Something for the weekend Sir? Try the BBC Iplayer.

The home alone scenario we're all in, means we're getting bored with Netflix, TV although remember, YouTube. But coupled with the growth in podcasts, radio is seeing a resurgence at the minute.

The BBC Iplayer is superb.

Apart from being able to listen to live Radio 4, radio 3 and others, it has lots of cool features. Like being able to pause (catch up), a great archive, a cool snooze button (so you can leave the music on as you go asleep with a timer), great alarm for the mornings and much more.

Productions are world class. In fact everyone on Radio 4 sounds like a British Airways captain, very quintessential posh radio. Really easy to use too and so worth the change.

You'll get it in the Apps store.

A lovely change in these boring times.....

Food glorious Food. It's big on Video

Food videos attracted 23 Billion Video Views last year (mostly on YouTube and Facebook) according to data published in The Financial Times. Pinterest of course is huge on Food (and Fashion) as indeed is Instagram. 

So popular are they, that a threat from the BBC to remove them from its website (as part of an effort to save £15m a year) saw 100,000 people sign a protest petition.

Streamabout knows that too, Cooking delivers high audiences on video and recipes are replayed/shared a lot.

It's a category that's ideal for grocery retail through showing the recipe video and then delivering the ingredients on a click through. Or indeed any complementary products (wine, water, tableware, coffee, safe food organisations, brands looking for conviviality and so on).

Food video are huge. And they're going to be huge...r.

Adele Lookalike Competition. 33 million views in 6 days and worth them all!

Smashing little new BBC clip featuring Adele in an 'Adele lookalike' competition.

If you haven't seen it, well worth a look.
33 million views in 6 days!

Great to share it - but then, that's online digital video for you.

Traditional TV can be saved by Digital Media. Look at BBC.

Interesting story in The Sunday Telegraph by way of an interview with Andrew Cave, Head of BBC Worldwide.

Interesting because the BBC is THE quintessential traditional TV broadcaster and yet, in this digital age, they've had to become more commercial. In fact BBC Worldwide with turnovers of 1 Billion Sterling, contributed 174 million stg to the BBC itself - 10% of the content budget - by selling content overseas.

Programmes like Sherlock (224 markets), Doctor Who, Top Gear, Ripper Street and so on. They also licence shows such as Strictly Come Dancing.

So their investment in drama is really paying off with 35% of revenues coming from US broadcasters with their major customers being Netflix and Amazon Prime. 

So what you see is something of a switch away from creating programmes for themselves into selling programmes for digital. In fact, you'll see BBC Worldwide creating programmes not for broadcast on BBC but to re-sell under their quality brand.

They're becoming commercial content makers in a serious way through embracing digital media rather than being protective of it.

And that's the future for traditional broadcasters. Rather than create content to show, create content to sell. It's a different focus but digital media are opening up a market that's hungry for content.

The Trouble with TV.

The role of "Television" or "Broadcasting" is changing and indeed, those terms need new definitions. No longer should we think of "Television" being the sole domain of "Television stations".

After all, consumers are now watching content in a variety of different ways. It's these changes in distribution, that's the core issue.

Whether we watch content through a traditional TV set currently, it's more likely that viewers will be watching via a connected device such as Xbox or the very excellent, Apple TV next. Indeed, the myriad of choices offered by Apple TV alone, encourages viewers to watch other content than traditional TV broadcasts. It brings a lot of movie sites, YouTube channels and Social Media into the livingroom, which in turn, brings consumers massive choice. Apple TV, for a low investment, is just stunning.

Where there's global choice of content, there's likely to be less viewing of domestic traditional TV "broadcasts" and the major US networks continue to lose audiences. 

Social Media is also getting in on the act.

Twitter is trying to close the gap by becoming more involved in traditional TV through real-time conversation. Mind you, a tweet yesterday from Twitter UK saying "great to see the Xfactor bringing audiences closer and turning up the show's social soundtrack" was instantly slammed by users. Twitter are trying to become friends of the TV industry and it will fail.

Twitter wants to be the 'TV Social network' that helps build audiences which in turn, means bigger audiences for Twitter. Indeed, they're showing 60 second Ads during TV shows on Twitter as an "add on" to the programming and encouraging advertisers to sync their advertising. Take a spot at a particular time on the traditional TV show and sync it with one on Twitter.

In my view, they've tied their colours to the wrong mast.

