So today I heard the new single from Scarlett Johansson's forthcoming album. Yeah, you read that right. The song, called "Falling Down", is eight different shades of abysmal.
Of course, it's obviously a vanity piece. Even the video is a vanity piece. It's nothing but footage of Miss Jo-Hanson walking around, or riding the bus, and being made up and filmed, etc, etc, etc. She doesn't even bother to lip-sync the song. The song is a soundtrack for her to be famous to. It's on Yahoo! music, if you're curious, but don't strain yourself unless you really enjoy looking at car crashes.
There are degrees of bad, when it comes to vanity albums. There's the Paris Hilton album, which had high production value and was written by competent people, it was just vapid and empty. Or there's Thirty-Odd Foot of Grunts, the Russel Crowe music project, which is fun, listenable, but ultimately pretty forgettable.
Then there's the ScarJo project, and it fits neatly into the "Jeez guys, nice effort" bin.
The instruments are muffled and fake-sounding. The arrangement is pretty solid, but really quirky (when the banjo, for instance, comes in during the second verse). There's the pervasive feeling that it was recorded in someone's basement--which I'm totally okay with normally, but Miss Johansen suffers from not being able to sing very well. A stark recording of a brilliant musician is great; it gives you the feeling that you've captured something ethereal, ephemeral, and other things that start with e- and end with -al. It's like dusty gold, a nice contrast to the polished turds of most contemporary pop music. What we have here is a dusty turd. It's the worst of both worlds.
The vocals are especially bad. Sung by someone who really doesn't know how to sing, and double-tracked by someone who really doesn't know how to double-track, and apparently mixed by someone who doesn't know how to blend vocals (or comp, or maybe just mute one). And they're buried in the mix. They get lost. It's like listening to a jazz arrangement mixed by an engineer who does grit-rock.
The only thing this song has going for it is the lyrics--which aren't great, but are certainly interesting. But it turns out that "Falling Down" is actually a Tom Waits song, Johannnnsonnn's whole album, it turns out, is Tom Waits covers. So if you want to hear the song, go look up the original, so you can at least hear that Tom Waits howl, and I'll go out on a limb and suggest that for the rest of the album as well (having now heard the lead single).
The worst part about this is the potential to ruin some of her movies for me--because she's not a bad actress ("In Good Company" notwithstanding). She, like Madonna, like Michael Jordan, like Shaq, just needs to stick to the career she's good at.
]{
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Soooo... Sleeeeeepy....
I'm so tired. I feels like I have been runned over by a buss.
Okay, back to work.
]{
Okay, back to work.
]{
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Let's A-Go! Mario Kart and the Future of Gaming
It's a big week for video game releases. Yesterday was the release of MarioKart Wii, tomorrow is Grand Theft Auto IV.
So for me, yesterday was a binge of virtual go-cart racing. I went at midnight to pick up MarioKart Wii, me and at least five other people (although I'm told tonight's midnight release of GTA IV will definitely be heavily populated). I never got into the GTA series, but I lived and breathed Mario Kart. If the original Super Mario Kart had been on vinyl, I'd have worn the groove out.
It is just stupidly fun. And the Wii upgrade is arguably the strongest in the series. It has been revamped from solo-oriented play to team-based, and this is especially jarring on the Battle Modes, but I think it's a welcome change. Allowing less-able players to contribute to a victory rather than just having one guy clean house (which inevitably happens in single-elimination play) makes it more inclusive. It also is more in keeping with the family-and-casual-gamer direction Nintendo has taken. Even the inclusion of a Wii Wheel (Whiil?) is indicative of this trend, as it makes virtual cart driving much more natural to people who only have experience with, you know, real driving.
It's going to be an interesting couple of months. The major Nintendo franchises (Metroid, Mario, MarioKart, Smash Bros, Zelda) have now all been Wii-leased, and with the WiiWare channel coming out next month (which will eventually feature Dr. Mario and Tetris), Wii's place is pretty much affirmed when it comes to casual and historical games (although can you please release Contra on the VC? Please?!?!). But what about the future?
