Tag Archive for 'Media'

I reckon some readin’

Published
by
Gary
on April 2, 2007
in Declaration
. 0 Comments

For a time, I didn’t have internet in my modest flat. In these most wonderful of times a personal renaissance of reading flourished. Hundreds of dollars of worthless money were transformed into written matter—nay, pure gleaming knowledge—of a sort most heretofore unprecedented in my media-wrecked life.

Then, a stray WiFi signal brought forth tragedy! horror! ArsTechnica, MetaFilter, 4chan, Archinect! Athena wept as sadly mindless minutes filled my nights; as my mind took on a gray and slightly fetid state most unpalatable.

It stops here. It stops now. Time to bust through the books by my bed!

  • Apr 2-Apr 5: Yale’s Retrospecta and Perspecta. Topical!
  • Apr 6-Apr 8: (busy ravaging Kuala Lumpur)
  • Apr 10-Apr 15: Bill Clinton’s My Life. For shame, he’s been at Oxford for more than a month.
  • Apr 16-22: W. G. Sebald’s Austerlitz. I’m at the part where he’s talking about some kind of fortress. Riveting.
  • Apr 23-Apr 29: Jeremy Aynsley’s Pioneers of Modernism: A Complete History. Left over from my periodic “Imma gunna be a graphic designer!” phase.
  • Apr 30-May 6: Philippe Legrain’s Open World: The Truth About Globalisation. I’m at the part where he says sweat shops are good.
  • May 7-May 13: Ray Monk & Frederic Raphael’s The Great Philosophers: From Socrates to Turing. I’m basically reading this so I can impress chicks with Heidegger and Marx. Wait, that IS how it works, right?
  • May 14-May 20: Gauri Viswanathan’s Interviews with Edward Said. Incredibly boring thanks to pedantic professor-speak. Professor of English and Comparative Literature professor-speak. So far he doesn’t like movie critics, except for some guy at the New York Times. Predictable.
  • May 21-May 31: Rick Poynor’s No More Rules: Graphic Design and Postmodernism. I think I mentioned that Rick Poynor writes incredible, lucid things about design, and that he’s entertaining as hell to read. Academic architects need to write more like Poynor and less like Said.
  • June 1-June 10: Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose. Saving the best (sort of) for last!

NBC says stupid things

Published
by
Gary
on February 9, 2007
in Entertainment, News and Thoughts
. 7 Comments

Hey, just in time: NBC’s Zucker lashes out at YouTube!

Jeff Zucker is NBC Universal’s brand-new CEO. Basically, he’s pissed that YouTube isn’t magically filtering its copyrighted goods from the
daily stream of submissions. “They have the capability. The question is whether they have the will.” (I know it’s beside the point, but I’m sorry Mr. Zucker, are you YouTube? How do you know?)

But the hilarious thing is, this guy was brought in to find new viewers for NBC! “This company is about producing great content in all divisions. The issue is, how do we get that great content in front of new eyeballs, on new platforms, with new money attached?”

Look, again, YouTube gets new eyeballs on both old and new platforms. And it’s doing it for free! As for the money, NBC’s already on their way: they have their TV shows up on iTunes and their website. Step 2 is to get Universal’s movies on iTunes. They need to make it as easy as possible for people to give them money. (It’ll help if they actually have shows worth watching, but that’s another issue altogether.)

And they need to relax and not shoot themselves in the foot. Things are going to change whether NBC likes it or not, and it’s futile to try and make things change on their own terms. Rather, they need to make sure they’re not left behind.

NBC does stupid things, Part 2

Published
by
Gary
on February 9, 2007
in Entertainment and Thoughts
. 2 Comments

(This is a less-drunken follow up to “NBC does stupid things.”)

Alright, the question is, do networks ultimately lose money when their intellectual property (IP) is shown willy-nilly on YouTube? Or, rather, how should networks use their IP to make big ol’ dumptrucks of money? (Let’s assume, for this argument, that the IP in question is appealing IP.)

There are two ways for a network to profit with a show:
1) Sell the show directly, in theaters, on DVDs, via on-demand cable, or online (e.g., iTunes Store).
2) Sell advertising around the show, making access free or, in the case of cable, a flat-fee.

The main thing about media is that it’s worthless without exposure. If people don’t know that they want it, then they won’t watch it, listen to it, or buy it. All things equal, more exposure means more money. And that is the goal: to make money! Protecting the IP isn’t an end in itself, merely a possible means.

