Twitter to launch advertising platform

Today, MediaPost.com reported that the much anticipated Twitter advertising platform will be launching in about a month. This announcement comes less than six months after Twitter raised $100mm at a rumored $1bn valuation.

I’m wondering what types of ads might accompany aplusk’s insights (aplusk is Ashton Kutcher’s handle, folks). Somebody notify the makers of ShamWow.

Most of what is twat (okay, tweeted) into the tweetosphere is probably mindless garbage, but Twitter will soon be turning such waste into cold hard twash. On Monday, Twitter posted a compelling graphic on the company’s blog that illustrates the explosion in tweets per day. The company is currently running at 50mm tweets per day. According to an October study, the average twitter has 42 followers. It’s difficult to put a number on the advertising opportunity, but just for fun:

It will be interesting to see what advertisers will pay for. Even if a mere fraction of tweets can be monetized Twitter can very quickly turn a tidy profit.

How do you Internet: Facebook #1 in Content-Sharing

http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1007530

I find it fascinating that according to the emarketer article linked above, that most shared content (besides via email) is trafficked through Facebook (44% to be exact). It seems that the social media platform is the new digital portal by which most internet users share, converse, and interact. I bet the folks at AOL aren't too happy...given that they had first mover advantage in the medium.

It's interesting to see how a site that started as a facebook for college students to connect with each other has grown into the monster that we know today. Facebook not only has a newsfeed from individuals from your social graph, but also includes a marketplace that rivals craigslist and the capability to cyber stalk with startlingly precise accuracy.

It begs the question, is Facebook losing touch with it's core competency (and as a consequence with its core user)? Or is it moving beyond social media to become the new dominant net portal?

Looking back to the good ol' days of AOL dial up and all the things that made it dynamic, you can see that Facebook is now fine tuning those exact functionalities for a modern era (e.g chat, email, forums, etc.) with the added benefit of a status update newsfeed. As Facebook becomes more of a web destination from which users explore the interwebs, it moves farther from its roots. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, especially from a revenue generating standpoint.

I think that in the next five to ten years, Facebook will either become the portal that AOL never could, or it will share in the fate of its competitors and be replaced by the new kid on the block. It all depends on how well FB caters to its current users, and how far it goes on the path of selling out to corporate profitability.

Thoughts on the Freemium model

As I continue to develop a mobile application, I have been spending a lot of time over the last year trying to determine how to best generate revenues from it. I have been interested in the Freemium business model from the outset but somehow I was never really sure if it was appropriate for my situation.

For those not comfortable with the term "Freemium", it stands for the practice of offering basic web services or basic downloadable software for free and then charging a premium for advanced or special features.

As an active user of digital media and services, I have come across a lot of premium offerings and I strongly believe that some of these are certainly more appropriate and successful than others. I believe that in general one or two of the following situations have to apply:

(i) Either a service or software needs to generate a lot of users for the basic model at virtually no cost (e.g. word of mouth) so that only a small percentage of the customers needs to be willing to choose the premium service for the company to be profitable. Good examples of such companies in my opinion are Skype and Pandora which both have a very large user base but only minority of the users pay for premium services.

(ii) The premium features of a software or web service either trigger a strong interest or address a major inconvenience for the user so that he is inclined to pay for the additional features. However, in this instance it is extremely important to consider the price sensitivity of the consumer as he is paying for a feature that he has not experienced yet personally. Also, it is important that the users are interested enough in downloading the basic application in the first place (i.e. it can not be too limited). A good example for this in recent weeks was the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition application for the iPhone. The application was free to download on the appstore but only included a limited amount of content (i.e. pictures despite the fact that the app was not labeled as a lite version. Once downloaded, the user realizes that not all the pictures are available and the application asks the user if he wants to upgrade to the full-version for small fee of $1.99. I certainly believe that this is an effective use of the Freemium model.

Regulatory approval of MSFT/YHOO search deal goes unnoticed

On February 18th, MSFT and YHOO issued a joint announcement that the DoJ and European commission had approved the companies search deal. According to the press release, “implementation of the deal is expected to begin in the coming days,” and is likely well underway. The 10 yr commercial agreement makes MSFT (Bing) the back end algorithm / paid search provider. MSFT will absorb over $600mm in search related opex over the next several quarters.

