Even with 86% of all movie goers venturing online everyday, most first learn of new movies the old-fashioned way: TV Commercials and in-theater trailers.  No, not banner ads, not YouTube, not even Twitter polled higher than television.

 

Out of 3,850 movie goers who were surveyed – 73% said that they first gain awareness of new releases from TV commercials, followed by 70% from in-theater trailers.

Word-of-mouth followed at 46%, and the Internet at 44%.

What makes these numbers even more interesting is that 73% of the movie goers surveyed use social networking sites.

Good news for the much maligned TV industry and not so good news for those who would have us believe that the Internet and social media are just a tweet away from replacing traditional advertising.

Read Entire AdWeek Article

From behind the ice curtain, Sarah Palin gives you fresh takes from the great white land……..

Today, I went all feral ginger – and all this anger isn’t making me thinner either.

I suffered an unfortunate re-occurance of a bad dream – you could hear my screams of panic as the earth moved and the newsflash hit the wires:

“Tina Fey wins Emmy for her uncanny portrayal of former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live“

Filthy doughnut puncher lesbian communist motherfucker.

My mojo was all over the place after reading that.

I was just so mad I couldn’t think about anything else, or bring myself to visit the loo.  This made me hold my wee all day. Is it bad to hold your wee?.

Firstly, these are buttons you should never push TV awards people. You do not ignore The Sarah.

Secondly, you can’t put a price on experience – well you can – in your case Ms Fey – it’s about $3.

Thirdly, don’t be thinking this is some kind of divine sisterhood thing. If we ever cross tracks again, I’m going to tear you a fresh one Fey.

Sure, I might have raised eyebrows while living life on my own quirky terms, but they give you an Emmy for being me??

I’m pressed for time, but I always have time to get even – so let’s deconstruct this………

“Tina Fey” = translation: “pimp”. Let’s just say – who made who missy?. Todd has told me that all the hottest prostitutes always have tiny penises. Do you have a tiny penis too Tina?

“Uncanny portrayal” = translation: “crap”. Whats so clever about looking like an airline trolley slut on heat and stupid pills? Also, your rack needs a lift – while I on the other hand have the real weapons, and they work. Just ask Todd. Who really believes less is more anyway?

So, dear reader, what happens next?.

Welcome to the Sarah Palin blog – a place where Tina fey does not exist, and will never be mentioned again.

And what happens to Tina Fey?.

She’s free. To good home.

Same strategy as getting rid of unwanted puppies and kittens. Sorted.

There is no way The Sarah will be shackled by this bureaucratic TV award bullshit.

Yours, while planning the mainstreaming of shock jockery.

Sarah

p.s. I don’t mind having lost the 2008 presidential election, I just hate that Obama won.

Check out my new website – it’s the ride you’ll come back for: The Sarah Palin Experience

Living large in alaska – where omnipresent redneck locals determine whether you remain upright, or on your back in a dubious local hospital nursing burnt flesh.

Today was not a good day for me. Besides not a sniff of responsibility in sight, went to the supermarket, and everyone stared at me. Am I a human .jpeg??

Todd used the inertia created by his solid frame and deft touch on his snow mobile to stylishly destroy all virgin snow within 50 miles of our place today.

Yesterday,  I put a little pink lipstick on this pitbull and had a meeting with Fox president of alternative entertainment Mike Darnell about replacing Paula Abdul on Amercian Idol.

We caught up for banana pancakes and a chat. He said that this arena is one in which my complex duality would play well – a chance to take my human projectile act to another level. All I would have to do is simply corral random thoughts briefly in my head, then let my mouth blaze away. The result would be the full blown saturation of America’s senses at every turn.

I told him I was locked and loaded, and ready to go!  This was a punt that was sure to please my base.

So you can imagine my surprise when I opened up The Internets today and saw the headline:

“Mike Darnell said that signing Ellen DeGeneres to replace Paula Abdul as a judge on “American Idol” was a piece of cake”

“We made a call,” Darnell told EW.com, “and she was incredibly enthusiastic about the idea.  And it came together in a couple of weeks. It was amazing! Abdul has weighed in on the choice, tweeting: “I think Ellen will b a gr8 judge on Idol.”

