SF Chronicle: Facebook now directs more online users to portals than Google
Facebook keeps on growing its influence. Looking at some of the latest comparative online web traffic analytics, Facebook is nearly as big for generating daily unique visitors as either Google or Yahoo (click here for Compete.com's results). Labels: Analytics, Compete, Digital media, Facebook, Google, growth, Media Influence, Media Trend Watching, trends, Web Trends
And now the San Francisco Chronicle reports Facebook directs more online users to the major portals (like Yahoo and MSN) than Google.
That's big. And that's big influence. Which explains why Google is feeling threatened by social media's powerful growth lately.
Reports Benny Evangelista from the SF Chronicle @SFGate.com today:
A big part of the Facebook experience is how friends and family share Web links to interesting news stories, photos, videos and Internet sites.
Read more:
This "friend-casting" of information has helped propel Facebook into a major force in directing traffic around the Web.
According to Web measurement firm Compete Inc., Facebook has passed search-engine giant Google to become the top source for traffic to major portals like Yahoo and MSN, and is among the leaders for other types of sites.
This trend is shifting the way Web site operators approach online marketing, even as Google takes steps to move into the social-media world.
Some experts say social media could become the Internet's next search engine.
"People are spending less time navigating the Internet on their own and are now navigating the Internet based on their friends' recommendations or their friends' activities," said Dave Yovanno, chief executive of Gigya Inc., a Palo Alto firm that offers social-media services. "That's one of the big trends we started picking up on probably four or five months ago."
For years, Web content creators had to worry whether they had the proper level of search-engine optimization to make sure search engines listed them among the top results. Now, they have to consider what companies like Gigya offer - social-media optimization.
"Marketers must focus on social marketing in addition to traditional search, as customers have a multi-pronged way of finding information," said Jeremiah Owyang, a Web strategist for the Altimeter Group, a San Mateo consulting firm with clients like Gigya. "The clear-cut channels of yesteryear are now an intricate set of connections."
Using a snapshot of Web traffic from December, Compete's director of online media and search, Jessica Ong, found that 15 percent of traffic to major Web portals like Yahoo, MSN and AOL came from Facebook and MySpace. The lion's share of that traffic, 13 percent came from Facebook.
Google, which has profited handsomely from directing Web surfers to their destinations during the past decade, was third with 7 percent, just behind e-commerce site eBay, which had 7.61 percent. MySpace was fourth with just under 2 percent.
Surprise gain
The numbers proved eye-opening because Google used to dominate most Web-referral categories. "I was surprised to see Facebook has become No. 1," Ong said.
In other categories, Compete's data showed Mountain View's Google still on top, but Palo Alto's Facebook was not far behind. For example, Google accounted for 21.3 percent of referrals to sites catering to movie fans, but Facebook was second with 12.4 percent. And in a video category, Google - which owns YouTube - was first with 22.9 percent, but Facebook was next at 12.7 percent.
Facebook's meteoric growth as a Web destination was a factor. Facebook says it has 400 million active members, including about 225 million added in just the past 12 months. Its size now rivals that of major Web portals and its demographics mirror those of the Internet in general, Ong said.
"Putting all this information together, we can say that Facebook has become an integral part of the consumer Web experience, similar to how portals like Yahoo and MSN are part of most consumers' online sessions," Ong said. "So the message for the advertising industry is that more serious attention needs to be paid to social-networking sites like Facebook, and advertisers need to figure out how to leverage this traffic."
posted by Unknown @ Monday, February 15, 2010,
,
Formats are the Internet's Killer App
Formats are the internet’s killer app. Yet, they get little attention and even less respect.
Formats create more value online than content. Yet, content gets all the press.
There’s already a mountain of content available online – most of it free. We don’t need more content. We need better formats.
Formats have been around for a long time, packaging and organizing ‘content’ to make it worth a lot more.
Top 40 radio is a format. It takes about 40 songs that are ‘worth’ 99 cents each at iTunes and packages them so that can be worth millions in advertising. The Top 40 format adds millions in value.
We can see the same format power at work for Amazon, eBay, Zappos, YouTube, and Facebook . Formats have added billions in value online.
Amazon is a format. It doesn’t create content – it formats or packages it.
Amazon made a fortune because it formatted the department store online.
It formatted (organized) its store as a simple, one-stop shopping experience - with a series of ‘departments’ ranging from books and electronics to garden tools into -just as Sears had done in the physical world 40 years earlier.
