Happy Paperless Friday!
Today at 10:15AM EST, we'll be discussing paperless student publications and media over at the Friday Chat.
Paperless student newspapers, digital radio podcasts, and live-streamed student broadcasts are the subject of the day. See you there!
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Revolution Will Be Complementary?
Ethan Zuckerman has got a piece on protest and social media that's required reading over at ...My Heart's in Accra.
Hmm... I'm interested. Do tell.
In all these cases, it looks like the real role of social media is in amplifying the story to a broader audience. In a sense, that is the current role of social media in the synergy with established traditional media which we described yesterday.
The shift is that through critical mass, social media is now able to make the stories we used to tell around the kitchen table or at the corner bar now available immediately as a primary source to the world's media.
So, the stories themselves are going to have a different feel or focus.
In a way, as a musician, I can't help but see in the amateur video coming from the streets of Tehran the same sort of ethos that was present and has been instrumental in the lo-fi and documentary movements in audio recording. It's about getting the moment on tape, all else be damned.
In a way, it's a perfect complement to the remarkable on-the-street professional reporting of pros like Roger Cohen whose recent NY Times Op-Ed is one of the best pieces of writing I've read in ages.
How about: "The Revolution Will Be Complementary"?
***
I agree with Zuckerman that the Iran story is huge not because of social media as the focus but because it's a big story regardless.
However, the secondary impact is that the Iran story is in fact a big story for social media. In reality, the biggest yet.
Perhaps even, the game changer.
The use of social media for protest - especially to promote a protest to international audiences - is far from unique.
Hmm... I'm interested. Do tell.
I’ve been asking some of the reporters I’ve spoken with where they were on other recent social media and protest stories. Citizen media has emerged as one of the key spaces for journalism in Fiji in the wake of a coup government that’s censoring mainstream media. It’s been a key source of information in Madagascar as that country’s suffered through a violent change of government. (One reporter who I mentioned this to remarked that Madagascar was “just a speck of an island somewhere”. That speck is twice the size of Great Britain and has the population of Australia…) In Guatemala, online media publicized the assasination of a lawyer by forces close to the president… and government authorities began arresting people for twittering the story to amplify it. These weren’t huge stories for most newspapers - the Iran story is huge not because of the social media aspect, but because protests in Iran are a huge story independent of citizen media.
In all these cases, it looks like the real role of social media is in amplifying the story to a broader audience. In a sense, that is the current role of social media in the synergy with established traditional media which we described yesterday.
The shift is that through critical mass, social media is now able to make the stories we used to tell around the kitchen table or at the corner bar now available immediately as a primary source to the world's media.
So, the stories themselves are going to have a different feel or focus.
In a way, as a musician, I can't help but see in the amateur video coming from the streets of Tehran the same sort of ethos that was present and has been instrumental in the lo-fi and documentary movements in audio recording. It's about getting the moment on tape, all else be damned.
In a way, it's a perfect complement to the remarkable on-the-street professional reporting of pros like Roger Cohen whose recent NY Times Op-Ed is one of the best pieces of writing I've read in ages.
How about: "The Revolution Will Be Complementary"?
***
I agree with Zuckerman that the Iran story is huge not because of social media as the focus but because it's a big story regardless.
However, the secondary impact is that the Iran story is in fact a big story for social media. In reality, the biggest yet.
Perhaps even, the game changer.
The Conversation on #IranElections
Absolutely vivid discussion/argument/whateveryouwannacallit going on the last few days in the comments to a post on Weblogg-ed titled "#IranElections: Why We All Need to be Editors Now".
Read it. Comment. Diigo it up.
Ignore at your own risk.
Read it. Comment. Diigo it up.
Ignore at your own risk.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
On the Media: Eyes on the Ground
Pulled an early post from this morning because it really didn't say what I wanted it to. It's so easy as a blogger to just put stuff out there and forget about it. So I wanted to do this post right.
In all the talk about traditional media and social media, between cable news and Twitter, between that generation and this generation... there has been one thing vitally missing: the people involved.
Thank god for Robert Fisk. His reporting from the streets of Baghdad comes in the best tradition of in-the-moment reporters stemming from Edward R. Murrow right up to the present. Without these reporters, news is just a sham.
