Entries tagged with “video” from Tools of Change for Publishing
Michael Tamblyn's TOC Frankfurt presentation (actually a dramatic recreation thereof)
Andrew Savikas
November 7, 2009
| Permalink
| Comments (4)
|
Listen 
Shortcovers' Michael Tamblyn was kind enough to record his talk and slides from last month's TOC Frankfurt Conference. I got a lot of great hallway feedback about the session, and you'll see it's for good reason. Michael will also be speaking at TOC New York.
Video: Seth Godin on New Media and New Marketing
Andrew Savikas
October 18, 2009
| Permalink
|
Listen
I got a note from our Conferences Web team saying that video from Seth Godin's 2008 talk at the TOC Conference is "generating more than normal buzz" over on our Blip.TV channel I was in the audience for this one, and it's worth a watch:
Webcast Video: What Publishers Need to Know about Digitization
Mac Slocum
December 5, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Below you'll find the full recording from the recent TOC Webcast, "What Publishers Need to Know about Digitization," with Liza Daly.
Webcast Video: Why Publishers Should Care About SEO
Mac Slocum
November 6, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Below you'll find the full recording from last month's TOC Webcast, "Why Publishers Should Care About SEO," with SEO expert Jamie Low.
Read more…
An On-Demand Night at the Opera
Mac Slocum
October 15, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
|
Listen
The Metropolitan Opera is letting its inner geek run free. Performances will soon be available as pay-per-stream feeds and subscription packages through The Met's Web site. From the New York Times:
For $3.99 or $4.99 per streamed opera, users will have a six-hour window in which to listen to or watch a production, once it has started. A monthly subscription for $14.99 brings unlimited streaming, while a yearly subscription costs $149.99.
On the surface this seems like a no-brainer: serve a passionate audience while expanding the boundaries of "experience." Major League Baseball uses a similar model with its online offerings, and it's done quite well.
Watch the YouTube Video, Buy the Product
Mac Slocum
October 8, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Listen
YouTube's Content ID service, something we've covered in the past, gives publishers two options for handling unauthorized videos: the material can be removed from YouTube or it can be turned into advertising/revenue opportunities.
An article in today's New York Times shows which option Google prefers -- Content ID can now be used to associate "click-to-buy" links with video clips:
Music labels could choose to place the e-commerce links next to their own videos or on videos uploaded by users, whose images or soundtrack they identified using YouTube's Content ID system, which allows content owners to find unauthorized material on the site.
Click-to-buy links are shown below the video player on YouTube pages. It's unclear if this functionality will be integrated into videos embedded on external sites since this would require some sort of revenue share between the content owner, YouTube, the retailer and Web sites that publish embedded clips.
Links are currently limited to iTunes and Amazon products and are only viewable by U.S. visitors. YouTube says expansion plans are in the works.
Open Question: How Do You Use Web Video?
Mac Slocum
September 22, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Listen
Joost, a much-publicized video service, is overhauling its technology and adding social networking services in a bid to boost its user base. From MediaWeek:
At the center of the new social-centric Joost.com is JoostFeed, which much like Facebook's signature News Feed alerts users about what shows their friends are watching or have recently watched - hopefully stimulating more group viewing among Joost's users and more "I didn't know they had that show" moments.
Joost was originally released as a standalone application that required cumbersome download and installation, so the new Web-based version certainly offers a better user experience. But core technology has never been Joost's problem. The old software app and the new Web interface sport sleek interfaces and strong platforms, but the functionality doesn't overcome Joost's lack of interesting content.
Joost isn't alone. Every Web-based delivery platform is trying to find the right mix of content and technology. Since audience development is the ultimate measure of success in all of these video projects, I'm interested in hearing how the TOC Community interacts with online video:
Please share your thoughts in the comments area.
Levels of Quality and Revenue Streams
Mac Slocum
September 3, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
In a New York Times piece looking at a new batch of Web shows, Mike Hale writes:
Oddly enough, waiting through the commercials at the beginning of each snippet didn't bother me. I could have avoided them by going to YouTube, but the lower video quality and ugly viewing environment there -- still insulting after all these years -- made the ads at the CBS site seem palatable.
