 NEW USER-GENERATED CONTENT STUDY SHOWS PROBLEMS FOR PUBLISHERS (Terry)  Does your news website have a User-Generated Content element? It's a bandwagon that Steve and I find publishers quick to board but often without clearly thinking things through first. Now a new study by Neil Thurman of City University in London reveals that attempts by media companies to monetize content from web users aren't going very well.Thurman uses the word "struggling," and we find this is also true in the U.S. Commenting on the study, Thurman's colleague, Alfred Hermida, finds three key factors:
Thurman suggests that by becoming gatekeepers of UGC, "editors are on familiar territory and can protect their brand's value - a key aspect of their job. But it is a delicate balancing act. Too much filtering and control could frustrate the supply of UGC - something that is not in the interest of editors or users." What emerges, according to Hermida, is "an industry that is applying established newsroom norms and practices to its relationship with the public, seeking to retain the traditional gatekeeping role of the journalist." This is the essential problem with the whole "User-Generated Content" concept for traditional media, and it ought to demonstrate that UGC is its own form of media, one which likely doesn't belong in the context of institutional media. David Cohn of NewAssignment.net nails it: Not to be nit-picky, but MySpace and Facebook are user-generated content too. They are doing just fine. The problem isn't that people don't want to participate, it’s in how newspapers are incorporating "user generated content" into the fold.
We like Nashflix, because it is a brand separate from the station's. The site features Flash overlay ads instead of pre-rolls, although Polidor notes that "we're not generating the kind of traffic it takes to monetize this." This is likely more a sales issue than one of concept, because, as Steve and I constantly advise clients, local advertising on the Web is much better suited to sponsorships than CPM sales. User-Generated Content may never turn out to be the money tree that media companies wish it would be, but it's still far too early to shut the door on it altogether. The bandwagon days may be drawing to a close, and that's probably a good thing, for forcing new media wine into old media wineskins can only harm both. Like so many other things involving the Web, the book is being written as we speak. <Link> <<< >>>
OSCARS HIT AN ALL-TIME LOW. HERE'S WHY. (Terry) Nielsen ratings provided by ABC, a unit of Walt Disney Co., gave the ceremony an 18.7 rating, or percentage of all households, and a 29 share, or percentage of households with their televisions on. It is the first time the film industry's premier award show dipped below the 20 mark in rating and the 30 mark in share. Neither ABC nor the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had any comment on the ratings. Ratings for the program have been slipping for the last few years, and I think the reason is more about bigger issues than the "dark nature" of the films getting the awards, as suggested by the MarketWatch article. Let's not forget that the Grammys were down as well and that there were no Golden Globes or People's Choice broadcasts this year. Firstly, the business of mass media is in full-blown decay, so it's not surprising that a ceremony designed to celebrate the best in mass media wouldn't drive people to a mass media platform (ABC-TV). This is bigger than we think, for it's demonstrative of the core disruption that is slowly dismantling the Hollywood infrastructure. ABC told Media Daily News that it thought DVRs might be the problem. That's just naive. Secondly, the fragmentation of media has lifted the side show of the ceremony above the event itself. This includes everything from predictions to fashion to celebrity itself. There are so many voices in (and consumers of) the side show, that the event itself cannot reach the level of interest. The only reason to care about the event is to see how it met the expectations and predictions of the side show, so the side show is what captures people's attention, even on Oscar night. Thirdly, time is the new currency, and it's a price fewer and fewer people are willing to pay to participate in these big events. And again, if the side show is your cup-of-tea anyway, you don't NEED to participate by attending the event. A part of this is the ability to view clips or highlights of the event via the side show, so that you are up-to-speed to handle the discussions on Monday. Fourthly, people vote on films with their pocketbooks, and there's a growing disconnect between that and what "the Academy" views as quality entertainment. This gap has taken on significant proportions in recent years, to the astonishment of the average viewer, and that certainly has an impact on participating in the event. Finally, no cultural event in the West is hyped more than the Oscars, not even the Superbowl. The hype comes from every direction, and by the time the actual event gets here, it can't possibly rise to the level of its hype, And here's the real kicker — the people formerly known as the audience know this, and it, too, becomes a part of the side show. Like many other institutions in our culture, the Academy needs to take a hard look at itself and what's really going on around the film industry. Perhaps the day of a staged, ceremonial back pat isn't the best way to acknowledge greatness in a fragmented media world, but it's hard to believe the event would ever go away entirely. After all, if the main tent goes down, is there really any need for the side show? <Link> <<< >>>
WHEN YOU FIGHT DVRs, YOU FIGHT THE AUDIENCE (Steve) So I think a little of the anger around ABC's recent announcement that it will put its shows on Cox Cable with the "fast forward" button disabled during commercials is misplaced. Assuming it's the same experience I get on ABC.com, I think it's just fine. What is troubling, however, are the ABC and Cox quotes from the New York Times article. They think they are doing this to combat DVRs. "This does counter the DVR," said Anne Sweeney, the president of the Disney-ABC television group. "You don't need TiVo if you have fast-forward-disabled video on demand. It gives you the same opportunity to catch up to your favorite shows." "As network and affiliates, we both have an interest in slowing down the explosive growth of DVRs," Mr. Cole said. "This is about combating DVRs. As we developed this at every stage, there was an agreement that however we put this together, disabling the fast-forward function was key." Here, they have lost the plot. DVRs are not something to be stopped. The idea that you don't need a DVR if you now have ABC's fast-forward-controlled VOD is ludicrous. What about the other 200 channels? What about all the other features TiVo allows me? What about - you know - fast forwarding through commercials! I sympathize with Mr. Cole as well. The locals are hurting. But you can't stop technology. The new model demands creative new solutions, not roadblocks. The question isn't "how do we stop people from accessing our content the way they want to?" The question is "how do we monetize our content in ways that free the consumer?" If we spent as much time on that question as we did on the former, I dare say we would have come up with a great solution by now. How much money do you suppose was invested in this "new" technology that nobody wants? Spend your limited R&D money and find ways to meet the audience on its own ground. As always ask this: is my invention corporate driven or audience driven? The former rarely wins, the latter usually wins. <Link> <<< >>>
