Jaunt, VR & The Future of Media & Entertainment

Whirlwind trip to the Bay Area this week -- highlighted by my jaunt down from SF to Silicon Valley a few hours ago to visit VR company Jaunt.  I knew I would be impressed, because my friend and visionary Steven Rahman at Samsung told me about this "must see" company.  But, "impressed" is not the right word or impact.  More like "blown away," as in mind-blowing experience.

CEO Jens Christensen immediately sat me down in the Jaunt demo studio (pictured here to the left) -- and I sat through and experienced 4 different demos.  First demo -- on the stage at a recent Paul McCartney concert (yes, these will sell big time).  Second demo --extreme climbing and parachuting off cliffs in Yosemite and other extreme lands.  Third demo -- immersed as a character in a horror movie (complete with a blanket thrown over my head by one of the demons that made my entire body flinch).  And, fourth demo -- a CGI EDM-driven segment.

How do I describe the impact?

I smiled throughout -- no, grinned throughout -- no, could barely contain myself.

I have been in the media and entertainment world for 25 years and have seen many many things and many many demos.  But, today's demo was unlike any other.  This certainly is the future of media and entertainment.  It ain't no gimmick.  And, VR ain't just for gaming anymore.  Music, travel, story-telling ... all are open to Jaunt ... and, therefore, to you.  The world is now open and fully accessible.  That's why blue chip investors have lined up to invest in this company.  And, that's why you soon will be investing in Jaunt content.

Here's another mind-blowing thing -- how fast this all happened.  Jens told me this:

-- he had previously built and sold several other companies
-- after his last sale, he joined VC firm Redpoint as an EIR (entrepreneur-in-residence)
-- that's where he tried on his first Oculus -- which he actually purchased through Craigslist
-- and that's when he had his epiphany -- whereas Oculus was then game-focused, Jens immediately focused on media and entertainment -- that is the fundamental difference
-- and, within just a few months (since Jens is a technical magician), he and his partner at Redpoint created their first prototype (pictured in the picture above to the right) ... and, now, they are on the second prototype (which is pictured below to the right).

Get this -- this all happened in 2 years!

Jaunt's content is already available -- at least most of it is free for now.

But, with the inevitable meteoric rise of VR, that "free" won't last long -- and Jaunt's business model is to monetize that content.

I have talked about VR for a long time, and I have written about VR for months.  But, experiencing Jaunt today changed everything for me.

VR for media and entertainment is not just the future.  It is absolutely here and now ... with compelling, extremely compelling, content produced by Jaunt ....

Netflix - The Champ's Achilles Heel

Netflix is killing it. And its investors are on a high – literally. Its stock is at an all-time high on the heels of reporting its highest quarterly subscriber growth numbers ever. What could go wrong? You have Netflix. I have Netflix. We all have Netflix. And, that “We” is increasingly global (since more than half this past quarter’s growth came from outside U.S. borders).

But, make no mistake. Netflix’s long-term challenges are real, they are daunting, and they come directly from Netflix’s Achilles Heel – its own one-dimensional business model (for an excellent separate detailed analysis of Netflix's relevant metrics and financials, read "The State and Future of Netflx v. HBO in 2015" by Liam Boluk, recently published in Redef).  

You see, Netflix is a pure-play video service.  The company monetizes that subscription service only.  That means that Netflix must be profitable based on content revenues alone (unless and until it finds a way to expand beyond that – (more on that later).

Compare that to Apple. Remember them? Oh yeah, digital media’s worst-kept secret is very much alive again -- i.e., Apple hopes to launch its long-anticipated (overdue?) OTT “Netflix Killer” subscription service by fall. Apple's business model is fundamentally different than Netflix's.  For Apple, its "coming soon" OTT video service can be (and likely will be) a loss leader -- a losing proposition that ultimately wins for the Cupertino crew.  Here’s why.

Apple's core DNA is unlike Netflix's.  Apple benefits from multiple revenue streams. And, although the company frequently positions itself more broadly as being a media company, its primary stream is very un-Netflix-ian – it is hardware-driven pure and simple. Apple makes money (boatloads of it) by selling “cool” metal -- iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, Apple TVs (and ultimately the iTV?).  That means that Apple's new subscription video service essentially will be a "marketing" expense that drives incremental hardware sales.  That also means that Apple can (and will) subsidize its content licensing costs in order to keep its subscription pricing down. Netflix can’t do that.

