From Reuters comes word that Warner Music is putting its library of music videos online with advertising attached. This is textbook unbundling and a terribly smart move by the company. Now if we could just get TV stations to see the value of doing the same…

An interesting spat developed over the last few days in Nashville that bears comment. It involves WKRN-TV and the bloggers who run their aggregator sites, Nashville is Talking and Volunteer Voters.

VV is an aggregator of the political blogosphere in Tennessee and has grown to become a very influential voice in state politics. It’s written by A.C. Kleinheider, a very smart young man who lives and breathes politics and has a fairly comprehensive understanding of the way things work in the state (Nashville is the state capital).

On Tuesday, he wrote a thoughtful but controversial piece about the extremes to which certain elements in our culture have gone to portray our service men and women as saints. Over at NiT, Brittney Gilbert saw it as a noteworthy entry in the local blogosphere and mentioned it and her support of Kleinheider’s argument.

This didn’t sit well with right-wing talk show host Steve Gill, who basically called both A.C. and Brittney unpatriotic communists. Gill told his listeners to call the station and protest. A war of online words ensued, which led to a story in the Nashville City Paper.

This is a fascinating event, because it strikes at the heart of the conflict between Big J journalism and the personal media revolution. These two people are employed by the station but function in the world of Media 2.0, where the rules are vastly different. Gill wants (needs) for the station to play by the Media 1.0 rules, for that is precisely what the political PR world knows how to manipulate. He’s appealing to “the rules” to place his perspective front-and-center.

The two websites carry disclaimers, which ought to be enough for intelligent people to recognize. Not only do Brittney and A.C. have a right to their arguments, this whole notion that journalists are somehow separate from their own selves is an illusion that the web is shining its light on every day. Moreover, these two sites are aggregators and serve a tremendous public service by observing what’s being said in the local (and state political) blogosphere. They would be irrelevant sites if they didn’t engage the local bloggers at the same time. Both regularly comment on other people’s blogs as well, and this is as it should be.

This particular event is all about a right wing talk show host trying to get publicity, which is exactly what’s happening. What’s most interesting to me — and ought to be of interest to everybody — is the general reaction of the blogosphere itself. That’s where this issue was born and that’s where it belongs.

The conversation that is news can be a messy business, especially where it’s up-close and personal like it is in the immediate world of the blogosphere. Issues are discussed here in a way that’s not codified and neat, and frankly, I think that’s incredibly healthy for our culture. This particular matter is going to get even messier as the 2008 elections approach. The question is will media companies have the spine to engage it this way or will they cling to the safe harbor of same-o, same-o?

NOTE: In the minds of the right, anybody who doesn’t follow certain positions is on the left. This is hogwash, but it has served conservatism well for almost three decades in the U.S. As E.P. of The 700 Club in the early 80s, I helped create this meme, and I think it’s time it was put to bed.

(Disclosure: WKRN-TV is a former client and I helped develop both of these aggregators)

…make a radar widget that taps the NWS database? I want it on my iGoogle page.

The latest newsletter has been uploaded. New Borrell numbers, winning weather, and Seth Godin on whether we really need a “home page.”

Skybus of Columbus, Ohio has hired the Travel Ad Network to serve ads on its website, a first for the airline industry in the U.S. According to an Online Media Daily article, about 40% of the ads will be non-travel and are expected to launch June 15. Ads will appear on destination pages, post confirmation interstitials, and booking confirmation pages and emails. Built-out destination spotlights with integrated ad opportunities are also in the works.

This may seem simply an interesting quirk in the travel business, but it’s really a sign of what I believe is a new phase in the growth of online advertising — the movement of ads to sites that aren’t media sites and therefore aren’t supported by advertising. This is going to be huge, because technology makes it easy for any business to build a new revenue stream by serving ads online. For advertisers, it’s all about aggregating eyeballs. Such ads can be highly contextual, too, and I expect to see ad networks serving this market within the next 12-24 months.