FREE! WHY $0.00 IS THE FUTURE OF BUSINESS (Terry) In addition to being a compelling title, it's also another longtailesque concept that media companies everywhere need to understand. Anderson told me by email that media types certainly should. "I think the message to media executives should be clear: the business model you already understand better than anyone has become the dominant business model of the digital economy, from software to services. The world has come your way!" But do we really understand it? I'm not so sure. If Viacom understood the concept, it would not be suing Google/YouTube. If NBC understood the concept, it would never have pulled its early content from YouTube. HBO announced this week that it is creating a YouTube channel. Confused yet? If the networks understood it, they'd follow the advice of a new white paper from market research firm Parks Associates and the Entertainment Technology Center at USC titled "How Hollywood Can Out-Apple Apple." The paper suggests that the studios and TV networks should offer free content for cell phones as a way to prime the pump for tomorrow. "In the end, 'advertainment' becomes content in and of itself," the report says, "and a profitable way to provide consumers something to watch when they find themselves in situations where a little diversion is welcomed," Free is a strategy, not a business model. The problem with "free" is when it runs into the bottom line, and this is especially true in the world of traditional media. Our content has value to us, but that value is directly tied to the economic laws of scarcity, whether we're asking people to pay for it or using scarcity to create a mass that our advertisers seek. In the world about which Anderson writes, however, abundance replaces scarcity, so a business strategy based on the latter falls flat on its face. What is the real value of "content" in a world of abundance? This is what mass media executives can't or won't understand, because we automatically — and in an old media sense, rightly — assume that the only currency involving content is money. So Anderson is right in saying that we "should" understand the new model, but the truth is we don't. This has to change or we're going to continue to fall behind smart people who really do understand. <Link> <<< >>>
TAKING A COFFEE BREAK TO TRAIN YOUR EMPLOYEES (Steve) How much training do we do in local TV and web? Usually the "training" process is this:
You get the picture. There are so many processes in place at stations that are legacies. Nobody knows why things are done the way they are. They just... they just are. I once worked at a station where I asked a tech if he could help me do something. "No," he angrily replied. "Why?" I asked. I don't recall the request, but I know it was basic and not terribly hard. "Because that's never been done here before." Implication: we don't do it that way, and we're never gonna do it that way. News is among the industries that invests the least amount of money in training, and then we wonder why people are so slow to adapt and change to the new media realities. We have to train people better. We have to get them on the same page in our own shops. We have to help them see how the industry has changed, and how we will help lead the way in their careers. You want to know the top two things I hear at stations?
You all get it. You need to communicate it better. Start training. Have a coffee and get to it. <Link> <<< >>>
THE TOOLS OF PERSONAL MEDIA ARE OFTEN BETTER THAN OURS (Terry)
In the name of controlling ad placements and tracking the archaic "page views," many traditional media companies would rather use their own blogging software than grab the open source tools available to the personal media revolution. When confronted with a sensational idea that's already available to the masses, these people choose to study it and see how it can fit into their technology platforms rather than just jump in with both feet. While there may be justification for this inertia, it always pales in comparison to the upside of playing in the pond that doesn't include traditional media. The rules — including revenue models — are being innovated here, not back in the world of Media 1.0. But here's the thing; even if you wish only to play in the Media 1.0 pond, these tools are sensational.
This truly is a studio. You can "cue up" video. Suppose you have two VOs that you want to show in your webcast. Those go into your cue. Then with a click of a button, you bring them up while you are talking. Once you have finished your Mogulus webcast, it is automatically archived and stored. And then there's Qik, another tool we've referenced here and elsewhere. Qik is a simple application that allows you to broadcast live via cellphone. And how about Twitter? I could go on. All of these products and services are free, including the powerful blog content management system WordPress. It's the continued use of these kinds of tools that is — in many ways — giving legitimacy to new media while old media just looks on and looks bad in so doing. <Link>
|
Still there are some media-sponsored UGC sites that are building traffic and developing habits for people at the local level. Parker Polidor's 
What happened to the Oscars telecast? MarketWatch reports that this year's event hit 
I watch episodes of "Lost" on ABC.com, which does a great job of streaming. The site sticks in a 30-second ad occasionally, which isn't too troubling (except when they keep using the same damn ad - would it be too much to ask for a little variation?) and I realize that ads are a part of the game. I don't understand why overlays and wraparounds aren't more valuable to their clients, but so be it.
Chris Anderson is one of the most influential new media thinkers in the world. His book The Long Tail has transformed the way we look at the economics of media distribution, and now he's working on a new book that will certainly get everybody's attention: "Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business." As he did with The Long Tail, Chris has begun this project with a 
On Tuesday of this week, 7,100 Starbucks closed for three and a half hours to 
To recap the matter, Nokia 
Take a look, for example, at 
Then there's 