MSFT and YHOO gaining regulatory say-so has received little press since the announcement. It’s possible that there was little doubt the deal would be approved. It is also possible that we have dismissed the partnership as yet another futile attempt to stop the unstoppable. We’re all a bit google-y-eyed for Google.

Google is unquestionably deserving of our awe; however, the MSFT/YHOO partnership should not be dismissed. According to comScore’s January search data, MSFT and YHOO combined represent 28.3% market share versus Google’s 65.4%. The data also show that Google’s share contracted month-to-month by 30bps, while MSFT (Bing) expanded by 60 bps. Internet users are increasingly typing queries into Bing.

MSFT isn’t sexy, but to state the obvious, the company has made a fair amount of coin selling desktop software. Last year, MSFT generated $24bn of EBITDA after investing $16bn in R&D. MSFT has $33bn in cash. This compares to $10bn of EBITDA and $3bn of R&D at Google. One could argue that differences in numbers of this magnitude are inconsequential – my point is that MSFT is a formidable competitor, and Google, as market leader, has more to lose. Also, let’s not forget that a certain Mountain View company once powered YHOO’s search.

MOG - A new model for digital music

A new music service has emerged that may finally nail the model for online music distribution. MOG is an online music service that originally started out as a blog that linked members together based on similar musical tastes. It is supported by all four major labels, and may have perfected the balance between allowing users to select what they want to hear (ala Rhapsody) vs. selecting it for them based on related content (ala Pandora).

This service has a unique "slider" feature that allows users to build their own playlists of content so that they can freely select what they want to listen to and then use a slider to add related content to a playlist to create a more radio like listening experience. The related content is based on a unique relationship engine that seems to base related music on what other users who like the same artist or song also like. This is different than how Pandora's engine works which is largely driven by analysts who draw relationships from music in a more scientific fashion.

While MOG's new service is exciting, they are still lacking mobile listening option for iPhones, Androids or Blackberries. It is also a browser based service that does not have the same features and performance characteristics as a desktop client player like Spotify. It does seem to get the job done, but it would be nice to have more powerful client like functionality to organize playlists and search for music.

MOG's new service is called "All Access" and is offered by subscription only for a mere $5 per month. They offer free trials of 2 hours with no credit card obligation and a 7 day free trial if you are willing to submit your credit card info and run the risk that it will convert to a paid service if you forget to cancel. There is no "Freemium" option right out of the gate which may make this platform very attractive to the Major Labels, who can see a clear revenue model not driven by ads.

With the major label backing, compelling features and a paid subscription model, MOG may have all the right elements of a successful service. It will just need to get its mobile solution to the market fast.

Are online B2B Exchanges Dead?

Everyone is familiar with many of the C2C exchanges, such as Ebay, Craigslist, PayPal, etc. and equally as familiar with B2C marketplaces, such as Amazon, Kayak, iTunes, etc. But what about the market for B2B? What's going on there?

Back during the tech boom, dozens of companies tried to create online B2B exchanges (imagine Ebay for used office equipment), but most of them failed miserably. Why is that? Well, after researching dozens of failed startups, it seems that most of these exchanges failed to realize that business all have their own internal processes and use ERP systems that could range in anything from SAP to NetSuite to Quickbooks. All of these systems couldn't talk to each other... so, some poor chap sitting in a cubicle had to key in data from a website into a spreadsheet (which we all know is how big business are really still run today anyway).

Well, since 1999 something has changed... welcome API. An application programming interface allows not only Facebook users to connect with Twitter, it also allows small businesses to connect with FedEx, banks, and suppliers, etc.

My theory... there is now a whole spank of opportunity in creating B2B exchanges. In fact, I'm going to let everyone else keep trying to give away free media content to lazy consumers while me and my buddies go make some real doughnut money.

Wal-Mart buys VUDU Online Movie Service

Wal-Mart one of the largest brick-and-mortar retailers is making a major move into the business of selling movies over the Internet.

