Matthew Johnson

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 18:47:00 +0000

If you are truly a diznoid (my term for an over-the-top Disney fan) and think you know all there is to know about an "extinct" attraction from EPCOT in Walt Disney World in Florida - then give yourself a little test with this quiz and see how you do:

EPCOT Center's Horizons quiz

Good luck!

New Company to Predict Social Buzz

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:39:00 +0000

In an article for AdAge.com, author Mallory Russell writes of Horizon Media investing $1 million of seed money in a tech company that specializes in predicting social media buzz before it starts. (Adage.com)

The company is called Blab, and their employees are full of experience in agencies and technology. They track what is going on in the social media in a specific interest group, like many other new social companies. However, the major difference is this ability they claim to have of predicting what these interest groups are going to talk about. This data is then provided to marketers to give them a head start.

Blab uses machine learning to focus on conversations on social media in order to target interests rather than demographics. The idea being that with advance knowledge of what is about to become social media buzz, marketers will have more time to react, allowing them to be ahead in the game, rather than catching up.

Horizon’s Chief Digital Officer, Donnie Williams, stated in an interview with Russell, that Blab would provide “data that allows us to anticipate hot topics upon which we can generate brand momentum through advertising.”

An interesting point made by Russell: Horizon does not have a history of investing in startup companies like Blab – which has 10 employees in Seattle, and is doing some tests with their current list of 12 clients. Also, Blab, thus far, has been self-funded. Randy Browning, Blab’s co-founder and CEO, stated, “We are building an engine vs. a platform…. We wanted to be able to control the development of the engine as much as possible, so we wanted to find the right investors.”

This will be very interesting to watch – to see if this technology of Blab’s is really that good. Sounds a bit creepy, if you ask me; a computer is going to know what I am going to talk about with my friend before I talk about it. Hmm. Creepy indeed!

UK's Channel 4 to Become More Social-Like

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:09:00 +0000

In an AdAge.com article, Emma Hall writes about a new television channel being started by the U.K.’s Channel 4, which will dedicate its programming to shows that generate the “most buzz” on social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter.

Each of these programs will include the positive and negative comments of viewers. According to Steve Parker of The Social Practice, “It’s an interesting idea and starts with a good insight by tapping into behavior that is already happening. With social-media analysis tools, you can look at sentiment and volume and build your schedule for the next day.”

Hall mentions that in the UK in 2011, more than 90% of all television programs were still being watched live, so the impact of digital video recorders and video on demand were still rather limited. This fact will be a benefit, then, for this new network, as many viewers like having choices, but ultimately, they want their choices organized for them.

Jim Dowling, a partner with a company called Cake, which manages social media for Sony, Ikea and others, has said, “The opinion people trust the most is that of their friends, not TV critics….”

This is exactly the point that many proponents of leveraging social media as a tool for advertising have been trying to make. And it is true: that old adage that word of mouth is the best advertising rings true now more than ever. It is interesting to see a broadcaster is actually listening to its viewers and adjusting their programming accordingly, but almost in real time and not through the filter of ad dollars causing changes in programming. So, as social media influences TV viewing habits, we will see how well this new channel performs with this unique approach to scheduling. It will also be fascinating to watch and see how many other channels follow this format – particularly in the U.S., especially since a few months back, YouTube had announced it was going to become more “TV-like.” Very interesting for sure.

Lessons Learned for a Business Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Mon, 28 May 2012 03:19:00 +0000

Dr. William A. Cohen has been a real inspiration to me in regards to my business plan. I have been particularly impressed with his advice to focus on the executive summary; he suggested keeping it very brief, but specific, because investors want a quick read that really “hits them.” (Videojug.com)

Dr. Cohen’s other advice is to pay attention to the table of contents. This is something I will need to address in my plan and make some adjustments. As he explains it, potential investors want to see exactly where the data is located, so they can quickly turn to it and see what they feel is important. The table of contents is what directs them to that information, quickly and concisely, without superfluous data.

Growthink founders, Dave Lavinsky and Jay Turo, also impressed me with their list of key attributes to a successful plan, particularly the notion of using reverse engineering to understand how to best establish action plans. Also, the idea of “communicating ‘brilliantly’” is something I am striving to incorporate into my plan, focusing on my audience and speaking appropriately to them in this document. (Growthink.com)

These suggestions have given me great guidance in developing my plan, and have provided great inspiration in making changes to my plan. These have also focused my attention on the most important sections of my plan. The executive summary is my most important piece, as it expresses the mission of the business and the who, what, where and why. The financial data is also very important, as it offers a very good picture of how things will be setup and what can be expected from the company. It also shows the plan, financially, and the potential for the future in regards to the earning potential.

By focusing on these sections, and adapting what I’ve learned from the experts, I believe my business plan will benefit greatly from what I’ve learned from others and from my research.

Expert Opinions on Business Plans

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Sun, 06 May 2012 21:03:00 +0000

One expert on business plans is a company called Growthink, which specializes in the building of successful business plans. The founders of Growthink are Dave Lavinsky and Jay Turo.

Dave has lectured at many universities over the years and has written many articles on the development of effective business plans. He is a successful entrepreneur, having started many businesses over the years, and has sat on the board of the Los Angeles Regional Technology Alliance. He has an MBA from UCLA and a BA from the University of Virginia. He resides with his wife and two children in New York.

Jay has helped lead Growthink into one of the top companies in the country in the areas of strategic and financial advising for entrepreneurs. He has worked with a large number of new companies, and has been an active investor – as well as a writer and speaker – in entrepreneurial endeavors. Jay also earned his MBA at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, and his BA was earned at Stanford University. He is married, with two children, and lives in Los Angeles.

