Content in a world where it is infinite - Dr Horrible

July 19, 2008 at 7:08 am · Filed under 2.0 Business Model, Dr Horrible, Hulu.com, Movie Making, iTunes

We are all struggling to find a way of making content valuable again. When it was scarce and you could only see it on a big screen or on your TV on a certain channel in a certain place at a certain time - the content had the value of scarcity. But now….? With as much content being posted on the web in a week that was on the air in a year back on the TV times of the 1970’s, where is the value?

Dr Horrible may be showing us one way.

This amazing film was launched this week for free in the 3 installments on the web. Come next week it will no longer be available - at least for free.

In the few days it has been available, it has caused a firestorm. First of all - it is very well done indeed. So there is the essential quality.

The makers are using all the rules of the 2.0 world.

• The have not negotiated with the 1.0 world for distribution
• They are using Hulu to show the web version
• They will be using iTunes to distribute the paid version
• And marketing? Of course they are using me and you - the early adopters who have some influence - I had to see this because of Laura at BPP - you might see it because of me - a friend of your might see it because of you and so on.
• They have used another form of scarcity - a very limited time of “free”
• They have used another form of scarcity - 3 installments built expectations and hope for the resolution.

And how does it end - Does Dr Horrible get the Girl? Does he deal with his Nemisis, Captain Hammer? Is he accepted into the A List of Evil Doers? Does it end happily? - Well you will have to watch it to find out.

Is it well made? Yes - very tight, great cast, great plotting and ideas, the music is exceptional - it kept me rapt all along and the end….. brilliant.

Will Dr Horrible do well? What do you think? Is this a model - yes

Comments

TV - Moving to online - Hulu.com?

October 29, 2007 at 9:15 am · Filed under Blue Monster, Chris Anderson, Enterprise 2.0, Fox, Gaping Void, Hugh McLeod, Hulu.com, Long Tail, NBC, NPR, News Corporation, PBS, Public Media, Social Computing, Social Media, Social Objects, Web Advertising, Wired

Hulu.com is an important experiment for how TV will shift from being available only when the broadcaster schedules it to when we want it - Having it My Way!

(From the NYT) Hulu is the new-media creation of two old-media rivals, NBC, which is owned by General Electric, and Fox, owned by the News Corporation. Since March, when the broadcasters announced their joint effort to bring free, ad-supported television shows to the Web, critics have pounced, predicting the venture would be doomed by diverging agendas, technical challenges and an all-powerful enemy: YouTube.

Skeptical bloggers even slapped Hulu with a derisive moniker: “Clown Co.”

Now the defense is ready to present its case.

Today, Hulu, now an independent company with more than a hundred employees and its own offices in Los Angeles, will begin privately testing its new service with select users at Hulu.com. It will also begin sending its videos to the sites of five distribution partners, Microsoft, AOL, MySpace, Yahoo and Comcast.

Hulu is presenting select episodes of some 90 television shows, including new and old programs from NBC (“The Office,” “The A-Team”), Fox (“24” and “The Simpsons”) and an assortment of smaller broadcasters like USA Networks. It has also added two new partners, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which distributes programs like “Chapelle’s Show” and “Reno 911,” and Sony Pictures Television, which will make selections in its archives like “I Dream of Jeannie,” available on Hulu.com.

All the shows are viewable inside a Web browser and festooned with advertisements.

However Hulu works out - they are on a track that is clear - people want video as they ant their music:

• Easy to find
• Available in chunks
• Available ON THE WEB - when they want it and usable on a variety of platforms such as an iPod and a 50inch HD LCD screen

Who pays and how will still be settled.

Also what I think Hulu has missed is the value of creating community around a show - this is Hugh’s great insight about Social Objects - it is the Conversation around the object that is more important than the object.

3. The Blue Monster wine is also part of the “Smarter Wine” conversation. The main thesis is that it’s not the wine per se that is interesting, it’s the conversations that happen around the wine that is interesting. And that is true for all social objects. People matter. Objects don’t.

The advertising money is shifting to the web - so will the content - it will go there faster than we imagine. For the laws of exponetial growth are in force. I think that the Tipping point is here:

I think that Broadcast TV is now in the Titanic Mode - It is large and feels unsinkable - BUT - the ship has grazed the ice - at the moment no one feels anything - but the wound is fatal and it is only a matter of time before the ship sinks.

The Iceberg is the weight of money that is leaving conventional media and going to the web. My forecast is that 2008 will be the year - 2008 will be the year where the web/digital will become where the ad money will go - the work for all providers of all types of content then will be to reset their universe.

Today most people in TV and radio see the web as a growing and important channel. In 2008, the smart people will see the web as the primary channel and that their old channel is now the supporting channel. Of course most will not see this and they will be lucky to find a life boat.

You think I exaggerate? Here is Chris Anderson on the “Music Industry” I quote him in full:

At a speech last week I was asked a question that has come up every day since the Radiohead (and Madonna, NIN, Prince, etc, etc) announcement: What’s going to happen to the music industry?

To which I answered “Which music industry?” You don’t mean just the one that sells CDs, do you? Because it’s a big mistake to equate the major labels and their plastic disc business with the industry as a whole. Indeed, when you stand back and look at all of music, things don’t look so bad at all.

Indeed, it appears that every single part of the music industry except the sale of compact discs is up.

• Concerts and merchandise: UP (+4%)
• Digital tracks: UP (+46%)
• Ringtones: UP (+86% last year, but probably just single-digit percent this year)
• Licensing for commercials, TV shows, movies and videogames: UP (Warner Music saw licensing grow by about $20 million over the past year)
• Even vinyl singles (think DJs): UP (more than doubled in the UK)
• And, if you include the iPod in the music industry, as I’d argue a fair-minded analysis would: UP, UP, UP! (+31% this year)

Only CDs are down (-18%). They’re around 60% of the industry not including the MP3 players, but just around 25% if you do include them.

So the problem with the music labels is not that music is an industry in decline, but that they have a too-narrow view of what business they’re in. Madonna’s switch from a label to a concert promoter should be a clue. This quote from an excellent article (it’s worth reading it all) in Entertainment Weekly says it all:

”Soon a lot of these companies won’t define themselves as record companies,” says Steve Greenberg, the former head of Columbia Records who now runs the independent record company S-Curve. ”They’ll define themselves as artist development companies. If you’re involved in an entire career with an artist, then everyone’s interests can be aligned.”

I think most music will soon be free, as artists give away the product as marketing for their performances and licensing, and as a celebrity accelerant that creates more opportunities to make money than just from the sale of a record.

And for those who say that this avenue is only available to artists at the head of the curve, such as Madonna and Radiohead, I’d point out that the other group poorly served by the labels are those at the bottom of the curve, the many thousands of bands who fall below the radar of the hit-driven majors. I’d argue that they, too, have nothing to lose by letting their music go free, nothing to lose but the prospect of becoming indentured to companies stuck in last century’s model of monetizing music.

Most people see TV and Radio like the people who make CD’s. All the forces that are turning the music industry upside down are coming to TV and Radio - for after all - a video and an audio file are the same as music - they are in reality all digital now.

Comments (1)