google’s (and child XYZ-B, AKA YouTube’s) press office is Sergei Brin’s Gift to Capitalist America. That gift is perhaps a little piece of ridiculously inefficient communist Russia. I surmise Mr. Brin might be doing this just to remind us all of how much “communication” irony — and frustration and contradiction — remains in the world today, despite the post-Cold War communications advances coming from services like Apple, Google/YouTube, and Yahoo!

Importantly, there are three more problems here:

Problem # 1: Google treats too many people, including most media I checked, just like this.

Problem # 2: In repeated dealings with Yahoo!, and especially with Apple, they also treat people the same way (whereas I have found during several decades that few other company’s communications departments, and few other company’s people, treat people in such a consistently pitiful manner).

Problem # 3: They can, they must, do better (or risk becoming irrelevant at the hands of those that can care, and can communicate).

Final Ratings

Finally, just to complete some of my own due diligence (and communication), as noted, I checked with several of my fellow media folks: Most said the order of incompetence/arrogance/immaturity/uncaring/unprofessionalism among the three companies I have had problems with should be as follows: # 1 Apple; # 2 Google/YouTube; and # 3 Yahoo!

From my experience, however, my personal “worst” rating is # 1 Google/YouTube; #2 Apple; and # 3 Yahoo!

Whatever the ranking, all three…clean up your act! C-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-e!

1 Please note that the some names of various participants have been withheld, in order, necessarily, to protect the mostly guilty, and the occasional innocent participant.

Jimmy Schaeffler, chairman and CSO of The Carmel Group, writes about the convergence of pay television and other industry developments.

My son, Willy, 28, is a recent MBA graduate from the University of Denver, and a 2004 graduate from the University of Arizona. When it comes to U of A Wildcats football, well, let’s just say he gets even more passionate.

Indeed, this weekend, his alma mater plays mine, the University of California at Berkeley, and if his team does as well as it did this past Saturday against the University of Iowa, well, let’s just say I may not stay in the living room to watch the entire game. (My Cal lost last Saturday, to unranked Nevada, by an embarrassing sum.)

At that Arizona-Iowa game this past Saturday evening, which was nationally telecast on ESPN, there was one play that brought home, in a very positive and quality-of-life-improving kind of way, the true nature of TV sports broadcasts. I thought it worth noting for this column, “Mixed Signals,” because it so easily gets overlooked and taken for granted.

The typical national sports telecast these days involves some six to 10 cameras, spread about the stadium. Thus, especially on the field and during play, the action is looked at from as many as a half-dozen (or more) points of view. That is a lot of angles — even more than the referees on the field — that TV is able to provide to the play-by-play.

On Saturday night, at about the 10:45 mark in the third quarter, an Arizona special teams player, named Wright, fielded a punt and began running. At one point, Wright was tackled and fell, yet it was unclear whether he was properly tackled or down.

The refs on the field had a tough time deciding, based upon their limited numbers, their limited angles, and their limited human abilities (which are universally limited human abilities, not just those of the Iowa-AX officials reffing this game).

Unable to make a clear decision, the refs turned, of course, to the video evidence. Thank goodness.

In this instance, a low video angle showed that Wright’s hand had, indeed, touched the ground, while it was wrapped around the football. Indeed, the camera showed it remarkably clearly, but it is less likely that the refs saw it at as well as  angle the camera afforded (or that they saw it at all).

And based upon what the camera depicted, Wright was down where his hand touched the ground. The play ended there, and not a bunch of unfair yards down the field.

Thus, with the aid of what sports video affionados call today, “indisputable video evidence,” the game went on and the refs got it right. Importantly, no one could complain after the fact that there was anything unfair about the call.

Indeed, it is difficult to see the perspective of those purists who say that in an instance like this, the traditional view of “what the ref thinks he saw and calls is the law” should govern. And that holds for just about any sports, and a lot of other human endeavors.

Put another way, short of having to worry about a highly unlikely instantly doctored video, what the video shows, the video shows. In this instance, it not only got the call right, but it made the telecast better for it; and better telecasts, whether we admit it or not, make for better quality of life, which is a long winded way of just saying, “When Telecom Decides, Refs (Usually) Get It Right.”

Cameras and video can capture action that human eyes and human brains can’t. And if we are smart enough to use that properly, we can better the game’s ultimate result, for the fans, the teams, the refs, and the scorebooks.

