あなたは、目が疲れる、目が乾くといった感じがしたことはありませんか？ それは、ドライアイになっている可能性があります。目の乾き程度ではあまり気にしない方も多いですが、涙…

Myself and Josh were one step ahead then

i greatly appreciate your analysis of the fledgling American empire or as i like to ccall us “the credit debt nation.”

Check this report at Bear Stearns. Good stuff on the Long Tail and relates to our pointless banter.

http://www.bearstearns.com/bsc...../index.htm

Great discussion today. Cheers.

The Jug

But internet solutions requires open standards. Are there open standards bodies which set-top box manufactures are turning to for internet connectivity, or is it Gold Rush 2.0?

As for reconciling the ad model with DVRs, I envision standards that allow for a tiered model of delivery: fee-based without ads, and free with ads and with markers disallowing fast-forwarding through commercials.

In the end, I don’t see IPTV VOD and DVRs in competition, because the DVR can always assimiliate what is thrown at it while integrating true internet video.

Take a trip to places like Dubai, Moscow or Hong Kong and you’ll see that while they’re increasingly swimming in seas of hard wealth, we’re increasingly swimming in a sea of debt and vapor wealth. Unfortunately by the time we realize that our consumer and greed-driven culture has cannibalized our own economy and created a house of cards, all our wealth will have been effectively transferred to the global chess players who found themselves playing a high-stakes game with a culture only capable of playing checkers.

Macroeconomic doom and gloom aside, you state:

“What’s to stop a group of creatives from doing the same thing and putting it online? Nothing because it’s dirt cheap. That’s why so many shows like those are on TV and spoonfed to the masses. The’re inexpensively produced product.”

I disagree that it’s “dirt” cheap. Try getting a bunch of people together to produce a show with high-quality content when they have no way to monetize it in such a way that everybody gets rewarded. You need somebody writing the script, you need a host, you need a producer/director and you need equipment if you are to produce something of professional quality. I have yet to see any vlog that I could watch side-by-side with something produced in Hollywood and not be able to tell that it was put together by “amateurs.” This doesn’t mean that the cost of production isn’t going down, but it means that mainstream America is still very much in love with mainstream content and most Americans aren’t interested in Rocketboom and Zefrank.

Somebody will eventually create an online video show that is very appealing to the mainstream, or will come close. And guess what: when they do, a television/cable company will likely come along and offer them a deal. They have the cash and most people who are offered a TV show will jump at the opportunity. Guaranteed cash and the ego boost of being on TV go a long way. If the producers don’t “sell out”, they are stuck with the same challenge as the television/cable companies: finding advertisers and ways to make money in a highly-competitive and fragmented market, especially when a single online show probably doesn’t have a big enough audience to make it interesting for a blue-chip advertiser.

So my final point is that user-generated video in and of itself isn’t going to hurt the television/cable companies. YouTube usage shows that the demand for user-generated content is minimal compared to the demand for Hollywood content. Television/cable will face challenges and will have to adopt new distribution channels to enable consumers to consume their content in new ways, but they produce the content people want and that puts them in a fairly safe position. Let’s touch base in a year and see if any vlogger has a show as popular as Jon Stewart. Let’s see if some enterprising video producers have created something as entrenched in pop culture as American Idol. Let’s see if somebody has created a drama like Lost. Let’s see if an independent filmmaker pulls in even $20 million without a distribution deal with a major studio. What’s changing here is how content is distributed and consumed, not who’s producing the content people want and who is going to make the most money from it.

Well thought and well put. particularly this point:

“We apparently lack the ability to recognize that if the producers of goods and services are not compensated appropriately for the production of those goods and services, its becomes unlikely that they will continue to produce them. While I’m oversimplifying it a bit, this same type of attitude has already played a crucial role in the destruction of the American manufacturing industry. We want goods as cheaply as possible and will cannibalize our own nation’s industries to get those goods cheaper. Obviously there are a lot of contributing factors that could be blamed (pensions, insurance costs, medical costs, labor unions, etc.), but the point I’m trying to make is that very few people here seem to be asking the question “What makes sense for us economically?” If you love The Daily Show, for instance, it’s in your best interest to find some way to make sure that you’re not cutting out the economic incentive Comedy Central/Viacom has to produce it.”

