Friday, August 08, 2003

Mark Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks, bets on the future of HDTV, and always, always speaks his mind. Today he answers some questions for EdCone.com.   EdCone.com: My TV just broke. The big one upstairs that we watch movies and sports on, so this is important. Should I buy the HDTV model, or spend a fraction of that cost for a damn nice conventional TV? I’m not made of money here.   Cuban: depends on how much you like to watch TV and what size tv you would otherwise buy.. You can buy an Advent HDTV monitor, 27" for 500 bucks at Best Buy.. Is that too expensive ? And then depending on whether you are a cable or sat user,there are multiple special pricing options available for you to get HD programming.   Let’s do the old “if you were starting a franchise from scratch and could have one current NBA player, who would it be? “ question. And the same for any player in history.   Shaq.   Re the “good for business” flap, isn’t there a difference between publicity and notoriety? Obviously that gap has narrowed in our culture. But the NBA has in the past suffered financially from image problems. Mightn’t Kobe’s reality TV series hurt the league?   did you hear my entire quote at all ? Come back when you have. I never said the trial was good for the NBA. It absolutely could hurt the NBA.    Let me ask you a question. Is media withouth effort still media, or just a waste of time ?   yeah i’ve heard it. i’m not pulling it out of context to beat you up. i’m not exercised about it’s propriety, and i agree that kobe-tv will attract attention, and will get ratings for the first games kobe plays.   i’m asking about the logic of a specific statement, “From a business perspective, it's great for the NBA.” if the nice-guy heroes of the NBA are alleged rapists, and the lifestyle of superstars on the road gets examined all the more minutely, won’t business suffer in the long haul?   what do you think i was referring to when i said that ?   the publicity attendant on the trial of Kobe Bryant.   and that seems to be what you are referring to in USA Today as well: Cuban added that the intrigue factor will make TNT's Oct. 28 Mavericks at Lakers season opener "must see TV."   "Take away the personal aspect and the reality is that there will be more people watching our game against the Lakers," he said. "Who do you know won't watch the Lakers game with Kobe?"   I’m just asking if that spike in interest might not come at a long term cost.      not at all. not even close.. it was the mass amount of coverage . The question was, What is the economic impact of having more than 100 media outlets covering a tragic event in your industry , multiple times each and every day for 6 months or more...   it wasnt about "publicity" . It was the fact that there would be continuous coverage. Media outlets were covering basically nothing, and not everything they say is negative or even referring to kobe. They often talk about the season, trades, show highlights. They show people cheering for kobe, wearing his jersey, talking about how they love him and support him. As much as they talk about the trial. Ifyou show that over and over every day, for monthjs, hundreds of millions of impressions, my feelings were that those impressions could create interest in watching kobe play. How would he react, how would players react to him. How would fans in each city react to him. Its reality tv. Its trainwreck tv. Its how we consume media in this country.   And its not a subject that we shouldnt discuss because of the people involved    I hate the fact that this is happening, and there is nothing good abouit a rape trial, or any tragedy. Thats not the point.  2:41:29 PM    comment []   trackback []

Here’s an interesting idea that’s been raised at the News & Record: encourage mayoral candidates to write weblogs, then reprint content from those weblogs in the newspaper.   I’d suggest running a “weblog watch” feature that excerpts any and all interesting local campaign weblogs. Papers everywhere could do it. This is one way weblogs could feed into the information food chain.   Hey, somebody ought to start doing it for presidential blogs as they emerge, too. 2:09:36 PM    comment []   trackback []

It is great news for Greensboro that a Raleigh company seems serious about buying the Wachovia building. Not as great as a Greensboro company buying it, but we’re hardly in a position to wait for the perfect solution to one of downtown’s biggest problems.   David Hoggard nips at the N&R for bringing up Action Greensboro in its article, calling the reference “out of context.” But since the larger importance of the story relates to downtown redevelopment, the Action Greensboro reference seemed quite relevant to me.   Hoggard’s right that business investment will ultimately determine the success of any downtown revival. But the overall contributions of Action Greensboro should not be minimized, even if you really don’t want the new baseball stadium where they do, or you resent self-appointed do-gooders spending dead people’s money, or whatever.   For one thing, the group spends that money pretty damn freely. The downtown park is going to be a winner. The Civil Rights museum is, too. And Action Greensboro has been valuable just for keeping the focus on downtown, holding the fort as private investment builds from a trickle to a steady flow.   It’s not Action Greensboro’s fault that we have a leadership vacuum in this town. Obviously we can’t rely on the ghosts of Joe Bryan and Ceasar Cone to save us forever, but through Action Greensboro the shades of our economic past have helped position us for the future.   Yes, the group can be arrogant. That’s one reason Greensboro needs a strong mayor and City Council to represent the needs of the entire city, to find (for instance) the places where Jim Melvin and the Aycock neighborhood agree and build on those while hammering out the disagreements.   Hoggard can play a big role in making that happen, but that will require him to work with the same folks he sometimes opposes. From what little I’ve seen so far, I think he’s up to the task, despite his reflexive gag at this morning’s article. 11:10:14 AM    comment []   trackback []