And, Amazon made millions without manufacturing any ‘content’
Even eBay is a format. They are worth billions because they formatted the flea market. eBay simply created the packaging that sold someone else’s ‘content’.
iTunes formatted the online music store. And, the iPod re-formatted the record player.
Zappos formatted the shoe store. They don’t make shoes. They format the experience of the world’s best shoe store to appeal to shoe junkies. And, it works.
Or, consider Facebook. It formatted the reunion. It hasn’t earned much profit but it could sell today for billions of dollars even though there is no clear business model. That’s the power of formats.
The same is true about YouTube. It formatted the ‘home’ movie, never made much money and got sold to Google for over $1 billion.
Not surprisingly, the biggest online business of all, Google, makes most of its money from formatting, not from content.
Google makes enormous profits by formatting the ‘library’ experience for users and then selling ‘knowledge’ about user interests to advertisers. That’s the power of formats.
One could even make the case that the Mac operating system (OSX) and Windows are both a form of format. They organize the way we can use a computer.
If you make that case, then the ‘format’ that jumpstarted the world wide web – Netscape, is the granddaddy of them all. And, it sold for billions of dollars.
That’s why we’re bullish on formats and formatting. Because, there’s already a staggering amount of content available online – most of it free – and, most of it is not formatted well, if at all.
We see big growth opportunities for companies that get better at formatting. And, lost opportunities for those who don’t.
posted by John Parikhal @ Monday, June 08, 2009,
,
Google Squared
Google just announced it improved its search tools. They call it Google Squared, allowing Google searchers to fine-tune and filter their search results with greater precision. All you have to do is click the "More options" link right below the search field. Labels: 2009, Google, Media Trend Watching, search
Check out the explanation of the new tool below or click here:
posted by Unknown @ Thursday, May 14, 2009,
,
Radio and April Fool's Day: What Will Google Do?
Labels: April 1, April Fool's Day, Google, Hijinx, Pranks, Radio, Stunt, Top 100
For decades, radio station morning shows have pulled pranks and stunts on April 1st designed to be fun, to get maximum attention in their communities, and enjoy a little springtime April foolery.
Sometimes they swap hosts with competing stations...or changes languages...or their entire format for a day.
Some become famous, some infamous. Some are just bad.
Why do they do it? Well, at its best, radio is mental theatre for listeners, painting imagines and pictures in our minds. With a station's normal format, it can get a little stale-feeling and repetitious, especially to the programmers and announcers. By stunting for a day, it can freshen things for everyone and have some fun.
Mostly harmless, although not always.
This link has a quick history of April Fool's Day.
I wonder what crazy pranks will happen when we wake up tomorrow and turn on the radio? At the time of this blog post, it's a Twittering Trend for social media chat today.
Then again, office pranksters are pretty good, too...maybe you'll walk into work and see a surprise there...
For a list of the Top 100 all-time best radio pranks, click here (MuseumOfHoaxes.com).
And a few more here and here.
Googleheads know that Google takes radio's April Fool's Day pranks to heart and does their own versions of them. Since 2000, they've done some excellent ones, including showing exactly how their search algorithms work (hint: pigeons at terminals).
Here's a rundown from the BusinessInsider detailing Google's annual pranks.
Just like on the radio, I wonder what Google has in store for us tomorrow...
Will Facebook or Twitter pranks us next?
posted by Unknown @ Tuesday, March 31, 2009,
,
Googling You and Me
Labels: brand building, Chris Kennedy, Findability, Google, micro-blogging, Reputation, results, social media, social networking, Twitter
With all the talk about social media and micro-blogging, Twitter is catching a serious amount of online buzz as being the new tool for the next level of search: "real-time, conversational search".
It's great to have those you follow help you scour the web for news that matters and is customized for your needs. Will it only get more important in the next stage of web search development. Absolutely yes, especially when it comes to super-serving your "audience" and for overall web brand reputation building.
That being said, findability is still the most important aspect of search and online brand building. If you can't get found, your fabulous content ain't going a whole lot of places.
Google remains the 800lb gorilla of search...and it has no plans of releasing its dominance.
For the Jointblog, we are #1, #4, #6, #9 and #10 out of 29,000 webpage Google results.
For Media Trend Watching, the Jointblog is #2, #7 and #9 on Google out of 56 million results...need to get it back up to #1!