So, how scared should Netflix (and its investors) be of Cupertino and the host of other behemoths soon invading Netflix’s OTT turf? And, what can Netflix do?

First, let’s be clear. Netflix has a formidable head start and I’m not saying that the “mother of all OTTs” will go away anytime soon. But, that alone is not enough. After all, unlike Netflix, Apple is expected to offer both VOD AND live/linear TV (likely including both ESPN and HBO).  And, switching costs are low (essentially non-existent). All you need to do is go online and cancel.

So, Netflix can try to contain the inevitable Apple threat (and the threat of all other Apple-like behemoths) in at least five ways – the first two of which also lead to diversification: 

• Take its formidable lead and find a way to effectively mine and monetize the data it has already collected on all of us;
• Continue to develop and feature kick-ass exclusive original content like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black that can monetize not only via individual subscriptions, but also via global content licensing deals. That original content can also deflect at least some of the Apple threat in a very HBO-like way. After all, will those passionate audiences abandon their favorite characters? Likely not;
• Continue to offer and deepen its pool of content (including via exclusive licensing) that Apple can’t match … at least for a long time;
• Emulate Apple, Sling TV and now also Sony VUE by adding live/linear TV programming to the mix (including the critical ESPN ingredient); and
• Offer lower pricing with an $8.99 monthly new sub charge that Apple and others likely won’t match (after all, under its recently announced deal, Apple will charge Apple TV customers $14.99 for stand-alone OTT HBO Now by itself). 

Of course, many of these counter-attacks will be increasingly harder to do based on the significant costs involved – and the pressure they place on Netflix’s Achilles Heel. 

But, there’s also always M&A. After all, the much-anticipated Apple threat is not just a threat to Netflix. It is an ear-splitting shot across the bow of myriad global players in the video game. So look around. Which of those players have multi-faceted business models (like Apple), a heavy dose of media in their strategies (like Apple), and plenty of cash to make a run at Netflix? Hmmm … let me think …. Google, Samsung and Amazon come to mind ...

… I’m just sayin’….

YouTube V. Facebook, Amazon, Apple - Clash of the Video Titans (& The Role of DNA)

It's a wrap for the Digital Entertainment World (DEW) Expo in LA -- a conference in its second year that celebrates precisely what is happening now in the media & entertainment business -- which is what most call "disruption."  But, I call it "transformation" -- a positive (but authentic, real) "take" on the massive new opportunities to reach, build, and effectively engage with, an audience in our increasingly multi-platform world ... well, at least for those who accept new realities and have the resolve to act.

Yesterday, I moderated an "all about MCNs" panel with nothing but A-list executive talent.  But, MCNs are just one part of the overall digital-first video ecosystem that is at the center of the fundamental media and entertainment transformation in which we find ourselves -- an ecosystem that was birthed by YouTube, which remains the "mother of all video platforms."

Now, for the first time, even mother YouTube faces what seemed to be almost unthinkable just one year ago -- i.e., real formidable challengers.  THESE are the conversations that took place at DEW.  On the stages ... and, even more importantly in the bars of the Hyatt Hotel where liquor flowed and candid discussions followed.

YouTube "challengers" are everywhere.  And many loudly preach (more like screech) their "alternative platform" gospel to every would-be believer.

Who are these contenders?

Well, you have your primarily short-form video-focused MCNs about which I write regularly.  Leaders include broad-based Maker Studios (now owned by Disney), Fullscreen (now owned by Otter Media, the JV of AT&T and The Chernin Group) and Collective Digital Studio; fashion/beauty young female-focused StyleHaul (now essentially owned by Euro-based media company RTL Group); young male gamer-focused Machinima; foodie-focused Tastemade; sports-focused Whistle Sports; Latino-focused Mitu; urban-focused All Def Digital (with the perfect acronym ADD for our short "bite-sized" vid world); and dance-focused DanceOn.  All of these now actively look to find their audiences on as many "off YouTube" platforms as possible.

Next you have young OTT/MCN upstarts like high-profile Vessel which punches above its weight and hopes to open subscription-based distribution exclusivity windows while others (Netflix) try to slam them shut.