Well, I'll freely admit that I'm basically a Nintendo fanboy at this point. But I firmly believe that the Wii is the shape of things to come, and I cite two main reasons:
1) We're hitting the wall of diminishing returns on hardware. The PS3 is a prime example. The added graphics don't add much, but are making the development process time-consuming and very expensive. And if we're no longer improving systems by making them beefier, then the next logical step is to make them more interactive--and that's precisely what Nintendo is doing.
2) With a ridiculously cheap SDK ($2000, American, if my sources are correct) and the capabilities of the WiiWare channel, Nintendo is setting itself up to be a forum for new game developers. They want to make sure that the next stupidly-addictive-casual game (read as "Tetris") is a Wii exclusive. It also gives them access to fresh ideas. The possibilities of a Wiimote are pretty astounding (if you haven't seen this video on WiiMote headtracking, watch it right now), and I guarantee you they will be snatching up whatever talent shows up in the WiiWare dark corners.
This is an interesting generation for consoles, but I think the next generation will be even more so. Because while the Wii and the Xbox 360 are dominating the console market (sorry, Sony), they're not in direct competition with each other, and they can learn quite a bit from each other. Xbox has better online support and graphics, areas in which the next Wii will no doubt make strides. And no doubt, the Xbox will start incorporating more in the way of motion-control (I'd be very suprised if we didn't see a motion-sensitive peripheral show up before the next version of XBox is released) and hands-on interaction.
But in the meantime, I've got karts to unlock and cups to win.
]{
So for me, yesterday was a binge of virtual go-cart racing. I went at midnight to pick up MarioKart Wii, me and at least five other people (although I'm told tonight's midnight release of GTA IV will definitely be heavily populated). I never got into the GTA series, but I lived and breathed Mario Kart. If the original Super Mario Kart had been on vinyl, I'd have worn the groove out.
It is just stupidly fun. And the Wii upgrade is arguably the strongest in the series. It has been revamped from solo-oriented play to team-based, and this is especially jarring on the Battle Modes, but I think it's a welcome change. Allowing less-able players to contribute to a victory rather than just having one guy clean house (which inevitably happens in single-elimination play) makes it more inclusive. It also is more in keeping with the family-and-casual-gamer direction Nintendo has taken. Even the inclusion of a Wii Wheel (Whiil?) is indicative of this trend, as it makes virtual cart driving much more natural to people who only have experience with, you know, real driving.
It's going to be an interesting couple of months. The major Nintendo franchises (Metroid, Mario, MarioKart, Smash Bros, Zelda) have now all been Wii-leased, and with the WiiWare channel coming out next month (which will eventually feature Dr. Mario and Tetris), Wii's place is pretty much affirmed when it comes to casual and historical games (although can you please release Contra on the VC? Please?!?!). But what about the future?
Well, I'll freely admit that I'm basically a Nintendo fanboy at this point. But I firmly believe that the Wii is the shape of things to come, and I cite two main reasons:
1) We're hitting the wall of diminishing returns on hardware. The PS3 is a prime example. The added graphics don't add much, but are making the development process time-consuming and very expensive. And if we're no longer improving systems by making them beefier, then the next logical step is to make them more interactive--and that's precisely what Nintendo is doing.
2) With a ridiculously cheap SDK ($2000, American, if my sources are correct) and the capabilities of the WiiWare channel, Nintendo is setting itself up to be a forum for new game developers. They want to make sure that the next stupidly-addictive-casual game (read as "Tetris") is a Wii exclusive. It also gives them access to fresh ideas. The possibilities of a Wiimote are pretty astounding (if you haven't seen this video on WiiMote headtracking, watch it right now), and I guarantee you they will be snatching up whatever talent shows up in the WiiWare dark corners.