On a Growthink video, Dave explains about their five key attributes of a successful business plan:

· The right value proposition – offering customers what they truly want
· The right marketing and sales strategy – well-thought out/comprehensive plans
· The right business model – think through all possibilities; this model is more important than the industry
· Using reverse engineering to develop action plans – look ahead 5 years, then work backwards from there
· Communicating “brilliantly” – business plans are marketing documents; think about who you are marketing to (lenders, employees, partners/distributors, management)

(Growthink.com)

Dr. William A. Cohen is an author and founder of Institute of Leader Arts, and has penned more than 52 books and provided guidance for over a thousand businesses and marketing plans. He is a former Major General, graduated from West Point and flew 174 combat missions in Vietnam, and earned numerous military awards. Dr. Cohen has a Ph.D. in business management from the Peter F. Drucker School of Management at Claremont Graduate University. Dr. Cohen also has his own website, www.stuffofheroes.com.

On Videojug.com, Dr. Cohen offers his advice on what a business plan is, and what the most important parts of such a plan are. He references the importance of a plan when he referred to a statement one often hears, “Until you have it in writing, you don’t have it.” (Videojug.com)

Dr. Cohen says the most important parts of a business plan are the executive summary and the table of contents. He explains that the executive summary is very short, but it is so important because when you are looking for money, all investors will read that first – the summation of what you are going to do. This is very practical matter for investors who may be reviewing hundreds of business plans each year; they want a brief overview – and if it “hits them” it will go in one pile, otherwise it goes in another pile and is rejected.

The table of contents is important, because it provides the potential investors with a direct guide to find the information they want to read. Dr. Cohen clarifies that if an investor, for example, has a background or expertise in finances, he will want to focus in on the financial segment of your business plan and not have to search for that data.

According to Dr. Cohen, the key to a successful business plan is to “Adopt a structure that you’re comfortable with.” He comments that he feels a business plan is your story, and it should be fun, and if it isn’t, there is something wrong with it.

http://www.growthink.com/businessplan

http://www.videojug.com/interview/business-plans

Congrats Doesn’t Equal Ad

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:33:00 +0000

Michael Jordan is in the news again – this time for court action of the legal nature, as he has file suit against a Chicago grocery store.

Authors Tammy Brandt and Brian Socolow, of AdAge.com, explain that it was in 2009 that Sports Illustrated produced a commemorative edition of its publication, in which local Chicago businesses, among others, publicly congratulated Jordan on his election to the Basketball Hall of Fame.

The “ad” from Jewel grocery store was a full-page, offering praise from “a fellow Chicagoan,” yet the judge in the case recently upheld their claim that it was not an actual advertisement; so congrats doesn’t equal an ad.

Jordan had argued that the congrats ad was an infringement on his business interests, as well as on his trademark, and sought to exploit Jordan for the store’s commercial gain – all without his permission.

With this ruling, it means that advertisers actually have some protection from the First Amendment regarding lawsuits filed by celebrities. In this case, Jordan argued that the store, with its logo and slogan right there on the full-page, were intended to help its image, increase its value and ultimately serve as a promotion for the stores.

The judge explained that the presence of the logo and slogan were used to identify the congratulator and to personalize the wishes as being from a fellow Chicago entity. He further explained that the congrats ad did not actually propose or invite a commercial transaction – which is what an advertisement normally does, and which helps distinguish “commercial speech.”

To further understand this case, we must note that the Jewel did not approach Sports Illustrated, they did not buy the advertising space, nor do they own the magazine in which the ad was published. Now, if the ad had appeared in the store’s local circular or on its website or even its page on Facebook, it would have been a different story.

Ultimately, the case is not completely settled: there is still room for appeal. However, it does mean that, while congrats doesn’t equal an ad, many other forms of content does – so the advertiser, or congratulator, must be very careful in choosing their messages, especially when tied to a well-known individual.

Two Girls Saved by Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:49:00 +0000

Earlier this month, Simon Dumenco wrote in Ad Age MEDIAWORKS about a marketing campaign that was almost over before it even got started.

It turns out that Fox Sports in Detroit decided to try to improve fan support and interest, so two young women were hired to act as “ambassadors.” When the campaign with Lauren and Allison was launched in April 2011, the feedback that first month was not very positive.

While there were only a few emails complaining about the campaign, there were some rather nervous execs, who were concerned about the negative opinions about the girls being nothing more than “mannequins.” The complaints were taken seriously, but the campaign had not yet been put into full-action.

Lauren and Allison started making appearances at various events, as well as reaching out to fans via social media, and then things started to happen; they became local celebrities as the fans started to enjoy the efforts being made by the Fox Sports team.

But, just to get a better feel for how this campaign was really doing, Fox Sports started working with a company that focuses on analyzing social media, Bluefin Labs. There had been almost 6,000 comments about the Fox Sports Detroit Girls on various social media outlets (mostly Twitter and Facebook), and the results were much better than expected.

The breakdown of the comments includes the following: 16% mentioned actual sightings of Lauren and Allison; 13% stated that they loved them; and 53% were actual conversations with the girls on Twitter. The overall results were, 26% neutral, 73% positive and only 1% negative:

http://adage.com/images/bin/image/bluefin_FOX_SPORTS_DETROIT_march_2012.png

The Fox Sports team was very pleased, as this research showed that the effort to connect with fans was working, as the overall response was so positive.

It was stated that, without the analytics from Bluefin Labs, there might have been an early end to the campaign, based solely on the few negative remarks received within the very first month.

