An interesting article last week from Daily Variety's outspoken, Editor-in-Chief, Peter Bart reflecting that the box office malaise is not as bad as the naysayers predicted. Bart's editorial points out that the 2006 box office tallies are a slight improvement from last year. He suggests that considering the absence of "franchise" films, the increases can be traced to surprise hits like "Little Miss Sunshine".
This news is certainly a little encouraging for movie studios who I am sure still pray daily for good movie attendance to help boost their ancillary market, particularly the sale of DVD.
The new era of digital entertainment has put a strain on the business models of traditional media suppliers but the figures for 2006 suggest that the "seismic shift" hasn't happened yet, and probably won't be happening for a few more years.
It is really easy to get caught up in the rhetoric about the threat to the viability of network television coming from the Niklas Zennstom's (Venice Project) of the world. The hyperbole from News Corp. entertainment leader Peter Chernin who talks about mobile entertainment eclipsing television and the internet as a media platform is fairly quixotic.
Let's all take a deep breath and remember that for now: Only a small minority of people use their cell phones for entertainment, ITunes counts TV downloads as a fraction of its revenue, and The Venice Project is in Beta. Oh, and YouTube hasn't really monetized yet. Certainly rapid change is evident and user behavior is changing. Traditional media wants in too and, to some extent, the future of digital downloads of movies and television shows depends on their compliance and participation.
I for one am excited about the opportunities that exist for some kid in North Dakota or Iowa to get 3 million eyeballs for his online video diary and then get invited by Coke to create content for the holidays. I am thinking of ways to get into that game too.
For now, video for all its accolades, whether it is on the internet or on a phone, can't hold a candle to "Little Miss Sunshine" at an AMC 14.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Friday, December 8, 2006
Major Nets in Talks to Launch Their Own Video Site
According to Techcrunch today the major nets have been in serious discussions about partnering up to launch a one stop video site for their tv content. Viacom, who owns Ifilm, Atom Entertainment and Disney have dropped out of the discussions, but NBC, Fox, and CBS remain at the table together.
Techcrunch reported that the motivation here is to crush Google/Youtube by suing them for copyright violations once the Nets' video site is successfully launched. Endgame would be that if you want to watch your TV shows online, you have to go to their site.
Obviously, there are pros and cons. Daily Variety reports today that Mark Cuban (whose voice is so important in this debate) commented to the press at the UBS investor confab in New York that the user-generated model is inherently incompatible with congloms; "if CBS is controlling how CBS content is used," he said, "then it's no longer a social network, it's a corporate-distribution forum."
And let's not forget that while each net clamors to be the 18-49 ratings winner week to week, they don't collectively appeal to the same demos - - and advertisers know this. Moreover, they have to be a little cautious about diluting their broadcast ratings by giving viewers the option of On-Demand programming on a massive scale.
I couldn't agree more with Mark Cuban's assessment of the incompatibility here. I also don't see how a one for all model would benefit viewers/users. Doesn't this throw competition out the window? I get that YouTube is a ubiquitous destination for TV content but there must be a way for the Nets to leverage their content individually across multiple platforms to benefit users, crush their violators, and reap rewards. Afterall, the thing the Nets know how to do is monetize and generate ad revenue. The media chiefs spent most of their time at Upfronts last year crowing about their multi-platform launches.
While I don't see these talks resulting in a deal of any kind, I cannot figure out why Fox would still be at the table. Myspace is their YouTube. NBC I get because the IVillage brand can't absorb a large digital television platform. They could consider using Heroes as a springboard for an interactive site that eventually includes other programming. CBS & their Digital Czar, Quincy Smith, are probably only months away from a major online purchase.
I will be very interested to see where these discussions lead. The rumor of a Metacafe acquisition to jumpstart things is peculiar for the collective nets. What Metacafe does might be repeatable and Bob Wright, Chairman of GE, told Charlie Rose that very thing when asked about buying YouTube. I'm sure the interactive gurus at CBS, NBC, and Fox can come up with their own Metacafe. If Metacafe is as popular as Comscore suggests, beating Yahoo Video & Myspace Video in viewers, it's going to make the Grouper pricetag look like a deal. Why not spend some smart money and purchase a giant stake in Yahoo. Create YahooNet. This will appeal to Terry Semel as it will fix their monetization issue. Yahoo, as the #1 website, has yet to be a fully tapped platform for television, and is in need of a big event.
That's how you crush Googletube and, at the same time, have the safety net of a fully operational online business, if this video craze should ever blow away when the bubble bursts on web 2.0. But that's for another discussion.
Techcrunch reported that the motivation here is to crush Google/Youtube by suing them for copyright violations once the Nets' video site is successfully launched. Endgame would be that if you want to watch your TV shows online, you have to go to their site.
Obviously, there are pros and cons. Daily Variety reports today that Mark Cuban (whose voice is so important in this debate) commented to the press at the UBS investor confab in New York that the user-generated model is inherently incompatible with congloms; "if CBS is controlling how CBS content is used," he said, "then it's no longer a social network, it's a corporate-distribution forum."