This is an interesting generation for consoles, but I think the next generation will be even more so. Because while the Wii and the Xbox 360 are dominating the console market (sorry, Sony), they're not in direct competition with each other, and they can learn quite a bit from each other. Xbox has better online support and graphics, areas in which the next Wii will no doubt make strides. And no doubt, the Xbox will start incorporating more in the way of motion-control (I'd be very suprised if we didn't see a motion-sensitive peripheral show up before the next version of XBox is released) and hands-on interaction.
But in the meantime, I've got karts to unlock and cups to win.
]{
Thursday, April 24, 2008
There are 3 of Them
So I am literally counting down the days to the release of MarioKart for the Wii. Call me a fanboy or whatever, but the Wii was made for people like me. I am, of course, being completely serious. It's a tier of casual gaming above Chuzzle and FreeCell but below Gears of War. It's games for kids and people with busy lives.
I am, you see, not a hardcore gamer. I'm medium-core. I love a good game; I just don't have the time to grind out 50-60 hours for a single game. I need something I can pick up quickly, advance in quickly, and then forget about for a month, and then pick-up quickly again when my interest returns.
Of course the big criticism of Wii titles is that they are too easy. And yes, yes they are, although many of them combine ease-of-completion with an assortment of un-lockables that are nigh upon impossible to achieve.
Take Super Smash Bros Brawl, for example. You can unlock every character and nearly every level simply by playing lots and lots of brawls (ten hours and 5oo matches, for everyone, I think). You don't even have to win, most of the time. But there's a wall (literally, a wall) of challenges to unlock that involves beating things with every character at every difficultly level and no one but no one has that sort of skill.
Certainly not me. On the contrary, my criticism of modern game systems is that the games are, frankly, too difficult. Not that they are hard to beat, but rather that they are hard to learn. I cut my teeth on controllers that only had four buttons and a D-pad. When you start getting into dual analog controls plus a four-button D-pad and four other buttons and two triggers and two bumpers (in addition to the old-fashioned start and select buttons, plus another X-Box button on the 360)... yeah.
And while I've enjoyed the titles I've played for the XBox 360, I don't see myself ever owning one. And while there's plenty to criticize about the Wii, one stays on the shelf for an average of one hour before being sold, so I think Nintendo's targeting a non-hardcore market is working out for it. And I will continue counting down the days until the next Mario Kart release.
I am, you see, not a hardcore gamer. I'm medium-core. I love a good game; I just don't have the time to grind out 50-60 hours for a single game. I need something I can pick up quickly, advance in quickly, and then forget about for a month, and then pick-up quickly again when my interest returns.
Of course the big criticism of Wii titles is that they are too easy. And yes, yes they are, although many of them combine ease-of-completion with an assortment of un-lockables that are nigh upon impossible to achieve.
Take Super Smash Bros Brawl, for example. You can unlock every character and nearly every level simply by playing lots and lots of brawls (ten hours and 5oo matches, for everyone, I think). You don't even have to win, most of the time. But there's a wall (literally, a wall) of challenges to unlock that involves beating things with every character at every difficultly level and no one but no one has that sort of skill.
Certainly not me. On the contrary, my criticism of modern game systems is that the games are, frankly, too difficult. Not that they are hard to beat, but rather that they are hard to learn. I cut my teeth on controllers that only had four buttons and a D-pad. When you start getting into dual analog controls plus a four-button D-pad and four other buttons and two triggers and two bumpers (in addition to the old-fashioned start and select buttons, plus another X-Box button on the 360)... yeah.
And while I've enjoyed the titles I've played for the XBox 360, I don't see myself ever owning one. And while there's plenty to criticize about the Wii, one stays on the shelf for an average of one hour before being sold, so I think Nintendo's targeting a non-hardcore market is working out for it. And I will continue counting down the days until the next Mario Kart release.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
ASCAP's Bill of Rights, a Response
ASCAP has released a "Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers". It spouts the general platitudes in an effort to placate we, the musically-minded, but it does little to actually address the issues facing musicians and composers. The original US Bill of Rights had less to do with the actual rights of a citizen than it did with limits of governmental power. This is why those start not with "We have the right..." but rather with "Congress shall pass no law..."
