Medialoper

We're Not Who You Think We Are

Kassia Krozser

If A Book Doesn’t Need To Be A Book, Why Waste The Paper?

by

I am a sucker for radical concepts mixed with a dose of paranoia. Hmm, I wonder why? The Times Online has published an article with a great central thesis (the kind of central thesis that requires ending the paragraph early because I want to let this idea stand alone before getting into what might be the bigger topic):

First, we stop publishing books that needn’t be books. People who don’t really read don’t really need books so let them have Jordan and Becks in lots of other ways. Audio, animated-audio, that is, audio with pictures is just about right for most celebrity publications.

Publishers, someday, you are going to look back at those words and see the beginning of the beginning. Why do all books have to be in printed, bound format? Especially those books designed to capture the pop personality of the moment? These are not books designed to sit on shelves, to be picked up, reread, passed between friends, shared among generations. There are many books that are the literary equivalent of paper napkins. I say start with the genre known as celebrity autobiographies (and I use the prefix “auto” advisedly).

You’re starting to see publishers playing with the traditional book format more and more (see: McSweeney’s Wholphin). Why not take it further — clear the shelves of books that will be remaindered almost before they’re unboxed. You will feel better for it.

Almost immediately after her call to arms, Jeanette Winterson sees the dark cloud, the downside of digitizing rather than printing (I did promise you paranoia):

There are whole teams of bearded computer nerds advertising their services to retrieve ancient pieces of work filed in the 1970s. The discs and machines are obsolete. This will go on being the case. It will be easy for governments to control thought by controlling access to information. Anyone can pick up a book — the 1970s already need specialist knowledge and equipment — so bad luck if you left the key to the universe on a floppy disc the size of a 78rpm record.

This is why Kirk, when he reads this, will argue for the need for open standards when it comes to digitizing the past and the future. Locks and keys and proprietary formats will only make the future more expensive — I’d rather spend my money on new shoes than decrypting the manual that will save the world.

Networks, Reality, and The Internet

by

Two years ago — my, how time flies — I was looking at the future, or more specifically, looking at the treatment of revenues and expenses related to Made-for-Internet productions. It was a gray area then, and remains somewhat of a gray area now. There are all sorts of financial issues related to the backend needing to be resolved, but that’s not stopping networks and studios from launching Internet-first productions.

NBC is jumping onto the American Idol bandwagon with a new series called StarTomorrow (in the future, it seems that new series will be camel case rather than separate words, but I’ll let someone else ruminate on that). The series will flow through NBC.com, and while it’s unclear how the weekly voting concept will translate to a time-shifting audience, it’s a worthy experiment for a few key reasons:

“StarTomorrow” will cost about 20 percent of what it would cost to produce for the network; advertisers will also pay less for spots, making it (at least initially easier) to attract their interest (and dollars). More importantly, “StarTomorrow” takes NBC further into the realm of digital entertainment.

By staying in the reality television realm, content producers are likely deferring big backend decisions, but as has been made clear, even reality comes with participations and residuals. It will be interesting to see how this rush to push content online resonates with talent. And, of course, I’ll have thoughts on that issue in the near future.

Showtime Inks First Pay TV/iTunes Deal

by

I’m going to be honest — I thought HBO would be the first pay television network (it is no longer a channel) to cut a deal with iTunes. I’m not sure why, but my incorrect belief made today’s announcement of a deal between Showtime and iTunes that much better. Sort of like finding a Tootsie Roll in the middle of a sucker.

The press releases tout the new availability of shows like Sleeper Cell and Weed (which my household hasn’t seen yet, but will surely check out now). We’re also looking forward to seeing the last season of The Chris Isaak Show and other series that we missed due to our decision to limit our pay television cash outlay.

And I would be remiss if I neglected to note that CBS owns the Showtime Network.

HarperCollins Tries Online Publishing On For Size

by

There is growing consensus in the publishing community that certain types of books really lend themselves to online ventures. O’Reilly Media has implemented “Rough Cuts”, where readers can access books about new technology while the manuscripts are being written. In a world where people can master the software before the traditional publishing timeline sends a book to market, this new approach represents both great customer service and increased market share.

HarperCollins, looking, oddly enough, to old media models for inspiration, has launched an advertiser-supported program. Readers get the content for free. Remember when you didn’t have to pay to listen to songs? Think pre-Napster.

Why is this revolutionary? Only because it shouldn’t be. To quote Jane Friedman:

“We hope this pilot will demonstrate a win-win for publishers, authors and search engines. The new era does not need to be a zero sum game,” HarperCollins CEO Jane Friedman said Monday in a statement.

It’s a nice article, right up to the point where I remember that journalists seem to have lost the ability to analyze statements:

There has been disagreement in the publishing community over the effects of making material available on the Internet. Some worry about online piracy and about readers simply downloading the text, as opposed to paying for it.

This is where the author neglects to point out that consumers will happily pay for content — if it’s delivered in a manner they can readily use. He also neglects to point out that there are legitimate anti-piracy methods available to publishers. The music industry could never wrap its mind around the idea that consumer desires could co-exist with industry desires; I hope the publishing industry doesn’t make the same mistake.