To carry things further, this is one of those reasons why sometimes seeing the game live on TV can be even better than being there in person, because not too many people in that stadium were likely to have caught that sleight of hand by Wright, as he scraped the ground for a second or less.

And that live aspect is why — for many years, if not decades, to come — those rights-holders and distributors that control those live sports events (such as sports leagues and their cable, telco, and satellite operators) will have a lock on a huge number of viewers, and an audience who will pay for that privilege.

Meanwhile, wish us luck this weekend, because my Golden Bears will need all they can get, especially playing at the same home field, in Tucson, where Arizona squarely and fairly beat then ninth-ranked Iowa, 34-27, on Sept. 18.

Jimmy Schaeffler is chairman and CSO of Carmel-by-the-Sea-based consultancy The Carmel Group.

Over the years, it has always been nearly impossible to interest anyone from the large competitive telephony or cable providers to speak at DBS conferences.

Indeed, a careful review of the affiliations stated by the typical attendee suggested that few, if any, telco and/or cable folks were in those rooms, even as observers. I always found this odd. After all, how’s that old adage go: Know your friends well, your enemies better?

Cable vs. DBS vs. Telco

Today, it remains extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get someone from Comcast or Time Warner Cable to give a keynote or even join a panel discussion at a so-called “satellite” conference. The same is true, typically, for a “telephony” conference: few, if any, cable or satellite executives attend. For their part, DBS officials won’t speak at so-called “cable” or “telco” conferences, either.

Why No Sling?

Using another example of this oddity, it is strange to watch the reluctance of big cable operators nationwide when it comes to EchoStar and its video place-shifting device called Sling. EchoStar has built this feature into new set-top boxes that also involve remarkable DVR and other time-shifting technology.

Yet, despite “this is the future” capability, the U.S. cable industry has generally ignored the best interests of its shareholders, as well as of its actual and would-be subscribers, by not doing a single significant place-shifting set-top box deal with EchoStar.

Admittedly, sister company Dish Network gained few points among cable guys by once labeling cable a literal and figurative “pig” in national ads. Also, there are technical compatibility issues involving millions of set-top boxes. Nonetheless, there comes a clear point in business where a great businessman gets past the emotion and reacts according to good business sense, and that time is surely near (or nearer?), at least for the nation’s larger cable MSOs. Sling is just that good.

Ending The Balkanization

Ultimately, the real question here is: Does this “balkanization” between cable, telco, and satellite pay TV providers really make sense, in the ever-more-converged (and converging) world of modern-day pay TV services and products? The answer is a clear “no,” and I challenge someone, anyone, to tell me otherwise.

One of the reasons these sectors’ own forms of “narrowband” and “walled gardens” don’t make sense is because of the actual and forthcoming alliances that these providers will inevitably and eventually enter into. Indeed, those alliances will proliferate, again, eventually and inevitably. Efficiencies of finance, economics, marketing, personnel, and most other business aspects will demand such partnerships.

Which is not to say these players ever reach the point where they have to worry about anti-competitive complaints from the government, but rather, only, that at certain junctures to not seek these efficiencies (e.g., to all merge together to universally fight piracy) makes no sense at all.

More Alliances Coming

Another reason is that these pay-TV players are each becoming more and more similar. Thus, the financial, distribution and consumer networks deserve to see them compete, on stage, and in the greater marketplace. This has to happen so observers can readily make those comparisons, and the best can then rise to the top.

A few examples are emerging. For one, Comcast has become an ally alongside DirecTV and Dish in the wireless provider, Clearwire. And several small cable operators are now using EchoStar’s IPTV capabilities to deliver upgraded HD video capacities that they otherwise couldn’t have.

Another rather rare, but finally happening, example involves DirecTV and NCC Media. A recent press release by the two includes the subtitle, “Innovative venture between cable and satellite companies will greatly benefit spot TV advertisers.”

A Next Important Step?

So where does this all end up? Well, suffice it to say telecom conference organizers should be trying hard to bring together super panels, say, for example, at CES or at NAB, involving the top players from Comcast (the largest MSO), DirecTV (the largest DBS provider), and from Verizon (the most dominant telco), on the same stage, at the same time.

After all, isn’t it time to ask the question once asked by the infamous Rodney King: Why can’t we all just get along? Answered shortly: we can, we should, and we will. That said, watch for these sessions to occur, as they are inevitable. We’ll all learn a lot, and each industry sector, its shareholders, and subscribers, will all be the better for it.

Jimmy Schaeffler is chairman and CSO of Carmel-by-the-Sea-based The Carmel Group