What about Chris Kennedy radio trend? As the editor of the Jointblog covering radio trends as an important subject, I'm very happy having all Top 10 first-page results on Google out of 60,000 results -- including my Twitter @KennedyCS for following.
Or just Chris Kennedy radio? Google shows we have #1, #2, #7 and #10 -- all on the first page, among 513,000 results.
Even just Chris Kennedy trend works on Google, where I am #1, #2, #3, #5 and #7 on the first-page out of 214,000 Google search results (again, Twitter shows up).
But just Chris Kennedy? Only #2 on the second page of Google out of 12 million results for posted articles from me...and #39 (page 4) for my LinkedIn profile. Need to use social media more to build up organic search results.
Using other search engines for Chris Kennedy Radio, Clusty has me as #1, #4, #5 and #7 on first-page results. MSN's Live Search, meanwhile, lists me as #1, #3, #4 and #10.
Looking good!
Getting to the top of the first page of Google organic keyword search results still is essential in order to reach your target.
When you google yourself or your company or your targeted interested, what do you find? Have you googled yourself lately? If you're not get the SEO results you need, what are you doing to fix the result?
Interestingly, using those social media and Twitter micro-blogging can help boost you to the top of the page.
posted by Unknown @ Friday, February 27, 2009,
,
Jointblog update
For the past 20 months or so, the Jointblog has remained relatively inactive as I've been involved in additional media business activities. Interestingly, the Jointblog remains tops in Google among many strong keyword searches, including media media trend watching (where the Jointblog is still #1 in search results). So the content seems to remain relevant (at least by search standards).
The 600 posts and articles contained within the Jointblog are still accessible as archives and easily searchable here on the site.
Over the next few weeks, I'll be reactivating the Jointblog and revamping it with fresh perspectives earned from my recent media field work and other insights. Stay tuned...meanwhile, enjoy and happy holidays!
--Chris Kennedy
posted by Unknown @ Wednesday, December 17, 2008,
,
Media Trend Watching: Radio Right Now
Labels: cellphone, FMQB, Google, HD Radio, Internet, John Parikhal, Joint Communications, Jointblog, Karmazin, Media, Media Trend Watching, MySpace, PPM, Radio, Sirius, XM
Joint Communications marks 30 years this month advising the radio industry through format programming, consulting, market research, marketing development and media strategy services.
The month of April also means it's time for John Parikhal's annual spring check-up as this week's featured FMQB cover story to discuss radio and the evolving mediaspace challenges radio faces in the immediate future.
Among the discussed topics:
> The proposed XM/Sirius merger -- including the financial and competitive implications as well as Mel Karmazin's catalyst role (puzzling; Stern probably helped save Sirius; Mel sees opportunities)
> The trend led by Clear Channel and other big groups toward privatization (more squeeze and bleed? And Clear Channel gets rewarded?)
> HD Radio (just another local spectrum)
> PPM ratings measurements (consistency of measurement will help)
> The cellphone (risky for electronic ratings measurement)
> Blink spots and other "Less is More" initiatives (applaud the experimentation; spare listener energy; don't invade the consumer)
> Radio's needed presence on the Internet and its mishandling of opportunities that went to MySpace instead (getting better...but still behind due to insufficient support staffing and streaming fee penalties)
> Google's new deal selling radio ads ("It's nonsense")
> The lucrative potential of selling and targeting the 30-59 year old demographic (so much money radio could grab)
> An updated look at radio's emerging trends (demographics!)
FMQB's chief editor Fred Deane gets it all started by saying:As the radio industry evolves at a rapid pace, critical decisions about the medium’s future become increasingly more urgent. Technology issues have enveloped the industry to such a challenging extent, that the call for radio leaders to be actionable has never resonated so loudly. John Parikhal has never met a challenge he didn’t like, he relishes the very concept. While Parikhal’s client list continues to remain firmly entrenched in radio, the macro version finds him involved with a variety of media and marketing companies. His latest foray with strategic Internet initiatives with some large clients has him thinking about the future 24/7. It’s spring and time for our annual check-up with one of our industry’s deep thinkers.
Thanks, Fred. All that and more...just click here for some great reading. Then come back and add your thoughts here on the Jointblog.
Additional reading: Thinking Through The Decision Making Process
posted by Unknown @ Friday, April 27, 2007,
,
Content Matters...But Distribution Rules In Media
Labels: Big Media, Content, Distribution, Google, Jointblog, Media Trend Watching, New Media, Time, Traditional Media, Viacom, What's Next, YouTube
Distributors are the ultimate media gatekeeper.
