Chris, as you might have noticed, I am usually 100% behind your posts. This time I think you've gotten off on the wrong foot.
I think the question should be - how do we stop our mums watching any TV? They should be learning Tai Chi, walking the dog or doing just about ANYTHING other than passively letting some-one else's world view flow into their brains.
Internet TV is kind of wrong and out of touch. The web is all about what we are doing now - exchanging information. TV is only about pushing information from the giver to the taker - no exchange.
Actually - I would go slightly further and say the whole idea of 'new media' is slightly wrong. 'Media' as we know them push information to us. The 'media' are a way of information being supplied to information consumers. Web 2.0 is about exchange. It is not about communicators, it is about communication.
The most important part of a blog is the comment section at the bottom.
The most important part of a Buzz-Out-Loud (appart from Veronica 'oh poo' Belmont being unreasonably cute) is the phone in section at the end.
OK - I'll put the soap box away now :)
jank
· 2 years ago
The problem (Opportunity) with IP TV is more of a hardware problem than a software/developer problem. It's all well and good to be generating content, but the opportunities are limited to a small subset until it becomes as easy to access from the couch as any cable channel.
geo UsGeneratedContent.com
· 2 years ago
hi chris i like your point about living in the bubble - its the we vs them bubble - and in listening to jeff pulver key note talk on blogtv at 3 am nyc time i again realized its all about "US" and those "they or them" have made and called us USERS and we for lack of a better term have adopted the name "Users" but we aren't "loosers" or "Users" we are "US" we you me us and we are also "them and they" and i think to myself in you that the rallying point is we have to take back the "US" in "USERS" and create that community infrastructure that will resonate with the future of "US" - yesterday i secured the name UsGeneratedContent.com to create a community of "US" as social sculpture because i don't like to complain i like to do something about things then complain about it and think somebody should do something - well that somebody is "US" "you" "me" "we" "they" and "them" too - i just put up a work in progress wordpress blog to offer up a platform for people to think about how we can reclaim the future of "US" - food for thought - any thoughts please send to geo (at) UsGeneratedContent.com or visit the web site and make a comment or not
UJ
· 2 years ago
It may also be prudent to take on more of an offensive approach to MSM. Like Alex said, instead of trying to be on equal footing and convincing people to watch us from the couch, why not convince them to leave the couch and come to the computer?
One of the ways I think this could work is New Media needs to score a few kidnappings a la Howard Stern and satellite radio. Not only did it grow satellite radio's audience, but that audience also felt like they were doing something. They weren't just following Howard, they were also saying "fuck you" to MSM.
Justin Kownacki
· 2 years ago
Why SHOULD Kfir Pravda's mom watch internet video?
What's being produced online that the average woman in her 40s-60s would be interested in?
Is it something she can already get on her TV, in a format she's used to and understands?
It's a chicken-before-the-egg scenario: people won't move to web video in droves until there's something there FOR them, not just the tech heads and early adopters... but the wider swath of programming won't appear until there's an audience that can support it.
The best thing that can happen is a leveling of the distribution playing field. Stop thinking your computer is at war with your TV and find ways for them to work together. Then the audiences are the same, AND they're already there.
Kfir Pravda
· 2 years ago
Hello all - Thanks Chris for posting this and continuing the discussion. I've reviewed the comments, and they are very insightful. The important thing to stress is that I've used the mom thing only to attract attention and as a marketing stunt. Though i'd love to see my mother's generation consume more media in new ways, i think that the important demographics are 25-40, and we are still missing a lot of this audience. I don't have answers yet on how to get more of them involved in this field, but they are certainly the ones that are still outside of the bubble. Hope it clarifies the purpose of the panel.
Chris Hambly
· 2 years ago
I was at this session and though I didn’t voice my views during the session, I listened intently; I thought I’d reflect a touch and then pen something here.
In the comments above I think Justin is “bang on” the money, and you, Chris, also touch on it yourself in mentioning boxes.
I feel the paradox is two-fold, the first being a question of finance.
If we are (rightly or wrongly) comparing qualitatively with TV and traditional film, internet TV is very simply (from what I have seen) far too under-funded.
The huge media empires both TV and Film have significantly large budgets in order to garner a fantastic, highly-skilled, vastly experienced, production team of writers, camera operators, lighting people etc et all, and lets not forget celebrities, the faces, the actors, the Christopher Walkers.
In that sphere, there exists, large sums of money to pour into productions with very long lead in times, whilst not always producing exceptional quality, perhaps based on jaded judgements at the top, they do at least adhere to a bunch of what could be termed “best practises”.
So to obtain a reasonably fair chance at competing with that mainstream situation (on various levels) will require significant investment. Now of course, and here is the paradox, unless there is a widespread user-base, there will not be the large sums of money invested in order to pay for quality content teams, or re-port the existing content. Ok, so some may slip through the net, some small teams may produce incredibly compelling content with fractional budgets, and some main-stream content will come through, yet I feel these are very few and far between.
