January 3, 2007 at 10:48 am · Filed under business, media
It’s a selectively-edited interview, but Ashwin Navin, co-founder of BitTorrent publicly puts forth “common sense”.
I actually don’t think that if content owner and content rights holders take an inventory of the way that people want to consume content and embrace, rather than fight it, DRM almost becomes irrelevant. If people can use content in the way they want offline and online they won’t care about DRM, because the content is consumed in a flexible use case.
Yes, absolutely: this statement means two things though.
With good use-case-management, via “DRM” platforms, people won’t really see the mechanism that lets them watch what they want, how they want
If the original rights-holder publishes legitimate unencumbered media, they could combat the existence of illicit unencumbered media.
And as the interviewer emits surprise at the possibility of point 2, Navin explains that
[...] There’s huge amounts of value for publishers to license a TV show over and over again. Today they can’t stomach the risk of allowing content to be published free and clear of DRM. But eventually they’ll realize that’s the way people are going to consume it anyway, so they might as well profit from it.
Media houses coming to grips with the freedom ethic of digital content will prosper.
The article pulls in too many directions for me to be able to form a strong view on the author’s, and subjects’, viewpoints.
I understand that each part of the value-chain has its own incentive, but if you look at the key “reasons” from top to bottom, you get a view on how fragmented the industry is.
In an attempt to bolster consumer interest in paid video on demand [...]
“[...] What we are really interested in seeing is whether this increases the buy rates.”
“we believe that they will be very cautious in introducing any new less profitable service that could be cannibalistic to the rental and retail channel.”
The experiment is a result of pressure by the cable industry to test paid video on demand so that it could get a slice of the revenues immediately after theater release.
Well, is it about consumer interest or business (self) interest?
The answer is both. Generally, it’s hard to find a consistent view on what on-demand means. What it provides, or what it produces.
It provides a method for producers to get closer to the audience, if the network agrees to carry the content immediately after completion/release.
It produces revenue streams that are less convoluted, if the rights-holder or “seller” can agree to take a revenue-share.
But it also means that release windows become less relevant. If people already check “vcdquality.com” (or equivalent) for “release” dates, why not knife the bootleg by providing low-resistance methods of seeing the real thing?
In some cases, industry people are leaking music online, such as the recent incident in which tracks from a Mastodon recording were released by a retail worker, who was subsequently fired.
Or, as I experienced in 2001 to 2003: some label managers paid to have “studio burns” of albums released onto filesharing networks to gauge reaction in advance of the release.
You can use the community to your advantage; the corollary is that it is not piracy if it is endorsed by the label.
December 2, 2006 at 9:02 pm · Filed under fun, it, media
Some of the language might be considered (mildly) Not Safe For Work, but this sounds just like the conversation two teenaged acquaintances had with me at the weekend.
December 1, 2006 at 4:03 pm · Filed under fun, it, media
I ordinarily don’t post virals like this, but seeing as though I mentioned that all my contemporaries want a PS3, I guess they (and I!) have to come to grips with what that might mean.
December 1, 2006 at 10:36 am · Filed under business, media
The BBC listed their sources, gave us the sampling methodology, and drew us some pietastic metrics.
But pie charts and surveys are not very good at illustrating qualitative responses.
Take this one:
But where is the “I downloaded all the stuff I wanted to see, so I watched less real actual TV” or “Four hours on YouTube left me with one hour of BBC3 before gran told me to go to bed”? Under the label “normal TV”.
The venerable Beeb trudged on with their second tasty pie graphic:
Dion Hinchcliffe uses the word “monetize” [sic], but the principle is the same. Compare folio the diagram in Part 1.
But the biggest question that comes up is that if you let your users generate most of your content and then expose it all up via an API, how can a profitable business be made from this?
His thesis is to examine methods to go far beyond advertising, subscriptions, and commissions. The bullet points below have been abbreviated for readability.
Some of the indirect ways which lead to revenue growth, user growth, and increased resistance to competition [...] are:
Strategic Acquisition
Maintaining control of hard to recreate data sources.
Building Attention Trust
Turning Applications into Platforms
Fully Automated Online Customer Self-Service
The article is a comprehensive read, and acknowledges pro and con viewpoints for each opportunity,
While a great many startups are not generating revenue in huge quantities yet, the companies that have been diligently exploiting open APIs such as Amazon and Salesforce are in fact generating significant revenue and second order effects from opening up their platforms and being careful not to lose control. This is actually a large discussion, and as large Web 2.0 sites continue to emerge, we’ll continue to keep track of what the successful patterns and practices are.
Thus we are left with questions. Always more questions.
The one that concludes this brainstorm is:
What other implications are there by putting users in control of content generation and open everything up?
November 30, 2006 at 4:18 pm · Filed under business, media
How would you advise a client on the best way to drive participation in one shaded ball towards revenues from another?
I can’t see a clear path forward, as you can’t make a consumer do something; one can suggest and imply a desired action, or one can induce behaviours. You can also create desire for something seemingly unattainable.
But forcibly obliging a customerbase to perform an action? That’s performing-animal territory.
When people “Switch” to the Mac, they often look for a one-keystroke or one-key-combo screen locker.
And they’re often disappointed to find that the operating system only provides a two-click solution: add the Keychain Access menu item to the menubar, and then use “Lock Screen”.
…but it doesn’t work under Mac OS X for Intel-based hardware. Until now…because I got frustrated with myself for not having done it earlier…
Presenting the Intel-compatible re-compile of LockTight.
Menno’s source code has been recompiled with XCode on an Intel based Macintosh, and contains all the original source code and licensing information as required.