Wal-Mart announced this Monday its recent agreement to buy Vudu Movie Service, Silicon Valley startup that built high-definition televisions and Blu-ray players.

The price has not been discovered but it seems that the retail giant will pay over $100 million to get into the online movie service. There were other companies such as Best Buy, Amazon.com and Comcast that also expressed its interest to acquire that company.

But how does this acquisition is aligned to Wal-Mart strategy? Does Wal-Mart has started a slowly movement to online business retail?

Well Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retailers of DVDs in the US. However, there is a tendency of customers to prefer an easiest way to rent or acquire movies. Also, we can see a tendency of customers shifting from physical DVDs to watching movies over the internet. In this scenario, Amazon.com and Netflix are starting to gain considerable market share. Apple is another major competitor, selling movies and TV shows alongside music in its iTunes store.

In the other hand, Wal-Mart hasn’t developed a distribution channel or an efficient way to distribute movies to people’s home. The acquisition of Vudu Moving Service will allow Wal-Mart to sell products (televisions and Blu-ray players) with the internet connections. Wal-Mart then could sell its online movies and shows, bypassing their traditional cable or satellite service.

This might be Wal-Mart’s first step to the on-line business, However it is probably that they start using this channel to sell a variety of other products through people’s televisions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/technology/23video.html?ref=technology

Google Is On A Shopping Spree...

When Google goes on an acquisition spree, people notice. Google recently announced that it is purchasing Teracent, which is a startup company that specializes in a method to create display ads that are optimized in real-time. Essentially, "Teracent’s targeting platform can takes thousands of elements from a display ad and then regroup them instantly based on various factors, like the geographic location of a website visitor or the past behavior of ad viewers." I find this technology intriguing and can only imagine that advertising technology will continue to grow in sophistication. Teracent's website claims that the company is trying to blend "the art of advertising with the science of measurability." I believe this is an important statement because it emphasizes that online advertising is useless without the science of measurability. It is on this scientific level that I believe we will see groundbreaking innovations over the next couple years.

As Teracent claims, it is no longer necessary to rotate the same five flash ads. Instead, online advertising technology will continue to evolve so that the impact of each impression is maximized. Who would have thought five years ago that we would have companies like Teracent using machine learning technology to select the optimal creative elements for each ad impression based on a real-time analysis of which items will convert from impressions into sales! I am excited to see what the industry comes up with next.

One High School Student's Opinion on Online Dating

I came upon this article posted on TDN.com "The Daily News Online, Serving the Lower Columbia" authored by a student at a local high school. This student who was featured as part of the online journal's "promote young writers" program aptly titled her article: "Technology, Dating A Good Mix?". Her opinions and views about online dating is rather cynical and grim. The reason this article caught my attention was because I have recently been wondering if majority of future marriages will be via the Internet. If this one Briana Tift represents a typical young adult, thenthe online dating industry needs to start focusing part of its resources into public relations. It's image in this potential future customer's mind is that online dating is unsafe and doesn't work. The number of paid and free membership on dating sites have been growing over the past few years - research suggest that online dating is definitely more popular then ever. So who are the new subscribers?

Rhapsody Renaissance

The news hit the tape about two weeks ago that Real Networks’ Rhapsody music service is to be spun off as an independent company.

In some circles, this is being viewed as a proof that subscription model of music distribution is not working. Others have cited Steve Jobs’ statement that “When you rent stuff, in the end you're left with nothing."

As a die-hard Rhapsody fan since 2003, I’m disappointed by the news that Rhapsody hasn’t been the music industry panacea I envisioned way back when.

I still have faith in Rhapsody and the subscription model in general as the best legal means of discovering and enjoying new music. I’ll limit my argument to the case of pop music, a genre I know well, and a crucial source of music industry profits:

• Top 40 pop music is a rapidly decaying commodity, in other words, songs are introduced, get popular very quickly, then disappear. Every 2 months there are introduced probably 20 new songs which I enjoy hearing, but which I would not want to spend $20-$30 to acquire on iTunes

• I can rarely decide whether a song is worth buying on first listen, it took at least 5 listens of Lady Gaga’s “Bad Romance” to convince me it was a keeper

