Week 7 - Shorter Content Will Always Be Free

In Bill Wasik’s talk about modern media, he discusses how "shorter content will always be free". This is a rather generalizing statement, that is only made true when applying specific parameters to it. A more true statement would be "Short and non-unique content that lacks scarcity will always be free."

The "non-unique" component is necessary, otherwise iTunes immediately proves the statement false. Nearly all of songs on the iTunes music store could be considered relatively "short". However, if the standard song isn't considered to be short enough, there also exists a massive economy in the "ringtone industry" (which are generally 10-15 seconds in length). In other media, iTunes also sells several film shorts in there online store, some of which are quite successful. In the space of "unique" content, people are not paying for quantity, but rather an auditory or visual experience.

The "lack of scarcity" component greater covers content as information, rather than something experiential (like music or film). As Wasik pointed out himself, "short is inherently free because there is so much of it." For example, as long as there are thousands of individuals willing to share free videos of dancing kittens, the "Cat Dancing Video Industry" will never be able to monetize themselves. The same holds true with news. There is such an abundance of free news information, that it is silly for a consumer to pay for it. However, length ("shorter") does not play into the free aspect here either. There are plenty of services online that sell "Sports Handicapping" information at a premium. The length of this information sold is quite minimal, but because there is a scarcity of "expert" opinion, people are willing to pay for this content.

I think Wasik made the comment of "shorter content will always be free" as a way of degrading "free", for the sole purpose of emphasizing his point that we greater value the things we buy. With the surplus of content available online, it's easy to consume it all will very little impact. However, if we make some sort of personal investment into our consumptions, we are more likely to appreciate them.

Week 6 - The impact of Hulu charging

Under the pressure of its investors (primarily big media companies), Hulu is planning on converting itself from a free service supported by advertisers, to a paid subscription model. From an investors standpoint, this makes sense. The advertising on the website essentially cannibalizes the advertising revenue received from their television properties, not to mention at a rate substantially lower than that of TV.

As a free model Hulu offers a lot of value for its major media investors (which include the likes of NBC, Fox, Universal, and Disney) outside of its modest advertising revenue. Hulu was the first to market with an online service that offers premium content, and in a user friendly interface that actually works. Their successful marketing and implementation have led to an enormous user base and a strong brand. Having this popular property fends off alternative options, which are primarily piracy based. So while the revenue received from the advertising is small, it is better than alternative scenarios (zero dollars).

Investors like to make comments like "between $2 billion and $3 billion of professional produced content sits on Hulu -- supporting a $200 million market cap", and "trading analog dollars for digital cents", but those are manipulated comments in a failed attempt to draw sympathy and change. The content produced by these companies has a high fixed cost (the "$2-3 billion" spoken of) , but also a high margin (it costs near nothing to deliver and sell their digital media). So making a comment about the value of the content on the website is $2-3 billion, is a little like saying the content in a Best Buy movie shelf is $2-3 billion. The fact is, it is irrelevant. Most costs are made back and exceeded on initial sales, which in this case TV is broadcast advertising, and so the online revenue is all gravy.

Charging for Hulu is not creating a video apocalypse for digital storytelling, but rather just the creation of another revenue stream for big media. The occurrence seems to parallel when Apple first opened up the iTunes music store. Instead of people consuming digital music online for free (be it via piracy, or other alternatives), a new venue was opened up to purchase it. While it is definitely advantageous for music producers to distribute their music through iTunes, the store didn't kill independent producers from distributing or monetizing their music in other ways. The same is likely to happen with the Hulu, which if anything could be a benefit for online storytellers. Hulu could act as just a optional delivery channel, however not the only way to get a story told.

Week 5 - Telling a Tale

I tend to side against A. Kiedi Varga's statement that "the image is not a second way of telling the tale, but a way of evoking [that is, recalling it from memory] it." Using images in conjunction with words makes this statement true, as it acts as a compliment to the narrative taking place. However, I don't see this as a fact that spans across all media forms.

In "Narratives Across Media" (Ryan, 139) the authors describes how the ballet Sleeping Beauty has an established story, so a spectator of it recognizes the plot purely from his memory. It is then claimed that this same experience then spans across other mediums, including illustration and painting. The argument is that the stories are (in a way) being recreated by the images, as opposed to being told by the images.

The problem with this argument is that action, narration, and thus storytelling can in fact be told through a static image. A sense of movement and action can be created in a painting, as well as the creation of implied change in space and time. For example, imagine a painting of a man in movement over a hill, with a background of a house in a distance. How would experiencing this visually be different from a text stating "a man leaving his house, crossed over a hill". They both accomplish the action of telling a story, not evoking one.

