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,
,
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,
,
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,
,