• Rather than buy a bunch of songs and find that I only enjoy half of them, why not rent them with the reasonable confidence that when I want to listen to them again, I can

• Beyond Top 40 pop, I have a lingering interest in keeping tabs on a handful of rock / punk genres. The way I’m discovering music nowadays is by going through Spin magazine periodically, and populating my Rhapsody playlist with any bands that seem interesting. This “Try before you buy” concept doesn’t really exist in iTunes. Once again, it takes far more than 30 second song clips for me to determine that I truly love a band’s album

• Even when I truly love a Top 40 single or a new rock album, what’s the point of buying instead of renting? I pay an extra $3 a month for my Rhapsody subscription so that I can access my library on my iPhone. Granted, an AT&T connection is pretty rough for streaming music, but the phone’s WiFi capability allows me to access my library in an ever increasing number of environments.

If I had to guess, it will be the proliferation of WiFi and the improvement of cellular networks that provide subscription music services their second act. A friend just raved about the joys of WiFi enabled planes. Can we not envision a not too distant future where media-quality internet access is available in 99% of the instances where we wish to listen to music? When that becomes the case, $15 a month to rent songs might not seem so bad after all. . .

How to monetize Intelligent Information?

With the success of ad-supported revenue models, it’s easy to think the future of online information is free to consumers. We’re accustomed to Google searches, Hulu videos, and online newspapers for free. However, intelligent information that’s digitally-delivered still commands a high price.

There’s a lot of information on the Internet but that doesn’t mean it’s credible or useful. According to Nielson Ratings, the Office of the CIA, and Serverwatch, the collective reasoning is that just over one billion people use the Internet. Said differently, the Internet has a population of one billion people. Considering frequent usage (at least once per week), the Internet population is roughly 500 million.

Additionally, Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) claims that there is over five million terabytes of data on the Internet, of which Google indexes roughly 200 terabytes. That’s about .004%!

The estimate for the number of websites on the Internet is 155 million. It’s tough to decide on this number as each person’s social profile page is part of a larger domain but might be considered singular and other caveats like that.

There’s far too much information to digest. For the professional customer, it’s difficult to find information that improves performance. If a company can offer intelligent information to professionals, the revenue potential is quite large. If we look at two companies that provide intelligent information to businesses, we can analyze different revenue models. For this exercise, let’s consider Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters.

According to Alexa.com, Bloomberg has a traffic rank of 264 in the United States with over 36,000 sites linking to its service while Thomson Reuters has a traffic rank of 7,960 in the United States with roughly 1,7500 sites linking to its service.

It looks like Bloomberg is well ahead. However, as I considered the homepage strategy, the two companies varied drastically. Bloomberg offers a prominent search box for professionals to easily look up equities and bonds on the market. It’s provided for free and supported by advertising. This is the “freemium” revenue model with additional subscription services for higher-value information. Thomson Reuters doesn’t offer free information above the fold of the homepage and relies almost exclusively on its subscription revenue model.

Shifting to revenue, Bloomberg generated $5.4 billion annual revenue and Thomson Reuters generated $11 billion.

Since both companies specialize in offering intelligent information in a digital form, it looks like the future isn’t shifting to “freemium.” Bloomberg’s significant advantage in traffic doesn’t translate to a revenue advantage. Most likely, many professionals and consumers visit Bloomberg for its free financial tools, but may not click on ads or subscribe to additional for-pay services. Conversely, Thomson Reuters hosts its online financial tools behind a “pay wall” and continues to perform well.

While this is a drastic simplification of the products and services offered by each company, I believe a strong conclusion is that companies that can provide credible and useful online content do not need to shift to the lowest common denominator of free ad-supported content.

Should we really trust online content?

I was very impressed with the success of Thrillist and the talk we had in class. How could you not be? reaching 8 figure revenues and profitability after 4 years in business is very impressive.

The one thing I was less impressed with was the site's ethical standards and control over its writers. We repeatedly asked the founder about that, and I found his answers to be quite evasive. To be honest, it's not the end of the world in Thrillist's case. The worst case scenario is basically a writer receiving some payment in exchange for a favorable review, which would lead to one mediocre night out for a reader that followed the recommendation.