And let's not forget that while each net clamors to be the 18-49 ratings winner week to week, they don't collectively appeal to the same demos - - and advertisers know this. Moreover, they have to be a little cautious about diluting their broadcast ratings by giving viewers the option of On-Demand programming on a massive scale.
I couldn't agree more with Mark Cuban's assessment of the incompatibility here. I also don't see how a one for all model would benefit viewers/users. Doesn't this throw competition out the window? I get that YouTube is a ubiquitous destination for TV content but there must be a way for the Nets to leverage their content individually across multiple platforms to benefit users, crush their violators, and reap rewards. Afterall, the thing the Nets know how to do is monetize and generate ad revenue. The media chiefs spent most of their time at Upfronts last year crowing about their multi-platform launches.
While I don't see these talks resulting in a deal of any kind, I cannot figure out why Fox would still be at the table. Myspace is their YouTube. NBC I get because the IVillage brand can't absorb a large digital television platform. They could consider using Heroes as a springboard for an interactive site that eventually includes other programming. CBS & their Digital Czar, Quincy Smith, are probably only months away from a major online purchase.
I will be very interested to see where these discussions lead. The rumor of a Metacafe acquisition to jumpstart things is peculiar for the collective nets. What Metacafe does might be repeatable and Bob Wright, Chairman of GE, told Charlie Rose that very thing when asked about buying YouTube. I'm sure the interactive gurus at CBS, NBC, and Fox can come up with their own Metacafe. If Metacafe is as popular as Comscore suggests, beating Yahoo Video & Myspace Video in viewers, it's going to make the Grouper pricetag look like a deal. Why not spend some smart money and purchase a giant stake in Yahoo. Create YahooNet. This will appeal to Terry Semel as it will fix their monetization issue. Yahoo, as the #1 website, has yet to be a fully tapped platform for television, and is in need of a big event.
That's how you crush Googletube and, at the same time, have the safety net of a fully operational online business, if this video craze should ever blow away when the bubble bursts on web 2.0. But that's for another discussion.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Revver, YouTube License Vids to Verizon
Revver just signed a content deal with Verizon. YouTube did too. What's in it for the 40,000 video publishers @ Revver when they're vying for space with the millions of youtubers?
Revver says they're sharing licensing fees with users, which is great insight into providing another example of how YouTube is monetizing content without users benefiting. Something has to change in YouTube's thinking there. Not certain how the fees are paid to Revver and their users, since these videos will be available as part of the V cast subscribtion (currently $15/mo.)
Mobile Web is officially the first 2nd window for viral video. The video spaces that haven't monetized content need to hurry up. YouTube needs to get on the ball here too. The only reason they struck the deal with Verizon is because they have so much content. YouTube doesn't really patrol for copyrighted material like Revver so I guess that means YouTube has to start diligently screening for any content that is to be licensed to Verizon. The big question is; how does Revver and YouTube claim ownership to license to mobile. Let me check the terms & conditions and get back. I'm willing to bet not a lot of users considered this when they were giving away their content to youtube.
It's getting clearer and clearer that there is money to be earned, shared, and distributed, and the video community will certainly be paying closer attention to that.
Revver says they're sharing licensing fees with users, which is great insight into providing another example of how YouTube is monetizing content without users benefiting. Something has to change in YouTube's thinking there. Not certain how the fees are paid to Revver and their users, since these videos will be available as part of the V cast subscribtion (currently $15/mo.)
Mobile Web is officially the first 2nd window for viral video. The video spaces that haven't monetized content need to hurry up. YouTube needs to get on the ball here too. The only reason they struck the deal with Verizon is because they have so much content. YouTube doesn't really patrol for copyrighted material like Revver so I guess that means YouTube has to start diligently screening for any content that is to be licensed to Verizon. The big question is; how does Revver and YouTube claim ownership to license to mobile. Let me check the terms & conditions and get back. I'm willing to bet not a lot of users considered this when they were giving away their content to youtube.
It's getting clearer and clearer that there is money to be earned, shared, and distributed, and the video community will certainly be paying closer attention to that.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
A Response from Current TV
Current TV cannot encourage the use of Creative Commons for its V Cam campaign because Current's position is that not all of Creative Commons licensed content is free. Fair enough. I still think there is a great opportunity for indy music & amateur video content on sites like Eyespot to find there way towards monetization. But when it comes to long tail advertising and digital intellectual property there are clearly many many obstacles and unanswered questions.
So, the smartest and most proactive thing to do in this brave new world monetizing video content is to shoot it yourself. Certainly, uploading your content for cool, effortless editing at Eyespot makes a lot of sense.
