Day 4: Video as (live) conversation

The hottest players in online video today (in terms of new start-ups and funding) seem to be the “live video/video twitter/video as conversation”-players.

First of all there is Seesmic, the much debated startup of Loïc LeMeur, a French serial entrepreneur and organizer of the LeWeb3 conference in Paris. Seesmic is video-twitter, which means that people can post on seesmic and others can react with video. As said it is much-debated and one of the reasons is because the whole starting up of the service is described in detail by Loïc on his blog. Although I have not been able to use Seesmic, the result of the video-twittering can be seen in daily “best of” videos on Loïc’s blog and on YouTube. Below is an example:

According to Loïc this is the best Seesmix and I suppose the best example of the “conversations” people are having on Seesmic. Well judge for yourself, but I think that Loren Feldman has a point when he states the following: 

If Seesmic turns out to be what Loren thinks it is, at least the start-up of Seesmic has made a great story.

Kyte.tv is another start-up in the category “live video/video twitter/video as conversation”. Backed by a.o. Nokia it is clear the goal is to drive the use of mainly mobile videocamera’s. It is interesting because it is instant, so you can follow someone (semi-)live, unedited and very upclose and personal. The problem today however is that the quality of the content and the quality of mobile video is still quite low. Here’s a random example:

Other examples in this category are Qik and Mogulus.

 Although I do understand that instant uploading and instant reaction could be interesting, the entertainment-factor is quite low. So as a communication tool it could be interesting, but to be honest I’d rather use a videophone, a webcam and Skype. And how will they make money? Which advertiser wants to be associated with low quality video in a live and uncontrollable environment?

Oh and one last thing: Video is about entertainment or in the best case about communication but stop this nonsense about video as conversation.

Day 3: On funny angry vloggers and exclusive online content

The last couple of days I watched ”real” online video, that is to say: audiovisual content made for the Web. Most of it is (semi-)professionally produced and most of it is really really funny.  Let’s start with the vloggers and “one man shows”.

First up is a golden oldie: The Show with ZeFrank. To me below is the best episode since I take an Austrian Arrows flight regularly:

Another vlogger, Loren Feldman, is a very angry but oh so funny guy. See what he has to say about Ze Frank:

I will get back to Loren Feldman when I will talk about Seesmic, the video start-up by Loïc le Meur.

In a different league is VBS.tv, from the people behind Vice magazine. VBS.tv is a videosite with only original and exclusive material. They produce high quality content, but with Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich) as creative director this can be expected. The guys behing the channel are also the people behind the magazine and the tone of voice is exactly the same: underground, global, cultural, edgy and young. in Europe we have Arte on television, this is Arte online for a younger audience. One of their best productions, Heavy Metal in Bagdad, was turned into a “real” film and premiered at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival. Check it out:

Okay, back to the funny stuff. Current TV is also one of my favorites, although I liked the old lay-out of the site better. Since I work for a magazine publishing company, I sure liked InfoMania’s “we’ve got you covered”. The model behind Current is still brilliant: get (semi-)professional content in through the site, share revenues and broadcast the best watched online content on TV. They’ve expanded to the UK and Ireland. How about the rest of Europe?

That’s it for today. Next post will be about recent start-ups like Hulu, Seesmic and Kyte.

Online Video - Day 2: Babelgum, the other P2P videoplayer

Today a short post about Babelgum. It is “the other P2P videoprovider”. In my belief it was supposed to be a European alternative to Joost with all its great content only available to US residents. But it is not. What it is, is a Joost copy concentrating more on independent (smaller) producers rather than on premium content. It has a catalogue of matches of the Italian series A football (soccer), but somehow I was unable to watch any matches (maybe it is restricted to Italian IP adressess). Then there are the short films for a British Film Festival, to a certain group of viewers definitely interesting. The rest of the content is Ministry of Sound TV (again), some travel documentaries, cooking programs, nothing really great. So will Babelgum make it? If they think they can be a real competitor to Joost, maybe on the European market they do need premium (Hollywood, British) international content. In Europe they need another thing: local content and although they succeeded to get the Ialian football on board this could prove to be quite difficult.

Maybe the best would be that Babelgum keeps building its database with European content and then would be bought by Joost. Who knows…

In the next episode more on vlogs, mobile video platforms and the YouTubes of the world.

Diary of an online video consumer - day 1

Since I am working on a project about online video, I decided to really test-drive online video this Christmas break. So I abandoned broadcast TV and turned on the TV on the web. I will post my findings here regularly.

