Edward Snowden. The USA Prism spying whisteblower. Here's his interview from Hong Kong before he went on the run.

Edward Snowden, the 29 year old who revealed the US Government's spying secrets called 'Prism' in part, has now gone underground.

(Previous blogs here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2013/06/obama-prism-spying-now-extends-to-uk.html and here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2013/06/us-government-data-spying-prism-this-is.html)

He originally made his documents available to The Washington Post and The Guardian from a hotel in Hong Kong (The Hotel Mira in Kowloon) because he believed it was a safe place given China's involvement in Hong Kong. He also talked about Iceland as being another safe-haven. However, he's now on the run (OTR as the IRA refer to it!).

There is no warrant for his arrest, but there will be, as The US Government hunt him down and charge him with treason (not unlike the Bradley Manning Wikipedia case). An extradition understanding does exist between Hong Kong and the US but requires Chinese approval.

He is unquestionably, a human rights activist and has done the world a favour. 

A former operative of the US NSA, through various subcontractors (most recently a company called 'Booz Allen') he lived in Hawaii and said he could access your emails, your passwords, your credit cards and phone records. Given that Ireland is a hub for many Internet companies and are supported by servers based in the US, your data is probably in there too.

Here is a transcript of the interview he gave to The Guardian;

Edward Snowden: "My name is Ed Snowden, I'm 29 years old. I worked for Booz Allen Hamilton as an infrastructure analyst for NSA in Hawaii.

Glenn Greenwald: "What are some of the positions that you held previously within the intelligence community?"

Snowden: "I've been a systems engineer, systems administrator, senior adviser for the Central Intelligence Agency, solutions consultant, and a telecommunications informations system officer."

Greenwald: "One of the things people are going to be most interested in, in trying to understand what, who you are and what you are thinking is there came some point in time when you crossed this line of thinking about being a whistleblower to making the choice to actually become a whistleblower. Walk people through that decision making process."

Snowden: "When you're in positions of privileged access like a systems administrator for the sort of intelligence community agencies, you're exposed to a lot more information on a broader scale then the average employee and because of that you see things that may be disturbing but over the course of a normal person's career you'd only see one or two of these instances. When you see everything you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses. And when you talk to people about them in a place like this where this is the normal state of business people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from them."

"But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about. And the more you talk about the more you're ignored. The more you're told its not a problem until eventually you realize that these things need to be determined by the public and not by somebody who was simply hired by the government."

Greenwald: "Talk a little bit about how the American surveillance state actually functions. Does it target the actions of Americans?"

Snowden: "NSA and intelligence community in general is focused on getting intelligence wherever it can by any means possible. It believes, on the grounds of sort of a self-certification, that they serve the national interest. Originally we saw that focus very narrowly tailored as foreign intelligence gathered overseas."

"Now increasingly we see that it's happening domestically and to do that they, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyses them and it measures them and it stores them for periods of time simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends. So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting you're communications to do so."

"Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere. Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that analyst is empowered with. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything. But I sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a Federal judge to even the President if I had a personal e-mail."

Greenwald: "One of the extraordinary parts about this episode is usually whistleblowers do what they do anonymously and take steps to remain anonymous for as long as they can, which they hope often is forever. You on the other hand have decided to do the opposite, which is to declare yourself openly as the person behind these disclosures. Why did you choose to do that?"

Snowden: "I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy and if you do that in secret consistently as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took. It'll kind of give its officials a mandate to go, 'Hey tell the press about this thing and that thing so the public is on our side.' But they rarely, if ever, do that when an abuse occurs. That falls to individual citizens but they're typically maligned. It becomes a thing of 'These people are against the country. They're against the government' but I'm not."

"I'm no different from anybody else. I don't have special skills. I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what's happening and goes, 'This is something that's not our place to decide, the public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.' And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, 'I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story. This is the truth; this is what's happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this.'"

Greenwald: "Have you given thought to what it is that the US government's response to your conduct is in terms of what they might say about you, how they might try to depict you, what they might try to do to you?"

Snowden: "Yeah, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Traids. Any of their agents or assets. We've got a CIA station just up the road and the consulate here in Hong Kong and I'm sure they're going to be very busy for the next week. And that's a fear I'll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be."

"You can't come forward against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and be completely free from risk because they're such powerful adversaries. No one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they'll get you in time. But at the same time you have to make a determination about what it is that's important to you. And if living unfreely but comfortably is something you're willing to accept, and I think it many of us are it's the human nature; you can get up everyday, go to work, you can collect your large paycheck for relatively little work against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows."

"But if you realize that that's the world you helped create and it's gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, you realize that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied."

Greenwald: "Why should people care about surveillance?"

Snowden: "Because even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call. And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer."

Greenwald: "We are currently sitting in a room in Hong Kong, which is where we are because you travelled here. Talk a little bit about why it is that you came here and specifically there are going to be people…people speculate that what you really intend to do is to defect to the country that many see as the number one rival of the Untied States, which is China. And that what you are really doing is essentially seeking to aid an enemy of the United States with which you intend to seek asylum. Can you talk a little about that?"

