The 11th Hour
The 11th Hour has interviews with over 50 leading scientists, thinkers and leaders who discuss the state of the world and the state of humanity. The film will be released in 2007.
A film by Leonardo DiCaprio
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Edit Online Video Online - lifehack.org
Edit Online Video Online - lifehack.org
This is a list of tools for editing on-line video, but it is also a recommendation to move the use of video beyond video-blogs into a true multi-media article, where rather than simply quoting a source, the author would embed a clip of the quote into the piece.
Nothing drastically new here, but good advice for all players that deliver information over the web. We are moving from a text-oriented communication model to a true multi-media environment. This is New-Media.
This is a list of tools for editing on-line video, but it is also a recommendation to move the use of video beyond video-blogs into a true multi-media article, where rather than simply quoting a source, the author would embed a clip of the quote into the piece.
Nothing drastically new here, but good advice for all players that deliver information over the web. We are moving from a text-oriented communication model to a true multi-media environment. This is New-Media.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Green Business 101: Are You a LOHAS Consumer? | Green Options
Green Business 101: Are You a LOHAS Consumer? | Green Options:
"So what’s so special about the LOHAS segment? Usually, market segments are identified using things like lifestyle, buying behavior, and demographics. But here’s where the LOHAS consumers diverge: they are distinguished solely by their values, as they care strongly about issues like the environment, social justice, sustainability, and health. Is this starting to sound familiar?
"As the segment grows, more and more businesses have begun to take notice – the marketplace for LOHAS consumers is now valued at over $220 billion. This means that more products and services, meant to serve our needs, will be coming to the market. Good news for anyone tormented over having to buy a product that is no friend of the environment, due to the lack of an alternative."
"Of course, the Forum wasn’t all about food and drink. The program featured a variety of speakers and break-out sessions designed to educate and inform LOHAS companies. My favorite session, “Giving Sustainability More SIZZLE”, focused on the shift of the LOHAS segment from a small niche to the mainstream, and some of the keys to making that jump as a company. Not surprisingly, communicating with authenticity was at the top of the list. LOHAS consumers can see through greenwashing a mile away…even through a chocolate haze.
"So what’s so special about the LOHAS segment? Usually, market segments are identified using things like lifestyle, buying behavior, and demographics. But here’s where the LOHAS consumers diverge: they are distinguished solely by their values, as they care strongly about issues like the environment, social justice, sustainability, and health. Is this starting to sound familiar?
"As the segment grows, more and more businesses have begun to take notice – the marketplace for LOHAS consumers is now valued at over $220 billion. This means that more products and services, meant to serve our needs, will be coming to the market. Good news for anyone tormented over having to buy a product that is no friend of the environment, due to the lack of an alternative."
"Of course, the Forum wasn’t all about food and drink. The program featured a variety of speakers and break-out sessions designed to educate and inform LOHAS companies. My favorite session, “Giving Sustainability More SIZZLE”, focused on the shift of the LOHAS segment from a small niche to the mainstream, and some of the keys to making that jump as a company. Not surprisingly, communicating with authenticity was at the top of the list. LOHAS consumers can see through greenwashing a mile away…even through a chocolate haze.
For those unable to attend the conference, session videos will be posted on the website: www.lohas.com
TV Pilots Crash, Fans Race to the Web for the Next Viral Hit
TV Pilots Crash, Fans Race to the Web for the Next Viral Hit: "Once execs realize that web-surfing TV fans are perfectly capable of recognizing sleeper hits, networks' air-them-or-hide-them business model is bound to change, says Jordan Levin, former CEO of the WB network.
'It's inevitable,' says Jordan, who now helps run the content-creation company Generate. 'Whether it's a proactive strategy (by) media companies or whether pilots get posted by producers, directors, editors, a production assistant, an assistant at the network -- all it takes is one person to post a sitcom,' says Levin. 'We're shifting to a user-empowered era in which audiences take ownership of content.'"