My little experiment coincides with the testing of the Dell Latitude D430, an ultra-portable laptop (12.1 inch screen, weighs around 1.5 kg). The reason I mention this is because one of the arguments often used against online video in favor of the old TV is the “lean back-lean forward” user experience. Television is watched sitting on the couch leaning back, i.e. relaxing; online video is watched leaning forward, i.e. being quite active. While I do think that as a metaphor the distinction is very valid, when you take this literally the gap between the two becomes smaller with an ultra-protable notebook like the one I am testing these days. I have watched online video sitting at the table, lounging on my couch, lying in my bed.

 Enough about the ergonomics. Let’s turn to the real stuff: what have I seen until now? Well, I started out with some catch-up TV, series, documentaries and talkshows I missed on regular TV lately. In The Netherlands the public broadcasters have a fantastic portal for this on which they publish their own proprietary content untill one month after the original broadcast on TV. 

I also took a more serious look at Joost and Babelgum. Both are P2P, legal, videoportals/-players/-broadcasters/-enablers. Well any way, you can watch professionaly produced content in a dedicated player which you have to download and install first. Everyone has their eyes especially on Joost since the guys behind this new venture are the founders of Skype, Niklas Zenstrom and Janus Friis, and they were able to get some serious money behind them (last investment round US$45 million). What’s more they struck some remarkable content-deals with CBS, Viacom, NBA, National Geographic, Warner Bros. TV, and many more. But… most of these channels are only available in the US. That leaves me with Ministry of Sound TV (Ibiza clubbing, dance music videos, intervies with DJ’s), Stuff TV (gadgets, gadgets, gadgets), Aardman Animations (Wallace and Gromit, Chicken Run), Comedy Central, Ripe TV (not even going to explain this one).

All in all I am stuck with British lads TV with some music and clay puppets. Not exactly my cup of tea, but what does it say about the chances for Joost?  

First of all the player is fantastic, although it requires you to have a fast processor, state-of-the art videocard and enough free memory (here are all the requirements). Secondly, the Joost guys managed to recruit some of the best people out there and they are well-funded. Thirdly, P2P is a  solution to server-based video and partly solves the bandwidth problem. And lastly, they did strike some good content-deals, but not in Europe. And I can totally understand this: they first try to build a success in the US which is much easier since you do no not need to deal with localization, translations, and the best content providers are at hand. So I would bet on Joost becoming an important online video provider, at least in the US. Europe is a different story and that’s where Babelgum might come in.

More about Babelgum, but also about Hulu.com, Seesmic, Kyte, and many more on the next episode

It’s about the story, not the medium

This post by Jeff Jarvis got me thinking about how to break through the barriers in a formerly single-medium company when talking about New Media:

It depends on the story and how you want to tell it and how your public can best use and interact with it.

So the medium or media you are using depends on the story you want to tell. That’s the real added value of being a journalist or editor in a multi-, cross-media environment. And that’s why I strongly believe in not organizing a multi-media company into separate divisions around one single medium.

 

How interactive is content on the Web anyway?

The Internet has always been hailed for being interactive. A post on NewTeevee today “how interactive is online video?” triggered me to think about how interactive the web in fact is. Of course the Web is interactive on the level of communication (but so is your phone). And the Web is also interactive on the level of information (think Wikipedia and the likes). But how interactive is the Web when it comes to entertainment? What I mean is interactivity by which entertaining content is being altered, preferably enhanced, by interaction between producer and consumer (or prosumer and coduser). So my question is: How Interactive is the Web anyway?

First of all when we look at sites with user generated content only a small percentage of the users of these sites actually contribute. The rest merely watches, reads, laughs and leaves. (only 2% of YouTube’s user base uploads content, according to Jeben Berg of Youtube)

The same phenomenon can be seen in blogs. In most cases someone writes a post, readers react and that’s it. The reactions are in general not taken into a version 2.0 of the post, so there is nothing like a conversation going on.

And then there is the point made in the earlier mentioned post on online video. How interactive is online video? You watch it, you might share it, leave a small comment but is that interactive? Even the sharing part is not new because in TV people also tell each other what’s on what they should watch.  

Does it matter? Of course not but let’s stop fooling ourselves and talking about interactivity like it’s the holy grail. Let’s stop trying to activate communities to engage in a conversation (huh?). Entertainment content on the Web is good, bad, professionaly made or user generated, but it is not really interactive.

p.s. as pointed in the post on NewTeevee there are some handsome initiatives on creating interactive content like this one, this one and this.