Even sites that are advertisers themselves can now earn money by running advertising — like an auto parts store running automotive ads — and this offers a huge opportunity to local media companies smart enough to begin building their own local ad networks.

This is basic Media 2.0 — where the rules are very different and the opportunities unlimited. Ask yourself this: if my local media company doesn’t extend it’s advertising reach via a local ad network, who will?

You guessed it: the internet pureplays.

As if to punctuate what I wrote below, Romenesko provides this wonderful link:

Conrad Fink of the University of Georgia’s Cox Institute for Newspaper Management says young people “see this revolutionary [newspaper industry] change that we’re in now as simply a matter of course. I find them looking forward to helping write the new business model of the newspaper industry. “I find them intrigued with the online dimensions of the industry. I don’t see the fear and trepidation that so many of us in the older newspaper generation feel with this kind of change.”

I’ve just read a piece that raises whining to an art form, Neil Henry’s “The Decline of News” from the San Francisco Chronicle. This is one of those “save the institution” pieces that actually suggests that Google has some responsible-corporate-citizen-duty to support traditional journalism. Can you imagine? A subsidy from Mama Google?

Henry is a journalism professor from Berkeley, and here are a few things he “sees:”

I see a world where the craft of reporting the news fairly and independently is very much endangered; and with it a society increasingly fractured, less informed by fact and more susceptible to political and marketing propaganda, cant and bias.

I see a world in which the pursuit of truth in service of the public interest is declining as a cultural value in our society amid this technological tumult; a world where professional journalism, practiced according to widely accepted ethical values, is a rapidly diminishing feature in our expanding news and information systems, as we escape to the Web to experience the latest “new” thing.

I see a world where corporations such as Google and Yahoo continue to enrich themselves with little returning to journalistic enterprises, all this ultimately at the expense of legions of professional reporters across America, now out of work because their employers in “old” media could not afford to pay them.

I see a guy completely sold on the idea that journalism began with the era of Walter Lippmann’s elitist views. I see a man so completely convinced of the rightness of his calling that it’s impossible to argue the “truth” he believes he represents. I see a representation of the illusion that the press is a privileged and protected class in America, a group licensed not by the government, but by the people they claim to represent.

My heart goes out to people who lose their jobs (been there, done that), but the sky is NOT falling, folks. Darwin would describe this as the evolution of a species. The stock market would call it a “correction.” It’s really just the culture deciding that it’s time to move on.

The world that Henry “sees” collapsing is the professional journalists’ Nirvana, a place where heroism and sacrifice are pitted against the villains of power. But power is exactly what Henry’s worldview is all about, and the disruptions tearing apart this world are moving that power to everyday people. The institution of the press may be on today’s front lines, but the future will not be kind to ANY institution whose lifeblood flows from the wellspring of protected knowledge.

Henry “sees” a society increasingly fractured, but can’t acknowledge that the fracturing began on his watch (nor understand his role therein). He believes we’ll be less informed by “fact,” whatever that might be. He “sees” people more susceptible to propaganda, cant and bias, but can’t acknowledge that the father of professional journalism wrote the book on all three.

The “pursuit of truth in service of the public interest?” Sorry, but this is not the mission of big media (anymore). This pursuit left us for the bottom line decades ago, and it’s what people are trying to get back.

And no critique of this missive would be complete without acknowledging that Henry himself has a fairly significant dog in this fight. His job is ultimately at stake as well.

The ridiculous notion of Google contributing to the very thing it is helping people overcome is — by a long shot, so far — the most Chamberlain-esque of all responses to the disruption of the personal media revolution. It’s tantamount to giving up without firing a shot when the right response is to attack Google’s mission at the point it is most vulnerable — the local level. This may not seem in the job description of the traditionalists, but that is precisely what’s changed the most.

My message to Professor Henry and his kind is this: Grow. A. Spine!

It’s not the lofty and elitist vision that needs protecting; it’s the revenue that sustained it in the first place. We’ve just not been creative in dealing with the real threat here, and to roll over and beg for a nipple at this point is, well, just plain sad.