Thank god also for the students and Twitterers inside Iran who have risked so much to show to the world what their country is going through. They too have a little Murrow in them.
It's easy, in the heat of battle as-it-were, to sling arrows with little regard for where they fall. Fisk and his ilk deserve better than to be compared to studio reporters who wouldn't know a story if it exploded in front of them. And the Iranian Twitterers deserve better than to be written off or -- even worse -- merely defined by their medium.
When it comes down to the brass tacks, good reporting isn't about whether you publish in the New York Times or whether you Tweet from a college dorm in Tehran. It's about whether you are honest about what you see.
Changes are taking place in front of our eyes. The mainstream media will not be the same after the events that have taken place in Iran. Not if they can be honest with themselves.
Likewise, the role of social media has changed. When you have the US Department of State telling Twitter not to shut down for scheduled maintenance in the midst of the protests, you know we have transcended the old criticisms of social media as a meaningless trend.
This is the world our students are growing up in. And more than anything, I hope that the events of the past days will change the way school leaders view social media.
But even more important than that, I hope for all humanities' sake, we recognize the value in having eyes on the ground with connections to the rest of us.
In all the talk about traditional media and social media, between cable news and Twitter, between that generation and this generation... there has been one thing vitally missing: the people involved.
Thank god for Robert Fisk. His reporting from the streets of Baghdad comes in the best tradition of in-the-moment reporters stemming from Edward R. Murrow right up to the present. Without these reporters, news is just a sham.
Thank god also for the students and Twitterers inside Iran who have risked so much to show to the world what their country is going through. They too have a little Murrow in them.
It's easy, in the heat of battle as-it-were, to sling arrows with little regard for where they fall. Fisk and his ilk deserve better than to be compared to studio reporters who wouldn't know a story if it exploded in front of them. And the Iranian Twitterers deserve better than to be written off or -- even worse -- merely defined by their medium.
When it comes down to the brass tacks, good reporting isn't about whether you publish in the New York Times or whether you Tweet from a college dorm in Tehran. It's about whether you are honest about what you see.
Changes are taking place in front of our eyes. The mainstream media will not be the same after the events that have taken place in Iran. Not if they can be honest with themselves.
Likewise, the role of social media has changed. When you have the US Department of State telling Twitter not to shut down for scheduled maintenance in the midst of the protests, you know we have transcended the old criticisms of social media as a meaningless trend.
This is the world our students are growing up in. And more than anything, I hope that the events of the past days will change the way school leaders view social media.
But even more important than that, I hope for all humanities' sake, we recognize the value in having eyes on the ground with connections to the rest of us.
The Connection
Speaking of thought provoking, check out the work being done over at elearnspace:
This is a riff on the old adage that it's not what you know, but how you know. I like the extension to connectedness; it feels right. Because we really are living through times -- as the examples of #IranElection and Twitterfall have demonstrated wholeheartedly -- in which understanding how to read the connection is crucial to the understanding of the content or situation at hand.
Just yesterday I got in a comments-argument with a fellow Web-citizen over the value of traditional media versus social media. What amounted to a lot of bickering really made me pause upon reflection this morning that really it's just a matter of how we read the connections made by either media.
It was my interloper's perspective that traditional media was more authoritative because the reporters are professionals. My argument against that is that because they are professionals, they are bound by the customs of their institutions -- whether we're talking about the ethics of their profession or the top-down management of news via the hierarchy that exists in corporate media.
It was my perspective that, though there are obviously dubious positions that will emerge, by and large the critical mass of the blogosphere actually keeps things relatively honest; thereby, videos and pictures and news reports Tweeted by amateurs-on-the-street are just as viable a news source as any professionally tweaked report. Now, an argument can certainly be made that mass-made anonymous media could easily be rife with untruth. Point taken.
In the end result, what it really comes down to is understanding the connection.
How is the traditional reporter connecting to you; what are the filters? Editors? Advertising dollars?
How is the amateur-on-the-street connecting to you? What are the motives? Biases?
We have always taught our students to be aware of bias. But now it's taken a new turn. And it's the turn that hints at the dilemma in 21st century media. Big corporate machines vs. Mr. Nobody. It's an age old story; but now, Mr. Nobody has equal billing.
Make the connections.
...being a literate person is not so much about what you know, but about how you know things are connected.