These are not trivial considerations. No one model will fit all sizes; the key to success in the future is serving the maximum number of consumers in the maximum number of feasible ways. That means not assuming anything about the end user. Because as fond as I am of M.J. Rose (and I am), her statement in this article doesn’t necessarily pass the smell test:

But several writers, including marketer Seth Godin and science fiction author Cory Doctorow, have made a point of offering free content online, believing that it helps sales. M.J. Rose, a marketing expert and author of “Lip Service” among other novels, praised HarperCollins for its “smart” initiative.

“We all know that readers don’t want to read the whole book online,” Rose said. “But as Seth Godin proved with `Unleashing the Idea Virus’ — people will start a book on line and if they get hooked — click over and purchase it.”

There is no proof — mostly because it hasn’t been tested — that readers don’t want to read the whole book online. Currently, online texts don’t have user-friendly features, like bookmarks. If I could bookmark stuff at Project Gutenberg, I would. I might even pay for a “My Project Gutenberg” feature because I access classic literature often enough that it makes sense to me. It might be an innovative way to support a great initiative while providing cool service.

If I were a self-help, non-fiction-of-a-certain-bent (say diet books, for example) person, I’d want to access the whole book online at my convenience. Heck, look at the O’Reilly example. “Rough Cuts” might prove to accelerate the adoption and maturation of many programming techniques (not to mention teaching your mother to work her DVR, if they go in that direction). The key is to remember that each consumer is going to interact with media in a way that works for that particular consumer — it is no longer the right of the content providers to dictate the terms of consumption. The generation behind the generation behind me already has inherent assumptions. That is where publishing should be looking.

Meaning books as we know them won’t die. But books as we know them might become the productions their authors envision. And HarperCollins shouldn’t view one experiment in isolation. They see the future, and it’s not going to be a slam dunk. At first.

Rehabilitating Movie Theaters

by

It’s not easy being a movie theater these days: for more reasons that I can recount, people aren’t seeing theater-going as the best way to enjoy motion pictures. Studios and theater owners are rapidly moving toward digital distribution (see also: customized content for theaters), but this expensive investment in infrastructure sometimes feels desperate. It’s not scratchy prints that ranks highest on the consumer dissatisfaction list.

But digital distribution will allow theaters to use their spaces for more than traditional films. You can now enjoy all the glory of a concert without the hassle of parking and crowds. And if you’re short like me, chances are you spend more time watching the video monitors than the action on stage. . .if only because you can’t actually see over the person in front of you. In addition to music, look for sporting events and conventions (ah, the joy of going to a movie theater and munching on popcorn during the Democratic National Convention). And look for some confusion on the part of patrons:

“I’ve never been to one of these,” one attendee noted, “so I don’t know whether I am supposed to sit and watch or stand and clap.”

The First Crack In The Window

by

Windows — those periods of time a motion picture (defined as a movie or television show) are available for viewing via a specific media — are sacred in Hollywood. Each window provides a certain type of revenue stream. Using movies as an example, the dollars flow more-or-less in the following order: theater, non-theatrical venues (airplanes, for example), pay-per-view, home entertainment (DVD is the pre-eminent source here), regular pay television like HBO, network television, various international television markets, domestic syndication (for those who like to watch their TV on Saturday afternoons), and a never-ending stream of subsequent television sales.

As we’ve seen with product developed for the network market, some products are being released (almost) concurrently with the network window. This is causing all sorts of heart palpitations among the traditional set — windows are set and shouldn’t be toyed with.

Which is why there’s more than a little gloating that, for perfectly logical reasons, the window-free release pattern for Steven Soderbergh’s new movie Bubble is being viewed as less-than-successful. Except for those who view it as a huge win for the new world. Soderbergh partnered with Internet-savvy Mark Cuban’s 2929 pictures, and the product was licensed to a range of media concurrent with the theatrical release, including the Landmark theater chain.

Though an experiment in breaking windows, the film suffered from short-sighted attitudes of established theater chains:

While the film’s box-office performance was modest because major theater chains refused to run it, the film’s backers declared victory for their release strategy.

Considering that more viewers than ever are staying home from theaters, the fears of the theater chains are understandable. But, considering that more viewers than ever are staying home from theaters, it makes sense that content providers would capitalize on advertising dollars by hitting all media types at once. Another consideration for both theater owners and content providers is the fact that there is not necessarily crossover when it comes to theater-going audiences and DVD-viewing audiences. Why penalize one group in favor of another?

It is a matter of time before the next day-and-date release comes from major studio. The next time, it probably won’t be a small-budget film aimed toward a limited audience. Then the question of whose gloating now will become a Hollywood game.

Pending Game Show Smackdown

by

The nascent Internet-based video entertainment business is poised for its first big clash: Mark Burnett and AOL versus Yahoo and Steven Spielberg. Both sides have decided to launch online game shows, and coincidentally, both game shows feature treasure hunts. Burnett’s Gold Rush will compete with Spielberg’s (provided Spielberg remains attached) Treasure Hunt. But this may not be a case of the best game show winning.