Snowden: "Sure. So there's a couple assertions in those arguments that are sort of embedded in the questioning of the choice of Hong Kong. The first is that China is an enemy of the United States. It's not. I mean there are conflicts between the United States government and the Chinese PRC government but the peoples inherently we don't care. We trade with each other freely, we're not at war, we're not in armed conflict, and we're not trying to be. We're the largest trading partners out there for each other."

"Additionally, Hong Kong has a strong tradition of free speech. People think 'Oh China, Great Firewall.' Mainland China does have significant restrictions on free speech but the people of Hong Kong have a long tradition of protesting in the streets, of making there views known. The internet is not filtered here more so then any other western government and I believe that the Hong Kong government is actually independent in relation to a lot of other leading western governments."

Greenwald: "If your motive had been to harm the United States and help its enemies or if your motive had been personal material gain were there things you could have done with these documents to advance those goals that you didn't end up doing?"

Snowden: "Oh absolutely. Anyone in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia; they always have an open door as we do. I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are and so forth."

"If I had just wanted to harm the US? You could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that's not my intention. I think for anyone making that argument they need to think, if they were in my position and you live a privileged life, you're living in Hawaii, in paradise, and making a ton of money, 'What would it take you to leave everything behind?'"

"The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests."

"And the months ahead, the years ahead it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather then a stipulation of law. And because of that a new leader will be elected, they'll find the switch, say that 'Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.' And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny." 

Obama 'Prism' Spying now extends to UK Government.

It would seem that the US Government citizen spying programme called 'Prism', has been used by the British Government as a 'back door' to getting intelligence bypassing British law.

William Hague, the UK Foreign Secretary and former leader of The Conservative Party, will today make a Statement to The House of Commons. A forthright man (we've interviewed him in Streamabout) and generally decent, fair-minded man, gave a dodgy performance on The Andrew Marr show yesterday. Uncharacteristically dodgy, in so far that he was unusually trying to dodge questions, which is not his style.

Indeed, he could easily have asked Theresa May to deal with The House of Commons today but has chosen not to - probably in order to kill the controversy at birth - which he won't be able to.

GCHQ, the UK's listening post has been gathering information through co-operation with The US National Security Agency since 2010 and The Guardian says they've generated at least 197 reports from Prism last year alone. They're circumventing UK legislation. Their work, in their own words, should be carried out "in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework" and it looks like it's not. 

Meanwhile Obama, in accepting that Prism exists and goes on, said that his Government "had struck the right balance" in collecting this data in the fight against terrorism. There's nobody doubting that terrorism data needs to be collected however, under a Court order in order to protect the rights of citizens. 

It's ironic too given Obama's criticisms of the Bush administration doing something similar (although to a far lesser extent) and on the same day when he is meeting China's President to discuss their spying and their anti-democratic controls. 

Ironic too that Obama has called his administration, "the most transparent administration in history". 3 months ago, Senator Ron Wyden a member of The Senate Intelligence Committee no less, asked James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans?". "No sir" came Clappers reply which we now know to be a lie. 

Last night the same James Clapper said the Prism programme was "important and valuable". So if your Director of National Intelligence is prepared to lie to an Intelligence Committee Senator, what does that tell you?

Prism collects data on US citizen phone calls (time, length, location on every phone call made in America) and there still remains the controversy about access to internet servers. 

Facebook released a statement under Zuckerberg's name, to say "we do not provide any Government with direct access to Facebook servers". Indeed. The key word there is direct access.

But what seems to transpire, according to informed sources, is that they do provide the information through a "drop box" scenario. So the Facebook language revolves around "direct access" when it does seem they do supply it, but just in a different way.

A reported NSA slide show also shows that Microsoft were the first to comply in 2007 and Apple complied last year. It also noted the compliance of Google and Yahoo. We hear too of compliance by Skype, YouTube, PalTalk and AOL. 

Twitter does not feature and has come out clearly and strongly of its refusal to take part.

This story is only starting. The difficulty Obama has, is the deceit and furthermore, the manner in which a scheme like Prism has been set up to get around the law. There's never been any problem getting data, just the safeguard is that you do it with a court order.

The British government are starting to get into trouble too for using Prism secretly and again, bypassing law. 

But perhaps more pointedly is the use of the data. Whilst the cries of anti-terrorism might have some bearing now, if that data was used politically, it will cause problems. In others words, to identify leaks to media or activities of politicians who are not pro-Obama. It's just the same as breaking into a Watergate building.

It will also cause huge problems to the Internet companies who provide data on you and me, globally and yet feigned privacy. 

This is the sort of story that brings down Governments. And rightly so. The whole thing is rotten. 

US Government Data Spying 'Prism'. This is worse than Watergate.

 

There is something very unnerving about the discovery this week of 'Prism', the US Government's ongoing secret collection of big data.

It's particularly surprising from an administration under Obama. And worrying.

The National Security Agency has been collecting personal data on US citizens notably from Verizon (a big telco) getting personal call details. Furthermore, reports also exist that data has been got from Internet platforms Google, Facebook, Apple, Dropbox, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft. This was reported by The Washington Post.

Although this morning, those companies are denying it quietly, but formal statements are awaited. Never a good sign when you see delays in formal statements because it usually means they need time to craft the language. For example, they may say they're not "participating" in Prism but perhaps comply when asked etc.