This is a riff on the old adage that it's not what you know, but how you know. I like the extension to connectedness; it feels right. Because we really are living through times -- as the examples of #IranElection and Twitterfall have demonstrated wholeheartedly -- in which understanding how to read the connection is crucial to the understanding of the content or situation at hand.
Just yesterday I got in a comments-argument with a fellow Web-citizen over the value of traditional media versus social media. What amounted to a lot of bickering really made me pause upon reflection this morning that really it's just a matter of how we read the connections made by either media.
It was my interloper's perspective that traditional media was more authoritative because the reporters are professionals. My argument against that is that because they are professionals, they are bound by the customs of their institutions -- whether we're talking about the ethics of their profession or the top-down management of news via the hierarchy that exists in corporate media.
It was my perspective that, though there are obviously dubious positions that will emerge, by and large the critical mass of the blogosphere actually keeps things relatively honest; thereby, videos and pictures and news reports Tweeted by amateurs-on-the-street are just as viable a news source as any professionally tweaked report. Now, an argument can certainly be made that mass-made anonymous media could easily be rife with untruth. Point taken.
In the end result, what it really comes down to is understanding the connection.
How is the traditional reporter connecting to you; what are the filters? Editors? Advertising dollars?
How is the amateur-on-the-street connecting to you? What are the motives? Biases?
We have always taught our students to be aware of bias. But now it's taken a new turn. And it's the turn that hints at the dilemma in 21st century media. Big corporate machines vs. Mr. Nobody. It's an age old story; but now, Mr. Nobody has equal billing.
Make the connections.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Philistines on Twitter: "I've never used it. But it sucks!"
John Ridley raises philistinism to a whole new level by slamming all things Twitter -- despite the fact that he admits he's never used Twitter.
How do people like this get airtime on NPR?
As any daily Twitterer knows: Twitter is what you make it. If all of your Tweets concern bathing your dog and mowing the lawn, then you just completely don't understand what social networking's true potential is. I am amazed when I hear people denigrate social media as if the social media itself is forcing anyone to do anything. The whole concept of participatory media is that it relies on the free participation of its users to do what ever they want with it.
Education and Educational Technology Tweet feeds are often a perfect example of the positive aspects of social media. I am not alone in saying that I've learned more about the theory of, current debates about, and resources for teaching in the last three months on Twitter than I have in seven years of traditional professional development and three years of grad school.
That's not to denigrate prof dev or grad school, they serve serious purposes.
It's just that in terms of keeping up to date with what's happening on a day-to-day (and even hourly-by-hourly) basis in the rapidly changing educational paradigm, the traditional model of spreading ideas via a single speaker or a class that meets twice a week is really outmoded. That's where the power of social networking comes in.
Social networking should not supplant face-to-face development, but face-to-face development needs to understand that there are many things that social networking does better. Really, face-to-face and screen-to-screen have to find common ground and help one another.
Now, Mr. Ridley's comments seemed all caught up on the issue of privacy -- he's tired of Tweets about people's personal lives. Funny, though: how would he be bother by Tweets if he's not on Twitter?
Furthermore, to criticize Twitter on account of the CNN/Kutcher throwdown -- as Ridley does -- yet never having personally used the service before is akin to writing a scathing review of a book based not on one's reading of the book but on the reaction of Oprah's book club to it.
Fundamentally unprofessional.
It's obvious that Mr. Ridley has no idea what he's talking about. Yet, that's par for the course when it comes to the majority of critics of social media. I think I'll go Tweet about that.
I haven't tweeted once in my life, but I'm sick of hearing about it already. What once may have been the cool way of letting a hundred people know that you're about to go mow your lawn now has the feel of a used-to-be-fresh means of communicating.
How do people like this get airtime on NPR?
As any daily Twitterer knows: Twitter is what you make it. If all of your Tweets concern bathing your dog and mowing the lawn, then you just completely don't understand what social networking's true potential is. I am amazed when I hear people denigrate social media as if the social media itself is forcing anyone to do anything. The whole concept of participatory media is that it relies on the free participation of its users to do what ever they want with it.
Education and Educational Technology Tweet feeds are often a perfect example of the positive aspects of social media. I am not alone in saying that I've learned more about the theory of, current debates about, and resources for teaching in the last three months on Twitter than I have in seven years of traditional professional development and three years of grad school.
