mediavladski

Just See The Difference

2009-05-09T01:01:00.007+01:00

My very good friend Dominic (Vallely), a well known name in the UK TV market came up with a stunning idea for a project that will simply change the face of charitable giving not just in the UK, but worldwide. It puts the notion of communities, peer networks and social interaction, together with story telling and emotional connection into an area currently more associated with young students accosting you in the street for your bank account details.

I've had the honour of spending time with Dom as he conceived and evolves the concept; pulling together an amazing team of individuals and companies, that includes some of the most influential names in the UK, all of whom give their time and resources to pull this momentous project together.

Over the year the concept has become a heavyweight organisation that has every single major UK charity backing it. I partly want to congratulate Dominic for his work, but more importantly I want to spread the word. The project is now turning into reality, but See The Difference is still not a done deal.

Take a look at this video that full explains the concept, and if you can, join in and help get this project off the ground - most especially if your company or organisation is in a position to offer support.

See The Difference website

See The Difference Facebook group

I've just given birth..

2008-10-08T19:46:00.005+01:00

So its one week short of 9 months since I arrived in California to work on the launch of launch of LP33.tv which finally went live a few short hours ago.

I'm kind of at a bit of a loss what to say after such a tumultuous, fun, difficult and draining experience. I think today is the lull before we have to dive back in to the perhaps more complex task of getting our site out there, and adjusting and finessing the site.

We have a lot to do, but I'm incredibly proud of what we've achieved, the team we've built and all the amazing programming and bands we have on the site.

The press has generally been really, really supportive although the economic crisis, which already delayed our launch by a week in the hope of a clearer news agenda, still managed to knock out some of the set piece interviews we did with major dailies. Hopefully they'll get used soon, but I wanted to highlight a couple.

Firstly, the Guardian in the UK, mainly as it was an interview with me, that I did a few months back.

Techcrunch did a lovely piece within an hour of our launch and we've been in several other specialist and general publications - as well our release being all other the wires.

I've posted some more video and updates on the work blog, and we've got some video and photos of the launch and our BBQ going up there in a few hours too if you fancy a look.

Thanks again to everyone for their support and kind words.

New name and its all go, go go ..

2008-08-28T17:54:00.011+01:00

It's been a weird few weeks between homes sickness and having 2 website launches coming up in the very near future. To top it all, it was becoming increasinly apparent that maybe we needed to change the name of the business.

A while ago, whilst we were already in the middle of setting up the business and preparing the site AOL went ahead an launched myAOL - 1 letter away from our myAWOL. The fact that google always kept asking 'Do you mean myaol?' made us realise our name was becoming increasingly 'un-ideal'.

So the hunt started for something new - and it was a real struggle as one might expect. Most 'interesting' domain names are taken for starters and we decided we needed something, as a music entertainment business was a little cool, and felt like it fitted - and also something bands would feel they could associated themselves with. We wanted short (so when a band puts their 'page on our site URL' up on a poster, it's not the whole alphabet), easy to remember and if you say the name, you know how to spell it.

It became obvious we shouldn't go down the 'made up word' route - the names just seemed like we were just another technology site, and it was problematic to even find 2 word combinations. Like many bands themselves, we even wrestled with the question of 'The' before our name - we very nearly became 'The Push' which summed us up quite well - but trademark issues made us shy away from that. We went through thousands of names, all checked on godaddy.. I got fed up with people who would get into heated discussions with me about their new favourite names but couldn't then answer ' but is the URL available?'.

Then we started playing with names and numbers, and 'LP33' came into the world. We could get the URLs and trademark's didn't seem to be an issue. Short, easy to remember - and if you're old enough or more of a serious 'muso' or vinyl freak you'd get that the name hints at old vinyl records, and the speed they play at. You don't need to get the connection, but its nice that its there.

So, there we have LP33.tv - perhaps fairly controversial, but when we did market research most people either liked it, or thought it was OK. That said, the people who hated it, REALLY hated it. The news came out last night and today we're busy changing URLs and all our entire web presence over to the new name.

Just to keep like interesting, today also sees the password come down on our Music Industry services site, theMIDB.com ahead of its launch next week. We are also actually getting really close to letting the world finally have access to the 'big deal' LP33.tv itself. It's a corker of a site, even if I do say so myself.

Stealth Mode is broken ....

2008-07-11T00:40:00.006+01:00

Off the back of my recent trip to San Francisco the new busienss I've been helping launch, myAWOL has started getting press - thanks to the previosuly mentioned, and still lovely, Susan.

Its always weird doing press, but we took the attitude that we'd just be ourselves, and like the whole business, be upfront and transparent about what we're doing, our hopes and aspirations.

Looks likem it paid off, both articles we're highly complimentary, even if one of them scored some negative feedback. Techcrunch with a distribution of 791k got the scoop, and did a great article, but I have to be honest and say I loved the VentureBeat article - and not just because it gave me a lovely namecheck and write up - the guy really go the business. What I never realised was quite how widly these articles get syndicated - our sign up of new artists rocketed in the 24 hours since the first article appeared.

We've even been written up in other press (but hey, this isn't meant to be a list, so I'll stick with the Silicon Valley biggies), but here's hoping my skeltons don't get disturbed by bitchsite valleywag!

Telling Silicon Valley how it is ....

2008-07-09T02:53:00.003+01:00

I'm just back from a trip to San Francisco, hosted by the very lovely Susan MacTavish Best - who's er, best known for her work with Craigslist and the Silicon Valley tech crowd.

We met the great and good - all of whom were intelligent, impressive people. I had one nagging little thought that kept reoccuring to me.

No matter how impressive everyone was as an individual, they all came from the same kind of top notch universities and background - and all from a tech background. No plucky people who have fought their way up despite educational background. Which means brilliance at most levels, but their were some obvious gaps.

It's all about software, widgets and tech solutions. What seemed secondary was consumer hunger, or consumer use - and this was really obvious in my field of music and TV. Some people see the tech, but kind of forget that that is just a vessel, a method of giving the public a service. They're focusing on the delivery -at the expense of whats in the package.

Kind of good news my me and my crew though, who had cynical journalists raving about our proposition - one even said finally here was someone who could take on MySpace.

Well it's been a while...

2008-06-11T20:28:00.002+01:00

So I've been beyond slack on site, but I'm slowly exiting my 'beyond mind blowingly' busy stage.

This blog is going to change tone from before, reflecting both my new job (more below), and the fact that I'll also end up blogging in my corporate role at myAWOL.com

So, rather than being a London based consultant working in convergent and Digital Media, I'm now a Los Angeles based Exec, part of the founding team building and launching myAWOL.com, best descibed as MySpace meets old school vh1. OK, it's a bit mroe complex than that, but I love the simplicity of that message.

As our site heads out of Alpha into a private Beta as I'll be talking a little more about the business, as well as my experiences of Digital Media over in California.

I love London as a dynamic, vibrant city, both creatively and in terms of business, but their is, dare I say, a pardigm shift when you come over here. I'm working with people associated closely (yes, I'm being frustratingly vague) with some of the highest profile and well connected people in Silicon Valley.

You do genunenly, as I did earlier this week, bump into the founder on MySpace when you go for drinks, or deal with those people who invested or set up the biggest of digital busineses. Needless to say I've met a lot of stupidly successful people.

MOre soon ...

Part of my new project, a Music Industry News show

2008-05-16T02:20:00.006+01:00

If you work in the music industry, you may be interested in a new bi-monthly podcast I'm producing.

It's called myAWOL's Music Insider NewsTalk and it premiers every 1st and 3rd Thursday of the month.

You'll shortly be able to subscribe via iTunes and whilst this first episode had a few tech issues, it's well worth a listen.

You can find it here: Music Insider NewsTalk as well as via myAWOL's HelloBlog where you'll also find other vlogs about what I'm helping set up.

News

2008-04-02T00:09:00.005+01:00

Hello Again

I was hoping that this blog would be updated with my Twitter, but alas it seems to have failed.

I'm now also blogging at myAWOL.com and I'll just be posting here occasionally with my more personal commentary.

Right now though that is difficult as I grasp with the challenges of turning a piece of paper into a multi-national social networking site. That will launch at the end of the Summer, so I may be a little quieter than I hope until then.

In the meantime, here's a note I mailed to some of my friends and contacts:

Hey All

This is an update to my friends and colleagues who I thought would be interested in the new start-up business I joined.

It’s a Social Networking based music site called myAWOL.com and it will launch at the very end of the Summer this year. It’s got a great pedigree, our CEO used to run chunks of EMI Music, and we’ve been backed by members of the band Genesis (although that is kind of a secret).

We’re not a record label per se, but we’re not a million miles away from it either. Think of the best bits from iTunes, mySpace, Facebook, imDB and VH1 all rolled into one.

The 2 cent intro is: We’re a service aimed at helping music artists help themselves in building a career and an income, we’re a place where music fans can discover, enjoy and learn about new bands and music, watching great TV shows. This is all underpinned by an Music industry section that allows professionals to connect, to collaborate and to help in their daily lives through a suite of tools and services.

So, the point of the email is, as we head towards our site’s Beta (test) phase we are looking for friendly faces to start populate our site, tell us what works, and who knows, maybe even make some business connections. We’re especially interested in finding music artists with talent, who write or have access to the copyright of their music who we could promote and turn into ‘featured’ artists.

I’ve created a ‘brochure’ about what the website will be at www.myAWOL.com and tells you more about what we can do for you, and what we are looking for.

Let me know what you think!

Best

Vlad

Personal News

2008-01-21T21:27:00.000Z

I have to apologise, but I've been rather quiet on this blog the last 6 weeks.

I'm very happy to say that I'm now part of a dynamic, music focused start-up that has an amazing pedigree. That has meant my focus has been elsewhere.

I'll also be blogging as part of my role: You'll be able to find out more about the upcoming launch of this exciting new service our HelloBlog.

This means I'll be in California a fair amount over the next few months, so whilst I'll carry on posting occasionally here, it'll be more as a European discovering the US Digital Media scene.

Kangaroo on the loose (in the Marketplace)

2007-11-28T00:01:00.000Z

Yesterday the UK market defining broadband 'player' Kangaroo was announced by the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (but noticeably not five) and I posted about the service. There’s been talk what this might mean for the future of the BBC Licence Fee as the service is being launched by the Beeb's commercial subsidiary BBC Worldwide. The future of the licence fee is an area I touched upon last week and no doubt will do again, but today I want to look at a different side of the Kangaroo story.

This Kangaroo will be fairly dominant in ‘re-arranging’ the make-up of the UK ‘TV’ market, until/unless he’s joined by another big kangaroo along the lines of one called ‘Hulu’ (due to its Mommy and Daddy being News International & NBC Universal) or some creature as yet unborn..

So where does Kangaroo leave the other players in this new market:

Social (Media) Networks
The other Nu-TV Aggregators (Joost, Babelgum etc)
IPTV Distributors (BT Vision, Orange, Sky Anytime)
Other current TV Channels
Future brands

Well, here are some headline future gazing thoughts based on the limited information released as of Tuesday evening.

Social (Media) Networks

All the major mass market social networks (MySpace, Facebook, Bebo) are becoming more open to 3^rd party content and are actively looking at having either their own content (Bebo & MySpace have both commissioned shows) or promote other media, be that TV shows, music, films or other entertainment.

I reckon the Social Nets will be one of the winners from Kangaroo. Content owners need marketing and ultimately eyeballs on their content, which Social Networks provide; your friends tend to like a lot of the shows you like so it’s the perfect marketing medium. Equally Social Networks need content to hold onto their audiences which provide eyeballs for advertisers. Who hasn’t regularly asked friends – did you see XX last night? It's a mutual back scratching situation. Think of it as a symbiotic relationship like that of the Radio Times with TV Channels.

Other Nu-TV Aggregators

The most high profile new broadband TV aggregators are Joost, Babelgum, Sky Anytime and Hulu. Now Hulu I’ll take out of this equation as, no matter what their long term objectives are, it’s looking to be something akin to the Kangaroo of the US market.

Joost & Babelgum are in a more complex situation. Their first player advantage, in the UK at least, has pretty much gone up in smoke. Even if, via non-exclusive deals with content owners they get to have a decent library, the incumbents will just be too dominant to challenge.

If I was those guys, I’d be having sweaty palms right now, but they are young, nimble, well funded businesses and I’m sure they’ve predicted these changes and are adapting their business plans.

Firstly, these guys are international players: As with many international media brands, you can be a major player in one territory, ticking along elsewhere.

Secondly, get enough ‘tier 2’ content and you can still be an effective player. Sign up other major content players (MTV, Nickelodeon, Discovery, Virgin Media TV) and you can still have a reasonable profile and be an effective player. Kangaroo is essentially a ‘national’ player, international media companies may like to do pan-regional deals, especially if that is in conjunction with international advertisers.

Now I know this industry is so new, pretty much all the players are still on the Beta learning curve. However, my third point is, don’t try and be all things to all people. Work out what out which market niches you can exploit most effectively and become a more focused proposition. Babelgum might be more of the ‘South Bank’ or Indie cinema of the industry, Joost might be a more youthful proposition with Music, Extreme sports, ‘underground’ programming. As with MTV or Coke, you change the mix you present for each market.

Sky Anytime is a slightly different proposition as in essence it isn't a stand alone service, its free to those who already subscribe to a Sky package. It has great content, but in the medium term I think its about future proofing Sky's main business and decreasing churn by providing an appreciated value add -and it does that well.

IPTV Networks

For the likes of Tiscali, BT Vision and Orange TV Kangaroo is, I would say a mixed blessing.

Kangaroo has said they’d like to deliver their content direct to TV’s, which infers they’re likely to work with the current crop of well funded IPTV Network pioneers.