'It's inevitable,' says Jordan, who now helps run the content-creation company Generate. 'Whether it's a proactive strategy (by) media companies or whether pilots get posted by producers, directors, editors, a production assistant, an assistant at the network -- all it takes is one person to post a sitcom,' says Levin. 'We're shifting to a user-empowered era in which audiences take ownership of content.'"
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Dembot: Why do Video Platforms Fail?
See the whole post here: Dembot: Why do Video Platforms Fail?:
More Insight from Andrew Baron of Rocketboom!
TOP TEN REASONS WHY VIDEO PLATFORMS FAIL:
1. Insubstantial library of content
2. Poor bit rates
3. Lack of innovation (clone platform)
4. No share in content ownership rights
5. No exclusivity of content distribution
6. Lack of spark/spirit for a centralized community
7. Need for users to d/l proprietary software
8. Awkward interface design
9. Overly excessive emphasis on rights protection
10. Lack of technological foresight & audience expectations
More Insight from Andrew Baron of Rocketboom!
TOP TEN REASONS WHY VIDEO PLATFORMS FAIL:
1. Insubstantial library of content
2. Poor bit rates
3. Lack of innovation (clone platform)
4. No share in content ownership rights
5. No exclusivity of content distribution
6. Lack of spark/spirit for a centralized community
7. Need for users to d/l proprietary software
8. Awkward interface design
9. Overly excessive emphasis on rights protection
10. Lack of technological foresight & audience expectations
Most noteworthy, I have always suggested that an individual show may thrive best when allowed to live and breathe in its own home, on it's own website, best suited for it's own special case. A video player is one brand, a network is another and each individual show is itself a brand. If the show is unique and special, it will find its own identity and own distinct audience in it's own authentic location.
There is still certainly PLENTY of room for new, quality video content, the kind of entertaining content that Hollywood has traditionally been masters of so the competition is low in the creative studio department, the audiences are growing, business model options are progressing at least - there certainly are plenty of distribution partner options - it seems to be a wonderful time to create video that people respond to online.
As for the audiences, they like to get it in different ways at all kinds of different places. No matter where the big party is, or where the authentic home base may be, hopefully the content can make it's way easily into the growing number of scenes on the growing number of screens.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
NYT Magazine on Coulton, Hold Steady, and “Artist 2.0″
Merlin Mann is one of the most ubiquitous web-educators for personal productivity; a major source of information in my (and many others) learning curve with Getting Things Done (GTD). He is also a contributor to the Mac rumor/info mill, collaborating with Leo Laporte and the MacBreak team.
Directly relevant to EQ Media, here Mann links to (and comments on) a story called "Sex, Drugs, and Updating Your Blog" that NYT magazine ran on Jonathan Coulton and the new model of artists connecting with fans. Ranging from self-publishing to "the flash-mob approach to touring": finding towns with fan concentrations of 100+ (thanks to MySpace and the like) and parachuting in to do a show.
There are links to Mann's interview with Coulton (that may have spurned the NYTMag piece) as well. All in all, an insightful perspective into the future of the artist-fan interface, and a great intro to the many offerings of Coulton and Mann to the EQ Media audience.
Directly relevant to EQ Media, here Mann links to (and comments on) a story called "Sex, Drugs, and Updating Your Blog" that NYT magazine ran on Jonathan Coulton and the new model of artists connecting with fans. Ranging from self-publishing to "the flash-mob approach to touring": finding towns with fan concentrations of 100+ (thanks to MySpace and the like) and parachuting in to do a show.
There are links to Mann's interview with Coulton (that may have spurned the NYTMag piece) as well. All in all, an insightful perspective into the future of the artist-fan interface, and a great intro to the many offerings of Coulton and Mann to the EQ Media audience.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Obama blows into MySpace
Obama blows into MySpace
"How all this happened is a complicated tale that is still unfolding, and none of the parties involved--Anthony, the Obama online team, and the MySpace political operation--emerge from this story unscathed. Speaking on background, Obama campaign staffers are spreading word that Anthony just wanted a "big payday." Anthony in turn has posted a missive on his blog (that was originally sent to me as an email) accusing the Obama team of "bullying...[and] rotten and dishonest" behavior. However one parses those accusations (more below), the Obama campaign's reputation as the most net-savvy of 2008 has taken a big hit."