Last month, experts at the RBC Capital conference said advertisers were still wary of associating their brands with user-generated videos, but there's a demand for professional content. From News.com:
Video ad executives said that while YouTube has a lot of inventory that's hard to monetize, sites with professional content such as Hulu.com don't have enough inventory to serve demand from brand advertisers.
Consumers are also interested in professionally produced material. A 2007 report (pdf) from the Pew Internet and American Life Project found:
Overall, 62% of online video viewers say that their favorite videos are those that are "professionally produced," while 19% of online video viewers express a preference for content "produced by amateurs." Another 11% say they enjoy both professionally-produced video and amateur online video equally.
Connecting the dots, it seems there's an opportunity for publishers to link ad-based revenue streams, levels of download quality, and audience experience. For example:
- A studio could post low-fi versions of its Web shows to YouTube, social networks and other Web destinations. The free videos would include branding and links to higher-quality versions of the same material on different sites. These low-quality videos would act as a brand campaign for the show, reaching out across a broad base of users to increase awareness and (hopefully) motivate a percentage of the viewing audience to access the high-quality videos. This is the same technique TV networks use when they advertise upcoming shows during popular broadcasts (e.g. anyone watching Fox lately knows the network is hedging its bets on "Fringe.").
- High-quality downloads would be available through a studio's own site or through upper-tier services like Hulu. These videos would include pre- and post-roll advertising from sponsors. If the show proves successful, studios could take a note from Joss Whedon's recent Web effort, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, and sell related downloads, soundtracks and merchandise.
This process extends to other media areas. On the print side, publishers could push basic material out to a wide audience through Scribd and other text-centric services, while also driving a percentage of the audience toward high-quality digital and print editions available through established retail channels (Web-based and otherwise). Earlier this year, Trent Reznor employed a similar tiered strategy with the Nine Inch Nails album "Ghosts I-IV" and the results were positive.
I realize this is back-of-the-envelope analysis, but this emerging mix of low-fi brand building and consumer/advertiser demand for professional-level content bodes well for publishers experimenting with digital delivery.
Piracy and Advertising: An Unlikely Union that Just Might Work
Mac Slocum
August 25, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
In a surprisingly progressive move, a number of major publishers are using YouTube's Video ID tool to monetize pirated content. The tool flags questionable material and presents copyright owners with a choice:
Copyright holders can choose what they want done with their videos: whether to block, promote, or even--if a copyright holder chooses to partner with us--create revenue from them, with minimal friction. [Emphasis added.] -- (From YouTube's Video ID about page.)
YouTube's phrasing seems overly optimistic, but the New York Times says some publishers are choosing the partnership option:
David King, a product manager at YouTube, said in an interview that 90 percent of the copyright claims made using the identification tool remain on the site and are converted to advertising inventory. The other 10 percent are either removed from the site or tracked by the content owner.
The Times article notes that at this point advertising revenue from Web video is miniscule and publishers using the tool are still skeptical. Nonetheless, it's encouraging to see a piracy approach that doesn't default to heavy-handed tactics.
Ruling: Consider Fair Use Before Issuing Takedowns
Peter Brantley
August 22, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
A fairly significant ruling came down Wednesday in Lenz v. Universal, a rather infamous case where Universal Music Publishing Group issued a takedown against a YouTube video of a young child dancing to a song in the background -- a song in which Universal maintained some rights. Universal later acknowledged that this was a fair use of the music, an incidental use, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) pursued the aggressive use of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedowns. The court ruled in the EFF's favor, and it should have significant outcomes. The EFF writes:
Universal moved to dismiss the case, claiming, among other things, that it had no obligation to consider whether [Stephanie] Lenz's use was fair before sending its notice. The judge firmly rejected Universal's theory:
" [A] fair use is a lawful use of a copyright. Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with "a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law," the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright."