Jesus, its enough to make you take up crack. What a metaphoric slap in the face!. In my experience, a real slap in the face would have been preferable.

Ellen DeGeneres??

She looks and behaves like the love child of Johnny Rotten and an albino bat – and she’s as exciting as watching two condoms having a fist fight in a bucket of spermicide. Get outta my dreams Ellen, you’re stealing my success!

In ‘Sarah Palin Was Robbed!’ , Joal Ryan lays out a very strong case for why I should have been the one they picked:

1. Palin competed in beauty pageants.
2. She knows what it’s like to sell yourself when you have little to no discernible talent.
3. Palin can’t sing. But DeGeneres can’t either.
4. Palin watches a lot of TV.  According to ex-future-son-in-law Levi Johnston in Vanity Fair, Palin “sat on the living-room couch in her two-piece pajama set from Wal-Mart…watching house shows and wedding shows on TV.”

While this is the first sensible thing the craft punk Johnston has said since he removed magic mushrooms from his diet,  he is still off the schizzle. Is this the thanks I get for removing his personality and charisma?. You’re big, but you’re not bulletproof Levi.

The TV industry shits me. Fuckin’ lefties, all of them.

I (almost) did it my way (again).

Yours, while wondering why success can’t be as simple as rocket science

Sarah P

p.s. My life just keeps rewriting itself, and Todd is still stinging for a root.

Check out my new website, it’s like sticking a fire hose up your muck hole: The Sarah Palin Experience

Actually I’m not certain how often expert astrologer Jessica Murray ‘looks at’ television but she has some intriguing thoughts on the medium, the industry, and the president’s “stupidly” remark about Professor Gates’ arrest last week on her MotherSky blog.

2009’s Super Conjunction appears as well so you should definitely check out Ms. Murray’s article!

I’ve got a few random thoughts that have been piling up without sufficient mass to justify a full post. So here’s a compilation of stuff passing through my mind, Larry King style.

- I’ve not tried to do a full account or analysis of the network upfronts or planned 2009-10 season. But in reading about the shows and plans, the one thing that struck me and gave me hope was a seeming embrace of the short season. More than any thematic, tonal, or narrative development from the rising success of cable drama/comedy series, I think the most important lesson for networks to embrace is that 20+ episodes is simply too much expect sufficient quality from a new show, especially one that aims to be innovative. So more shows (both new and returning) are being picked up for shorter runs, which bodes well for their creative success. And with the aftermarket of DVD boxes, it could be an economically wise move as well to help build and sustain a series for the long haul.

- Breaking Bad’s second season was as good as anything I’ve seen on TV short of The Wire. The first season was a good show surrounding Bryan Cranston’s brilliant performance, but getting cut short by the writer’s strike was the best thing that could have happened – based on comments on the excellent producer podcast for the series, they’d planned to make the final episodes of the first season highly explosive, escalating the stakes in more sensational ways. Once they came back to plot out season 2, they embraced a lower-key approach to charting the minute details of the characters’ lives, a tactic that has made the series leap into the upper echelon of televisual excellence.

This season broadened the depth of the rest of the cast – Cranston still shines brightest, but the other actors and performances are now almost as good, especially Aaron Paul’s Jesse. Individual episodes were little etudes of emotional intensity, especially the ones with Tuco in the desert, Jesse in the house-of-meth, and the mind-blowing final two episodes of the season. The show consistently manages to confound my expectations, deliver on its own promises, and create truly powerful emotional moments that I can’t shake for weeks. If you haven’t watched it, dive in before you fall too far behind.

- The other show I’ve recently completed is In Treatment’s second season. I missed the first season, in large part due to the daunting scheduling – even with a TiVo, 2.5 hours a week is a lot of TV to keep up with. After reading a bit of advance buzz, we signed on for season 2. The scheduling was certainly a challenge, as we ended up falling behind and finishing a couple weeks late. But we were glad that we did – the show is all about the performances, with Gabriel Byrne carrying the series on top of a number of excellent supporting performances, especially Hope Davis and Alison Pill. At times the show becomes a bit too painful to watch, as characters having emotional breakdowns or self-destructing can become tough to take; likewise, the show’s stylistic and temporal realism sometimes runs counter to the clearly compressed pace of therapy portrayed over 7 weeks. But the show was sufficiently compelling as to suggest a true innovation in how to program and schedule a series, one that it would be interesting to see other shows mimic.