You also have social sharing sites like Twitter and increasingly Snapchat.  Snapchat, a media company?  Really?  Just discover "Discover."  And talk to the CEOs from the leading MCNs.  Snapchat matters. A lot.

You now even have your major brands that advertise on all of these platforms.  Lifestyle brands Red Bull and GoPro aim to be your first-choice destination for a certain, specific action/adventure segment of short-form video content that historically has found its home on YouTube.

Then, you have your established major OTTs like Netflix and Hulu who -- at least up to this point -- focus instead almost exclusively on longer-form motion picture and television content.  That will change over time.  It is inevitable.  Each must play more effectively in the mobile space -- and that means short-form video content.  Just trust me on this one.

You also have your major carriers like AT&T (via its Otter Media partnership with The Chernin Group) and Verizon (via the OnCue OTT platform that it acquired from Intel) getting into the OTT game with their own major plays.

And, of course, you have your more "traditional" cable/satellite companies entering the fray (case in point, Dish Networks' surprisingly heavily-discussed new Sling TV service which is getting real "buzz" here at DEW for what it represents).

But, YouTube's biggest challenger right now in the minds of those at DEW clearly is Facebook.  The votes are unanimous there.  Less obvious -- but real, very real -- are the other two 800 pound gorillas known as Amazon and Apple.

When considering the media ambitions of all 4 behemoths -- YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Apple -- consider this.  While each of their ultimate video ambitions are roughly the same (essentially to "own it all" -- both short form and long form video), their individual core DNA is not.  And, that unique individualized DNA colors each company's particular video offering and opportunity, as well as the video opportunity for both brands and those who buy from them (in other words, us).

To understand what I mean in this DNA discussion of genetics, first, let's recap.

YouTube is a video destination first and foremost.  It was built for our viewing pleasure.  Plain and simple.  Yes, we can (and do) share videos.  But, we primarily come here to find something of interest and watch.  Passively.  And, YouTube makes money from ads served against that watching.

Facebook -- the video challenger on everyone's lips at DEW -- has fundamentally different DNA.  Facebook is all about sharing.  We go to Facebook to share pieces of our lives and pick up the breadcrumbs of others.  Yes, we can (and do) watch videos.  But, we primarily come here (at least up to this point) to share.  Actively.  And, so while Facebook, like YouTube, makes money primarily from serving ads, the path to (and mindset of) engagement with those ads is very different.  And, the numbers related to engagement bear this out.  Check out this excellent analysis from Advertising Age to take a look behind the curtain.

How about Amazon?  NOT a YouTube competitor, you say?  Don't be fooled.  Amazon wants to own it all.  Yes, Amazon Prime is front and center with its premium long-form movies and television.  But, take a closer look.  That's right, there it is -- something called "Amazon Shorts" that looks a lot like YouTube.  So, now we increasingly watch videos on Amazon.  But, let's face it, we still primarily come to shop, because Amazon's core DNA is commerce.  And, Amazon's differentiated genetics put it in a unique position to effectively monetize videos through commerce.  Videos serve as a marketing spend -- digital billboards that drive us into its virtual store.  Intriguing.  Very.

And then there's Apple .... don't forget this $700 billion juggernaut, of course, because although it has laid largely dormant on the video side (causing all of us to occasionally scratch our heads), let's not forget that little thing called iTunes.  And, reports just recently surfaced, once again, that Apple hopes to launch its own OTT streaming service to become our video platform of choice.  Speculation abounds that Apple's OTT play may be akin to DISH's stripped-down programming bundle approach known as Sling TV.

But, here's my guess.  Apple will not launch its OTT service unless and until its OTT package includes ESPN -- THE critical pay TV ingredient.  And, let's not forget that small little detail that Apple has a long and uniquely cozy relationship with ESPN's owner (Disney) (Jobs/Pixar, anyone?).  If Apple were able to score ESPN (just like only iTunes scored The Beatles), that move alone would be a game-changer.

Why would Apple play in the "alternative YouTube" world?  Sure, incremental revenues are nice.  But, that's not it.  Instead, Apple's DNA reflexively drives its actions -- and Apple's core DNA is not like any of the others.  It is hardware pure and simple (Samsung shares that same DNA via Milk Video).  Apple makes its money by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, iWatches and the inevitable iTV (and perhaps even ultimately the iTesla?).  We ride the video Trojan Horse into our neighborhood Apple Stores (in the same way Apple bought Beats Music to build it's music streaming Trojan Horse).

