Monetizing Online Content
June 5, 2009
Short honk: I read with interest “Soon, You’ll Have to Pay for Hulu” here. The story in Daily Finance alleged that the free video service will change its spots. My take on the story is that video may be more easily converted to cash than text. Demographic and user preferences take precedent over tradition.
Stephen Arnold, June 6, 2009
The Boyle Conundrum: Old Media vs New Media
May 26, 2009
My New York Times today (May 25, 2009) contained an announcement of a price hike. The hard copy of the paper contained a story by Bran Stelter that had an amazing quotation. I found the statement indicative of the pickle in which traditional newspapers and “old” media find themselves. The story was “Payoff over a Web Singing Sensation Is Elusive.” The story is on the first page of the business section, and you may be able to find an online version of the story here. No guarantees, of course. The article is about FreemantleMedia Enterprises’ inability to monetize Susan Boyle, a contestant on Britain’s Got Talent TV show. Ms. Boyle, “frumpy Scotswoman” according to the New York Times, is a Web sensation. Despite that popularity, no cash flows to the show’s owners. The key statement in the write up in my opinion was:
The case reflects the inability of big media companies to maximize profit from supersize Internet audiences that seem to come from nowhere. In essence, the complexities of TV production are curbing the Web possibilities. Britain’s Got Talent” is produced jointly by three companies and distributed in Britain by a fourth, ITV, making it difficult to ascertain which of the companies can claim a video as its own.
Maybe litigation will provide the solution to the Gordian knot of “old media” and its business methods. Meanwhile, the price of the New York Times goes up and Susan Boyle videos get downloaded. Why not blame Google where a search for “Susan Boyle” returned nine million hits?
Stephen Arnold, May 26, 2009
Copyright and the Real Time Microblog Phenom
May 24, 2009
Liz Gannes’ “Copyright Meets a New Worth Foe: The Real Time Web” is an interesting article. You can find it on NewTeeVee.com here. Her point is that copyright, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and other bits and pieces of legal whoopdedoo struggle with real time content from Twitter-like services. She wrote:
If you’re a copyright holder and you want to keep up with your pirated content flitting about the web — well, good luck. The way the DMCA is set up means you’re always chasing, and the real-time web is racing faster than ever before. Analytics services are only just emerging that will tell you where your views are coming from on a semi-real-time basis. That’s especially true for live video streaming sites such as Ustream and Justin.tv. Justin.tv, in particular, has come under fire by sports leagues for hosting camcorded streams of live game broadcasts. The company says it takes down streams whenever it is asked to. But the reality is, often the moment has passed.
In short, information flows move more quickly than existing business methods. An interesting illustration of this flow for video is Twiddeo here. Government officials have their work cut out for them with regard to ownership, copyright, and related issues.
But…
As I read this article, I thought about the problem Google has at this time with real time content. Google’s indexing methods are simply not set up to handle near instantaneous indexing of content regardless of type. In fact, fresh search results on Google News are stale when one has been tracking “events” via a Twitter like service.
As important is the “stepping back” function. On Google’s search results displays, how do I know what is moving in near real time; that is, what’s a breaking idea, trend, or Tweet? The answer is, “I don’t.” I can hack a solution with Google tools, but even then the speed of the flow is gated by Google’s existing indexing throughput. To illustrate the gap, run a query for American Idol on Google News and then run the query on Tweetmeme.com.
Two different slants biased by time. In short, copyright problem and Google problem.
Stephen Arnold, May 24, 2009
Google, YouTube, and Digital Volume
May 22, 2009
Short honk: A year or so ago, I learned that Google received about one million new video objects per month. TechCrunch reported here that Google’s YouTube.com ingests about 20 hours of video every minute. I don’t know if this estimate is spot on, but it is clear that YouTube is amassing one of the world’s largest collections of rich text content in digital form. For me, the most interesting information in the write up was:
Back in 2007, shortly after Google bought the service, it was 6 hours of footage being uploaded every minute. As recently as January of this year, that number had grown to 15 hours, according to the YouTube blog. Now it’s 20 — soon it will be 24.
Lots of data means opportunity for the GOOG. I am looking forward to having the audio information searchable.
Stephen Arnold, May 22, 2009
The Pain in Spain Is Tending to the Inane
May 15, 2009
Read “Recording Industry Tries To Shut Down Search Engine In Spain Without Allowing It To Defend Itself” here. If true, the Internet she be changin’. Search requires content processing. Robots index and point. Software becomes the problem.
Stephen Arnold, May 15’ 2009
Videosurf Update
May 15, 2009
Since VideoSurf’s birth in mid-2008 (Beyond Search reviewed it at http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2008/09/23/videosurf-video-metasearch/), it’s offered up a beta version (I wrote about it at http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2008/10/18/videosurf-looking-for-wave-of-new-users/), and now it’s opened up the API so developers can install “visual search” on their own sites. VideoSurf promotes itself as the only video search engine that can search and “see” inside videos to index content rather than depending upon tags and descriptions that can produce spam. The API allows accress to videos that can be selected to relate to site content; site can also tailor the displays to their promotional needs. See more about the API availability at http://www.videosurf.com/blog/search-and-video-lookup-apis-1039/. This could be a smart choice for sites looking to rev up their content while keeping it relevant.