- I haven’t yet watched tonight’s inadvertent finale for Pushing Daisies, but watching the previous two episodes from ABC’s summer burnoff created wistful glee – utter joy from the show, tempered by outrage from the injust way that ABC treated my beloved pie hole. Kristen Chenowith singing Lionel Ritchie was simply too beautiful to live…

- I see almost no films in theaters anymore, but my daughter and I both adored Up. Like Wall-E, it starts stronger than it finishes – for once, can Pixar make a film without a climactic chase/battle? But the photo album montage sequence is simply perfect. And I’m glad that another generation has the opportunity to appreciate Ed Asner.

- I’ve been on Twitter for about a month. Haven’t quite figured out how I’d most like to use it, but I feel obliged to be familiar with trending technologies. It’s best use for me has been during conferences, where a group of people document and discuss an ongoing event, bleeding the boundaries of the conference into a larger community. But more often than not, it’s just another drain on my attention.

That’s all for now. I’m still working on a larger post wrapping up my course on The Wire, but it’s taking too long to become articulate.

” Madproject é uma pesquisa em formato de entretenimento, parodiando a série
Madmen da HBO (não é um site oficial…).
www.madproject.orgfree.com

A idéia da pesquisa é entender um pouco melhor como podemos transformar as
pessoas que não aceitam tecnologia em adeptos no futuro.

P.S: O resultado oficial da pesquisa sai agora no dia 29 de Julho.”

….na integra dica do Serginho Mug

TV has never failed to fascinate me. The pull  is more towards the analysing power I improve because of it. My bad habit of being restless both physically and mentally just ends in front of TV. Most of the people like P think, TV is something which wastes  time and energy and to save ourselves we should just snub it. I think, it as a medium through which, I am able to analyse and understand people. The whole sociological, anthropological, philosophical, psychological analysis comes to a full circle just watching it.

I am thinking of writing a book on TV which would comprise everything which comes on it. Serials, advertisements, films, news, channels everything. The basic ingredient of the book would draw from the fact that TV has moulding and manipulating power. It is a factor which changes society and the generations linked with it.

People think that it is a reflection of society, it is.  But, more than that it is the other way round.

Let me see, how far would I go and expose the equations of powerful and the powerless !

Na minha opinião uma das mentes mais criativas e produtivas em atividade hj em dia. Em todas as midias ele circula agregando, compartilhando e materializando idéias a todo tempo.

“The interview Project” é um “road doc” organizado em 121 mini histórias de 3-5 minutos gravadas durante 70 dias e em 32 mil km percorridos pelos EUA. Todos eles exploram universos pessoais bem ao estilo Lynch, apesar da direção ser de Austin Lynch, filho de dele.

A cada 3 dias um novo episódio será disponibilizado online e existe no site uma relação interessante com um mapa que acompanha a rota percorrida e a exibição de cada um dos 121 mini filmes.
Realmente o processo tá virando protagonista ou quase isso. Penso que isso pode ser uma forma de aproveitar mais as idéias, torná-las mais valiosas, mais profundas mais transparentes. Contar a história da história.
De novo o ritmo e o formato são algo que chamo de inovadores. Vai ficando claro que quem conta histórias interessante faz isso em qualquer mídia ou formato.

http://interviewproject.davidlynch.com

http://partofthegame.tv

Tv online que celebra o futebol e seus fãns. “If you think 90 minutes is not enough”, segundo o tag line.
Futebol é um master social object. Porém a pouco tempo ele vem recebendo digamos uma embalagem nova, um novo formato ou sendo explorado da maneira que esta imensa audiência vem pedindo. Destaques: Estádios absurdos como do Barcelona e Milan são verdadeiros templos reunindo museu/loja/conteúdo na europa, por aqui a Loja Roxos e Doentes que tem uma linguagem moderna e afiada e andou fazendo popups stores em postos de gasolina, uma movimentação bastante interessante. O museu do futebol no Pacaembu em SP nasce tarde mas nasceu e isso que importa. Apenas achei que o site está a anos luz do que rola no mundo nesse seguimento, pena.