On the upside, these pioneers don’t need to scramble around doing deals with every company that owns 20 hours of content – you do one deal with Kangaroo and I assume get the bulk of interesting top of the range TV content, all pre-cleared.

On the downside, these competing platforms, and other platforms in the market place will all have the bulk of the same content and differentiators within their offerings become harder to achieve; differentiators which are effective marketing tools will be even harder to find.

Other TV Channels

The one question that hasn’t been answered just yet is just how open, or closed the Kangaroo platform will be. My guess a ‘bloated’ proposition will be harder to navigate and won’t be in the best interest of the founder partners, so I think they’ll definitely be a limit to which channels are invited, or allowed to join. So, UKTV and Viacom may get a yes, but Chart Shows’s Bliss or True Movies channels may find it harder. The only certainty I have is that the ‘shake-out’ of smaller TV players (which I discussed back in June) will continue as the crowded multi-platform marketplace makes it harder for small players to achieve and keep a commercially viable mass. I do expect Channel 5 to be part of the Kangaroo deal eventually, unless their parent RTL has something up its sleeve.

Future Brands

So how easy will it be for new media brands to break through, or will the major players, now that they generally have their act together, be just too dominant to be challenged. I think people will always find ways to break through, and if its not through Kangaroo, the Social (Media) Networks and Google’s Open Social networks will be the new route to market.

ALERT! Kangaroo on the Rampage

2007-11-27T11:55:00.000Z

So a while back I was moaning, sorry, commenting about how in this wondrous age of Video on Demand I had to download so many program’s to watch my regular UK TV shows (iPlayer, 4oD, Joost, Babelgum). I commented how it’s like having to have a different set top box for each channel, which was unsustainable.

Now we are about to see disruptive Digital, disrupted, oddly enough by the old skool ‘traditional media’ with the official announcement of project ‘Kangaroo’. Nice summary here from the Guardian, but essentially it’s the BBC and Channel 4 dumping (sorry, building on the success of) their current (Kontiki based) players, and joined by ITV who had been using an ‘in-browser’ player.

Now this is massive, it’s an ‘iPod’ moment for TV in the UK market. Kangaroo is already being compared to Freeview in its capability to cut through to a being a fairly instant mass market proposition. It will have all your favourite shows and soap operas – it will have such a massive position in the marketplace other (mass market) rights holders from US Studios, through to indie production companies, to ‘new’ players in the market (such as newspaper’s who make video content) will all want to be represented on this platform.

I have 0% doubt in the success of Kangaroo as it will have the content... and not just in a ‘name the 3 hit shows we have’ and expect people to use our service way, it will have the vast bulk of hit UK TV shows/brands and I expect a lot of the international ones. I wonder whether Hulu will snowball like Kangaroo to dominate the US market as much.

The service will no doubt hit some bumps, but ultimately the nature of the content will mean it will prevail.

Some bumps that immediately come to mind include:

- The ISP’s moaning about the P2P networking clogging up their systems (and I expect it will be P2P)

- The BBC Trust wrestling with the restrictions they’ve imposed on the iPlayer, probably after public confusion when ITV allow series stacking of shows like Emmerdale, but the BBC won’t allow you to stack (series record) Eastenders. (The BBC Trust put some fairly random restrictions it to supposedly stop the BBC stifling the commercial market)

- TV Broadcasters and Rights Holders having to bring their Rights issues more into line across the market place

- Working out ‘comparable’ price points and attitude to how to include advertising

- Ofcom reaching out to regulate ‘NuTV’ after the next ‘phone-in’ type scandal

Some other questions raised straight away are what about Five, Sky, what about Endemol and Fremantle and their respective strategies. What about then for that matter, Nickelodeon, what about Information TV and movies 24??

Will Kangaroo be an open access system, or a way of the incumbents and big players protecting their dominant position from news smaller players?

Kangaroo is no doubt fantastic news for the average viewer who just wants their favourite shows.

I don’t see this being a problem for the social networks per say as their nascent media services and shows would be complementary – and I’m sure deals would be done to encourage the average Bebo or FaceBook user to go to Kangaroo and download the latest episode of the Mighty Boosh or Entourage.

I don’t think the situation is so clear for the likes of Joost or Babelgum who, in the UK at least are seeing their first mover advantage slip away.

Paying for the BBC, Channel 4

2007-11-21T14:50:00.000Z

Today I'm asking a question rather than making a comment.

There has been some conversation recently in the UK, about how Channel 4 - a commercial business that is re-finding it's 'mandated by law' function of being a Public Service Broadcaster.- will fund itself in the coming years. The business has been harping on about at it will have a funding deficit in the mid-term and has made a bid for a £300 million found 'top-spliced' from the BBC's Licence Fee funded budget.

Articles like this one suggest some of the ways forward for Channel 4, but to me there is a massive flaw in the arguments put forward so far in the press, and that is the matter of market context. More specifically, I mean the BBC.

Now the Beeb not long ago got it's funding formula (Royal Charter) renewed, but just for another 6 short years until 2012/13. However, I think it's fairly likely that this is the last time the BBC will get a budget set in its current way; revenue form the TV Licence, a tax paid by every TV household in the UK.

I don't think you need to be too much of a futurologist to guess that defining a 'TV household' in 7-10 years might well be a toughie. Granny may still have a TV in the corner of the room hooked up to a Freeview digibox but for large swathes of the population today's trends of having 'TV' screens hooked up to computers and home networks will have continued. Mobile phones, laptops and other 'screens' will more commonly be used to watch 'shows' and shows themselves will increasingly delivered by downloaded and streaming over the web by the likes of Joost, Bebo and the like, many of which will be non UK 'broadcasters'.

In this world, the current TV licence just doesn't make sense and will be harder to collect. I think the BBC is well aware of that, which is why it's commercial arm BBC Worldwide has become quite so aggressive is buying and setting up new businesses as part of its strategy of creating and growing new revenue streams internationally. They've set up new stations, launched production businesses, added advertising to international sites and become much more astute in exploiting their brands commercially.

So, back to my original point. How can we have a constructive conversation about the future funding of a PSB (Public Service Broadcaster) Channel 4, without having some realistic idea - or at least opened a wide discussion -about how one of the world's biggest media organisations, the (Public Service Broadcaster) BBC will be funded too.

Many of the suggestions put forward for Channel 4, like say giving ownership to a not-for-profit trust (as the The Scott Trust owns The Guardian) might actually be what we want for the much larger BBC. Do we want 2 such Trusts? What would happen if we made both organisations all ad or subscription funded? Do we privatise one or both and how might that affect the purely commercial Networks?

I'm not making suggestions today about the right funding formula - I'm just saying we can't effectively discuss Channel 4, until we have a better knowledge how the market place is likely to look in a few years - and the BBC is just too rich and too dominant in terms of budget and in terms of audience reach to ignore.

Hyper local globalisation: In the Starting Blocks

2007-11-13T14:33:00.000Z

Today’s post is prompted by my recent romp around NBC, Universal, and Fox ‘professional’ web video content site, Hulu. From what I could tell it looks lovely, but after 5 minutes of clicking around I realised whilst the site let me join, it won’t let me actually use the service and watch a show.

I have a deep appreciation of international rights issues, and no matter what your future business plan might be (and I admit this is a beta site), how hard can it be to have a disclaimer at the front saying that this is a US only site and content can’t be viewed outside the country. Showtime for years won’t even let you take a good look round their website if your non-US based.

This, in fairness, seems to be a common problem with sites that show ‘real’ TV shows. Pretty much all the sites will let you access their library catalogue, but only let you watch what is cleared for your territory (which quite often is not a lot if you are non-US). That’s outstandingly sloppy and short sited – it just makes me think they don’t understand how to respect their audience.

My simple request would be - if you have the technology to track IP addresses and work out where in the world I am, and therefore not play me an episode of Bionic Woman – why don’t you just use that technology to dynamically only serve me the content I can access. If you think about the functionality when you start building a website it’s a fairly easy thing to do.

This really opens up the discussions about brands and regionalisation (not just in terms of countries and regions, but also cities and towns). It’s something TV, and especially multi-channel brands have been dealing with since the early 90s and now that the web is video heavy finding a fine line between sites localised to maximise footfall, featuring cost efficient quality ‘networked’ programming, but dealing with rights issues as that networked content is also sold to 3^rd parties for the numbers to stack up.

That’s a big question, and I’ll be exploring the area in future posts.

Why are we so in love with (linear) TV Channels?

2007-11-07T14:54:00.000Z

Recently Sky announced that it was now was calling a halt to new channel launches on its platform as older digiboxes wouldn’t be able to handle the extra EPG info.

What really surprised me was just quite how many channels were on the ‘stack’ to launch – 2 a week for as far ahead as the eye could see.

My first reaction was who are all these people launching channels – and how do they expect to make any money?

Having been involved in many a channel launch in the UK and in multiple other countries I’m well aware of the cost bases, and the kind of money one can expect to make. Now I’ve touched on this subject several months ago when I questioned whether the ‘Great Channel Shake-out’ was coming. It seems that shake out time is coming.

So my point today is, why do so many new players try and launch channels on Sky with the aim of making money (as opposed to be a marketing cost of a wider business)– and my answer is these are often ill thought out vanity products with no chance of cutting through and little chance of even breaking even. The old maxim was ‘the best marketing for your channel is the EPG’, but that just doesn’t cut it why an EPG, which with radio stations, has about a thousand channels names on it. Many of these players are ‘squatters’ hoping not to lose too much money before they sell their one escalating asset – the EPG slot.

Only the big boys and legacy channels can seriously expect to make any money from ‘subs’ (money the platforms pay the channels to have quality content on their platform, that they then can charge customers for a ‘package’). There is still money to be made from advertising, but that’s getting increasingly hard even if you do make a blip on the frankly Dickensian rating’s system that is BARB. Personalised advertising from the likes of Google will shake up the market no doubt, but I don’t see it bringing masses of new money into the general marketplace. The other money is direct revenues via phone lines, shopping and premium services.

Niche business owners need to work out what they want to achieve with their business, work out who they want to reach, how to market to them, how to build a market presence and then work out if being on the Sky platform is worth it – or if even being a linear channel is worth it. My view is concept, revenue streams and brand first- then work out if you’re a linear channel (either now, later, or ever) and what markets you can and should work in; new ‘TV ’businesses will flourish, but what constitutes a TV business has changed. There’s a multiple of platforms out there – but the real crux of the matter isn’t the platform, it’s how you go about gaining and keeping an audience which you can monetise. The platform of choice should flow from that question first. That's why wiser players like Simply Media, and others like London TV have moved off the platform and onto the web -it's right for their business.

Sky obviously think (and I agree) that there is too much ‘junk’ cluttering up the finite EPG resources as they up the amount of original content needed to maintain an EPG slot, dissuading those who block up the EPG with channels existing on a few hours of looped lo-res content shot in a suburban living room.

I do believe a TV platform like Sky and linear channels have a future in the medium to long term. I’m intrigued to see how FreeSat (Freeview equivalent on satellite) will affect the market. However, what I’m most intrigued about are new forms of EPG which are more than channel guides, but include programme search facilities, especially ones based on tagged content.

What I’d really like to see are ‘open source’ digiboxes where I could chose to download new, perhaps even personalised forms of EPGs, together with widgets and robots that turn my TV into a more connected experience - and that allow (linear) channels to exist in harmony with limited content niche brands.

If the platforms don’t do it, someone else will as TV’s move towards being another monitor on a household network as people decide they want to combine their Sky with their Joost , Babelgum and/or (video) iTunes

Music Old Skool takes on the future

2007-10-10T12:21:00.000+01:00

I took part in a really interesting Round Table about the future of the music industry yesterday, hosted by Sellaband and run by Tony Platt, the famed producer who’s worked with people like Bob Marley and AC/DC. It also featured names like David Arden who whilst being Sharon Osbourne’s brother is also a Music Manager working with the likes of James Brown and the stupidly good looking Mark Maclaine from Sellaband success story Second Person.

Without being too rude about age, that was a few centuries worth of music experience - and whilst the guys occasionally lapsed into how good it was in 'the old days' they really do know the business and the talent side inside out and can see how to chart the way forward in this new paradigm. I do feel sorry for the legacy businesses - but equally they need to embrace the new world order, rather than trying to stop it.

Now I’ve discussed Sellaband before, and I’ve now had the honour of meeting both of the founders, Johan and Pim. To summarise it’s a way of bands and artists with demo’s to get a following and more importantly gain investment from members to record a professional album and hopefully ‘break out’. I guess it’s a cross between a social networking site and a boutique record label. I like the concept; whilst I don’t see the site being the new Facebook (and I doubt they do to) and I do see it being like the Hacienda, The Cavern Club or Rough Trade – a source of great music, and new talent incubator.

I guess what I really like about is that it completely understands as is riding the dynamic wave of change sweeping pretty rapidly through the music industry as it changes from an industry where choice was controlled by A&R and money was made by selling records, to being increasingly a music entertainment business where the ‘business’ is being more of a ‘thin client’ middle man between artist and consumer helping with professionalising, marketing and mentoring talent.

Big commercial artists and slick marketing won’t go away, but the mix will change and the business dynamics delivering those will change too.

For artists, the great thing about the web is it allows them to learn and develop away from overt commercial pressures that insist on quick fire hits. It allows niche artists to find audiences that like you across the globe, and also enough interest from around the world to give you an income that allows you to devote yourself to your music.

Now those who get involved with Sellaband get very, very evangelical about it –but do you know what, I think they have the right to. Nice concept, and the fact that they’ve already had a number of ‘break outs’ in mainland Europe is a very positive sign. I’m guessing the Round Table is part of their push into the UK market, and I wish them good luck.

Oh, and do check out the 'post-trip-hop' Second Person

Disruptive Digital kisses the movies, flirts with the theatre

2007-10-02T11:22:00.000+01:00

People are by nature social beasts and whatever happens with the net and TV there is always going to be a place for mass social entertainment, or 'going out'.