There are suggestions that Burnett was aware of Yahoo’s plans, and, depending on how the players approach the game (shows), tensions could escalate. Or both parties could realize that treasure hunts are not that novel and decide the online eyeballs and the accompanying ads are more lucrative than litigation. Plus, if one factors in general human desire to get rich, it’s likely that both game shows will draw big audiences.

While narrative programming continues to be developed, the Burnett/AOL venture makes use of a variety of AOL-owned resources:

Burnett said Monday that his new Web offering would kick off with armored trucks delivering gold to secret hiding places across the U.S. AOL would pepper its websites and its services, such as instant messaging, with clues that players can use to find prizes. As is common with Burnett’s projects, he expects the show to include traditional ads and product placement deals.

We can expect a lot of old and new media coverage of the game show ventures as they grow closer to launch. In the meantime, Hollywood insiders will be paying close attention to the projects, if only for traditional reasons:

After years as the king of televised reality programming, Burnett said he was intrigued by the possibilities — and profits — that could come from expanding the definition of “prime time.”

Bucking The Month-Old Tradition

by

I think we can all agree that the old media is going to struggle with the new media model. Just redoing all those financial projections is going to be painful. Recalibrating the timing alone could take Excel experts months of work. The models are scary, there is no doubt about it.

That being said, one of the most ridiculous postures being taken is the “release to iTunes the day after the initial broadcast.” This is, frankly, a sop to advertisers who don’t want to dilute their viewing audience. But, at this point, the download audience is quite different from the watch-the-moment-it-airs audience. That’s not say there’s no overlap in viewership. But the audience who goes directly to download, do not pass go, is not the audience the advertisers will reach anyway. It’s time to erase the iTunes window and treat it as a primary, Day One source.

And it seems that Nickelodeon and Comedy Central are already going there — if not beating the appointment-broadcast schedule. Delaying availability makes no sense at all. The ipodbank.com post discusses certain financial issues; we’ll be back with more details of the money behind the iTunes product. If studios are smart, they’ll start thinking of the new media as an equal to traditional methods now.

This Week In Media

by

Continuing a long-standing tradition* here at Medialoper, we bring you all the news we couldn’t bring ourselves to rant or rave about — despite the fact that this news will change your life. Also it gives me something to do while I wait to see what I’m getting when I download Battlestar Galactica Vignette 2. More on the Battlestar experience to come later — here’s the news.

  • Verizon to Start TV Service in N.Y., Mass.: Like all smart phone service providers, Verizon is rollilng out the fiber optic and obtaining television broadcast franchise licenses (good news for cities who need the bucks). Like ATT, Verizon started it FiOS services in Texas before rolling the service out to other locations. The broadband, hopefully lightning fast, fiber optic will bring the standard slew of HBO, Showtime, ESPN delights to the masses.
  • Vote of Confidence for S&S – CBS head Les Moonves must have taken a tour of the Simon & Schuster dungeon because he’s discovered thousands upon thousands of potential moneymakers. In addition to providing a vote of confidence to the publishing house, Moonves realizes that a giant backlist is just content waiting to be exploited. We agree.
  • BusinessWeek: More blogs, less ads – FishbowlNY notes that BusinessWeek has goen blog-happy in light of declining advertising. Clearly, they have seen the future, and realize that creating a strong online presence now will be the key to survival. Not only is online cheaper to produce and maintain, but creating go-to content areas will bring back the advertising bucks — maybe not to print edition prices, but it’s clear that print edition prices aren’t long for this world anyway.
  • Breaking News: AT&T reaches out and touches…Endeavor – Meanwhile, FishbowlLA uncovers a first-of-its-kind (we hope) alliance: AT&T has partnered with Endeavor. One can only assume the telecom giant isn’t looking to go on casting calls, and one can only guess as to what a talent agency brings to the table. We will officially begin the countdown to AT&T’s “original content” announcement.
  • Netflix looks to download arena – As company revenue soars for Q4, year – Despite exceeding growth targets in 2005, Netflix is talking all downloadable video all the time. Without getting specific of course. The question remains whether the studios and Netflix are nimble enough to change to a multi-delivery business model.
  • Google May Be Close To Developing iTunes Competitor – A Bear Stearns analyst is speculating that Google, coveting that iTunes demographic (and all those lovely consumer dollars), will roll out a music service. Said analyst doesn’t explain how Google will differentiate its service from the already-crowded music market or the dead services along the trail. It is expected that Google’s entry, should it happen, will hit the Internet within six months.
  • The Long Snout – O’Reilly, an early adopter of online technologies to deliver content, notably reducing really heavy books to bits and bytes, is now offer “Rough Cuts”. The new service will allow subscribers to access works-in-progress. Given that the publisher plays heavily to the programming and technology crowds, this approach will get usable information out to market much faster and more effectively than the traditional publishing model.
  • TimesSelect Draws About 156,000 Web-Only Subs in First 4 Months – Proving that the paid content model isn’t dead, the New York Times online subscription sevice, TimesSelect, has pulled in over 150,000 paid subscribers. The NYT continues to tinker with the model, but given this early success, it shows that people will pay for content they want.

* – Like a collection, a tradition is formed when we have more than one of something.