This list is largely without teeth. It does nothing to condemn the abuses perpetrated by record labels, but almost serves as a list of what you can expect to lose when you sign a contract. It also fails to outline any specific tricks used to swindle money away from writers and musicians.
And it panders to Disney. So here's a brick-by-brick deconstruction:
1. We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.
This is true, but it's weak. We get to "share in" the money we make? Why that's damned generous of you, kind sir!
2. We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.
While there's nothing inherently wrong with this, it's really a fight against the wrong enemy. This is ammunition for people who don't think they should be parodied or criticized. And the wording is far too general. Cranking my Kenny G cassettes to annoy the neighbors is a "use" of a "work", and yet Mr. G can blow me if he thinks he has any legal recourse against me.
3. We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.
Okay, fine, nothing inherently wrong with this, only why is it specific when the previous one was general? And why no mention of religious grounds? Are you saying that I can object to a philosopher wanting to reference my lyrics in his book, but not a minister? You can sum this and the last one up with the following: "the publishing rights of the author remain with the author, unless the author gives them up."
4. We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity.
And now that we've dilly-dallied around the point, here it is. Fuck P2P. Fine, file-sharing is illegal and stealing music is wrong, but simply stating that here is not going to address the issue in any meaningful way, and yet this seems to be a focal point of the list. Notice that out of the entire BoR, this one is the most strongly worded. And it segues nicely into:
5. We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.
More of the same. And also patently untrue with this general wording. I have the right to play Linkin Park's music at a party without charging my guests for listening to it, and Linkin Park can't do a damned thing about it.
6. We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.
This is actually a good one, and in important one. Musicians and writers have been getting screwed on the move over to digital distribution, and something needs to be done about that. Kudos!
7. We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music.
This ties in with #6, in that the above provision is essentially what the TV writer's strike was all about. This is a call for collective bargaining on the part of musicians and songwriters. Great in theory, but good luck on the logistic side. The problem is that, in the age of the DAW, being a recording artist is unskilled labor. Everyone is expendable. And the bar is set so incredibly low for music writing ("Oh, Mickey, you're so fine..." et al) that unless Diane Warren and John Williams went on strike, nobody would notice.
8. We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more.
Sort of, but not really. Actually, the way copyright law works, performances in the strictest sense aren't covered. When it comes to plays in clubs and concerts, they sort of figure out an average and apportion funds as best they can. And the "they" in this equation is... ASCAP! Yes, ASCAP handles this for a living--they know better. Why would they include this in their "Bill of Rights" when they know it will not be followed except in a mathematically general sort of way?
9. We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! But why the weakness in the wording? Why not "any record exec who puts forth a contract requiring one to relinquish all or part of the artist's creative rights will be subject to an immediate castration"? After all, castration reduces testosterone, and would make these record execs less likely to go bald, and they wouldn't have to shave every day. Plus they would be less aggressive and less capable of catching STD's. Everyone wins.
Seriously, though, here's what's wrong. Record labels want publishing rights because they know that's where a huge chunk of the money is. Taking a cut of distribution is fine, because the labels help out significantly to that end--that was the point. We put your music in ten million homes and we get a piece of that pie. But now it's become, "we front the money for recording, and we get the money when someone wants to put it in a movie." I could see giving someone a finder's fee for negotiating a deal, but really, even that's not genuinely necessary. Giving labels a part of the creative rights undermines the artist. End. Of. Freaking. Discussion.
10. We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights.
Thank you Disney. In the US, copyright law protects anything you create unless you explicitly give it up. You retain the rights to your work until you've been dead for 90 years. I shit you not. Why? Well, mostly because the original Disney cartoons, including "Steamboat Willy" which featured the debut of Mickey Mouse, aren't owned by Disney Company, but rather by Walt Disney's estate. To keep these from entering the public domain, Disney keeps lobbying congress to pass and uphold vigorous laws. Does this help artists? Well, let's ask Walt... Mr. Disney?... No comment, then?
There's a fairly substantial debate about the harms/helps of copyright laws, especially in the international sector (Japan, for example, doesn't honor US copyright law).
