We not only live in a time where there is a ravenous appetite for media, with audiences salivating over the ever-increasing choices on a menu.
We're also living in a time when audiences want their media faster. In a morning panel on the final day of Digital Hollywood, the discussion turned towards the speed with which these seemingly endless options get to the audiences. Issues with broadband and high-speed Internet connectivity remain at the center of a lot of these discussions.
Having the option to order from the menus of 40 different restaurants is a great thing, but if you can't get that food delivered hot and fresh to your door, what's the point? (Yes, that's an an overly simplified argument, but the concept is the same.)
Consider this: Throughout the conference, I met with companies who were eager to show me demos of their product online. With the vast number of vendors on site, you can just imagine how much traffic there was on the hotel's wi-fi connection. Too many signals competing for access ... and suddenly nobody has access and your extremely cool demo has gone cold.
Everyone is trying to figure out where the next great Internet video or music story is going to come from, but how they're going to watch that show or download that song depends so heavily on how easily the audience connects to it.
All video, all the time, is a great thing for people to look forward to -- just as long as you can get access to the network to actually see it.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A better virtual mousetrap
During my first morning at the Digital Hollywood conference, I'm struck by how often the terms "social networking," "MySpace" and "YouTube" are slipped into the conversation. Even developers on the bleeding edge of technology are trying to figure out how to move beyond the shadow of these two "Web 2.0" giants.
There is no shortage of bright, enthusiastic software developers attending this conference who are trying to best these virtual beasts by building... well, a better beast. Or at least one a similar one. And therein lies one of the problems.
One of the reasons that sites such as MySpace and YouTube have become so successful lies simply in the fact that they were incredibly easy to use. Duplicating that kind of success much more complex. While everyone is scrambling to be the "next" MySpace or YouTube, there is a tendency to forget the idea that nobody is asking for the "next" version of either of these sites.
Now, if a developer were to create a product that vastly IMPROVED on that experience for users, they might have something.Instead, what you find is a lot of companies creating the tools for companies with web-sites who want to be like MySpace - who want to take advantage of the "community" aspects of social networking and put them to use as a means of promoting their own content. The problem is, if the content you are trying to create a community around isn't compelling, your social network will be anything but.
Social networking sites such as MySpace work because their users drive the conversation. Some would argue that site has suffered since News Corporation took over its operation and made that conversation more commercial. Still, at it's core - the user is the focus - and its the user's choice of content that makes the conversation interesting.
The key to the "next" MySpace is realizing that we don't need "another" MySpace. But we might be interested in something better.
There is no shortage of bright, enthusiastic software developers attending this conference who are trying to best these virtual beasts by building... well, a better beast. Or at least one a similar one. And therein lies one of the problems.
One of the reasons that sites such as MySpace and YouTube have become so successful lies simply in the fact that they were incredibly easy to use. Duplicating that kind of success much more complex. While everyone is scrambling to be the "next" MySpace or YouTube, there is a tendency to forget the idea that nobody is asking for the "next" version of either of these sites.
Now, if a developer were to create a product that vastly IMPROVED on that experience for users, they might have something.Instead, what you find is a lot of companies creating the tools for companies with web-sites who want to be like MySpace - who want to take advantage of the "community" aspects of social networking and put them to use as a means of promoting their own content. The problem is, if the content you are trying to create a community around isn't compelling, your social network will be anything but.
Social networking sites such as MySpace work because their users drive the conversation. Some would argue that site has suffered since News Corporation took over its operation and made that conversation more commercial. Still, at it's core - the user is the focus - and its the user's choice of content that makes the conversation interesting.
The key to the "next" MySpace is realizing that we don't need "another" MySpace. But we might be interested in something better.
How do you want your entertainment?
Lights. Camera. Confusion.
The weeklong Digital Hollywood conference in Santa Monica, Califonia, is an exploration of what could be next in terms of digital delivery of entertainment. Software and network developers have gathered together to display their wares in an attempt to offer solutions to the distribution questions nagging at the entertainment business. The industry wants to expand and improve the way it offers movies, music and shows to you, and these developers are trying to present ideas. But I say "could be next" because, while the developers are claiming to have the answer, nobody is really certain of what the question is.
While everyone -- both studios and software developers and sites -- agree on the importance of digital distribution, none of the players are really sure just how best to serve their consumers.
During a panel discussion focused on film and TV distribution, one of the key topics was user expectations. Panel members pointed to the success of Internet-driven businesses such as Netflix, which are able to offer nearly any film imaginable within 24 hours, versus some of the purely digital distributors such as CinemaNow, which have a much smaller inventory of titles.
And while these sites all have relationships with the various studios, that relationship is tentative at best -- and clearly favors the studio's desires, not necessarily the desires of the consumers.
Consumers want what they want. They don't really care about the software tools that help them get that movie or TV show. If users go to a site to find a particular title and can't find it, they will simply go and search for it elsewhere. If they find that particular title but it only works on their PCs but not on their iPods, again -- they'll inevitably find another way to get that content.
So what's the answer? It depends on what the question is ...
The weeklong Digital Hollywood conference in Santa Monica, Califonia, is an exploration of what could be next in terms of digital delivery of entertainment. Software and network developers have gathered together to display their wares in an attempt to offer solutions to the distribution questions nagging at the entertainment business. The industry wants to expand and improve the way it offers movies, music and shows to you, and these developers are trying to present ideas. But I say "could be next" because, while the developers are claiming to have the answer, nobody is really certain of what the question is.
While everyone -- both studios and software developers and sites -- agree on the importance of digital distribution, none of the players are really sure just how best to serve their consumers.
During a panel discussion focused on film and TV distribution, one of the key topics was user expectations. Panel members pointed to the success of Internet-driven businesses such as Netflix, which are able to offer nearly any film imaginable within 24 hours, versus some of the purely digital distributors such as CinemaNow, which have a much smaller inventory of titles.
And while these sites all have relationships with the various studios, that relationship is tentative at best -- and clearly favors the studio's desires, not necessarily the desires of the consumers.
Consumers want what they want. They don't really care about the software tools that help them get that movie or TV show. If users go to a site to find a particular title and can't find it, they will simply go and search for it elsewhere. If they find that particular title but it only works on their PCs but not on their iPods, again -- they'll inevitably find another way to get that content.
So what's the answer? It depends on what the question is ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