One things required by the stories being told by static images is a prior knowledge of the medium. A person viewing a painting must understand how to read visual queues to be able to imply action. A person viewing a photograph has to have an understanding of how to interpret light, so as to follow the emphasis of direction. This takes us to a medium with no established prior knowledge, storytelling on the web.

Most frequently digital storytelling involves taking an established media (i.e video, photographs, illustration), combining it with other text and media, and then delivering it on a medium that is quite foreign to the media's origins. This can destroy the effectiveness of a lot of the media that can normally tell a story on its own. The most obvious example of this is with a painting. When a painting and placed in a confined and flat surface (of say a laptop screen), all sense of space and texture is lost. When these visual queues are lost, the image merely becomes a compliment to the accompanying text.

The structure of the web interface, if anything, calls for a new media of it's own. One that isn't tangled in pre-existing (especially organic) medias, but rather one that is specifically manufacture for a digital experience.

Week 4 - How I will be Leveraging Social Media, or not...

This week's blog assignment is titled "What do I want to do when I grow up?", in the context of how will I use all my "new found knowledge in social media" when I graduate from the program.

As I have been pondering this question, I have struggled not to have a cynical attitude about it, but I will do my best to remain positive in my response.

I suppose one could leverage the buzz around "Social Media" when they graduate, and then utilize their new found expertise as a commodity for businesses. We could easily sell ourselves as real assets for businesses looking for leaders in the hot new "social" space. I imagine a couple of years ago students did the same thing, except selling themselves as "Web 2.0" hucksters. And prior to that, maybe it was leaders in the "portal" industry (or whatever was the hot buzz word around then). And these same people probably said really gross things like, "I would be a great asset for your business, and knowledge in [INSERT BUZZ WORD HERE] is a highly valued commodity in the [BUZZ WORD] space. Let's synergize bitches!"

If you didn't pick up on my sarcasm, my point is that these technology fields are a never ending cycle of "what's hot and what's not". The truth is, once the hype dies down, these supposedly "life and world changing" technologies are really just tools. Fun and silly little tools. And eventually the tools become so ubiquitous that everyone forgets that they are even there, and then we all move onto the "next big thing".

I got into the program because I really DON'T know what I want to do when I grow up. I'm beginning to think I never will. Not that I really care though. Regardless of my cynicism towards "technology hype", I find these tools incredibly fun and exciting. And I find it inspiring to be around a community of others that are also excited. And hopefully the inspiration will manifest itself into an answer for "what I want to do...when I grow up next".

In summary, I really doubt I will leverage social media in any form when I get out. I think my dream is to find some sort of laid back gig where I get to create things, and continue to be surrounded by a similar community of peers that continue to get excited at the same silly technologies that I find interesting. Maybe I'll be a teacher at a Community College. That would be pretty awesome.

Or maybe I will be a game show host.

Week 3 - Print Websites Using Video

A print website that uses video quite effectively is CNet.com. CNet is actually a vast network of sites, and is best defined by WikiPedia: "CNET.com is CNET's online portal, providing access to CNET's reviews, news, downloads, price comparisons and CNET TV as well as web search powered by search.com." I have been personally using CNET for years for their product reviews section, and that is the area I will be focusing on.

It has really just been in the last 3-4 years that CNET really started placing an emphasis on utilizing video in the "Reviews" area. They really seem to have a keen grasp on understanding all of the different user types that our out there, and how to effectively use video on a website like this. There are essentially two types of users that interact with this kind of content. There are the type of users that want to jump on and get a quick review of the products benefits and limitations. The other type of user wants a full on tour of the product that includes visuals and expert and user opinions.

A sample of one of these reviews can be seen here:http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/flip-ultrahd-black/4505-6500_7-33637213.html?tag=mncol;lst.

As you can see CNET Product Review succeeds at offering an easy to follow summary of the product, broken down into the "Good" and "Bad" of the product. For those that are interested in reading a more through breakdown of the product, there is an extended "Editor Review" which follows.

Where the video succeeds is in acting as an extension to the content. They are short (usually maxing out at about 2 minutes), professional produced videos with perfect audio and video. They help aid the user is seeing the product "in action", and offer a clearer sense of what the product truly looks in when in the hand of a human. This is something that photos usually fail at, as often times products are photographed without giving a sense of relative size.

Week 2 - Arguments of "FREE"

Chris Anderson's theory that all things digital (information) are trending in cost downward (eventually to a cost of free) has a large amount of truth and merit, but a lot of it is dependent on the perspective you are looking at each example's instance. Where the critics tend to get it wrong is taking general concepts out of context.

