As many of you know, I recently left the Safran Digital Group for a position as Vice President of Digital Marketing at 20th Century Fox Films, a division of Fox Filmed Entertainment.

There were many factors that went into my decision, but the bottom line was that I was offered a chance to return home to the studio and work with some of the brightest executives in the business applying my experiences and learnings from SDG, from a digital innovation, distribution and monetization standpoint, to feature film campaigns.

In addition, Fox recently announced an aggressive reorganization which puts a new focus on developing digital business models and keeps my goal of helping to develop sustainable digital economics aligned with my professional responsibilites.

During this transition, and the negotiations that preceded it, my blogging and tweeting has suffered significantly. As much as I’d like to revive the volume of posts to both, the reality is that I don’t expect that to happen for a while.

I’ve turned off the comments for this post, so if you have any comments or questions, please direct message me on Twitter.
Proud of you guys,
JZ

BoomTown has confirmed a report by Nikki Finke of Deadline Hollywood Daily that former AOL head Jon Miller is set to take over as digital head at News Corp., replacing Peter Levinsohn.

The move was also mentioned in a blog post by Miller’s partner in an investment company, Ross Levinsohn, who once held a smaller version of the job Miller is taking.

But Miller has not actually signed up for the job officially, since he is still under a non-compete agreement with Time Warner from his AOL stint. It runs out in three days, in fact.

As some might recall, Miller was barred from taking a board seat at Yahoo last year by Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes.

But sources said News Corp. is likely to announce Miller as head by Monday or Tuesday at the latest.

Once he does sign, which seems likely, Miller will become News Corp.’s chief digital officer, reporting directly to the media giant’s head, Rupert Murdoch. Based in New York, he will also be chairman and CEO of the newly created News Digital Media group.

Sources noted that this is a a different and larger platform for Miller, bigger than just the Fox Interactive Media job that Levinsohn held. It will go across all properties held by News Corp. across the globe.

“The idea is to mainstream the digital initiatives, which have been all over the company,” said one source close to the situation.

Levinsohn will move to another job within News Corp. (NWS) at the film and television studios, to coordinate the delivery its assets on mobile and digital platforms, sources said. It will be his task to create sustainable business models in this fast-moving arena.

News Corp. has, in fact, been searching for a new digital head for the past several months, talking to a number of well-known Internet execs, including Joost head Mike Volpi, former AOL exec Jim Bankoff and former Facebook exec Owen Van Natta.

The decision to rejigger News Corp.’s digital assets came after the announcement that President and COO Peter Chernin was leaving his job and has largely been pushed by Murdoch.

Previously, Chernin had been in charge of digital efforts at News Corp.

The search for the position was, in fact, conducted by well-known head tech and media headhunter Jim Citrin of Spencer Stuart.

Ironically, Miller is still essentially taking a job once held by his current partner, Ross Levinsohn, at the investment fund, Velocity Interactive Group. As I noted above, Levinsohn confirmed the Miller’s offer from News Corp. in a blog post called “Thunderclap.”

The move is a fascinating one, and one of many in the digital arena of late among its top execs. Former Google (GOOG) exec Tim Armstrong recently took over as CEO of the Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL, for example.

Also, even though the job will cover all the the many News Corp. Web properties, even more compelling will be how Miller will deal with its largest and most prominent asset: social networking giant MySpace.

More to the point, it will be riveting to see how he will handle managing its MySpace Co-Founder and CEO Chris DeWolfe.

Both previous FIM heads, Ross Levinsohn and Peter Levinsohn, many sources said, had to deal with DeWolfe’s own sphere of influence within News Corp., especially his close ties to Murdoch. Both FIM and MySpace are located in Beverly Hills, Calif.

Relations between DeWolfe and both those execs could be described, at best, as tense.

But Miller, who is a much bigger Internet player in his own right, with a more powerful charge from Murdoch, certainly is likely to shift that balance of power.

More to come…

Peter Chernin’s decision to leave News Corp after 12-plus years as COO set off a series of dominoes that will be rippling for months to come. As part of the response, Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch combined all LA-based creative content—movies and TV—under Jim Gianopulos and Tom Rothman, co-chairmen and CEOs of Fox Filmed Entertainment. Now Gianopulos and Rothman are getting their own digital content head as Peter Levinsohn moves from president of Fox Interactive Media to president of new media and digital distribution for Fox Filmed Entertainment. Some details of Levinsohn’s new job, which won’t be announced until Monday, emerged with the news that Jon Miller plans to join News Corp. as chief digital officer, with operating responsibility that includes MySpace and the other units of FIM, as well as Jamba.

But Levinsohn will be responsible for managing the online, mobile and gaming aspects of all content created for Fox Filmed Entertainment and for developing content for those platforms. As part of that, paidContent has learned, Fox Mobile Entertainment will be moved from Jamba into Levinsohn’s portfolio. He also could wind up on the board of Hulu. Bottom line: Levinsohn’s new bosses control the creative content and, as I understand it, Levinsohn will control the way it’s used as well as the way it’s developed for cross-platform use. It’s not a bigger job than running the group that includes MySpace, but it could be a lot more satisfying.