Overview
Blah. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here, but the overarching theme here seems to be "musicians and artists deserve to get paid (too)." And this is true, and to be fair, a lot of legitimate points have been brought up in this BoR, but a lot of legitimate concerns have been ignored. They could have done better, and they needed to do better. Take this list, for example:
1. The artist determines how much to charge for his/her/their music.
2. All creative rights are retained by the artist unless a work-for-hire agreement has been made regarding that specific work.
3. The words "breakage fees" or "recoupment" are not to appear in contracts.
4. When new media are introduced, the rights to the work will reside with the artist until a new arrangement is negotiated.
5. You can't take it with you, no matter what copyright law says.
Was that so hard?
For more on copyright and fair use: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
For more the ASCAP petition: http://www.ascap.com/rights/billText.aspx
]{
This list is largely without teeth. It does nothing to condemn the abuses perpetrated by record labels, but almost serves as a list of what you can expect to lose when you sign a contract. It also fails to outline any specific tricks used to swindle money away from writers and musicians.
And it panders to Disney. So here's a brick-by-brick deconstruction:
1. We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.
This is true, but it's weak. We get to "share in" the money we make? Why that's damned generous of you, kind sir!
2. We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.
While there's nothing inherently wrong with this, it's really a fight against the wrong enemy. This is ammunition for people who don't think they should be parodied or criticized. And the wording is far too general. Cranking my Kenny G cassettes to annoy the neighbors is a "use" of a "work", and yet Mr. G can blow me if he thinks he has any legal recourse against me.
3. We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.
Okay, fine, nothing inherently wrong with this, only why is it specific when the previous one was general? And why no mention of religious grounds? Are you saying that I can object to a philosopher wanting to reference my lyrics in his book, but not a minister? You can sum this and the last one up with the following: "the publishing rights of the author remain with the author, unless the author gives them up."
4. We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity.
And now that we've dilly-dallied around the point, here it is. Fuck P2P. Fine, file-sharing is illegal and stealing music is wrong, but simply stating that here is not going to address the issue in any meaningful way, and yet this seems to be a focal point of the list. Notice that out of the entire BoR, this one is the most strongly worded. And it segues nicely into:
5. We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.
More of the same. And also patently untrue with this general wording. I have the right to play Linkin Park's music at a party without charging my guests for listening to it, and Linkin Park can't do a damned thing about it.
6. We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.
This is actually a good one, and in important one. Musicians and writers have been getting screwed on the move over to digital distribution, and something needs to be done about that. Kudos!
7. We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music.
This ties in with #6, in that the above provision is essentially what the TV writer's strike was all about. This is a call for collective bargaining on the part of musicians and songwriters. Great in theory, but good luck on the logistic side. The problem is that, in the age of the DAW, being a recording artist is unskilled labor. Everyone is expendable. And the bar is set so incredibly low for music writing ("Oh, Mickey, you're so fine..." et al) that unless Diane Warren and John Williams went on strike, nobody would notice.
8. We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more.
Sort of, but not really. Actually, the way copyright law works, performances in the strictest sense aren't covered. When it comes to plays in clubs and concerts, they sort of figure out an average and apportion funds as best they can. And the "they" in this equation is... ASCAP! Yes, ASCAP handles this for a living--they know better. Why would they include this in their "Bill of Rights" when they know it will not be followed except in a mathematically general sort of way?
9. We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! But why the weakness in the wording? Why not "any record exec who puts forth a contract requiring one to relinquish all or part of the artist's creative rights will be subject to an immediate castration"? After all, castration reduces testosterone, and would make these record execs less likely to go bald, and they wouldn't have to shave every day. Plus they would be less aggressive and less capable of catching STD's. Everyone wins.
