Showing posts with label video content. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video content. Show all posts

Friday, February 19, 2010

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?

Thursday, February 11, 2010

very long rant including commentary on mobile video content, the Google universe, and other stuff

I like to say that media is the love of my life. When I was a kid, I produced my own magazine, neurotically manipulating the capacity of my mom's Brother word processor to make my impact on the national trade of ideas, trends, and cool advertisements. It still remains easier for me to follow reading that is paired with images than the kind that stands alone, and the thing about the internet is that you can read next a movie or an animation or a 3D billboard.

When I came to New York to be in publishing, I really was trying to get a head-start on my now foggy ideal of men's handheld magazine. I wanted to do men's because the space gets better editors and no limits. It would have interactive cover shoots, top five convo starters for the most likely life scenario of the moment ("top five ways to make a lunch hour a happy half-day," "top five ways to make a dates out of one"), and improved news delivery. All on the cell phone. The problem was that only Asia and a bit of Europe was on the smart phone.

Now I've moved on to thinking about how to get 200 hours of video content on a thumb drive and convince people to pay 89.99 for it. I think its the best way to get more profits into independent productions and more love behind cult classic programming. It's exciting because while MTV has coined the term vee-jay, no one's really ran with it.

If you love deejays, which is to say, if you love music, you know that a good one will start you off where you want to be and take you were you never could have imagined finding love. For instance, I'm Beyonce lover.

As the deejay, you start me off with "Baby Boy," then you mix in some classic Biggie, an allusion to the label Bad Boy, with Junior Mafia's "Player's Anthem," (you know the iconic lead-in 'duh duh-duh-duh duh-duh-duh duh'), then more 90s hip-hop/R&B, to Prince's "Starfish & Coffee," which rolls into Mary J. Blige's "Real Love," and on the fade out do the big spook, Nine Inch Nail's "Closer." You have to throw your hands up because it was sick, and from there, the deejay's got you rocking out to Ray Charles, Hendrix, the Ronettes, John Mayer, Chubby Checker, Dolly Parton, Bo Diddley, and then dropping you back where thought you were going, Rihanna and Lady Gaga.

That's a good deejay. I paid $30 to go to Stevie Wonderful over the summer, because I've been meaning to for years, because the word is that the deejays are so nice...and I NEVER pay to dance. But I will if the programming is beyond what I can do with my own iTunes. It was unbelievable. It's so good that the man himself crashed two years ago because what they do to his music is for lovers only.

But to my point, imagine if someone could start you off with "Arrested Development," follow it up with some "Family Guy," put in some old "Chappelle Show" followed by "The Daily Show," then some "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," then an old school "MTV News Alert," then the classic film "Trading Places," followed by some "24," "Cities of the Underworld," "Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations," the classic Eddie Murphy in a tight red leather suit stand up, "Diddy's Making the Band 12," two hours of music videos while news and finance tickers ran atop the screen, "Wendy Williams Show," and a classic episode of "Fresh Prince" or a series of best of Sesame Street sing-a-longs, before the morning edition of "Anderson Cooper 360."

I want to bundle the most arousing video content experiences and sell them on key cards because while you can get on the internet at anytime, I don't think that people will want to need to be connected to the internet or reliant on the traffic.

Someone suggested to me that this is what the iPad can do, but I'm for no knew appliances. Maybe the key-card lets you sign in to the video content web, and you can be your own programmer. But I'd rather become the world's best veejay, broadening the audiences the exhibitors at Sundance and Tribeca and exploiting the profit capabilities of niche markets. (Note: while niche is a horrible idea for social networking, i.e. the non-difference between BlackPlanet and Facebook, I know it is a hit with television, i.e. "Arrested Development" should not have been canceled and could have been a hit if it we're expected to serve everyday and was expected to serve the optimal amount of people who be obsessed and pay to feed their fanaticism.