Fox Sports is so buoyed by the results that there has been expansion to include just such ambassadors in an additional eight markets, with sights on even further growth of this campaign.

Check out this great MSN video: Real Life Tron Motorcycle

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:51:00 +0000

Check out this great MSN video: Real Life Tron Motorcycle

TV Rewards with Viggle

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:20:00 +0000

In an article on AdAge.com by Simon Dumenco, the introduction of a new app for Apple products was announced following a conversation with the writer and the president of Funtion(x), Chris Stephenson. The app, Viggle, is available from the iTunes store and is supported by such companies as Verizon, Capitol One, Burger King and Pepsi. The idea is for viewers to “check in” with their favorite TV shows using this app and earn rewards for doing so, such as movie tickets or food discounts. Simply put, watching TV will get you free stuff.

The whole idea follows the research on second-screen interaction during television broadcasts, which states that 70-80% of viewers use a mobile device, tablet or laptop during their TV viewing.

In his interview with Chris Stephenson, the author asks whether this is a drive to get people back to watching live programming, and Stephenson answers that it is not a direct goal – but it does happen, so it is a side-benefit, one which makes networks happy.

Interestingly, there are no contracts with networks as this app is launched, and no one is excluded – but Viggle does have “creative relationships” with networks they are working with.

In addition, Viggle has its own advertising, but it is based on the ad being viewed – it if is not viewed in its entirety, the company is not charged for the ad.

http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/image/medium/viggle_iphone_art_rewards.jpg?1327517010

So this is a new social element for TV viewing, but in this article, Dumenco brings out the point that, according to Stephenson, this Viggle app is “going to change the way people watch TV.” Whether that actually happens will be evident in the coming months; but one can’t help but wonder if this will be a benefit to the networks or a curse? From the explanation, networks will actually be competing for viewers by “buying” Viggle points to reward their viewers. Perhaps this is exactly what network TV needs – another means of monetizing their programming and enticing the viewer to take a look at the network offerings. Should be interesting, to say the least.

TV Everywhere means Billions!

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:34:00 +0000

In a January 20^th article for the Hollywood Reporter, Georg Szalai writes of the opinion from one analyst who feels TV Everywhere could be a literal gold mine for the industry.

Szalai pens that the initiative to get content from pay TV available on multiple platforms has been quite slow. However, according to the analyst with Needham & Co., Laura Martin, the wait may indeed be well worth it, as she predicts the total revenue for this venture could top $12 billion annually.

Martin is quoted as saying, “These dollars dwarf any near-term revenue streams from digital platforms (Hulu, YouTube, etc.),” and that “these are low risk dollars as adding services to the TV bundle suggests additional revenue rather than economic cannibalization.”

Szalai further writes that Martin believes the big time content owners, such as Disney and Time Warner could see the biggest gains to their advertising revenue, as much as 12% or $10 billion annually, because they are the farthest along in rolling out their products to TV Everywhere.

As for the operators of pay TV, this initiative has the potential of adding an estimated $1.7 billion to their revenue stream from the addition of these new services. Martin feels the big boys of cable, like Time Warner Cable and Comcast, are most likely to see these increases first as they are among the early adopters of the TV Everywhere initiative.

Szalai concludes the article with one more drool-worthy notion from Martin: if these predictions are accurate, then this initiative could very well bring in anywhere from $24 billion to $48 billion – apart from the above mentioned revenue – to the TV economy from additional market value, over the next five years. The industry is currently valued at about $330 billion of revenue annually.

While these figures are quite extraordinary and sound exactly like the type of figures the industry needs to make this initiative happen even faster, I wonder what these projections are based on. Szalai doesn’t give any references other than the fact that this is simply one analyst’s opinion; so what I’d really like to see, then, is what data Martin is basing these figures on.

This kind of money should be enough to get this initiative moving into a higher gear. One might even expect to see the government take measures to back it even more to stimulate the economy! But, perhaps that is a bit too far fetched. This is really quite the rosy picture – and it will be interesting to see how accurate Martin’s projections are; but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see – it will take time for the true value of this initiative to be known, but it certainly seems like a win-win situation for all interested parties: content providers, distributors, and viewers. Let's hope this equation doesn't change and we can finally enjoy TV Everywhere!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-tv-everywhere-could-create-283561

Monetizing Yourself

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:20:00 +0000

In an article on adweek.com, author Ki Mae Heussner writes of the notion that consumers’ data is a form of currency, and –of course- there are companies out there willing to help us “cash in.”

Heussner shares some background data that is astounding! For instance, there are companies in the United States that are spending more than $2 billion annually on third-party data about consumers. Heussner further notes that, when you include what is spent on credit data, research of the market and other information, this data business is actually a multi-billion dollar business. The comment is made that some futurists are calling this personal data of ours the “new oil.”

While this is staggering data, the fact is simply this: companies are willing to spend money to get to know you and your personal habits, wants, and activities – and also your whereabouts. Yes, location tracking is included in this industry. But Heussner points out that consumers are not real hip to all of this collecting of information about themselves. The results of a study in the first half of 2011 reveal that 46% of us “definitely would not consent” to letting their current location be made known to advertisers.

There is an increase in the number of companies coming to us with an offer of control over our information. They apparently want to help us keep our data safe and protected. But, in reality, they want to help us make money (either earned or saved) by allowing our data to be given to advertisers - which allows them to make money. Did you really think these companies would emerge to help us if there wasn’t something in it for themselves? Of course not. If you are willing to watch a video from a targeted advertiser, you can earn some form of money – and the company helping you keep your data safe and connecting you with only those advertisers you want to have your info, well – they will get 10% of whatever you earn.