Assuming that #2 is the main money-making method, then clips on YouTube are basically ads for the show, like movie trailers or the network’s own ads. (All of which, incidentally, draw from the “best” parts.) The idea is not to sell people on individual episodes, but on the series as a whole, so that they’ll watch the next episode on TV. For the network, a show’s only good if it gets people to watch commercials; thus, contraband clips are vindicated if just one more person tunes in.

But wouldn’t someone watching the good parts online skip the broadcast show, killing ratings and bankrupting the network? In my view, that’s not really a problem. The key difference is the level of inconvenience: the show is “free” in both instances, and it’s actually higher quality when broadcast, so convenience is the determining factor. People who would only watch the show if it’s convenient wouldn’t have watched the broadcast regardless, and so the network wouldn’t have profited either way. Meanwhile, people who discover the show via YouTube are potentially new watchers who wouldn’t be otherwise.

Things change when direct sales, particularly on-demand sales, enter the picture. I still believe that free clips on YouTube are ultimately beneficial, but on-demand sales cloud the case. The reason is that the network is selling all the episodes, not just the latest one. Suddenly, unlike the earlier scenario, a show’s only good if people literally buy it. All things being the same, obviously people are going to take the free alternative.

Of course, all things aren’t the same. Again, inconvenience is the issue: if it’s easier to pay for the show than to scrounge it up on the ‘net, there’s a good chance people will chose the former. That’s why the iTunes Store has been so incredibly successful: it makes paying to watch painless and inexpensive. Assuming your favorite show’s available, it’s much easier to buy the latest episode (or a specific episode) on iTunes than to piece it together on YouTube or try your luck with Bittorrent. I bought a subscription to Lost on iTunes—despite my Bittorrent know-how—primarily because it was more convenient to just buy it.

And again, YouTube’s main benefit is free promotion: I decided to buy a $19.99 subscription to The Colbert Report on iTunes after watching a bunch of choice clips on YouTube over the span of a few weeks. If Comedy Central had conclusively clamped down on YouTube I wouldn’t have given them a single cent—I don’t have cable, and iTunes’ random 30-second previews weren’t at all convincing.

Basically, a show needs to be shown in order to make money. Furthermore, Tivos, the iTunes Store, and alternative distractions are diminishing traditional TV’s profit potential. Letting the IP leak a little can mean more sales with reasonable risk, both directly and through increased exposure.

NBC does stupid things

Published
by
Gary
on February 7, 2007
in Entertainment and Thoughts
. 7 Comments

I was surfing the usual sites when saw a link to a YouTube clip of Conan O’Brien beating Serena Williams at Wii Tennis. I like Conan, I like Wii, and I like butt, so I clicked… and got a message, “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NBC Universal.”

And I have to ask, can NBC get any more stupid? Random people are getting together with YouTube to give NBC absolutely free advertising, and NBC is stopping them? Shit, if anything, YouTube should be charging NBC!

I know, I know, they don’t want juicy Conan morsels going for nothing, but the clip goes up after the show’s aired, so all the advertising money NBC was going to get was dun gotten. Really, people who like what they see might tune in to see the whole show, driving up NBC’s Nielsen numbers and giving NBC’s accountants that special rosy glow.

It’s possible that NBC is afraid people will stop watching Conan and just wait for the best parts to show up on YouTube—the feared SNL effect—but then, those people likely wouldn’t have watched in the first place. If anything, those once-lost people might get the idea that Conan was worth watching, again upping the show’s viewers.

Certainly, if someone uploaded an entire episode, NBC should certainly yank it right back down. While you could make some similar arguments, the key difference is that the person has the intent to see the whole episode. That person has no incentive to see the broadcast show, because the broadcast show has nothing more to add. It’s no longer a teaser, it’s the whole damn enchilada, so why “pay”—by watching ads—for something free? That goes double if NBC is selling the episodes online, in the iTunes Store or elsewhere.

It’s not whether NBC’s copyright is being violated, it’s whether that violation is making or losing NBC money. NBC’s basically said “hey, we only want to advertise to people already watching NBC, already watching near The Late Night Show’s airing time, already watching other commercials. Extend our audience and make the Conan brand stronger, for free? Oh, no thanks!” Frigtards.