Universal had insisted that copyright owners could not efficiently police copyright infringement if they had to consider whether a give use was fair. Not so, said the judge:
"[I]n the majority of cases, a consideration of fair use prior to issuing a takedown notice will not be so complicated as to jeopardize a copyright owner's ability to respond rapidly to potential infringements. The DMCA already requires copyright owners to make an initial review of the potentially infringing material prior to sending a takedown notice; indeed, it would be impossible to meet any of the requirements of Section 512(c) without doing so. A consideration of the applicability of the fair use doctrine simply is part of that initial review."
Report: Pre-Roll Video Ads Not all that Bad
Peter Brantley
August 20, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
|
Listen
Given how "unacceptable" we were told this would be to viewers, it's rather remarkable how many people are now obviously accommodated to pre-roll ads in videos. From Beet.TV:
The vast majority of online video viewers are watching pre-roll and overlay ads, a study released today by Break Media and Panache shows. Completion rates for 15-second pre-roll ads were 87 percent, and 77 percent viewed campaigns with overlay ads for at least 15 seconds.
Web Video Advertising Stuck on Pause
Mac Slocum
August 8, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Users are flocking to Web videos and video companies are serving millions of streams, but video executives speaking at the RBC Capital conference noted that advertisers -- the final variable in this equation -- have not fully embraced the format. From News.com:
So when and for whom will the money start rolling in? Video ad executives said that while YouTube has a lot of inventory that's hard to monetize, sites with professional content such as Hulu.com don't have enough inventory to serve demand from brand advertisers.
Report: Some Viewers Going Web-Only for TV Shows
Mac Slocum
July 30, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Web viewing of TV shows is replacing traditional TV time for a percentage of the viewing audience, according to new research from Integrated Media Measurement Inc. (IMMI). From Advertising Age:
... more than 20% of people watch some amount of prime-time TV programming online. Within that group of online viewers, 50% are watching programming as it becomes available and appear to be beginning to use the computer as a substitute for the TV set, the company said. The other 50% are using the web as a tool to watch past programming they have missed, or to re-watch segments of episodes they have already seen.
The full report is available here (PDF).
Study: Web Video Audience Stabilizes and Consumes More Streams
Mac Slocum
June 18, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
|
Listen
A comScore study finds that the overall size of the Web video audience is stabilizing, but folks in this group are consuming more online video streams than they did a year ago. From MediaWeek:
... while the number of total streamers appears to have leveled off after a rapid growth period several years ago, those streamers are watching more clips each year. comScore found that viewers averaged 82 clips per month and 228 minutes of video viewing in April [2008], versus the 63 clips and 158 minute averages recorded nearly a year earlier.
A stable audience footprint combined with increased usage suggests the Web video space is maturing past its anything-goes stage, which means book trailers, pre-roll/post-roll advertising, and other business oriented video initiatives could also gain broader adoption.
Mark Cuban: Copyright Law Gives Hulu Advantage Over YouTube
Peter Brantley
June 17, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Listen
Mark Cuban says the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (PDF) gives Hulu a distinct advantage over YouTube:
Hulu has one HUGE advantage over YouTube, it has the right to sell advertising in and around every single video on its site. It can package and sell any way that might make its customers happy. YouTube on the other hand, has that right for only the small percentage of the videos on its site that it has a licensing deal with. For probably 99pct or more of the videos on the site, YouTube isn't supposed to know what they even are.
How can that be? Because YouTube hides behind the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Hulu is a media site that presents videos with advertising. It can do whatever it wants. YouTube is a hosting service. It's not allowed to know what videos are uploaded by users and its not allowed to generate revenue against those videos. It can only sell advertising around videos it has licenses to.