And sources in the know, say they are involved. We will see. 

And it could spell danger when in the past, these companies have gone to lengths in formal statements about their systems/structures/processes when dealing with Government information requests case-by-case. They've always tried to convey a sense of the enormous lengths they go to in order to protect their customers privacy. If they're involved in Prism, it flies in the face of those statements and could cause SEC problems.

Apple sources today, have said "they've never heard of Prism". 

The real issue here through the collection of data, is its use. No doubt the Government will put up arguments about defence needs and home security. They need the data to combat terrorism.

However, in that data will be phone/internet records for example, on Republican politicians and journalists. So if a journalist got a tip-off call on some White House issue, Obama's advisers will now know when and from whom, to whom.

There's never ever been an issue on giving data by ISPs on Terrorism, Crime, Sex offences - never.... and I know because I started one - but only on foot of a Court Order. Go to court, give your reasons and a judge will give you access. No problem.

But the hoovering up ('scuse the pun) of data on everyone is serious, appalling and outrageous in a democracy. It smacks of Nixon and if it's true (which it is in substance) then Obama is going to have real problems a la Watergate. Breaking into offices to get data is one thing, Prism is worse.

However, learn one thing - the US Government is spying on its own citizens.  

Citizens should not be afraid of their Government. Government should be afraid of their citizens. 

Google bans porn on their glasses. Who'd have thought....

Google Glasses move onwards and upwards prompting this great sketch on Saturday Night Live. Actually, what it shows is the potential limitations of Goggle Glasses and how tricky they might be.

It comes too after Google announced that it was banning porn from the glasses (actually, something I'd never thought of) through banning Apps. So they can control it to a degree but one wonders how they'll limit porn search? With some difficulty I would think.

An App was launched recently which allowed Glass wearers to watch explicit video and pictures and getting 10,000 visitors a day (!). Interesting concept....and it's still up + running.

So when somebody winks at you with Google Glasses, perhaps it's not at you.
Yet again, the porn industry is the first over the line for new technology.

Whilst Apple's Tim Cook says that glasses are not the way forward but that wearable technology was more on the wrist, one wonders if their watch will have wrist action?

And there's no doubt, porn or not, we will all have Google Glasses soon. Trust me.

Ad Agencies report online video advertising better than TV. Words are being eaten in this sea change.

There is a sea change in the way that Advertising is changing.

Most Ad Agencies are struggling in their mindset to cope with the switch to digital and trying to recover the reputational damage caused to themselves, by themselves, in early attempts to rubbish it.

It is ironic for me to watch Ad Agencies now claiming to embrace digital, having had years embroiled in debating it with them. Like leopards, they now know where the money is and are desperate to be seen as evangelists, with consequential dire attempts to negate their previous claims of it being, a waste of money. It will be hard to erase their histories on Google though.

Thanks to Mashable today however, they now report that "Advertising executives" admit that the tide of advertising has changed and that online video ads are taking the lead http://mashable.com/2013/05/28/online-videos-tv-advertising/

75% of them said that online video ads are more effective than TV Ads - a drum that Streamabout has been banging for some time. Only 17% said they were "less effective".

The report produced by the reliable 'emarketeer' showed that online video was even more effective than display ads (print ads) and better for direct response. Which it is.

Video views grew by 23% this year - far greater than the declining audience on TV and it will continue to bury traditional TV broadcasters despite their claims. They know it.

Spend on online video is estimated to grow at 40%, outstripping all other media. Except of course, media that embraces online video like newspaper publishers.

It's a sea change alright.
It is, wakey wakey time too.

Google's driver less cars. They're being allowed in US States. And so Google release a video of one. Driven by a blind man.

You'll probably have heard by now, about Google's new project for driverless cars. They've now been licensed in Nevada, California and Florida although are not expected to be under general manufacture for 2/3 years. But only, 2 or 3 years.

Google syndicated a video recently (below) of how a driverless car works and to prove the point, they sat a blind man in the driving seat.

 The argument is of course that driverless cars (like airplanes) will be safer and indeed that they'll improve traffic congestion (intersections for example, will work far more efficiently).

They also have clear benefits for those who couldn't normally drive like blind or disabled and indeed poor drivers who really shouldn't. They've better fuel usage, better distance control, better parking (being able to identify a spot easier), the ability to react quicker and so on. Presumably too, they've overcome texting whilst driving, mobile calls when driving and drink driving? If the car is in control, the driver is unimportant and more so, you can call the car to come and pick you up at the office. (Or the pub). An end to Taxis?

Amazing stuff which we all just have to get used to but one of the big hold-ups is the threat to the manufacturer that if something goes wrong, they'll get badly sued. But we'll see.

What's also amazing is that racing cars can become driverless. This video shows how but imagine 14 Formula One drivers watching their cars go around Monte Carlo with just joysticks in their hand. Not the same but an awful lot safer.

We'll get used to this. Airplanes too on fly-by-wire with the pilot monitoring the flight from the ground (like US drones). The fact that they're now being licensed to operate in several US states will open the manufacturing opportunity real quick. 

This is not a dream but something we will all see in our lifetime. In fact, within 5 years.

