Joe Wikert's Digital Content Strategies

Are You Watching This?

Does anyone remember that TV/online hybrid opportunity I was lobbying for last fall?  I figured ESPN would launch something like this, but like just about any other innovation, it's up to the little guy to figure it out.  The little guy I'm referring to in this case is a website I just discovered called areyouwatchingthis.com.

It's not the complete solution I was looking for, but it's an interesting start.  The free service alerts you to games of interest and lets you join a discussion forum for the game you're watching.  I'd still like to see them add some of the functionality I had in my original post, including more customization with access to live stats and video, especially for replays.  Yes, I know this opens up an enormous can of worms of rights issues, but what a great service it could be!  Also, private forums where it's just you and your friends arguing about the big game...that's a key feature they need to add, and should be able to charge for!

More On Joost

I continue checking in on the Joost beta from time to time.  As I noted earlier, bandwidth and reliability issues still exist, but that's exactly what you'd expect from a beta like this.  After watching a few different sample videos on Joost, however, I'm discovering one critical fact about my online video viewing habits: I lose interest after about 3 minutes.

There are quite a few lengthier videos available on Joost.  Some of the more interesting ones are the National Geographic shows that provide an insider's view of The White House and Air Force One.  They're well-produced and very fascinating...but too long for online viewing.  What is it about my attention span that causes it to shrink when I'm in front of a computer?  I'd probably have no problem watching those same videos in their entirety on my TV, but I can't watch them all the way through on my computer.

I keep thinking, "I wonder if there's a new message in my Gmail in-box...maybe I should check."  Or, "what's the score of the Yankees game...I should click on that mlb.com tab in Firefox to see."  I guess Jerry Seinfeld was right when he said that "guys don't care what's on TV...they just want to know what else is on TV."  That problems seems to be even worse when applied to online video.

I'm guessing I'm not in the minority on this and despite the convenience of online viewing, the more popular videos will be the shorter ones.

Joost Beta

I signed up for Joost's beta program earlier this year and was excited to get an activation notice from them late last week.  The Joost promise is "The magic of television, with the power of the internet built right in. Joost puts you in control, and TV will never be the same again."  I was intrigued...

After playing around with Joost a bit this weekend I have to say the results were mixed.  It's important to keep in mind that this is just a beta stage, so I'm hoping they'll smoothing things out before a formal launch.  To truly be successful and pull in the mass market, however, Joost will need to work on overall reliability.  There were far too many times when the screen would get grainy or simply freeze.  Again, I know it's just a beta, so my fingers remained crossed.

On the plus side, when the system worked it worked quite well.  There were some points where I felt like I was watching a DVD on my screen; pretty impressive and a much better experience than you'd typically get with something like YouTube, for example.  Also, all my testing was done via wireless, which made the high points even more impressive.

I plan to check back in on Joost from time to time to revisit the service level issues as well as the depth and breadth of content, which also was about where you'd expect it during a beta.

The BBC on YouTube

The BBC has long been regarded as an operation that "gets" the web and knows how to successfully leverage it. This article (free registration required) shows how the BBC is quickly figuring out how to work with Google/YouTube so that everyone benefits.  Let's hope ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox figure out how to follow the BBC's lead some day.  Rather than getting litigious or forcing YouTube to pull clips off the site, why not sit down and figure out how to create a win-win model?  And please don't think for a moment that you (ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox) will figure out how to build a better YouTube of your own!

I just hope this deal will turn out to be something more significant than short snippets of content.  I don't think  teasers like that will work; they've got to be complete segments to attract viewers and keep them engaged.

That reminds me of Google Video's original announcement of their relationship with the NHL.  The NHL's original press release made it sound like live games will be available on Google with a "delay".  I was totally into that idea, especially now that the NHL has virtually disappeared from my cable TV options.  As it turns out, it's just highlights and archived games from weeks ago; a quick search of Google Video today turns up zero games from the month of January!  Apparently the NHL's definition of "delay" (weeks) is different than mine (minutes).  My guess is the traffic hasn't lived up to the original hopes, which is too bad, given how tough it must be to rebuild their fan base after that ugly strike.

