Notes from the Internet World exhibition

Although the Internet World exhibition is largely a trade fair for online service providers, I’d noticed that several of the keynote speeches on Thursday morning were related to online video/TV. And so I wandered along to Earls Court, and learned several things in the process.

Peter Cowley (Endemol) – The rise of original digital video content

Peter began by recounting some statistics on the US online video market – such as there being 10.1bn online video views in February 2008 – a 160% year on year increase.

He then went onto talk about Endemol’s content strategy. They have moved into five areas

• Providing full-length programmes for catch-up (e.g. through the iPlayer)
• Licencing content from their archives (e.g. for Joost)
• Distributing clips of content (e.g. on Youtube)
• Repackaging clips from the archive
• Creating original video

Three case studies were shown to illustrate the fifth area

• The Cell – a show using green screen technology built especially for O2. A website and social networks were used to help promote the show. They aim to pay back O2’s investment by selling it both internationally and across platform. To do the latter, they had to ensure the production values were high enough to make the transfer from mobile to website to DVD.
• Beyond the Rave – funded by Hammer House of Horror (they of the classic films) and initially shown on Myspace TV through 20 x 4 minute shows. A DVD of the full show will be released, coming in at around 90 minutes once additional footage is incorporated. In order to make it financially viable, the production cost came it at under $1m.
• Gap Year – a global reality show on Bebo where six “contestants” travel for six months around the world. It aims to tap into the social side of Bebo by incorporating blogs, commenting, community, feedback and clips. It is fully funded through product integration, and so no pre-rolls are necessary.

Michael Acton Smith (Mind Candy) – The future of social games

Michael is a bit of a serial entrepreneur, having already set up Firebox and Perplex City. Having learnt some valuable lessons from the latter – “ultimately too deep and complex for the mainstream” – he has returned with a new venture – Moshi Monsters.

He is aiming to capitalise on the successes of both social gaming (which Nintendo has shown works) and virtual pets – which has a strong lineage from the pet rock to NeoPets via Tamagotchi.

Moshi Monsters is designed to be as simple as possible. It is aimed at 7-11 year olds, and is rendered in flash for interactivity. A lot of work has been put into the social element – there are newsfeeds, pinboards, friendstreams and widgets for Facebook et al. There is also an educational element – so participants gain currency for completing puzzles.

He mentioned Amy Jo Kim’s keys for success – collecting, points, feedback and customisation – and has incorporated each of these. The business model is subscription based but he is also looking to sell physical products, presumably to capitalise on the merchandising potential.

My favourite quote of his was on the advantages of playing against friends – “computers can’t cry”. How true.

Kym Niblock (BBC Worldwide) – Commercialising content propositions

Kym opened with a video (partially soundtracked to Patrick Wolf) punctuated with stats on the BBC. Essentially, as we all know, they are very, very big in many, many markets. Specifically related to the website, they have 1.4bn page impressions a month from 46m unique users – 29m of which aren’t in the UK. Since these 29m were essentially getting the content for free, the BBC felt it was necessary to monetize it.

But by doing so, they had to be sure that they wouldn’t unfairly punish UK users, whose licence fee money remains their sole contribution (outside of purchasing BBC products). Kym mentioned that their IP address identification software has been extremely successful and scores above the 99.6% accuracy rating that the BBC insisted upon.

Even though advertising content would be allowed, it does not appear throughout the website as sensitive stories will still be ad-free. The BBC are also very careful not to juxtapose the content with inappropriate ads (take note Facebook), with all ads checked for suitability. As well as banners, skyscrapers, leaderboards and MPUs, the videos also include pre-rolls.

Regarding the advertising, the BBC follow four key principles and safeguards:

• Ads should engage and not interrupt
• Ads shouldn’t take control away from the user
• Ads shouldn’t trivialise the output
• Ads should not give the impression that a story is there only because of the ad opportunity.

There was an interesting discussion about why an advertising model was chosen. Initially, a subscription model was favoured – replicating the licence fee, essentially. But while people were theoretically in favour of this, research found that few would be willing to pay. And since pretty much all websites now carry advertising, there would be no outcry if BBC.com suddenly carried ads. According to BBC research, 2/3 of people prefer ads to a subscription model, and 7 in 10 accept ads in return for an enhanced service.

Ravi Damani (TVguide.co.uk) – Listen to Your Users, and The Future of TV

The final keynote I saw was a double header. The first part – Listen to Your Users – was a case study on how TVguide.co.uk has succeeded with help from its users. According to Ravi, there are four main ways to listen to your users

• Feedback form on the site (along with a FAQ to improve overall quality of feedback)
• Actively encourage feedback
• Surveys
• Personal profiles

Ravi said that TVguide.co.uk gets 5-6 high-quality feedback submissions per day. The feedback is benchmarked and weighted for both feasibility and to ensure that “expert user” feedback stands out. Requests are recorded and put into a development timeline before being implemented.

He also mentioned that they are looking at multiple revenue streams for the site. Interestingly, he said that front-page takeovers were accepted by users since the programme information provided them value. Another option is partnerships with providers such as 4OD, where TVguide.co.uk would gain revenue from referrals.

