Category Archives: Conferences

05.18.07
by

XTech roundup, fostering discussion and Ian Forrester’s thoughts

On Thursday at XTech, I took matters into my own hands. Suw and I always travel with an Airport Express so that we can share hotel broadband. In this instance, we used her Airport Express to share the hotel’s broadband with our fellow conference participants. I posted on the Guardian Technology blog about several of the talks.

The full roundup:

That’s all of the posting that I managed. Much, much more, well all of it is here at PlantXTech. I really wanted to blog the session about Quakr, ” a project to build a 3-dimensional world from user contributed photos”.

One thing that I really enjoyed was talking in between sessions about how the web really can be used to foster a rich, nuanced discussion about pressing issues. There is a lot of work to do with identity, community building and context. Rob McKinnon‘s talk about fostering democratic participation was really thought provoking. I also really enjoyed chatting with AOLs Edwin Aoki about fostering discussions, especially Trans-Atlantic discussion.

I have to admit to a little frustration with media in the US (mostly Fox) and in UK for amplifying the ill will between Americans and Brits. Is there any way to get past this surface noise and get people to talk to each other? How do you structure the online discussion and online spaces to make this happen? More on that later. Lots of thoughts forming along those lines. And I’ll have to post some thoughts from my talk about a real revolution in news and community created content (full paper).

I had planned on doing some video blogging, but instead I stuck to a few text posts. Besides, most of the speakers and conference goers were a little camera shy. But I did manage to catch Ian Forrester with BBC Backstage for a quick question on what got him most excited at the conference:

technorati tags:, , , ,

05.09.07
by

Supernova 2007 Conversation Hub

I can’t quite believe that it was only in 2005 that I was last at Supernova in San Francisco – somehow it seems much longer ago. Of course, whilst I was there I blogged like a maniac, a role I will be reprising again this year. Yes, that’s right, I’m breaking my moratorium on foreign conferences to attend Supernova2007 – and Enterprise 2.0 too, as it happens.

Along with Renee Hopkins Callahan and Kevin Werbach, I’ll be one of the official hosts over at the Supernova blog, Conversation Hub, talking about the issues raised by the theme of the conference – the New Network. I’m just starting to get going on this. It’s always hard to find your voice on someone else’s blog, particularly when you only have a few weeks to do so, but I’m going to have a stab at drawing people into the conversation who aren’t necessarily even coming. Why limit yourself!

Of course, this means I’ll be in San Francisco from 22nd June til, well… I’m not sure yet. If you want to get together, let me know soon so I can make sure I have enough time. And if you’re going to be at either Supernova or Enterprise 2.0, ping me.

05.01.07
by

Internet World: Lulu’s model for self-publishing

I started my day off at the Internet World 2007 conference because I wanted to chat with the folks at LinkedIn for a story I’m working on about online business social networks. The first keynote was by Bob Young, one of the founders of the self-publishing site Lulu.com. In 1993, he co-founded ACC Corporation that went on to merge with RedHat, which has grown into a Fortune 500 company.

“I thought I’d talk about three things: 1) Web 2.0 and what it means in Europe. 2) What it means in the UK. 3) What it means to you.”

How I got to Lulu from this RedHat thing. Those of you familiar with software, know that it was built on a proprietary model. (Well, I might quibble with him on that one seeing as Bill Gates actually stirred up the young software world when he suggested that it should be proprietary and that people should charge for it. That’s ancient history in the software world, in the days of the Altair. But I know where he’s going with this.)

They gave you the binaries, not the source code. If you don’t know the difference, you should. In a very digital economy, in a digital society, if you only get the proprietary model, it’s like buying a car with the bonnet locked shut, and the dealer has the only key. Why would you want to open the hood the car? If you can open the bonnet, you have control of your car. You can take it to the dealer or any other garage. That is what took RedHat from startup in my wife’s sewing closett to a Fortune 500 company with half a billion dollars in revenue.

The control that gives you is that you don’t have to become a programmer but you can you hire someone to add the features you want.

Fast forward, and we’re now in the age of Web 2.0. For those of you who have difficulty understanding how Web 2.0 is different from web that you have used for the last 10 years. The companies no longer provide any value to you. We simply build an infrastructure and you the users add value. If you go to MySpace, you aren’t going there to use things that MySpace developed, you are going there for what users add.

The possibility has been there since the beginning of the internet. eBay is my favourite web 2.0 company. Everything of value has been added by users. I go back to Adam Smith. Businessmen in their own self interest create value for society. Yeah, you can trust the government to develop what you need, or Pierre Omidyar (founder of eBay) can create what you need.

What Lulu is trying to do – based on Adam Smith – is that companies working in their own self interest make the world a better place. This is not to make Lulu successful but make our users successful. YouTube created a lot of traffic but that was based on you guys. How do we encourage people to make video when you didn’t get paid for the last one? Web 3.0 will be based on what eBay, Lulu and Revver are doing. It allows you to get paid for what you are doing.

With the internet, geography ends. It doesn’t matter if you are based in Europe. There is no competitive advantage being based in US. The UK has one competitive advantage: English. English is the lingua franca of the modern world. It is the French of the modern world. You guys can build sites with as global of a reach as any company.

Question from audience: Isn’t this about enabling users? Such as one click purchasing for iTunes or Amazon?

Answer: The great technologies of the internet in ten years are not going to be the great companies of today. Internet is in its infancy. We still have not created the great applications. It’s a lot like the PC industry in 1985. In 1985, they were Ashton-Tate, WordPerfect. Dell not even founded or possibly founded in 1985. (I checked. Dell was founded in 1984, but shipped the first computer of its own design in 1985.)

Question: How do you monetise Lulu?

Answer: It’s all about our authors. Lulu allows you to publish in one of three ways. Either electronically, a book or soon as a CD or DVD. Think of Harry Potter, you can either read, listen to as an audio book or watch as a DVD. We charge for printing. We do the reverse of the publishing model. You keep 80% of the revenue you make.

Question: How does Lulu assess whether these are unknown authors whether they are of some quality?

Answer: Ahh, the quality question. We sell 160,000 books a month. We’re adding 5000 authors a week. What is interesting to us is that concern (about quality). We probably have the world’s largest collection of bad poetry. Early on, the Washington Post newspaper ran a story. The literary editor thought he had come across the worst novel in the English language and was asking how can self publishing create good novels? We encouraged (the author) to come to Lulu, and we sent out a press release saying the worst writer in the English language had come to Lulu.

There shouldn’t be a group of editors who decides what is good enough or relevant. It should be the marketplace.

We are working on social networking and recommendation tools, to allow readers to decide quality.

From the musical Gypsy Rose, there is a song that says you have to have a gimmick. You have to do something different. If you do a different detective story, you have to do something different, like base it in your home town.

We don’t think we compete with Random House or Penguin. They think they have succeeded if they get their authors down to 10 and sell a million books each. Our model is the reverse. On a single copy, on Lulu, you make money and Lulu makes money.

03.23.07
by

Guardian Changing Media: The future of media?

Session Chair: Nick Higham, correspondent, BBC News

Andy Duncan, chief executive, Channel 4

Tom Loosemore, project director, Web 2.0, BBC

Alan Rushbridger, editor, The Guardian

Ok, I’ll be have be on my best blogging game now with the Editor – as he’s simply known as at the Guardian – speaking. He started off with one of his famous abstract presentation images – think Kandinsky does PowerPoint – that showed the blue line of depressing, falling print profits, the red line of rising online profits and an amorphous green bubble where most media organisations are. A little star in the bubble showed the current location of the Guardian with respect to the profit decline, profit growth curves.