So many video players, and oh so little time.

YouTube.  What to do, what to do?  Well, for now, YouTube remains the "must be there" platform for creators.  We also are still very, very early in the overall digital video game.  So, while YouTube's ultimate market share will be chipped away, that reality will be countered by significantly (massively) more volume.  And, just like long-form video platforms like Amazon and Netflix increasingly play on YouTube's short-form turf, YouTube will play on their home courts and seek to steal share from the in the long-form video space.

After all, many of these players' ultimate vision is to own it all -- be your single destination for all your video needs -- short-form, long-form, and everything in between.

Tech Giant Buys Hollywood Studio -- Happens In 2015? Here's Why

Yes, THAT may happen in 2015.  A tech giant may very well buy its way significantly deeper into the content game this year by acquiring one of the major Hollywood studios.

Content is increasingly "king" in our multi-platform, smartphone-driven, millennial-focused world.  That small screen -- and the digital-first eco-system built on top of it -- changes everything (I recently wrote about this for TechCrunch, Variety and VideoInk).  That's where consumers (especially the young eyeballs coveted by marketers) engage.  And, that small screen and our increasingly digital-first world absolutely are critical to tech giants like Apple, Samsung, Amazon, and Google, each of which has a fundamentally different core business model that ultimately is driven by content.  I'll repeat ... that is driven by content!

Let's take a look at those business models.

Apple and Samsung are all about hardware sales (iPads, iPhones, Galaxies).  Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive those sales.

Amazon is all about e-commerce.  Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive more and more consumers into its virtual store to buy goods.

Google is all about advertising.  Everything else is a Trojan Horse to maximize eyeballs and ad sales.

CONTENT is that Trojan Horse.  Apple iTunes, Samsung Milk Music and Milk Video, Amazon Prime, and YouTube are the names of those individual stables.  And, the goal of each service is to have the deepest and best performing stable of horses -- and increasingly unique ones (i.e., exclusive/original programming) -- so that consumers jump on and ride their services instead of the "other guys'."

For these tech behemoths, content (movies, television) essentially functions as pure advertising.  Content is the means to an end, and ROI is not measured by the content service itself.  That's why stand-alone highly challenging economics that apply to pure-play services like Spotify, Pandora and Netflix don't apply to these tech behemoths.  Content is essentially a loss-leader.  That content is THE most critical form of advertising to fuel their underlying business model.

But, merely because this is the reality (i.e., that content is viewed as a marketing spend) isn't necessarily a bad thing from a creative (or consumer) standpoint.  In fact, the fundamental goal of all story-telling -- including in this "Trojan Horse"/advertising scenario -- is to captivate an audience.  The better the story-teller, the more listeners they will attract.  How they monetize those listeners IS the question.

Let's take a look at the flip-side of this -- i.e., the studios.  The smartphone's small screen is having major impact on the studios.  These studios have played effectively for years in the big/bigger screen worlds of theatrical and TV.  But, small screen, digital-first, millennial-focused video content is not in their DNA.  That's why Disney bought Maker Studios for up to a near-$1 billion.  And, this confusing new multi-platform smartphone driven world order makes "traditional" major studios (and the moguls who run them) feel vulnerable.  And, that vulnerability makes them more open to possibilities.

And, that leads to the perfect M&A storm.  Tech giants who increasingly covet content.  And, content-creators who increasingly scratch their heads about their next act (but are experts in story-telling and creating bigger screen premium content).

This is simple math that leads to one logical conclusion -- a tech giant could very well buy one of these major studios this year (this was #5 of my 8 predictions in my TechCrunch guest article).

Which studio?  One logical choice could be Warner Bros.  Remember, Rupert Murdoch made a big play to swallow Warner Bros. up last year -- an attempt that failed, but perhaps exposing a crack in the veneer of this and other major studios.  How about Sony?  It certainly has had its well-publicized challenges.