And the next talk is to bring them into the air. It's the quickest way to get from A to B after all and avoids traffic. 

Amazing, amazing, that technology is. 

Ireland. The Tax Haven. And are lies being told?

Today Apple is in the US dock about tax avoidance through Ireland, referred to as a "tax haven", which it clearly is. And lies are being told.

Channel 4 are reporting that the Irish government have done special tax deals with multinationals below the 12.5% corporate tax rate. 

Reuters tonight, via The Irish Independent, reports that 

"According to the congressional report, Ireland had also agreed a special 2pc rate for Apple's Irish taxable profits instead of the normal 12.5pc."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/apple-pays-tax-rate-of-less-than-2pc-in-ireland-29285246.html

The Prime Minister Enda Kenny denies this. So too Eamon Gilmore his deputy. RTE News tonight said Revenue have also confirmed that there's "no special deals". 

They'd better be truthful because it looks like they're not. There's too many reports that a special low rate deal was done with multinationals. And if The Prime Minister has misled the House tonight, by saying no deal was done, there will be trouble. 

Because someone here is wrong by definition. The US Congress or The Irish Government.

Where the Irish politicans "dodge" in words may be, by saying that the 12.5% rates does apply on profits "generated in Ireland only".

But that's a dodge. Authoritative sources say a deal was done, they're saying it wasn't. 

Either way too, those profits are deliberately manipulated downwards through licence fees paid offshore by multinationals to places like Bermuda. And we facilitate that.

Secondly, if a profit is brought into Ireland, it's either Irish revenue or it's not. If it's not, as the Government will say, then the tax should have been paid elsewhere - and it hasn't been. 

Because clearly, multinationals are paying even less than 12.5% Irish tax haven rate - nearer 1% - without prosecution in Ireland so if deals aren't done, why then are they not pursued?

And clearly too, if they were paying the 12.5% tax on what we're told is their "Irish revenue", then Ireland would not be in a financial mess. 

US Tax for Apple according to the well regarded Channel 4 News, is 35%. But by transferring their profits to Ireland, they avoid paying that. 

Apple Operations International, between 2009-12, put 30 billion into Ireland as income...but paid no tax on it. No 12.5%.

Apple Sales International similarly transferred a further 22 billion profits to Ireland in 2011 but paid only 10 million in taxes (so not 12.5% either).  

US Senator John McCain today said Apple's 3 Irish operations hold 60% of the companies profits. He also said they negotiated (with the Irish government) a rate of less than 2%.

Now either he's wrong with everyone else - or Enda Kenny has lied. Did Apple do a deal Enda or not?

If Apple alone had paid 12.5% on their "Irish income", this country would not have a budget deficit.

I do get a bit tired blogging about multinational tax "avoidance" and the role of Ireland in facilitating it.

You can search some of my previous tax blogs mainly from last year.

And of course, this week we saw Google defend a regime that their sales are not in the UK, but in Ireland. Here's what I said about them on December 3rd

"Google, with a staff in the UK of 1,300 books most of its revenue to surprise, surprise, Ireland. So it earns money in the UK but funnels it through Ireland. That's Ireland's great tax regime I mean that attracts companies like these in the first place. Actually Google's "Irish" revenue is recorded as 12.4 billion. How ridiculous is that? Gross profit in Ireland in 2011 was recorded at 9 billion!! It's truly ridiculous."

And everytime I blog about tax, I take a hit. Irish people think you're being disloyal, unpatriotic and generally live in fear of google/facebook/zynga/dropbox/microsoft and others, jobs.

What's so wrong about all of this is that the Irish government pursues its own citizens for tax through the courts and cause undue hardship. But they let big corporations (and I was the CEO of one), avoid tax.

Shameful.

This is a dreadful charade and furthermore, if there is lying going on (and I believe there is), it will cause the collapse of the Irish government.

If you're interested here are my previous blogs to search in the search bar:

January 3rd Blog. Facebook and the cayman islands via Ireland. And Zynga.

Google 

Microsoft

Dropbox

Starbucks

The biggest Advertising breakthrough since it started - YouTube Video now allows you to click and buy.

Google's YouTube have just announced that they've started to E Commerce enable YouTube video. It's a breakthrough in terms of video and sales as well as giving YouTube advertisers, direct response for their investment.

It is probably the biggest breakthrough since advertising started. You watch a commercial online and you can buy directly from it. We've waited a long time for this. A billion customers a month are on YouTube.

In partnership with Google Search, what happens is that you watch a video which shows some product and when you click on an aspect of it, you can buy the product online instantly. Or you can search retailers, product functionality etc. 

And it's exclusively YouTube so the same video won't click thru elsewhere.... hence if you want advertising that sells....advertise on YouTube. Magnificent breakthrough.

The first product is Unilever's Tresemme in the hair/beauty category as a test and it'll be interesting to see the results. The audience they have, the technology they now have and it will just be up to doing good video that brings eyeballs in to watch. Streamabout are in that space thankfully.

So YouTube is now a shop. Presumably they'll take a margin on all online sales and possibly, start charging for the space to show your video.

It's a dream really and a terrific Advertising platform that will compete seriously with traditional media. You never really knew if your Advertising worked on delivering sales, as such. Now, you do.