Next, Alan pulled out an electronic reader from Illiad. It is a screen that has wonderful resolution and looks like paper. They are wonderful things, but it’s impossible to predict what form journalism will be delivered in the future.

One year on, and the depressing abstract graph has moved on a little bit. And then he showed that the Guardian is competing not just against the Telegraph and the Times but against the New York Times, Yahoo, Google, Oh My News and just about everyone. And the move has been from one platform – print – to a multiplicity of platforms. We’re also mixing sources of content from our own journalists to a broader mix of content from users and our communities.

Ten years on, we hope the increase in online profits then surpasses the declining print profits. Although Alan showed this a lot better than I did – aging a few media moguls with a little Photoshop magic and the addition of white hair. He also wondered out loud what media organisations would fade as their owners aged, and their children took less interest in running media businesses.

Next up, Tom Loosemore. I have only met Tom a few times, but I really like his ideas. I remember Tom, Nico Flores and me sharing lunch with Jeff Jarvis last summer. It was one of the more interesting lunches I had at the Beeb.

Tom said that the BBC is cutting itself some slack, especially when it comes to be in the middle of Alan’s green bubble. Many of the assumptions that we built our business around are gone. The ability to copy digital media perfectly has fundamentally changed our models.

We are right at the top of the hype curve when it comes to Second Life, but it’s not crucial to focus on technology but on behaviours, especially people we used to find were our audience. When you look at young people, technology doesn’t really exist until they are 15.

When you look at the young early adopters, you see amazing changes. They see media as self expression, identity and empowerment. They use media on their terms. If it is not on their terms, they either nick it, ignore it or make it on their own.

What has changed in media is who is charge, who is control. I think we need to be honest on how much previous popularity of media was down to quality and how much was down to control. There used to be only so many channels. There is only so much room on newstands for so many newspapers and magazines. Was that content that good?

This is a generation that will not give control back. At the BBC, he says they have to balance the needs of his great aunt who thinks that BBC 2 is a little risque and his son. If he really wants to punish his son, he doesn’t take away the TV, he unplugs the router. The BBC has to succeed in making the licence fee payer believe that £130 a year is really good value.

We’re in a state of flux, but this is not the death throes of media. Those that win will take the long term view. Those who win will give up control gracefully.

Andy Duncan of Channel 4 spoke next. I’m not going to waste space writing up his talk. He spent the first 5 minutes making a pointless rebuttal of an article in G2 that asked: “What’s the point of Channel 4?” What was the point of his talk, more like. Obviously he sees a future in government, because after that he launched into a content-free mumble notable only for its cliches about progress and the role of media in the future of the British economy. It reminded me of Kang’s speech in the Simpsons when he and Kodo take over the bodies of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole and run for president:

We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

That’s about the level of vision and inspiration that we’re talking about here. He of course spiced up his ill-prepared, or at least, ill-delivered comments with a few buzzwords like UGC and mobile community, oh and, of course, a radio station in Second Life. But that really was it. “We’re in a multi-channel world.” Duh? “Competition is growing.” Duh? Ben Hammersley and I liberated a couple of bottles of beer early from the drinks reception just to deaden the boredom.

Maybe he was playing it close to the vest lest he give away his strategy to his competitors. That would be the generous interpretation. Maybe he is just a poor public speaker. Maybe he’s just clueless. But I was left thinking to myself: What exactly does it take to become the chief executive of a media company?

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled round up. Nick Higham asked Tom: Well, the BBC surely can’t cede control, can it?

Tom responded by saying that this generation was much more media literate than we were giving them credit for.

Trusting content because of the means of distribution is over.

Nick asked whether the reader comments on Comment is Free would blow the Guardian’s brand proposition “out of the water”.

Alan said that journalists are struggling with the fact that they are not the only ones who know things. There is a danger that it might capsize the brand, but “there is something about the way the community moderates themselves”. And the Guardian did some internal subjective review of the comments, rating them on a five star scale, and most comments were in fact, high quality, with ratings of four and five stars.

The first question came from Patrick Smith of the Press Gazette and asked if there was still a role for the journalist. Alan said that there was still a place for an ‘unpolluted supply of journalism that people can trust’. But he added that it was not right to think that people in newsrooms in Wapping, Kensington or Farringdon were the only people who knew things.

Tom said that journalists now had a fantastic range of new sources, but he added that great editors had become more important not less.

Suw and I are considering writing a little round up of our thoughts. We’ve noticed a few early interesting items in our trackbacks asking why the conversation seems to have stalled or is getting a bit repetitive. Hugh Martin asked why I blogged here and I didn’t blog on the Guardian blogs, seeing as I’m the Guardian blogs editor. I have responded on his blog, but he has approved my comment yet so I’ll respond here.

I blog on Guardian blogs when I go to conferences, but if there are other Guardian staff blogging, then I usually write here. Also, Suw and I tend to write notes ‘with the eye of a stenographer‘ or ‘amazing near transcript quality‘, which is a bit different than the Guardian blog style. And I hope our little public service makes up for what this blogger felt was too high of cost for a ticket, shutting out citizen journalists and others.

Now, Hugh’s point is taken when it comes to my relatively low profile on Guardian blogs, and as I said in my as yet to be published comment, I’ve spent much of my first six months behind the scenes working on the tech, making sure it’s ready to support our editorial goals. But, I know that I need to be involved in community, not just poking at servers and software in the background. That will change soon enough.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

03.22.07
by

Guardian Changing Media: I’ll see you in court: the rights and wrongs of DRM

Nick Higham, moderator
Dr Ian Brown, board member, Open Rights Group
Elizabeth Gibson, corporate legal and IP, BBC
Andrew Gowers, Gowers Review of Intellectual Property
Paul Grindley, head of business affairs, Film4
Paul Keller, project lead, Creative Commons Netherlands

NH: Dr Ian Brown did a good demolition job of DRM in a session in this very room last year, so surprised to see it come up again. Should rights holders be suing infringers? Should we have more enforcement? Or should we scrap DRM completely and make as much as possible free to users? Ian, have things changed since last year?

IB: The technological problems with DRM haven’t changed, but many people in the music industry are beginning to realise that DRM isn’t going to do what they had hoped it would. Surveys have found that music execs are starting to think that DRM reduces sales, and evidence to show that artists who provide their music unencumbered are doing better financially.

NH: So this is moving towards an unencumbered format? And is this making more money?

IB: Many people in the music industry are starting to believe so, yes.

NH: Andrew, I mentioned the Gowers Review, can you summarise it in three lines?

AG: We were asked to look at the changes in the world economy, and look at intellectual property rights, which is a global system so there’s a limit to what you can do in just one jurisdiction, but there were some clear issues, including the effects of digitisation, globalisation, and flexibility – there were a number of sticking points where copyright law was being brought into disrepute or misunderstanding on the part of the public and it wasn’t the public’s fault it was also the industry’s point. How did the gigantic growth in illegal downloading begin? I began because the music industry wasn’t producing stuff in the format that the public wanted, and so they’ve been forced to play catch up and some are now beginning to address the right issues. Blaming consumers for the growth of that thing was not looking in the right place. The second place misunderstanding took place, and which made the law look like an ass, was the act that most of us commit ever day i.e. transfer of music from a CD to a PC and then an MP3 player, the act of format shifting, which is an offence. The fact that it’s on the statute books taints the rest of copyright law. Then the concept of fair use, which is a broader concept in the US and covers more exceptions than in the UK, and we looked at some new fair use concepts such as transformative use, satire and parody. Need to modernise copyright law.