Yme @ Pitchtalk

My good friend Yme in Pitchtalk, discussing social networking, media and of course Hyves. Unfortunately only in Dutch…

Content Creation meets Attention Allocation

I have nothing to add to this excellent post by Scott Karp. Some quotes:

But media has always been — and always will be — about scale, and there is only one trend in media now that matters — the only trend that has ever mattered — consolidation to achieve scale. What’s changed is not that scale has stopped driving the media business — what’s changed is HOW you achieve scale.

and:

This is where consolidation converges, where content creation meets attention allocation — new media companies are realizing that they have to do both.

to read more go to Scott’s blog

Why magazine publishers just don’t get it*

 Rafat Ali writes on paidcontent.org about magazines going online. He makes an excellent point as he concludes:

At the end of the day, magazines are about communities of interest, whether professional or lifestyle driven. If magazines keep that driving mantra in mind, and use the Web for all its is worth, things could begin to look brighter and bigger on the monetary side soon.

Most magazine publishers understand the fact that their readers are a community of interest.  Then why do online initiatives of most magazine publishers not take off as they should? I think because many magazine publishers still do not understand that online publishing is something completely different than offline publishing. They are separate businesses with their own dynamics in content and advertising and they should be organized as such. Maybe the biggest obstacle for magazine publishers is that their business is still doing too well, and they are not hurt by online business enough. That’s a shame, because it is not about the end of magazines, it is about the opportunities online.

*with the exception of course of the company I work for

People flock to hits, advertisers flock to people

A nice quote, which I couldn’t agree with more:

Even with all the fetishization of the long tail these days, it’s important to remember that entertainment (and therefore online video entertainment) is a hit-driven business. People flock to hits, advertisers flock to people.

From Chris Albrecht, new editor at newteevee.com, part of the GigaOm network

Good news for Old Media…for a change

Deloitte & Touche U.S.A  put out some good news for us “old media” companies:

Favorite and promising new television shows beat the Web as the most frequent media conversation topics for all generations

• Extensive amplification with the Millennials as they tell the most people about what they like
• 52 percent of Xers are visiting television show Internet sites

Printed magazines are an integral part of every generation’s life

• 72 percent enjoy reading magazines over finding the same information online
• 58 percent of Millennials agree magazines help them learn about what’s “in”

Compared with online activities like surfing the Web and downloading music, all generations aspire to reading a book in the coming year

Advertising Insights

64 percent  tend to pay greater attention to print ads in magazines or newspapers than advertising on the Internet

More than one-in-four would pay for online content vs. being exposed to ads

Search engines and word of mouth are the most effective means for driving Web site traffic — 85 percent of Xers are influenced by someone’s recommendation

87 percent of respondents continually visit the same Web sites

Generation Xers are a little more responsive to advertising”

“Millenials” is age group 13-24, “X-ers” is age group 25-41.

Let’s hope it’s not just to please D&T’s big old media clients

Should we vertically integrate in online advertising?

While Google and Yahoo are trying to be media companies and advertising agency in one, traditional players in the media sector have to respect their legacy/background. At least that is what Publicis Groupe is planning to do as they want to play a significant role in the “all-digital advertising future” as can be read in a New York Times profile of Publicis . Not by vertical integration but by sticking to their profession of being an ad agency. How does that work for traditional media companies getting involved in digital media? Should they stick to what they are best at: producing and aggregating media or should they develop their own ad networks? And if they do try to integrate media and advertising in the way that Google and Yahoo are doing: how trustworthy will they be? Questions that popped up as I read Scott Karp’s post on the topic today:

“Pull up a bowl of popcorn — the transformation of media and advertising is only getting more interesting.”

p.s. off-shore digital ad production seems to be good business to get into, if more ad agencies will follow Publicis’ steps

iPhone digital magazine

It was just a matter of time until someone made a magazine readable on the iPhone. The people at Texterity made it. Great for marketing purposes, but as with digital magazines which I wrote about earlier, not the real thing (not a website nor a magazine). Still, it looks impressive!

Web 2.0 Worldwide

Not all hot Web 2.0  startups are based in California as can be seen on this map published by business 2.0.

Is there money deep in the Long Tail of content?

When I recently commented on a post on NewTeevee I got to think about making money deep into the long tail of content. As pointed out by Jacques Bughin of McKinsey Brussels in a recent discussion I had with him, the Long Tail was written on the evidence of online retailers. And even though the “content long tail” really does exist, the question about monetization is still open. One thing is for sure as I learned today, the audience is there.

“Every day 95 percent of the YouTube library is watched at least once” according to Google TV technology officer Vincent Dureau in EEtimes.

My argument is that if there’s an audience, there eventually will be an advertiser. Not based on the pageview advertising model but rather based on behavorial targeting advertising, as is done by Tacoda. Or based on Google’s Click-per-Action (CPA) model combined with behavorial targeting. Or it might be based on a totally new model which still has to be invented. Nobody knows…

But eventually deep in the long tail of content online, money will be made by someone. Next question is: by whom…?