In Malcolm Gladwell's criticism, he seems to miss the boat completely. He starts off with a propaganda scene at the beginning, to help build a tone of skepticism for his later arguments. This scene is led by James Moroney, the publisher of the Dallas Morning News, talking to congress about negotiations he had with Amazon. He complains that Amazon wants to take 70% of the revenue to publish his newspaper on the Kindle, and pleads for understanding of what a horribly impractical business model this is. He then rambles on hoping to gain the sympathy of his listeners. What Moroney leaves out of his pleads are the other benefits. The 30% gain is 30% profit for his company. There are no printing or material costs subtracted from this 30%. There is no distribution cost for this 30%. Also just think about all of the other costs part of the old "print" model. Storage costs, transportation, machinery.

Next it's Gladwell who fails to tell the whole story, as he goes on to defend the newspaper, "Amazon wants the information in the Dallas paper to be free, because that way Amazon makes more money. Why are the self-interested motives of powerful companies being elevated to a philosophical principle?" What is being left out of this is that the newspaper "profit" isn't being affected by the measly .50-$1.00 cost of the newspaper. After all, that barely covers the cost of the paper itself. Their profits come from advertising, and the higher the distribution rate the higher advertising fees they can charge.

Gladwell goes on to re-tell a behavior experiment described in Anderson's book, where the following happened:

"Ariely offered a group of subjects a choice between two kinds of chocolate—Hershey’s Kisses, for one cent, and Lindt truffles, for fifteen cents. Three-quarters of the subjects chose the truffles. Then he redid the experiment, reducing the price of both chocolates by one cent. The Kisses were now free. What happened? The order of preference was reversed. Sixty-nine per cent of the subjects chose the Kisses."

Gladwell starts belittling this concept by carrying over the same model to YouTube. He argues that the YouTube service, which is completely free to be used and abused by anyone, lost a half billion dollars last year. Where Gladwell missed the mark is the point of the experiment in the first place. The point wasn't to show that “free” has "the power to create a consumer stampede". It was to show how having ANY cost creates a barrier to entry. And when the cost is going to be so minimal, why have any sort of barrier. Those pennies aren't worth anything on the bottom line.

If losing $500 million dollars was of major concern to Google, why would they continue investing in the product. After all, the main cost for running the service is bandwidth, and in the last year they just started offer HD service (something that just eats up more bandwidth).

From the best I can see, Seth Godin best explain the reasons of "why" for the critics:

Like all dying industries, the old perfect businesses will whine, criticize, demonize and most of all, lobby for relief. It won't work. The big reason is simple: In a world of free, everyone can play.

The biggest impact of FREE for web-based is that you have to be as creative with your business modeling, as you are with the content producing itself.

Week 1 - Response to Article

How this concept of Social Media could impact storytelling on the web
Article: Microsoft gives up YouTube chase

What can be taken from this decision by Microsoft to drop Soapbox, is that any attempts to copycat YouTube are a poor decision for any business. YouTube has yet to show a profit for its parent company Google. In fact, the property is a costly money-sucker for the company.
The biggest thing that YouTube has going for it, is its early arrival in the video sharing space. Because of this, it has had the necessary time to refine the user experience and overall functionally of the service. On top of this, the brand recognition and user loyalty makes it difficult competition to go up against. As Rafe Needleman responded in the attached video, Microsoft's service was buggy, and totally lacked any "Community" integration, which created "not enough difference to warrant change from YouTube or other video sharing sites".

If it weren't for the fact that Google has such an enormous amount of money in reserves, there would be no reason for it to continue the service. One of the only other companies (in the technology field) that could match these economic capabilities would actually be Microsoft.
What this says is that the YouTube model is not a feasible business model, and we are unlikely see many new similar ventures enter the space in the near future.

The good news is that both Google and Microsoft recognize that being the video space is a necessity. If this were untrue, Google would drop YouTube, and Microsoft wouldn't take the time to revamp the Soapbox service (they would simply remove it). It's likely that one of two things will happen in the future regarding video sharing services. The first likelihood would be the cost of delivering video will continue to decline, so much so that it would make these businesses worthwhile. This would be a catalyst that would cause a resurgence of new ventures to re-enter the space. The second outcome could be a complete revamping the services, in attempts to constrain costs. The cost containing actions could include a limiting of what types of videos could be uploaded, and/or limiting a user from "freely" viewing videos (especially in an unlimited quantity).

The outcomes of the "video sharing" space will have a significant impact on storytelling on the web (and especially the producers of these videos), as these outlets are the distributors of our stories. We will have to work within the confines of their tools, and capitalize on the freedoms that they do present to us.