What connected "broadcasting" devices are bringing is choice and choice that may come without Ads (such as the current online DVD boxset "binge"). A choice that means you never miss the start, the end, or forget to record a programme because online content is not hamstrung by TV schedules. 

In the online world you get content, when you want it, rather than when a broadcaster decides to push it out. That is the main structural problem with traditional TV - Scheduling....rather than viewing freedom. And it's a difficult problem for TV stations to deal with, being so ingrained in their culture.

Of course too, content makers (which includes traditional TV stations) have to get used to a new model, where they're prepared to give out that content to other networks, with the copyright/royalty issues that come with that. But they will in effect, become content providers rather than "broadcasters". 

BBC are starting on this path allowing 30 days access to content rather than a week, announced last week. Moreover, they'll allow some content to be viewed online before it has been traditionally broadcast. That's the sort of thinking required.

The development of "live" programming (notably Sports) is going to be interesting too. At the moment, few online channels, outside of traditional TV stations, have shown an interest in providing live content because of both cost and technology issues. But they might buy it in.

The difficulty with "TV" is that distribution has changed and will change completely. If TV stations are to survive it, they have to be prepared to change their model and few, it seems to me, are. They'd rather rubbish the online experience in the hope that it will go away, which it won't. And whilst they take the seat of Nero, everything changes around them, quickly.

Netflix develop original, exclusive content (winning Emmy's for their content such as 'House of Cards') but they're not the only ones as Amazon and Hulu now do the same. Big budgets too, so their content is real TV competition.

Binge viewing is driving online as well, as all the content of a particular show (the full series for example) is available same day. No longer do you have to wait for weeks to get to the ending. Movie releases are following suit with some Studios releasing Movies online first.

YouTube channels are developing at pace allowing ordinary content providers (be they members of the public or production companies) opportunities to broadcast. Awesomeness TV, a children's channel, now has a staggering 60 million viewers a month on YouTube. One YouTube gaming channel has 251 million. So these YouTube viewers have to be watching less traditional TV.

Social Media such as Twitter and Facebook are venturing into the space albeit in a collaborative way, for now. But they will develop their own content in time with News content being their initial entry.

Without any doubt, traditional TV has to change and become more online enabled and involved. Rebroadcasting of today's programmes via an App or online, doesn't cut it. It requires a complete re-think about how they create content, how they broadcast it and how they need to ditch their scheduling.

Perhaps too, they have to re brand and realise that their future lies not on what they broadcast on TV sets, but rather through their website. It's their website that's king and critically, how that content is being made available. To prioritise the web over traditional, will require in traditional broadcasters, a massive mindset shift.

All in all, it may be too late.....and in the eyes of this writer, it probably is because there is no sign of any dawn of realisation. 

None. 

It's gone past time to fight it. 

YouTube's online TV. 100 Stations reduced to 30 after one year. They are getting ready and will be the new global TV broadcaster. Have no doubt.

In order for YouTube to enter the broader world of broadcasting, it needed to encourage content suppliers and did so through its 100 "premium channels" concept. The intention was to encourage speciality programming which might compete with terrestrial television. 100 channels got 1 million usd each. "SourceFed" looks like the winner.

A year later in the 100 million usd experiment, it's about to pull the plug on 70% of the channels and withdraw funding from them. 

What YouTube have done is to look at the viewership levels, look at the cost, and then determine which channels give the best return. So out of a 100 channels, they reckon a year in, that 30 are doing the job effectively and 70 just haven't made it.

Some of them were of course, just crazy. Like the channel dedicated to Al Gore....but if they end up with 30 channels that are viable in terms of audience and cost, that's a result.

And a review like this makes sense further enhancing YouTube's reputation as being serious in the broadcaster space.

Some of the channel are getting 3-6 million viewers a week which no standard broadcaster can compete with. Online will bring in that level of audience so that even speciality programming can attract in huge numbers.

And are the traditional Irish broadcasters experimenting with YouTube? No. Are they experimenting online? No. They think that simply by rebroadcasting their daily content through an online player, is a strategy. It has become as ludicrous as that.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - TV broadcasters are getting stuffed online and as more and more devices that facilitate online TV come into the market, the more stuffed they're going to get. And they've not a clue. Not an idea as to what is going on.

Notably, as we move into a new era of connected devices, the manner in which we consume TV will change 100%. Not only the manner in that the devices will change (which frankly is insignificant although the traditional broadcasters seem focused on it) but rather the style in which we consume it.