Google’s senior vice president, Engineering & Research Alan Eustace and vice president, Engineering Jeff Huber:

“(Google) accepts that some projects will never have an associated revenue stream.” (Link)

This is a key piece of knowledge from the Media 2.0 world, and it’s why I cringe my teeth during a lot of conferences about what the local media industry needs to do to dig itself out of its current conundrum.

Since this concept has so much potential to be misunderstood, let’s review.

Public companies are concerned with quarterly profits. Since those profits have slowed or turned south, there’s a great hue and cry from the boardroom for revenue, revenue, revenue. Hence, all these companies can do is search for “innovations” that bring money into the tent. Even the excellent Newspaper Next project has as one of its innovation drivers the need to spell out profit and loss over time. This is a death sentence, in my opinion.

That’s because revenue isn’t the problem; audience is the problem. And we need to fix the problem.

Umair Haque rightly writes that free is a tactic, a “pricing strategy,” not a business model, and this is where we really miss it. We’re so busy trying to get cash in the coffers that we can’t see what Google’s doing.

And no review of this would be complete without acknowledgment, once again, that Google and the internet pureplays are the real enemy of local media companies. They want — and are getting at an alarming rate — our revenue, so when two Google VPs state at a conference that some of their projects will NEVER have an associated revenue stream, well we need to pay attention.

Here’s the link to this week’s AR&D Media 2.0 Intel report. Inside you’ll find CNN & IB, the secret of Bluffton Today, and advice for mid-career journos. Enjoy.

Shelly Palmer offers a powerful argument that the DRM lessening that we’re hearing about in the music industry won’t impact video in the same way, at least not in the short term. His reason centers around the difference between how music files and video files are used, the former having just one value chain and the latter offering many. There’s a lot of concern from the video business (from Hollywood to New York) that it will follow the music industry down the slippery slope of south-bound profits, and Shelly brilliantly suggests that this is not the case.

I like Shelly, and he’s generally spot-on with his analysis. This one is no exception, and I have just one little disagreement.

His reasoning includes the argument that video files are far bigger than audio files, and this is one of the reasons we (those of us in the video business) shouldn’t be concerned. That’s true, especially for full-length movie consumption. But in the world of clips and portions of clips, it isn’t the case. Besides, the illegal use of copyrighted videos lives in the world of FTP (file transfer protocol) and P2P networks, where size doesn’t matter nearly as much as emailing or other forms of sharing.

I’m one of those people who believes we need to pay attention to the music business, but not so much as a downer but as to what’s happening on its long tail. This is the new value chain of music consumption, and there’s no reason to believe it won’t be the same with video.

You have sent a clear message that you are taking on your customers by this new set of rules for online media coverage, and it’s a foolish and dangerous proposition. You’ll argue, of course, that this is about media companies profiting from that which belongs to you and not about your customers, but that’s not the case. You are limiting the choice of fans, and that’s a big problem for you.

Here’s why. The assumption you’re making is that if anybody wants access to your world, they must come through you. This is contrary to the cultural disruption that’s underway, and I think you’re underestimating it. If you really want an unbundled strategy, then make all plays available a la carte with an embeddable player. I mean, who gives a crap about whether somebody runs 45-seconds or 45-minutes of “your” content, as long as it comes from you and contains your marketing?

Moreover, a second assumption is that if media companies want access to your fans, they’ll also have to come through you. This is probably the bigger of the two assumptions, because you believe that limiting access to eyeballs has value. This is called scarcity economics, and it just doesn’t work online.

For one, your copyright, like everyone’s, is subject to the rules of fair use, and you will have to defend that some day and lose. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it has already been proven that your fans participate in fantasy leagues that are not of your making. Are you going to tell your fans that they can’t use “your” players, names and images in playing fantasy football?

I suppose you might.

I had a fascinating conversation over the weekend with a man who runs a highly successful new media business that is advertiser supported. It is not a traditional media company, but he knows a lot about traditional media companies, because he’s taking money that used to go to them.