Which of these tech giants is most likely to make that bold move?  Apple certainly has signaled its willingness to move in that direction, buying Beats on the music side for $3 billion.  How about Samsung?  Its newly-launched Milk Video service needs to differentiate -- and studio content could be the ticket.  Amazon?  Bezos just scored big wins as a premium TV-like content creator at the Golden Globes. It has also quietly created its own YouTube alternative universe. Movies are the natural "next act" (in fact, Amazon just yesterday announced a major theatrical motion picture slate strategy and "traditional" media exec to run it).  And then there's Google.  Yes, you would think that it needs to be Swiss (neutral) with the "mother of all video distribution platforms" that is YouTube.  But, don't forget that Google has wanted to play hard in the premium video content development game for some time -- and is widely reported to be undertaking bold new major content development initiatives.

Think this is a stretch?  Not at all.  Each of these tech giants certainly has the cash to pull it off.  Yes, THAT is likely in 2015.  A tech giant may buy its way into the content game this year by acquiring one of the major Hollywood studios.

Content is increasingly "king" in our multi-platform, smartphone-driven, millennial-focused world.  That small screen -- and the digital-first eco-system built on top of it -- changes everything (I recently wrote about this for TechCrunch, Variety and VideoInk).  That's where consumers (especially the young eyeballs coveted by marketers) engage.  And, that small screen and our increasingly digital-first world absolutely are critical to tech giants like Apple, Samsung, Amazon, and Google, each of which has a fundamentally different core business model that ultimately is driven by content.  I'll repeat ... that is driven by content!

Let's take a look at those business models.

Apple and Samsung are all about hardware sales (iPads, iPhones, Galaxies).  Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive those sales.

Amazon is all about e-commerce.  Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive more and more consumers into its virtual store to buy goods.

Google is all about advertising.  Everything else is a Trojan Horse to maximize eyeballs and ad sales.

CONTENT is that Trojan Horse.  Apple iTunes, Samsung Milk Music and Milk Video, Amazon Prime, and YouTube are the names of those individual stables.  And, the goal of each service is to have the deepest and best performing stable of horses -- and increasingly unique ones (i.e., exclusive/original programming) -- so that consumers jump on and ride their services instead of the "other guys'."

For these tech behemoths, content (movies, television) essentially functions as pure advertising.  Content is the means to an end, and ROI is not measured by the content service itself.  That's why stand-alone highly challenging economics that apply to pure-play services like Spotify, Pandora and Netflix don't apply to these tech behemoths.  Content is essentially a loss-leader.  That content is THE most critical form of advertising to fuel their underlying business model.

But, merely because this is the reality (i.e., that content is viewed as a marketing spend) isn't necessarily a bad thing from a creative (or consumer) standpoint.  In fact, the fundamental goal of all story-telling -- including in this "Trojan Horse"/advertising scenario -- is to captivate an audience.  The better the story-teller, the more listeners they will attract.  How they monetize those listeners IS the question.

Let's take a look at the flip-side of this -- i.e., the studios.  The smartphone's small screen is having major impact on the studios.  These studios have played effectively for years in the big/bigger screen worlds of theatrical and TV.  But, small screen, digital-first, millennial-focused video content is not in their DNA.  That's why Disney bought Maker Studios for up to a near-$1 billion.  And, this confusing new multi-platform smartphone driven world order makes "traditional" major studios (and the moguls who run them) feel vulnerable.  And, that vulnerability makes them more open to possibilities.

And, that leads to the perfect M&A storm.  Tech giants who increasingly covet content.  And, content-creators who increasingly scratch their heads about their next act (but are experts in story-telling and creating bigger screen premium content).

This is simple math that leads to one logical conclusion -- a tech giant could very well buy one of these major studios this year (this was #5 of my 8 predictions in my TechCrunch guest article).

Which studio?  One logical choice could be Warner Bros.  Remember, Rupert Murdoch made a big play to swallow Warner Bros. up last year -- an attempt that failed, but perhaps exposing a crack in the veneer of this and other major studios.  How about Sony?  It certainly has had its well-publicized challenges.

Which of these tech giants is most likely to make that bold move?  Apple certainly has signaled its willingness to move in that direction, buying Beats on the music side for $3 billion.  How about Samsung?  Its newly-launched Milk Video service needs to differentiate -- and studio content could be the ticket.  Amazon?  Bezos just scored big wins as a premium TV-like content creator at the Golden Globes.   It has also quietly created its own YouTube alternative universe).  Movies are the natural "next act" (in fact, Amazon just yesterday announced a major theatrical motion picture slate strategy and "traditional" media exec to run it).  And then there's Google.  Yes, you would think that it needs to be Swiss (neutral) with the "mother of all video distribution platforms" that is YouTube.  But, don't forget that Google has wanted to play hard in the premium video content development game for some time -- and is widely reported to be undertaking bold new major content development initiatives.