While the analogy of the media business to the manufacturing sector is extreme it makes sense. Consider: American manufacturing fell apart because of reduced costs to produce similar products from global competition. Sound familiar?

This is capitalism at work. Consumers don’t give a rat’s about supporting anybody. It’s self/capital preservation. People don’t care about the little guy or the American manufacturer. They shop at Target and WalMart. People won’t pay for software. They pirate it. People don’t care about the artists who create music or the legal owners (labels). They pirate it. people want want to pay lees, period. Video and film production has gone digital and it will be pirated, Tivo’d and splintered and fragmented to a point by new competiton to where it will be completely unrecognizable in five years.

Let’s look at history.

First their were three networks and PBS. (think of the hours wasted watching Merv Griffith!)

Cable came along and siphoned off huge portions of their audience.

More shows were added to cable, movie channels and then the rise of HBO as a content developer (they ripped the networks a new one with shows like the Sopranos and Sex and the City) and basically forced the networks to seriously revisit their core offerings.

DVD’s and boxed sets of old TV shows hit Blockbuster.

netflix

Satelite hits the mainstream in the form of Direct TV, etc.

Tivo.

Advertisers begin to question viewership and pricing.

Internet video hits in 2006.

IPTV in 2007

prediction: Massive fragmentation of audience due to tsunami of content choices by 2008.

UGC (YouTube, YouTube clones, video podcasters)
Archived film and video - long tail
Foreign films and video - new markets
New media webTV producers - piranhas
Virtual Worlds - second life, cyworld, etc
massive online Gameplay - halo, Gears, Warcraft, etc

The networks will fight tooth and nail and do their best to adapt but I believe (and could be dead wrong) that small video start ups will come together to create unique programming, the likes of which we haven’t seen before. We’re just starting. Granted, the production values will be lacking but think about how inexpensive it is to use a green screen and then modify the digital video using Adobe software. It’s shocking how professionally done the final product looks for very little cost.

Alot of people watch these “Trading Spaces” and “This Old House” type of shows on cable like Food Network and Style Channel. They capture a particular audience for an advertiser for minimal cost and provide sufficient ROI to make the ad buy justifiable for the advertiser. What’s to stop a group of creatives from doing the same thing and putting it online? Nothing because it’s dirt cheap. That’s why so many shows like those are on TV and spoonfed to the masses. The’re inexpensively produced product.

Again, nobody cares if it’s NBC, Style Channel or two guys in a garage. If it works people will watch.

I like your idea about checking back in a year from now. The networks will still be here, but there will also be a ton of new video content.

That’s funny. Last time I checked there were still advertisers paying big bucks to advertise on TV. Not everyone has a Tivo, and every ad hasn’t suddenly been blocked.

“Why? because the production costs to produce a pretty professional looking program are now virtually nothing. A video camera, A Mac and some pirated software. All stuff that many, many people have. And when online revenue models become solidified they will all want to become the next RocketBoom. The next Congdon, The next Scoble, The next Web Superstar!”

The idea that it costs virtually nothing to produce a professional-looking program is pure BS. When somebody produces the next Lost or Prison Break on $1000 let me know. Rocketboom is/was a decent effort as far as vlogs go, but I would love to sit 100 average Americans down in front of a TV and have them watch an episode of Rocketboom (3 minutes long) versus a full 30 minute show produced by a television/cable company. Which one do you think will be more popular? It’s quite amusing to see people who have no idea what it costs, both in terms of money, man-power, etc. to produce a television/cable show.

