You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘online content’ tag.

This new semester has presented me with new ideas of how web television works. After my successful research presentation at BEA in April, my research has been guided towards the pedagogical sense of web television. Not just in how to teach web television production, but also how to make our students media literate about television’s co-existence on the Internet. The week that just passed offered events that have opened great teaching examples.

I always predictably start the story the same way: several years ago, a group of very talented and creative guys made a web tv show called We Need Girlfriends. After the completion of their series, CBS and Sony were curious as to how the show would do on traditional television. Without going into to many repeat details, the guys are still rewriting the pilot for CBS. Anyway, in the time since, thousands of web television shows have been produced by hundreds of creators ranging from small independent production companies to major corporations. Shows like The Guild and Dorm Life encouraged the small creator to create independent content and web channels like Crackle showed how big corporations like Sony were beginning to understand the frontier. Interesting hybrid shows and one-off specials like Dr. Horrible’s Sing-a-Long Blog became fun projects for creatives during times of industry unrest (in Dr. Horrible’s case, it was the writer’s strike). YouTube and Blip.tv started offering easy advertising plans to their creators for money to be made.

But what about companies that are still trying to grasp the new territory of web television? What of them? Some television channels and their content are helplessly attached to the traditional medium and are exclusive to television only. This week showed an interesting development of monetizing content in an online world. It all started at 9:50pm on Sunday night.

Sunday night is when Kanye West grabbed the mic from Taylor Swift at the VMAs. That’s MTV’s Video Music Awards, the show that no one has talked about in years was the most talked about show all week. A show helplessly attached to the television broadcast. Between Kanye’s rudeness, Lady Gaga’s wierdness, Pink’s trapezeness, there was much to talk about, but only Kanye’s act became viral. Within one hour of Kanye’s video-bomb of Taylor Swift’s award, there was nearly 300,000 tweets and thousands Facebook status updates about it. At 10:08pm, MTV.com had a copy of the clip online and at 10:10, so did YouTube and AOL. But who had the clips the next day? Only MTV. Exclusively.

One of my students in my Intro to New Media course asked me who regulates the internet if the government doesn’t. I asked it back to the class and they were able to parse through the information and realize that corporations had control over the content online. The bigger the corporation, the more control. When it comes to YouTube (Google owned) and MTV (Viacom owned) you’re looking at a pretty big control system.

I push my students to ask questions about the content they are watching and reading. I encourage them to be skeptics with a dash of cynicism in hopes they will become media literate by the end of the semester. I began the questioning of this event with a question on how shows generate revenue. The class discussed three types of television programs encouraging a type of modern revenue system. The first is the traditional type of television show that intends on keeping the show on traditional broadcast and cablecast outlets; how do they make money? The answer easily found was product placement and shows like The Apprentice and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition are basically 44 minute entertainment commercials (entermercials?). Also, shows like 30 Rock and the dearly missed Arrested Development [take note of where AD lives now] would insert product placement in a very smart way to make the show even more enjoyable.

Then there are shows that encourage viewers to explore online (or even online at the same time as the show’s broadcast on television) additional content. Television shows like Scrubs and The Office offer additional programming online in both supplemental and original form. And the third type of television is exclusive web-based television. [I’ll be leaving hybrid shows like Tosh.0 for another discussion.] I’ve discussed (and created a course) based on this type of television. The web-television product of the independent is easily studied and in many cases, you can even contact the creator and ask them what their intentions were for monetizing their content. Figuring out how web-television is monetized within a bigger corporation is tougher to figure out and in many cases we are left to speculate on our own.

When I asked the class what they felt about Kanye’s outburst and greedy mic grab, more than half the students already felt the notion that it may have been staged. MTV stage an event? What would give anyone that idea? Maybe we should ask Eminem. Remember, this is a channel that perfected the “Scripted Reality” show. What was different about the West/Swift event on Sunday and Bruno’s butt in Eminem’s face from a few months ago was that Taylor Swift was most definitely not in on this event even if Kanye could have been. And no one is talking either way.