This business of personal data protection and tracking is considered “data lockers” with various offerings to consumers, like making it easier to fill out those order forms online, or keeping track of your personal preferences so the advertisers you choose to convey your data to can make it easier for you to complete your online shopping, with the right sizes and styles, etc. Interesting that Heussner points out that in 1999, Microsoft already tested this type of business – remember “Passport”? Ultimately, it failed due to several reasons, but two biggees were the fact that consumers simply didn’t trust it, and there were some security problems. I guess 10+ years should have those concerns pretty much resolved now, right? Aren’t you feeling more comfortable already?

There are experts that feel this trend is on the way, but admit it isn’t there yet. Of course, getting consumers to understand that they can turn their information into some type of value can take time, especially when the words “personal” and “data” are continually used together with reference to consumers and business. It is made clear in this story that we already do this to some extent with our airline frequent flier programs – earning money for certain buying habits. But I think that is a little bit of a stretch in the comparison. But, maybe we’ll all be OK with the big advertisers knowing that we really have a soft spot for those little ice cream bon-bons. I don’t mind - much.

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/whose-life-it-anyway-137537

Entertainment Law Lessons

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:38:00 +0000

I reviewed three stories from podcasts on EntertainmentLawUpdate.com, and I found each one very interesting and applicable to my own business endeavors.

First was the case of Viacom suing YouTube because of some videos uploaded by viewers may have been infringements of Viacom’s copyrighted material. In 2010, the district court ordered YouTube to remove the material. However, it is interesting to note something called Red Flag Provisions, which state that an Internet Service Provider should know about any illegal actions on its web site and take action. YouTube believes there is greater room for interpretation of these provisions, insisting that Viacom inform them which videos are the problem. Viacom insists the responsibility belongs to the ISP to search their content to remove any questionable material.

This situation speaks to the need to know what is being done in the name of a company; as with YouTube, even though they are not creating the content, they are being held accountable for action on their web site. This will be important to keep in mind when others are representing my business or when my business is representing others – the highest form of integrity is essential, just as is the need to be aware of what is done with the name of my company.

This podcast can be found @ http://traffic.libsyn.com/entertainmentlawupdate/EntertainmentLawUpdateEpisode026.mp3

The second case involves a screenwriter posting a treatment of a script online at Reddit.com, entitled Rome Sweet Rome, the story of what would happen if US Marines went back in time to fight the Roman soldiers. Warner Bros. saw it and bought it. Apparently, Reddit.com, not the writer, holds exclusive rights to the material. Conde Nast owns Reddit.com. The web site is designed as a discussion post for works in progress, but perhaps not as a marketing tool. But the problem is with the terms of service and the control that Reddit has.

The cautionary tale here is that if you’re going to share your work for comments from the public, be sure to read the terms of service for exclusive rights – be sure you own these rights before you post.

This one can be found @ http://traffic.libsyn.com/entertainmentlawupdate/EntertainmentLawUpdateEpsiode025mp3.mp3

The last case involves LimeWire (a peer-to-peer file sharing program), which is allegedly involved in piracy of music files. A settlement was reached between LimeWire and major record labels. However, when Merlin, a managing company for smaller independent labels, approached LimeWire, they said they did not know these smaller labels or the Merlin company, thus no settlement was offered. The question that arose is whether this third party, Merlin, has rights to represent independent labels in pursuing legal action against LimeWire.

This situation illustrates the need to be sure agreements are completely understood, especially when it comes to representation in legal matters. This will be important to my business as it will be involved with various outside vendors and third parties, so knowing exactly where my company stands with regards to all rights will be vital.

This podcast can be found @

http://traffic.libsyn.com/entertainmentlawupdate/EntertainmentLawUpdateEpisode024.mp3

Netflix, Monkeys and Piracy - a commentary

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:27:00 +0000

Netflix lawsuit dismissed

The class action lawsuit against Netflix was recently dismissed in a California court. According to a Hollywood Reporter article, the lawsuit claims Netflix had an illegal arrangement with Wal-Mart regarding DVD rentals, and that the agreement lead to antitrust actions by Netflix, resulting in higher prices for its DVD rental members. The suit alleges that when Netflix and Wal-Mart signed this agreement, and when Amazon did not enter the DVD rental business and Blockbuster went bust, the moving of Wal-Mart DVD customers to Netflix was an illegal move to raise Netflix prices and was intentional from the beginning.

In the decision by the judge, it was stated that Wal-Mart was an independent party and its decision to pull out of the DVD rental business was an independent move, not a collusive effort by Wal-Mart and Netflix in order to gouge customers.

This is most interesting, as it seems to be more of a frivolous lawsuit than a real issue. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the plaintiffs were sure that this agreement was illegal and a concerted effort by these two companies to turn DVD rentals into a monopoly for Netflix. The fact that the other DVD rental companies have gone under or gotten out of the business seems to be a coincidence. The DVD rental industry has been in flux for some time now, and it is impacting many media companies and retailers, not just the DVD rental companies. For some consumers to think this was collusion seems rather ludicrous. This decision supports the notion that the industry has been, and is in, a real state of change and adapting – this is mandatory for any business wanting to stay alive.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/netflix-antitrust-lawsuit-tossed-265363

Monkey owns copyright

If a monkey takes a picture with a camera, who owns the rights? That is a very good question, and one that was recently addressed by the US and British Copyright laws. According to the law, any image created by a non-human is immediately in the public domain, which causes some problems for Cater’s News Agency, whose photographer apparently lost control of his camera temporarily only to find images on the camera that he had not taken. The agency claims the right to control the images, but the law says otherwise.