But I'll end my rant with this: I used to believe that my real friends are gchat, while my public is Facebook. I'm not sure how I feel about Google Buzz, or why I signed on to be taken there, but I expect that, paired with the Google label internet, I will be a citizen of the Googlobe and I will begin to participate in the annoyances of citizenship that I never expected. I will pay Google taxes and perform Google service. I will sell myself, or at least my name, for money. I will send my kids to college based on how many ads my private email sells. My husband with be insecure about the fact I refuse to comment on my relationship status before people I do not really know how I feel about knowing. I will live life like its an old school television program or "The Truman Show," holding up a bottle of Coke in the middle of my work day to profess via video chat that it is, in fact, always refreshing, always Coca-Cola. And the rainbow flag will no longer be synonymous with gay rights; it will be the right to Google.

Back in 1994 , I thought I'd be (@AIM) starfishur forever. I'm smarter now; I'll be IP address until my computer breaks, buying 8 inch laptops that I can pull out the attached 3D glasses to talk to my mom because I really want to relive the myriad of time spent not having my own life. That was sarcasm. That was to say, I kind of don't mind losing my privacy as long as my mom is the one watching me.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Should we be paying for online content?

This recent articleby Catherine New, posted on the Columbia Business School homepage, brought up some interesting insights as to the future of content on the internet.

Catherine details the growing possibility that online content providers will begin charging for their services. While many of these sites, such as Hulu.com, offer ad-supported content, where viewers must sit through various video advertisements around the featured content including prerolls and overlays, a new subscription model may be emerging. Because there are so many other sites where content can be accessed for free, like youtube.com, New wonders what "necessary value" these sites could offer in order to convince web surfers to pay for content that they are traditionally used to accessing for free.

This is related to the same issue that I previously posted about on the music industry - how can you convince people to pay for things that they feel that they should receive for free? The "necessary value" might be faster upload speeds, no advertisements, or higher quality content (at least when it comes to video). But is this something that customers are willing to pay for? And if so, how much?

I am skeptical that a paid content site will be able to gain traction - at least not yet. While the amount of content accessed via the web is large and growing fast, the broadband infrastructure needed support to support high quality video, which is much larger in size than the cheap-looking, compressed content on sites like youtube, is not yet in place. Secondly, users may want to "own" the content that they pay for much like paying for a DVD. Until internet video is on equal ground with cable TV, I doubt whether such a model will be successful.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Lost Ad Revenue

I kept CNN playing in the background while I was working on class project today. As I listened intermittently, I heard the segment about Susan Boyle’s defeat yesterday on the British television show, "Britain's Got Talent".  Her fans seemed to be disappointed, but others should be for a different reason.

Several weeks ago, the American media hype about the unlikely contestant’s performance on the show generated over 20 million views online. The video clips of Susan Boyle’s performance has made her a worldwide internet sensation. Her performance on  "Britain's Got Talent" was one of the most viewed videos on You Tube ever, but the producers of the show have not been able to capitalize on the success of the of the internet viewership worldwide. The primary reason is the producers of the show did not roll out online video strategy and the second reason is the video uploads to You Tube were done illegally, so no advertising revenue streams were generated. The video host as well as the content provider missed out on a significant advertising revenue stream. 

So why do many  video content providers  fail to execute on a strategy to generate online revenue streams as video advertising has become one of the fastest growing advertising mediums? One reason may be the producers are concerned with the cannibalization of TV advertizing dollars as more TV viewer convert to online viewers. One solution could be to broadcast original programming on TV and in syndication upload online. Another approach may be to upload original programming online to target a secondary geographic market.  Moreover, established content producers view online broadcasting as  experimental and do not quite understand what works effectively. Besides, one could argue that there are no established revenue models for online video.

As for Susan she still has a chance capitalize on this phenomenon and perhaps land projects such as a book deal, recording contract or a movie about her life.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

New content through mobile broadcasting

One of the new trends appeared about one year ago is mobile online live streaming application. Over a fast internet connection, videos can be broadcasted from a mobile phone (with video capability of course) live to the internet. Users can broadcast to friends, blogs, and social networks as well as then interact with their viewers via mobile application. Flixwagon is the currently the leader, offering live video streaming service not only with a 3G or WiFi enabled phones (e.g. Nokia and Sony Erickson handsets) but also on iPhone. Its main competitor is Qik followed by other players such as Kyte.tv and Bambuser.com.