NH: The reaction to your report hasn’t been very good in the music industry.

AG: Broadly, the report was received well and accepted by the government in full, and the Gowers Implementation Team (GIT), are in charge of implementing. There was a distorted response from the music industry – they welcomed the enforcement section, as enforcement for online infringement is lagging behind what’s possible in the physical world.

NH: So they were happy with that, but not everything?

AG: They weren’t happy that we didn’t listen to the unrelenting lobbying from the music industry to extend the term of copyright protection on sound recordings. We looked at the evidence and we could see no case to make a change, so we are leaving it as it is. It was a question of what is the problem we are trying to fix? If there is a problem with the incentives to create then there might be an issue to look at, but there is no problem with the incentive to create in this country or any other developed country. Most recorded works sell the majority of its sales in the first 5 years. Very few acts last even 50 years, which is the current term, and even fewer that last 95 years. So we were being asked to extend the rent for a very small number of musicians for the benefit mainly of one big record company.

NH: Significant for TV too?

PG: Yes, we have been watching the music industry, and we have to grapple with this ourselves. The debate is uncomfortable for those in the business of distributing more collaboratively created content, films are consumed in different ways, there’s a more dense ecology, more entrepreneurial companies working together. This creates a lot of dynamism, so our challenge is to find a more creative solution. C4 sites in the middle of the ecology, so we innovate, develop talent, are producers, we have to look at our own position and industry holistically, and look at DRM holistically, you can’t isolate it from broader economic and cultural trends.

NH: Most film/TV content is high cost, lots of people involved whose time and effort needs reward, the comparison with music is that much music is lower cost and therefore lower value. So do you want more restrictions and more power over the end use of your product?

PG: Traditional models in film is that you can buy a copy, rent a copy, see it in a cinema, have it on TV, so challenge record industry has is that their value add which is marketing and finding talent is now in competition with social networks and other means by which film is discovered. In film, the value add is yes, distribution which will have to evolve, but as far as production is concerned that’s still an enormous cost. The transient copy that’s available on the website, if that became a permanent copy then there’s not much revenue left for the producer. DRM has an effect of alienating users, and that needs to be changed, and it doesn’t match what’s allowed legally under copyright but is it ever realistic that DRM would ever match what’s allowed under copyright. 4Docs, web based social network around documentary, uses Creative Commons licences.

NH: Does the BBC welcome the Gowers Review?

EG: BBC Always sits on the fence as both creator and user of intellectual property. So we accept things like the format shifting, just like it’s good to have time shifting. The exception for caricature, parody and pastiche, which is a natural creative thing to want to do, I’m delighted it’s been adopted although it’s causing a bit of disquiet, but I welcome that. As far as DRM is concerned, the BBC does use that out of consideration to the underlying rights holders and contributors, as they are anxious that their work isn’t used beyond the rights that they have given up. DRM could enable the idea of making one download of your CD on to something else, and our iPlayer trial needs DRM as programmes can be downloaded for a week.

NH: Tension for a public service organisation between making material which has been publicly funded as widely available as possible, and the need to protect and preserve copyright.

EG: We have the Creative Archive, which has just finished trialling, but we don’t have the rights usually. Old contracts didn’t include it. Plus we have BBC Commercial so we have to preserve the ability for them to make money out of things.

NH: The desire to make things widely available, in the final analysis, proves too difficult to do?

EG: It can do. And another problem is orphaned works where you can’t find the author.

NH: Creative Commons takes a different approach.

NK: CC offers copyright licences that allows others to use your work in certain ways. You can invite others to share, remix or reuse your materials. There’s six standard licences, and the main differentiation is between commercial and non-commercial licences. It acknowledges that copyright, which is this monolithic thing created when there were few players in the market, is now something which affects everyone. Everyone can create nowadays, and copyright is a one-size-fits-all thing, which doesn’t work now. We have serious issues with both copyright and DRM. We are interested in giving people the opportunity to express their rights in a way that invites creativity and reuse.

NH: Doesn’t it invite abuse?

NK: As an organisation we are young, so we don’t have statistics about this. But we think there are about 250m works licensed on the internet, but we have had only 3 cases that went to court that involved CC .So this way of expression rights in a term of ‘friendly guidelines’, and there is a bit of friction where people don’t understand the licence, but they are usually easily solved.

NH: What type of content is it?

NK: A lot of writing, lots of blogs, also lots of photography. Quite a lot of music, distribution platforms that take artists who reserve their commercial rights but give away the potential to share and remix.

NH: Are there lessons for the world of commercial copyright?

NK: If I listen to what was said here, CC has a three layered model, we have this licence which is 6 – 8 pages long and then we have a human readable version, and we need to explain what the rights and restrictions are. Need to be very clear about what the rights are, and that might remove some friction, even in commercial areas.

Questions from the floor
Does the BBC and C4 like YouTube?

EG: The BBC did a deal with YouTube, so yes, we like them. We can post trails and clips and specially made content where users can find it, and we get some advertising revenue out of it as well. You can’t download but you can post stuff up for your friends, but that doesn’t stop us enforcing our rights if our materials is posted up by other people.

NH: The BBC material that has adverts is the channel hosted by BBC Worldwide?

EG: Yes.

PG: It can be good if it supports your business, it can be bad if it compete. Maybe you have to tolerate a certain amount of competition in order to promote your stuff. The BBC stuff – what’s not to like, BBC doesn’t have to earn money from it’s material the way C4 does. But you can do other things, such as streaming short films on Second LIfe, no payment out of that, that’s about brand and developing authorial reputations of the creators of those films. Something else we’re doing is taking this community, and doing a movie that’s open source, inviting contributions form people, have input into idea, marketing, etc. Trying to find ways to innovate and try to find ways to use this technology.

AG: I think it’s heartening development – this can be seen as an ongoing negotiation. Sites like YouTube doesn’t mean that traditional means have got to role over and die, they’ve just got to find a new balance. And it’s always been a balance. Those copyright owners who compare their copyright to physical property are wrong, it’s not like physical properly. You can’t make endless copies of your house. What this is is finding a new balance, and there are areas that are grey in law.

NH: But isn’t YouTube encouraging a widespread disregard to copyright.

AG: It’s finding a balance. I’m sure that the courts will find that Viacom has somewhat of a pint and there’ll be a licence to be paid. But this is not

IB: This is about systems evolving, but in Viacom’s case, this was specifically considered in the DCMA. So they said that intermediaries don’t have to hunt through the content they host, but that they do have to take items down when someone complains. But Viacom want another bit of that cherry and want to try and change that.

NK: The problem with orphan works, if no one knows how owns the rights you can’t get permission, there’s a need to revert from the ‘if we can’t find the owner of the work then it can’t be used’ – that’s a waste.

You’ve mentioned different systems and US copyright law vs UK. Can copyright law really be negotiated on a national basis when consumption is international?

AG: It already is international. Much of our review is about EU law and we hope to have input to the review process in Brussels. Whether it needs to be standard is debatable. In the US you can’t get royalties for playing music in bars and hairdressers, but you can in the EU. You will see convergence, not universally, but it’s always in an upwards direction. Since WWII the tendency has been to ratchet upwards, because producers are more articulate than those who consume it.