When Time magazine named "You" as its 2006 Person of the Year, it attracted mixed critical response. Some thought it was brilliant, others thought it was a cop out. Whatever. That editorial decision did announce something fresh: one of traditional media's pillars of print media acknowledged the cultural significance of today's digital new media reality.
2007 has delivered major changes within Time, including mass job cuts, retirements and restructuring as well as a new delivery date (Fridays instead of Mondays). It's also brought about many design updates and content adjustments, intended to tighten up the partnership between the weekly magazine and the daily updates of Time.com.
Among the subjects Time features more is a regular look at "what's next" in consumer tech and media, which grabs this media trend watcher's attention.
This week's "Curious Capitalist" writes that "Google Gooses Big Media" (wha?...what exactly does that mean?...has Big Media's butt been pinched?). For a traditional (mainstream, or MSM) print media publication to say "The search giant rewrote the rules of distribution and selling ads...The big movie, TV and print outfits may never catch up" is startling.
Why?
Well, first of all, they're admitting Google is now the leader steering media's growth -- not the TV, Print or Movie industries (and, by its absence, certainly not radio).
Secondly, while it's good news one of the biggest mainstream media publications in the world acknowledges new media's (and specifically Google's) importance in the total media mix...this "news" arrives several years late.
Lastly, Time Inc's viewpoint seems completely opposite of Viacom's effort to turn YouTube into SueTube.
The article does drive home excellent points, especially how it puncture's the tired adage that "content is king"."Content is king." It's a phrase uttered repeatedly by media executives making the case that the movies, music, TV shows, books and journalism their companies produce are the core of their business.
Yes, content matters...but that's a bit of a smoke screen. Distribution of content is what's always mattered. The owners of printing presses since the 17th century. The owners of radio towers and transmitters throughout the 20th century. The same has been true for the record/music industry, the TV industry, the cable industry...and now the top domains online.
It happens to be a dubious claim. Sure, movies, music and TV shows have value...But they alone have never generated the huge, reliable profits that keep investors happy and pay for midtown-Manhattan skyscrapers. No, the big money in media has always been in distribution.
Sometimes the media companies do this distributing themselves -- big media have long been defined by their ability to make sure their products are displayed prominently there. "The historical media play," says consultant John Hagel, "is having privileged access to limited shelf space."
Extending content value through syndication rights and efficient distribution "pipelines" (or "networks" or high-speed wireless linkages, etc.) is really where it's at. Always has been...and it continues to be that way.
The trend: Mainstream media is still slowly figuring out new, better ways to marry its traditional media distribution system with its online distribution opportunities. As archaic copyright rules over content control evolve (such as DRM), will regulations tighten or relax? The battle over the next 5 years will be fierce and worth watching.
What do you think?
posted by Unknown @ Sunday, March 18, 2007,
,
Copy That! Viacom Sues Google for $1 Billion
Labels: Copyright Infringement, Google, Lawsuit, Media Trend Watching, New Media, Traditonal Media, Viacom, YouTube
After years of watching Google's market cap soar and the Internet organize itself around Google's search engine findability, Viacom stepped in today and launched a billion dollar lawsuit, citing Google's unauthorized use of Viacom's content.
Blockbuster news...and not surprising, is it? The book publishing industry went nuts 4 years ago when Google's Book Search Project began (where Google digitally scanned and made available for search the complete text of books). Last month, additional royalties were approved to benefit audio creators, piling on more (prohibitive) costs for any radio stations streaming music online.
It was inevitible one of the major media video content creators would step up and say "enough...now pay up". And Viacom (with all its subsidiaries) is the world's biggest.
Good thing Google set aside about $400 million of its $1.65 billion YouTube purchase price to settle these claims (yes, they they were anticipated) but if the Viacom lawsuit it any indication it may get more expensive than that.
What is Google? Ultimately, it's a web navigating tool (or an agent) capitalizing on other people's content. Or, more specifically, other company's content. The public quickly discovered Google serves a valuable function in society.
However, corporate content owners have never happy with it; not only did Google take away some of their own brand buzz, they were also "stealing" content/$$$ (and profiting from that "stealing").
Nevermind that Google's service happened to build a brand new way to connect and interact directly with your customer, including selling, advertising, branding, promoting and sharing.