Seriously, though, here's what's wrong. Record labels want publishing rights because they know that's where a huge chunk of the money is. Taking a cut of distribution is fine, because the labels help out significantly to that end--that was the point. We put your music in ten million homes and we get a piece of that pie. But now it's become, "we front the money for recording, and we get the money when someone wants to put it in a movie." I could see giving someone a finder's fee for negotiating a deal, but really, even that's not genuinely necessary. Giving labels a part of the creative rights undermines the artist. End. Of. Freaking. Discussion.
10. We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights.
Thank you Disney. In the US, copyright law protects anything you create unless you explicitly give it up. You retain the rights to your work until you've been dead for 90 years. I shit you not. Why? Well, mostly because the original Disney cartoons, including "Steamboat Willy" which featured the debut of Mickey Mouse, aren't owned by Disney Company, but rather by Walt Disney's estate. To keep these from entering the public domain, Disney keeps lobbying congress to pass and uphold vigorous laws. Does this help artists? Well, let's ask Walt... Mr. Disney?... No comment, then?
There's a fairly substantial debate about the harms/helps of copyright laws, especially in the international sector (Japan, for example, doesn't honor US copyright law).
Overview
Blah. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here, but the overarching theme here seems to be "musicians and artists deserve to get paid (too)." And this is true, and to be fair, a lot of legitimate points have been brought up in this BoR, but a lot of legitimate concerns have been ignored. They could have done better, and they needed to do better. Take this list, for example:
1. The artist determines how much to charge for his/her/their music.
2. All creative rights are retained by the artist unless a work-for-hire agreement has been made regarding that specific work.
3. The words "breakage fees" or "recoupment" are not to appear in contracts.
4. When new media are introduced, the rights to the work will reside with the artist until a new arrangement is negotiated.
5. You can't take it with you, no matter what copyright law says.
Was that so hard?
For more on copyright and fair use: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
For more the ASCAP petition: http://www.ascap.com/rights
]{
Monday, April 21, 2008
TV on the Web, a Diatribe
It's high time we had a paradigm shift. The old (and prevailing) attitude is one of "how can we move television programming to the internet?". The new one needs to be "how can we effectively couple advertising and webcasts?".
The distinction is subtle, I know, but it's paramount. It's the difference between adaptation and re-imagining. TV on the web is available in a number of forms.
The YouTube Approach
Pros: it's free, it's ubiquitous, it's on-demand, and it's ad-less (for now)
Cons: low-res, mostly shorts, and a lot of garbage to sift through
Streaming Vid's with Ads
Like YouTube, only with advertisements that creep up over the bottom or some corner of the screen. This has got to stop. Advertising to me by blocking out what I'm trying to see will not, repeat will not, endear your product to me at all!
Cable Service on the Web
Pros: This seriously exists. Say you're an American with a BBC fetish, you can order British television and watch it on your PC, you can even watch with an hours-long delay so prime time is still prime-time.
Cons: it's $50 a month. It's quite obviously the work of a cable provider trying to capitalize off a geographical monopoly (translated from Kurtese: rip you off). It adds no convenience and costs the same as cable to transmit data that already exists over an infrastructure that already exists. I realize that they simply don't want to cannibalize their own profits, but surely we can find a middle-ground somewhere.
Pay-Per-Episode
This is a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. Nobody wants to pay $2 to watch an episode of something they've never heard of, nor are they likely to pay $2 to watch an episode of something they've seen maybe 5 episodes of. The big problem is that episodic television is hit or miss--even great shows have some flops--and it's very easy for a consumer to get frustrated three episodes in (because the first few are always rough) and give up on the series or to get 20 episodes in and see a couple of turkeys and give up but not without first building up some huge resentment for having invested $40 on it already.
Streaming Episodes on the Web
Pros: On-demand, usually 5 commercials per hour
Cons: Limited selection, and the 5 commercials are for the same product if not identical commercials!
Kudos to NBC for pioneering this, but there's still work to be done. This model is simply not sustainable, because the web streams are nearly always re-broadcasts of something that was made/paid-for via conventional means. It will not carry over to original content without some modifications.
What's to be Done?
Somebody (I'm look at you, Google) will start a web-based TV service. What will it need to survive?
