We know people are listening and watching; that's a given. But what is so intriguing about the online experience? Is it the "niche" aspect where there's something for everyone? (Look at the podcast phenomenon; truly bad audio programs attracting tiny, devoted audiences.) Is it the "one on one" feeling the user has? Is it the interactivity? Is it more creative than the TV experience?
Someone will eventually have concrete answers to those questions. But until then, let's just experiment with format, creative and delivery to find the best combinations for the user AND the provider.
We've struggled to make rich media an integral part of the online experience. Let's not blow it by prematurely deciding "what works."
]]>We can't allow technical requirements/limitations thwart the creative side. If we do, the Web will end up looking like the TV networks - bland, blander, and blandest.
Technology has gotten to the point where IT can adapt to the creative process. I know, I know - lots of folks believe in standards, and I do, too, if they are reasonable and don't limit progress.
]]>We can now talk about using rich media in creative ways to produce ads, and other marketing messages, that evoke emotional responses in viewers.
An excellent article today, by Jim Meskauskas, discusses this issue in depth and is a very worthwhile read.
If you find creative that truly touches your emotions, please let me know, and I'll feature it here.
]]>And why shouldn't they? Live 8 created quite a stir in the nascent field of live internet streaming - as well as dealing quite a blow to "regular" TV by winning a larger audience than MTV.
Do we know how convergence will really happen? Will it happen on the device in your living room or the device on your desk or lap? (See Sean Carton's excellent article in ClickZ.) Does it really matter?
AOL is definitely showing foresight. This is only the beginning of online entertainment.
]]>Fasten your seat belts!
]]>It seems people preferred the Web version as it had fewer commercial interruptions, and the coverage was more "complete." Hmmmmm......
No one can argue about TV's ability to reach mass audiences, but the internet seems to be defining how live events need to be covered.
]]>This article, from E-Commerce News today, really backs me up.:-) And this one, from the LA Times, even gives me more ammunition.
As the major internet players - MSN, Yahoo, AOL, and Google - morph into programming monoliths, the internet becomes more integral to our daily lives. Whether we access it via a desktop or a mobile phone, we will be immersed in a sea of information and entertainment available to us anytime, anyplace. Television, as we know it today, probably won't even be recognizable in 15 to 20 years.
And that's not a bad thing.
]]>It's reported that Firefox has claimed over a 10% share of the browser market.
This move by these two rich media leaders is good news for the rich media industry and the internet in general.
]]>Today, in Media Post, is the following quote:
"If marketers want to keep the goodwill that some online consumers have already extended with regards to ads, it seems obvious that a re-purposed 30-second television ad is the wrong way to go.
While it might take longer to create a five-second ad than re-run a spot already prepared for TV, it's better for agencies to spend their time making new ads than to ask consumers to spend their time re-watching ads online they already saw on television."
Enough said....
Large publishers like Gannett have a need to diversify their print businesses, so why not buy a pure internet company like PointRoll which enhances their ability to offer cutting edge online advertising.
The rich media offerings are starting to look remarkably similar in execution. I predict there'll be many more deals like this one in the future.
]]>Of that number, 1.86 billion, or 33.2% were music videos
Slightly over 1 billion (18.2%) were news and information videos
Approximately 15.6% were sports videos, which includes download and
embedded and or pre-cached video applications such as ESPN Motion
The biggest negative change in viewing share was in the news category,
which dropped from 28% in 2003 to 18.2% in '04
Conversely, Internet TV rose substantially, to 14.5% viewing share (up
from 6% in 2003) on the strength of cross platform programs such as Survivor
and Big Brother, but also AOL for Broadband offering broadcast network
previews for shows such as Jack and Bobby
Also included in the report are listings of the top ten streaming video
sites and networks from 1999 through the present, and the top ten Internet
music radio networks from 2001 through the present
For more information visit
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c18641
Media Post today offers a Point - Counterpoint argument on rich media standardization. Jason Heller, the CEO and co-founder of Mass Transit Interactive, almost gets it when he discusses relevance as the most important aspect of any ad. Had he discussed creativity as well, he would have made my genius list.:-)
I don't think people give a darn if the ad is 15 or 150 seconds if it's clever and pertains to them. Give up on the TV thing - PLEASE!
]]>I've been talking about - and predicting - convergence for a long time, and it's finally coming to pass. The popularity of sites such as ManiaTV , and the new music videos etc. on MTV only prove my point.
When people spend as much time as we do in front of our computer screens, we're bound to go looking for entertainment. And we'd like to find entertainment with which we can interact!
The old line TV folks better get it into their heads that the Web is going to take an even greater slice of their market than it already has. There will be little they can do to stem the tide as the two mediums are going to be interchangeable sooner than we think.
Remember - you read it here.:-)
]]>In-stream and banners are two ways to execute a campaign. They're not interchangeable, and they serve different purposes.
Learning to effectively use video on the internet is a worthwhile venture. Again, it's NOT television. Yes, clutter is a problem, but let's learn the lessons that TV advertisers obviously haven't. Let's not ruin this incredibly diverse medium.
]]>Chris Young, CEO of Klipmart. laments about the lack of delivery standards for video in today's issue of Rich Media Insider.
This isn't a new topic or one that hasn't been beaten to death before.
The internet still isn't television - a topic discussed in this blog many times. In many ways, the internet is still the Wild West with lots of players jockeying for position - especially in the burgeoning field of internet video. (Heck, we can't even get browser standards to which everyone can or will adhere!)
Will this change? I can't honestly predict this.
Flash had emerged as the format of "choice" for the majority of internet advertisers. However, it still has its limitations, and I don't believe Microsoft will be ready to abandon Windows Media anytime soon. (Not to speak of Real Networks and Apple.)
Stick around - this could make the browser wars look tame by comparison.
]]>