The online audience will look for better, niche content which broad market broadcasters will not be able to supply. They don't have the expertise for Social media, the platform, the financial resources (more ads means broad content) nor the skills (just look at their Facebook pages alone. Shocking) and in particular, they lack the understanding. Mostly, they've been propped up by Government for too long so as no longer to have a real commercial bone in their body.

So with competitors like YouTube, who have all of those skills but just need to develop the content, which they are, it's a great opportunity for YouTube to simply own the space. Own the platform.

They're not there yet....but they are getting there.

Presidential Election. Where to watch it online, when the results will be out. And who wins.....

 

  

Interesting video with the results of all Presidential elections. Look at the great Lyndon Johnson in 64, Nixon in 72 and Reagan's walk-overs of 80 and 84. Great stuff.

With more than 100 million Americans casting their votes and especially in a tight election (which this one is, but Obama looks to have a 2% lead in some polls whereas others put them neck-and-neck at 48%), results will take longer to get out.

Normally you'd expect to see results from 3am to 7am Wednesday GMT but this close race could mean it could go on much longer. Alaska is the last state to close at 5am.

Each state is "called" after they close based on exit polls and actual votes - the ones that are clearly democrat or republican are easier to call early. The swing states are not (often called the "battleground" states) and they include Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia - there's about 13 in total. Ohio is the interesting one and closes at 1230am GMT with both candidates in Ohio today, as their last stop. No Republican has ever won the race without winning Ohio.

The President needs 270 votes to win.

BBC are planning big election coverage and live streaming here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20076298 

Ustream also seem to have a comprehensive coverage with ABC News here http://www.ustream.tv/election2012

The last point too is legal challenges. They've already started today, on both sides and I'd expect that if this race is as close as we think, that the courts will be involved - delaying the result further. 

So it looks to me like 9am GMT Wednesday morning for a clearer picture as to who won and if it's close, I'd expect legal challenges to go on until Friday.

And oh yeah, I think Obama has clipped this one.
Just about.

BBC launch Iplayer Radio. Radio owners need to be aware and beware.

BBC, possibly the most regarded broadcaster in the world, launched its TV iplayer in 2007 allowing users access to its archived/live content and during the summer, it was used nearly 200 million times. Although, 90% of its listeners, watch live at the moment.

Year-on-year, the BBC iplayer requests have increased by a massive 56% on mobile and 300% on tablet. Oh ye of little faith in online broadcasting.

Now they've launched Iplayer Radio, by way of an App, allowing access to their network of 57 stations, live and on demand, across all devices. Mobile alone represents about 18% of its access but peaking at particular shows, to 30%. A massive audience and this allows users to easily switch between stations and therefore, retaining the audience.

Although state owned, BBC is free to air and more and more people are prepared to listen to global radio stations through streaming devices at home. Our house on Sundays, small example as that is, wakes to 'Radio Paradise' an American online station and 'Jones College Radio' from Texas, in Dublin. And of course, local radio has a key role but needs to get online in a serious way.

There is some talk, although a lot of doubt, that this may be a prelude to BBC launching a music download service too with the likes of 'Spotify'. Techcrunch have said it's denied and I'd trust that.

The app itself has some nice features - in particular a channel selector along the lines of the big old radio knobs which my Dad used to tune into 'Hilversum' (immortalised by Van Morrison), and foreign stations on an old wireless. A kick back that's nice. 

It also has an alarm to alert you to shows and an 'in depth' button that allows you go further into the content (archived shows for example). They're also offering "two way" conversions with the studio and redesigned homepages for each station. 

Radio owners need to be aware of this online competition and get into the space quickly. A lot of them "are there".... but simply.... because they think they should, rather than must. What's needed is a spirited attempt to gain audiences online over mobile Apps. Perhaps even an opportunity to come at this together rather than compete and giving audiences choices locally, on one App. Heresy or clever thinking?

Simple development of archive content, on demand music and features (like an alarm clock or trendy design) coupled with an Advertising campaign to promote their App, will pay dividends.

Their concern is that it might "bastardise" their existing offline listenership as the audience moves online. It won't, it will increase them - and anyway, a listener is a listener is a listener. Take them where you find them.

Because above all, if they do nothing, they're now in a hugely competitive space. As Zep says, "there's a lady whose sure, all that glitters is gold...."

Olympic online data just in from BBC. 34 million unique viewers on their site alone. Astonishing numbers.