Astronaut produces stunning online video and sings Bowie's 'Space Oddity' from space (to mark his return today). This is really terrific and worth watching.

Chris Hadfield is a Canadian (which was home to me once) Astronaut on the International Space Station for the last 5 months and he's done lots of things in space including tweeting 'Happy St. Patrick's Day' in the Irish language. (In fact his daughter studied at Trinity College Dublin).

Few space travellers have actually done as much fun, interesting and "earthy" things to promote space travel than Chris. He had a space "singalong" with kids recently and he returns this Monday.

And so to mark his return, he's literally made a music video in space. Editing some great footage and singing Bowie's 'Space Oddity'. One cannot help wonder if Bowie ever saw it performed like this but he'd be pleased. He already tweeted Hadfield with "hello spaceboy".

This is, ladies and gentlemen, stunning.

WATCH HIS LANDING LIVE http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html

YouTube put a Tank on the RTE lawn to claim to overtake TV Viewing numbers. And if they haven't, they will. Globally.

Google's YouTube claims to have overtaken TV in viewership and marked it with a stunt this weekend by parking a Tank in RTE (Ireland's state funded broadcaster).

Eric Schmidt Chairman of Google only last week said that, "it has already happened" and that "it's not a replacement for something that we already know" and he's right. YouTube and content consumption is different from the traditional manner where broadcasters push out content at a time that suits them, not the user.

YouTube already delivers more than a billion unique monthly users, astounding stuff and one cannot help but wonder, how then are TV broadcasters claiming more and more people are watching TV when clearly they're not? Given too, the amount of time spent on Social Media, notably Facebook, and Netflix, it is bewildering that they can produce research to show they're growing. And it's just not credible. Clearly users cannot be doing both.

According to The Sunday Independent, the RTE star programme, The Late Late Toy Show, which is their most watched show, had 1.3 million viewers. A YouTube 16 second Japanese clip of a couple getting "jiggy" had 47 million views! http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/googles-eric-schmidt-television-is-already-over-29238541.html

An audience of 1.3 million viewers is small in the video download business and yet it's the number one TV show.....

Rock band Metallica video had 30 million views; Rihannas "cry" video 27 million; Even good old Ireland's Damien Rice's video was viewed 24 million times....

In fact some of RTE's online videos are viewed greater than the programme broadcasts themselves, so what is that telling you? 

A Republic of Telly hidden camera prank had 1.1 million views online and probably 4 times the show's audience on Television. It was for example, more viewers than those of us who tuned in to RTE TV to watch Katie Taylor win gold! Imagine.

Because if the TV audience is growing, as global broadcasters suggest, then there's something wrong here.

The growth of YouTube, the stunning surge of Netflix (130,000 Irish subscribers?), the Irish love of Facebook (49% of the population use the site) -and we know most of these are evening activities - the explosion of Social Media like Twitter has to mean, that if viewers are viewing these, then they're watching less TV. 

It simply cannot be both.

Harvey Weinstein trashes Google/YouTube for stealing content and making billions from it. This is going to run.

It's hard not to respect Harvey Weinstein one of the most powerful men in media.

He co-founded Miramax Pictures and of course, set the world alight with 'Pulp Fiction' but a man who knows his trade and was heavily involved in 'Live Aid'.

At this week's Creativity Conference, he trashes Google's youtube. Now I can't show you the video as normal (you'll have to click the link below - but it's only 2 mins long) because the video is not on YouTube. Which surprises me....somebody must have tried to upload it? Yet it's not there....hmmmm anyway here's the link:

http://fora.tv/2013/04/26/Harvey_Weinstein_The_Creators_Process_for_Storytelling/Harvey_Weinstein_Artists_Cant_Thrive_If_Theyre_Poor?utm_source=ForaSiteMaster&utm_campaign=37b98fe34f-Newsletter_05_1_13&utm_medium=email

What he's saying is that Google steals content - an argument a lot of Newspapers are starting to have with them too. He illustrates his point by referring to the show 'Chicago' where on YouTube 9 of the 13 show songs are available for free.

Nobody is getting paid for that - not the composers, the producers, the singers...nobody, except that is, YouTube through advertising.

So with irony he says that a very good business plan would be to use somebody else's content, for free, and then build a 500 billion dollar silicon valley company. And be very, very rich. And then have cool slogans, like "we just want to help the world".

He has a point.

And this will now come to a head with content owners.

HMV and Xtra-Vision. Who's next? Skype announces a cracking idea from Monday with Microsoft's outlook.com. So could it be telephony?

Given recent collapses of HMV and in Ireland this week, the Xtra-vision chain which went into receivership (like a 'Blockbuster' chain of retail DVD rental), it's clear that online played a major part in their demise.

Video and music downloads (legal in the main) through the likes of ITunes and Netflix which is surging ahead, meant that traditional retail DVD/Album sales went into spiralling decline. The point however should be made, that brands like HMV and Xtra-vision should have got into the online space but didn't.

They were, at one time, the dominant brands with the power to win online. Anyway.

One now has to ask, what's the next category or market segment that's now faced with the same challenges? And it's telephony.