What becomes interesting is the forceful removal of the clip from ANY other outlet. If you want to see the video, you must see it at MTV.com. And you MUST endure an advertisement to see it. What we are potentially looking at is a potential future plan for MTV Networks: create “most talked-about moments” and restrict those “moments” to your site and add an unavoidable advertisement to the clip. The question is there to be asked. And I asked Shelly Palmer of MediaBytes who opened a dialogue about whether it matters if MTV keeps the clip off YouTube and owns the exclusive viewing. I asked him if my skeptical thought is plausible and his response was:

My sources at Viacom say their strategy worked perfectly. Traffic to MTV.com is huge and bloggers are taking down dead links to YT content and linking to the clip on mtv.com. The question people are asking is, “Why doesn’t Viacom get it?” Wow, is that the wrong question. The question should be, “In 2009, can you make money with exclusive content that is highly sought after by conveniently packaging it with appropriate metadata and attempting to control access?” If the answer is yes, then Viacom really “gets it.” If the answer is no, well, you know the rest.

I think the answer is yes. I think Viacom does get it. MTV since its birth almost 30 years ago has always understood culture and audiences and formed how the audience receives television. This might just be their plan. We won’t really know until the next event when suspiciously another “talked-about moment” causes 300,000 tweets and Viacom funnels the viewers once again. If that happens, the next question will be: How many times can they pull that off without losing the trust of the audience?

I asked the students about the idea of staged moments and monetizing after the fact online and they gave me a very interesting response: As long as it is good and entertaining and enjoyable, they will still watch it no matter how unreal it may be.

That’s a strategy to explore.

Advertisements

Virginia Hefferman, writer of The Medium for the NY Times, wrote an article on television on the web. She ponders on what television will look like on the web and profiles Next New Networks‘ original content. At the end of last semester, one of my students approached me and asked about an interactive game on YouTube. It was a revenge video against Chris Brown where the user can interact with the metadata of the video to move the story (and score) along. It’s made by Barely Digital, a subset of Next New Networks, who pride themselves on “funny tech videos”. This type of production fills a void and completes the thought of how television will co-exist on the web.

Heffermann uses the term “mid-tail” which I had never heard before and I Googled it to find where the term comes from and it seems to be a pretty recent term that Hefferman did not coin, but she uses very well. The blog MDF(smash) [an amazing blog by the way] who is attached to Next New Networks explains that the term is pretty recent and that the new form of television won’t replace television, but gives an idea of what is alternative to re-purposed broadcast television on the web.

AdAge refers to the new term [June 8, 2009] as

” so-called midtail content, which fills a niche somewhere between studio-produced and user-generated fare, that’s exploded.”

Exploded is correct. In order to fill the need of the audience, independent content creators have been creating quality original content that is exclusive to the web. Since I started this research with We Need Girlfriends (a midtail production), thousands of “new media studio” creations have been uploaded.

This is definitely something to keep track of and watch. (Keep an eye on TubeMogul statistics as well.) In the next coming months I will hopefully have my pedagogical theory on web television production that I presented at BEA this year be published and professors across the country can guide their students to make successful New Media Studio productions.

While I was watching Bladerunner earlier tonight I started thinking about what the audience was thinking about the future in the late 70s and early 80s. While I thought about their visions of the dystopia, I thought about the story and realized that the story isn’t fictional but the settings are: new buildings everywhere, flying cars, replicants…

In a time where thoughts of the accelerated future were omnipresent, is seemed that this was a very possible future. This story COULD possibly occur.

Cut to reality. 10 years before Bladerunner takes place, the world has gone broke.  Instead of flying cars we have a neverending war and a former president who Seth Meyers said, “broke the world”.

The dystopian vision of the future of the film is not in OUR near future. We have our own dystopian present.