How do they work? Both Qik and Flixwagon require online registration on websites and afterwards an application can be installed onto the handset, all for free. There are some differences on functionality, for example Qik has the option to repost videos to download back to PC. Qik has another advantage over its competitor because offers the possibility to copy the video not only on to YouTube or Facebook as Flixwagon offers – but also to other sites such as Blogger, Mogulus, Pounce, Mobuzz.tv. Both websites have a video archive where all videos posted are stored. Social features are enhanced by Twitter, Qik and Flixwagon use it to alert friends and them directly to the video. Furthermore, chat rooms from both Qik and Flixwagon are offered to allow viewers to send messages to users’ mobile handsets.

Mobile broadcasting offers interesting business opportunities for traditional media companies and mobile carriers. It allows carriers to create new revenue streams and increase customer loyalty. On the other side, also media companies and TV broadcasters can benefit by receiving high quality live video broadcasting of news or entertainment, from any location around the world.

Since February 2008, Flixwagon has signed a partnership with MTV as content provider and is currently exploring other partnerships with media companies.

Mobile broadcasting market is still young and not too crowded but is growing rapidly. Future potential can be exploited and accelerated further by bandwidth increases and enhanced mobile handsets. Stay tuned.

Isabella

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Onitsuka Tiger's Zodiac Race Campaign



Onitsuka Tiger is a premium sneaker brand based in Japan and currently held by ASICS. To celebrate its 60th Anniversary, it introduces the Spring/Summer collection and launches a global '' Cycle of Life'' campaign in Feb. The idea is coming from the ancient legend that the God has to decide the order of Zodiac calendar. 13 animals compete for 12 places. The agency Amsterdam Worldwide creates a campaign that works across multiple communications channels, include a one meter-long sneaker diorama; a three-minute animation film; a 30-sec trailer, a website, and print materials. 

The website has all the contents described. You can see how they made the sneaker diorama and those animal characters. The sneaker is a detailed model interpretation of Japan. Everything is hand-made on that diorama. Then they turn the diorama into the film setting. All the animal characters are 3-D animated. They show their personalities along the race. The story is simple and the production is great. I admitted I watched the film again and again. It has so many details that I personally enjoy so much. 

You can also calculate your zodiac sign on the website and it will show which animal is in charge your year of birth, how your personalty is affected, and of course, some merchandises with the symbol of your year. The website is worth browsing because of the production quality. Go, take a look, and figure out which animal year you're in. However, it is not 100% perfect. Some features is coming soon and you can't download anything fun or share with friends. But it's good enough for marketers to know the potential of integrating channels and communications. 


Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Viacom goes for Joost

After ditching YouTube, Viacom has signed a broad licensing deal with Joost. Joost's promise that it would protect Viacom's copyrights was a major factor in VIA's decision to pursue the deal. The same issue was a stumbling block in the company's talks with Google.

Joost was started by the guys behind Skype and is currently in testing phase. You can currently sign up for their beta and tinker around with the program. They're planning to launch in June...

WSJ

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Quite an interesting (and expected) Google development:

Google said it would distribute advertising alongside videos from Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group (NYSE:WMG - news) over its AdSense online ad system to Web site publishers in a four-week test now underway.

"Over the past few months, we have run tests to figure out how we work with our partners and advertisers to combine high quality video content with ads and then distribute them (over) the Google AdSense network," Google said in statement.
The test with the two music labels follows an earlier public trial of Google's video advertising system with Viacom's (NYSE:VIA - news) MTV Networks, which provided music videos to run on a select number of Web sites running Google ads.
As part of the test, advertisements would be billed on a cost per thousand impressions (CPM) model, the traditional billing method for mass market advertising as opposed to the pay-per-click billing model Google popularized with text ads.
Google has been pushing ahead in recent months to expand beyond its hugely successful text-advertising system into new advertising formats including video, radio and mobile phones.
As a example, Warner Music has defined multiple video channels along themes like "rock music" or featuring the "Divas of Pop Music." A Web site owner can select a video channel and embed it on a section of the site dedicated to running Google AdSense ads. Visitors then can click to watch ad-supported videos within the video channel on sites running the ads.
The Google advertising system splits the resulting revenue three ways to the video content owner, the Web site publisher and Google. The exact revenue splits were not disclosed.