First, it needs advertising. Most people won't shell out any amount of money just to watch video on the web. And there's nothing wrong with advertising, but we need to get away from the carpet-bomb ad approach in which Chrysler or Intel sponsors an entire episode of Battlestar Galactica. We can content-match on a whole new level. You want to watch an episode of something, then you need an account, and part of setting up that account will mean filling out a brief (optional) survey of your interests. That way, you can see ads that are tailer-made for you and represent products/services that you might actually buy. And it can be a mix: throw in a couple of anybody commercials (read as "car commercials") and maybe one or two that don't fit your needs exactly but that other viewers seem to be responding to. With the increased chance that an ad placement will result in a sale, you don't need as many ads. Right now, an hour of television means 15 minutes of ads, and what that means in reality is 3-1/2 minutes of ads repeated four times with at least a minute of each break devoted to advertising other shows.
It's wasteful, it's ridiculous, and the Net-generation simply doesn't have the patience for it anymore. Instead, you could have 10 ads, totaling 5 minutes, that are more likely to net revenues. Everyone wins. You could even have a little scroller across the bottoms that lists the ads you've seen and gives you the option to click for more info (eliminating the need to re-air and re-air them).
Second, get some on-demand original programming. It doesn't need to be an hour long, but it needs to be more than three minutes, but really there are no time constraints. It doesn't need to be fancy, but it needs to be good, and most importantly, it needs to not look like something that was made for TV and is being co-opted for the web.
Third, get interactive. Make an episodic story that sends viewers on an internet scavenger hunt. In order to watch the next episode, you need to find a password using clues from the last episode. Make a TV-ARG crossover. Why not? If you want to get creative with the advertising, hide clues on the webpages of your sponsors.
Or bring back the choose-your-own adventure model. Make a web-movie that has multiple endings depending on which route you take. Or watch the same event from different perspectives so you can watch it over and over again and literally see something new every time.
This ain't your grandpa's TV. But it will almost certainly have to be Google's TV. Why? Well, because they can afford it, they're intimately familiar with advertising models, and they own YouTube--and any TV-on-the-web efforts are going to face some competition from YouTube. And, frankly, Google is one of a handful of companies that is willing to experiment with wild ideas and make uber-successes of them. Hell, maybe that's why they bought YouTube in the first place. We'll find out.
Don't touch that dial,
]{
The distinction is subtle, I know, but it's paramount. It's the difference between adaptation and re-imagining. TV on the web is available in a number of forms.
The YouTube Approach
Pros: it's free, it's ubiquitous, it's on-demand, and it's ad-less (for now)
Cons: low-res, mostly shorts, and a lot of garbage to sift through
Streaming Vid's with Ads
Like YouTube, only with advertisements that creep up over the bottom or some corner of the screen. This has got to stop. Advertising to me by blocking out what I'm trying to see will not, repeat will not, endear your product to me at all!
Cable Service on the Web
Pros: This seriously exists. Say you're an American with a BBC fetish, you can order British television and watch it on your PC, you can even watch with an hours-long delay so prime time is still prime-time.
Cons: it's $50 a month. It's quite obviously the work of a cable provider trying to capitalize off a geographical monopoly (translated from Kurtese: rip you off). It adds no convenience and costs the same as cable to transmit data that already exists over an infrastructure that already exists. I realize that they simply don't want to cannibalize their own profits, but surely we can find a middle-ground somewhere.
Pay-Per-Episode
This is a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. Nobody wants to pay $2 to watch an episode of something they've never heard of, nor are they likely to pay $2 to watch an episode of something they've seen maybe 5 episodes of. The big problem is that episodic television is hit or miss--even great shows have some flops--and it's very easy for a consumer to get frustrated three episodes in (because the first few are always rough) and give up on the series or to get 20 episodes in and see a couple of turkeys and give up but not without first building up some huge resentment for having invested $40 on it already.
Streaming Episodes on the Web
Pros: On-demand, usually 5 commercials per hour
Cons: Limited selection, and the 5 commercials are for the same product if not identical commercials!