This is an interesting summary of the still unfolding Obama-MySpace soap-opera. The astute observation of the author that stood out for me is the following:
"[I]t appears the Obama internet team was shocked by the size of Anthony's proposal and argued to themselves that it was proof that he was just in it for the money, even though campaigns like theirs regularly give tens of thousands of dollars to highpriced media consultants who would give their eye-teeth to deliver 160,000 rabid activists to a campaign. Instead to them, Anthony's bid was all the more reason to get control of the site. Obama's staffers are now spreading the word that Anthony wanted a big payday, including a huge percentage of any ad buys on MySpace. I have a copy of Anthony's email proposal, however, and it contradicts that claim.
"Yea, $49K to deliver 160,000 supporters; that's .32 cents each for opted in and engaged activsts. A bargain. [The amount was actually up to $44K] $50,000 is what it takes to advertise on the Liberal Ad Network for two weeks. It's a minor expenditure in the grand scheme of things. But instead:
"How all this happened is a complicated tale that is still unfolding, and none of the parties involved--Anthony, the Obama online team, and the MySpace political operation--emerge from this story unscathed. Speaking on background, Obama campaign staffers are spreading word that Anthony just wanted a "big payday." Anthony in turn has posted a missive on his blog (that was originally sent to me as an email) accusing the Obama team of "bullying...[and] rotten and dishonest" behavior. However one parses those accusations (more below), the Obama campaign's reputation as the most net-savvy of 2008 has taken a big hit."
This is an interesting summary of the still unfolding Obama-MySpace soap-opera. The astute observation of the author that stood out for me is the following:
"'I considered the time I had put into it from January 1st of this year, not counting the previous two years. It was about $39,000. Plus I asked that if any fees were to be paid to MySpace by the campaign up to that point in time, those should be shared with me, up to $10,000. There was no counter-offer. They said they didn't have any money.'
"The Obama campaign should have faxed him the contract immediately. Instead, write's Sifry:"[I]t appears the Obama internet team was shocked by the size of Anthony's proposal and argued to themselves that it was proof that he was just in it for the money, even though campaigns like theirs regularly give tens of thousands of dollars to highpriced media consultants who would give their eye-teeth to deliver 160,000 rabid activists to a campaign. Instead to them, Anthony's bid was all the more reason to get control of the site. Obama's staffers are now spreading the word that Anthony wanted a big payday, including a huge percentage of any ad buys on MySpace. I have a copy of Anthony's email proposal, however, and it contradicts that claim.
"Yea, $49K to deliver 160,000 supporters; that's .32 cents each for opted in and engaged activsts. A bargain. [The amount was actually up to $44K] $50,000 is what it takes to advertise on the Liberal Ad Network for two weeks. It's a minor expenditure in the grand scheme of things. But instead:
Whatever the case, at this point it appears the Obama people simply decided that they would get control of the myspace.com/barackobama url by going around Anthony and getting MySpace to lock down his access to it. In their view, Anthony was violating MySpace's terms of service by falsely representing himself as Obama, and thus they didn't have to pay him anything. The worst that would happen, they reasoned, is that they would have to rebuild the candidate's network of friends."
Interesting, the rise of the power of UGC (as we also saw this week with Digg) is, on the one hand, a valuable asset to organizations like Obama's. However, when it comes time to compensate the "volunteer" for the work, the campaign has no money. What is it about our contradictory tendencies to be both a mercenary culture and simultaneously resent just compensation? In the end, will not supporting a supporter be worth the negative press this will heap upon an otherwise promising campaign?
Interesting, the rise of the power of UGC (as we also saw this week with Digg) is, on the one hand, a valuable asset to organizations like Obama's. However, when it comes time to compensate the "volunteer" for the work, the campaign has no money. What is it about our contradictory tendencies to be both a mercenary culture and simultaneously resent just compensation? In the end, will not supporting a supporter be worth the negative press this will heap upon an otherwise promising campaign?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)