Still, for all that Fox has accomplished in this area, it hasn’t come close to meeting its potential. As president of digital media for Fox Entertainment before FIM, Levinsohn and his team made distribution deals with iTunes, Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN) and the movie download services, and set up the digital revenue sharing agreement with Fox affiliates, among other deals. His operational experience at FIM matched with this digital rights background puts him in a unique position. Will he be able to convert that into success? A lot will depend on what kind of group he’s able to put together.

Fox Digital Media: This will effectively put an end to Fox Digital Media, headed by Dan Fawcett; he succeeded Levinsohn in that job, returning to Fox in 2007 after a stint with DirecTV (NYSE: DTV) when News Corp (NYSE: NWS). was the majority shareholder. Sources have said they expect Fawcett to get another position at Fox, possibly in the Fox Networks Group headed by Tony Vinciquerra.  FDM has been an odd hybrid, responsible for distribution deals, for working with Fox network websites and for making some acquisitions like Beliefnet. Fawcett is on the Hulu board; that seat probably would go to Gianopulos, Rothman or, more likely given his job, Levinsohn.

This is new.

I was surprised to see this ad, a display unit for YouTube HD running in my Google RSS Reader on a feed from Silicon Alley Insider. Google serving house ads for its own video service, YouTube?

The ad is running in the Google Ad Sense network, the search giant’s broad, yet targeted hyper-advertising distribution network. It’s what amounts to a house ad, meaning either YouTube is spending to advertise its service, which I doubt, or Google is undersold on their inventory and they’re running free ads for their video service.

Why would they do that? Anyone else seen these units?

We’ve all seen Google services (Maps, Gmail, Docs, etc) appear as sponsored links for paid search. If you google “maps” or “email” the first sponsored results you get are Google products. But until now I hadn’t seen a YouTube diplay ad anywhere on the web, outside of YouTube itself.
What’s the scoop?

Implosion Reporting has developed into its own cottage industry, not quite as tabloid as Octomom headlines, but just about as ubiquitous. Is there any less irony in the blogosphere selling pageviews on the backs of dead start-ups as there is in E!’s coverage of the Rhianna assault?

Tragedy sells. If it bleeds, it leads. Misery loves company. The Titanic has hit an iceberg and it’s on Youtube.

All of which is part of the problem. If all we hear is negative, how do we move towards positive?

But who is presenting a real vision for the future of media? Who can show us a sustainable economic model for a post digital-disruption media world?

Perhaps the answer lies in an analysis of the transition that is being undertaken by the most traditional medium, Newspapers. AKA “New Media’s Bitch.”

Earl J. Wilkinson, executive director and CEO of the International Newsmedia Marketing Association (INMA), recently published a “brief report” on the future of Newspapers. It’s titled: “No Iceberg - Separating Truth from Fiction About Newspapers In This Recession.” Link above or read the PDF embedded below.

As you read this, consider the parallels for the film, TV and online media industries and how the future of entertainment content distribution might follow a similar transition pattern.

Wilkinson’s report is an alternative angle on the demise of the traditional print business that claims that the problems with the newspaper business aren’t a) fatal b) innate to the medium and c) are more a product of the corporate and debt-laden structure that govern the papers’ business practices, and therefore their response times to the rapidly adjusting market, than of the value of the content itself.

Wilkinson’s analysis takes a global perspective. He points to international papers whose sensitivity to economic change is tempered by their diversified revenue models. He looks at factors such as geography, consumer behavior, ad mix, labor laws and policy, as well as technology. He advises that the smart publishers are making the neccessary shifts to their culture, their operations, their personnel and their capital structures now, before the light at the end of the tunnel makes the kind of difficult decisions that need to be made an impossibility.

It’s a macro point of view, but Wilkinson comes out of it stating that there is no iceberg. He concludes:

If you fear the worst stories in our industry, your fear is unfounded. Don’t let these worst-case scenarios hold you back. While you have to manage your company’s path through the recession, you should be feeling greater pressure to accelerate transformation before today’s window closes.

2009 Inma Iceberg

What’s particularly interesting is the varied positions they take as to the most viable strategies to embrace going forward. Subscription content? Micro-payments? Investment in new, color presses? Did I hear that right?

The apocalyptic epilogue is the potential detriment to civilization and advanced culture as we trend towards a world with fewer, if any, local fishwraps.

Lots of live-to-tape variety shows. Girls in short skirts and low tops with big smiles. Guys with glasses holding mics and clipboards. Music acts and comedians with props. Great for the in-laws. Low cost programming that does big numbers.

Sound like some of the programming we’re increasingly seeing on network TV in the states? Get ready for more. A lot more.

Great article by Michael Hirschorn in the Atlantic about the future of broadcast network programming and the inevitable decline in high-production value, scripted, serialized shows.