I can’t reveal his identity, but I want to share a few quotes and thoughts, because it’ll help people understand the nature of the disruptive threat to traditional advertiser-supported institutions, especially TV.

He said he regularly hears from agencies that “We have all this money to spend, but they won’t let us spend it on television.” He said is what absolutely overwhelmed by this question from agencies and media buyers, “What do you have to sell us that’s not standard television or radio?”

He said television stations are like a guy who just got divorced, and it hasn’t really hit him yet (great metaphor).

He agreed with me, however, that agencies are disincentivised to play in the internet space, because they “want to collect their 15% on a $25 million TV buy instead of a $25,000 new media buy.” That’s changing, because the advertisers are demanding it.

The idea that “people buy TV, because it works” is no longer good enough. Google has shown the ad community that there’s a big difference between the blue smoke and mirrors of Arbitron or Nielsen “methodology” and the hard statistics of action. The horse is out of the barn, as they say.

Word is out that Lin Broadcasting has joined Nexstar Broadcasting in exploring the sale of their local stations. These are public companies that see the handwriting on the wall as stated above. They’d be better off in the hands of private companies, and this is just the beginning.

The Washington Post reports that the Republican Party is playing catch-up when it comes to online strategies. There really isn’t much argument about this from a factual perspective, so the only real question is why.

One reason for the disparity between the parties, political insiders say, is that the top Republican candidates are not exciting voters the way the Democratic front-runners are. Another is that it takes a certain level of technical skill and understanding to be an online strategist, and Republicans admit that “the pool of talent in the Democrats’ side is much bigger than ours.”

But an underlying cause may be the nature of the Republican Party and its traditional discipline — the antithesis of the often chaotic, bottom-up, user-generated atmosphere of the Internet.

Here is my overly simplified reason for this, and it follows another institution’s failure to grasp the value of the web. The GOP’s values follow the modern era’s rules of order. It is very much the party of top-down thinking. While republicans complain about big government, the truth is they are the law and order party, the command-and-control group, the clique that needs to be in charge, with a tightly controlled organization that flows from the top.

This is a similar position of the evangelical church (see my post below), and this group has been noticeably absent from the cutting edge of the web as well. This is odd, because evangelicals have always been at the forefront of communications. Two of the first transponders on the first Satcom satellite went to Christian broadcasters, for example.

The reason these groups don’t like the web is that it’s not a mass medium. It’s much more bottom-up and grassroots, and the GOP doesn’t play well in such a postmodern cultural marketplace. Neither does the evangelical church, because God, the Father, is the ruler of their world. Pomos, as I’ve written before, much prefer the concept of God, the Holy Spirit.

In a similar way, the GOP only recognizes that which flows from the top. Late to the game? I’m not sure they even knew there was one.

(Thanks, Cory)

Dan Gillmor points to a rather remarkable example of oxygen deprivation caused by living atop one’s own pedestal. The issue, really, is who has the “right” to be a critic (of films or books).

The story goes back to a New York Times article about bloggers and literary criticism. This led to a unbelievable piece of elitist bigotry this weekend by Time Magazine film critic Richard Schickel. Take a look:

Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author’s (or filmmaker’s or painter’s) entire body of work, among other qualities.

This isn’t really about the art of criticism as much as it is a defensive and emotional response to the threat of J. D. Lasica’s “personal media revolution.” It’s the kind of pathetic and gut-wrenching wailing that must have echoed across the tar pits, as thousands of creatures were sucked into the vortex of change.

Like a great many so-called professionals (I say “so-called,” because there is no licensing body that grants status to journalists, darn it) who are watching their world crumble, Schickel makes the case that his elegant mind — and the great minds of others — is what gives his criticism legs, and then he makes the most egregious statement of all:

We do not — maybe I ought to make that “should not” — read to confirm our own prejudices and stupidity.