Mais um grito do novos tempos das novas mídias, do digital. Vem a Carlsberg e no meio do marasmo das cervejas na internet, banca um projeto onde o futebol representado na sua da qualidade extrema é personagem principal. Tudo é excelente: a interface, a qualidade dos filmes, a locução. A forma com que a Carlsberg aparece é sutil e pertinente e não está escondida não, está apenas muito bem adequada ao projeto. Filmes antigos, bem editados, qualidade na imagem e no streaming. A interface chega a ser um mix the youtube com o ps.

Since I moved to Vermont in 2002, I have been on the board of Middlebury Community Television, our local public access channel. Yesterday, the board sponsored a community media forum, where we invited members of our community to come together to discuss the role of a small public access channel in a small town today – for a frame of reference, the population of Middlebury is only 8,000, and the subscriber base for cable is even smaller than that.

As Middlebury’s resident television expert, I gave an opening talk at the forum that outlined the context of PEG (Public / Educational / Governmental) channels, the role they served in the 20th century, and the threats to that role in the new media landscape. My presentation slides are below, which should be fairly self-explanatory.

I share them here to invite a broader conversation about the potential future of PEG channels. As I see it, the transformation away from the old television model, in which the distribution bottleneck meant that the only opportunities for individuals to contribute to television as a producer were going through a PEG channel or working through the complex world of the commercial or public television industries, is good thing overall. Certainly the rise of online video, nearly ubiquitous access to the tools of production, and a multiplication of distribution avenues is a net boon for democracy and creativity.

However, PEGs traditionally have served as community media centers, local anchors in a media system that has skewed toward national and global models. While online distribution certainly allows for localism, it does not privilege that model. Additionally, the digitial divide persists, especially in a state like Vermont with one of the oldest and most rural populations, so organizations like MCTV reach citizens who will never find their way to YouTube. (For instance, I was one of the youngest people in the room yesterday and one of the few who’d ever been to Hulu, YouTube, etc…)

PEG has more competition today from other ways for consumers to become producers, making the exclusive access to the tools of production that public access used to provide less essential for many – again, this is a net gain for democracy, but a tough hit for PEG channels. Additionally, as Jonathan Nichols-Pethick discussed in his recent Flow column, regulatory and corporate shifts threaten to undermine the legal and financial basis of PEG channels.

So I pose the question: what should be the future path that PEG channels take to sustain themselves? Or is this simply an example of a business model that has outlived its necessity, suggesting that those of us involved in community media should repurpose our energies into different models and structures? Are there national/global answers here, or is it all locally-specific?

I’m eager to hear what people might have to say…

By BRAD STONE and BRIAN STELTER

MILWAUKEE — In the last couple of years, the television industry has made a big push onto the Web, giving viewers hope that they might one day reach nirvana: every show ever made, available online for immediate free viewing.

But many in the industry are now questioning whether free is a sustainable model. And some are trying to make sure people have a reason to keep paying hefty cable bills.

Time Warner Cable, the second-largest cable operator in the country, is working with customers here to test a subscriber model for online TV viewing. Residents who pay for HBO can watch “Big Love,” “Entourage” and other programs on their computers, using special software and a personal log-in. People who are not HBO subscribers are barred from the service. (continues @ Nytimes.com)

I’ve finally caught up with Dollhouse, which had been lingering a bit long on my TiVo. As anyone paying attention to the extratextual buzz knows, last week’s episode, “Man on the Street,” was hyped to deliver the narrative payoff and higher stakes that many feel the series has lacked. I concur with the consensus buzz: that episode was all that, and definitely fulfilled the potential that many of us Whedonites felt the show had.