As disruptive digital technologies become more pervasive they are starting to more than just nibble at today's area of interest, cinema and theatre. We all know about one man and keyboard replacing orchestras in the West End, and we're all really used to CGI creating amazing effects in Hollywood movies.

But the underlying fundamentals of these industries will and are changing. Now cinema is a lot more advanced than anything happening in theatre: Piracy and global media have combined to create 'Day and Date' releases - movies like Harry Potter or Spiderman that get released pretty much on the same day globally. More interestingly on the distribution side, we are slowly moving from being served by film projectors (incidentally I started my work career as a projectionist) to being served by digital projectors - in effect very posh, high powered TVs. Cinema owners even have the same kind of hi-def discussions as home consumers pondering whether to go for 2k or 4k projectors.

These projectors are now becoming more ubiquitous in the states, and in the UK a combination of government pump-priming and commercial alliances are getting these digital beatss into our multiplexes. There are three main results of these changes. Firstly, clearer, crisper and cleaner pictures that don't degrade as the massive rolls of film chundle through cogs and spinning things, which is very nice for the audience.

Commercially, one of the things that always restricted movie releases, like non-blockbusters and especially art-house and niche fair are 'P&A' costs, that's prints and advertising. Now we all know advertising can cost lots and how viral and net marketing can now help bring down costs. The cost that couldn't be changed, were copies of film prints, it cost around £1k for each a copy of a movie for each screen it played in - and as movies may open say in the UK in 750 screens - that's a big upfront cost. With digital, you can put a movie on a hard-disk and that's under a hundred quid - eventually you might send the movie to the cinema over the net.

Also remember that the projectors are essentially really big TVs. It means they can show boxing matches, gigs or the season finale of Heroes. Equally it might be a movie you've shot on a high def camcorder, edited on a laptop (and that equipment might cost less than £1k all in) and then get it projected at screen 4 in your local movie house. With this kind of technology the cinema could actually be the local pub with a 60 inch plasma or a church hall/youth centre with a cheap video projector - you can see the economics and type of content played might change somewhat.

In the UK, you are beginning to see the effect: Places like my local cinema taking part in a season of classic British movies re-released for the summer - it also has small festivals and plays 'niche' low budget movies aimed at the big local Bangladeshi community. Some cinemas have a couple of screens dedicated to the current Rugby World Cup. It's also my mate who made a movie with some massive TV stars, shot relatively cheaply on HD cameras and soon to be released in cinemas and on DVD - those economics just wouldn't have stacked up 5 years ago.

The result, well who knows. I imagine a lot more specialised niche content - more choice and more opportunity to see things that speak to you. Blockbusters will still be there though. The cinema itself will be less of a place to see movies, and more of a venue for all kinds of entertainment - maybe your 10 screen multiple will have 4 screens of 'blockbusters', 2 screen showing a variety of 'niche' movies, 2 screens having play-offs for an X-box championship and another 2 showing sports events.

Now whilst the cinema is increasingly being fundamentally changed by Digital, the theatre is taking its time. That's cool, its a grand old dame who's currently flirting with online marketing and computer controlled lighting.

But think back 2,500 years ago and theatre was a bunch of greek blokes wearing non-expressive masks pretending to be women going on a sex strike. 400 years ago theatre was still a bunch of blokes -t his time in expressive make-up with pretty young boys playing the ladies, still acting in a stilted, artificial style.

Nowadays, pretty much anything goes - its an audience mainly, but not exclusively looking at some kind of stage and being entertained, stimulated or perhaps bored.

There is a lot of discussion about theatre being out of touch with a mass market audience and some people are trying to shake that up and redefine what theatre is for a new age. That could be by the choice of content (Shopping & F****ing); by how they interact with the audience, say having the actors outside the theatre and in the lobby being in character and getting the crowd in the mood (The Old Vic) or its even a whole bunch of experimental theatres taking plays on walking tours, or using multiple rooms in industrial spaces as their stage and auditorium.

I'd like them to start moving to the next stage, taking hints from Alternative Reality Gaming, and online dramas such as Bebo's Kate Modern. Imagine booking a play ticket, but the performance starts a week beforehand with a more immersive experience: maybe love emails from one of the characters; You Tube'd clues ahead of a whodunnit; background articles for a political play; or playful text messages or vlog entries ahead of a comedy.
It might be as simple as having a lyrics sheets emailed ahead of a musical. Imagine a school show for teens where they can text their advice onto screens on stage and have actors react.

Maybe the performance is 'flashmobbed' where the audience get texted an hour beforehand and get told which venue/space to show up in - now that would be a great unsettling start for a creepy Macbeth, or a ghost story.

Now that's just a bunch of random ideas, and I know some Directors will throw their hands up in horror, but I think its a great creative tool and I'd pay money to have my comfort zone played with.

Nice boys: The last.fm entrepreneurs

2007-09-26T15:09:00.000+01:00

Last night 2 of the founders of Last.fm, Martin Stiksel and Felix Miller made their first public appearance since they sold their website to CBS for a rather lovely chunk of cash ($280 MIllion). I'm not going to attempt to give a blow by blow account when The Guardian's Jemima Kiss does such a great job.

Its' great seeing a bunch of conviction entrepreneurs (and for me , local boys) creating success by staying true to themselves, rather than becoming the oxbridge/ silicon valley chino clones that the investment community feels more at comfort with.

Tie-ing in with my last post about Music 2.0 it was interesting to get their take on how the music industry is being disrupted by digital technologies. Whilst everyone agrees the music majors will survive (in some form at least), the message coming over loud and clear is that now the average person has more choice of music to listen to, and that is stimulating music appetite as people are more likely to come across songs that 'do it' for them.

The industry is changing with more 'bottom up' fanbase led music success slowly competing with the traditional 'top down' model characterised by the majors with their heavily marketed internationalised stars. Thus the much vaunted 'long-tail' business model is having its first major real world success with music - note Elvis dominating the charts in the UK recently.

To me, its part of the new paradigm where successful digital businesses need to be 'porous'; consider themselves more like just one of the stakeholders in their business, skimming off the cream not gulping down the whole pint. Ultimately these businesses are 'owned' buy the people who use them ( create the content in them, therefore make them) and the trick is to make money by helping them do what they want to do, not by simply working out how to extract cash (please note GMTV).

The one piece of 'gossip' they hinted at quite clearly is the (frankly obvious) notion that TV network CBS will take the underlying technology of last.fm (audioscrobbling or working out who likes what based on actual behaviour) and apply it to TV. I think Sky will be looking on with interest, and I think BARB should take note too; yes 'video-scrobbling' will be great for audiences in finding new shows - it may also help CBS create a competitor to the dominant Google in personalised advertising.

Finally, I want to thanks my mates Judith and Michael of Second Chance Tuesday for putting on such a great event; they just keep adding to their long list of the biggest names in disruptive digital businesses who talk and share with those who attend.

Music 2.0

2007-09-05T13:43:00.000+01:00

End of the Summer break :(

Today’s post is inspired by a conference I went to last night marking the London return of the seminal internet networking event, First Tuesday.

The keynote came from my ex bosses boss, Patrick Vien who is now the CEO of Warner Music International. I found the breakdown of Warner’s future plans both clever and disappointing: He spoke wisely about experimentation and education as they look at new business models, new revenue streams, taking more control of artists ‘multi-platform’ strategies (including live performance) and re-analysing revenue streams including advertiser funded music. Warner will survive and remain a big player in the future, and might even get there with less pain that the other music majors.

But equally at the end of the speech I felt disappointed; partly because the topic of the moment, DRM wasn’t touched upon. More significant was that whole thought process behind these clever actions was that of a controlling, top down organisation working out how to leverage value from content they have ‘created’ and decided to market. In fact majors now maximise their efforts on a very few international artists – so weirdly the internet has created less choice, from the majors at least. Like I said, Warner and the others will be around, making nice profits, but I still see pain for them as they contract and change– and it does also seem like they are cutting out the ‘nursery slopes’ where the new 50 Cents get exposure and learn their craft.

Who I found much more exciting, were the new ‘bottom up’ players that were about enabling and helping consumers discover music they like, as opposed to convincing them to purchase through marketing and advertising. These are disruptive industries that are changing the face of the industry, the ones taking a positive lead and forcing the majors to change their models.

There were 2 very interesting players there, and 2 complete stand outs.

Interesting:

Jamendo is somewhere between Bit Torrent and iTunes that essentially gives you free music, with ad revenue split 50/50 between the company and the artists. You an also chose to ‘donate’ to artists you like. It doesn’t seem to come with many strings and I can see it filling a successful niche helping new acts gain exposure. It’s got a mainland European tinge to the music, and if you’re not a nationalist snob you can find some interesting artists on it.

Another great niche player helping new artists is Sellaband which in a non-sexy description allows you to become a ‘business angel’ investing in bands you like for $10 a pop and sharing in the bands profits, as well as discovering great music. Again, I don’t see it replacing EMI, but it IS a stepping stone to the big time. It’s fun to use and helps new talent shine without the Pop Idol schmaltz. I think I’ll enjoy this site.

Stand Outs:

There were 2 sites that I thought, yeap, I can see them being big mainstream players.

One is already established in the US, but blocked in the rest of the world, except apparently the UK where it hopes to officially launch soon. I think you may need to make up a US zip code though (I used to love watching Beverly Hills 90210). Pandora is personalised radio – you tell it what you like and based on algorithms its helps you discover and listen to new music and favourites. You pay extra if you want the to minimise ads and get some extra functionality, and at $3 a month, it seems quite an affordable price-point. Its good fun and me and my partner are hooked already.

What kind of impresses me is that instead of this being a purely software led operation, they actually have a team of 50 musicians analysing the musical qualities of tracks which then gets fed into the system. It has a nice interface and I like the way they’ve integrated the advertising into the site. Pandora already has half a million tracks already covered, classical coming next – I found to hard to find an artist they didn’t have – and a ‘wiki pandora’ is on its way too on top of their facebook widget. If they can sort out the very complex issue of international rights issues, they’ll go far.

The last site on today’s post is we7 from music via web pioneer, and music legend Peter Gabriel - he previously pioneered legal music downloading in Europe. Whilst we7 will let you buy music, its main selling point is free legal music, DRM free. The music from major artists and new acts gets paid for by a 10 second advert. The advert expires after 4 weeks, and then you have ad free, free music. It’s a great way of experiencing new tracks and I really see this has a place within the wider marketplace. The CEO Steve Purdham seems to really ‘get’ where the industry is going and I see them reacting well to the changes within the marketplace.

Take a look, discover and please post your thoughts by hitting the comments button.

Locate TV; its quite nice really

2007-08-20T15:32:00.000+01:00

I’ve recently started a conversation (via this blog) with the nice people at Locate TV.

Locate TV is in very early stage Beta, but aims to be a kind of TV Show Google/ Radio Times/ Internet Movie Database kind of search engine. Essentially say if you want to see the next episode of Heroes it will give you the times of the next TV screening, connect to a DVD store and tell you where you can download it ,all with a little descriptive blurb. All legal stuff too, which is either good or bad I guess depending on where you stand – student sci-fi nut, or responsible media Rights Manager.

If you’d like a Beta invite and make your own mind up, send me a mail (link in my profile) and I’ll get the nice lady to mail you a password.

I like the concept of this site, especially as you may be aware of my previous comments about broadcasters pushing premiere showings, making it hard to catch up with water-cooler TV after the BARB (ratings body) aimed promo’d slot.

Locate need to sort out their Genre search for this thing to become truly useful, but that is on the cards. As I’ve talked about before, it would be so useful to (potential) audiences if producers start attaching tags of content and likely interest groups to their shows to aid discovery.

The site also has some nice other little widgets and upgrades planned, which I’m loathed to say too much about (Ok, Facebook is a clue for one thing) as new businesses need to keep things close to their chests.

So, take a look and see what you think.

Web 3.0, the new TV Networks

2007-08-10T15:07:00.000+01:00

Today I'm picking up and exploring a topic I've touched on before; what will be the shape of TV Networks in years to come.

Now I'm not pretending to have the answers, I'm just looking around and seeing what might happen. I do believe that wherever we'll be in 10 years, it'll be a mixed bag of options with the definition of a TV Network stretched out - maybe we should really start talking about 'TV Networks' as brands rather than platforms.

So today we have the likes of ITV, BBC, NBC, Fox which are mainly on TV, but also have some life as 'web TV networks' too. I still expect these kind of players to be the big boys for the foreseeable future. But just as happened with Fox in the States, or Sky in the UK, there is a distinct likelihood that a new player will come along that is so significant it'll shift the entire industry landscape.

Moving forward, I'm writing today for 2 reasons. One was the official Viral Charts number 1 video which had Eric Schmidt of Google describing what is web 3.0. In (mediaguardian style) summary, he's saying that "that Web 3.0 will be seen as applications.... will run on any device - PC or mobile, applications are fast and customisable, distributed virally through social networks and email..."

Now we've also just had the announcement Skype has added a new bit of functionality, video sharing via its phone software. Today you can share the kind of cute clips with your friends you'd expect to see on You Tube. Now when you factor in that the original 'Team Skype' (who still have an involvement with that business) are now the brains behind Joost, the idea of sharing a new episode of your favourite TV show with a friend, and that show getting 'ratings' by being virally spread through friends of friends via social networks doesn't seem like such a big step at all.

I've already talked about 'Is Bebo the new ITV...' on previous posts, following on from their première of the online interactive drama mystery 'Kate Modern. We have organisations like Vuguru backed by Disney man Michael Eisner specialising in web only video content. We have all the video entertainment platforms like Joost, iPlayer and Veoh garnering content and experience with longform TV shows on the web. We have the huge viral potential of social networks like Facebook and Bebo; I doubt there is one person on the open platform of facebook who hasn't had an attempt of a Vampire bite, or had a cream pie thrown at them.