Last month, after months of negotiation attempts, Viacom decided to partner with upstart Joost instead of approving content-usage on YouTube because no usage/revenue deal could be worked out with Google. So Viacom demanded YouTube pull all Viacom content off the site.
However, Viacom might have a valid point (will the courts agree?). Prior to Google, if you wanted to know what was "happening", Viacom's MTV Network was the place to find out. Once Google became dominant on the web, MTV Networks's lost their grip among younger consumers. It was faster and better just to "Google" it.
Update @ 12noon: So how did Viacom/MTV Networks break the news to its people? Click here.
Google has been the epicenter of new media expansion since the dot com bust of 2000. Traditional media grudgingly accepted the benefit of piggybacking Google to get content found (expanding content to a wider online audience), even if it meant a loss of control over their owned content.
Google's success is simple too big for traditional media's comfort.
According to Reuters:Media conglomerate Viacom Inc. said on Tuesday that it was suing Google Inc. and its Internet video-sharing site YouTube for more than $1 billion over unauthorized use of its programming online.
C|net also has a report on this story here.
The lawsuit, the biggest challenge to date to Google's ambitions to make YouTube into a major vehicle for advertising and entertainment, accuses the Web search leader and its unit of "massive intentional copyright infringement."
Viacom filed the suit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking more than $1 billion in damages and an injunction against further violations.
Viacom contends that almost 160,000 unauthorized clips of its programming have been uploaded onto YouTube's site and viewed more than 1.5 billion times.
"YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site," Viacom said in a statement. "Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws."
Viacom said its decision to sue Google followed "a great deal of unproductive negotiation" with the company.
The Media Trend Questions: If Google loses the suit, Google should survive...but what "ripple" effect would it have across the Internet? Will Universal NBC, Disney/ABC (and on and on) also set up lawsuits? Could it go class action? Could this lawsuit lead to another dot com bust? Or, is it just the beginning of the next "whole new media world"?
Related FT.com article: Was Google's YouTube buy media overreach?
Meanwhile...: Mark Cuban weighs in with "You Go, Viacom!"
posted by Unknown @ Tuesday, March 13, 2007,
,
Findability: $10 Billion Spent on Search Marketing in 2006
Labels: Advertising, brand building, Findability, Getting Found, Google, Internet, Media Trend Watching, ROI, search, Search Marketing, Yahoo
Natural organic search is the most essential way to get found on the Internet. Websites not listed on the first page of Google keyword search results always generate sub-optimal traffic. Get found on that first page...and your desired brand advocates will respond.
Of course, getting to #1 is most desirable.
More and more, the corporate world seems to be understanding the importance of search marketing. That's a good media trend to watch, as these investments are already beginning to deliver strong ROI results.
According to an annual survey conducted by the Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization (SEMPO) relased last month, advertisers in North America laid out close to 10 billion dollars on search engine marketing in 2006 -- a 62 percent spending increase versus 2005. SEMPO found that based on its survey of 587 search agencies and advertisers, the amount of $$$ spent on search marketing will double by 2011, reaching $18.6 billion.
These figures include both paid search advertising and spending on internal search engine optimization.
The report says Google dominates the search advertising business. Among the marketers and agencies surveyed, 96 percent of them report using Google AdWords to promote their brands.
Yahoo! also does well, with 86 percent usage among search marketing budgets...
Meanwhile, less-used (and therefore less-cluttered) MSN, which has long struggled in a distant third-place position in the search race, has made great strides among advertisers, with 68% of advertisers saying they used MSN for their search campaigns in 2006, up from just 29 percent in 2005.
Key area for growth in search marketing: Brand Building
Search advertising for brand advertisers is still a less-than-mature growth category. Despite claims that more and more brands are using the Internet for branding, just 21% of search advertisers actually track or measure the branding impact of search for their campaigns.
Long Tail thoughts here
Brand Building: The Seven Doors of Connection here (pdf)
posted by Unknown @ Monday, March 05, 2007,
,
Crafty Google proofreading; Is it a test?
Google's meteoric rise the last 8 years generates extreme cases of media envy and worship everywhere. The "Do No Evil" company seemingly never makes a stumble, even when it acknowledges they made a bad deal custom filtering Google to make the Chinese government censors happy. Labels: gaff, Google, Jossip, mistakes, proofread, think differently
Still, Google just can't do any wrong, even as critics try to dig up the dirt.