But what interests me from a more meta-narrative level is what this delayed payoff tells us about the practice of television storytelling. Essentially, the first five episodes were about establishing an intriguing sci-fi scenario. However, they were not very effective in setting up characters – since the dolls are effectively characterless, this becomes a core problem for narrative engagement. The other characters were established primarily as single-dimension clichés – the hard-nosed security chief, the ruthless businesswoman at the top, the goofy amoral science guy, the obsessed FBI agent, etc. That type of characterization is understandable in most shows, as the central character starts out as the one with the emotional depth that might later be matched by others on the periphery (see season 1 of Buffy for a clear illustration). But when your central character is denied a personality of her own, there’s a serious lack of emotional depth available to explore. The one character who seemed more fully realized was Boyd, but he is so guarded that we have little to engage with.

If the first five episodes can be seen then as essentially a very long first act to set-up the core dramatic scenario and cast of characters, episode six succeeds by both complicating the core narrative premise and by providing some depth to the characters around Echo, especially Ballard.* But is it too late? Television programming typically is defined by its first few episodes, with a pilot establishing both a fanbase and a ratings expectation for the network. Up until now, Dollhouse has been sustained in the fan community by the mantra of Trust Joss, assuming that Whedon will deliver his typical masterful television storytelling if we only give him a chance (and remember that early episodes of Buffy and Angel were quite erratic, and even Firefly took awhile to get moving).

A useful parallel might be a novel by a beloved author – if you pick up a new book by a novelist you trust and the first 100 pages seem off, you’ll probably stick it out to see if they can deliver. And we try not to judge novels based on their first 20 pages. But television demands a bigger hook to get people engaged in the longer time commitment of a weekly series, and it’s rare in today’s industry that a network will allow a show to grow if it can’t start strong. (The ratings have been bad, but not atypical for today’s television environment, especially on Friday nights, so we’ll see how patient Fox is.)

Could the intrigue of “Man on the Street” have been front-loaded more in the series? The best point of comparison is Alias, which is its most apt parallel. The pilot of Alias is a tour-de-force of narrative – it establishes the premise, the core character, and her relationships with her dual father figures, then reverses the scenario. Twice. If the pilot of Alias doesn’t get you hooked, you’re simply not going to enjoy the show.

Dollhouse has a harder time establishing the scenario because it is more of a far-fetched sci-fi set-up – we recognize the spy world of Alias easily, allowing the pilot to focus on characters and revel in the show’s high-style and narrative twists. There’s much more heavy-lifting to do on Dollhouse to get the audience up to speed, so it certainly couldn’t have revealed the depth of conspiracies in the first hour-long episode (and I did quite like the pilot). But episodes 2-5 were far too stand-alone without real consequences, and the running plots of Ballard’s pursuit, Alpha’s betrayal, Echo’s malfunctions, and the Victor/Sierra relationship didn’t amount to enough to justify faith in the show delivering more sustained intrigue.

I’m sure Fox was hoping that the episodic structure of the first 5 episodes would invite more drop-in viewers and hook people before it got too complex. But that is based on an older logic of television – in the DVD/download era, a show with complex mythology and serialization needs to establish it early to hook the dedicated fans, and allow others to catch-up once the buzz increases. Instead, the episodic flatness of many early episodes probably pushed away more viewers than it drew in, making it a harder sell to the dedicated sci-fi and Whedon fans to stick with the series.

In hindsight, “Man on the Street” would have probably worked better as the third episode, with the second featuring one of the more interesting one-offs (the hunting story was my own favorite) and accelerating the Ballard pursuit plot. But we’ve arrived where we are in the series without Fox completely giving up. Let’s hope they understand the need for continued patience, as I want the chance to see where Whedon will take us next.

* My wife and I simply refer to Ballard as Helo, especially because Ballard has been so boring up until now. But the recognizability of so much of the cast from other roles does make for some interesting extratextual resonance – Faith was brainwashed by Kellerman and the teacher from Rushmore, tended to by Lock from The Matrix and Dr. Fred, and pursued by Helo’s descendent, who clearly inherits an obsession with robotic women…

Post um pouco atrasado pois isso não é fresh, mas aliás esse blog aqui não é de coisa fresh.