This, in Schickel’s mind, is what bloggers do, and in making this kind of statement, he proves that he’s really just reading into a mirror. Prejudice? Stupidity?

I can see the vast sea of unwashed masses racing to Schickel’s work to learn at the hand of such a master.

The problem is that those who live on an “elite” pedestal can only write down to those below. In this sense, the professional press has been separating itself from its audience for decades. You see, people like this aren’t really writing for a mass audience; they’re writing to impress each other.

Those of you who’ve been reading my stuff for awhile know of my history with evangelical Christianity. It’s not something I write about much, because one has to spend a great deal of time defining terms before arguments can be clearly made. This is true in all matters pertaining to religion, because every sect of every faith has its own definitions of even the most basic of terms.

Even the term “religion” itself requires definition before it can be discussed in the field of fair play, so any argument about the subject without mutually understood definitions increases the likelihood of misunderstanding. In Webster’s 1828 dictionary, for example, the first definition of “religion” includes a reference to God Almighty of the Bible. Hence, not every group that calls itself a religion using a contemporary definition would qualify as a religion at the time of, say, the first amendment’s writing.

Definitions change.

So I don’t write much about my past in this world (some want me to write a book), but Jerry Falwell’s death this week demands a comment.

So before I make a couple of points, here are some definitions:

When I speak of “evangelical” Christians, I’m talking about the group that wraps the essence of their beliefs around what’s known as “the great commission” found in Matthew 28:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Because this is a top priority, this form of Christianity is a threat to other religions — and even other nations (Islam’s evangelical nature is problematic as well) — but it’s important to understand that not all Christians follow this so literally. Some believe in the concept of teaching by example and view that as more Christ-like than “preaching” the Gospel. Who can forget Ghandi’s famous quote, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Generally speaking, and again this is my definition, this group of Christians tends to be socially conservative, because the personal responsibility message fits their need to “save” what they view as sinners from behaviors such as abortion and homosexuality. Their view of foreign policy tends toward the “saving” of nations.

Moreover, within the evangelical community, not all play well together. There is a deep difference, for example, between those evangelicals (charismatics) who believe in a literal interpretation of the gifts of the spirit — as found in the second chapter of Acts and First Corinthians 12 — and those who don’t. I worked for Pat Robertson, who falls into the former camp. Jerry Falwell’s group was in the latter. Contrary to what might appear on the surface, these two “sects” are really only comfortable with each other politically.

This was why it was so extremely odd that Falwell got involved in the mess with Jim Bakker. Bakker and the PTL crowd were charismatics, and for awhile, the events looked like the non-charismatic crowd reaching out for healing. That was not the case, and I firmly believe nobody on the planet was happier to see Bakker go to prison than Jerry Falwell.

An absolute belief in the righteousness of their calling is a key plank in the core of evangelical Christianity. After all, the great commission is the instruction Jesus gave to the flock prior to “ascending into heaven.” The problem, of course, is in the interpretation of those marching orders.

The thing most people miss about evangelicals (remember, I’m speaking using my definitions) is the sincerity of their belief that without Jesus, people are going to hell. Their behavior can be and often is reprehensible to that end — no doubt — but my own personal experience leads me to the belief that this behavior flows from an absolute and sincere assurance that what they are doing is “right.” This is what makes this group so dangerous to some, but my point is that I disagree with those who’ve commented about Falwell and insist that he was insincere, self-centered and aware of his hypocrisy. I’m not so sure.

The guy may have been an ass, but it’s irrelevant to argue his sincerity. The point is that the real difficulties people had with Falwell and his ilk fall more into the whole of his beliefs, and personal attacks miss that point completely.

I always found him to be a man who had to work to smile. He presented a jolly demeanor, but I always wondered if it was there when he turned his back. When you are staff working for a major ministry, you see things and are aware of things that are out of the reach of most. Compared to a guy like Chuck Colson, who was affable, friendly and approachable, you’d be hard-pressed to see them as a part of the same mix (Colson is not of the charismatic crowd either).