This is hilarious! A monkey grabs an abandoned camera and snaps a self-portrait or two. It would seem the photo, taken with the photographer’s camera, would belong to the photographer. But according to both British and US law, this is not so – and the funny business ensues. So, the monkey actually owns the rights, so the photographer – technically – cannot sell or license the images to anyone, not even himself. This had been addressed in theoretical discussions about a stranger taken a photo of you with your own camera, but no one really gave it much thought since it was unlikely the stranger would pursue the rights. But this is very unique, especially since the photo is so darn funny! And in perfect focus, too!

This brings up some other points: what about the photos taken by robots? Or those activated by motion sensors or other devices? I’ve not read the law, but based on this story, one might think there could be other, similar issues.

http://ipandentertainmentlaw.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/bananas-for-copyright-law-who-owns-pictures-snapped-by-monkeys/

The Stop Online Piracy Act threatens Internet

Bill H.R. 3261 first emerged October 26^th, and has caused some controversy. It’s goal is to counter the actions of web sites located outside the United States which are involved in several things, such as the sale of fake prescription drugs and the piracy of entertainment content. HR 3261 has a companion bill that was introduced earlier in the year, the PROTECT bill (Preventing Real Online Threats of Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act), and it, too, has stirred up quite the storm, as more than a hundred law professors from around the country have sent letters to the Senate arguing against the issues raised by these bills.

Concerns include the over-breadth of the bills, as imposing penalties, which can include taking a site down, if there is any content that is an infringement of copyright law – regardless of source or who posted it. Another concern is the vagueness of the bills regarding this infringing material: the term used that is in question is “facilitates” in conjunction with this infringing material. So, if the site facilitates the infringement of illegal copyrighted material, the site can be in violation of the law. But nowhere in the bill is a definition of “facilitates” provided. This generates tons of questions regarding this vagueness, and the potential for a lot of problems for many websites.

This is a very interesting situation, as the distributors of creativity and the creators of creativity are pitted against each other at a time when they can only truly survive with the existence of the other in a kind of symbiotic way. One would think there would be a way for these two to work together on a solution without the intervention of the legislature, but apparently that isn’t the case – yet. There must be something done about piracy, yet having such stringent and vague laws that open up the potential for even more litigation against legitimate businesses doesn’t sound like a viable option. Hopefully common sense will reign supreme, but as Will Rogers said, “The problem with common sense is, it ain’t common!”

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202533827542&Stop_Online_Piracy_Act_Puts_Future_of_Internet_at_Stake&slreturn=1

YouTube announcement - It's going to become more television-like!

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:32:00 +0000

In an article by Todd Spangler in the hard-copy edition of Multichannel News, I read that YouTube is "going professional" with an agreement with various entities to produce professional looking content for its 96 new video channels.

This is very interesting, for a pioneering site to be developing itself like this, to finance and provide professionally produced content for its growing audience; it sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? Among the partners YouTube has teamed up with are Madonna, Shaquille O'Neal, Ashton Kutcher, Deepak Chopra, The Onion, Jay-Z, Hearst Magazines, Varsity Pictures and The Wall Street Journal. This is quite the eclectic collection, in my opinion. But, if you're trying to fill up 96 "channels" you need content providers, so maybe this is a great opportunity to see what these providers can deliver.

Spangler explains in his article that one reason to launch on the Internet is the cost. "It's extremely expensive to create and launch a linear TV network....” And the position Google (parent of YouTube) is taking with this endeavor is that of "growing the universe of video entertainment and news options available to consumers." And, according to Barclays Capital analyst, Anthony DiClemente, “This is Google’s first step toward providing a more robust platform for professionally produced independent content, and… positions Google to act as a distributor in a bid toward capturing incremental ad dollars that are traditionally directed toward TV.” (Spangler, 2011)

This is all very interesting, as it sounds very much like Google is trying to turn YouTube into a traditional distributor, with content produced with that professional look so many enjoy on traditional TV, and with the advertising so many almost loathe on traditional TV, and it sounds a lot like YouTube is trying to become more like traditional TV with it’s many production companies creating content for the masses and the big ad dollars. So, YouTube is becoming the newest provider for television service. Very interesting – it all seems so “traditional” – but with a twist, of course. Funny, that old adage of “what’s old is new again” seems to ring true here, even with the twist that these will be independent production and not the traditional content producers we’re accustomed to. And it sounds like this is all being orchestrated in this way to garner those all important ad dollars. It will definitely be interesting to see how this new venture bodes for Google’s YouTube. It seems like YouTube is working on growing to become so very much like the traditional TV that web enterprises like YouTube were originally trying to break. And the traditional TV networks are becoming more and more like the TV of the future I’ve read about in other courses through the years, with the end of linear networks as we now know them, evolving into the video-on-demand networks, where each viewer becomes the program scheduling department. It appears as if these two approaches by these different “camps”, if you will, are evolving into each other almost. Truly fascinating developments in this realm of the glowing box, or screen. I will be very interested in following the success of these changes coming to YouTube; who knows, maybe one day soon I’ll be able to sit down and turn on my TV to channel 1006 and watch the YouTube network’s new Fall lineup featuring the new game show “What’s My Line?” – you never know.

Spielberg and Jackson: Off on another adventure (?)