That's not to denigrate prof dev or grad school, they serve serious purposes.
It's just that in terms of keeping up to date with what's happening on a day-to-day (and even hourly-by-hourly) basis in the rapidly changing educational paradigm, the traditional model of spreading ideas via a single speaker or a class that meets twice a week is really outmoded. That's where the power of social networking comes in.
Social networking should not supplant face-to-face development, but face-to-face development needs to understand that there are many things that social networking does better. Really, face-to-face and screen-to-screen have to find common ground and help one another.
Now, Mr. Ridley's comments seemed all caught up on the issue of privacy -- he's tired of Tweets about people's personal lives. Funny, though: how would he be bother by Tweets if he's not on Twitter?
Furthermore, to criticize Twitter on account of the CNN/Kutcher throwdown -- as Ridley does -- yet never having personally used the service before is akin to writing a scathing review of a book based not on one's reading of the book but on the reaction of Oprah's book club to it.
Fundamentally unprofessional.
It's obvious that Mr. Ridley has no idea what he's talking about. Yet, that's par for the course when it comes to the majority of critics of social media. I think I'll go Tweet about that.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Introducing Google Innovation Blog
Check out my new Blog dedicated to Innovations at Google:
http://googleinnovation.blogspot.com
Google Innovation
Google Innovation Blog contains the latest:
News, Reviews, Articles, Case studies, Best practices, Insights, Ideas, Success stories, Blogs and more about Innovations at Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG)
I am planning to incorporate the latest technology, business model, partnerships and software advances at Google as they are announced, and provide my review and analysis on the same. What insights can be gained from these new innovations? How successful will these innovations be in the marketplace? The Blog articles and posts will be as I see it, my opinion, my analysis, my thoughts on how Google is shaping new innovations and bringing them to the marketplace. There will be the occasional interviews with the innovators and product champions at Google. I also plan to include some of the best materials found on the web and the blogosphere on everything to do with Google innovations. Some of the pertinent blog posts on Google Innovation will find their way to the Creativity and Innovation Driving Business Blog.
For instance, in my latest blog post:
Google to create new R&D Center in South India
Bottomline:
Google is poised to expand its base in India with this new R & D center that can house up to 4,000 engineers. Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh in South India wins the nod from Google, partly because Google has already a 1,000 person engineering and services operation for the online sales running quite smoothly; however, when you have the chief minister of Andhra and his team wooing you to do more with all the incentives, it would have been very hard for Google to say no. Timing is everything. Don't be surprised if by the end of 2010, Google has a four thousand people strong R & D center in South India with plans to make it a ten thousand employee organization across all of India based on the kind of growth Google is seeing and its position as one of the top innovators of the world.
I invite you to explore the Google Innovation Blog, and provide me your valuable comments and feedback.
Here's to blogging on Google Innovation.
References:
Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) is one of the top 20 Innovators of The Innovation Index.
http://googleinnovation.blogspot.com
Google Innovation
Google Innovation Blog contains the latest:
News, Reviews, Articles, Case studies, Best practices, Insights, Ideas, Success stories, Blogs and more about Innovations at Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG)
I am planning to incorporate the latest technology, business model, partnerships and software advances at Google as they are announced, and provide my review and analysis on the same. What insights can be gained from these new innovations? How successful will these innovations be in the marketplace? The Blog articles and posts will be as I see it, my opinion, my analysis, my thoughts on how Google is shaping new innovations and bringing them to the marketplace. There will be the occasional interviews with the innovators and product champions at Google. I also plan to include some of the best materials found on the web and the blogosphere on everything to do with Google innovations. Some of the pertinent blog posts on Google Innovation will find their way to the Creativity and Innovation Driving Business Blog.