Personality played an enormous role in Falwell’s life, and the apple never falls very far from the tree. It’s my hope that the new trees that spring up in his place will perhaps produce a different kind of fruit.

When I was at CBN, we did a Gallup survey on public perceptions of Christians. It wasn’t pretty, but it led to very smart strategies on-the-air for The 700 Club. Whatever the study said, we would try to present evangelical Christians as the opposite. Young, diverse, hip, smart, intelligent, conditioned, good-looking; those were the targets of our cameras.

If you ever saw that study, though, and were to use it to paint a portrait of how Americans viewed evangelicals, the picture would’ve resembled one man: Jerry Falwell. White, male, overweight, polyester, close-minded, intellectually suspect, and Bible-thumping. He chose to put himself forward as representative of his people, and he died with that effort rewarded. He was the face of the evangelicals.

I think a lot of my contemporaries view Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson’s Freedom Council and evangelical Christian politics in general as the work of the lunatic fringe. While I completely understand this perspective, the reality is those groups would never have achieved strength or influence in American politics if their message didn’t resonate with those beyond the fringe. And it may not be cool to run with evangelicals, but you don’t have to run with them to vote with them.

The left would do well to understand what resonates instead of hollering about the fringe. The line between personal responsibility and “what’s in it for me” is a fine one, and the message of evangelicals has always been about saving one’s own ass.

Jerry Falwell was a lightning rod on behalf of the Christian right, and I can remember watching my colleagues cringe every time he accepted a media invitation to get the crap beat out of him in a live interview. He stood there and took it with a painted smile, determined that it was better that his perspective be represented by him than by anyone else.

The truth is the media loved Jerry Falwell, because he could always be counted on to say something provocative, if not completely astonishing. They needed him. Hell, they helped create him. And in many ways, he needed them. The more they beat him up, the stronger he appeared to his flock as representing the treatment Jesus received from the ruling class of his day. They were the enemy. He was the martyr. In his heart, I’m sure Falwell felt he was in good company.

So the face of evangelical Christianity is gone now. And the question now is who will take his place?

The funeral will be Tuesday. My prayer is for peace.

California’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Google’s use of thumbnails of copyrighted photographs in its image search application is “fair use” under copyright law. The case has been active since 2001 and involves an adult website and its images of nude women. The appeals court overturned a district court ruling, and while there are still other issues to be resolved, this decision adds considerable weight to case law that strengthens the position of web-based aggregators.

In the decision, the court wrote that there’s no doubt the display of such images is a direct infringement but concluded that the use of the images meets the standards required for fair use. Thus, they overturned an injunction against Google issued by the district court.

We conclude that the significantly transformative nature of Google’s search engine, particularly in light of its public benefit, outweighs Google’s superseding and commercial uses of the thumbnails in this case.

…In this case, Google has put Perfect 10’s thumbnail images (along with millions of other thumbnail images) to a use fundamentally different than the use intended by Perfect 10. In doing so, Google has provided a significant benefit to the public. Weighing this significant transformative use against the unproven use of Google’s thumbnails for cell phone downloads, and considering the other fair use factors, all in light of the purpose of copyright, we conclude that Google’s use of Perfect 10’s thumbnails is a fair use…We conclude that Perfect 10 is unlikely to be able to overcome Google’s fair use defense and, accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction regarding Google’s use of thumbnail images.

This is yet another court decision in favor of the disruptive innovations of Media 2.0, and it strengthens the business model of all aggregators that provide a significant public service by placing snippets of copyrighted material in one place to enable user choice.

On the one hand, the decision negatively impacts local media companies who are trying to protect their content, because their business model demands access to their content through systems owned by the company. On the other hand, however, it further opens the door to those who wish to aggregate anybody’s content to provide better community access to all local content.

We should be making the decision that such aggregators will be ours, not only those of the internet pureplay companies like Google.

Consider the conundrum that cable is presenting to the motion picture theater industry. Comcast COO Stephen Burke is talking with studios about showing movies on cable on the same day as they open in theaters. In the words of the immortal Frank Barone, “Holy Crap!”