Achei bastante coisa sobre o tema e descobri o porta-voz deste digamos
“conceito”. Marketeiro ou não vale conferir a entrevista do Estadão/Link com HENRY JENKINS, escritor, pesquisador e diretor do programa de mídia comparativa no M.I.T.

leia na integra a entrevista

Pesquisinha bem básica:

definição wikipedia
narrativa transmídia?
narrativa transmidia 2?
cases narrativa transmidia
args 2009

Grande aula de formato/conteudo web em linguagem mini documentário/mini serie com dois grandes nomes roots, Glen E. Friedman e Shepard Fairey.

todos os episódios AQUI

Production by boinboing.net

In this extensive post, I try to redefine the relationships of networks, businesses, and artists in the television industry. Is there a better way for the creative artists of television to make money and distribute work? Technology is already shaking up how audience member interact with content, and I believe technology can help artists change the industry.

Are you ready for me to shake an entire industry? You best be. Read on, my friend.

(Photo credit: Flickr User John Edwards 2008 )

It’s our natural instinct to control our creative content for profit. If there is value in our products, we want people to pay up. I already talked about how we should share ideas, but I’d like to talk about how the creative sector needs to pay attention to new technologies. After all, newer tech will start to shape how we both share and sell our products.

Let’s start at television. It’s where I got the inspiration for this post, and it’s also toying with how it interacts with several technologies like Hulu.

We’ll first define the relationship between all parties in television.

1. Networks develop programming that will reach both a targeted viewing audience and broaden a general viewing audience.
2. Businesses via ad. agencies will purchase ad spots or sponsorships in accordance, creating campaigns to reach different sectors of the general viewing audience or the entire body.
3. Networks fund productions with this advertisement money, or they can sell certain aspects of the production in a sponsorship deal.
4. The producers get budgets from the networks, and from there the creative and technical teams are paid.

I left out the viewer (sort of) from being defined. Their relationship with television doesn’t affect the revenue model, at least they don’t directly affect it. In order to explain let’s jump to the formula below.

The simple formula:

An artist (creator) paints artwork (creative content)  —> An art collector (user) purchases the creative content directly from the artist.

That’s the simplest formula, the easiest way to achieve a transaction. So let’s go back to TV to explore that formula. Let’s try to make my first analysis of television fit into that formula.

The creative team of producers, directors, writers, and actors (creators) produce a television show (creative content) —> A business (user) purchases the creative content.

And that’s the hard truth. In the most basic cut-and-dry form, the product is created for the business to use as a tool. Now, let’s complicate the formula even more.

An artist (creator) sculpts artwork (creative content) —> An art gallery (distributor) showcases its best selection of artwork —> the art collectors (users) purchase the creative content.

And thus we introduce the television network. It’s the distributor, selecting which programs to attract buyers. The art gallery wants quality to bring people to exhibitions for an admission charge. Distributors stress quality because you can buy art from anyone, but the best can be found at galleries. Several creative people rely on the distributors to add value to their artwork. (It’s easier for a singer to get rent money at The Met than in a subway station.)

Now, let’s see what happens when we give technology to the distributor (already an issue tackled earlier this decade.)

The artist creates a painting —> the distributor uses new technologies to profit from the creative content —> the art collector buys the art work.

This is very much why we had a TV writer strike. Networks started posting shows online, creating new space for advertisements. The writers argued that they were owed a chunk of that new profit. Pay up, or tough luck finding creative content without us.

Now, looking at my formula, I would actually say that the writers were in the wrong. See, they are opting into the distributor for exposure. And this is a matter of vision rather than reality: producers can distribute content via the web straight to the users (and remember the users are businesses.) The distributors’ job is to find new ways to engage the user. If they make money from business advertising campaigns, they’re going to find new ways to help the user.

Is it unfair to a writer if publishers sell digital copies of the writer’s book? You’d say, not without paying the writer something extra. That’s where I disagree. If the writer has chosen to use a publisher as distributor, the publisher can sell the creative content through new technologies.

If you don’t like that, use the formula that omits the distributor.

And that’s where TV writers erred. Rather than developing or harnessing technology, like the distributors had, they decided to halt their creativity. And in the end, they lost jobs for an insignificant gain.