All in all, my conclusion. Current TV networks will remain big, if not as big production companies like Endemol with big brands will be even bigger than they are today.

The likes of Joost and Babelgum will bubble and grow slowly for a few more years. As I've mentioned before, the biggest stumbling block I see with these web TV services is that most people won't want to download and 'run' potentially several of these kinds of programs from everyone like the BBC and Channel 4 through to several new players, each with a few shows that you fancy watching.

However, bearing other Microsoft developments in mind, I see the equivalent of your cable box or TV becoming your personalised iGoogle home page, or more likely your facebook, Bebo or even My Space profile, each having 'TV widgets' you've chosen, or the web company has chosen to allow on its network. These widgets will in effect be Joost, iPlayer or Babelgum - the complex viewing and library programs today run as stand alone applications.

They'll email you with suggestions of shows, your friends will tell you about shows they've loved - and you can either watch the whole show on the service (with adverts), or be shown a clip and be sent off to the 'broadcasters' station or application.

Five years from now we may have production company Vuguru premiering the first web only 'TV format' that has 50 Million 'views'. In 2017 the big hit show, the 'Heroes' of its year may well be premiered on Facebook, get 100 Million views globally in a week, with that audience returning as each weekly episodes are first 'aired'... and don't even get me started on non-linear formats and shows.

Happy summer weekend my readers.

Next generation of viewers? How not to lose them.

2007-08-01T11:14:00.000+01:00

Over the last few years I've spent quality time with friends and relatives at the lower end of the 16-34 demographic that are the 'Holy Grail' for advertisers, therefore the Holy Grail for broadcasters -especially those like MTV or Extreme Sports that sell themselves on that basis.

The thing is, I wonder how many of those who are say 16-20 have the 'TV habit' and what that means for 'TV' Stations as years go by and the notion of what is an available audience changes and shrinks. My experience seems tells me that this younger demo will watch TV when its on, they'll be interested about certain shows they hear about, but crucially they aren't in the habit of going on and switching the TV on. If they're bored or have time they always seem to fire up the computer instead and log on.

Now this isn't new info. However I believe that all TV 'brands', and especially those aimed at a youth market need to up their game and stop thinking of this as TV with bits on, and re-assess how they look at serve their target audience.

Outside the terrestrials, I see only half-hearted attempts to engage with, and prepare for this new paradigm. I'm not sure if its lack of understanding and/or of vision by those who make the decisions. From my experience I think a big factor is the short-termism of the bottom line that ultimately is bad business as it halts companies from growing, or even being able to stand still. I know very few TV businesses that will invest in anything that doesn't have an immediate return on investment - hence the amount of revenue sharing deals going on with more of the risk falling on smaller suppliers who have to take risk to survive. I think the same is true of the bigger players, but they're just a bit more cushioned from those harsh realities.

Multi-channel is a harsh, place and stations can fall off a ratings cliff over a season, but rebuilding an audience is tough like building a pyramid single handedly.

So my few suggestions of the day:

- Money people; realise that you are no longer in a stable, mature business. You're more like a bubble that might burst. You need to be fast moving, entrepreneurial and closer to your grass routes. If you want to survive you need the equivalent of an R&D department, ideally with a bit of an incubator investment fund attached. Risk is part of the game.

- Stop using the word viewer and start thinking of them, for want of a better word, as customers. TV stations are entertainment brands nowadays - and stations aren't that big you can't be in a 'conversation' with your audience

- In fact, stop thinking of yourself as a 'Broadcaster' with its inference of a paternalistic scattering of 'we know better' grains of entertainment gold. You're a service industry, like restaurants, holidays and back massages and its always worth keeping that in mind.

- Stop nibbling at the edges of the 'new dynamic' by playing lip service for example by adding a 'spray painting' of interactivity to your current product. If your going to do something, do it properly if you want your audience to connect to, and respect your product.

- In traditional TV you make a product, then advertise it. But in this landscape, we don't need to be, or in fact should be such a 'distant' entity. Here, your media brand is better able to reach out and touch your customers through social networks, e-mail outs and web presence. Talking to your audience needs to be a dialogue not a speech, and more importantly the 'core' (production side) of the business needs to be talking to customers and potential customers- not a separate advertising and PR department. Lessons need to taken from areas like CRM (Customer Relationship Management) about knowing, understanding, communicating and retaining your customer.

-The current media landscape is moving towards areas where implicit TV specialities such as 'discovery' are more explicit, 'I'm doing this for you', 'check this out'. Music channels - who may (or may not) have your own websites, but you also need to 'let go' of strict notions of ownership and gain a presence on other websites like Facebook or My Space with useful widgets and info. Get your producers and talent to start blogging. Be seen to be fully engaged with the whole media landscape.

- People are still people, they still want to be entertained, to learn, to have something to talk to their friends about, to wind down or be excited. They WANT to interact with brands they trust and that speak to them and their lifestyles - this isn't that scary.

- Your channel brands are multi-platform. You need some more show formats that are too, that build a returning audience across platforms.

Ok, that's enough for today. want me, I'm available as a reasonably priced consultant.

A response: What IS missing?

2007-07-27T14:06:00.000+01:00

Today’s blog is a response to an article by Keith Stuart in Wednesday’s Guardian Newspaper called ‘Just who is playing who in ARGs?’

ARGs or Alternative Reality Games are the hot new entertainment format right now. In short they are ‘experiences’, games or I’d argue ‘shows’ that are played via websites, text messages, phone calls and other platforms.

I’ve discussed these broad areas before in posts including “What is the next Big Brother?” and “Follow Me Entertainment”.

To roughly paraphrase Keith’s argument, ARGs are hot right now, and they are being used by companies to create or initialise communities, and then advertise to them. However they are often doing so crudely and so in turn, turning off a potential audience who simply chose not to engage.

The solution is simple and I can be blunt. It’s me. Well, me and people like me.

This is a new and exciting arena, but it’s now breaking out from the ‘underground’ with an increasingly mainstream audience, using recognisable formats (see Kate Modern on Bebo, my post: Is Bebo the new ITV?; The Kate Modern Story).

ARG still, as a generalisation are made by people who come from some kind of technical background, with a few who come from conceiving games. I was actually shocked when I went to websites associated with 2 companies in this field who boast about their technical prowess. I can’t imagine going to an ITV productions, or an RDF website where they boast ‘we’re good with cameras and edit suites’. Is it too harsh for me to say I feel like they are slightly off target?

These ‘entertainments’ are also often commissioned by Advertisers, and the projects likely go through business development, straight into the hands of the ‘craftsmen’ without the help of those used to creating hit entertainment.

The link that seems to be missing to me is that of the ‘Producer’ (or even creatively led production houses/studios) – the creative visionary that is not just the person who oversees the projects, but someone who has knowledge and experience of the audience, who understands multiple forms of disciplines; narratives, resolutions, mainstream engagement, advertiser needs and concerns, the art of balancing and prioritising criteria etc. That to me says TV, theatre, radio, cinema as well as web. Ultimately web has been a 'flat' 2d environment, but web 2.0 is a lot more like, well TV.

I don’t believe X Factor, the current Doctor Who or Buffy would be the hits they have without the steering hands of their Producers, be that Simon Cowell or a Russell T Davies.

Just because old hands like me have worked in ‘traditional’ TV, a lot of us do ‘get’ the new paradigm and have the skills, knowledge and experience that will help these new genres flourish. Ultimately we are all talking to the same audience.

Maybe I should set up a new cross-platform creatively led studio. Anyone fancy joining me?

What's next for Kids TV?

2007-07-26T15:03:00.000+01:00

There has been a lot of talk about the state of Kids TV in the UK. It’s the most competitive market in the world, with over 20 stations operating in this mid-sized country, so it’s always tough to operate in. Recently the sector has been hit as ITV, still the biggest commercial broadcaster winds down its kids programming. More significantly, the ban on ‘junk food’ advertising has hit the bottom line of all the stations (with the exception of the dominant BBC).

There is money to be made, hence the number of stations. The best place to be right now is a producer in the likes of Chorion and Ragdoll who own large chunks of the value chain via well known and loved characters – and associated merchandising.

But what about the broadcasters future, and perhaps more importantly what about the kids and our society; we need to ensure that they receive culturally and educationally rich programming that reflects the world and diverse society around them, that helps build the kind of values we find important within the context of the local world they inhabit and relate to.

The BBC will be there, and people like Nickelodeon are providing ‘quality’ shows mainly international, but also some local. My worry is about the mix we have for our kids. Being able to name-check one or two shows won’t cut it if there are 20 out of 23 channels pumping out merchandising led brain candy.

So, here are some ideas and thoughts:

- ITV! WTF?? Prove to us that you’re not just about grabbing our money through dodgy phone-ins. You’re a big organisation, you still make lots of money, have some corporate responsibility and community spirit. From a commercial viewpoint, think about investing in building some channel loyalty in your younger viewers, who’ll then consider you one of ‘their’ channel brands they tune into to see what’s on, as opposed to Channel 4 or even the Beeb. The BBC via Doctor Who have shown how you can leverage strong primetime brands for a younger audience, so why not look there too. At the moment ITV, you look like you just get interested in youth when they are old enough to vote on the X Factor.

- The Government: Ok, so you don’t want to give tax breaks to the next Transformer style franchise, but you have a responsibility to make sure our kids grow up with the right kind of values. You can ‘hit them’ at school with your concerns, but its obvious surely to all that you need to take a more holistic approach. We all know kids bring their values from home, and it can be hard for school to have an effect.

Give culturally and educationally valuable programming tax breaks, top slice the licence fee if needed. Hey, why not even get the Arts Council to invest more in youth, and perhaps wider sways of the public will feel connected to their work in later life. Consider the non-commercial aspects as part of the solution of issues like social inclusion, citizenship and avoiding ASBOs.

- Broadcasters: Well, whatever help you get, you know it’s up to you – morally and of course commercially. Take a little but more of those expansive marketing and on-air budgets and invest more in ‘brownie point’ programming, even if its cheaply made. Some shows are fun, but also ensure that you have a balanced schedule, and use your commissioning power to make sure that our kids really do get a ‘balanced diet’.

Ok, but broadcasters also need to make a buck. I’d stay speed down the route to being almost platform agnostic brands on TV, web, phones, publishing, even the high street and sports centres. From Alternative Reality Games, Second Life style worlds, through live events, tie up with schools and embrace full social networking.

Now social networking: If you’re of a certain age in the UK, you would have been a Blue Peter kid or a Magpie kid –you had your tribe. Now you might be Jetix, Nickelodeon, or even CBBC kid. Build on that and keep them within your (branded) virtuous circle. Hey, kill 2 birds with one stone and have parents/carers sign up with linked accounts say for the under 11s. This way they can keep an eye on their kids, network with other parents and then you also have the opportunity to advertise direct to the ones with the real cash in their wallets.

I’m off to baby-sit now.

Plagarism on TV

2007-07-23T12:44:00.000+01:00

This post is in reply to mail from John, who wanted to delve deeper into the discussion here about honesty in TV, and more specifically plagiarism in TV.

Well, that's a much more complex and subtle argument that I breaks down into 2 major areas, plagiarism within a programme, and plagiarism of show formats. Further, this is an argument that has 2 levels, best described as a 'moral' one of nicking other people's hard work, and the other is the much harder to define and act on, which is the issue of Intellectual Property (IP) and what is copyrightable, what is not, and perhaps more importantly what kind of action you can take if concepts are stolen.

First of all, this isn't an argument about things like blueprints with hard technical information. In this post, we're talking about the creative field and this really is an area that's like a 3 (or 4) dimensional puzzle, all in really similar shades of grey - no black - no white.

As with stories - it is a often said that all stories follow the same basic forms and basic stories (eg, redemption, travelogue) and I think the same can be said of any kind of show. The basic building blocks of any story or format exist in society in some form, and what is unique is how you take those elements, interpret them, mix them up and develop them. But Zeitgeist also plays a big part, with the same elements in society quite possibly influencing multiple people in a similar way. Think of it as society as a kitchen - what is unique is which ingredients you chose, and how you create your cake (or other food) from them, and say bread exists all over the world, developed separately.

So, to be clear, I'm saying this is a fuzzy issue. Its about subtleties, and its difficult to draw a clear line between taking someone's successful idea, and being inspired by the same thing and evolving an idea- which is life basically. This said, this does not excuse the people who have no ideas, who's sharp business practices involve just taking an idea, doing no work and taking profit from it - clearly wrong.

John, who posed the original question was most interested in examples in TV. This is where it gets more complex. Have I worked at places where teams were asked to come up with our take on Show x or Show z? Yes. But TV is a fashion thing, and its like saying one designer can't be inspired by say a trend for day glo colours as someone else is doing it. Copy some one else's whole design, and you are in dangerous territory.

TV is a business, and just as when the crucial issue when I was raising finance for a business, the crux question was the team and the ability to execute that concept. The same is true of the production world. When I worked at an ITV production company in the 90s they were trying to move into more 'youth' programming as their forte of shiny floored Saturday night Light Entertainment fell out of fashion for a short while. Whilst we came up with great ideas, 'new' ideas, a commissioner isn't going to hand over a million quid to a company that makes shows featuring cats doing cute things and Barrymore doing fart jokes - they'll go to the cool 'yoot' company that also makes shows for genre market leaders like MTV.

So commissioners get pitched 500 concepts, half of which have similarities. You, the commsisoner make your choice based on concept and (or sometime solely because of) expected delivery and favoured status... and then you meddle in/finesse the production. That's when the more of the 'original' tweaks from your format, or whole chunks of format might make it into someone else's production, sometimes knowingly and without guilt, or sometimes simply that the info has soaked into the commissioners sub-conciousness.