NH: Is it realistic to expect intermediaries like ISPs to supply revenue to rights holders

IB: It shouldn’t happen in a compulsory way, but there are already ISPs who are negotiating licences, and it’s worth experimenting.

AG: ISPs loomed in our discussions, and the music industry saying that ISPs sold their services on the back of downloading, so the ISPs should look at that.

NG: What will happen is that the ISPs will become part of the content industry, and having a strong legal framework promotes that negotiation.

EG: Contributors should have nothing to fear from this new platform, it’s another way to get more revenue.

NK: we need to take account of open systems, that’s not distributed by major players that deserve remuneration.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

03.22.07
by

Guardian Changing Media: Business model for free content?

Session Chair: Nick Higham, correspondent, BBC News

Christian Ahlert, director, OpenBusiness.cc

Suw Charman, independent social software consultant

Adam Freeman, deputy commercial director, Guardian News and Media

Question to Christian, what did Google do right?

Christian: At first, they were kind of a bit crazy. They didn’t have a clue. Google created a really good technology, but they didn’t have a business model. Everyone could use good and they can still use Google. The only way that they could create a business model was on top of the attention they created. Giving something away on top of the attention they created. This is key way that the internet and business on the internet works.

When it comes to Web 2.0, social activity has become a product unto itself. I created OpenBusiness two years ago because of Bill Gates. I’m involved with Creative Commons. That is an alternative rights mechanism. Some rights reserved instead of all rights reserved. Bill Gates said two years ago, “What those Creative Commons guys are doing sounds like Communism to me.”

One business model is Last.fm. They give stuff away for free. It allows people to share their tastes.

Last year, he consulted with a major media company. They wanted to become a Web 2.0 company, but the first thing the company said is that they had sent a cease-and-desist letter to someone who had put something on YouTube. He thought the meeting was pointless. Six weeks later, they had another meeting, but a smart executive put the same message up on YouTube. But he got a cease and desist letter because they said he was using YouTube for commercial purposes.

There are hundreds of ways in how you can create revenue. Many of his business ideas are taken from the world of open source software development. People build very successful business models around open-source software. Or you can upsell, by adding premium or paid for services, or even free-ium content.

Suw Charman: There is an idea if you give something away for free that you can’t make money for it. We see this in the publishing world with Cory Doctorow, Lawrence Lessig and Tom Reynolds. Certainly, Cory Doctorow has been very open with his figures. His first novel has been downloaded 700,000 times, but Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom is also on its fifth or sixth printing.

The people who are most aggressive downloaders are also the largest buyers of music. We’re still seeing a shake out in business models. If you have a product that is desirable, then people will buy it. Downloads aren’t exactly equivalent to the physical product.

Nick: DVDs, the physical product comes with extras.

Suw: When you look at the music industry, you see a nice blip when people were replacing their tapes and vinyl with CDs. This created an artificial hump in sales. The music industry is shifting fewer units so are selling less. To blame this entirely on downloaders is spurious. You have a small number of bands shifting a large number of units.

Suw called it a power law issue. Mark Cuban calls it the ‘rat’s ass of the long tail’. And it takes a lot of money to climb further up the tail, although I’ll leave that image there.

Adam Freeman: We are a multi-platform player. Today it is printed words on paper. In the future, it will probably be video. We are not on the web but part of the web, and fortunately, that has coincided with a boom in advertising. It has to be compelling, and it has to be unique. You can’t do that in news, but you can do that in crosswords or news compilations for expats. They also have a dating service.

CA: Lots of business give away things for free but use that to generate business. We didn’t mention quality and convenience. To bash the music industry again, who developed iTunes? A computer company. (Nick Higham: How many have iPods? Almost 100%.)

The guys who started Skype have launched Joost. The quality is great. I mean, YouTube, Google Video? The quality is crap.

Question from audience: The music industry didn’t invent iTunes because it wasn’t their core competencies. He went on to insinuate that Suw and people like her thought music was ‘shit’ because her tastes were changing as she was aging.

Winning argument boss, or not. Suw’s a square because she’s getting older?!? Blame the user. Blame the listener. This seems to be the music industry strategy. Don’t innovate. Don’t invest in new business models. Defend your old business models with a stable of lawyers.

CA: Decoupling using a product and not paying for it is nothing new. Radio has been doing that for years. The internet has changed transaction costs forever.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

03.22.07
by

Guardian Changing Media: Democratising content in the user-in-control era

Session Chair: Janice Gibson, assistant editor, the Guardian

Edwin Aoki, chief architect, AOL

Ben Hammersley, multimedia reporter, GuardianUnlimited

Tariq Krim, CEO and founder, Netvibes

Steve Olechowski, cofounder and COO, FeedBurner

Tariq Krim: I used to be a journalist. I used to be in the media space. When the blog came out, I decided to go to the other side. I created NetVibes mostly by accident. I was trying to survive in the age of personal media. He found himself subscribed to 1,000 blogs. He wanted to know how to aggregate all of the content and services he used, not only blogs but also e-mail and eBay.

The real issue is where do we put our attention? If they spend one hour on the internet, where did that one hour come from?

The architecture of the internet has changed with RSS and syndication. Syndication is the first way to reach the user, through the RSS. (My colleague Neil McIntosh responded to the question of why there was such low adoption of RSS by British newspapers last week. I think that RSS is more than reading feeds in purpose-built feedreaders. It is an enabling technology. The real power of RSS is liberating content from websites and their front pages as well as liberating content from platforms. Adoption will be driven by simple tools like NetVibes. Bobbie Johnson, one of the Guardian tech correspondents, said pretty much the same thing in Neil’s comments. Don’t worry Neil, we aren’t ganging up on you.)

Steve Olechowski: FeedBurner manages syndication for publishers all over the world from Reuters, the Daily Mail, the USAToday to bloggers and podcasters around the world. People are consuming content outside of the context where the publisher originally created it. In 2003, RSS was mostly blogs, but in 2006, there are podcasts, blogs, video blogs, retail and e-commerce, online media companies and web services.

Ben Hammersley: It’s my birthday in a couple of weeks and I’m beginning to feel like an old man. I’ll be 31. I’ve been building websites for 15 years. I was on FidoNet, which none of you will remember unless you’re really geeky. He offered to buy someone a beer if they had heard of FidoNet, but

He sees the sames mistakes, the same debates in 1994, 1998, in 2002. They are based around the problem that large corporation and brand managers are fundamentally at odds with their customers. The content that you are producing is very personal to the people who you are creating it for.

You have a create a love affair and then get out of the way.

Over the last 15 years, we’ve seen media companies, record companies actively trying to destroy the love affair their users have with their content. As an example of this, Viacom is suing Google. They think they are suing Google and they are against Sergey, another big corporation. But they are really at war with their users.

They are taking a Valentine’s Day card and burning it in front of the person who gave it to them.

Edwin: Yeah, this is really the same.

Old Media:

  • Controlled by a select few
  • Out of date by the time it’s printed/broadcast.

New Media:

  • Let a thousand flowers bloom
  • Or, let a thousand people with typewriters create something

He focused on user generated context, mashups and remix culture.

Tariq: Most media view RSS as as a way to get people to get back to the website, but he said that one liners aren’t getting people back to the websites.

Steve: There is no evidence that putting more content in your feeds is taking traffic away from your users. You certainly aren’t losing audience by publishing feeds. The people reading feeds are different from the people reading your website. Feeds and syndication are a separate medium from websites.