So for internet TV to work, the technology simply MUST be transparent. Take the television itself; it came first, the technology, not the content. People could easily buy a television, switch it on, flip a button and get fed content. Once the technology delivered simplistically, of course the content came flooding, a mass market grew up based on delivering for that medium, this grew as a function of transparent technology.
Secondly, one important aspect (possibly more important that my first) which was not covered in the session nor the comments yet is that of “shared experienced” and also “habitual behaviour”.
So the shared experience is that of regular content programming in a non time-shifted manner. My partner just loves to watch a weekly soap, a regular programmed show, on the same day at the same time, week after week, (habitual behaviour) and then she will immediately pick up the phone and call her friends and discuss the content of the show, the gossiping (shared experience). She will go to work the next day and chat with her friends about the previous nights viewing, this is social sharing, and this is connecting as a group with a shared interest. Many people will never want that fractured, I’m sure; many people will want the start, the middle and the end of the series and the same time in their lives. My little nephew gets so excited that Dr Who will be shown on BBC at 6pm on a Saturday, there is a build up, there is an expectation, there is excitement in the waiting, the not having when you want, and then the BAM you got it, now go talk about it with everyone else who watched it in your social circle, THAT is powerful.
These two concepts are incredibly powerful for us as humans and can very easily be missed if we do not take off the geek hat, and step back at times.
Just some thoughts to add.
Yuval Adam
· 2 years ago
Hi all, I found Chris Hambly's response very interesting. First, yes, I think that the technology is not ripe. Until the kids who spend days on YouTube grow up, and everyone is that tech-savvy, or until the technology changes and watching shows on the net is much easier and accessible (and then how is the web different from another cable network?) Internet TV will stay a small niche. But, regrading habitual behavior, I think it's out. Our parents might do TV that way, but my peers are all downloading shows, watching half a season in a weekend. It has changed the habit of all of us reaching work on Monday and discussing the last "lost" episode, but on the other hand, know what? That is not a big deal. We have actually found other things to talk about. I don't think that this tradition is so Important to us.
If you are looking at innovation, or porn, as you stated - tons of new companies are now putting out cheap, low budget productions, and biting off the profits of the big players. This is driving the big players to put more effort into big productions. You can probably say that Hollywood is going through some of the same processes. Bigger, more expensive movies that are guaranteed blockbusters. The good news in this is that smaller companies have now the ground to create good content, in the cheap, and if it's good, and if it has a following, probably be picked up by traditional media.
Barlow Keener
· 2 years ago
First let me point out the Kfir can ask a good question. This is the key to our internet TV focus - how do we increase viewers and, thus, impressions to make our internet TV productions into profitable businesses.
Second, there are many internet TV sites - like Rocketboom or WallStrip or even Wall Street Journal Video that have lots of viewers of all ages. How do they get the viewers? Great marketing - that is where Kfir comes in. Andrew Barron is a master of blogging and connecting which has resulted in drawing 200,000 average daily views. The WSJ has its own brand built over many years, just like the NYT which demands a $70 average CPM as advertisers view the NYT as appropriate, trusted content.
Third, there are many 50+ year old viewers watching Youtube and other traditional internet video site regularly. My parents are in their 80's and go to Youtube. A good friend in his early 60's cruises Youtube and the golf sites looking for golf video clips as they help him improve his game. The fly fishing industry - mainly 50+ years - is moving to video to promote their small niche businesses.
I think in just one or two years we are going to see a dramatic shift of all ages toward viewing "television" on line.
Chris Hambly
· 2 years ago
The audio file of the session is here for those interested:
All Comments
I think the question should be - how do we stop our mums watching any TV? They should be learning Tai Chi, walking the dog or doing just about ANYTHING other than passively letting some-one else's world view flow into their brains.
Internet TV is kind of wrong and out of touch. The web is all about what we are doing now - exchanging information. TV is only about pushing information from the giver to the taker - no exchange.
Actually - I would go slightly further and say the whole idea of 'new media' is slightly wrong. 'Media' as we know them push information to us. The 'media' are a way of information being supplied to information consumers. Web 2.0 is about exchange. It is not about communicators, it is about communication.
The most important part of a blog is the comment section at the bottom.
The most important part of a Buzz-Out-Loud (appart from Veronica 'oh poo' Belmont being unreasonably cute) is the phone in section at the end.
OK - I'll put the soap box away now :)
One of the ways I think this could work is New Media needs to score a few kidnappings a la Howard Stern and satellite radio. Not only did it grow satellite radio's audience, but that audience also felt like they were doing something. They weren't just following Howard, they were also saying "fuck you" to MSM.
What's being produced online that the average woman in her 40s-60s would be interested in?
Is it something she can already get on her TV, in a format she's used to and understands?
It's a chicken-before-the-egg scenario: people won't move to web video in droves until there's something there FOR them, not just the tech heads and early adopters... but the wider swath of programming won't appear until there's an audience that can support it.