My attitude? This is business, life is tough. Suing people puts them off working with you again. Salary (or potential salary) tends to win over proving a point. Some you loose - but if you keep having good ideas one will fight through. It's your job to get feedback and work out if its the concept, or any perceived doubts about ability to deliver - in which case you need to improve our business. The commissioners may be wrong, but whoever said life was fair.

As a final thought, I'm one of those rare people that has tons of totally original ideas, all hits too!

Is Bebo the new ITV? The Kate Modern Story

2007-07-20T13:25:00.000+01:00

Earlier this week I attended a really enlightening chat by Michael Birch, the San Francisco based Brit who's created a number of websites: Bebo the social networking site is the most notable, its the third 'runner' in this sector claiming victory in certain territories over My Space and Facebook.

He briefly skirted around one topic that really piqued my interest. He called Bebo a 'Media channel' before semi-correcting himself. With the launch of Kate Modern (explained below) it hints at a future where Social Networks don't just give you peer or friend created info, it's also the place where you'll 'discover' new music and entertainment, but also find 'formatted' shows - drama, games, quizzes, as well a reality, documentary and news.

Kate Modern, is essentially a drama with a who-done-it, what-is-going-on? game built in. Think Miss Marple crossed with Lost, crossed with The OC across multiple sites, and with no central hub other than one you create yourself.

I was genuinely engrossed In Kate Modern's story for too long whilst preparing this post; viewers are encouraged to interact and whilst perhaps not directly controlling events, it is obviously being written as it progressing responding to the audience's feedback. It's obviously very raw, and a very new format that has a touch of a 'school play' feel to the acting, but that can't dent its power as a new force in entertainment.

This new segment is also being explored by Alternative Reality Game producers like Mindcandy and touched upon in my post 'What is the Next Big Brother?'. It's also worth noting that this kind of interactive programming/event that engages more directly with its audience is also much of a buzz in the advertising world where there is a trend to get an audience to participate with a brand's values, rather than being given a message via a traditional advert.

The fact that the likes of more obvious entertainment providers like Joost , Xbox Live or even Channel 4’s Big Brother also have social networking aspects further highlights where people believe the industry is heading to; convergence to an extent not seen before, and barely envisioned by those in traditional formatted entertainment.

So these online formats are in their early stages, barely out of the starting blocks but an important trend nether-the-less. Whilst popular, LonelyGirl15, Kate Modern's predecessor racked up 50 Million views, it's not quite had the cut-through of a Buffy, Lost or American Idol. But I believe that will change quickly, as more advertisers move into this space (such as Kate Modern's Neutrogena), working methodologies are finessed and these shows move into the mass market mainstream.

Its worth noting that whilst Bebo commissioned Kate Modern, the show plays out across Bebo, You Tube and other websites. So despite whatever deals they have in place I would expect adverting ‘leakage’ of advertising revenues to other businesses.

So I say hats off to Bebo for exploring this genre, and I look forward to seeing Kate Modern develop, and other formats developing and exploring this space too. They’ll commissioned by 'platforms' like Bebo, FaceBook or You Tube as well as ITV.com, or even by the Nike's, Coca-Cola's or The Guardian each promoting their brand values through entertainment.

My advice - well its a learning curve for everyone involved as this new area is pioneered, but as an Executive Producer on a number of shows of multiple genres across multiple formats, it is worth remembering that whilst things change, they also stay the same. From Homer, through Shakespeare, Cecil B de Mille and P Diddy, it's always been about knowing your audience and having a good editorial judgment. Yes, its ultimately about bums on seats and business, but you get there through the subtleties of creativity and a strong creative vision with engaging, considered content and a knowledge of where you are going. That holds true whatever platform - from books, through theatre, TV, and now online.

So is Bebo the new ITV? Well, maybe not today but the media landscape is definitely getting more complex by the day.

Follow up: TV's Little White Lies

2007-07-19T12:01:00.000+01:00

A quick follow up to my post from last month about TV's Little White Lies touching on the general default position of many TV Producers to make things 'better' rather than honest.

Well, things seem to have truly blown up big time here in the UK with the BBC taking a bruising to it's reputation (from which I hope it will recover) and RDF's share price has taken a tumble of 10% this morning. There is a knowledge that even the most uninterested of TV viewers will now take anything seen on TV with a pinch of salt and disbelief, as one might from a tabloid paper, rather than with the a sense of belief from knowing that 'they weren't allowed to lie on TV' - a rarity that the UK was blessed with.

I was forced to do things when I was starting out in the TV business that I didn't feel were 'right' and despite what was said in papers, 'white lies' have been a pretty pervasive attitude in TV outside the strictures of news. You always used to get told all that matters is what is 'up there on the screen', and the public 'don't know and don't care that much'.

There is no gloating here. As with many areas of media and the general world, new methods of communicating, easy of access to previously 'private' info means there is a new paradigm in our conversation with our audience. I'm just sorry this couldn't have been a quiet, peaceful change in the industry instead of something so negative and damaging.

Repost: iTV, Participation & Gambling via TV

2007-07-19T11:50:00.000+01:00

I've been asked to re-post a piece I wrote about iTV, participation and gambling TV. I originally took it down for not being a 'proper' blog style piece, but I’m always happy to oblige.

I prepared a version of this as a Paper for a gambling conference in Singapore at the start of last year. It's now a little out of date, but the basic overview is still very useful, especially for those outside the UK wanting an overview of 'Call TV' and gambling via TV.

What I find interesting is looking back within the context of the Call TV scandals hitting the UK recently. Whilst gambling is often seen as bad (and there is no doubt it's dangerous) it is at least transparent and honest when taking your money, as opposed to some sectors of the ‘participation’ market who behaved a little like street hustlers parting punters from their cash, rather than offering a genuine chance to won for each pound bet.

So, not a blog post, but a Conference Paper posted in a blog ….

The Growth and Evolution of iTV and Gambling:
A Rapidly Developing Sector

Prepared by

Vlad Lodzinski, MC3 Global

What is iTV and participation TV?

The term iTV or interactive television is often misused or misunderstood. The term normally refers to either cable TV or satellite TV where the viewer’s cable or satellite box has a ‘return path’. A return path basically means a telephone line that allows the consumers box at home to interact with the TV show they are watching.

It is more useful to talk about ‘participation TV’ which basically means TV where the viewer at home somehow takes part with the show they are watching, no matter what technology they use, be that phone, internet or iTV.

Participation TV can mean anything from viewers voting on American Idol or Big Brother, through to calling in and winning prizes on game shows, right to sports betting or casino games on events seen on TV.

Why are broadcasters interested?

TV channels and ‘platforms’ like cable companies are interested as in the world of new media revenues from advertising or subscriptions are coming under pressure. The new trend is for money (revenues) coming directly from customers. This can also mean ‘home shopping’ or auctions on TV.

increased audience figures
zero investment from broadcaster or channel
quick revenue generation
proven higher revenues to broadcasters and teleshopping
wide range of quiz and game formats
more cash prizes where jackpot payments help to build newer communities
programmes can be aired in previously dead air time
full white label offering.

Participation TV is a format that generates substantial viewer involvement in programmes and this new interactive format will help drive the shape of gaming formats internationally and these will evolve into new gaming and new TV gambling formats.

Participation TV

The following details some of the changes that we are seeing in view of behaviour and interactive TV and in particular focuses on one of the new phenomenon Participation TV formats.

Formats whose sole aim is to engage viewers by encouraging them to participate directly with the programme and where the key focus is participation rather than entertainment.

The following are some of the changes that we are seeing:

TV consumption is changing - its role within our lives is altering.
Rather than passively receive mass communications, viewers actively use TV to meet their specific individual needs – the traditional paradigm has not disappeared (it has evolved).
The widening inspection of content and formats both reflects and prompts viewer interests – building communities and delivering new content streams.

How did gambling on TV start?

There are 2 main kinds of gambling on TV. One is ‘sports betting’ where you bet on pre-existing events such as live horseracing, formula one or other events. This betting can be through either iTV services, or over the telephone.

The other option is betting on games specifically created for TV. These can be keno games, virtual races or in certain market casino games such as Roulette can be offered. These games tend to be fixed odds.

Gambling on TV first took off in a major way in the UK market due to a number of favourable conditions. These included Sky’s aggressive push into the digital TV market creating a large market (very quickly at 6 Million homes), with legally guaranteed access for new channels and heavy investment from businesses looking to explore new revenue streams.

Businesses such as Sky and DITG quickly realized there were huge revenues to be made from sports betting and fixed odds betting, as long as costs of content (eg.rights to show sports events) were not too expensive.

We No Longer Watch TV We Use It

TV is the driver of new interactivity and communities is not a new phenomenon:
74.7% of people use TV as a talking point with friends and family.
Adults who live together spend nearly 2 hours per day watching TV together
Approx 33% of viewers have used TV interactively in the past 6 months.
Nearly 66% of viewers agree that TV helps them learn new and different ways of doing things.
44% of consumers report using the internet and the TV at the same time.

These are the facts.

Through empowering viewers to interact with programming there is a unique opportunity to capitalise on these trends, exciting viewers, building loyalty and deriving new and exciting revenue streams.

Interactivity also enables greater knowledge and understanding of consumers from which communities and direct communication can be developed.

Viewers are Fundamentally Changing

Viewers have fundamentally changed.
Viewers define themselves through participation – with their community and brands.
TV has become a key driver of viewer reality and identity – it is part of the fabric of the individual.
TV creates awareness of issues; reflects our concerns; stimulates conversations; and provides definition for how we express ourselves – it is part of the fabric of society.

TV has responded new content types.
Examples - Maximising content across increasing number of platforms.
Examples - Big Brother, Pop Idol, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, I’m A Celebrity, X Factor, Hells Kitchen.

But we have only scratched the surface.

UK market as example

In the UK there are in excess of 30 TV stations and services offering either sports betting or fixed odds betting. Sky Bet, which has 2 keno TV station and also takes sports betting increased its revenues by 37% in 2005, and is expected to have revenues of over £300 Million through its TV services in the next financial year.

ITV Play, part of the UK’s largest commercial TV broadcaster made profits of £2 Million pounds in its launch month.

Research released in the UK expects the gaming on TV to be a billion dollar industry by the end of this decade. That process can only be hastened by the convergence on traditional TV, and TV delivered over the internet.

The main barrier to entry are regulatory issues (both TV regulations and gaming ones) but solutions exist that allows them to access customers even in some countries where local operators could not run gambling via television.

Whilst the UK has by far the most developed market for gambling on TV there are notable experiments in other countries such as Premiere Win in Germany and Gemstar in the USA.

What are the Opportunities?

Enhanced viewer experiences.

Interactivity is globally proven down to internationally proven new revenue streams to interactive programme.

Participation (Games) TV

Interactive TV formats have been a phenomenal success globally through outputs of production houses including Endemol, Celador, and Fremantle Media.
Whilst traditional interactive programming (incl. Big Brother, Idol, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) has included interactivity as a compliment to traditional passive viewing, next generation Participation TV programming is built around the premise of viewer interaction.
PTV is the next generation of interactive programming – instead of interactivity being used as part of the programme, it becomes the programme.
PTV is still relatively new – but the results cannot be ignored:

$US800M p.a. industry in Germany.
ITV (UK) has recently announced the launch of a 24/7 PTV channel (ITV Play) – capitalising on the recent substantial revenues generated by their early morning programming in what was previously unviable commercial air time.

These are some of the typical results from one supplier.

Generates large audiences higher than many Hollywood blockbusters.
Typically generates a three times higher response to formats such as Pop Idol.
Introduces viewers to gaming.
CRM techniques used to up-sell viewers to gambling formats via mobile and internet marketing.

The Gambling opportunity

This new area of business is not without its challenges. However gambling solutions exist that have been especially designed to service multiple markets around the world and allow broadcasters and other partners to participate in this new, fast growing and exciting business opportunity with minimal risk and maximum returns. One solution by Vlad Lodzinski is particularly interesting in markets where there are limited opportunities to gamble, or those with limited entertainment options.

With a TV service and brand designed by a team who were instrumental in the development of channels such as MTV, it is an entertaining and engaging proposition that has been especially designed to attract both broadcasters and a mass audience.

The simple to use, but high tech back office will offer fixed odds betting on very high quality virtual horse races 24 hours a day. Viewers will be able to watch the races on the internet, on ‘gambling’ TV services or even watch the same race of non-gambling TV stations where they can ‘play for fun’ and maybe decide to try to gamble for real at a later stage.

Conclusion

The UK experience has proves that there is a massive appetite from both broadcasters and viewers to have these kind of services and proves that the revenue streams are highly lucrative. As with any major new lucrative format, such as ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ it is simply a matter of time before these reach out across the world.

Laptop TV - The Unscientific Reviews

2007-07-17T11:11:00.000+01:00

Following on from my previous posts, today I’ve decided to do a totally unscientific and random comparative test of some of the higher profile (longform) TV on over Broadband to your PC providers. I’ve not done services such as BT Vision or Tiscali that stream to your TV as that’s a different kind of service, and errr, I don’t have them at home or office.

So, the rules are I’m ignoring any outside knowledge I have about upcoming content deals or other business info. I’m acting as a straight Regular Joe consumer, and talking about my experience as a user, today the 16^th July. I also have to put my hand up and say I have a low boredom threshold, but then so do many consumers.

This is a longer than usual post (but still amusing), so take this slowly ….

Sky Anytime:

Yay! It loaded from my desktop. Being a user of this service since its launch it’s the one I’m most familiar with. I’ve had times when I couldn’t get it to work, only to eventually bother to call up and find out that as they upgraded I needed to uninstall, and re-install. Not great, but at least the supporting website has now been upgraded, and it’s the most consumer and content focused of the bunch.