This of course brought me to the thought of the Internet’s visual content. Everyday, loads of new content is being created for the web. So much of this content is entertaining, laughable, dramatic and even truthful, but is any of it BELIEVABLE?

This new frontier needs a story that is Believable. A story that sets the landscape.

At some point there will be a Bladerunner or a Taxi or a Cheers.  Something believable to our time and present.

The new outlet will truly take hold. If done right, the “call to arms” for new content will set the standard for the content on the web. It will give the Streamys a guideline. It will give the burgeoning Academy a strong foothold.

Its coming soon. Will you be the one to produce it?

Last week I met with Jamison Tilsner of Tilzy.tv. Tilzy.tv is site to review and critique the wonderful world of Web Television. Jamison, along with Josh Cohen and several others, review Web TV and meet with web content creators of all types of online media.

Tilzy.tv

Tilzy.tv

I picked Jamison’s brain for some more knowledge of the new industry for the BEA panel in April. Jamison had some great things to say about the future of the industry and the possibilities in store for web creatives. 2009 is going to be an excellent year for this type of content and a “call to arms” for web creators is being established.

Here’s what we spoke about:

One of the things I found really interesting how much the Tilzy guys like the We Need Girlfriends show made by Ragtag Productions. The model that I teach for web television is based on their path of media creation. The model that the Ragtag guys created is not a standard model, but is a model that is teachable. Jamison said that the only standard to appear is the fact there is no standard. That’s not an easy answer for an academic when trying to pitch a curriculum to many different schools.

There are many misconceptions that not only professors may have about Web TV, but also the content creators that are out there just beginning to produce or have been producing. Jamison said:

Some misconceptions by many people is that Web TV is just TV repurposed for the web. It is an entire realm for new original content. Once people get over that idea, another misconception is that web content is only short form.

As we’ve seen from Dr Horribles and Diggnation, Web TV shows can be longer form like traditional television.

A huge part of our conversation was the changes being made in Web TV in order to make it a viable outlet to television producers. This means completing the thoughts of those producing television and that means explaining to content creators that you can have “fame” and you can make money in this industry just as any other content creator would.

Right now, many Web TV producers are in the mindset that “success” in Web TV is the ability to be purchased by a major company and repurposed “upwards” to traditional TV. (a la We Need Girlfriends.) That model is not the only option any more. Creators are keeping track of their views in many ways, but they are also keeping track of their brand. This is done with the CPM model, or impressions, of their brand. The more people that see it gets them closer to being entered in culture. Companies like TubeMogul are keeping excellent analytics on views of a show. This notion is EXTREMELY important to those who might be interested in utilizing the creators content for other such means as product placement or cross promotions.

Michael Eisner’s company, Vuguru, has hired storytellers to produce Web TV shows. This services the idea that a corporate mentality can accept new media television and afford to pay the producers. That is… if it is a good story.

To me, it proves that Teaching Web Television is ABSOLUTELY neccessary! If the field is growing, students should be trained in this field. If taught correctly, the teaching of Web TV should not offend any traditional Television professor. Like I’ve said before, this is actually a television renaissance: The stories have to be strong, the content tighter, the screens a bit smaller, but STILL made in the methods of filmmaking and consideration of quality.

Lastly, Jamison and I spoke about what advice he would give up and comers to the new industry.

Experiment! This is a new field without standard. Don’t hesistate to put up your content. Find out if it works online and let your audience help you with your stories. This is an entirely new way of looking at TV where the content creator can speak with the fans about the show and the fans can feel as if they have influenced it. Take advantage of this medium!

And remember, craftsmanship is very important, but the craft follows the concept. Your story is what you are telling, not the equipment.

Jamison is an amazingly insightful eye on this industry and I’m glad we’ve met and spoke. In the coming year we are going to see A LOT of new Web-based Television and the academics have got to embrace the coexistance of the new medium. I will most likely be keeping in contact with Jamison and I will post out meeting results here.

Research Links

Pages

November 2017
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930