CNN Money's The Browser spotted and authenticated it. Jossip then posted this funny today under the catchy headline title "Google CEO Eric Schmidt Controls $144 Billion; Declines To Shell Out An Additional $10 At Kinko's To Have Them Proofread His Business Cards":It hasn't exactly been a stellar day over at Google headquarters. First, the hot lunch was described as "tepid at best" by engineers at the Googleplex cafeteria. And now comes damning evidence that Google CEO and Chairman (sp?) Eric Schmidt is carrying around a typo-laden business card.
If it's one of those infamously-creative Google tests designed to evaluate potential job candidates (spot and fix the error, you're Google-ready), kudos. That's good "think differently" a la Apple.
posted by Unknown @ Wednesday, February 28, 2007,
,
2007 Trend To Watch: Widgets
Labels: dashboard, gadgets, Google, Jointblog, Konfabulator, Media Trend Watching, New Media, widgets, Wireless, Yahoo
Want to build your brand cross-platiform but having trouble getting it to happen online? Widgets just may be your answer.
And it's cost-effective, too.
The Jointblog has been a longtime fan of widgets since first discovering Konfabulator in 2004 (later purchased by Yahoo! a year ago). With the release of Window's new Vista platform, PC users will get a whole new array of widget options (also known as "gadgets") for the desktop which will pull more Internet activity off of web browsers and onto these customized mini-applications.
Widgets were one of several great additions for Mac's OS X system, epecially for its Dashboard advancements for 10.3 and 10.4 in the last year (expect even more once Leopard 10.5 and the new iPhone are released this summer).
And Google already has invested deeply into widgets, too.
In addition, as WiFi and WiMax helps make the web more accessible with mobile devices and cellphones, widgets will be the key killer app to make the web tolerable to use when mobile.
It's the perfect bridge technology bringing "old" media into the new media world.
Business 2.0 said "suddenly everything's coming up widgets." In November, Newsweek proclaimed 2007 to be the Year of the Widget and we couldn't agree more. Last month, West Coast wireless carrier AllTel previewed its new widget-handy cellphone tools and received rave reviews for it at January's CES.
Most powerfully, these widgets create focused user experiences giving exactly desired content immediately, on-demand, 24/7, when the user wants it.
For content owners, it also provides an advertising opportunity that can be built right into the widget app.
It's the media trend the Jointblog continues anticipating to grow in significance.
The big question: will traditional media sources such a radio, TV, newspapers and magazines be too slow to notice or will they see the low-cost, ease-of-use opportunity in time?
If radio could figure out its DRM and AFTRA issues, it could create the perfect bridge to build fast online tuning. For example, RadioSherpa's radio badges.
What's going on with your radio station this week? On your morning show? Latest contests and promotions? How about for your market's entire cluster of radio stations? It can all be done on one widget you build. Auomatically, through RSS and other feeders.
Nice and easy. For you. And, more importantly, for your listeners' digital online needs.
Good follow-up article: What's Up With Widgets?
For a quick review of why widgets matter now, here's a 2-minute YouTube/Engadget clip explaining the immediate value of widgets and why you should consider offering customized widgets for your own users to use, install and even embed into their blogs and websites (which, if done, can serve as a free form of marketing for you):
posted by Unknown @ Sunday, February 18, 2007,
,
It's about time: MTV/Viacom will make their video content available online -- on their own terms
Labels: Digital, Google, Jointblog, MTV, New Media, Viacom, Viral Video, YouTube
After announcing earlier this month all Viacom/MTV Networks content must be pulled from YouTube immediately, there's news today that Viacom is prepping to make its videos available again to hundreds of thousands of other sites...on its own terms.
Not yours.
Meanwhile, YouTube doesn't care...as they take another step toward world domination as they go mobile.
Back to Viacom, according to Reuters:In the next few months, Web users will be able to grab videos from nearly all MTV-owned sites and post them on their own blogs or Web sites, lessening the need to go to YouTube, the top online video service that Google acquired last year.
MTV says they need to open their websites and content for consumers and for other companies. It's all part of a strategy to bring their sites up to what they call "Web 2.0 standards", allowing "people to take content and embed it to make their own things out of it."
Viacom, owner of MTV Networks and the Paramount movie studio, had been planning for this move months before it demanded earlier this month that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized Viacom video clips from its site, after failing to reach a distribution deal.