The second part of the presentation looked at the future of TV, and the facets of online video. Ravi split his talk into the following sections

• Device – we are moving towards a unified device that can synchronise content across multiple platforms. Even at the moment, a laptop can become a second screen for information while you are watching TV
• Content creation – shows can now be released rather than scheduled, with different formats and prices, depending on ad type and timing
• Content delivery – iTunes has revolutionised the music market, and online can add to the number of viewers. When Gossip Girl was taken off the web, it only added 1% to the TV audience
• Aggregators – TVMotion became one of the most successful (if illegal) sites purely by linking to other content
• Social side – Microsoft have patented an IM for set-top boxes, and TV is of course a very social medium
• Ratings and reviews – Netflix has had great success with this, and is even running a competition to see if people can improve their recommendations system. It can be a mix of editorial and user-generated, to bring in that community element
• Revenues – somewhere between advertising and subscription. Hulu lets people choose the ad format. DRM can actually bring more cost than benefit – as in theory the DRM infrastructure needs to be provided for the lifetime of the product

Ravi then looked at the current players, and how they rated on each of these elements. Hulu and Bebo meet all of the criteria bar a unified device, while Sky doesn’t have the ratings or social element. He speculates that Kangaroo may be the first service to offer all of these.

I didn’t hang about after these keynotes, and so can’t really critique the exhibition as a whole. What I can say is that I was extremely impressed with the scale of it – even on the third day the venue was extremely crowded. As the organisers were awarded best business exhibition at the 2007 Event Awards, they must be doing something right.

sk

Advertisement

Will Google AdWords on TV change the market?

Photo by http://www.flickr.com/photos/dadalo/

Google has announced that it has taken its new TV Ads programme out of beta. Go see it for yourself here.

In theory, TV Ads is designed to democratize TV advertising in the same way that AdWords changed the online display market.

I’ll be following this with great interest over the coming months. Could it successfully change the TV ad buying market? While early days, I am sceptical. TV advertising is an inherently complex beast. At the moment, the system is severely limited, and I’m wondering whether it can evolve to incorporate the nuances of the TV advertising market.

There are several (fairly incoherent, I’m afraid) questions that are buzzing around my head at the moment regarding both the programme and the marketplace.

Questions regarding the programme, and Google itself

1. It is currently only available on the Dish Satellite network, a fairly small broadcast company. It makes more sense to dip the toe in the water first, but it is inherently limiting to the campaign. If it is a success, would larger broadcasters follow?
2. Unlikely, because mainstream companies won’t allow Google to hold information on their technology or customers. Can a compromise be reached on data ownership?
3. Speaking of compromise, could this endeavour dilute Google’s brand? AdWords makes a big thing out of contextual placement and targeting. TV Ads doesn’t offer any form of behavioural targeting. Will Google roll targeting out once they have accumulated enough set-top data?
4. On a targeting theme, advertisers can only specify (quite broad) dayparts at the moment. How long before they can purchase specific programme slots or audiences?
5. Finally, the Ad Creation software looks a bit suspicious. I quote, “It’s difficult to suggest a standard price – you might expect to spend anywhere between $100 and $1000 for your ad”. I have no idea what sort of creative agencies are signed up (not very expensive ones, by the look of it), but it shouldn’t be a production line. Is airing a bad ad better than airing no ad at all?

Questions regarding the marketplace

1. It is obviously a new model. Can an open auction replace agencies? Personally, I don’t think so. In many ways, agency opacity can be beneficial. How often do agencies pay list price for spots? Deals, favours and mutual back-scratching are par for the course. This flexibility works for both parties in the long term
2. Another strength of agencies is their size. They drive down price, and can switch inventory between clients when one runs into a problem. The open auction offers a different level of protection. No contract (other than T&C’s) and daily editing means advertisers can pull out at the last moment if problems are reached. If an advertiser pulls out, where does that leave the TV company? Last minute shuffling to avoid dead air space?
3. A final aspect of agencies to remember is their multimedia expertise. Campaigns can be TV-only, but they don’t have to be. Rarely do brands advertise purely on TV and no-where else. So, if an advertiser is having to go elsewhere for their press or online advertising, would it not be better to give TV to the same buyer? Particularly if the TV spots are the focal point of the campaign
4. And this is probable because TV is the mass medium. It has scale. It can reach more people at a quicker rate than other media. Is it really the right medium for budget operators? Yes, digital fragmentation means there are hundreds of niche satellite channels. But these are all national channels. While the Intertet makes national selling easy, it is often best to start small in a region and work your way up. Will a national niche campaign be too inefficient?
5. And finally, is democracy always a good thing? TV companies have the prerogative to refuse to air ads. Google makes it clear that all ads need to conform to editorial guidelines, but I’d be interested to see how this is enforced or upheld. Will they be able to prevent ads contravening guidelines – whether through politics or “taste and decency” slipping through the net? And more worringly, could we soon be seeing spam ads on TV? I wouldn’t rule it out, and this is not going to impress the channel operators or programme makers

Time will hopefully provide the answers to these ramblings.

