Archive for the ‘convergence’ Category

The two kinds of Web video

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

I believe that there are two kinds of Web videos – those that exist as self-contained narratives, and those that serve a functional external purpose.

Self-contained narratives are iterations of a larger type, what we have classically referred to as “movies” or “films”.  Movies can be anything from that 15 second clip of a dog on a skateboard to a two-hour long Netflix stream of Spider-Man 3.  To a degree such videos can serve a functional external purpose – for example, the skateboard video could be co-opted by a skateboarding website to help generate pageviews, and we certainly understand a large Hollywood movie like Spider-Man 3 is going to have all kinds of licensed merchandise tie-ins – but invariably, “movies” are, in the old media sense, individual SKUs meant to be consumed on a per-performance basis.  By individual SKU, I mean that we think of these movies as products, something we would have traditionally exhibited on the aforementioned per-performance basis; we’d sell tickets or rent the DVD or otherwise distribute, or commoditize, these self-contained narratives for no other reason than to create a viewing experience, or an individual performance of a narrative which, hopefully, would be paid for individually.  Moreover, the experience can end when the curtains close and the lights come up.

Now, the fortunate thing about the Web is that anyone, anywhere, even collaboratively over great distances, can produce movies, the 15-second or 2-hour variety, completely unrestricted, and post them almost anywhere on-line.  From there, movies can take on new life in the social media space, too, in that they can spread an idea, help build a filmmaker’s portfolio and reputation, foster a meme, and perhaps lead to further work for the filmmakers.  Also, movies can become an active part of participatory culture.

The unfortunate thing is that, as digital commodities with a reproduction price of zero, movies on-line are painfully difficult to sell as self-contained narratives.  Almost all must (or inevitably will via infringement) be shared for free.

Which brings me to our second variety of Web video, material that serves a functional external purpose… (more…)

The Solution to the Net Neutrality Debate

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

During discussion this past Tuesday in Kathy Gill’s Net Economics class at the UW MCDM, my breakout group went over the subject of Comcast’s bid for NBC Universal.  Now, when I first heard about the news a few months back, my mind went straight like a bullet to the word “anti-trust”, like so many other people apparently did.  The implications alone for net neutrality didn’t even have to trigger such larger concerns for me – because the idea of the biggest cable provider in the US owning one of the biggest media content producer/distributors in the world just stank to high heaven on its own.  Granted, Time Warner is number two in the cable game across the country and has a massive cadre of cable nets itself, but a juggernaut in the form of Comcast NBC Universal was a daunting concept regardless.  Of course, in adding net neutrality to the discussion, knowing that if the Right gets its way and the Internet becomes a deregulation playground, the thought of a top-to-bottom Comcast MSO* experience, from the consumer’s vantage point, one which throttles its competitors’ content and makes it impossible to get away from 30 Rock and Jim Carrey, well, that becomes a frightening thought indeed.

Then it hit me… or the gist of it hit me and I have finally formulated it all (and I have my discussion mates and Kathy to thank for spurring this on, of course)…  if you want to save the Internets and preserve network neutrality, let Comcast buy NBC Universal. Heck, let MSO’s buy whoever and whatever they want.  It’s time for daddy to give the big content producers away and let them get married to all those big infrastructure providers who have come-a courtin’.  But, before you scoff at this, allow me to explain. (more…)

White Paper – Adobe Flash for Television

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

I have finally completed and submitted my final paper for this summer’s Web Strategies for Storytelling course in the UW MCDM.  Hopefully Professor Keller takes a liking to it!  If not, well, I’m still very excited about Adobe releasing its Flash platform to high-def TVs, set-top boxes, Blu-ray players and the like.  I’m anticipating a revolution in how we consume web video!  But, time will tell.

Here’s my white paper, in all it’s PDF glory.

What do you think?  Will watching YouTube and Hulu in the comfort of your living room be all that and a bag of chips?

Where da money at?

Friday, August 14th, 2009

For my final blog post in Drew Keller’s Web Storytelling course this summer in the MCDM, I am going to diverge just a little from the exact question Drew posed for us with this entry, which was: Bill Wasik at Big Think believes shorter content on-line will always be free; do I agree or disagree?  Wasik, in this video, takes new media to task, discussing things like the beauty of what the longtail provides us,  the detriments of endless online distractions, and what people are willing to pay for on the web.  I’m less concerned about whether people will pay for content based on duration or production value, or what they will or will not pay for in terms of any type of content at all.  I’m satisfied with the current status quo – I love that the web evens the playing field for cultural commodities, that for a few bucks Spider-Man 3 on Netflix can be streamed one minute, or without any money changing hands a clip of a teenager brutally injuring himself on a trampoline at YouTube can be shared the next, and, also for free, I can finish with a live satellite feed from CNN of a breaking news event in India while engaging fellow Facebook users about what’s happening, all of it right here online and on my lappy at the coffee shop.  Obviously people are willing to pay for access to the infrastructure that provides all of this content – the DSL, the cable Internet, the FiOS and so forth.  And they’ll pay for that Netflix download and other certain things, too.  But it seems that web culture was FOREVER decided that digital = free, so content providers have to generally rely on meager revenue streams from embedded adverts and banner ads and interstitials and the like so I can still watch the latest episode of “Desperate Housewives” any time of day.  But I guess that’s just not enough for content producers and providers.  They keep asking – everyone keeps asking:

Where da money at? (more…)

Relax, it’s just a video until proven otherwise

Friday, August 14th, 2009

Is there a need to classify web video the way we classify TV content (e.g. shows, series, specials, dramas, comedies, etc.)?

No.*

Ok, let me elaborate a little.  Drew Keller put to us students in the MCDM’s Summer Web Storytelling class the same question, after being inspired by an article about the subject from Tod Sacerdoti at the Online Video Insider.  In his post, Sacerdoti explored the question: what is the most-watched show on the Internet?  What even defines a “show” online?  Drew also pointed us to an article in the New York Times discussing the growing popularity of longer-form videos on the web.  The TV business has after decades established standard terms for categorizing and classifying its content – serials, series, dramas, sitcoms, sports, primetime, latenight, and so on and so forth.  This serves many purposes, the most notable of which is to help measure viewership by timeslots and types of programs and sell advertising accordingly.  This doesn’t really work on the web, with a major exception (see asterisk below).

(more…)

Discussion: The Future is 1337

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

There’s a special culture out there that is really driving communications technology.  If we understand its workings and watch its creations, we can discover tomorrow’s innovations and phenomenons before they happen.  Observe.

(more…)

Microsoft Songsmith hurts my brain

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

I just don’t know what to make of Microsoft Songsmith.  Basically, you sing into the software and it automagically adds a musical accompaniment so you don’t have to.  Novel, sure.  Right?  I don’t know!  It makes me want to cry.  Observe:

What to make of this?  Well, it’s clearly got to be placed somewhere in the disruptive technology/convergent technology vein, I think… Is it a game?  Is it a legitimate content creation tool?  What ever it is, it’s hurting my brain trying to place it.  Help me out after the jump.

(more…)

Debtris, Raids, and the Social Media Movie Studio

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

One of my favorite sites is YTMND.com.  YTMND isn’t news to a lot of people on the intarwebs, but its relevance as a social media tool remains viable.  Its hordes of users constantly submit loads of new content, plenty of which contains sharp insights into a plethora of cultural, political, and social matters – but mostly it’s just there for the lolz.  The submitters at YTMND could pump out enough fresh memes, or at least recycle oldies-but-goodies frequently enough, to sustain the internet underbelly all by their collective selves.  It’s a machine.  In 2006, Frank Ahrens at the Washington Post wrote up a more thorough examination for the uninitiated as to just what the site is all about.  He actually labeled the site’s central conceit, more or less, “a new art form”.  I guess for myself I’ll just call YTMND a backwater meme manufacturing center; you’ll certainly find it firmly planted as another island in the internet subculture on XKCD’s “Sea of Memes” map. (more…)

Convergence and Divergence

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007

There are two agents. Each is capable of producing certain quality consumables. Combined, however, they frustrate one another and can no longer produce the same level of quality product. Why? They have divergent paths and divergent means of achieving success. On their own they stand superior within their alloted mediums. Their mediums may even be complimentary, but they fail as converged properties because their content is not closely associated or complimentary – it just doesn’t make sense to converge the two, because “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I don’t care what the trends may be. The objectives of the two agents are not similar enough to warrant convergence. ‘Remained Divergence’ is acceptable and natural in this case, and there shall never be unity of the agents. Separate revenue streams are good, in other words!

Therefore, ‘Planned’ or ‘Forced Convergence’ is acceptable when the following pre-requisites are met:
1. Each agent has similar or complimentary content regardless of their mediums.
2. Each agent is originally ‘weak’ in terms of return in and by itself; in other words, either agent does not produce bountiful quality consumables as a standalone or does not get the return on the investment one would expect.
3. Convergence will attract new attention to both agents in positive ways.
4. Unity is the planned end result, never to diverge again. Two agents can safely become one new agent, and eventually the singular agent will be the only agent anyone ever knew.

So, if unity and elimination in the name of creating new end product is the goal, than convergence is warranted and encouraged.

Otherwise, why would you need or try any temporary or experimental convergence simply to follow the trends? Leave the two agents alone! Ancillary revenue streams are acceptable and encouraged, though. Synergy, as it were, is good all the time.


Bad Behavior has blocked 697 access attempts in the last 7 days.