For instance, in my latest blog post:
Google Trends: Everything Out in the Open, Move Over Zeitgeist
Bottomline:
Google Trends and Hot Trends are definitely Hot! It not only gives you a pulse on the latest happenings online as seen by Google Search, but also gives you comparisons on two or more trends over the time frame of your choice: today, yesterday, or any given day. Now if only Google can tell us what will be Hot tomorrow!! Move over Zeitgeist.Google's New Search - Step in the right direction - Still some ways to go
Bottomline:
Google's new search technology is an early effort towards making searching for information better. Google has the right vision of integrating the search across various dimensions of Web, Images, Video, Products, etc. and providing comprehensive results. However, implementing this algorithm for new search, producing the results in parallel, and showing the results in a visually appealing and contextually easy-to-understand manner is going to be key as Google moves forward. Google may also be faced with the problem of what a majority of the user population may be seeking: a simpler answer to their search query. The more sophisticated users may appreciate the comprehensive answer that Google will provide. How would Google know whether the user is a layman user or a sophisticated user? One thing is certain though: Google has the ability to mine the world's information and present it in a contextual setting that is relevant to the user. Google just needs to make sure that in creating a new search, it does not make it confusing for the end user, as this would be huge step backward.Google to create new R&D Center in South India
Bottomline:
Google is poised to expand its base in India with this new R & D center that can house up to 4,000 engineers. Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh in South India wins the nod from Google, partly because Google has already a 1,000 person engineering and services operation for the online sales running quite smoothly; however, when you have the chief minister of Andhra and his team wooing you to do more with all the incentives, it would have been very hard for Google to say no. Timing is everything. Don't be surprised if by the end of 2010, Google has a four thousand people strong R & D center in South India with plans to make it a ten thousand employee organization across all of India based on the kind of growth Google is seeing and its position as one of the top innovators of the world.
I invite you to explore the Google Innovation Blog, and provide me your valuable comments and feedback.
Here's to blogging on Google Innovation.
References:
Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) is one of the top 20 Innovators of The Innovation Index.
Labels:
blog,
blogging,
blogs,
daily,
GOOG,
google,
Google Trends,
innovation,
Innovators,
internet,
links,
marketing,
media,
news,
reviews,
software,
tech,
technology,
web-20,
weblog
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
YouTube - $1.65 Billion Innovation and Counting
When was the last time a company innovated from zero to $1.65 Billion in market value in less than two years from founding, and in less than one year from launch of their key product?
Beginnings of a new Broadcast company
YouTube, a consumer media company for people to watch and share original videos worldwide, serves over 70 million videos daily on their website - videos that are created and shared by everyday people. YouTube also draws 34 million unique visitors a month, ranking it in the top 15 sites by traffic volume. YouTube's mission is to convert everyday people into broadcasters of tomorrow. Is YouTube the beginning of a new broadcast company? A company that fundamentally changed the rules where people choose what they want to watch, when they want to watch, and for how much (and free in most cases) without the overload of
advertisements.
Selected references:
Leading eBook on Creativity and Innovation in Business
Creativity and Innovation Best Practices
Creativity and Innovation Case Studies
The Innovation Index
Top 50 innovative companies in the world
Beginnings of a new Broadcast company
YouTube, a consumer media company for people to watch and share original videos worldwide, serves over 70 million videos daily on their website - videos that are created and shared by everyday people. YouTube also draws 34 million unique visitors a month, ranking it in the top 15 sites by traffic volume. YouTube's mission is to convert everyday people into broadcasters of tomorrow. Is YouTube the beginning of a new broadcast company? A company that fundamentally changed the rules where people choose what they want to watch, when they want to watch, and for how much (and free in most cases) without the overload of
advertisements.
Selected references:
Leading eBook on Creativity and Innovation in Business
Creativity and Innovation Best Practices
Creativity and Innovation Case Studies
The Innovation Index
Top 50 innovative companies in the world
Who came first?
Is YouTube a modern-day community of all the people who were using Microsoft's NetMeeting for sharing live video many years ago? There was a huge wave of people who initially embraced the live capability of sharing video in NetMeeting in the late nineties using a simple Webcam and simultaneously conducting conferencing using integrated live chat and audio. A market of live conferencing and video sharing softwares got created overnight based on this initial success. Some of the applications of live video even created a whole new adult industry. However, not a single vendor experienced any type of consumer mass market success. And then TIVO emerged from the Internet boom (or bust), wherein you can buy a simple hardware device (technically a large hard-drive that saved analog TV broadcast into digitial media) and pause, rewind and store live broadcast TV, and watch it on demand anytime. TIVO was innovative and revolutionary, and single-handedly created a huge market following for On demand TV. TIVO even became a verb wherein thousands of TV fans would talk about "Just Tivo it." However, TIVO was a personal device that did not let you share the videos with friends and families. Nor TIVO allowed you to capture your own video and store it (at least not easily) and then send it someone else.