I’d be very interested to hear other people’s views on this. Do you think this venture will be successful? What potential pitfalls do you see on the horizon?

sk

Links – 31st April 2008

Quite a lot of links this week (I had a quiet weekend) but the highest quality update so far. Some really excellent articles in here – well worth a bookmark!

Blog-related:

• Clay Shirkey’s widely blogged-about speech on social surplus NB: I have left comments on several blogs about this. I agree with his underlying point – there is a social surplus and creating great things like Wikipedia take up relatively small chunks. But social surplus is something that I think we are running short of already, and there does need to be a balance between active and passive entertainment. TV and gin are friends, not the enemy! A great, thought-provoking speech though – required reading for those yet to see it

• How Newton’s law works with brands (David E Bowman) NB: I love this theory encapsulating mass and proximity – simple and beautiful

• The full Heroes media experience (Fast Company) NB: When the makers of Heroes say there is a 360 experience, they aren’t kidding. Transmedia in all its glory

• How can we measure innovation? (Freakonomics)

• Pre-experience design (Russell Davies) NB: Extremely thoughtful post on the importance of the entire brand experience – the product as the service and so forth

• And Russell Davies again on the importance of design in advertising NB: I love the phrase Beating people over the head with crap is less and less viable. That will make for a smaller industry but hopefully a better one.

• Nigel Hollis and Hayes Roth answer questions on branding (Financial Times)

• Shops should pay more attention to the fitting rooms (New Statesman) NB: Another example of customer service being overlooked

• Thoughtful piece on Yahoo! becoming more open (Groundswell)

• Excellent, mind-bending essay on Schrodinger’s puzzle and the ever-changing digital sphere (Zero Influence)

• Record labels want a music tax – and it could work (Slate) NB: Though this would be the “thin end of the wedge”, to use a phrase I have heard a lot recently (after having never heard it before)

• Bertlesmann succeeding where others are failing (CNN)

• Wieden+Kennedy’s philosophy in illustrated format

• Does the new Cadbury advert show that creatives cannot direct? (Brand Republic)

• There are now more and more writers but less and less readers (New York Times) NB: This parallels (although direct causation may be tenuous) rising levels of content creation and interaction at the expense of passive consumption online

• White paper on content marketing strategies (Junta 42)

• On a similar theme, attention-deficit advertising (Business Week) NB: Linking on from the product as a service to the advertising as a service. If a company can provide something useful and brand it, it is win-win. Research shows people are willing to accept advertising if they are opting in to receive something useful

• A Miller sponsored blog is causing Budweiser’s ire (Wall Street Journal) NB: All is fair and love and business, but I personally find this a bit low and unnecessary

• Jeff Jarvis vs. Michael Tomasky on citizen journalism (Comment Is Free)

• Mechanisms for brand marketing integration (Branding Strategy Insider)

• Were Mesopotamians the first brand addicts? (New Scientist)

• Wiley have put a load of science books online for free perusal

• ebay fraud (The Register)

• 17 creativity-sparking websites (Lifedev)

• P&G are allowing their (potential) consumers a say in where they advertise NB: I don’t see the benefit of this – which niche but mobilised group can shout loudest?

• 10 worst job interview questions (Business Pundit)

• Starbucks coffee at home NB: Brilliant new website, again linking back to providing something useful for consumers. Apparently, the Africa Fatula is the coffee blend for me

Random

• World’s biggest useless things NB: This really struck a chord with me. One that I can’t really describe. Both melancholic and uplifting. How something essentially meaningless can reward people with pride and achievement. An analogy to blogging??

• How to touch up pictures (Wired)

• Fascinating blog of a person who is spending 12 months learning where all of his food came from, and how it is produced

• 7 sandwiches trying to make it in New York (New York Times)

• Free Tibet flags are being made in China (BBC)

• Did this man live to the age of 256? (Wikipedia)

• Extremely intricate Lego creations (otbeach)

• Many graphs showing the frequency in spam over time (xtdnet)

• Supermemo – the memory-improving tool recently featured in Wired

• Ways to trick out your desktop (Lifehacker)

• Guerrilla gardeners (Guardian)

• 15 great Kurt Vonnegut quotes (AV Club)

• Microsoft create an armband to control our fingers (New Scientist)

• Profile on Christopher Hitchens (Prospect)

• The “Amen break” drumbeat and the golden ratio (Constructing the Universe)

• Is anti-virus software overrated? (Lifehacker) NB: I had a tremendous amount of hassle trying (and failing) to change virus-scan software last year. Seems anti-virus companies are monotheistic

Among these excellent posts and articles, those I would recommend most highly are:

Blog-related: Clay Shirkey’s widely blogged-about speech on social surplus, How Newton’s law works with brands, Pre-experience design, White paper on content marketing strategies, Wieden+Kennedy’s philosophy in illustrated format and Starbucks coffee at home

Random: World’s biggest useless things, Guerrilla gardeners, 15 great Kurt Vonnegut quotes and The “Amen break” drumbeat and the golden ratio

Phew!

sk