It’s worth reading the full article, but here’s the short version courtesy of The Business Insider:

The serialized format is “a flawed way of telling stories on network television now because of the advent of the DVR and online streaming.” This makes scripted television riskier than ever before. A show like Heroes can be a nine-figure gamble.

As the television advertising market softens, content owners have [turned to] foreign syndication, DVD sales, and merchandising. But these markets are plateauing.

The only thing network television can uniquely offer is immediacy. Leno’s content is hypertimely.  SNL, or a show that shares its DNA, will appear regularly in prime time.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the Today show started appearing in the 8 p.m. slot.

Expensive shows will become independent of the networks. Networks will become “distribution platforms,” — as a premiere in a movie house now serves to market the DVD, or sell products.

This will mean fewer traditional television shows in the mold of Heroes. HBO and Showtime may loom even larger. Viewers will pay for quality. Those who don’t will get the television equivalent of AM talk radio—cheap, live talk.

Last week I bought an Obama T-shirt. It cost way too much. I wore it to a Superbowl party yesterday and three people said they were going to buy one (get yours here).

Today I read that the “Obama Brand Stimulates Big Sales” and that, according to the New York Times, Obama merchandise did over $200 million in sales. In the one month of November!

All this got me thinking about how to use this global celebrity to lift up the economy.

Obama has the most valuable likeness on the planet. If he wants to fix the financial crisis he could start by setting up a federal license for merchandise using his likeness and apply all profits to the federal budget. They could make $1 million dollars!

In all seriousness, if Disney can do it for Mickey Mouse, why can’t the feds do it for the most famous celebrity in the world? In this day and age, there’s no shame in commercializing the public sector. Unlike many other Western, industrialized countries we forgo federal revenue by choosing not to regulate and tax drugs and prostitution. Why not generate some revenue on the cult of Obama?

He should nationalize hope and federalize his punim.

He should tax his face.

God bless America

It took a great deal of courage for TechCrunch’s Mike Arrington to publish his Some Things Need To Change post chastising the digital rat race that he, in part, has helped to fuel. He concludes:

I’ve decided the right thing to do is take some time off and get a better perspective on what I’m spending my life doing. I’ll be taking most of February off from writing, and decide what the best future for me is while sitting on a beach somewhere far away from my iPhone and laptop.

I applaud Mike and others like him who are taking this moment to consider what their role can be in moving the planet and the global community forward and out of this global depression. It’s a new era of responsibility that begs the question of each of us - what am I really doing?

There’s been an unprecedented tone in recent weeks of self reflection, both in the digital sphere in business circles in general. This isn’t surprising given that people’s lives are being upended left and right.

But Mike’s post is the most prominent example. It speaks to how a shift in attitude about what is really important, what is lacking in our lives, what we take for granted and what we have spoiled over the past few years of cheap money, inflated self-exuberance and flat out greed has bubbled up to force many to a breaking point, to examine their own crisis of conscience.

We sit in rooms and yell at screens and neglect the truth that there’s a world outside our doors that needs our care.

Digital technologies, the internet and mobile devices give us the tools to live our lives with no transparency, a blessing and a curse. Digital lets us be a hyper version of ourselves, either accentuating the wit, intelligence and compassion for which we are appreciated or allowing us to exploit and humiliate ourselves through vanity, greed and cruelty.

Digital provides two options: a chance to be authentic (think Facebook), use your real name and represent your true self or a chance to create an alter ego (read MySpace), use a handle and live in a world of delusion obscured clarity.

Digital gives us great power to inspire, motivate and communicate - as was proven with the Obama’s groundbreaking digital campaign and the groundswell of hope it has generated.

But it also offers us an anonymous shield behind which to cower and be hurtful, manipulative and ostracizing.

This cloak of anonymity is a recipe for self destruction. It allows cowards to troll message boards and post anonymous comments flaming artists, bloggers and others who are trying to create real value.

These cowards are the ones who have no faith in their own integrity, in their ability. They spit in the face of guys like Mike, who lives his life in a fishbowl. They disappear back into the anonymous Munich crowd while Mike is left with photographers snapping pics and posting them, real time, to Twitter.

Only one option has longevity. It’s always harder to be yourself than to wear a mask. Not that there aren’t times in which we all need to wear mask and slip into the comfort of becoming someone else, but the truth is that there is no long term, sustainable happiness in being untrue.

Yesterday my buddy called me to say he had just been laid off from his gig at Lehman Bros. I asked him what he was going to do. He said he was going to pick up and move to DC to work for Obama. He hoped to get a job at the FCC. He wanted to help make a difference. He had no interest in moving other people’s money around anymore.

2009 will be the year of self reflection. We all can stand to be more authentic. We can all make a difference. We can all be ourselves. Think before you post anonymously. Are you being malicious? Don’t hide behind a false identity to flame someone who is out in the open. Don’t spit on someone and disappear into the crowd.

Don’t be a coward.

You shall know the truth. And the truth shall set you free.