So, the smartest and most proactive thing to do in this brave new world monetizing video content is to shoot it yourself. Certainly, uploading your content for cool, effortless editing at Eyespot makes a lot of sense.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Creative Commons & Advertising models
I recently came up with what I thought was a super way to leverage the tools and content at Eyespot.com for submission into the Current TV V Cam program. Eyespot is a video space designed to give users an environment to share content in the form of clips and mixes. They encourage re-mixes and provide a very easy to use editing tool. The site is a lot of fun and I believe has done it right when it comes to creating an engaged audience.
The V Cam program at Current, http://www.currenttv.com/make/vc2/vcam, is designed to drive users (Current calls them Viewers) to create enticing advertising content for Current's sponsors with the potential for some real money if ads were theoretically used in conjunction with internet, broadcast, Current TV, cable, and satellite, or even a Super Bowl jumbo tron.
I downloaded a particular sponsors logo from Current for use as an end tag, per Current's instructions, then decided to post the logo to my account at Eyespot where I edited the sponsor's logo within a 30 sec. spot I created mixing Eyespot content. The content on Eyespot is made available through Creative Commons (Attr. 2.5) which means that: others may copy, distribute, display and perform your content, and to make derivative works and commercial use of your content without paying any royalties to you. However, users are required to acknowledge your authorship and may only reuse or distribute your content under the same Creative Commons License. Nutshell, user-submitted clips and mixes are free game as long as the C.C. is honored in any distribution.
The conundrum is that since advertising doesn't provide end credits or acknowledges authorship, that I am aware of, one cannot really honor the C.C Attribution 2.5 in this case. I will admit that I took a very easy approach to Current's challenge of creating viewer generated advertising. I cut together the content at Eyespot in about an hour, and didn't have to shoot anything. There was also zero cost. I was really just experimenting with the entire process. I could be way off base using Eyespot to create a commercial, but their Terms and Conditions say it's okay as long as the Creative Commons license is in place. I have an e-mail out to Current awaiting response that addresses the question of Creative Commons. I will report what I learn from that response.
In the meantime, of course, I am thinking of creative ways to produce sole proprietor content for Current's V Cam program. I do think this raises an important issue. Eyespot is making it possible for people to make derivative works of anything they wish to, as long as the clips and mixes are not premium content and that Creative Commons license is engaged. The clips made available at Eyespot are very tantalizing for the purpose of cutting together commercials. Especially for the internet. Take a look at the site and see for yourself.
There is a win-win scenario here I think if Eyespot and Current could partner up. Imagine, the possibilities if a 17-year-old needed footage of a hopping club scene for his T-mobile spot, and couldn't afford the location, and wasn't old enough to get inside and sneak the footage. Eyespot has that and much much more at your fingertips. The end game in the video space is always to encourage expression in engaging ways and gain new content providers.
The V Cam program at Current, http://www.currenttv.com/make/vc2/vcam, is designed to drive users (Current calls them Viewers) to create enticing advertising content for Current's sponsors with the potential for some real money if ads were theoretically used in conjunction with internet, broadcast, Current TV, cable, and satellite, or even a Super Bowl jumbo tron.
I downloaded a particular sponsors logo from Current for use as an end tag, per Current's instructions, then decided to post the logo to my account at Eyespot where I edited the sponsor's logo within a 30 sec. spot I created mixing Eyespot content. The content on Eyespot is made available through Creative Commons (Attr. 2.5) which means that: others may copy, distribute, display and perform your content, and to make derivative works and commercial use of your content without paying any royalties to you. However, users are required to acknowledge your authorship and may only reuse or distribute your content under the same Creative Commons License. Nutshell, user-submitted clips and mixes are free game as long as the C.C. is honored in any distribution.
The conundrum is that since advertising doesn't provide end credits or acknowledges authorship, that I am aware of, one cannot really honor the C.C Attribution 2.5 in this case. I will admit that I took a very easy approach to Current's challenge of creating viewer generated advertising. I cut together the content at Eyespot in about an hour, and didn't have to shoot anything. There was also zero cost. I was really just experimenting with the entire process. I could be way off base using Eyespot to create a commercial, but their Terms and Conditions say it's okay as long as the Creative Commons license is in place. I have an e-mail out to Current awaiting response that addresses the question of Creative Commons. I will report what I learn from that response.
In the meantime, of course, I am thinking of creative ways to produce sole proprietor content for Current's V Cam program. I do think this raises an important issue. Eyespot is making it possible for people to make derivative works of anything they wish to, as long as the clips and mixes are not premium content and that Creative Commons license is engaged. The clips made available at Eyespot are very tantalizing for the purpose of cutting together commercials. Especially for the internet. Take a look at the site and see for yourself.
There is a win-win scenario here I think if Eyespot and Current could partner up. Imagine, the possibilities if a 17-year-old needed footage of a hopping club scene for his T-mobile spot, and couldn't afford the location, and wasn't old enough to get inside and sneak the footage. Eyespot has that and much much more at your fingertips. The end game in the video space is always to encourage expression in engaging ways and gain new content providers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