PBS Online Videos Include Advertising
Peter Brantley
June 12, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
PBS is releasing shows on the video site Hulu, but incorporating advertising with a revenue sharing plan. The New York Times Bits blog discusses the move with Andrew Russell, senior vice president of PBS Ventures:
PBS has moved online slowly, and right now it makes only a small fraction of its content available over the Internet. One reason is the complexity of the rights to its programs. Nova, for example, is produced by WGBH in Boston, which acquires individual episodes from various production companies. Only in some cases does PBS actually have the rights to distribute shows online.
Mr. Russell said that by exploring digital distribution with the programs that the network does have rights to, it hopes to build the case to show that producers should let it distribute their shows online. This means offering them a good share of the advertising revenue or download fees. The online deals also show corporate and foundation sponsors that the programs are reaching a wider audience.
"Ask a Ninja" Creators Use Web for Shot at Hollywood
Mac Slocum
May 22, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
While we all wait for the digital domain to grow up and replace established revenue streams, there are lessons to be learned from the digital pioneers who have already cracked the sustainability issue.
Silicon Alley Insider breaks down the per-episode and annual revenue of the popular "Ask a Ninja" Web video series. According to the Alley Insider, "Ninja" founders Kent Nichols and Douglas Sarine net $3,900 per spot. They produce 40 episodes a year, so their annual take-home is around $156,000.
"Ask a Ninja's" Web success is unusual. It consistently draws 2-3 million views per month (a huge audience in Web terms), and its ad inventory is managed by Federated Media, an outside firm that works with high-traffic Web sites [disclosure: Tim O'Reilly is an investor in FM]. The increased attention from the "Ninja" series has also led to burgeoning movie careers: Nichols and Sarine are working on an update of the B-movie classic, "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes." Nichols discussed the "Tomatoes" deal on his blog:
By going to straight to features, the entire showbiz world is still open to us. We'll be able to move freely up and down the aspirational chain without being pigeonholed as the web guys. And actually we'll be even more valuable since we have a deep understanding of the new media landscape.
We want to have careers that stretch into decades. That means diversifying and trying [to] succeed in larger, more established businesses.
The real lesson here lies in the two-pronged revenue approach Nichols and Sarine have employed: they've achieved a degree of short-term stability by monetizing their Web success, but they've also used the increased notoriety to create new opportunities in the old-school film industry. Similar motivations catalyze many of the innovations and experiments in the "free" meme we've discussed in recent months.
Copyright Clearance and Transaction Use Permits
Peter Brantley
February 19, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
There are times at a conference when several people tell you, “You have to talk to Person-X” and no matter how hard you try to align schedules, it just doesn’t happen. At the O’Reilly Tools of Change conference, for me, that Person-X was John Billington of the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). John is the Product Manager for New Media at CCC (and, btw, not to be confused with his uncle James, who is the Librarian of Congress, i.e., the head honcho at the U.S. Library of Congress).
The place of CCC in publishing probably benefits from a short digression. The CCC, a not-for-profit company, has long provided rights clearing and licensing services for institutions such as libraries and major corporations; they offer a variety of products ranging from suite (repertory) licenses to individual author-based services. Well-known publishers ranging from Stanford’s Highwire Press to O’Reilly Media use products such as RightsLink to authorize customer-based usage of intellectual property. Historically, CCC has been most involved in licensing text-based products - written materials, such as articles (e.g., coursepacks), books or their subcomponents (e.g., chapters), and similar materials.
Like everyone else, CCC has noted the rise of new media forms and the desirability of IP holders to obtain satisfactory use arrangements that do not perceptibly endanger their ability to extract value from their core assets. Tellingly, I was lucky enough to catch up to John in San Francisco only because he was attending a gaming conference - and with major online games engendering extensive markets in pre-run players at set skill levels, as well as online property development in virtual environments such as SecondLife, rights licensing is an increasingly important desiderata.
- Stay Connected
-
TOC RSS Feeds
News Posts
Commentary Posts
Combined Feed
New to RSS?
Subscribe to the TOC newsletter. 
Follow TOC on Twitter. 
Join the TOC Facebook group. 
Join the TOC LinkedIn group. 
Get the TOC Headline Widget.
- Search
-