Jessica Bratcher, May 15, 2009
Google and Dish TV
May 11, 2009
DISH Network is promoting a new Google service: Google TV ads. I saw the promo commercial on FSN Ohio during a baseball game. It’s all “testimonials” about how placing television ads on DISH Network has helped people’s businesses boom with hits and return on investment. Businesses can always use more ads at an affordable cost, and Google certainly has a lot of reach! You can see at product demo at http://www.advertiseondish.com, which redirects you to the Google cover page. Google’s definition: “Google TV Ads is a flexible, all-digital system for buying more accountable and measurable TV advertising. Using the familiar AdWords interface, you can launch a TV advertising campaign in minutes.” You can pick up the service at http://services.google.com/ads_inquiry/tvadsproposal using an existing AdWords account, and there’s a FAQ that even gives you price estimates. It’s a great idea. Not only can you tap Google’s online potential, now you can expand into the visual market as well without going through a marketing agency.
Jessica Bratcher, May 10, 2009
Microsoft and Search: Interface Makes Search Disappear
May 5, 2009
The Microsoft Enterprise Search Blog here published the second part of an NUI (natural user interface) essay. The article, when I reviewed it on May 4, had three comments. I found one comment as interesting as the main body of the write up. The author of the remark that caught my attention was Carl Lambrecht, Lexalytics, who commented:
The interface, and method of interaction, in searching for something which can be geographically represented could be quite different from searching for newspaper articles on a particular topic or looking up a phone number. As the user of a NUI, where is the starting point for your search? Should that differ depending on and be relevant to the ultimate object of your search? I think you make a very good point about not reverting to browser methods. That would be the easy way out and seem to defeat the point of having a fresh opportunity to consider a new user experience environment.
Microsoft enterprise search Web log’s NUI series focuses on interface. The focus is Microsoft Surface, which allows a user to interact with information by touching and pointing. A keyboard is optional, I assume. The idea is that a person can walk up to a display and obtain information. A map of a shopping center is the example that came to my mind. I want to “see” where a store is, tap the screen, and get additional information.
This blog post referenced the Fast Forward 2009 conference and its themes. There’s a refernce to EMC’s interest in the technology. The article wraps up with a statement that a different phrase may be needed to describe the NUI (natural user interface), which I mistakenly pronounced like the word ennui.
Microsoft Suface. Image Source: http://psyne.net/blog4/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/microsoftsurface.jpg
Several thoughts:
First, I think that interface is important, but the interface depends upon the underlying plumbing. A great interface sitting on top of lousy plumbing may not be able to deliver information quickly or in some cases present the information the user needed. I see this frequently when ad servers cannot deliver information. The user experience (UX) is degraded. I often give up and navigate elsewhere.
SearchMe Changes
May 1, 2009
SearchMe, http://www.searchme.com, promotes itself as “true, blended multimedia search.” You get video, images, music, web pages, Twitter results and more organized by relevance. It’s a visual slideshow interface, so you see a miniature web page instead of having to click through a link. Results returned for “Iron Chef Japan” varied, including a Flickr picture, a Yahoo! video, an About.com listing for Japanese food and the Fine Living channel profile of the show. Results for “NASA shuttle launch” were less impressive, returning the NASA home page, a CBS news article and a CNN news article, but no videos. I didn’t see any social media results on either search. The web site functions like Viewzi, which I talked about here, but doesn’t have the various entertaining display options. Searchme also has a best-selling iApp and is configured for several mobile platforms, which gives it a leg up on other visual search engines.
Jessica Bratcher, May 1, 2009
Bandwidth Cost
April 29, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who wrote, asking me to comment on the cost of bandwidth. His point of reference was the New York Times’s article “In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit” here.
“I believe in free, open communications,” Dmitry Shapiro, the company’s chief executive, said. “But these people are so hungry for this content. They sit and they watch and watch and watch. The problem is they are eating up bandwidth, and it’s very difficult to derive revenue from it.”
My views on this issue are well documented in my books and studies. Let me recap three ideas and invite feedback on these.
First, most users and content centric outfits make errors when estimating the costs of online access. Unexpected spikes in telco fees are even today in my experience greeted with surprise and indignation. I hesitate to suggest that bandwidth is assumed to be cheap, readily available, and without much technical interest. As the New York Times’s article points out, bandwidth is an issue, and it can be a deal breaker financially and technically.
Second, in theory bandwidth is unlimited. The “unlimited” comes with two trap doors. One is the money available to apply to the problem. Bandwidth, even today, is not free. Someone has to build the plumbing, pay for infrastructure, hire the technical staff, and work the back office procedures. The second trap door is time. It is possible in Kentucky to make a call and get more bandwidth. But within the last two months, we found that making this call did not result in immediate bandwidth. The vendor said, “We can reprovision you within 72 hours. Take it or leave it.” The reason the vendor made the statement I learned was a result of tightening financial noose around the vendor’s neck. The vendor in turn told me to wait.
Third, user expectations are now being shaped in a direction that makes bandwidth, infrastructure, and technical resources increasingly fragile. Here’s an example. Last night in a restaurant, a young man at a table next to mine watched a YouTube.com video on a mobile device. That young man in Boston and young people throughout the world see the Internet (wireless or wireline) as a broadcast channel. In my experience, this shift to rich media will put financial and technical pressure on infrastructure needed for this use of the Internet.
In short, I think there’s a cost problem looming. Will it arrive before the technical problem? Pick your poison.
Stephen Arnold, April 29, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