Nevertheless, the general idea bothers me. Should I trust the stuff I read online? I'm always suspicious of gushing Yelp reviews, but should I trust Thrillist? or even Techcrunch?

http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/04/an-apology-to-our-readers/

This story from a few weeks back is just one example of what I believe to be a very common issue. Thrillist's founder may have said that he trusts all writers are honest and that editors are able to monitor them, but I remain unconvinced. Let's not forget that a minute later he spoke about the non-compensation perks of the job, which apparently include "Sleeping with PR girls."

Again, no biggie when discussing Thrillist. The issue is that branded content overall is a hot topic in advertising now, be it in TV or online. My fear is that soon we won't be able to tell the difference anymore.

Jonathan Shulman

Foursquare lets people know where you are...even burglars.

Foursquare is a location based application that acts as a social network with gaming elements mixed in. The purpose of this game is to "check-in" when you arrive at a venue such as a restaurant or a bar, letting everyone in your network know where you are. As a user, once you check into a venue a certain number of times, you are awarded a badge for that venue, letting everyone in your network that you frequent that establishment. The service has been growing quickly as of late, as the application currently generates a million "check-ins" per week.

While it is clear that Foursquare is on to something with their location based social game, a few concerns over privacy have arisen in the last few weeks. In fact, a recent application launched in the app store called "Please Rob Me", which according to TechCrunch is "a stream of updates from various location-based networks that shows when users check-in somewhere that is not their home. The idea, of course, is that if they’re not home, you can go rob them."While this application is more about poking fun at the movement towards location based applications, it does bring up a serious question about privacy. Unfortunately, a potential byproduct of letting a broad group of people know of your whereabouts is the possibility that a member of that group could use that information for nefarious purposes.

I think a possible reaction from this negative publicity could be a pullback in how far people choose to extend their social networks. During the Facebook craze of the last few years, the tendency has been for users to "friend" as many people as possible in order to create a large network. However, the introduction of location based platforms may put a new premium on privacy and control. Users may start to decide that it is not smart to tell a group of 500 or 1,000 people where they are eating, as the downside in that situation may outweigh the upside. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out but I think this notion of privacy within a social network will start to become even more of hot button issue with the roll out of applications like Foursquare.

CBS May Be Making Online TV Even Cheaper

In a move that could spell even lower value perception by consumers for online media content, Mashable reports that CBS's Les Moonves is hinting that the price point for television programs may be lowered to $0.99 saying, "There are certain shows that will be sold on Apple for 99 cents."

The question is whether this shift, which Apple's iTunes has been pushing for, will be followed by other TV content providers. If so, as consumers shift more to watching content online and the value of commercials on traditional cable and network outlets becomes less and less, where will the money to create this content come from? And where will this democratization of content creaton lead the industry? How will we ever be able to produce such quality content such as Survivor and Fear Factor on 99 cents an episode?

Are Telecoms Going Crazy? CBS CEO Wants to Charge Google.

Cesar Alierta, CBS 1970 and CEO of Telefonica (the second biggest telecom in the world), said last week that it was only a matter of time that webs such as Google start to be required to distribute some of their benefits to the telecom networks. Under Alierta’s point of view it is not fair that Telecoms make huge investments in infrastructure (i.e. broadband installation, networks…) for low returns, whereas webs such as Google leverage and collapse those networks to make higher profits.
This statement is to be taken very seriously. If the big networks start charging webs that generate humongous traffic, that would definitely erase the web world (or at least change it dramatically). Although I would agree that this is unlikely to happen, just remember: “these companies have deep pockets and my use it for lobby…”

On the lighter side... Search Marketing

Another way to optimize your search marketing....

“Microsoft’s Creative Destruction”: are they right?

A recent NYT article by former Microsoft VP Dick Brass has caused quite a stir, as he expressed the opinion that Microsoft is on a declining path, describing the company as a “clumsy, uncompetitive innovator”. With the iPad, the kindle, the Blackberry, iPhone, Google, iPod iTunes, Facebook and Twitter taking over the tech industry, Dick Brass wonders where this leaves Microsoft and how long it can continue being considered “America’s most famous and prosperous technology company”. He argues that while the company’s earnings are still huge (totaling over $100 billion over the last 10 years), these are mostly derived from software programs (ie Windows and Office) that were developed many years ago and cannot sustain the company in the future if it doesn’t catch up.