You don't think the world has changed? Have a look at the video highlights of the London games 1908. Don't you love the Ladies tennis?

I know were all finished with, what was to be fair, excellent Olympic games. And this is the last time I'll mention them.

However, the BBC have just released social data about how well their online business performed and it's not unreasonable to use it as a typical benchmark.

It covers 2 weeks when 34 million unique users, saw BBC coverage online. 34 million online visitors. Astonishing.

On their busiest day it delivered one quadrillion bytes of data (yeah, it's a lot) and that busiest day was when Brit, Bradley Wiggins (Tour de France winner and secret smoker) won gold on August 1st.

After the opening and closing ceremonies, the men's 100m final was most watched (Usain Bolt) both on and offline globally.

They keep referring to these Games as "the digital games" and these results show that's exactly what they were.

In one 24 hour period, the online BBC traffic was higher for them than the total hours online for the 2010 World Cup! They also looked at device usage and saw it was generally, PC's during the day, Mobile usage from 6pm and then Tablets took over from circa 9pm.

The other benefit of this of course, is that they introduced BBC online to a new audience whom might very well comeback. It's really a superb performance but clearly shows consumers preferring to watch/follow online. It's further proof of the domination of Social and all things digital.

According to NBC (whom you might remember really messed up and if not, go here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/nbc-olympics-and-way-brands-can-easily.html), these games were the most watched TV event in history as well. So online got its share too or you might say, online viewers made it the most watched TV event. 

According to Nielsen, 219 million people watched some part of the games in the US alone (a viewer they consider as someone who watches 6 minutes or more). The Superbowl by contrast, gets circa 100 million viewers.

The closing ceremony had 31m viewers.

Irish broadcaster RTE, hasn't got data yet but indicated, based on data usage, it had 3,500 online at one time to watch an event. Which seems to me incredibly low? Katie Taylor? Oh sorry, that's right, their server went down just before broadcast.

In Canada, each Canadian watched 21 hours on average. 

Of course all Press titles saw increases and generally an uplift in advertising.
But all in all, this was the watershed event for online viewing and for Social Media. There's no doubt about it that it made online an intuitive place to go and almost "normal".

It shows how well planned media can generate new traffic and sell more ads by using online effectively. People are prepared to go online and watch something if it's good and will do so in huge numbers.

Extraordinary numbers that will pale by the time we get to Rio.

Visa 100 million usd Olympic Sponsorship goes pear-shaped. Social Media backlash follows.

I was very taken by David Jones commenting on the BBC regarding Visa's sponsorship of the Olympics. David is CEO of Havas, a large multi-national ad Agency group.

Visa have paid 100m usd to sponsor both the Olympics since 2010 Winter Olympics and including the London games. I agree, a significant sponsorship.

But in return, Visa insisted that it was the only credit card with which you could buy tickets or that were acceptable as payment, at all Olympic venues. Visa actually replaced 27 ATM's at Olympic sites with 8 of their own.  

In David's view (and mine) a big mistake, because it irritated people who went to pay with other cards. Some were left unable to pay at all because they'd no Visa card. Presumably because Visa think that's a good result in forcing customers to get one! Whereas, the more likely result is that the customer will say that they never will! Those disappointed customers are already tweeting about it.

And Visa went to the trouble to "rub it in" by having Point of Sale material (as shown above) beside retailers saying "proud to accept only Visa"(!). A ridiculous twist and poor advice.

Ron Delnevo of the UK Payments Council said the move appeared to be designed to "compel those visiting Olympic venues to use only Visa cards. The Olympics are going to be cash-starved by design. This is plainly unacceptable in a world where 85 per cent-plus of all transactions continue to be made using cash.The Olympics do not belong to any sponsor, however much money they have paid for brand awareness" reported in The Telegraph.


It actually prompted a statement from The Office of Fair Trading in the UK which contained in summary;

Based on the OFT's initial assessment of the facts at its disposal, the OFT proposes not to open a formal investigation at this stage. This is because the OFT considers that the aspects of the sponsorship arrangements under consideration are unlikely to give rise to material consumer harm. Therefore, the OFT has decided not to prioritise this matter at this stage. However, it does not rule out investigating the matter in the future should there be any evidence of material consumer harm going forward.

Which doesn't help anyone and it would seem to anyone, that a restrictive sponsorship deal such as this one, is the antipathy of "fair trade". Anyway.