Clothing designers are learning to create their own online shops. So, rather than getting hired by Ralph Lauren (etc.) they are selling directly to the buyer. Novelists can now publish their own work, in print and digitally. These artists can sell to the buyer online.

How do most monetized blogs work?

The blogger (creator) writes interesting content —> A business (user) purchases space on the site.

Blogs and TV aren’t too different from each other. Both are relying on advertisements to fund their creative content. If it’s feasible to create a site like Huffington Post (a site full of content created by several bloggers), it’s feasible to create an online TV network (a site full of different producers/directors/writers/actors offering content.)

Now, it might just solve that other problem: users stealing content. If there is an advertisement-funded Internet TV network, then why would audience members bother stealing content that’s free and available?

But again, they’re not part of the formula. The businesses are the purchasers right? That’s an important relationship we have to consider when developing technologies. Create more interesting ways for consumers to interact with your sponsors. The technology is there and in development.

Then there’s a new formula:

Businesses create an ad —> the site with creative content acts as distributor —> users find new products.

And then you’re in the distributor’s position. That’s when you can produce great content, and businesses can partner with you to reach audiences in new ways via your site (much like Facebook’s “engagement ads“.)

Of course this is not a new idea, but I hope this post helps other artists understand the internet’s potential.

CopyPaste do UpdateorDie segue abaixo,

“De um tempo pra cá começamos a pensar em conteúdo multiplataforma para as famosas 3 telas e muito se tem avançado principalmente em WEB e MOBILE.
Mas como convencer uma emissora de TV acostumada com milhões de telespectadores a disponibilizar seu conteúdo na internet e celular “correndo o risco” de perder audiência na TV?
A NBC responde com o TAMi – Total Audience Measurement Index – onde desde as olimpíadas soma aos seus principais programas as audiências em WEB e MOBILE.
Em Heroes por exemplo, que atrai uma audiência jovem, teve 24,5 milhões de expectadores na TV, outros 8,1 milhões através de Streaming de vídeo, 60mil downloads, 44mil VOD e 26mil via mobile totalizando 32,8 milhões de audiência.
A TV sempre será a preferência, mas quando não conseguimos acompanhar a grade vamos lançar mão da internet, se o nosso programa preferido não estiver lá, assistiremos do mesmo jeito via Youtube de um usuário que postou ilegalmente. A NBC preferiu ela mesmo disponibilizar e somar isso a sua audiência.
O Hulu é um exemplo de como as grandes redes americanas estão avançando neste sentido. No Brasil estamos devagar e tem muito programa no Youtube com mais audiência que o programa na TV. “

http://updateordie.com/updates/mobile/2009/02/audiencia-multiplataforma/

My textbook, Television and American Culture, has hit the streets (or at least the postal system – order yours now!). I received my first copy yesterday, and am happy to say that it looks great. This is due not to my own work (I’m solely to blame for the content), but the excellent staff at Oxford University Press who made the design and editing process a pleasure, with great results as well.

One decision that my editor and I made early in the process was that the book’s internal illustrations would be frame-grabs from DVDs and over-the-air broadcasts, and that we would claim fair use for these images instead of seeking permissions. This is in keeping with a longstanding position articulated by the Society for Cinema and Media Studies back in 1993 (I’m a member of the SCMS Public Policy Committee and we are currently working to update this position statement for the digital age). As far as we know, the use of frame-grabs as fair use has never been challenged in court – if a publisher supports this right, they will not bend to pressure from copyright holders. And OUP has certainly been supportive of our fair use rights in this regard, encouraging me to use dozens of images (and using high-quality paper to make them look great).

The use of images becomes complicated regarding cover art. Fair use applies within books and articles, as the function of the illustrations is educational and critical, used to deepen and support analysis. Cover images can have that function, but they also help market the book. So the tradition is that publishers (or authors) license rights for images on book covers for a fee. The book’s cover design, which I love, features seven screens in need of content – the designer selected images that connect to examples discussed in the book, creating a wonderful visual collage of devices and programming. OUP’s staff set-out to license these images, after which the book went to press.