Today it’s asked me to upgrade after I finally remembered my password (which is hard to set up via their preferred route of iTV). Whilst that chugs along I have to say this is the most accomplished service as it’s less of a ‘marker of what we want to be doing’ but an actual useable service for current Sky subscribers.

Ok, it can’t tell I’m online so I’ve had to close the program and reload the upgrade again. Not smooth.

Jumping forward, the service loads quickly and is very accomplished. It’s a very visual interface, pretty instinctive to use and it’s showing me TV guide style pictures and reviews of quality content in premium movies, entertainment, sport and lifestyle. It feel’s ‘scheduled’ in terms of offering a broad, but not never-ending list of content, with top 10’s and recommended content.

I’ve got nothing saved in my library to watch, my previous downloads were all over 28 days old and had expired. I have a choice of much content, all covered by my current Sky Subscription, topped up by some ‘Box Office’ premieres. Today I’ve noticed ‘buy to own’ has become an option.

I’ve chosen to download a recent hit movie, You, Me & Dupree which I know from experience will download in 4 hours or so – and it’ll be with a high quality picture too, so I’ll be able to watch it tonight in bed. My only frustration is getting used to the navigation with the lack of a back button.

An accomplished service, and I do actually use Sky Anytime ‘for real’ rather than looking at it for work research.

Joost

This is the one from the founders of Skype and has been receiving massive publicity. I have no doubt it has a very technical accomplished back-end, but today I don’t care about that.

I’ve double-clicked on my desktop icon.. It’s tells me I ‘MUST UPGRADE’, but unfortunately doesn’t give me a link direct to the download page. The accompanying website is very much, ‘we’re this technical solution, take a look’. Fairly minimal mentions of content (ie, why I’ts worth downloading) so as a casual surfer I may not be excited enough to download the service. It is still a very Beta service to be fair, but this start does indicate that this is a technical solution rather that being a sexy content aggregator. For me, the technology is the means to an end, not the solution.

Now the interface is sexy, but I have to say it doesn’t feel instinctive. I feel like I want my laptop to have a touch-screen to make it work.

Its gone full screen and I’ve had to stop my other work on the laptop whilst it downloads/does something. It gives me a black screen and I’ve had to scramble around to try and make the menu bar ‘appear’ so that I can minimise the screen and type this. The sound is cutting in and out on some promo video that self launched. Clicked on ‘Joost suggests’ but ‘that channel is unavailable right now’.

The menu to choose shows isn’t at all instinctive, offers very small jpegs, and no real description of the content of a show. It has some recognisable brand names, but no big hit shows. The video stream keeps stopping and starting so I’ve decided to try and make the menu bar appear again so I can try and find the off button.

Joost has nice technology at work no doubt , but it still doesn’t work. As viewer it neither has the content or the functionality that makes me want to come back.

I would suggest that they go back and try:

a/ Not to try and change a laptop/PC into a TV, when it’s a PC- and you want to use it as a PC too (maybe a choice of interafaces/defaults depending on how/where you are watching).

b/ Put more of a disclaimer that it’s a Beta service when its so flakey

c/ Consider that they need to be act more as a platform and entertainment provider, like Sky Digital, rather than a technology service .

Veoh

Unlike the other services, this one is fairly aimed at the US market, and that clarity of (achievable) purpose is fairly indicative of well thought through functionality throughout the service.

Double clicking on my desktop icon I get an iTunes style box with my ‘playlist’ (empty though). D’oh! Clicking on the tabs (I like - navigation I’m used to from the rest of the world) I can chose from channels or search. ‘Channels’ brings up some US Networks and the kind of channels you expect across any EPG.

No pictures or channel description, in fact this whole design is very Powerpoint circa 1999.

That said, the channels are fairly obvious ‘Fox’, ‘Cycle Network’ etc and the service is fast and clear to use, if lacking in info. I’d say a strong start (but a start) rather than a false start. The show menu is a little confusing, but the player is just like a Quicktime or Windows Media Player one. Instinctive and it loads quickly, but with VHS type pixely pictures. Ok for a You Tube experience, but maybe less good for a movie.

Ok, I don’t seem to be allowed to view any of the decent content as a non-US viewer but this looks like it might develop into something useable, at least for the US audience. It does simple things, simply, but it works.

Babelgum

Another double click on my desktop - another request to update software. It seems a lot of these services are very much in development and will update every week or two. These early launches may have been done to appease investors and impress potential distributors, but they are also putting their brands out to the public with products that are nowhere near ‘ready’.

As the content pick on this service is ‘Jesus Children of America’ lets leave that to one side and assume it’ll get better.

The service looks and feels really similar to Joost, but slightly more instinctive as it pops up with what looks like a remote control in one corner, and this control widget is there from the start - you know what you are meant to look at and use. Again, the service starts full screen and takes you away from what you are doing whilst it then loads whatever it needs to load. The screen seemingly randomly resizes to a window, but content loads noticeably quicker than Joost.

Hand on my heart I don’t think I can further review this Beta fairly. I clicked on buttons, but the interface gave no recognisable response. I pushed another button – 20 seconds later something happened. I did do a search, which was quick, and the video loaded quickly in a VHS style resolution not best suited to a full laptop screen, but watch-able without any stuttering.

Again, I’m sure the service will get a lot better, but it feels a year or more away from something you’d recommend. Again, maybe more of a disclaimer on such a first stage Beta would be useful, especially as people are used to such fully formed Beta’s from the likes of Google and others.

BBC iPlayer

“404 Page Unauthorised”.

Hmm, guess I’ll have to wait till later in the month to talk about the BBC iPlayer, although I may well be worth its own special appraisal. I have watched shows on the BBC website before , clicking onto links and happily watched episodes of shows I liked. I know iPlayer is a new and sparkly technology, but the simplicity of going to a freely available web page and just clicking is where I think we need to be striving towards.

ITV.com

Hmm, clicked in the address on my Firefox browser and clicked on a banner for a ‘preview of our new website’.

It doesn’t recognise my flash player, but I downloaded all the software last time I came to this site. I’ll sort it out.

Ok, restarted firefox and this time the ITV site shows me a white page for ages whilst it ‘loads ads’. Sometimes I hate the net. Again it tells me it can’t detect the right software, but I click on a nice picture of Coronation Street which promises a preview of next week’s hit show.

Ahh, it won’t play. Strange as I watched a clip on this self same laptop last week.

5 minutes later: I had a little think, and decided to actually read all the bumpf on the webpage. Restart the experiment with a copy of IE7 that I keep for emergencies like this. D’oh again!

Ok, I clicked on the ‘play preview of next week’s show’ type of JPEG. The video loaded in about 20 seconds, but it goes straight into an ad break. Cool if I’m expecting it, but the player tells me its playing a 10 second clip, then a 30 second one, then a 30 second one (which doesn’t load properly) and I’m wondering when the show might start, or if its working properly. I’m not able to detach the player, it just launches my Windows Media player but nothing else happens within the player. I give up on that, but click on ‘watch live ITV’. Loads fast, looks good enough, goes full screen effortlessly when the content grabbed me enough to do so.

Simple, effective, it work, it has the content (even if I do hate Corrie) and it has the well known and trusted brand.

One minute later:

Ohh, Windows Media Player has now started playing with the ‘detached’ content, but I do have to resize the player and the video before I continue.

4oD

I’m getting a bit frustrated with all this double-clicking on my desktop for an entertaining experience.

Ok, I get a full screen page that is nicely laid out and this feels like a content service. I look around and work out that some content is paid for, some not. With my previous experiences, including early use of paid for music download sites I decide not to part with cash.

I have a choice to stream or download. Now that’s impressive. That’s an instant gratification when I’m watching on the laptop in my bedroom, or allows me a catch-up when I’m sitting on a train. Brownie points for the Channel 4 team.

I click on stream, and am asked for my password. Why do these websites never remember it - this isn’t my bank account and I have too many passwords to remember.

I get a pop up, it states it’s playing ads and at the bottom of the pop up box it tells me which episode I’m about to watch. Someone has really thought about this service, and I’m impressed. It even gives me an option to ‘book’ all the episodes in the series I chose to view.

Click to watch full-screen, which is on the wrong side of blurry but the video plays smoothly. I’m assuming that quality of video on downloaded shows would be higher.

I make a mental note to start using 4oD.

Five

I went to the five web page but decided not to pay £2.40 for an episode of CSI that seems to be in constant re-run on Five and other channels.

The page looks nice and well thought out, the limited content is quality programming but I’m not tempted to pay for what I see as ‘free’ content. Perhaps they should look at the ad-funded model for current programming.

BFI

I thought the British Film Institute deserved a quick mention. You can download some free, but mainly paid for content. A simple site, but it gives access to a treasure trove of amazing content that is normally next to impossible to access, except for say a bi-annual showing at one cinema in London.

Finally!! A summary:

So, a mammoth effort of crashed browsers (Narrowstep), software downloads, labyrinthine libraries and flakey software.

I ask myself why the viewers want to watch TV (on a PC); for me that means to watch in a room where I don’t have multi-channel; it’s to watch when I’m away from home (and don’t necessarily have access to the internet). One ‘need’ would suggest a streaming service, the other a download one.

I would suggest that it’s a hard sell and hard even to communicate to people ‘go here for Show z’ to download, ‘but go here for show z to stream’. That issue for the newcomers is compounded by the question of advertising and marketing a new and unknown service brand, letting your (potential) audience you’re here. Surely the sites that offer more options in one place will win out?

The next major issue: Unbelievable as it may seem, there is actually a finite amount of content, and a more finite amount of content people can be bothered to look up and watch. Ultimately, as it’s about content not technology Sky, Channel 4 and presumably the BBC will win out in the UK with their massive libraries.

So, from the point of usability, simplicity of sell and access to content, the existing TV content brands win out at this stage of the battle. I doff my hat to the BFI and other specific niche content providers that will find an audience, but they are playing a different game from the corporate mammoths.

Round 1 to the TV stations, for the newbies I say take lessons from 75 years of expertise in TV and in what it is to be a ‘channel’ or distribution platform; with its self promotion (promo’s, junctions, zone’s, dayparting etc); ease of use (scheduling/offering a refined menu); what the audience wants to watch, expects, and is used to in the wider world and apply that to your ‘new paradigm’ before the bell rings to start Round 2 of this battle.

Will Broadband TV succeed immediately?

2007-07-12T14:36:00.000+01:00

Sorry for the break in posts, I was travelling.

TV over broadband has really been talking off recently and after the initial excitement of Joost, 40D and BBC iPlayer has died, the reality and the shakeout will begin.

It's pretty obvious to all, not just Creatives like me, that its the content, stupid. People watch shows, they don't 'use' technology for its own sake. But I think in content is paramount, these developments are more than just content, it's more than any piece of cool software. What hasn't been discussed is the marketplace. I'm having visions of VHS vs Betmax, HD-DVD vs BlueRay all over again.

The first thing that strikes me immediately now that I have Joost, babelgum, veoh, 4oD, Sky Anytime, ITV.com (on demand) and waiting to download BBC's iPlayer, is... can you guess?

Well, I mentioned 7 ways of watching TV. Yes 7, 6 of which involve a download, an icon on my desktop, a log in process, and a double click whilst software loads and I can then go pick what I want to watch, or infact see if there is anything worth watching. ITV.com is the only one that I can just go to the website (and here, I had to close ITV.com in Firefox, find where I have IE7 on my computer before I could watch anything).

These are all mass-market propositions - but that's too much software and junk on my computer. Now considering you are in a market place where many people have access to multiple streams, via an easy interface (regular TV and remote) you're setting yourself up to have some problems.

Unless 'portals' like Joost or Babelgum do the mind-blowingly difficult and become like the UK's Sky or Virgin Media dominating a particular market with a mass of quality product on offer, its going to be a very hard sell indeed. The BBC are more likely to pull it off because of the sheer amount of product they have, which in turn will attract others.

Yes, there are all the issues or DRM (Digital Rights Management), and lots of people are trying to create value. In this post however, I'm being the consumer with my many, many choices of how to spend my free time, not an Executive trying to sell my wares.

I think these portals will 'simmer' but won't reach mass market propositions until the software become no more than 'widgets' which work across browsers, and as seamlessly as browsers. I think both Microsoft and Adobe are working on that.

Now looking into my crystal ball the other bump to get over in terms of market penetration in old fashioned marketing and advertising (ok, hands up, I'm ignoring revenue and network capacity issues here for the sake of clarity).

The much talked about long tail (small revenues over prolonged time) is valid, but video based entertainment has always been, and to a very large extent will remain about hit content. A hit business needs hit content. Real hit content is still about well produced show, featuring 'stars' that play to the mass market - and a mass market that needs to know the hit show exists and be able find it easily.

I don't see Joost or Babelgum taking over poster sites like Channel 4 saying, watch Ugly Betty on our service. Equally, the current dynamics of the business will mean Battlestar Gallactica's producers won't take out posters for their shows saying 'watch on Sky, Joost and Virgin Media on Demand'.

Traditional TV is fighting with the fact that programme brands are getting bigger than the channels. These new start-ups need to not forget that.

My biggest bit of advice, ditch the incompatible downloaded software to participate and partner up with established channel brands.

As a addendum, my personal usage. I Sky+ everything and look at all the players as part of my work. I find Sky Anytime clunky, but use it to download movies I've already paid for through my subscription which I'll watch whilst travelling or staying at my partners. 4oD kept crashing on me, and its limited content mean I don't bother. Joost, Babelgum & veoh I check out of professional curiosity, but I doubt I'll go back till I see there is a show I want to watch on it. ITV.com looks good, but I don't watch many of their shows, iPlayer I'm waiting for. Youtube's and Google Video are all about short form content so are a slightly different marketplace.