Peter Vicary-Smith, chief executive of Which?, according to The Guardian, on the other hand said: 

"We think it's outrageous that some UK sports fans should be discriminated against in this way. We want the London 2012 Committee to take steps to ensure there's a level playing field and that UK consumers have equal access to the Games, whether or not they are Visa cardholders. If it doesn't, we'll call on the government to step in."


Whilst everyone accepts that spending that kind of money is deserving of some direct 'return on investment', annoying people won't do it - despite the sponsor wanting certain rights. Visa's image has been prominent at the Olympics and it will be damaged over this.

As David Jones said;

"But to actually go to the extent of only allowing Visa payments to be made at the Olympic stadiums and sites, to remove all the other cash machines that are non-Visa actually starts to really annoy people.

"And there are lots of signs around the Olympic Park saying 'we are proud to only accept Visa'. This is so out of touch with what is in people's heads.

"My view would be that Visa will probably end up damaging themselves through what they have done, rather than enhancing the brand."

It has also meant the start of a Visa backlash on Social Media which doesn't just target Visa but also The Olympic Council who agreed to these restrictive deals. Rightly. Because if you take the sponsorship too far, it will ultimately damage the brand and Social Media is now the outlet to do that.

According to a Visa online statement;


Visa Inc. (NYSE: V), a proud and long-standing worldwide sponsor of the Olympic Games, today announced that it will extend its Olympic Games sponsorship for a period of eight years. 

In renewing its sponsorship, Visa will retain the rights it has enjoyed since 1986 and remain the exclusive payment services sponsor and the only card accepted at the four Olympic Games that follow London 2012 Olympic Games, including the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the 2018 Olympic Winter Games and the 2020 Olympic Summer Games.


So it will go on until 2020. Pity.

Because Visa will ultimately suffer for such a restrictive deal.
They, like so many other large corporates, forget the power of Social.
Ask NBC.


(And as an aside-

David Jones also mentioned British Airways 'London Calling' as being the example of advertising for the games given that it asked people to stay at home and not to travel. 

"They kind of get the gold medal for understanding their target group - that people aren't going to be wanting to travel away when this amazing event is happening. And I think they show they actually get what is in people's heads."

I couldn't agree more and here it is if you're interested.
http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/06/bbh-new-british-airways-commercial-for.html

Advertising click fraud - PPC. Facebook controversy explodes.

 

  
PPC, per-per-click Advertising, or Click-thrus have always been a bone of contention but an interesting story (Scandal) is emerging from a digital company called 'Limited Run' in New York. It's about click fraud. And it's getting a lot of attention. Mashable are leading with the story today.


Limited Run, a platform for selling music and other stuff, noticed that only 20% of the Facebook clicks it was paying for, actually brought people to its site. But Facebook were charging for 100%. Whoa.

Being fairly smart online people, they ran several analytical tools and yep, could only confirm 15-20% of the clicks. So they looked at it more deeply themselves and found that the questionable 80% came from web browsers with their 'java script turned off/disabled'. A page logger, tracked every time a page was loaded so they knew what they were doing.


In the real world, only about 1-2% of browsers have their JavaScript disabled. So this made no sense. Or did it?

They were able to conclude that the clicks came from 'Bots', automated programmes designed especially to fraudently click on ads. Bots is short for Robots.

Because the more the ads are clicked, the more the advertiser is charged, the more revenue for the publisher. It's the essence of this type of online advertising and an accusation that no media provider would ever want to entertain. It cuts to the core of trust.


Not that they're accusing Facebook of automating clicks to drive up revenues - not at all, who would consider such a thing?? - but when they asked Facebook they were met with a wall of silence, they say. 

Except Facebook issued a statement to say that nearly all of their billable clicks had JavaScript enabled browsers. Which helps not.

So who was doing it then? And why? Because anybody except Facebook, couldn't make money from such activity. The controversy has gone viral.

With Facebook shares closing yesterday down 45% on their IPO price, it also revealed that nearly 9% of its accounts are "fake". Which in real terms is circa 83 million accounts! Bots, Fake Accounts.....wow.

The BBC, whom I think we all consider to be well regarded, also in a bit of an experiment, set up a Facebook page called 'VirtualBagel' to see what would happen. It was a nothing page, selling nothing, just made up to see what would happen.