They talked about ads in feeds. What is really working in terms of advertising in feeds, is people engagin in feeds.

Edwin: You bring them back to your site with other services and other levels of participation. Sites that are successful do drive people back to their sites by offering fuller feeds.

Ben: What is micro-chunking? Micro-chunking comes around every 18 months. It is one of those buzzwords that come around that is nothing more than a good excuse to have a conference. As a word, you can ignore it. As a concept, you need to know what it is.

Steve: The difference is that there is a 24 hour publishing cycle not a daily publishing cycle. The old feedback loop was writing a letter to the editor. Now, feedback is instantaneous.

Question from person from Chinwag, RSS is a way to build results through search.

Ben: If Google is indexing your RSS feeds, sack your webmaster. That is a Fisher-Price mistake. Write headlines in a way that works best for Google not best for a way that is elegant. That is a shame because I like puns. All of the other technical issues are down to having competent technical staff.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

03.22.07
by

Guardian Changing Media Conference: Radio in a multiplatform world

Session Chair:

Matt Wells, media editor, Guardian News and Media

James Cridland, director of digital media, Virgin Radio

Chris Kimber, managing editor, BBC Audio and Music Interactive

Felix Miller, CEO, last.fm

Nathalie Schwartz, director of radio, Channel 4

James Cridland rolled out Virgin’s first such as their first in social networking. He said that there was a lot of doom mongering talk about radio, which was causing many in the advertising community to believe that hype. One in five people surfing the internet are also turning into radio. His internal theme is control and conversation. Control to reflect that today’s media consumer is used to controlling their environment in so many ways, whether control as in YouTube, iPod or SkyPlus Box (DVR). Conversation is another goal. Radio is a shared experience. A lot of people feel part of a community as a radio station listener. People say that I am a Guardian reader, a Radio 4 listener or a Heart listener. We need to give people a chance to have a conversation with us and with the brands that advertise on our station, as well as with themselves.

Chris Kimber, not having any advertises to worry about, I will say that radio has huge challenges going forward. We will see declining figures in live, linear listening in the next five years, both in BBC radio and commercial radio. Radio does need to re-invent itself. It needs to be multi-platform. It needs to be visual. People are beginning to expect more than an audio stream. It needs to be on-demand. We launched the audio player five years ago, and we launched podcasting before Virgin did. Radio has to be even more distinctive. That pressure is even greater than in the past. The importance of brands are really key, whether that is a radio station brand or a programme brand. The big challenge for all of us is how to engage the younger demographic.

Teenagers who spend all their time on YouTube and MySpace. Will they ever come back to radio?

Nathalie Schwartz believes that radio has competitive advantages when you get it right, which is why Channel 4 is bidding for a multiplex. User generated content in the terms of the phone in has been on radio for years. The future is digital. DAB radio sets will have a slideshow stream (My two cents: and the audio quality will get even more shit.) People can record streams. (My two cents: Until they are sued by the recording industry.)

Felix Miller, CEO of last.fm. Last.fm is a new type of music platform based on sharing. Every user can display what music they are listening to on their own page. These music profiles can be used to create collaborative filtering. You can generate recommendations, and out of these recommendations, you can create ‘radio stations.’ (It’s similar in concept to the Pandora service but instead of an automated system, it’s generated by the usage of Last.fm listeners.)

MW: Radio used to be the box, but now James and what everyone says, it’s more of a theory.

JC: The music jukebox will succeed, but I don’t listen to a lot of music on Radio 4. Maybe we’ve concentrated on music too much in the past. It used to be 10 great songs in a row. Maybe we should be concentrating on the bits between the songs. Oh, I just realisedd that the last 10 songs in a row was a Virgin Radio strapline.

NS: I suppose if I think what Capital was when it started in teh 1970s, it was innovative. It was all about community and conversation. They were celebrating their anniversary, and they interviewed the founder. They trained the presenters so that they talked with listeners not at them. Today’s definition of community may be an in-depth website with blogging that feeds into the radio. If you have a strong brand and a lot of loyalty and you can create compelling content, then you can succeed.

CK: I think that certainly the BBC and commercial radio that have quite a long way to go. Last.fm and Pandora’s daily reach way outstrips Virgin Radio websites reach.

JC: Can you compare it to a BBC station?

CK: Oddly, it only has Virgin Radio on the graph. It used to be about schedules, but in the future, you have to think about a programme as an idea.

FM: We have 50m unique visitors to the website.

JC: He quoted some figures that shows that radio listenership is still growing. Don’t be under any illusion that radio is stuffed and we should run to nearest lifeboat. The actual reality is that radio audiences aren’t erroding to a great degree.

CK: I don’t want to get into a stats war. With 15-24 year olds, the trend for the BBC and commercial radio is that the trend is down. If we’re losing young listeners at a young age, at what time do they come back? Or do they just continue with their habits in their teens and 20s.

NS: We will be aimed at extending the diversity of radio. The most worrying statistic is the BBC’s current market share. The BBC has 55% of the radio market share. Channel 4 and its partners must invest in serious programming. Speech, comedy, drama have not been traditionally done on commercial radio. 84% of those listening to speech radio is listening to the BBC. Perhaps reach has grown, but amongst 18-34 listening hours has dropped.

MW: You have a number of ideas on how to do that. You talked about adding pictures.

JC: Adding visuals to radio isn’t about making TV-lite, it’s about making rich radio. Every new platform, whether DAB, Freeview or Sky, we can put information related to music – pictures of bands, information on song.

FM: We should talk about what works. The point about the youngest audience is that they have niched. That is why they go to YouTube and Last.fm. How can I do my own media? Communities increase stickiness and market for audience. There is no reason for teenagers to switch on radio at some specific time of the day to listen to some specific DJ. We need to exploit medium that we have: The Internet. There is a lot we can do there. There is a lot of interactivity. Our audience has changed.

MW: Chris, you’re the doomsayer on the panel. Talk about works.

CK: To say why would a person want to turn a radio on misses what radio is. It is live. It is a communal experience. It’s the bit between the music.

I sort of threw a grenade at the panel. I don’t care about DJs to sift through music for me. Recommendations from my friends are much more important to me. I know their tastes. I’ve got a friend back in the States who has a great taste in music. I love going to his place and just listen to what’s on his playlist. After a couple of responses from the panel, I quickly realised that we don’t really save in the same world.

I think the Last.fm CEO lives in my world. It’s about niches and exploration, and I don’t hear that when I turn on the radio. I hear programmed playlists and sameness.

Suw said that the panel was obsessing about music. She said that is about much more than music. Through the internet and podcasts, she’s found things like This American Life and the Merlin Mann, three-minute podcasts about productivity. She said that there is an opportunity for nuance.

NS: Podcasting is just radio on demand she said and talked about a trial with WiFi and PlayStation Portable. She also took a swipe at the BBC and said that its programming haven’t really faced a competitive challenge and therefore weren’t remaining vital.

CK: We have 7.5m downloads of our podcasts. (MW: But that is just your radio material?) Yes, we can’t podcast unique material because of regulatory materials.

FM: He fielded a question about whether Last.fm would add podcasts. They might if there appears a demand for it.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

03.22.07
by

Guardian Changing Media: Game on: Gaming and virtual economies – players in control

Nick Higham, moderating
Ed Bartlett, vice president, Europe, In Game Advertising (IGA)
Justin Bovington, CEO, Rivers Run Red
Gavin Forth, head of entertainment, Orange
Timo Soininen, CEO, Habbo Hotel
John Burns, senior director of e-commerce, Electronic Arts Europe

NH: Justin, what is Second Life?

