Posts Tagged ‘Multimedia’

LOTD: 11/21/08

Friday, November 21st, 2008

Hot off the presses and certainly deserving of its own call-out is a great article that will be appearing in The Screens Issue of this weekend’s New York Times Magainze.

In Multiscreen Mad Men, Jack Hitt moderates a discussion about digital media and the direction it’s heading:

Palmer: There’s a difference. A Super Bowl ad is broadcast and everybody sees the same ad, and it comes from a single source. And so you may have a preference as to whether you liked this ad in comparison to this other ad in the block of ads that you just saw. But when you feel like you’ve discovered something on the Internet, it’s a different relationship to the brand. Say I was one of the first thousand people who saw that Cadbury gorilla ad — where he drums along to Phil Collins — and I send that out to all my friends. There’s a pride that I have in having discovered that, a connection that you actually can’t get with broadcast advertising.

Some great stuff in the issue all-around, eagerly awaiting your Saturday morning coffee.

How interactive are you?

Friday, November 2nd, 2007

I really can’t get over how much I love this graph put together by Steve Bryant on the intersection of interactivity and presentation. It’s really, really interesting if you follow the media at all and are involved in trying to get clients or customers into the interactive space.

TIME Widgets

Friday, September 21st, 2007

Ooh, never noticed this either – Lost Remote sez you can embed a widget from TIME magazine with a quote of the day in your own site if you want to. Wow, a widget with a credible source behind it. Go figure.

NFL wants video, like Bears offensive drives, to only last 45 seconds

Monday, July 2nd, 2007

I’m a big fan of recurring jokes and one of my favorites revolves around hockey. See here in Chicago we have a professional hockey team but we can’t watch it on local TV because the owner feels that broadcasting games would be bad for ticket sales. You can understand his argument considering that’s exactly what basketball, baseball and football leagues do, except that it’s not. So I make jokes about not even knowing what Tom and others are talking about when they mention hockey since it’s not something I usually even have the option of watching in the background and I chuckle to myself because my goodness am I witty.

It seems, though, that the NFL is taking a similar stance when it comes to online video. The league announced news organizations cannot post video longer than 45 seconds online, something meant to protect the interests (read: “web traffic”) of the league’s member teams, a policy that not even the NHL has in place. Quite the opposite, the other professional leagues allow for unlimited use by news organizations of video online. The NFL, though, wants to drive people to team sites where they’re the ones who have sold advertising and where people are just a couple clicks away from buying branded items.

I have no problem with a corporate entity wanting to protect assets it feels are valuable but there comes a point, as any parent will tell you, where you have to ask if you’ve crossed the line into smothering. Occasionally content has to run free, has to scrape its knees and has to meet new people. By restricting usage of video on news sites, the NFL is doing little but making sure content never gets misused but I don’t know if they fully realize that they run the risk of that content not being used at all.

As usual when a corporate entity attempts to over-control the media it’s the customer that loses. Fans, instead of being able to see NFL video on a news site will have to go to their team’s site, where the reporting will likely be less journalistic than that from a news organization.

What’s also interesting to me is how the NFL is repositioning itself from being a sports league to being a content producer, the equivalent of a Hollywood movie studio. There are actually a number of parallels since the studios, too, want to exercise total control over how their content is exhibited and viewed. This in contract to niche producers like Vuguru, the company behind the online series “Prom Queen,” and others that seem to believe it’s not where the content is viewed that is important but the the content itself that rules all.

“How does this impact my audience’s experience?” is a question all content producers should be asking themselves as they map out online strategies and then decisions made based on, not despite, the answers to that question.

Embeddable video is the way to go

Monday, November 27th, 2006

I have to agree with Lost Remote regarding posting video online. If you have video on your site, it should be embeddable. LR brings this up because of Comedy Central now allowing people to embed video from “The Colbert Report” and more from their site. Whenever I want to pass along a video now I always not only link to the source (likely Apple’s Quicktime or some other such site) but will also make an effort to search it out on YouTube. If it’s there I’ll grab the code and put it up as well, giving people the option to either view it directly on my site or go to the high-quality version.

But so many video producers don’t get that allowing people to easily pass on the video is a good thing. There might be a “tell a friend” link to email the video to someone but as more and more people are creating content themselves, allowing for embeddable video lets them add some spice to their site. It’s an easy way to let people spread the word in a way that builds brand loyalty for both the publisher as well as the video creator. I’m actively disappointed when I see someone has lots of video on their site and none of it is embeddable, even if I don’t plan on using it. Someone might be and that’s one less tool they have to talk about the product or brand in a compelling manner.