Apart from "ordinary" threats of email, tweeting, texting and messaging which avoids the need for a quick (costly) telephone call, mobile operators continue to compete on price to woo subscribers. That in itself, is reducing margins and profitability.

It's a death spiral.

But apart from that, online operators are starting to each their lunch - exactly what happened in music and video.

Skype, the best known player (but there's hundreds) have just announced a roll-out of audio and video calling, with outlook.com in the UK from Monday and then the US and Germany this month.

All you need do is download a plug-in and login with your Microsoft account and you're integrated into the Microsoft email service. So that call, has just got a lot easier - it's part of your email. Merging the accounts will automatically merge contacts so connecting with friends will be easy as well.

It's phone calls at your fingertips.

Skype is part of Microsoft so furthering usage will also be pretty easy for Microsoft as Skype replaces their 'instant messenger' service. It previously partnered with ComCast bringing Skype to HDTV sets and Skype generates about 130 billion minutes of call a quarter - growing by 30%+. Microsoft also of course know mobile telephony with android phones.

It's hard to see the big global mobile brands compete with this and especially when we've seen so little sign of it to date. Perhaps they have had it too good for too long? like HMV and Xtra-Vision?

Unthinkable? Nope.

Netflix surges ahead. 3 million new subscribers last quarter. 36m to date. This is killing traditional TV viewership.

 

 
The surge of Netflix goes on and on.

They've just announced 3 million new subscribers in the first quarter (beating brands like HBO). That means they've over 36 million subscribers (of which 'm one).

Revenue for the quarter broke 1 billion usd and the share price went over 200 usd for the first time. Extraordinary stuff for what is, pretty ordinary content but the key is ease of access at a low cost. Their free trial, only resulted in 8000 people cancelling, a really low churn rate so generally people are happy.

Netflix are great at what they do and now lead the way in TV broadcasting and have developed their own shows. Nevermind killing high street video rental who were too slow at getting into the space.

They also know how to grow - market by market - with stealth. Pick off country by country.

The other beneficiaries of Netflix are brands like Sony who in allowing connectivity through their Xbox for example, generate revenue and indeed all connected TV's will do well out of this - provided, Netflix agree to allowing them take their content.

This is a case where such a strong content partner can now dictate who carries their signal and on what terms.

Whilst TV broadcasters continue to commission "reputable" research showing TV viewing still remains high, it is to say the least, dubious. They continue to try to hide the ongoing collapse of TV viewing habits but publishing data about the TV itself. In other words, claiming that those using are using a TV set to view content are "TV viewers" ....when in fact, they are watching other content such as Netflix. Or YouTube via their Television set.

These massive increases in online content viewing are helping to dispel the myth that TV viewing of traditional broadcasters content, is holding steady - when clearly it's not.

Simply, the Netflix numbers and the facts about usage of Social Media in the home from Facebook and others, are exposing the death of traditional broadcasting. 

They both cannot be right.
 

Boston Shootings. Twitter bringing in the news. Nobody can compete wih this.

Fairly extraordinary stuff going on in Boston as Police hunt a suspect in the Boston Bombings. One has already been shot, so too a Police Officer and one is on the loose.

What's also extraordinary (and thanks to Mashable) is the tweets and pictures that are coming from the scene.

Here is the page  http://mashable.com/2013/04/19/live-tweets-from-massive-police-standoff-in-watertown/

If ever you wanted to see Social Media in action for news, literally as it happens, this is it.

Extraordinary. 

No news organisation can compete with this amount of content simply because, every citizen with a smartphone is a journalist and they're all on scene.

YouTube open special news page for video of Boston explosions.

Following yesterday's explosions in Boston, YouTube have opened a page where they've brought together all the video into one place. It's here;

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbpi6ZahtOH5T_nrvCoHfnYWbW1shGYYv

There's no doubt, watching an event unfold like this live last night, how Social Media is now fulfilling the news role. 

Twitter going out live from the scene with pictures (although some of them cruelly unedited) and YouTube video being posted. 

All well ahead of traditional news organisations.

I understand an 8 year old was one of those killed, waiting for his mum and dad to finish the run, both of whom survived. I too have an 8 year old son and it's impossible to understand the tragedy of those parents as they set about running a marathon on a sunny bank holiday Monday. God be with them.

EBooks now a quarter of all US Book Sales. From 9% in 3 years.

The American Association of Publishers, have reported that E-Books now account for nearly a quarter of all US book Sales (23%).

From 9% in 2009, it's pretty terrific growth and really interestingly, there's been a growth in books in general. Like ITunes has brought more music sales, so too has EBooks.

So instead of the Internet decimating Books and Music as predicted, it has brought a new life to them. Simply, the ease of access online has meant more people can buy more easily and they do.

At the time, the music industry particularly, instead of jumping onboard the download revolution, spent millions trying to stop it through law. When they should have encouraged it.

Interesting too that these stats on Ebooks show a real growth in children's/teen books which probably means, more younger people are reading - no bad thing. 

EBooks are a real success - if you haven't yet got a Kindle, go get one now. You'll resist it at first and then fall in love with it. Stunning piece of kit.

New writers will be encouraged by these numbers too. It's all in all, great news for literacy (if that's how you spell it).