How Not to Knock Off YouTube

According to this report, all of the major networks not named ABC are in talks to create a YouTube knockoff.  Good luck.  Sure, thanks to YouTube's renewed efforts to remove copyright infringing content from its site, many of the more popular videos are quickly disappearing.  And yes, that makes YouTube a less desirable destination...unless you happen to be looking for more Mentos/Coke videos.  But when was the last time two or more networks came together and created something interesting and sustainable?  Has it ever happened?

Will the networks ever really even be able to agree on design, terms, etc.?  We're talking about some pretty large egos around the table, so I'm skeptical.  Then there's the fact that ABC isn't even interested.  The article notes that ABC "wants to rely on the strength of its own brands."  In other words, ABC's ego was so large it couldn't even fit in the room with the others.

I truly believe these networks have the content most viewers want to see.  It's just that I can't imagine them collaborating to create a better (and more attractive) solution than YouTube.  Just look at the NFL Network for a great example of how even a small player can suffer from a huge ego.  Your cable company doesn't offer the NFL Network?  I rest my case.

The best solution here is to work with YouTube and figure out how to monetize their existing platform while also dramatically reducing the number of illegally-posted videos.

YouTube: Friend or Foe?

"YouTube Won't Cannibalize TV?"  Ha!  Funny one.  Actually, that's the title of a ZDNet blog post by Donna Bogatin.  She sounds as skeptical as I am about this.  Btw, be sure to read this YouTube article in the latest issue of Wired -- the Ball State sportscaster video cited in the article is highly entertaining.

The latest YouTube debate seems to be whether they can really introduce a more lucrative advertising model to their platform without alienating all their current users.  Although you see banner ads on the site, pre- and post-roll ads are thought to be the only way to truly monetize the traffic.  I disagree.  Why not simply reserve the top 20% or so of the video area itself for some sort of embedded banner advertising?  It would either overlay the video itself or push the screen down a bit.  YouTube could create an algorithm that splices in relevant ads on the fly, just like they do with AdSense today.  Besides the obvious benefit of not forcing people to wait for the "main attraction", it also presents the advertising message along with the content itself, likely leading to a much stronger impression.  It's just like all those crawlers you see on CNN and other cable networks -- we're so used to them that we don't really mind them anymore, but they represent an excellent piece of real estate for online video advertising.

Bogatin's blog post goes on to talk about how YouTube really lends itself to "short bursts of content" rather than full-length shows.  That's true today but I seriously doubt it will be a long-term limitation.  Why couldn't YouTube host 20-, 30-minute (or longer) videos?  My attention span while I'm online does seem to be shorter than when I'm watching TV, but not by much.  We'll definitely see longer videos on YouTube in the future, especially once they get that advertising model in place.

I also expect to see an explosion of custom channels on YouTube.  You'll have channels for every niche imaginable.  That will also lead to more video links being embedded in blogs and other websites.  For example, if there was a good publishing/media channel on YouTube I'd be interested in including a widget-like link to it from my blog.  Again, the advertising model comes into play.  Think of Google's AdSense, but for video.  If you insert a custom channel on your blog, everyone who clicks and watches a video contributes to your income.  I tend to think the click-through rate for that sort of object on the screen would be much, much higher than the click-through rate for the typical AdSense block.

If you're in the TV/video business and you're not working on a strategy to either work with or compete with the Google/YouTube juggernaut, you're kidding yourself.  They're coming and they have all the weapons to be very successful, at your expense.

TV For Dummies

How do you expand the reach of an extremely popular how-to book brand?  You extend it on to other platforms, such as television.