JB: Virtual world where users create everything in the world. 5m unique users. But that’s half the story. 1.6 million people log in in for average of 4 hours in there. Very difficult to monetise social networks. Second Life has an economy. 1.7 million USD exchanged, thousands of businesses earning real money within SL.

NH: How is this money transferred to the real world?

JB: Linden Dollars have an exchange rate with USD, just like air miles have an intrinsic value, so do Linden Dollars. SL is just one – there’s also things like World of Warcraft.

NH: What do people do?

JB: People create things, run events, wedding planners, all sorts of thing. From the last panel, content and brand, people are getting behind their own content and their own brands.

NH: Who are these?

JB: Average age of SL is 33 – these are not 17 year olds, it’s actually very sensible people. [audience laughs] All high education mostly college graduates, 10% are professionals, e.g. doctors.

TS: Difficult to explain Habbo without being able to show it. Business model is different to most, it’s end-user based, not advertising. It’s a personal virtual world ad online community for 13 – 15 year olds, 50/50 split male female, non-violent, moderated virtual world. About self-expression, UGC, about being who you want to be and playing together. Four areas, Habbo Hotel, 19 ones around the world; Habbo home page; Habbo multiplayer game section; users’ own web pages.

74 million player characters, started in 2000, 7.5 unique users per month, 400m page views.

Opportunities for companies to sponsor an area, or have in-game advertising, or holed events, create your own virtual area and advertising using interstitials as people navigate from room to room, us IM to communicate message, sponsor games and prizes. Market surveys are popular because kids are very responsive – response rates 10x higher than industry average. Create background themes. Brands are most powerful form of self-expression for teenagers.

Brands that have used Habbo including iPod, and various music artists, Moo cards (?? – they looked like them).

NH: What’s the different to SL?

JB: Mythical thing about ‘brand immersion’, how you move people from conversation to brand loyalty. SL allows people to have immersive experience, collaborating with the brand. How do you make brands content, that’s when people will really engage. But the bottom line is that if you add value to someone’s virtual life that you’ll be successful, if you try to crowbar your message into their world, they won’t engage with you. The internet has always been about the head, about information, but SL have really hit people’s hearts, it’s very emotive.

JN: EAE has a more conventional history. How do you see this going/

John B: I agree with Justin’s point, gaming itself is a reality now as a media forum, and a forum for a vast group of consumers. It’s not niche. And the online revolution is happening and the definition of online for games is changing, all gaming is beginning to develop an online aspect, whether through broadband or mobile. Tremendous opportunity for major bands and consumers. We have a franchise, Battlefield, and we have an active community playing that game, 1.2 million users, and people interact, it’s not a passive experience. Beyond gaming being such a large market, and online being key, one of the differences between gaming and a lot of the other things that exist on the net, Gaming is interactive, we make people engage, sometimes at a deep level.

JH: Who are the gamers? Habbo it’s 12 – 15, but SL is 33?

JohnB: Both are correct. ‘Gamers’ is too narrow a definition, it’s consumers. Gaming is on your mobile, it’s on the net, it’s many things on many platforms. We see this, yes there are hardcore consumers, but when you look at the Sims which is one of the most popular games, they are female with a broad age range, so the stereotype of gamers is out of date.

Ed: This is an entertainment media, our core demographic is 18 – 34 male, but we have a lot of female, and a lot of ‘grey gamers’, so we cover a large range of people and products. Cost of developing games has spiralled, so some of the EAE teams are over a 100 people, and the games themselves are getting cheaper, so the margins are narrower. So advertising is a way to do that.

2003, Hive was the first product placement for gaming, did a lot of work with RedBull – couldn’t make product claims on TV but could put them into a game. Move to become a platform channel, so aggregate games into a single channel. When you look at these games, there are so many choices, so we take entire game spectrum, and aggregate together through our tech, can then insert ads seamlessly, and can do it in context.

Games are now very realistic, and these environments have to be believable, and adding brands increases the realism. Can also add geographical relevance – can geotarget advertising, so someone in Germany would see different advertising to someone in the UK.

NH: How important is this for Orange?

Gavin: Gaming is the second largest revenues stream for Orange. Lagest is music and ringtones in particular. It’s interesting when you start looking what peopple are doing with virtual communities and how you can start bringing that into mobiles. Starting to see mobile access and get people playing against each other in environments that reflect the real world, e.g. if it’ ssnowing in the real world it’s snowing int he game.

Broad spectrum of users, from deeply immersed people who are into Second LIfe; mid-range gamers who like console games; also strong area of casual gamers, like most people in the audience, playing things like Sudoku, most of those people are significantly different to traditional gamers, so older, more females, and they are games like Sudoku, crosswords, and ‘Deal or No Deal’.

NH: What are the ad opps?

Gavin: branding is key, so one of the most successful was Sudoku sponsored by The Economist. Looking at sponsors to subsidise the price of the game, as most games are around £5, so sponsor puts ads on to make those games cheap or free. Provide click-throughs after the game, that works.

NH: How welcome are branded messages and advertising in the game environment?

TS: The biggest risk is that people start treating it as another media space, but it’s not, it’s the space of the users. Don’t allow any flashy banners, or anything in-your-face. Kids love and hate brands, but they are self expression, so we give them the opportunity to use the brand in clever ways. But we are taking careful measures not to over-commercialise it, because otherwise that’s the end of the story. We work with things like Coca-Cola, but I’m sceptical of brands going there directly, and brands have to go where the users are, not that he users have to spend time with the brand.

NH: What about Second Life? Lots of brands have stores in Second Life and they’re all empty.

JB: there are monolithic buildings that sit empty, and you have to ask why do that? Have to think about where the brands are going rather than corporate identity. Most brands think of themselves as content, and virtual worlds are an obvious part of their mix. It’s all about picking the right audience for the right product, so in Second Life, have had some weird and wonderful people thinking they can come in and get something from it. What wouldn’t work would be, say, Cillit Bang adverts. It’s less traditional things that you think would work, and Penguin publishers are great, because people can discuss novels. Radio works, because people can come together as an event based processed.

John: Our experience is that advertising in games in and of itself isn’t new, so consumers have adapted to that, they like it, it ads reality to their experience. What is new is connectivity, think of games in the broad sense. As that accelerates, that enables us to change ads to messaging. E.g. Need for Speed, ads are relevant to today, and tomorrow you’ll see new, different ads. You have to be sensitive to the needs of the users, and understand what they will accept. As more games go online, our ability to deliver great content is growing. Major brands should look at games as a valid place for their spend.

Questions
Historically, minority markets haven’t been well catered for, e.g. gay and lesbian.

Gavin: Games are being developed for all communities, including niche communities such as battlefield surgeons. ten years ago games were all about shooting, but companies like Nintendo span every genre, sexuality, race. Everyone is a consumer, and everyone can find something to entertain them.

Lord Puttnam: Replicating real life online, Timo said that brands are the most powerful way of expression for children, but that’s alarming. I’ve worked hard to support creativity in the online world, and it’s an entertainment medium, but so is TV and radio, and they are also agents for serious change. When will the creatives in this medium join the human race and start tackling serious problems instead of being pure entertainment?