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:51:00 +0000

In a film review of The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, Jordan Mintzer writes of Steven Spielberg’s next endeavor to be available to the public. It is very interesting that Peter Jackson has teamed up with Spielberg on this trilogy, as he is not even directing this film, but is waiting for the second installment before helming the production. Another familiar name, and even more familiar soundtrack wizard, John Williams is also on-board for this adventure. But among the most interesting things about this next film series is that most Americans have almost no knowledge about the leading character, even though he’s been world-famous for decades. Another interesting point is the style being used to tell this story: motion-capture animation.

First off, Tintin is a Belge comic book character that was published in Europe from the 1930s through 1976. Having lived in Europe for a few years, I am familiar with Tintin. But mention that name in the States, and most people think of another star, namely a four-legged hairy one, Rin Tin Tin. So even though Tintin is like the Superman of Europe, he is not well known here – and perhaps that is why: he’s native language is French and he does not herald from America. That fact that Spielberg had taken enough of an interest in this character says a lot: many things Spielberg touches have an instant “value” added to them; even though not all of his works are blockbusters, there is a great amount of worth added to anything that has that name associated with it. The reviewer of this motion picture states that this comic book character is actually a throw-back to Spielberg’s best known work: Indiana Jones. And Mintzer writes that this story is no exception: it is full of adventure and humor; the types of things movie goers love to consume together.

To the other interesting point of this being told using motion capture, I have my concerns about this method. Not that it can’t be a great storytelling medium – it can be. Even though some of it is a little odd, The Polar Express has become somewhat of a favorite in my household. But then there is Disney’s Mars Needs Moms and A Christmas Carol, both motion capture films. While A Christmas Carol reaped approximately $325.5 million worldwide (McClintock), which is considered a “so-so” earnings, Mars Needs Moms only garnered $6.9 million on opening weekend – but it cost probably more than $200 million to produce and market. Disney was so concerned with the viability of “mo-cap” as it is known, that they closed down the production arm that makes these types of movies. This medium has truly been embraced with open arms, and as McClintock mentions, the public tends to enjoy mo-cap better when it doesn’t feature humans. Thus, I’m puzzled with Spielberg’s decision in its use for this new movie. But, maybe it will be the one that wins over the public and we will then start to see an upswing in mo-cap movies, just like the huge influx of CGI movies that were green lit by everybody after Toy Story was such a success.

I believe the name Spielberg is the clincher here, though. That alone will get audiences to take a look. So it will be interesting to see what happens after this release – which is apparently in this December; I’ve not heard a thing about this movie’s release until researching for this blog posting. I hope it does well, but I do have my reservations. As I said, maybe Spielberg will be the magic that is needed to make this character a truly world-wide name and will renew interest in motion capture animation. Now we must simply wait and see.

Interview with a Deal Maker

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:30:00 +0000

I recently spoke with a colleague, Josh, who is in the advertising sales business, selling available commercial time on a cable television network. I asked a few questions about his negotiating practices, and his answers are featured below:

I first asked Josh about the challenge of separating people from the problems in negotiating, and he responded, “When in negotiations with clients, who in a majority of the time are friends, I have to separate the friendship from the business relationship. A lot of buyers like to use the friendship as leverage to get a better deal; however, I just always put the business objectives of the network ahead of any friendship.”

Then I followed up with a question of dealing with the negative emotions that often arise in negotiating. To this, Josh said, “In direct response [advertising], we deal with a lot of negative emotion, especially when a client is bumped or just not clearing. We deal with this by offering the client an alternate option or options, and they’re usually satisfied.”

When I asked about using leverage and power, he answered that during “the past two years, the sales teams certainly had the leverage with all the money coming in; we were picking and choosing what business to take. However, everything is cyclical, and I never abuse any power I may have at the time.”

I then questioned Josh about how he deals with shady tactics or tricky deals, to which he simply answered, “I personally only experienced one shady tactic, and my way of dealing with it was to go to management, make them aware of the situation, and then just handle it the way our company policy tells us to.”

Josh continued, explaining about his take on mutual benefit negotiations. “I don’t really like to do any mutually beneficial deals. In my negotiations, I have seen it backfire badly. I sell what we have at the rates needed to achieve [our] goal. I will, however, always try to help clients in any way possible to make their deals work. I never make any promises or guarantees, but I usually am able to get them some sort of deal, if need be.”

Facebook Not Getting Into Content Creation

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:08:00 +0000

In an article on streamingmedia.com, author Adrian Pennington writes about a keynote speech at the broadcast trade show, IBC, by Joanna Shields, European vice president and managing director for Facebook. Shields states that all the talk of Facebook entering into content creation is just that, talk; there is no truth to the rumors.

Shields did state that there is a strong tie of television to social media, and that “all TV will be social in the future.” (Pennington) Her opinion is that TV was the first of the so-called social networks, and she believes television is actually a better medium when it is indeed social, involving the viewer in entirely new ways.

This is very interesting, as Shields further explains that she believes the use of Facebook by its 750 million users will provide new viewing experiences, making the whole process better, and even creating new sources of revenue. Her main point was that media companies who partner with Facebook could tap into the same power to share its users possess, of sharing with others the things they care most about.

This is a most interesting concept, as Facebook has turned into a hub of connections: people, print media, TV, radio, etc., all have an outlet offering with Facebook. Shields sees this as a natural resource that can be monetized, in a “word-of-mouth” sort of way, but on a much grander scale – especially when one considers the Facebook facts: on average, Facebook users have 130 friends, and if an item is shared with each of those friends, and with the friends of those friends, and so on, the potential is 2.1 million friends of friends of friends – and these are people talking about products and programs that they care about, not just random eyeballs or ears. (Pennington)

Examples of monetization, as provided by Shields, include: sponsored stories, movie rentals, voting on a television program, and playing games. Her biggest concern, as it should be, is that of possibly missing something in this ever-changing world of interconnectivity. It will be interesting to see how much of this speech comes to fruition in the coming months and years.