Variety provides some background on the deal here.  The bottom line: My colleagues at John Wiley & Sons, Inc., have struck a deal to bring the wildly popular For Dummies brand to television.  Great idea.  The For Dummies series has helped millions of people learn just about everything from A to Z over the years and it makes perfect sense to extend the brand into television.

Sports Illustrated Trash Talks ESPN

If you’re a sports fan you’ll get a kick out of reading Jon Friedman’s article about SI/ESPN on MarketWatch. My favorite quote comes from Terry McDonnell, editor of the Sports Illustrated Group, who says this about ESPN:

They’re a TV network. We’re playing in a completely different league.

Huh? If ever there was a case of someone with their head in the sand, this is it!

Let’s compare the scores on this, OK?:

TV presence: ESPN wins, hands down.

More recognizable personalities: Again, ESPN with the advantage (Reilly and Rushin are great, but how can any team hold a candle to Bill Simmons, Stuart Scott, Chris Berman, etc.?)

Website traffic: According to the article, ESPN holds an almost three to one advantage; makes you wonder what stats McDonnell is looking at, doesn’t it?

Risk-taker mentality: ESPN, again in a landslide. Sure, it leads to mistakes. (Remember the ESPN cell phone?) But it once again shows ESPN is always looking for new and innovative ways to extend their brand.

If you don’t buy into any of those points, how about this one: How many times have you asked one of your friends if they’ve seen the new, hilarious ESPN ad? (My favorite is the latest one with Dale Earnhardt trying to install a screen saver. Btw, why doesn’t ESPN put all these on their website so you can always catch the latest one?!) I’ll bet you’ve never had the same reaction to a Sports Illustrated advertisement…

Digital Cable 2.0…Revisited

A couple of months ago my cable provider (Insight Communications) sent us an announcement regarding their planned upgrade to “digital cable 2.0.” I was thoroughly unimpressed. That was then…this is now.

One of their new features that sounded lame at the time is actually pretty cool. I initially thought the enhancements to the free On Demand TV service were going to feature nothing but shows nobody watched the first time around. I was wrong. After flipping through the menus, I can see plenty of shows and videos I’d like to watch. Here are a couple of other reasons why I’m warming up to it:

Shows from channels that aren’t part of my subscription package. Videos from the NFL Network and a slew of other premium channels are available for on demand viewing. I don’t want to pay for full access to those channels but I’ll gladly watch some of the shows they’re offering for free.

Condensed versions of sporting events. Missed the Colts game on Sunday? No problem. Use this service to watch a version of it that’s compressed into about 15 minutes. The same service is offered for a limited number of hockey games as well.

On a related note, here’s an article in today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required) talking about how homegrown videos are slowly finding their way from the web to on demand TV services like this. Does it open the door for YouTube to cut deals with all the cable providers? Or do the cable companies try to create their own user-generated content sites? Probably a bit of both.

The YouTube (or any website) interface is a better fit for such breadth and depth of content though – the Insight menu system is clunky and the lag time from when you press “Play” till when the video actually starts is also a drawback vs. a web-based approach. Then there’s the advantage a website has for searchability vs. trying to find a particular video via your TV’s remote control.

Each platform has its strengths and weaknesses, but it will be interesting to see how quickly the YouTube phenomenon migrates to TV.

Fidelity vs. Convenience

Kevin Maney at USA Today provides some interesting insight on the fidelity vs. convenience factors of various forms of media. If you ask me, convenience trumps fidelity on just about every front. I guess that’s why I don’t go to many sporting events or concerts anymore. It’s also why so many traditional forms of media are in serious decline these days.

He talks specifically about what Comedy Central needs to do to their website to better compete with the likes of YouTube. If fidelity and convenience are on his two-dimensional x- and y-axis diagram, I think a third dimension needs to be added: Variety. Comedy Central can make their site as rich and interesting as they like. The bottom line is that if it only has Comedy Central content, a site like YouTube, assuming it maintains its high level of variety, will always be a more attractive destination.