Secondly, you don’t seem to recognize that web superstars have been, and will continue to be, recruited and signed up by traditional talent agencies and television/cable networks. You mention that people want to be the next Congdon and she has now crossed over from her status as web star to deals with HBO, ABC News, etc. Why? Those (dead) companies can pay more money than AdSense or Revver. And the television/cable companies, contrary to your belief, have the resources (financial, staffing, equipment) required to create the truly high-quality productions that you just don’t find being made by your Average Joe on YouTube. I would venture to say that a significant number of web video producers out there are specifically looking to use web video as a platform to hopefully get themselves a deal in Hollywood. And many of those who aren’t would probably take the money quite willingly if the opportunity is given to them.

“As shows like Galacticast, Rocketboom and TreehuggerTV emerge on an almost daily basis (2007 should be an absolutaly insane year for radically new webisode podcasts/video shows) you are going to gradually see programming better reflect our diverse, constantly changing American culture.”

At best, some of these shows will gain a decent niche audience and find a way to make some money. Those that do are targets for “acquisition” by the television/cable companies. If Viacom comes along and is willing to pay you six or seven figures and can make you a star in Hollywood, most people will jump at the opportunity. Most vlogs, however, like blogs, will be crap and never find an audience. They will disappear because nobody is watching and there is no money being made to sustain the production efforts and costs.

The other point you have not really addressed is monetization. This is key, whether you’re a vlog or a television/cable company. There are a few points here:

- Major advertisers need major audiences. A vlog that has even 10,000 viewers is not going to appeal to the advertisers that need to generate tens of millions in revenues just to have a noticable impact on the bottom line. As such, I doubt that we’ll see any homegrown vlog that commands the same type of premium advertisers are willing to pay for American Idol or the Superbowl, at least anytime soon. And do not expect major advertisers to do 1,000 $5,000 deals with 1,000 relatively small vlogs. These advertisers are in the business of minimizing the number of relationships they have to manage and getting large audiences with as few ad buys as possible.

- If people don’t want to watch ads, this is a problem that will affect vloggers as well as television/cable companies. Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. We want to watch American Idol, Lost, Prison Break, the football game, etc. but we don’t want to watch the ads that subsidize the production of the content. We apparently lack the ability to recognize that if the producers of goods and services are not compensated appropriately for the production of those goods and services, its becomes unlikely that they will continue to produce them. While I’m oversimplifying it a bit, this same type of attitude has already played a crucial role in the destruction of the American manufacturing industry. We want goods as cheaply as possible and will cannibalize our own nation’s industries to get those goods cheaper. Obviously there are a lot of contributing factors that could be blamed (pensions, insurance costs, medical costs, labor unions, etc.), but the point I’m trying to make is that very few people here seem to be asking the question “What makes sense for us economically?” If you love The Daily Show, for instance, it’s in your best interest to find some way to make sure that you’re not cutting out the economic incentive Comedy Central/Viacom has to produce it.

I think it’d be great to come back to this issue one year from now and see how things have panned out:

- Are the television/cable companies still around and making money?
- Have services like GooTube effectively monetized? If they have, the television/cable companies are getting a share of the revenues.
- How many vlogs have emerged? What are the audiences of the top 10 and how do those numbers compare to the top 10 television/cable shows? Who is advertising on them? How is the advertising being done?
- How many web stars have been signed by Hollywood agents and/or “sell out” to a studio?
- How has the legal situation developed? As you know, there are a number of lawsuits which could literally put GooTube et. al. out of business.
- Is any online video company able to get a sweetheart deal with television/cable companies where the television/cable companies actually pay them for distribution?

I’m officially on the record as stating that television/cable companies have a lot of adapting to do, but will a) still be around and making good money, b) producing the most popular content and c) signing up many of the best web talent that emerges. The “television is dead” extremists seem be on the record as stating that television/cable advertising dollars will dry up, television/cable companies will start going bankrupt and that vlogs will overtake the mainstream popularity of Hollywood shows. We shall see, won’t we? December 1, 2007.