The best thing that can happen is a leveling of the distribution playing field. Stop thinking your computer is at war with your TV and find ways for them to work together. Then the audiences are the same, AND they're already there.
In the comments above I think Justin is “bang on” the money, and you, Chris, also touch on it yourself in mentioning boxes.
I feel the paradox is two-fold, the first being a question of finance.
If we are (rightly or wrongly) comparing qualitatively with TV and traditional film, internet TV is very simply (from what I have seen) far too under-funded.
The huge media empires both TV and Film have significantly large budgets in order to garner a fantastic, highly-skilled, vastly experienced, production team of writers, camera operators, lighting people etc et all, and lets not forget celebrities, the faces, the actors, the Christopher Walkers.
In that sphere, there exists, large sums of money to pour into productions with very long lead in times, whilst not always producing exceptional quality, perhaps based on jaded judgements at the top, they do at least adhere to a bunch of what could be termed “best practises”.
So to obtain a reasonably fair chance at competing with that mainstream situation (on various levels) will require significant investment. Now of course, and here is the paradox, unless there is a widespread user-base, there will not be the large sums of money invested in order to pay for quality content teams, or re-port the existing content. Ok, so some may slip through the net, some small teams may produce incredibly compelling content with fractional budgets, and some main-stream content will come through, yet I feel these are very few and far between.
So for internet TV to work, the technology simply MUST be transparent. Take the television itself; it came first, the technology, not the content. People could easily buy a television, switch it on, flip a button and get fed content. Once the technology delivered simplistically, of course the content came flooding, a mass market grew up based on delivering for that medium, this grew as a function of transparent technology.
Secondly, one important aspect (possibly more important that my first) which was not covered in the session nor the comments yet is that of “shared experienced” and also “habitual behaviour”.
So the shared experience is that of regular content programming in a non time-shifted manner. My partner just loves to watch a weekly soap, a regular programmed show, on the same day at the same time, week after week, (habitual behaviour) and then she will immediately pick up the phone and call her friends and discuss the content of the show, the gossiping (shared experience). She will go to work the next day and chat with her friends about the previous nights viewing, this is social sharing, and this is connecting as a group with a shared interest. Many people will never want that fractured, I’m sure; many people will want the start, the middle and the end of the series and the same time in their lives. My little nephew gets so excited that Dr Who will be shown on BBC at 6pm on a Saturday, there is a build up, there is an expectation, there is excitement in the waiting, the not having when you want, and then the BAM you got it, now go talk about it with everyone else who watched it in your social circle, THAT is powerful.
These two concepts are incredibly powerful for us as humans and can very easily be missed if we do not take off the geek hat, and step back at times.
Just some thoughts to add.
I found Chris Hambly's response very interesting. First, yes, I think that the technology is not ripe. Until the kids who spend days on YouTube grow up, and everyone is that tech-savvy, or until the technology changes and watching shows on the net is much easier and accessible (and then how is the web different from another cable network?) Internet TV will stay a small niche.
But, regrading habitual behavior, I think it's out. Our parents might do TV that way, but my peers are all downloading shows, watching half a season in a weekend. It has changed the habit of all of us reaching work on Monday and discussing the last "lost" episode, but on the other hand, know what? That is not a big deal.
We have actually found other things to talk about. I don't think that this tradition is so Important to us.
If you are looking at innovation, or porn, as you stated - tons of new companies are now putting out cheap, low budget productions, and biting off the profits of the big players.
This is driving the big players to put more effort into big productions.
You can probably say that Hollywood is going through some of the same processes. Bigger, more expensive movies that are guaranteed blockbusters.
The good news in this is that smaller companies have now the ground to create good content, in the cheap, and if it's good, and if it has a following, probably be picked up by traditional media.
Second, there are many internet TV sites - like Rocketboom or WallStrip or even Wall Street Journal Video that have lots of viewers of all ages. How do they get the viewers? Great marketing - that is where Kfir comes in. Andrew Barron is a master of blogging and connecting which has resulted in drawing 200,000 average daily views. The WSJ has its own brand built over many years, just like the NYT which demands a $70 average CPM as advertisers view the NYT as appropriate, trusted content.
Third, there are many 50+ year old viewers watching Youtube and other traditional internet video site regularly. My parents are in their 80's and go to Youtube. A good friend in his early 60's cruises Youtube and the golf sites looking for golf video clips as they help him improve his game. The fly fishing industry - mainly 50+ years - is moving to video to promote their small niche businesses.
I think in just one or two years we are going to see a dramatic shift of all ages toward viewing "television" on line.
http://www.chrishambly.com/2007/06/how-do-i-get...
http://pravdam.com/2007/06/11/how-to-make-my-mo...
(Forgive me for not cross-posting... Fidonet has forever burned into my psyche that it takes up bandwidth and LD calls are expensive)
I can't be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don't have anything to say recently.
Bye