Think this is a stretch?  Not at all.  Each of these tech giants certainly has the cash to pull it off.  Moreover, such a move certainly is not unprecedented.  Let's not forget that consumer electronics giant Sony bought its way into the content business 25 years ago when it acquired Columbia Pictures.  And, remember, competing CE company Matsushita, not to be undone and in rapid succession, bought MCA/Universal (which it unloaded soon thereafter to Edgar Bronfman and his alcohol dynasty).

Mixed results, for sure.  But, these are very different times indeed for the "media plus tech" equation.

The math is right.

The times are right.

Don't be surprised by it.

Samsung Will Buy Slacker

Musical chairs.  That’s were we are in the digital music world right now.  Behemoths are either finding their “match” -- or launching other major initiatives themselves.  Mega-moves in the digital music world are happening now.  Transformative moves.  Apple buying Beats for $3 Billion.  Google buying Songza.  Amazon launching Amazon Prime Music.  Samsung partnering earlier this year with under-the-radar San Diego-based Slacker to power its innovative Milk Music service.

Ahh yes.  Samsung.  While key competitors (primarily Apple) have bought their way into offering expanded digital music services, Samsung has chosen to partner.  So far.  But, partnering is a form of dating.  And, dating ultimately has the potential to lead to marriage  (I have experienced that myself with former companies).  In this case, I’d be surprised -- very surprised -- if Samsung was not already fully dressed and prepared to walk down the aisle to seal the deal.  Ultimately, Samsung -- just like other behemoths -- want more in control of their own destinies.  And, of course, Samsung and Slacker have been courting and making beautiful music together for several months.  Slacker’s parents -- its Board of Directors -- will expect a life-long commitment at some point, especially since they have supported their child (Slacker) for 10 years.  That’s an awful long time for venture capitalists to stay patient, especially since it is reported that they have invested about $50 million over those years.

Not sure if they funded that via Slacker’s 529 plan ....

Google Buys Its Way Deeper Into Music for a Song(za) - Here’s Why

Digital music wars continue to escalate.  Apple/Beats (bought for $3 billion).  Amazon Prime Music (recently launched).  Samsung/Slacker (major strategic partnership).  YouTube Music (coming soon to a smart phone near you).

And now Google itself, announcing yesterday that it has acquired curated digital radio service Songza -- something previously rumored and something I just predicted last week when I wrote:

The M&A market will heat up again soon -- and don’t be surprised if the next major move is Google swallowing up Songza.

Initial reports when the Google/Songza news first surfaced indicated a price tag of $15 million.  But, due to an apparent wealth of suitors following initial rumors, Songza was picked up for significantly more -- music to its investors ears, since the start-up (which I use regularly) had only raised $1.5 million to date.  

Expect more M&A in this white hot space in the next several months, precisely because it is increasingly daunting for stand-alone privately-held services like Spotify, Pandora, Rdio, 8tracks, and Slacker to compete and profit amidst these gorillas (here is last week’s analysis about that very issue).  One obvious move would be for Samsung to buy its Milk Music partner Slacker.

Some Things Just Ain’t “Right” -- This Is One of Them ...

During my recent travels to Italy, my family and I visited Rome, Florence, Siena and Milan.  And, in the famed fashion capital (from which my beautiful bride hails), this (to the left) is what we saw on the famous Gothic architectural and religious wonder known as the Cathedral of Milan which began construction in 1386 -- i.e., essentially a massive billboard that is very much a sign of modern times.

Yes, I understand that the Cathedral is in the midst of a major renovation.  And, yes, I understand that these kinds of major projects don’t come cheap and require massive funding.

But, no matter what one’s religious beliefs are (or aren’t), shouldn’t some things be sacred?  If not the famed Cathedral, then what?



Ultimately, my sense of wonder and amazement in the masterpiece was replaced with a kind of sadness -- even more, a sense of being appalled.

I hope I am not alone here ....