To support his position, Dick Brass elaborates on how the introduction of middle management and bureaucracy has killed innovation at Microsoft, and gives examples from the development of the Tablet PC and the ClearType technology. To quote his exact words, “Internal competition is common at great companies. It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete. The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive. At Microsoft, it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams, belittle their efforts, compete unfairly against them for resources, and over time hector them out of existence… As a result, while the company has had a truly amazing past and an enviably prosperous present, unless it regains its creative spark, it's an open question whether it has much of a future.”

Microsoft’s official response to this through the Microsoft Blog was that “at the highest level, we think about innovation in relation to its ability to have a positive impact in the world. For Microsoft, it is not sufficient to simply have a good idea, or a great idea, or even a cool idea. We measure our work by its broad impact… Now, you could argue that this should have happened faster. And sometimes it does. But for a company whose products touch vast numbers of people, what matters is innovation at scale, not just innovation at speed.”

This however is only part of the picture. According to other critics (one of them being technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg), Microsoft’s main problem is poor alignment of vision and execution. The company seems to have adopted a pattern of releasing technology and products that are too far ahead of their time. For example ClearType technology worked well only on LCD displays, but was released at a time when CRT monitors were the norm. The vision was there, but the technology to make it work in the marketplace was simply not mature and could not match the vision. Other such examples are products like Portable Media Center, Origami / UMPC, Media Center and Tablet PC and SPOT devices.

Another part of the problem is a historic preference to develop (highly profitable) software without undertaking (highly risky) hardware. While this however made economic sense when the company was founded in 1975, it caused the company to be viewed as “a successful company whose success stems from monopolistic anti-competitive practices”, and lead to the notorious antitrust prosecution and settlement from which the image of the company has still not recovered. An understandable caution from the part of the company could therefore be another factor that is slowing them down.

Whatever the case and whatever the reasons behind this lack of innovation on the part of Microsoft, the question that remains is whether it can continue being “America’s most famous and prosperous technology company”. Innovation does not automatically equal success in the market, nor customer satisfaction; the contrary, a company doing a better job at conventional ideas could even kick the innovator out of the market. But can this continue to be the case with technology moving so fast? Dick Brass seems to be of the view that without high risk innovative hardware products, it becomes more and more difficult to not only create but also participate in a technology market which is increasingly dominated by tightly integrated and beautifully designed products.

While the former VP may have a point, it is notable that during last year’s TechFest, Stephen Elop, Microsoft's Business Division President, presented the company’s vision of the future, a glimpse of which can be found in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1haMQxyhjwk
What overall may look like a computing utopia to some of us, according to Elop represents the company’s currently active projects. Is this a step towards innovation? And if yes, can they get it right this time or will the company for once more repeat the pattern of being ahead of its time? And will Dick Brass be proven right claiming that the company’s bureaucracy is a dead end towards creative destruction?

Bringing celebrities closer through social networking sites.

Not too long ago, celebrities’ images were primarily built up by hired spokespeople, who carefully crafted public personas that may or may not have reflected the real person behind the public mask. If you read something written or said by your favorite celeb – chances are there was a clever PR person behind just about every word.

But now celebrities have their own Facebook and Twitter and YouTube accounts, and though professionals may be behind some of the content, it seems that the new medium gets the best of even the most untouchable people. After a few drinks (or more substantive matter), celebrities seem to log in and fill the Internet with rubbish that few PR people could have dreamt up. It’s pretty certain, for example, that songwriters like Amy Winehouse and John Mayer write their own Tweets and updates. And though it’s possible that the Lindsay Lohans of the world pay people to write their tweets, the content is often so a) unimpressive or b) potentially damaging to the star’s self-image (someone always seems to be doing damage control the next day) that it’s hard to imagine it could be intentional.