New Innovations
Until Steve Jobs and Apple started the iPod and then iTunes revolution, which morphed into video downloads of hit TV shows onto iPods or desktops to allow people to view the shows on demand. However, even the brilliantly innovative Jobs missed what was to become a people Video revolution. Whereas Jobs was focused on creating partnerships with TV broadcast companies to monetize the market of recorded broadcast videos and grow the business at Apple, YouTube founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim were focused on the exact opposite - free video service created by the people for the people. They were trying to create the world's best platform and Video network wherein people can upload, tag and share videos for free. The founders almost went broke trying this innovative experiment out after the launch when the number of people uploading videos to share, and the number of people downloading videos to watch grew exponentially. However, the growth of Internet as a network and the fall in price of broadband, bandwidth and storage kept their vision going (and a few million dollar capital investment eventually by Sequoia capital). The YouTube Innovation Revolution was just beginning.
Zero to 70 million Videos served daily
YouTube, founded in February 2005, created many timely innovations that made it successful in such a short time paving its way to an acquisition by Google for $1.65 Billion dollars.
First, the vision of Founders to create a Video download service for FREE (and not getting caught up in monetizing the Video Service from the get go) at the right time when the broad consumer market was evolving into creating and sharing home videos at personal websites or community sites from just sharing pictures and images. Sound familiar? Think Google (that created the Search engine for free and did not monetize it for the longest time).
Second, the intense focus on providing the best and most comprehensive experience for users interested in uploading, watching and sharing videos. This is no easy feat. YouTube made it as easy as 1,2,3 to upload and share a video. And to create a vibrant community, it added such key features as categories, video ratings, most requested videos, most watched videos, and more. This made it extremely easy even for a novice to simply go to YouTube site and browse a video that they want to watch at the click of a mouse. And the ease of uploading and sharing videos meant that there was always fresh content that people want to watch daily. People can also create their own accounts and create their own list of favorite videos, categories, etc. Of course to make all these possible, YouTube created an innovative seamless Video platform that can deliver hundreds of millions of Video to people all over the world.
Finally, YouTube created key partnerships with various Music and Broadcast players in the industry (who soon realized that YouTube was upto something big). This included CBS, Sony, Universal, Warner, NBC and more. This gave YouTube and its people ability to watch snippets of TV shows, news, movies, sports and entertainment shows - short-form video programming or short clips. This became a win-win for both YouTube and its partners. YouTube wins because it brings in fresh content from hundreds of broadcast channels that people around the world want to watch online at their convenience for free, and the credibility from playing with the big boys. Partners win because they use YouTube to market their broadcast programming to the people in the hopes of creating more business on their TV broadcasts.
These timely innovations in business model, technology and user experience, and partnerships made YouTube an overnight success. As Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google pointed out in the Press Release announcing the acquisition: "Our companies share similar values; we both always put our users first and are committed to innovating to improve their experience. Together, we are natural partners to offer a compelling media entertainment service to users, content owners and advertisers.”
YouTube and Google
Google has announced that YouTube will remain an independent business retaining its distinct brand identity. What is not clear is what Google will do to its own Video service. What Google will provide though is the monetization for YouTube's Video services through its advertiser relationships and global reach. If 1% of the 70 million Videos that are served daily click on a Google served advertisement, this would result in 700,000 daily click-through or 255 million click-through in a year (without accounting for any new growth). And if you take a five year period, it would cost Google $1.29 a click in today's dollar. Or to put it another way, Google can create new revenue of $329 million a year without making any profits (assuming it sells ads at $1.29 a click). A steep price to pay for a Video click? Only time will tell as to how big the new YouTube Video Service becomes under the auspices of Google, and how Google will be able to cash in on its investment and eventually make this a $1 Billion business.