JB: Youth don’t define themselves so much through fashion, and inside Second Life there’s been a huge outpouring of political movements, in France, Mr Le Penn opened offices and was greeted with derision. But people in Habbo and SL, People are creating their own stuff, young film makers and content producers are coming through and creating their own culture. People ask how does someone spend all this time in there? Well, these people are not watching TV so much or going to the cinema, and it’s up to all of us to go with them.

TS: Habbo is a social environment and if you behave badly, you’ll not get friends. It’s like practising real life. Average session is 35 minutes a day, so it’s a part of their life for socialising typically with existing friends from school. Habbo culture is non-violent, it is responsible, and want to be the good guys. Work with several governmental and non-profits, sponsoring virtual infobus, where there are trained adults who can talk about problems users face, like obesity, or drugs. Not trying to simulate reality, but as these things are important to them.

John: I think we already have that, clearly gaming is an entertainment medium so you serve a variety of tastes, but we all understand the validity of the question and the gaming industry continues to offer positive things to consumers: helping people to act responsibly in online spaces, helping them work around making decisions and choices which they might work into their life. So there are many positive things in games.

Ed: It’s a good question. We have a network of over 50 games, and lots of engagement. Games industry only really 30 years old, only since 95 that it’s become the industry it is now. So we’re seeing the same stories about games that our parents saw about rock music. It’s become so commercial now, it has to have a commercial element to it. But you are seeing more serious games, using it for helping people with disabilities, or helping reform people in prison.

Q: What’s the space for government in these communities?
Q: What do brands do if they aren’t cool? Can we still get involved? E.g. universities.

Gavin: Any advertising has to be relevant to the customer, so if you put advertising for government in front of people who aren’t interesting it’s not going to work.

Ed: The COI are one of the early adopters in this space, it’s a great way for them to engage with things ike drugs messaging. Universities might be less relevant but we’re all expanding into new areas

John: Yes, there’s absolutely space for it. In some of our games we had a campaign from Frank, the drug advice agency. And cool brands have their place, but the real estate in games is pretty broad, so I think.

Timo: It’s all about packaging and making it relevant. If you have to go there and deal with the issue to that it fits with the environment, not be too serious, offer something interesting. Non-profits are popular because they’ve worked in a style that fits with the environment. Virtual worlds and communities have an opportunity to refresh your brand, but you can’t just put banner ads up.

JB: Lots of examples of this already in SL, Swedish Embassy is in SL, John Edwards and Rudi Giuliani are already in there Great captive audience to get your message across. Cool brands have to still tell their story better.

NH: Are today’s gamers people who will behave differently or will they grow out of it?

Gavin: No, people continue to game as they grow.

Ed: TV is evolving, and gaming is a part of that. Trick is to get as many eyeballs together at once as possible.

John: There is a shift, it’s just part of the entertainment medium, but it’s at the cutting edge of the move from passive to interactive. In other passive mediums, like TV, they are trying to become more interactive, but gaming’s already there.

Timo: Yes, we’re like a training platform for the more serious online games, so people learn the netiquette, learn behaviours that are never going to go away. People talk about user generated content, but we’re moving to user demanded advertising.

JB: Step forward 10 – 15 years, I’m from the Star Wars generation and that’s where my cultural references rae from, where as these people’s references will be from games.

—

I’m surprised that no one mentioned in their answer to Lord Puttnam’s question the variety of serious projects going on in Second Life. There are support groups for stroke victims and educational places such as a house which explains what it’s like for someone who has schizophrenia. There’s also a huge presence from universities whose students are gathering not just for social reasons, but to attend classes and tutorials. And there are NGOs such as Creative Commons who hold talks and lectures and provide information. I’ve no doubt that’s that’s just the tip of the iceberg, because I’m way behind with my Second Life news these days.

Technorati Tags: , ,

03.22.07
by

Guardian Changing Media: Care in the community – from new media to social media

Session chair: Emily Bell, director of digital content, Guardian News and Media
Kevin Anderson, blogs editor, GuardianUnlimited
Gavin Newman, executive producer, Virgin Media Television
Jay Stevens, vice president, sales and operations, MySpace
Joanna Shields, president, international, Bebo
Celia Taylor, director of programming, Trouble, Challenge, Bravo and Bravo 2 for Virgin Media Television (by video)
Patrick Walker, head of video partnerships, Google

Celia can’t make it today so in the spirit of the session, her thoughts are delivered via the internet.

Celia Taylor, at Trouble have been working with UGC for over a year, didn’t analyse it just jumped in. Didn’t take a genius to see it was growing, launched Homegrown which is a UGC web site. commissioned a half hour weekly user generated content (UGC) TV show called MyTV. Didn’t know if they’d get the content to sustain a strong TV show but it’s been a huge success. Constantly try to move it on. Doing a TV show felt old-fashioned, so wanted to be more inventive, Sunday morning, MyShout, send in material and be on air in minutes. Experimental, only going a few weeks. Important – in world of TV to have a strategy where you can be inventive and creative is exciting. Have strong relationship with audience, communicate well with them. Important for Trouble, risky but rewarding.

In terms of rights, users accept they have to transfer all rights in order to show it. Obviously need the rights to broadcast, so have to be organised about that. When they started, had to get sign off from the board and let them know that here’s an element of risk and in terms of music it’s not always clear if it’s been cleared. If there’s something that someone complains about on the Homegrown site, they take it down. Contributors are generally thrilled to get their stuff on to TV or MyTV website, so no problems or accusations of exploitation – the opposite. They have made a significant number of TV shows, no problems so far, feel they have a good relationship.

People worry about copyright infringement, but came at it from a different angle. How can they work with copyright owners, so work with record companies, e.g. Oasis allowed people to download a track and make your own videos, and ran as a competition. Copyright owners working to connect with their fanbase. Done it with Justin Timberlake and Gwen Stefani. Also did it with movie companies, Rocky Balboa. Did paid-for campaign with Step Up, and potentially monetise this, which is what people are interested.

Come at it creatively first and foremost, rather than think about making money, has allowed it to be a success.

How do you monetise it? Come at it from a different variety of ways – MyTV was ad funded, sponsorship opportunities are there, advertisers working creatively thinking about how to use UGC for their brands. Find the right people to work with. Not going to be a huge pot of gold but it’s about ‘can I actually make UGC commercially viable as well as creatively viable”.

The future for UGC and Trouble as a company is quite exciting. Making Homegrown into a social network site, much richer experience. Still moderate it, and now with Virgin Media Television that’s opening opportunities and are very excited about what’s coming up.

EB: Not a large pot of gold. But Viacom took out a case against YouTube/Google.

SL: Important to remember YouTube isn’t just UGC, it’s an open platform so rights holders can put their own stuff up too. Important to recognise that it’s open, and it’s meant for east of contribution and sharing of video content on a global scale. Very clear guidelines and policies regarding content submission. Proud of the platform, and are fulfilling their legal obligation, but in many ways it’s an attack on the DMCA, and the safe harbour of ISPs that that provides.

People take different approaches – BBC and CBS are really taking advantage of it instead. Developing policy.

EB: Their approach is that they can put up poor resolution clips, and if you want a higher resolution one they’ll add advertising. But is Viacom going to do damage?

SL: It’s really about DCMA and this will affect all web domains that provide content to users, as they don’t have to police the content just take down content when they are informed that it’s infringing. But this might take several years, but most importantly usage of YouTube has grown, and the number of partnerships growing, so don’t think Viacom is going to impact the business.

EB: Is there an emergent model for giving back revenue?