Fox closes door on TV’s free lunch

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:41:00 +0000

In a July 27, 2011 column for AdAge.com, Brian Steinberg writes about the latest development in the disappearance of “free TV”, namely that News Corp.’s Fox is ending the availability of new episodes of such popular shows as “House” and “Fringe” to online viewers who don’t pay some type of subscription fee.

Steinberg makes the point that there are many viewers who forget that producing such favorite shows takes capital to cover expenses such as on-camera talent, special effects, and shooting on location. He continues to explain to us that advertising used to provide that cash flow, and while this has not completely gone away, it is much less than it used to be. In 2004, the pre-season sales push called an “up-front” snagged as much as $9.5 billion in contracts for networks, but this year, the amount was down to around $8.8 billion to $9.3 billion. It sounds like a .2 difference isn’t that much, but when you consider that represents $200 million, that is a lot of money, the cost of producing many episodes of a television episodic for quite some time.

One of the points Steinberg stresses is about Hulu, and the fact that, while Hulu Plus is a subscription service that does bring in money to networks participating in supplying content for viewers, the free on-site selections are supported by ad sales alone, and this is a fraction of what networks are used to getting. But the interesting thing here is, Hulu is partially owned by Fox. And as Steinberg mentions, one would think that Fox would be interested in using whatever tactics it has available to drive traffic to this site by offering popular, free programming. Now, with Fox pulling back on content, it seems the days of free online video by Hulu may be coming to a close.

The crux of this action by Fox is really this: the distributors of TV content will make sure the viewers pay for the ability to watch their content, whether it be local news or the latest and greatest reality program; it will be paid for, by the viewer, through un-skipable advertising spots or through subscription fees or maybe both. Steinberg makes an excellent point, “TV, especially in these days of rapid technological change, is best thought of as a business associate. Sure, the thing is friendly, but there's always the expectation of money hanging in the wind. Fox just made that abundantly clear to those who were looking for a hug rather than making a handout.” (Steinberg)

TED.com Inspires

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 23:16:00 +0000

Eric Whitacre: A virtual choir 2,000 voices strong is the TED video that truly moved me. The collective effect of his words, his presence, and his experience – and, of course, the music - was very inspiring.

Eric grew up in a small farming town, in high school he wanted to be a rock star, but he did not read music, though he did play around with synthesizers and drum machines. When he went to college, he was surprised there was no program for rock stars. He was invited to attend choir, but his high school experience was that only geeks were in the choir. With friendly persuasion – and the lure of good-looking girls – he agreed to join.

On his first day in choir, the choir began singing “Kyrie” from Requiem by Mozart. Suddenly, Eric felt as if, after seeing the world in black-and-white, he was now seeing everything in vibrant Technicolor. He was awestruck by what he heard. He said by joining choir, he felt he was part of something bigger than himself – and it inspired him to do more.

A couple of years later he was reading and writing music, and he composed a piece as a thank you to the conductor who had opened his ears. Eric completed his master’s degree at Juilliard and is now a professional classical composer and conductor.

When he saw a YouTube video of a young fan singing one of his pieces, he was struck with an idea: organize a virtual choir of singers from all around the world, recording themselves singing different parts of his piece, “Lux Aurumque.”

In this TED presentation, Eric showed a portion of the 2,000 voice virtual choir – and it is absolutely stunning! The harmony and the smoothness and the depth are truly moving and unlike anything I’d ever heard or seen before.

What is so impressive is the way Eric shares this experience – and the actual music and video is just remarkable. To think those individuals, recording themselves while watching a video of Eric conducting the piece, could sing in such a way and develop such unity, is truly amazing. I particularly liked the way Eric describes his waking up to see the world in Technicolor; very rich imagery.

Eric’s passion is, not only the music, but also the use of technology. He was so surprised at the response this project received, that he started a second project, second project. He was inspired that people will go to great lengths to join in an event, to have a common bond and to connect with others, and he’s found that they have all developed an esprit de corps amongst themselves. Very moving piece – definitely worth watching.

Producer's Guild of America

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 02:36:00 +0000

The Producers’ Guild of America is the industry association I am interested in. Surprisingly, the PGA is not a union, as I’d supposed, but truly an association of those working in the same type of position in the industry: producers and executive producers.

The PGA is involved in job placement for those seeking producing positions. They also offer medical and dental benefits, as well as participation in the Motion Picture and Television Industry pension plan. The PGA also has various discount offerings on car rentals, hotels, amusement parks and various events. This all comes from joining the guild, with membership of over 4,000.

While the PGA represents producers of motion pictures, television shows and new media productions, they are rather selective on which types of productions are covered. Productions that count towards producing credits must be created for nationally broadcast television (network or cable) stations, wide-release theatrical productions, direct-to-home video programs or established new media productions. While one may think this is rather broad, when considering all of the productions not included in the PGA’s criteria, it would seem a large segment of producers are not eligible for membership. For example, the guild does not recognize commercials, music videos, PSAs, TV pilots, telethons, student films, interstitials and promos, non-domestic films, and short films.