Is YouTube a modern-day community of all the people who were using Microsoft's NetMeeting for sharing live video many years ago? There was a huge wave of people who initially embraced the live capability of sharing video in NetMeeting in the late nineties using a simple Webcam and simultaneously conducting conferencing using integrated live chat and audio. A market of live conferencing and video sharing softwares got created overnight based on this initial success. Some of the applications of live video even created a whole new adult industry. However, not a single vendor experienced any type of consumer mass market success. And then TIVO emerged from the Internet boom (or bust), wherein you can buy a simple hardware device (technically a large hard-drive that saved analog TV broadcast into digitial media) and pause, rewind and store live broadcast TV, and watch it on demand anytime. TIVO was innovative and revolutionary, and single-handedly created a huge market following for On demand TV. TIVO even became a verb wherein thousands of TV fans would talk about "Just Tivo it." However, TIVO was a personal device that did not let you share the videos with friends and families. Nor TIVO allowed you to capture your own video and store it (at least not easily) and then send it someone else.
New Innovations
Until Steve Jobs and Apple started the iPod and then iTunes revolution, which morphed into video downloads of hit TV shows onto iPods or desktops to allow people to view the shows on demand. However, even the brilliantly innovative Jobs missed what was to become a people Video revolution. Whereas Jobs was focused on creating partnerships with TV broadcast companies to monetize the market of recorded broadcast videos and grow the business at Apple, YouTube founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim were focused on the exact opposite - free video service created by the people for the people. They were trying to create the world's best platform and Video network wherein people can upload, tag and share videos for free. The founders almost went broke trying this innovative experiment out after the launch when the number of people uploading videos to share, and the number of people downloading videos to watch grew exponentially. However, the growth of Internet as a network and the fall in price of broadband, bandwidth and storage kept their vision going (and a few million dollar capital investment eventually by Sequoia capital). The YouTube Innovation Revolution was just beginning.
Zero to 70 million Videos served daily
YouTube, founded in February 2005, created many timely innovations that made it successful in such a short time paving its way to an acquisition by Google for $1.65 Billion dollars.
First, the vision of Founders to create a Video download service for FREE (and not getting caught up in monetizing the Video Service from the get go) at the right time when the broad consumer market was evolving into creating and sharing home videos at personal websites or community sites from just sharing pictures and images. Sound familiar? Think Google (that created the Search engine for free and did not monetize it for the longest time).
Second, the intense focus on providing the best and most comprehensive experience for users interested in uploading, watching and sharing videos. This is no easy feat. YouTube made it as easy as 1,2,3 to upload and share a video. And to create a vibrant community, it added such key features as categories, video ratings, most requested videos, most watched videos, and more. This made it extremely easy even for a novice to simply go to YouTube site and browse a video that they want to watch at the click of a mouse. And the ease of uploading and sharing videos meant that there was always fresh content that people want to watch daily. People can also create their own accounts and create their own list of favorite videos, categories, etc. Of course to make all these possible, YouTube created an innovative seamless Video platform that can deliver hundreds of millions of Video to people all over the world.
Finally, YouTube created key partnerships with various Music and Broadcast players in the industry (who soon realized that YouTube was upto something big). This included CBS, Sony, Universal, Warner, NBC and more. This gave YouTube and its people ability to watch snippets of TV shows, news, movies, sports and entertainment shows - short-form video programming or short clips. This became a win-win for both YouTube and its partners. YouTube wins because it brings in fresh content from hundreds of broadcast channels that people around the world want to watch online at their convenience for free, and the credibility from playing with the big boys. Partners win because they use YouTube to market their broadcast programming to the people in the hopes of creating more business on their TV broadcasts.
These timely innovations in business model, technology and user experience, and partnerships made YouTube an overnight success. As Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google pointed out in the Press Release announcing the acquisition: "Our companies share similar values; we both always put our users first and are committed to innovating to improve their experience. Together, we are natural partners to offer a compelling media entertainment service to users, content owners and advertisers.”
YouTube and Google
Google has announced that YouTube will remain an independent business retaining its distinct brand identity. What is not clear is what Google will do to its own Video service. What Google will provide though is the monetization for YouTube's Video services through its advertiser relationships and global reach. If 1% of the 70 million Videos that are served daily click on a Google served advertisement, this would result in 700,000 daily click-through or 255 million click-through in a year (without accounting for any new growth). And if you take a five year period, it would cost Google $1.29 a click in today's dollar. Or to put it another way, Google can create new revenue of $329 million a year without making any profits (assuming it sells ads at $1.29 a click). A steep price to pay for a Video click? Only time will tell as to how big the new YouTube Video Service becomes under the auspices of Google, and how Google will be able to cash in on its investment and eventually make this a $1 Billion business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)