What 's the futureshape for Production companies?

2007-07-05T10:49:00.000+01:00

There's been a lot of chatter recently about how Broadcasters and the broadcasting landscape is being disrupted and changing, but the Production Businesses who are making programming are changing too.

In the UK, there are 3 distinct trends at work, two of which are having a major impact on the fundamentals of the industry.

Firstly, Broadcasters are increasingly choosing to narrow down the field of 'indies' they work with, instead of working with whoever has an idea, they have at least a 'preferred list' - people they believe deliver to their multiple internal businesses targets. Therefore one/two man 'lifestyle' indies are finding life increasingly tough. However, I think the broader industry trends, discussed next, are having as much an influence on these small operations. As the industry becomes more sophisticated, working harder to exploits assets, it is moving further from the traditional model of work being commissioned and paid for by one client.

A recent government report highlighted that the UK Creative Industry is now 2nd to The City in terms of its size and importance. City money, either from IPOs, VCs, Private Equity or just High Net Worth Individuals has flooded into the 'visual media' industry. Combined with the improved terms of trade between broadcasters and producers, and freed from the overt reliance on broadcasters the businesses have been better able to exploit their Intellectual Property, as well as hold onto residual value. But the flipside of this, is the pressure to fully exploit these properties on multiple platforms. There is the pressure for the business to expand, to increase revenues and profits year-on-year, to increase the value on the balance sheet through hit formats. There is also the pressure put on you by the hard-arsed 'suits' who expect (well, secretly hope) 10x (return of 10 times investment) on their money. Their lives and jobs are based on putting the pressure on you to do that.

Thirdly, the landscape for Production Companies is changing; they pretty much just used to make TV for TV Broadcasters. Now at the very least, they are content producers and brand builders for distribution companies. The Production business is now increasingly a varied, multi-platform, multi-client task.

We are in a world where TV production companies are increasingly turning into the kind of 'integrated' businesses most comparable to old style Hollywood studios. At the base level Producers sell their stuff to the commissioner, to TV stations abroad, to other platforms like DVD houses and do revenue shares with broadband TV outfits like Babelgum and Joost. Cranking up a level of sophistication you have the likes of RDF who represent artists (people who add value to content) but more importantly are looking at having their own TV internet distribution platforms, taking the middle man of broadcasters out of the loop. Look at Fremantle who do something similar by giving their game shows brands life as web games. I'm currently impressed by Ten Alps who look at a niche and decide to own it with content and distribution delivered via magazines as well as the web and web TV.

The long and the short of it is from Universal Studios working globally, to Two Four in Plymouth, what it is to be a production company is changing.

That's great for the big boys with the teams, finance and infrastructure to explore business opportunities, who can afford risks and have the scale of production to back a move into a new area. There is no right or correct answer for what a producer should be. Serious businesses need to grow and change, and that will be affected by content fashions, by the strengths of current managements, by the wider markets in whatever territories you are big in.

The more interesting question today is, what if you aren't one of the big boys. What if you're not yet big enough, or don't chose to have outside investors with their baggage of golden eggs and golden handcuffs.

To smaller people I'd say you cannot be an island; you can't ignore and not compete in this wider marketplace. Equally I'd say concentrate on what you're good at, where your skills are, and what is the best use of your time. If you can create a great narrative, don't stress if you don't have the killer boardroom tiger inside waiting to be unleashed. Equally the boardroom toughie can't do a lot if he has no successful product to work with. It's a co-dependent relationship.

I would hope that 2 models will grow and flourish to help 'small' and 'super-small' outfits:

1. Take social networking as your example; create a 'web' of related businesses and individuals who have the strength, resources, knowledge and skills you could with. You will need put ego aside and 'be safe' by getting a clear working methodology/agreement on paper early on if its anything deeper than friendly advice. But network and find people you can trust, don't be afraid to talk about your issues, and listen to other people experiences and advice. But it's not just advice I'm talking about, its operational and practical help too: There are always web companies looking to expand their portfolio and contacts; find an old successful business hand who can afford to give time, advice and contacts or a Mum who used to be a killer businesswoman and wants to ease back into 'the game'.

2. More formally I see the emergence of 'hubs' or 'super-agencies'. Essentially, a half way house to selling out, I'd see a business that contains back office operations, high level business, finance and strategy skills, commercial skills and operational, cross platform capabilities. I can also see these businesses having a more formalised version of the 'mutual help network' mentioned above. These agencies would probably work for a fee, but more likely for a 'cut of the cake' through profit share or an equity stake.

I wouldn't say these 'agencies' are about giving away your business. I'd say they would not only allow people to concentrate what you're good at, it would give you better capabilities to 'play at the big table' with the Endemols and RDFs in terms of apparent size whilst looking for commissions. On the business side you'd be aided in growth and profitability for example by having a hard-arsed MBA type negotiating your contracts and financing, or increased capabilities in selling your format to other countries or developing the show brand into other areas. That's a lot of potential added stability, growth, profit and commissions, all whilst still retaining ultimate ownership and ownership benefits of your business.

Follow Me Entertainment

2007-07-02T19:25:00.000+01:00

I’ve been gazing into my navel recently contemplating how media, entertainment and entertainment formats will develop and change over the coming years.

The thing that struck me today was the concept of ‘Follow Me’ media, which is inferred to a certain extent by cross platform propositions. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not going all soothsayer and saying all TV/entertainment will be like this, what I’m saying is this is a strand that will grow, develop and become a bigger element in the mix.

By now you’re going, what does he mean ‘Follow Me’? Well increasingly entertainment portals or ‘channel brands’ are becoming ‘Follow Me’; in short the brand you like is available wherever you are. Today that means you get BBC News on TV, Net, PDA, Radio; it means Channel 4 is on terrestrial, on digital, Video on Demand, Online, Radio; it means you get your Facebook, flickr or You Tube on your phone as well as on your computer; it even means you have Fame as a TV show, a theatre musical, a music album or that you have Gala Bingo on the high street, on interactive TV and on the net.

This reflects the fact that brands need to be able to cut through a lot of media clutter and chatter to connect with consumers and ‘get value’, but also that we the audience also multi-task our entertainment. Tell me you’ve never read a paper or magazine in the living room whilst half following a TV show or listening to the radio?

Pushing the analogy further, commercial brands are becoming ‘Follow Me’ too. Look at Orange, Virgin or o2 that are your broadband, your phone, your TV but also bring you music at festivals or venues, give you tickets to see a movie and sell you non-core add-ons that bring you the brand lifestyle . It’s all becoming ‘experiential’: The brand interacting with your life on multiple levels throughout the day, making sometimes material differences to your life beyond their core product.

The next logical step for me within TV and multi-media is an expansion of not the ‘distribution brands’ like ITV being fully ‘Follow Me’, it’s the ‘show’ - the format as well as the format brand becoming ‘Follow Me’ too. This could apply to dramas, quizzes, reality even documentaries.

The best recent example for me right now is the Glastonbury Festival. It’s a real-life event, but you can also ‘interact’ with it by watching it on TV, listening on the radio, coverage in newspapers and the web, chatter on social networks and message boards.. you are even bought extras by sponsors like Orange and The Guardian.

In drama there have been experiments with ‘mobisodes’ of 24 and Doctor Who expanding the show experience. It’s interesting how LonelyGirl15 creators, which played on You Tube have created a new drama KateModern that doesn’t just get ‘premiered’ on social networking site Bebo, it’s actually fully integrated with the site. It’s not that hard to imagine adding another distribution platform or element into the mix so you get it on your phone, or watch a catch-up show on say Trouble or Sky One.

Even X Factor or Big Brother have elements of ‘Follow Me’ as auditions hit your local town and local papers, you watch the show and you interact and influence the show through voting, or chatting on message boards (social networking). You carry on by seeing the X Factor live music show or in BB’s case, it’s a case of Panto and Heat covers. The fact that you see these shows played at pubs just reinforces how people want these formats and brands to be available as they carry on with the rest of their lives.

I’ve already previously posted about ARG (Alternative Reality Games: What is the next Big Brother? post) in the which take this ‘cross-platform’ format to the ultimate extreme where you’re in fact better off to interact with the quiz/game show/drama/reality format on multiple platforms if you want to, say, win a million.

If you can take control over more parts of these various format value chains, you are in a win-win situation. Advertisers and sponsors love the idea of experiential marketing that really connects a consumer with their brand, which builds loyalty and on-going opportunities. Audiences love a format that they can get involved with, that engrosses them and gives them opportunities to get more (look at ‘spin offs like Doctor Who Confidential or the Xtra Factor, or calling in to get onto Who Wants to Be a Millionaire).

The question for me is do we get there by creeping increments as show brands and formats develop onto multiple platforms over multiple seasons, or if we get that big break out hit that launches a new section within the media industry.

Gosh, after all that pondering I’m off to switch my brain off in front of a non-challenging, sit back, non-interactive and totally linear piece of TV.

BBC and the new reality

2007-06-27T11:58:00.000+01:00

Two pieces of recent news about the BBC confirm to me that the organisation, despite whatever problems it has, essentially 'gets' the new paradigm of programming and broadcast. That is so say, the transitional period of simple linear television scheduling and the future of multiple kinds of distribution to audiences with different levels of technology, and different levels of interest in interacting with that technology. I for example am not massively keen on watching TV via my laptop if I have a choice, but do tend to watch shows stored on my Sky+.

Firstly we are informed that BBC2 will repeat more programming and take more shows from BBC3/4, but despite journo's spin as a viewer I actually see this as a positive rather than a negative.

Ok, granted this isn't the best news for smaller producers who rely on these shows to help make a living, but the BBC isn't a charity and doesn't owe anyone a living.

There is simply so much content nowadays, and specifically from the BBC, so much locally originated programming that as a viewer I miss a lot of shows that I would enjoy or be challenged by. But whilst the BBC is making masses of quality content, it is paradoxically making it harder to cut through the masses of media therefore harder to find and watch.

The fine art of promotion (and implicitly scheduling) has been honed to a very focused, very targeted and very efficient way of driving mass audiences to a particular point in time, for a increasingly limited number of shows. The leads to big ratings, a big splash and back slaps all around within the organisation.

Take Mary Queen of Shops as an example, a great show, with lots of on-air promotion and lashing of press coverage. Like many others I was alerted to it by a press report the next morning, but despite hunting through BBC web pages and EPGs I discovered the first, no doubt expensive, episode had been on and gone in a blink of an eye. Missed that one, couldn't join in the water-cooler moment and had to wait for next week to pick it up from there. If that was a drama, and I missed the first episode, I simply wouldn't have bothered with the series. That never, ever, ever happens on any of the commercial channels, its revenue suicide.

So I have a few requests for the BBC:
1. Always repeat your highest profile shows the week they are broadcast, and don't 'hide' that repeat info, say by mentioning it on the web. Do drive audiences to your prime showing, but realise you need to fit into people's lives, they shouldn't have to fit into your schedule.

2. If you create a season of shows, to be viewed as a season, make them a linked series on the EPG, rather than have to go onto the net or find a paper to individually find and programme shows. Make it easy for your audience to find and watch your great shows.

3. Take some of the budget spent on advertising to create a email service where one can register your interest in specific genres and get a weekly mail highlighting what you might be interested in across TV, Radio and online.

4. Take a good idea from the internet – tags, and use them to help people find and understand shows that might be of interest. Use them on the net, publish them in Radio Times, convince Sky and Virgin et al to add that functionality to EPGs, hey even convince your creative promo makers to include them on-screen.

5. As off-peak shows get ‘downgraded’, don’t just make more mass market shows more cheaply. Other channels all aim shows at the same mass market, commercially attractive demographics, why not look and see what audiences are under-served, and serve them by reflecting their issues and concerns (on whatever platform). These can be low cost, but hopefully with high ‘Appreciation Factors’. Strong ideas for formats ARE important, but making sure a community is served is more important. Think of these as ‘mini-channels’, like BBC Seniors, BBC Rural, BBC Gay or BBC citizenship for immigrants which need shows. Diverse programming is more than casting certain types in EastEnders!

Now the above points still stand in our current world where the vast majority of audiences are still in the world of linear (and even multi-channel) TV, without or even with PVRs. But the world IS changing ...

So the other good news this week was that BBC's iPlayer is launching months ahead of expectation on July 27th and you can see some screengrabs at digital spy.

This does negate some of the above arguments about scheduling, but only for the tiny minority who have the ability, or the inclination, to go online and watch on computers (streaming across the home is still a very geeky, often clunky and very rare thing).

Its a shame the BBC Trust put restrictions on its use, but I'm looking forward to not missing what could be my favourite shows.

Today's blog was slightly shorter as I have a bad 'mancold' :(

The Shake-Out? Multi-channel in the UK

2007-06-22T13:16:00.000+01:00

There's always lots of media coverage when a new channel is launched, but that's less true when a service shuts down - no boastful press releases then. The economics of running a TV business are tough, no matter if you are a big player or running a station off a laptop with a staff of 2 interns (literally, I've visited those stations ).

Many TV businesses were launched on business plans that looked at breaking even in 2 to 5 years. Many were there as 'placeholders' to gain market share, to vainly help with ratings slides, through to simple 'squatting' holding onto valuable EPG slots in the entertainment section looking for a buyer.

The market is being squeezed and in many cases broadcasters and bumping along either side of break-even. Investors and parent companies are now getting itchy feet.

The squeeze on channels and their revenues has been getting much more intense: The rise of Freeview; the massive squeeze on subscription revenues (if you've managed to get them at all); the rise in Sky EPG costs; the collapse of participation revenues; getting shunted to EPG dead zones; attracting advertising; costs of running a subscription service on Sky being uneconomic for pretty much any player (Film 4 included) at a price the public are willing to pay; negotiating your way onto cable; a glut of pitifully bad competition drowning out mid-size quality players; the rise of the internet and social networks; the rise of Joost, BT Vision and other new distribution platforms; the rise of the long tail VoD business model; rights issues and costs; technology changes and free content (does anyone pay for ring-tone specific downloads anymore?), the list just goes on and on.