SL: Absolutely. When our partners do well, we do well, and we distributed a lot of money to our AdSense partners. but there’s a lot of experimentation, so trying to engage rather than just extract revenue, so it’s about ease of use, trust of users, and it’s a place for them to express themselves. Perception of the need to monetise, but other objectives too, .e.g. might be promotional. So CBS uploaded clips from late night chat shows and saw a rise in audience numbers as soon as they did that .

EB: Two speed approach to copyright. Copyright is broken on the one hand, but the reach of copyright keeps getting extended. Who wins that debate?

SL: It’s important for content creators to think about clearance for all formats right at the beginning. But one thing that’s encouraging is the willingness of people to take risks, and think we’ll see a lot more of that, even whilst there’s uncertainty – e.g. mashups, how do you deal with that?

EB: Google used to be quite techy, now it’s much more about communities. How well is Google adapting to do that?

SL: Google is a very geeky, tech-driven company, and that’s good because we focus on our position as a search tech based organisation and where we’re adapting is in partnerships, bringing in people with different areas of expertise that don’t necessarily have a tech background. Company growing very quickly.

EB: Is there a danger now that there’ll be more concerted efforts by content producers that they will want to close you down because they are threatened?

SL: Depends on which services you are thinking about. I don’t think anyone can say that you don’t benefit from having more people sent to you via search. But YouTube, people want to keep control of their content. But we didn’t invent the internet, we just want to make it easier for people. But that’s threatening to those who prefer to keep things behind a wall. Those who understand this, they can partner with us in ways that protect their traditional business and extends their reach. So BBC is doing well – promotional, introducing their shows to new people, and providing people with content that they love to help build the brand.

You can’t just put stuff up, you can’t speak at an audience, you have to have a conversation with them. So Chelsea FC wanted to put up a clip from Chelsea TV, and they had a huge umber of comments, in all sorts of languages. Became a dialogue between them and their fanbase, so it’s a different environment.

EB: Joanna, UGC really is your site. How do you monetise it?

JS: 30m users of Bebo, 8.5m registered users in UK, largest social network in their demographic, under 30, mainly 16 – 24. Most interesting things about Bebo and its community is that the idea that kids go online to express themselves. Highest engagement of any site in the UK. Frequency that people connect with Bebo – great opportunity for advertising, brands, even politicians to engage the audience.

One of the things that’s different about Bebo is that much more progressed on the profile, and media is a personalisation tool. People post the music they are interested in, write blogs, share photos, all about personal expression. So when someone adds a clip from a media rights holder, it’s more about ‘this is what I like’. It’s not a channel. Need a different discussion – if someone uploads a video of themselves that’s great, but if it belongs to someone else, that’s a challenge. There’s impressive economics for brands, need to com up with a model to help them to communicate, and delivers revenues.

EB: When you talk about being in the profile business, is that the key driver for your economic health?

JS: Largest no. of page impression comes from profile views. Helping brands and media companies to promote their content. But we’re a new site, just 32 people running it. Almost 1 member of staff to 1 million users ratio.

EB: Do you publish your revenues?

JS: We don’t, but we are profitable. When people are spending that much time, it’s more about sponsorship than page views. We’re trying different models and we’ll take it.

EB: Hackneyed old question of fads. Is there just another format that will come along and everyone will migrate?

JS: There’s always a chance that there’s going to be a new technology that will challenge us. But when we do get a winner, it’s big, and sometime the things that bring people in are very simple. It’s about constantly innovating. At our core we’re a technology company, and we just try to perfect that technology and keep it fresh.

EB: Kevin, what’s your take on this?

KA: For news organisation, talking about monetising community it’s putting the cart before the horse, as they don’t have a community to monetise. Readers aren’t a community. News organisations are often still mired in anger and denial, and there’s a lot of fundamental outreach to do. They think it’s a ‘build it and they will come’, but there’s never been a field of dream on the web, you need outreach.

For news organisations, we’re in a competitive market with things we don’t understand. What was state of the art a year ago gets tired quickly and we’re not used to having to change technology so quickly. How often do we buy a new printing press? Gannett rolled out social tools, and found that blogging and social networking worked best. But you have to keep things new and fresh and try to be as nimble as a start up, which doesn’t describe too many news organisations. Lots of cultural changes to go through.

EB: Audience here comes from a one-to-many model. What are the basic rules?

KA: Biggest mistakes is not looking at what is of community interest for their audience. People think ‘news’, and that’s the first thing they go to, but perhaps that’s the last thing they should look at – there are opportunities in news, but mainly it’s orthogonal areas. How much lived experience do you include? Also, participation trumps celebrity – celebs who are not interested in engaging with their audience don’t make for successful sites.

Listen to your audience. Too many times, it’s like a zoo – we throw scraps out to our audience and let them fight over it. Need to have a feedback mechanism, needs to be a virtuous cycle, it can’t just be content out/comments in.

Questions
Pete Cranston, Oxfam GB: Will colonisation of these spaces by charities drive people away?

JS: Underestimate young people, they are dying to express themselves, and they are very serious about charities and the environment, and to build charities into the network and help them communicate is important. Last Friday had a Red Nosed Day competition to design the site, and the outreach that happened on the site was inspiring. They wanted to engage and help.

GN: It’s about supplying the tools to allow people to say what they want to say.

EB: Gavin, do you ever want to hasten the end of channels?

GN: We are an entertainment focus, so we’re about giving people an incentive to participate, and giving them a platform.

EB: Fame over fortune?

GN: We’re trying not to take the celeb route, but to nurture talent, and give people a voice. Whilst it’s entertainment it can still be serious.

Jemima Kiss: Ben Hammersley at a conference yesterday announced that nobody cares about media brands. His point was that what people are really after is the content. IF someone wants to watch lost, they don’t care which channel it’s one. Do brands matter?

GN: I think that’s quite true actually. Channels would like to put themselves as the brand people come to, but it’s the opposite, it’s the content people are interested in. So we work closely with the record labels and film production houses, so we’re allowing users to engage directly with the copyright holders.

SL: For those who don’t engage in content production, it’s more of a challenge. People look for Lost if you can’t get it.

EB: On YouTube?

SL: But that is a challenge for those who don’t have a certain relationship with the produce itself. You can have a branded presence, but people don’t go to the content via a linear model. The vast majority of our traffic comes directly to the video assets themselves, not to the names of the broadcaster. Important to have that information, to build a halo effect of your brand, but it doesn’t drive interest.

EB: Do you have to give people content rather than brands?

JS: Kids love brands.

GN: Brand is often more important to the industry than the users.

SL: We see that, brands that focus on their products do really well. Also brands look down their noses at unbranded content, often to their detriment. It’s about the idea, the creativity, and immediacy.

KA: The way that we think about brands is different to the way that consumers think about it. they don’t think ‘I have a brand relationship to Buffy’, no human beings think about brands like that. People don’t enunciate it like that – it’s an over-intellecutalised way of thinking about it.

EB: Kevin, you said audience isn’t a community. How would you define community?

KA: There was talk of an engagement model, and whether you look at blogging, or whatever, we’re moving away from a passive audience that consumes content, the sites that are successful have engagement. What we’re trying to do at the Guardian is to create various levels of participation on the site around our content, but give them different ways to engage, and whether it’s on-site, or off-site and we’re a hub, that’s the real shift, from being passive consumers to active engagement. Just thinking that because you have a loyal audience so you have a community is a misconception.

Technorati Tags: , ,