Kobe Byrant V Lionel Messi. Turkish Airlines Video goes hugely viral. But it's great and worth a look.

Super Commercial/Viral Video for Turkish Airlines which has just passed over 110 million views and quickly. Actually faster than 'Gangnam Style'.

Kobe Byrant (he's a Basketballer of some note) Versus Lionel Messi (he's a footballer seemingly) vie for the attention of a kid on board. But the key here was by using such well known celebs, piggybacked their own following and so the Video immediately had traction amongst fans.

And critically, it was shared because of who they are.

Having said that, the spot is clever in itself and a good use of the talents on board. Unusually too for Turkish Airlines, not known for strong creative. Developed too, by a local Turkish Agency and local creatives, it shows Turkish airlines as a comfortable way to go - and celebrity endorsement does no harm.

Lovely idea and yes, the talent fees would be high but the shoot itself doesn't have a real expensive look about it. Still, if both players got a million each to appear and it has reached over 110 million people, that represents cracking good value.

In fact, at 5 million each, it still does.
Celebrity can be worth it.

North Korea have launched a missile. Japan's Government Tweets. By accident.

The Korean peninsula is on a knife-edge as we know.

One small mistake may unsettle everything. 

So the Japanese government officials got ready. On standby and had their tweets ready to go. All bases covered, all on alert.

One of the official Tweets was "North Korea has launched a missile" ready to send to advise the population to be prepared. All good preparation because Twitter is huge in Japan.

Until one donkey in officialdom goes and sends it, by mistake at noon on the official Twitter account. And leaves it up, for 20 minutes before replacing it with an apology.

It's one way to get re tweeted but another way to cause total havoc. And the sort of thing that really causes problems.

And the culprit? "The Crisis Management Office Affairs Bureau" of Yokohama in Japan. Irony of ironies.

(It wouldn't happen in Jack Dorsey's day.....)

It's back. Mad Men Series 6. Tonight.

It's back. He's back. Short sentences are back. Tonight. 10pm Sky Atlantic.

Advertising men like they used to be. Mad Men Series 6.

Fox threaten to go Subscriber only. Online re-broadcasting is causing problems (IPTV).

Fox, that great bastion of free right wing media (actually, I watch it a lot so I mean that tongue-in-cheek) are threatening to come off "free to air" and to move towards cable or pay-per-view.

In other words, just be available to subscribers.

And the reason? Online IPTV re-broadcasters (in this case 'Aereo' in particular) whom are offering live Fox and CBS and ABC and others online for free. They're simply, re-sending the TV signals online for a small fee. And the courts have upheld their right to do so. It would seem that these re-broadcasters have set themselves up exactly within the limits of existing laws.

So no need for an antenna or set-top box, you can now see Fox online through Aereo and that's what's bothering Fox. Aereo also allows you to record programmes in the cloud and of course, is available on multi-platforms to watch "as you go".

It means that traditional TV Companies are now losing control of their signal, their content and ultimately, their advertising. So if Fox became subscriber only, it would starve IPTV such as Aereo, of content. But then too, it would lose its advertising revenue because numbers of viewers would dramatically reduce.

It would also cause problems for affiliates of Fox (such as Sky) who may no longer get access to that content either. 

IPTV is a threat to broadcasters - of that, there's no doubt.
However, one wonders why they don't join the party and develop their own IPTV strategy? In other words, come together as an online brand and compete.

So many times, we've seen online destroy businesses who sat back and depended on legal action rather than, get into the space and fight. This to me, looks like another example.

Feels a bit like a Fox episode of The Simpsons.

Spotify. They've blazed a trail in music streaming and now face a huge challenge. So they turn to advertising and their first TV Commercial.

'We are Spotify, we are for music', sounds like the Pedigree Chum Campaign 'We are for dogs' and you can't help but see in Spotify's new, first, TV Campaign, influences from Apple advertising.

I have no understanding of their copyline either, "Music is worth fighting for"? Sounds like a copywriter trying to be evocative without making sense. 

However, the point is that this is Spotify's bid to get into US Homes through TV advertising, promoting its music streaming business before competitors enter the space. And the space is hotting up.

Apple, Amazon and most notably Google, are all primed to enter the Spotify space. Big players with big money.

Music Streaming is different to music downloading (as in ITunes) in that it allows you to listen to tracks for a standard subscription. 

Launched in Sweden in 2008, Spotify currently has over 20 million active members with about 6 million paying and has a valuation of circa 3 billion usd. So it's a relatively young start-up that has grown and has trail blazed a new segment of streaming music. All from a base in Sweden. Not bad at all really.

Its success hasn't gone unnoticed and hence they're now faced with big players coming into their market - always a problem for a start-up. If you're successful, others will follows. And hence therefore, this new TV Commercial to try to develop subscribers before the big boys get hold. Which is exactly the right thing to do, whether you like the commercial or not.

Spotify deserves the success either way. And turning to Advertising will help it now. But it's now faced with the challenge of its young life. 

Yoko Ono is 80 and wants more gun control. So she Tweets Lennon's bloody glasses. Scary stuff.