They quickly got 1600 likes in 24 hours and then in a week, 3000. The interesting thing is that they seem to have come from "suspicious" profiles, largely 13-17 year old Egyptians. Because the more likes you get, the more encouraged you are, the more you invest, the more it works...provided the likes are real.


Who would do such a thing? Certainly not Facebook I'm sure. Automating clicks to generate revenue (which they badly need by the way having just shown a loss), generating likes to encourage brands, fake accounts...not a good week.

In 2005, Yahoo settled a 4.5 million usd suit where it was claimed that they "didn't do enough" to prevent click fraud. Google settled for 90 million usd in 2006 on a similar basis.

If it was true, it would mean that Website owners would simply earn money by automating clicks. Or third party companies would be paid to generate clicks on behalf of publishers like the infamous Bradley 'Google Clique' case in 2004.

Perish the thought.

YouTube. 70% of us have seen it. The 3rd biggest site in the world. New Research shows its news credentials.

April 23 2005 (only 7 years ago), "me at the zoo" was the first video ever uploaded onto YouTube. Last year it celebrated its one trillionth upload and it's the third most visited site after Facebook and Google. 

4 billion of us view YouTube every single day and it was bought by Google for 1.6 billion usd in 2006.


YouTube has in fact become a mixture of television news and citizen journalism. It's one really powerful platform and it's having an impact on traditional news. 


1 out of 15 searches are news related (the Japanese tsunami video being most watched with over 20 million views last year) but the 20 similar tsunami videos had 96 million views. 


And what's interesting, is that news organisations are posting their own videos on YouTube and then linking from their site. About 51% of videos are from such organisations with an average length of 2 minutes and 1 second.


So say, The Telegraph produce a video, they post it on YouTube and link it back. 


They are in effect, feeding their news competitor rather than storing and pushing the videos from their own servers. So if you look at a national daily newspaper online say, in Ireland, you will see them pushing eyeballs onto YouTube by linking videos. And perhaps the answer is so what?


It is unlikely after all, that there's a news site anywhere in the world that doesn't link to YouTube which is in itself, insane.



However, this is a storm that's ripe for the dissemination and the creation and sharing of false, malicious news. It's already happened to CNN and others.
http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/citizen-journalism-is-spreading.html


There simply is no way of checking the credible source issue - although BBC have set up 50 people in their "Hub" to do just that. 


New credible research published this week by 'The Pew Research Center', an American think tank based in Washington (http://pewresearch.org/) shows this frankly bizarre, symbiotic relationship between citizens posting videos and then having it shared by traditional news organisations. 


Which is in itself, news organisations directly adopting and fostering citizen journalism. News organisations are in fact posting videos without any clear source attribution and citizens are posting copyrighted material. 72 hours of video are uploaded every minute so you can see the checking task in that alone.


The Pew Research shows that more than 70% of Adults have used the site and 28% of us visit YouTube or similar sites everyday (one third are USA based). Massive numbers - which shows that this type of citizen journalism is here to stay. It's what people want - clear unbiased news "as it happens". Until, of course, they themselves are featured.


According to The Huffington Post who are about to go live on August 13 with their massive citizen venture, they quote Amy Mitchell, deputy director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism as;


"There's a new form of video journalism on this platform. It's a form in which the relationship between news organizations and citizens is more dynamic and more multiverse than we've seen in most other platforms before."


YouTube says it's not entering the game of news creation but rather, acting as a catalyst, an outlet, for those that do. Although their "partner programme" is aimed at producing content on a revenue share. They have also grant aided content providers.


It would be mad for Google not to utilise the world's biggest news site, in this era of citizen journalism, despite what they say. Expect something like "YouTube News". Simply, it has to come.


According to Pew; "The evolving government and media policies toward YouTube make understanding the nature of what news content is on the site and which is most popular all the more important". 


What's now being considered is that we might have created a monster and perhaps it needs regulation. That's exactly what that quote in red means.

Although mind you, looking at the Search results below for 2011, it doesn't look too political. (Sad personally to see Marco Simoncelli's name appear there ever. The great 250 World Champion and Moto GP rider who was killed racing in Malaysia).

In essence the point is that YouTube is THE serious player regarding news and generating mass traffic. What's now being considered is that we might have created a monster and perhaps it needs regulation. 


What we definitely have, is the world's largest news organisation - ever.
And forgive me - 

The Huffington Post Live, the world's biggest citizen journalism video venture goes on air August 13. Online news like you've never imagined it.