Could it be that celebrities now have small armies of image-guards whose job is to not only deal with the aftershocks of shameful public appearances, but also to patch up the public images after celebrities take matters into their own hands online? Is the free online marketing medium helping or hurting celebrities – or is any PR good PR, and any close contact with fans a relationship-builder?

Olympics and Digital Rights Management

I'm not really a big Olympics fan. I don't particularly care to spend time watching entire events for the few moments that I might actually find interesting, so I sort of tune the whole thing out. However, the other day, I saw a news update that Shaun White just won the gold medal in the men's snowboarding halfpipe event. The news piece only included a picture, but I wanted to see the actual winning run - which only lasts about 30 seconds, so I searched Youtube for it. It wasn't there. Shaun's victory was only a few hours old - if that, so I assumed the footage hadn't been uploaded yet, and I moved on. A day later, I decide to check again but only found: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by International Olympic Committee." Huh?

It turns out that the footage (which is worth checking out if you're interested in snowboarding) is only available here at nbcolympics.com. I was interested to figure out why it was so tightly controlled. I can't imagine how many Olympic videos are uploaded to Youtube all the time, monitoring the whole thing must require a huge amount of time and effort and I can't imagine it's worth the fight.

As I looked around for info on this, I sort of opened a can of worms. Apparently the Olympics and digital rights management has a history as long as the format has been around, and there are all sorts of issues. In previous Olympics, there were problems when social media would announce results and post information before the local NBC affiliates got a chance to run their tape-delayed prime time events due to time zone issues.

Before the Vancouver Olympics started last week, there was an issue with the death of a luger during his training run - this provided the kind of dramatic content that news and social media outlets can't get enough of.

The Olympics have yet to officially begin, but the first real "event" has certainly occurred. Georgian Luger Nodar Kumaritashvili has suffered a horrific crash in a training run, and the news, including video is being passed through the social web with exceptional virulence. The IOC, notorious for brand control, is attempting to pull down video of the event, but many videos are slipping through, as YouTubers furiously click the Yellow upload button to spread the content.

In his article for the Seattle Times Blogger Brier Dudley suggests the tightening of controls are simply a preview of what's coming from media companies as they explore ways to charge for online content.

Don't expect an online utopia, free from the shackles that networks, cable companies and the Olympics organizers put on event coverage. Although the technology for streaming video is getting better, it's also enabling content owners to apply more restrictions and controls to online video... For the first time, viewers will have to prove that they subscribe to premium-cable service to access "live and full-event replay video." During previous Olympic Games, you only had to provide a Zip code to identify yourself as a cable customer. This time, you've got to register for access through your cable or satellite company, which checks to see that you have a cable package that includes MSNBC and CNBC... It's basically the cable model extending to the Web, where improved authentication systems enable broadcasters to limit the really good stuff to paying subscribers. If this is what NBC does now, I can't wait to see what it's like after Comcast finishes acquiring the network.

As the internet becomes a more realistic alternative to cable television, it will be interesting to see where the networks and traditional content providers go with their digital rights management. I'm sure the music industry's precedent will alert content providers to the importance of content rights as cable becomes only one of a handful of ways to access this content.

Vampires learning to play nice

The ongoing struggle between newspaper publishers and aggregators has been widely publicized. Often outspoken internet-entrepreneur-turned-NBA-owner Mark Cuban is often quoted for having called aggregators vampires and calling on content creators to grow a pair and start charging the parasitic crawlers for the privilege of republishing. It’s not quite that simple. Unlike Bram Stoker’s vampires, content producers (who generate most of their revenue from online advertising) actually need aggregators to stay connected to the search-driven web.

Recently, several online newspapers have implemented paywalls (WSJ) or announced an intention to start charging consumers for content (NYT). However, why would a consumer purchase an online subscription if the articles could be accessed via Google. Until recently, the aggregators were in the drivers’ seat. But things are changing and publishers are taking bold steps to grow online subscription business.

Recently, Google announced it would provide a modified version of its First-Click-Free scheme whereby it limits the number of free articles a reader can access per day. Google is actually implementing something similar to a metered pay model the NYT will be rolling out next year.

While the aggregators certainly have the upper hand, it is likely that content providers will have more victories over the coming years. After all, what is a search engine without content?