According to the LA Times, this has not gone over very well with theater owners (who knew?). Two of the biggest companies, Regal and National, say they would refuse to show films that opened this way.

Stephen Burke…told an audience at an industry conference this week that several studios were “very interested” in the idea of allowing cable providers to charge $29.95 to $49.95 to watch an opening-day movie at home. He said it would increase studio revenues rather than cannibalize them, if handled properly.

…They (exhibitors) say simultaneous releases would erode the “magic” of the moviegoing experience, making film and television programming look the same.

And by siphoning business from the box office, they say, simultaneous releases would limit consumer choice by jeopardizing neighborhood theaters’ viability.

They also say that only Comcast would win in such a scenario, but Burke argues that it would give people more choices.

“I’m sure some movie theaters won’t like the added competition,” he said. “But at the end of the day, it’s about giving consumers what they want. Anybody who doesn’t do that is going to get left behind.”

This is the same Stephen Burke that argues against a la carte packaging for viewers, so his concern for us, while touching, is somewhat bullshitish.

This idea may not have a snowball’s chance right now, but as people drift more and more to the home theater environments offered by HD and big screens, it’ll be increasingly hard for the studios to resist. They’re arguing, of course, the same argument that the record industry has been making, that a $50 pay-per-view with 10 people attending is a big net loss for the studios.

What’s missing in this story is any feedback from regular folks. You know the ones I’m talking about — the people who experience this “magic” by paying $15 for the right to watch 20 minutes of commercials and 10 minutes of trailers while eating $20 worth of snacks that really cost about a buck. I wonder what they think about all of this?

Here’s the link to this week’s newsletter. The tease? Lessons from the Upfront and Streaming Media East. (I know, pretty dull, huh? But the content’s good!)

A new report from Forrester Research pronounces a death sentence on the paid download market. According to an Information Week account (I can’t afford the report itself), the video download market will peak this year with $279 million in revenue, up from $98 million last year.

The research firm has found that only 9% of adults online have ever paid to download a movie or TV show, and that these consumers are “niche media junkies” who “do not represent the vanguard of a rush by mainstream consumers.”

“The paid video download market in its current evolutionary state will soon become extinct, despite the fast growth and the millions being spent today,” predicted Forrester analyst James McQuivey. “Television and cable networks will shift the bulk of paid downloading to ad-supported streams where they have control of ads and effective audience measurement…”

Well, isn’t that special? Niche media junkies, huh? Not the vanguard, huh? Don’t you just love the way researchers categorize people as “mainstream consumers?” The implication is that we’re all just lumped together waiting for the easy road of passive entertainment.

What’s missing here (and in similar types of summaries) is the degree to which people are trying to escape commercial interruptions and how technology is enabling that. The assumption that these studies make is that people would rather sit through ads than pay for an ad-free environment, but the hue and cry from the public whenever TiVo talks about disabling fast-forward during ads ought to give you a hint.

I don’t doubt that ad-supported content will always have a place — and perhaps THE place — in the world of video downloads, but I don’t think this market is anywhere near as doomed as the folks at Forrester would have us believe.

Dear Kelly (or whatever),

I’ve deleted the comment you left on my blog, because I don’t run ads.

Yours is a clever and growing piece of spam nastiness than I find repugnant. I can’t prove it, but my guess is you’re paid by this company to promote their business and place links in the comments of various blogs. You’re knowledgeable enough to write a relevant sentence or two before launching into your ad.

I know other people who do this, and I find the whole business slimy.

Here’s the comment you left on my blog before I deleted it.

Here’s one you left at a blog called Inspire:

And another that you left at TechDirt. This one even features a cut-and-paste of your ad:

Of course, if you want a full display of your work on behalf of this company, you can search Google.

And for those who care, here’s your email, URL and IP address from my WordPress comment section:

Have a nice day, but please don’t come back.

Regards,

Terry