                             

The Huffington Post is expected to launch it's full-day online video news network on August 13 (to be called 'Huff Post Live') but it's doing it differently under the growing banner of "citizen journalism". And the service is beginning to be revealed - although most staffers are sworn to secrecy.


The launch budget by the way....about 30 million us dollars. 30 million.
Every wonder why it's called 'The Huffington Post'? Because it was co-founded by Greek born, Arianna Huffington. One for the pub quiz of the future.

That's her on video at the top of this blog talking about citizen journalism and actually in an inspiring way. Here's what she blogged recently:

HuffPost Live, our new live streaming network, is launching August 13. One of our goals is to create the most social video experience possible. And that's why we're putting you, the HuffPost community, front and center in everything we do, including having you join us live on the air -- an integral part of the dynamic, ongoing conversation that is the heart and soul of HuffPost Live.

The days of media gods sitting up on Mt. Olympus telling us how things are have been over for a while. But now we have reached a critical mass where millions of people have a seat at the table and can join what has become a global conversation. People are tired of being talked at; they want to be talked with. The news is no longer about a few people telling everyone else what happened -- it's about everyone telling everyone what's happening right now. And how.

Never really a news "creator" at their 2005 start, actually more of a blog, The Post was a news "aggregator" but it has now moved firmly in the news gathering business, even winning a Pullitzer Prize in 2012. This is a dramatic move into video vlogging and not as a separate brand but as a link off their main site.

Firstly, The Huff Post Live is not carrying traditional Ads "live" in the traditional TV way.

So no commercial breaks and instead, circa 5 brand sponsors a day. Cadillac have already signed up as a launch sponsor and I'm hearing about some serious brands getting involved (and so they should). My understanding is that these will be like "in programme" sponsorship or like the "olden days" of sponsored hours/programmes.

Instead, archived content will have pre-roll advertising only, which will be lucrative too. The Huff Post is owned by AOL since 2011 (bought for 315 million usd) and so as The Huff Post Live, broadcasts every day, it's going to create massive video inventory which will then be used to create a "youtubey" platform for AOL.

Broadcasting live every day is a lot of video to create - an awful, awful lot and needing production teams, editors and in particular, checkers. Sources will need to confirmed if they move outside of their own crews. BBC has 50 people alone doing just that in their "hub" for example.

Secondly, it plans to carry 12 hours of live video every weekday - pretty impressive stuff for a newspaper and a HUGE endorsement of the need for publishers to have video. It will be "always on" running highlights when it's not actually live.

In fact this looks more like a TV Station with highlights at weekends. I'll bet too they'll resell other content (Netflix anyone?) at weekends. Remember we're talking 300 million minimum page impressions a month here. Comscore estimates 40 million monthly unique visitors. Massive!

We all know that Video grew 42% last year and is expected to grow 54% this year online (emarketer) so this is capitalising on that.  

Advertisers want video so badly, demand outstrips supply in Ireland, and that in a depressed market! But significant ventures like The Huff Post Live, may actually create a glut and weaken ad rates (video cpm attracts a premium because of the lack of supply right now). But there's no doubt, they're going to be a big supplier of online live video.

Thirdly, they have hired a 100 person newsroom including traditional CNN veterans and those from other TV networks. Massive resources. But they're not reporting the news as such, they're trying to develop the news.

"We're not trying to report the news," said Roy Sekoff, a founding editor of the Huffington Post who is heading up the streaming network. "We are trying to have conversations that the news inspires."

Or to quote Arianna Huffington again;

Instead, HuffPost Live will emulate the online experience. No one looks at their watch and thinks, "It's 10 a.m., time for some celebrity news, I think I'll log on to HuffPost!" Instead, readers come to our site to catch up on what's happening in the world and wind up getting caught up in the wide array of compelling stories we offer. You may start with a story on the upcoming presidential debate, then find yourself drawn to some celebrity news, followed by the latest viral comedy video and a segment on the benefits of napping.

In one way it's not unlike what Google's YouTube is hoping to achieve except they're offering their platform/channel for free if you supply the content. Huff Post are actually generating the content themselves.

This will therefore appeal to any of us who have an opinion on the news - read that as all of us.

But this venture and indeed the dramatic traffic of The Huff Post itself (the second most popular newsfeed on Twitter) which never had a real world presence, is a beacon of online publishing. It's creating jobs, it's creating online publishing to be proud of. And who'd ever thought that we'd see this level of investment in an online newspaper.