We are beginning to see the changes, but like the UK housing market will there be a collapse (say prompted by a Sky rule change) or a gentle slide?

I don't think this in the end of multi-channel but I do see 2 things happening. A greater polarisation between 2 distinct business groups. One, well funded, with multiple, well marketed 'brands' featuring 'expensive' content and run by large, funded businesses on all major platforms who are either a top 5 player in one market (eg: Virgin Media's, ITV's or Five's bouquet of channels who all have a Freeview window), or a significant player in multiple markets (MTV, Discovery, Turner). Mass market with one shared back office infrastructure and able to attract advertising, sponsorship and of course audiences. In here you'll also have the businesses who use TV as some kind of shop window, from gambling and bingo,through to shopping channels and pure advertiser strands like Audi TV.

Secondly I see a big mass of properly niche players featuring targeted content, distributed via 'secondary' methods where distribution costs are lower, where capabilities of charging subscriptions, 'accounts', one off payments and targeted advertising are within realistic reach. These will be the entrepreneurial businesses, the niche content players, distribution and production companies. Already Ten Alps is becoming a major player in this emerging market and expect Joost, BT Vision, You Tube and others to be names to look out for as well as 'new' broadcasters like the National Union of Students and the like.

So is this pointless musing, or is the middle market really being squeezed?

In recent weeks both Optimistic and Life TV have essentially disappeared having sold their valuable entertainment EPG slots. We've had channel's like London TV move over to broadband, the Simply group change focus as they become a broadband distributor, DITG/YooMedia moved away from being broadcasters. A whole swathe of adult, shopping and participation and gaming services shutting down or imploding. There are rumours of Channel 4 taking over one or more of EMAP's music channels - perhaps no surprise as those channels revenue streams of a £1 a pop to request a video on a channels that plays out the ostensibly the same music on a 2 hour loop. Channels like Extreme Sports moved from a 'bespoke' service to be put under the wings of Zone Media who specialise in buy-by-the-100-hours library programming with minimal brand building and marketing, surviving on low risk, low cost, lower return models with little ambition.

Looking at comments by Jonny Webb and Malcolm Wall I'd expect a rejig (and loss of?) channels in the Virgin Media stable, Turner had a re-jig recently and how much longer will NBC Universal keep backing Sci-Fi UK as a stand alone brand when any break out hit it has gets pinched by the competition (Heroes). This mass market is going to have more 'strong' players as Virgin 1 and MTV's General Entertainment services launch and squeeze the value in multi-channel and dig their claws deep into the emerging platforms.

I of course, could be wrong and your comments are appreciated as always.

Mainstream TV not appreciated by the non-Mainstream

2007-06-21T16:52:00.000+01:00

I'm a little surprised at the reaction to Ofcom's report about Ethnic Minorities , which stated that they were not watching that much that much mainstream TV. What did they expect?

Ofcom: teaching the industry to suck eggs.

British shows both on terrestrial TV and on all the major digital services are very much aimed at attracting a mass audience and therefore pandering to that mass audience. Drama especially is full of middle-class, middle England English people with suburban preoccupations and limited outlooks. Anyone spot a character who didn't look like they lived in a nice house in Esher on ITV's Primeval ? In fact their idea of ethnic was a having one Scottish actor to break up the casting (OK, I actually liked that show).

I remember the days when we use to bitch about American TV being flat and insipid, but now I'm the one that doesn't really watch ITV1 and its wealth of home-produced look-a-like, cast-a-like, bland-a-like shows.

Ultimately, why should we expect people to feel involved in a show that has no relevance to them... and I'm not just talking Afro-Caribbeans or South Asians. The same lack of emotional involvement historically affect lost of those outside the mainstream, be they gay, disabled, in non-traditional relationships, living in closed cultural communities, geeks and even Social Network obsessed youth and urbanites etc. You always feel more involved in stories where you're own realities, aspirations and fears are reflected back at you. Who would think otherwise?

I wanted to make 2 points to finish. Firstly, this will always be an issue (especially at PSBs) as long as so many people in TV come from such a narrow strata of society: Those who can afford to do what it takes to get a break in TV; those who talk with the right kind of talk (BBC and Oxbridge domination anyone?); those who are willing to deal the inherent instability of an industry that has become so casualised in terms of staffing.

Secondly, just as some people like Horror, some romance, some sexy shows and some gardening programmes - is there an issue with a vibrant market in niche channels? Of course social cohesion in society is of the utmost importance, and Public Service Broadcasters should absolutely make sure their content reflects society. This is especially true of reflecting life in the major urban areas where minorities congregate and troubles flair. That said, audiences with non-mainstream tastes will always demand more content relevant to them, and more content that really pushes their buttons not just acknowledge their existence.

So, bring on BET, Logo, the Cyclist channel, Wedding TV, Sony Entertainment et al. Let that niche and ethnic content flourish and feed back into the mainstream.

PS - I should add that I do fall slightly out of the mainstream, what with my choice of partners and whilst I'm a Londoner born and bred - that also means English was the second language and second culture I had to learn, Polish being the first.

Related to this thread, in my next post I'll be looking at shake out in UK channels and take a look at where content and brands, especially niche ones might be going.

Netiquette for work, play n' family

2007-06-19T16:41:00.000+01:00

Today I got an email asking me to stop updating on LinkedIn and just use Facebook for my work colleagues instead. I was struck with horror at the very idea.

So in the days before Web 2.0, or even in the days of early social networks it was easy to keep work life and 'home' life nice and separate.

I remember not so much censoring my life, but I think we are all a bit selective about which parts of our lives we share with who. I had people I knew as work contacts and clients, some as party friends, some as work colleagues, some as confidants. You wouldn't tell a potential employer about the mad Friday you had, nor hint to your little nephew about that sexual extravaganza you quite fancy mentioning to your mates.

Even a year or 2 ago, if you used social networking at all you'd be 'Funky Babe' on a dating site, 'Dutch' on a motorbiking forum, or 'SW18Boy' on MSN. Anonymity was taken for granted and there was a total freedom to express oneself.

There is a trend in Social Networking though where honesty and transparency is considered best - and that's refreshing. On Facebook, LinkedIn and others, you are there generally under you own, real name. It discourages flaming and the other anti-social negatives that come with hiding behind an impersonal persona. This is about the net and your real life acting in perfect harmony, a virtuous circle that helps you keep in touch.

The downside is that it is increasingly getting harder to keep the different strands of your life separate. Friends, potential lovers, employers, journo's, the police can just look up your name, or any email address they have.

I've had head-hunters requesting to be my Facebook friend, but I want a space where I can be open about my foibles, moods and hangovers to my social peer group. I want head-hunters and clients to see the thrusting, confident me, not the one that's missing his partner. I definitely don't want them, or other work colleagues making value or moral judgements about me based on a snapshot of my life.

Now I love the social and work benefits of these networks, but the more our lives are 'available' in centralised hubs the better these need to be to allow us to filter the broadcast of this information and keep control of our lives. Real life social networks and nuanced and that's the next challenge for these websites if they wish to continue to dominate.

What I'm scared of is people ending up self-censoring their online life into a U certificate, which just stops in being fun.

More seriously I'm worried that just as some corporate employers demand you stop smoking and submit to random drugs tests, that the balance between employers buying your skills and time and employers expecting you to be 'their person 24/7' will change for the worse.

Post script:
Discussing the sentiments behind this post with cowbite she wonders whether society will have changed in 20 years as the current younger generation who are happy to share their 'hook ups', and pissy moods, who'll be linked friends with someone half a lifetime after a one night stand, come to positions of power as bosses, heads of HR and even as journalists.

TV's Little White Lies

2007-06-14T14:37:00.000+01:00

There's been a lot of chat about 'honesty' in UK TV recently after the scandal involving certain Participation TV players, some of whom to be frank were conning people out of money in a manner reminiscent of street con-men doing the three card trick. I definitely got some dirty looks when I was involved with gambling on TV, but at least with that every pound you gave us, was a pound that was genuinely placed as a bet, with the chance of a return advertised (the odds).

But today I want to talk about a slightly different kind of honesty, the little white lies that Producers tell via voice overs and edits in Factual TV. The little white lies used to tell a story clearly, to add drama, to make a show exciting to watch. Its the kind of fuzzy little lies that any Producer or researcher involved in factual or reality will have done a thousand times.

Last night I watched the finals of the UK's latest series of The Apprentice. What struck me throughout the show we had a constant voice over mentions along the lines of 'it's the 12th week', 'at the end of this week Sir Alan makes his choice', 'the final week', tonight they present', 'tomorrow Sir Alan chooses'.

That's perfectly normal on TV, I get that if you start quoting time-lines via the shooting schedule you'll just confuse the viewer. But in this case it came across as ridiculous, an untruthful, I was being lied to.

Unlike may other shows, this one was different - it's been on the front pages of The Sun and The Mirror, it's been discussed in The Independent and The Guardian. If you're in the UK and have any kind of awareness of the media not only do you know about Katie, the married man and naked countryside romps, you also know the well discussed fact that Sir Alan in fact had the 2 finalists on his employ for 6 months before he made his choice.

It makes The Apprentice look ridiculous, and eats away at the trust an audience has for what TV tells us is 'real'. Manipulate away on Big Brother, we all know that happens and there is no real pretence. But don't tell me on TV that I'm looking at the colour blue when I know from my morning paper, my web news feeds that what I'm seeing is the colour red.

Just as the internet is helping hold politicians to account, making Corporate giants acts a little more truthfully, isn't it time the 'Reality' Production industry took a look at how it edits, plans it's narratives and writes its voice overs.

This isn't the easy option, it might mean a lot more work. It might even mean that its much, much harder to make that impact that a hot show needs.

However, if the downside is loosing your audience, or more accurately never gaining that younger audience that is used to truth and challenging corporate facts and fingers, well doesn't that make it worth at least stopping and thinking about those little white lies we tell without thinking.

What IS the next Big Brother??

2007-06-13T16:08:00.000+01:00

So anyone working in TV wants to have the ‘big idea’ that will become a global hit, make them a fortune and earn them the adulation of their peers.

But the stakes are much higher if you’re a big wig at say CBS, ITV or even Sky One as multi-channel competition, the web, VoD, Xbox, Facebook, PVRs et al all slowly take their toll on audiences and advertiser’s fat wallets. We must never forget that TV’s competitive market place also includes people choosing to go down the pub, talk on phone or reading Heat (or even Dostoyevsky) rather than sitting down in front of the goggle box.

Now one of the many beauties about Big Brother is that it truly operates in this wider market place. People do chose to come home from the pub to watch the show. In fact some pubs, knowing their competitive market place advertise that their places are the venues of choice to watch BB, where you experience the whole communal experience of the show to the max.

Right now the TV industry is busy looking ahead at the internet and the new distribution methods it brings, at looking at enriching programming from UGC, at making money through personalised ads. That’s all great and very positive.

Now what TV isn’t doing enough of is looking at what it’s actually delivering, the format, the show and ultimately the schedule which is in the process of being if not written off, then written down.

Look at my life (if you don’t mind) for a minute: I’ve got a bunch of inappropriately young friends for a 40 year old, so I’m there social networking, chatting and sharing files on MSN, uploading onto flickr, chatting via Xbox Live, Bit Torrenting the latest shows and catching up on juicy clips via You Tube. As a TV & Media Exec, what I don’t get is why does this world need to be separate from the world of linear channels, formats and real time schedules? Shouldn’t we be embracing this into our world.

I’ve spent the last while looking around trying to get my head around what directions the business might head in, if there is a profitable business to be had at all. iTV bods always said the industry will take off when that one ‘killer format’ gets off the ground. But it never did, it was technology over usability, and more importantly what the user even wanted to do. I’d rather not see TV fade away.

So looking around, what do people want like to do in their ‘relax’ time? It’s suspenseful drama like 24, its answering quizzes like ‘… Millionaire’, it’s working out the procedures and thought processes on CSI, enjoying fantasy like Ugly Betty, brain teasers like Sudoku, it’s chatting to friends on the phone and via facebook, it’s doing something mad like flash mobbing or just going to the park to watch a free show.

But what if we could combine all this into one show: Even better, one show where a bit of viewer loyalty to the linear channel, and the idea of watching stuff live could give you a bit on an edge if you fancied beating your friends to an answer, or winning £50, or even winning a million. Now wouldn’t that be worth looking at?

Out there in the world of geekdom; the world of Second Life, World of Warcraft and even Dungeon and Dragons, a new ‘format’ has been brewing away gently waiting for technology, systems and a mass market to be ready for it. It’s called Alternative Reality Gaming and the best way to describe it, is like the world around you becomes a big game of Cluedo, an episode of CSI that you live in, and play in.

The best known examples are Nokia Game, and the well funded Perplex City which, I’m sure the clever people in charge of them would tell you, are still on a learning curve for mass market penetration. The issue I see is that whilst technology moves fast, people don’t – you still have web people doing web, TV people doing TV – and us media professionals need to be in place where our brightest creative minds and executives can travel from one world to the other, seeing the potential there and adding their knowledge.

I’ve decided to hook up with a man who helped a major UK channel dominate on a Saturday night to see if we can crack this conundrum. It’s an eye opening journey with some spectacular possibilities, but it’s interesting to see how some TV Exec’s ‘get it’ and others just glaze over in boredom. We might fail but you could never call us complacent. Hopefully we’ll be screening your calls from our yacht very soon.

Vlad Lodzinski is currently working on creating Alternative Reality Game formats for a TV audience.