Kudos to NBC for pioneering this, but there's still work to be done. This model is simply not sustainable, because the web streams are nearly always re-broadcasts of something that was made/paid-for via conventional means. It will not carry over to original content without some modifications.
What's to be Done?
Somebody (I'm look at you, Google) will start a web-based TV service. What will it need to survive?
First, it needs advertising. Most people won't shell out any amount of money just to watch video on the web. And there's nothing wrong with advertising, but we need to get away from the carpet-bomb ad approach in which Chrysler or Intel sponsors an entire episode of Battlestar Galactica. We can content-match on a whole new level. You want to watch an episode of something, then you need an account, and part of setting up that account will mean filling out a brief (optional) survey of your interests. That way, you can see ads that are tailer-made for you and represent products/services that you might actually buy. And it can be a mix: throw in a couple of anybody commercials (read as "car commercials") and maybe one or two that don't fit your needs exactly but that other viewers seem to be responding to. With the increased chance that an ad placement will result in a sale, you don't need as many ads. Right now, an hour of television means 15 minutes of ads, and what that means in reality is 3-1/2 minutes of ads repeated four times with at least a minute of each break devoted to advertising other shows.
It's wasteful, it's ridiculous, and the Net-generation simply doesn't have the patience for it anymore. Instead, you could have 10 ads, totaling 5 minutes, that are more likely to net revenues. Everyone wins. You could even have a little scroller across the bottoms that lists the ads you've seen and gives you the option to click for more info (eliminating the need to re-air and re-air them).
Second, get some on-demand original programming. It doesn't need to be an hour long, but it needs to be more than three minutes, but really there are no time constraints. It doesn't need to be fancy, but it needs to be good, and most importantly, it needs to not look like something that was made for TV and is being co-opted for the web.
Third, get interactive. Make an episodic story that sends viewers on an internet scavenger hunt. In order to watch the next episode, you need to find a password using clues from the last episode. Make a TV-ARG crossover. Why not? If you want to get creative with the advertising, hide clues on the webpages of your sponsors.
Or bring back the choose-your-own adventure model. Make a web-movie that has multiple endings depending on which route you take. Or watch the same event from different perspectives so you can watch it over and over again and literally see something new every time.
This ain't your grandpa's TV. But it will almost certainly have to be Google's TV. Why? Well, because they can afford it, they're intimately familiar with advertising models, and they own YouTube--and any TV-on-the-web efforts are going to face some competition from YouTube. And, frankly, Google is one of a handful of companies that is willing to experiment with wild ideas and make uber-successes of them. Hell, maybe that's why they bought YouTube in the first place. We'll find out.
Don't touch that dial,
]{
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Greetings from the Other Side
I've been blogging for a very long time now. I started on Diaryland--this was back before the term "blog" even existed--and I hung out there for a few years, even found someone to script me a custom layout. Then I tried an early incarnation of blogspot, but that didn't last very long, due mostly to comment spam.
Then I started up blogging on my MySpace page, which was all well and good, but I've grown tired of their format, their lack of good archiving, and the fact that they can't be bothered to write an html editor that's stable on a Mac.
So I abandoned blogging altogether and had forced my writing into other projects: not the least of which is the website for my band Blind Satellite. I was all set to put aside my rambling aspirations, my constant editorializing. Then, in the midst of it all, fate intervened. I was put in charge of the company's blog--a necessary tool for raising page rank, it seems. So inspired, I put together a similar blog for the band and now suddenly find myself in blog-writing mode but without anyplace to write anything genuinely personal. Where, for example, would I post a nerd-out analysis of who might be the final Cylon on Battlestar Galactica? Where?
Thus was born "Kurtharis", a place where Kurt (that is, me) can engage in the release of pent-up everything for all the world to read. Stunning grammar, that.
I know what you're thinking: how is someone who hasn't blogged in months going to suddenly maintain three blogs? Well, I dunno, this may be a horrible mistake, but I'm up for it, so we're giving it a go.
]{
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)