It unfortunately contrasts with many traditional newspaper companies which are hugely overburdened with debt from ill-timed purchases. Very few publishers will be able to raise money from the market any longer. Circulations are in decline. Ad revenues are in steep decline (-60%). Online Social media is taking money out of the market and online publishers are competing with them and having much lower overhead.

It's absolutely all changing but that is not to say, newspapers are idle - they are not - because I spend most of my day solving this issue with them (TBA). So they know it and are working towards solving it. Plus they still have the real world brands that have the power to push audiences to this site or to that site. However, they could look to The Huff Post Live as a model to go forward with.

Bring newspaper online publishing into the TV market by providing video and let the audience engage. As GetGlue are doing for TV content.

Because video news/weather/sport/entertainment/fashion/beauty etc is king.
It's what the audience online wants and it's what the advertiser wants.

August 13th we'll see the way it can be.

Murdoch splits his business's in two giving new media a new focus. This is a structure which traditional publishers should heed. He knows what he's doing.

(Jack Kennedy gets to meet Rupert Murdoch).


The split last week, of what is affectionately known as "the Murdoch empire" when in fact, Rupert Murdoch is a large but 40% minority shareholder, a business he inherited from his father, has really got attention. Sure, because of the recent phone hacking controversy but also because there's a sense that a sleeping giant has awoken. And when they do, run.


Last week he split News Corp into two - entertainment/media (includes 20th century Fox, Fox news) and print/publishing (includes The Sun, The Times, WSJ, New York post, HarperCollins etc). The entertainment business is valued at circa 50 billion usd alone.


In other words, splitting the businesses along the lines of old media and new but including in it a distinction between a published brand and an online one. In other words, two versions of the same title behaving differently if they're online and if they're offline. It's a simple idea that's just genius.


He knows what every publisher knows - there's life in traditional media but massive potential growth in their online brands. By separating out the two (indeed, exactly as the Irish Times have done here) gives new focus. He also knows that he can get it wrong and owned up to his "massive mistake" in the myspace investment, selling at 94% off his 6bn usd valuation and losing a small fortune. 


Separate offices, separate management, separate businesses means that the hacks of old can keep doing their thing, whilst the new turks can find a new way.


It is, the perfect thing for a publisher to do and does not spell a lack of confidence by Murdoch in his traditional business. Just a new focus.


According to Techcrunch he said clearly, "People will pay for news. It is the most valuable commodity in the world" and he pointed out that the charging models for newspapers and apps are working, “And we are going to push them even harder.”


In a similar vein of The Wall Street Journal/Pulse announcement earlier in the week and in contrast to the Flipboard/New York Times debacle the same week, what it all means is that there's new impetus to sort this all out.


The UK Times dropped its online paywall for the Queen’s Jubilee anniversary, the first time it’s done this since charges came into effect in 2010.


Those charges initially caused a 90 percent decline, a drop of 4 million users, but numbers have been steadily increasing since March 2011 and are now at 265,740 subscribers. So Murdoch might be right.


Talking to Charles Blandford of The Financial Times dublin, he reckons that 50% of the overall group revenue comes now from digital. 50%. Mind you, when it comes to live streaming, FT Digital were the first over the fence to become a separate business unit. And the first that we admired as being innovative live streamers.


On the Murdoch split, Sarah Gordon in the FT this Saturday reported, "the business's long-term growth prospects are cloudy...grappling with the challenge to make money in the digital world". And of course she's right. One way to grapple with it though is to do exactly as he's done, run both separately.


I've blogged before about the decline of TV Advertising and the movement of ad dollars online http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/05/new-nielsen-data-finds-trust-in-tv.html


And I've also blogged about BBC Research recently that shows that online publishing is more popular than real world http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/06/online-newspapers-more-popular-now-than.html. 


Indeed in a week where most large Irish publishers suffered annual research which showed massive declines in circulation, none of this will come as any surprise. All this is, is further evidence of the switch to digital versions, so let's not panic. And as the Irish publishers continue to wrestle with the problem, they're making great strides in getting there. Trust me.


One way to deal with it is the Murdoch way.
Leave the boys who know what they've been doing for years, alone to get on with it.


But get people who understand the space to look at your web assets and get on with that. Keeping them both apart.


And in doing that, you protect what you have before someone comes along and steals your lunch. And you have traditional media mouthpieces to get it all out there.


It's a threat. Turned into an opportunity.
Murdoch gets it.