The PGA is very much involved in legislation, particularly in the realm of enhancing the quality of producers in the industry and who can actually claim credit for being involved in producing responsibilities. The guild is working with the Department of Justice to obtain a business letter urging studios and companies creating programs to use the “p.g.a.” mark in all productions. This mark signifies that the producers on the project have met specific requirements, as outlined by the PGA, and that it is not open to simply give such credits to anyone involved in ancillary producer responsibilities. One example the PGA gave was “The King’s Speech” in which 11 individuals were given producer credit. The PGA feels this is a bit too much. But it requires further involvement of the federal government, because without such a business letter, many studios will not use the p.g.a. mark, feeling that it doesn’t add anything to the product. Such a move by the federal government would help to validate those who are truly fulfilling the duties of producers, and not simply given credit for some unrelated work or reason. This is good for the industry; it helps to ensure the quality of productions, maintaining the integrity of the producer’s role. (Variety)

Mobile Use Exceeds the Demand for Advertising

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 06:08:00 +0000

There is a very interesting news piece in AdAge today, which states that Pandora Media Inc. is becoming so popular that it is struggling to sell all of the available time for advertising spots – which means it is actually losing money.

This is truly an interesting dilemma to be in: something so popular is becoming too popular to keep up with the demand for advertising time, something probably difficult to fathom for many ad execs in light of the down-turn in the traditional television and radio markets.

The article reports that, in spite of this concern - when one takes a big-picture approach to the situation - it is realized that Pandora’s online radio business will likely gain from the increased advertiser interest. They have a tremendous amount of experience in handling the big brands, but they will need to improve their local and smaller market sales processes to see the increase and stability.

I found it very interesting that in the marketing industry, there was all this worry about the decline in advertising dollars being spent on traditional media, and the broadcasters were not sure about the annual “up fronts” being successful. Yet here I read that brands such as Anheuser-Busch, Taco Bell and The History Channel are running ads focusing on Pandora’s mobile users – very targeted – adding to the total marketing dollars spent on 2014 campaigns of $2.55 billion on mobile alone (more than double the current amount spent). This doesn’t seem like a downturn in advertising at all – just a little shift in the focus.

The article does point out that among the challenges Pandora must tackle are the increased licensing fees for rights to music; the increased competition looming from Apple and other tech companies who are venturing into the online music market (as well as Sirius XM Radio, Sacker Radio and Rdio Inc.); and the lack of a dedicated sales force for the local advertisers. It looks like they have a lot to focus on in order to turn their popularity into dollars.

To read the article, go to Pandora Mobile Exceeding Demand

Project Management in Independent Films

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:34:00 +0000

I came across an interview between a blogger, Elizabeth Harrin, and an independent film producer, Michael Savva, and I found it to be an interesting read; though it is regarding a film produced in the UK, it is still relevant to project management anywhere.

Michael Savva states in the interview that one of the key things he learned from producing his independent film, Still Waters Run Deep, is that - even with a plan and management, things will always go wrong; the unexpected will happen. One example he gave was that of the lead male actor he had cast: at 3:00 a.m. the morning of the first day of shooting, the actor called up Savva and informed him that there had been a death in the family and he would not be able to do the film. In spite of this, Savva was able to get another actor by the afternoon of the shooting day and things continued as planned. Savva stated that the way he was able to resolve this dilemma was to acknowledge that he did not have the contacts he needed to find another actor, but he had five other actors signed on who knew other actors, so he turned to them to reach out to their contacts and found someone who worked out great. (Harrin, 2011).

This is an important aspect to keep in mind when managing projects, regardless of the type; too often I think we may have a very difficult time maintaining control and realizing that we don't need to know everything, but we do need to know where to turn to find the solution. Even though, as a project manager, we are in charge and responsible, we can - and should - turn to others to find the answers we need. And this is exactly what Savva did - he needed an actor, so he turned to the other actors he had, since he knew they already had those contacts, and this immediately increased his ability to resolve the problem in a timely manner. Had he relied solely on the actors he personally knew or had auditioned, he would have had to postpone shooting by days if not weeks.

Savva demonstrated the concept that managing a project, and staying on task, requires more clear and level-headed thinking, rather than a large ego demanding control over every detail without asking for help.

Harrin, E. (January 17, 2011) http://www.pm4girls.elizabeth-harrin.com/2011/01/managing-a-film-project/. Retrieved 11 July 2011.

Disney Does an End Run

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:10:00 +0000

At least, that's what we used to call it when I was a kid; an end run - taking the football and running like heck around one tight end or the other, hoping to be so fast the the defense is taken by surprise. Anyway, that is what it kind of sounds like with the recent news that Disney will modify their web site, Disney.com, to offer content download and streaming: film, TV shows, games and other content.

The CEO, Bob Iger, stated that, "We believe we have the opportunity to deliver content directly to consumers through a proprietary platform," and that it will be, "a place to go to learn about all things Disney and to consumer our product directly."AdAgeDigital/Disney Relaunch

I find this fascinating, since this action will now put Disney in direct competition with some of their distribution partners such as Hulu, iTunes, Amazon and Netflix. It seems like Disney want to go straight to the consumer without any other clutter along the way. Mr. Iger said this was part of a healthy strategy - that the more pathways of distribution, the better. It will be interesting to see how the competitors feel about this.

But Disney has always been willing to test the waters of many new technologies or new methods. So kudos to them for taking such a bold step. I think it is a logical step - it just makes sense to have content available from the content producer. I kind of prefer it that way; for one, it offers a sense of security, that the content is the original, unaltered version originally created by the producer. It also streamlines the brand availability; when you want to get a Disney film, where would you turn? To Disney, of course; it just makes sense.

To me, it is no different that wanting an In-N-Out Double-Double - but going to the grocery store or some generic burger stand; if you want the real deal, you go to the place that makes it. This is how I see this news of Disney making its own content available on a revamped Disney.com. I look forward to seeing how this develops, how Hulu and Netflix and the like respond, if at all.