Yesterday Acacia Technologies Groups claimed another victim of its' ridiculous patent on "Digital Media Transmission." Internet News reported it today.
Let us all bow our heads - Disney Enterprises succumbed. Are we surprised?
WHO is fighting this? Some adult webmasters with a big financial stake but no real political clout. Where are Bill Gates and Rob Glaser when you need them?
Should we cringe or cheer? Rich Media has entered the mainstream lexicon. An article in USA Today tell us how Rich Media is becoming the de facto preferred method in which to create Web ads. Broadband growth and acceptance has been the key to its' "sudden" popularity.
They say Rich Media increases brand awareness and aids conversion. And they're even saying interactivity might be the key to Web ad success. Wow!
So be prepared for an onslaught of the mundane as advertisers grab hold of this exciting "new" concept.
If you've given up TV time to use the Internet, is there a reason advertisers think you'd like to see the same commercials there? They must as more and more of them seem to be falling for the "repurposing" of TV ads as the new Holy Grail of online advertising.
Today, ClickZ announced the CBS Sportsline site will be carrying ads created by Viewpoint. Great! Now you'll need to download their player to see them. (How many of these things does one computer need? But that's another entry.)
The Buzz column today at imedia is also talking about this "phenomenon". Get ready for a spate of ho-hum TV commercials turned into even more boring and annoying Internet interruptions before these people learn that INTERACTIVITY is what people online are seeking.
Akimbo is making news today. A way to download movies over the Internet to a network connected appliance costing less than $200.00. (Call it a network attached Tivo.)
This is interesting as there's a bandwidth advantage over the cable networks. Akimbo uses Windows Media 9 to encode their files versus the cable companies'
storing in MPEG-2. Files are MUCH smaller requiring less storage and, therefore, less bandwidth. (See the Forbes story today.
I'm concerned that this adds another device to the TV. How many more inputs and outputs can we stack up in a consumer's living room? OBTW, wish I had thought of this. It could be big.
These people at the IAB (Interactive Advertising Board)must operate on a different planet than the rest of us. They're NOW setting the specifications for the sizes of online rich media ads? Does anyone really care? Certainly not us technology providers. And, apparently, no one in the ad business cares much either according to Jim Meskauskas' column today at Media Post. These folks are so behind the curve.
Putting TV ads on the Web has become a very hot topic in marketing and advertising circles. There's been vague talk about "repurposing" before, but the topic seems to have gotten legs. WHY do people still think the Internet is TV?
TV is a lean back, passive form of entertainment while the Internet encourages people to lean in and participate. TV can be a mindless, numbing experience, and that's not all bad. The Internet - by its' nature - forces you to have at least a minimal level of involvement. TV can involve a large group of people sharing the same experience - think Sports Bar, Super Bowl Party etc. It would be tough for a group of 15 to watch the Super Bowl on a 17" monitor. Can the same advertising messages work in two such disparate situations?
James Hering wrote a great article on this today for ClickZ. It should be required reading for anyone thinking of adding TV ads to a web site. Hasn't enough damage been done to Internet advertising already? There's no technological reason why interactive ads shouldn't be the norm.
You'll forgive me, but I have to laugh at the marketing and advertising communities "discovery" of audio on the Web. For years, I've been promoting audio as an ideal way to involve Web visitors. (See my articles at WBC Imaging.com) An audio message is simple to produce and can really personalize a Web site. Unfortunately, some of the software programs being sold value simplicity over quality, and it really shows in the final product.
Recording over the phone, or even directly into the computer, often causes lots of background noise which needs to be "engineered" out of the final product. This requires some specialized software and, at the very least, some rudimentary knowledge of how to do this. Too many people skip this step, and the resulting audio message sounds awful when visitors attempt to listen.
Yes - I know no one wants to pay an encoding company when they can "do it themselves." But when you've spent all that money to build a great Web site, do you really want something to sound like bad AM radio?
Why hasn't more been written about Acacia Research and their attempts to hold-up the streaming community? Outside of Dan Rayburn at Streamingmedia.com , little of Acacia's assaults have been noted. I suppose it's because Acacia's primary targets are in the Adult Entertainment field, so no one has been too alarmed. But we should be as Acacia is already starting to demand - and receive - licensing fees from companies like Hustler, RealNetworks, and Virgin Radio.
Some adult entertainment providers have refused to pay Acacia's licensing fees for their supposed patents on "Digital Media Transmission," and have gone to court to try and stop this technological blackmail. The first hearings were on February 6 and a preliminary ruling isn't expected until the end of the summer.
This was a "Markman" hearing in which Judge James Ware will try to determine the scope and depth of Acacia's claims. This is the first step to determine if the technology used by the defendants falls within Acacia's patents.
If Acacia wins this case, it could severly hamper the growth of streaming media on the Web as anyone who wants to stream would theoretically owe Acacia a licensing fee.