Yes, this is a move that needed to be done. But what took so long? Not to sound like a complainer or a told-you-soer...but why didn't MTV/Viacom do this two years ago? Why wasn't MTV the leader making this happen instead of being a long-asleep follower? Does MTV/Viacom really think web users, bloggers and media trend watchers won't see this as anything but manipulation?
With all the synergy of the Viacom/MTV Networks content umbrella (not to mention the CBS "Innertube" launch from a year ago), shouldn't this have happened long ago?
posted by Unknown @ Monday, February 12, 2007,
,
Google says Internet isn't TV
Labels: Cable, CES, Digital, Google, Internet, Jointblog, MacWorld, Media, New Media, TV, Yahoo
TV is TV and the Internet is the Internet...but the differences between TV and Internet are getting more and more blurry.
You'd certainly see no difference if you went to last month's Consumer Electronics Show or MacWorld conferences, where the New York Times thinks the Internet is coming to TV.
High-speed broadband internet access is often bought from high-speed digital cable providers (who also sell VoIP)...so when we pay our monthly bill to just one provider, it gives the appearance TV and Internet might be the same thing.
View any late-night TV talk show and you'll see Leno, Letterman, Conan, Olbermann, Jimmy and Craig (and so many others) all making their own viral video picks found on YouTube.
If you read any interviews from AOL or Yahoo! execs over the past several years, you'll see a common theme describing the Internet as a new version of "interactive TV" and specific services they offer as "channels".
Internet access of audio/video programming through WiFi, WiMax, cellphones, iPhones and more.
So, aren't the Internet and TV becoming one-and-the-same? Certainly, they're sleeping in the same bed.
If 'a' equals 'b' and 'b' equals 'c', then 'a' equals 'c', right?
Interestingly, Google, which acquired online video sharing site YouTube last year, says the Internet is not designed for TV, according to Reuters News.
It even issued a warning to companies that think they can start distributing mainstream TV shows and movies on a global scale at broadcast quality over the public Internet.
So why does Google say the Internet is not TV?"The Web infrastructure, and even Google's (infrastructure) doesn't scale. It's not going to offer the quality of service that consumers expect," Vincent Dureau, Google's head of TV technology, said at the Cable Europe Congress.
Hear that sigh?
Google instead offered to work together with cable operators to combine its technology for searching for video and TV footage and its tailored advertising with the cable networks' high-quality delivery of shows.
It's a collective sigh of relief from global TV broadcast executives finally hearing -- directly from Google -- that even Google sees limitations in their expanding empire. That TV will still keep its own platform. And that the Internet industry and the TV industry are capable of co-existing.
Does that mean they sleep in separate beds or in separate bedrooms?
posted by Unknown @ Thursday, February 08, 2007,
,
Viacom demands YouTube pull down videos
From the Really Bad Idea newsfeed, this just in from Reuters... Labels: DRM, Google, Jointblog, Viacom, Viral Video, YouTubeViacom has demanded that Google-owned online video service YouTube pull down all of its video clips after they failed to reach an agreement, the company said.
Of course, this decision also affects popular viral video clips from fake news phenoms The Daily Show and The Colbert Report...and many other Comedy Central shows.
About 100,000 video clips from Viacom-owned properties including MTV Networks and BET has been asked to be removed.
Viacom said its pirated programs on YouTube generate about 1.2 billion video streams, based on a study from an outside consultant.
What, Viacom wants users to submit to their greenscreen challenges...but also wants to clamp down on fan-driven shared postings of show highlights?
BoingBoing reports Viacom basically "terrorized" YouTube by searching and spamming back 100,000+ take-down notices for all Viacom/CBS/MTV Network content they auto-found.
Sure, makes sense when you are trying to protect your ratings and your DVD sales potentials...but how about advertising and marketing costs?
Or elusive, unmeasurable "buzz"?
Does Viacom really think Motherload or Innertube is ready to replace the reach and usage of YouTube now?
Or are they just pissed seeing the montage of CSI:Miami's David Caruso and his sunglasses ripping classic one-liners? ("Have we been sent to the crime scene...or sent to destroy it??") (And The Who says "Yeeahhhh!...we won't get fooled again...")
Wow...talk about smacking your most-active audience in the head.
Just imagine the blog protest PR nightmare this might create.
The real reason Viacom is making this decision? Another effort to regain content control...when the Pandora's Box opened up long ago.
Will this move hurt the viral video surge of the last 18 months?
As the kids say, WTF?
posted by Unknown @ Friday, February 02, 2007,
,