This is a Tweet from Yoko Ono and what makes it pretty scary is that they are the exact glasses that John Lennon was wearing when he shot outside the Dakota Apartments in NYC (where I saw for myself). That's his blood on the lens.

Scary too that Lennon was only 40, Yoko is now 80 and that he was shot 33 years ago. Yoko has 3.7 m followers on Twitter and she did this Tweet to enter the conversation on gun control. Pretty effectively I think.

Over 31,000 people die in the US every year from shootings. John + Yoko had always been involved in issues like this - the song Give Peace a Chance of course, symbolises that. So there's no doubting she wants more gun control and is using her celebrity with a controversial image to get it out there.

Newspapers have a new confidence. Recent NNI Video tells the story and journalists tell theirs. Newspapers are the ONLY Media people pay for. That means they want it.

The power of Newspapers and their power online. Real Social Media as shown at the recent NNI Awards night.

The point is that Newspapers are a trusted source for news. And now with the online/social media dimension, they can provide that news with video, just as well as any broadcaster. But perhaps more importantly, is that people actively pay for Newspapers. So they value it, they read it, they trust it. 

And that has real value to advertisers because they don't pay for TV, Outdoor, Radio.

It's the tradition of newspapers to break news and set the news agenda as you'll see. Story after story after story.

But importantly, they can do that "as it happens" so before traditional TV broadcasters who hold back their news for advertising lucrative evening broadcasts.

Newspapers are not threatened by the Web but rather, it brings new opportunities (such as subscriptions) without the massive cost of printing. And, they can enter the TV advertising arena through providing pre-roll commercials in front of their video news. Who'd have thought you can see a 30 second TV commercial in a newspaper?

Well done to The National Newspapers of Ireland who are pushing out the message with new confidence. And rightly so.

And along comes another, brilliant, simple, world class idea. Bluetooth Earphones.

Just when you thought everything was invented, along comes another great, simple idea.

Bluetooth earbuds.

Now I do know of wireless headphones like we all bought in the 90's for late night TV watching. And I do know of bluetooth earpieces for Iphones favoured by Taxi drivers. But bluetooth ear buds, as in the tiny earpieces we all have, I hadn't seen as wireless.

So no more chords to plug into your iphone, instead they're wireless over bluetooth. The ear buds just connect to a little device which links to your phone etc. So forget tangles, they're a thing of the past.

Elroy (I admit, a most peculiar brand name) is looking to raise funding on Kickstarter (crowd funding) and I think it's a real winner. Not only does it replace the mess of tangled chords but when you remove an earpiece (as in, someone says "hello" on the street), it pauses the music until you put it back in.

If you get a call, inserting the ear piece answers it and so on. Clever?

Really.

The mounts are also magnetic so when you're done, they simply stick to a box which you carry. 

Elroy were looking to raise 30k usd on Kickstarter and already they've past that mark. I'm not surprised.

This will be the way of headphones in the future (did I just say that?).
Well, I mean, it's a sure winner.

New Ad Agency launches. Brief them on Twitter, response in 24 hours, 999 dollars on PayPal. Dear oh dear.

A network of Ad Agency creatives in New York have just launched the fastest creative turnaround ever. Using Twitter briefs (that is, 140 characters of a brief, refreshing in itself), they'll respond with ideas (tag lines, communication platforms, stunts etc).

Claiming to be "the fastest Agency in the world" they say clients can say goodbye to "powerpoint decks, long lunches, meetings, to-and-fro emails, inaudible conference calls - I'm with that 100%, consumer focus groups" and so on. 

http://worldsfastestagency.com/ only seek 999 usd paid by 'PayPal' which I assume, you pay in advance. So goodbye too to billing/invoice queries and I assume, goodbye to any problems with the ideas seeing as you'll have paid for them.....

Founded by a 'Floyd Hayes', they're claiming clients including brands such as Unilever, Mini, Levis, HSBC, Vodafone and other blue-chip corporates. Also claiming to be "in short, I develop ideas to sell your stuff" which really does cut to the chase....

And if you look at the Video above, you'll see Floyd is pretty proud of himself. 

Of course, what this all does is further commoditises the work of Ad Agencies - rightly or wrongly - but one lesson that's clear in my experience is that good ideas require one thing. Time.

The longer you have, the better the idea or ideas. And it really is as simple as that. Good ideas rarely, come quickly and certainly in 24 hours, you'll not have something outstanding. Because with any idea, you need time to kick it around.

I can deliver an advertising concept in a minute, but how good will it be? (yeah, yeah, most will say I didn't deliver a good one in 20 years so okay then).

However, being the "fastest" Agency is a positioning which Agency's in the main, lack (they all appear "samey"). Or being the 999 dollar Agency is another positioning. And it grabs the headlines on the likes of 'Mashable' and Advertising publications. 

Fundamentally though, it damages the business of the Ad Agency and demystifies what they do. Floyd would say I'm sure, no bad thing and you know what, he might be right....even if this is a stunt in itself, pure and simple.

What it does point to is the need for big Agencies to stand up for themselves and explain clearly how and what their contribution is in the digital age rather, as they're prone to do, dismissing it. Or they'll keep getting hammered and hammered into a positioning as well-dressed money men with nothing to add.

Or else, Floyd will be rubbing his hands.