The problem emerged when ABC-Disney, who’d agreed to license the image of Lost in the center of the cover, asked what other ABC-Disney illustrations were in the book. OUP replied that the others were frame grabs under fair use provisions, and thus required no permissions. ABC-Disney then maneuvered into what my SCMS colleague and fair use guru Pat Aufderheide termed “a hostage situation”: they said that they would not agree to license the cover image unless we paid for the internal illustrations. The book was already at the printers, so nothing could be changed except at great cost. OUP paid the ransom for the internal images, and the book came out as designed.

To be clear, ABC-Disney did nothing illegal – they own the image of Lost, and we were required to pay for its use on the cover on their terms. The terms they stipulated had strings attached that, while morally wrong and based on a misreading of copyright law, are within their rights to demand. We paid for the internal images not because of copyright, but because ABC-Disney demanded it in exchange for the cover image. They made the decision to hijack fair use in exchange for a fee of less than $1,000, petty cash for a corporation like ABC-Disney. This was not the only option, as NBC-Universal had rights to the majority of cover images and licensed their use with no strings attached.

So what are the lessons to be learned here? Many media companies want to assert their copyright privileges beyond legal limits – not for petty cash, but for petty power. They aim to establish the precedent that they are in control, regardless of their legal standing. I’d guess the last thing ABC-Disney would want is to sue me or OUP over the frame grabs, as a loss in court would firmly establish the limits of their claims (and an unlikely win would yield little in revenue anyway). What they really want is bully power, the ability to make outsiders assume that rights holders also hold all the power. Unfortunately because the book was already in press, we had to yield – if we were able to, both my editor and I wanted to swap out the cover Lost image to avoid having to pay for the frame grabs that we had the right to use, thereby implying that fair use did not apply.

We do have some power here to push back. ABC got some of OUP’s money this time around, but I can say that no future editions of Television & American Culture will have ABC-Disney images on the cover. Instead we’ll use many ABC-Disney framegrabs without paying, via our fair use rights – and I encourage fellow scholars to follow suit. And I’ll use my own bully pulpits of this blog, my work with SCMS, and the tight-knit community of scholars interested in fair use to spread the word that ABC-Disney is willing to hold a non-profit academic press hostage over a tiny amount of money. Hopefully that kind of publicity offsets the pittance they received from us.

I’ll be back with a little debrief of ‘To the Victor’ later on (I know I said in a day or so, sorry!) but for now I have to get back on a plane and commute to Sydney to work ten weeks to pay some bills.

I can’t complain, it’s good work and I do like Sydney but it’s a hell of an effort. If only I could get in on the TV scene in Melbourne and you know, commute in a car or on foot like a regular person. I blame myself a bit, it’s really hard to commit full time to breaking in (no mean feat when you arrive in a city cold with no contacts) when there’s film projects to focus on. Not that I haven’t tried, I spent some serious effort trying to get that foot in the door here but it was the end of the year, cold calling is hard and also there’s that small economic crisis thing people keep going on about. So I guess I can’t complain that I have work right?

On the bright side the time in Sydney (after hours and weekends) will be pretty committed to writing, it’s time to put the first draft of the feature down so I’m rocking into that at the same time that we release ‘To the Victor’. Making a film in Melbourne has been hugely enjoyable and this is definitely where I want to make my feature debut!

Whoot.

On another note, I’ve enjoyed rehashing sci-fi trailers over the last month but it’s time to put that habit to an end (I’ll pick up a new one soon!) and finish with a crazy little dystopian film from the 70s…

TV stations in Germany have to notice that audience ratings of “blockbuster” TV Series like Lost are constantly not as high as years before, the German newspaper Süddeutsche reports.

A reason for this could be seen in the huge delay of release dates in the German market compared to the US releases. Often series were brought months later to the German market like in the example Lost, where the latest season started 12 months later.

Of course this incentives the fans to get their shows somewhere online, which obviously lowers the demand and “hype” about a free TV release months later. “The dark market” for streaming online services is getting better and better and many episodes have  even German subtitles just a few days after the U.S. release. A study of the research company tfactory shows that more than 50% between 15 and 25 years old are watching TV series online now. So also the awareness for illegal alternatives is rising.

I´m surprised that this discussion didn´t start earlier. Obviously the usage of mostly illegal web TV streaming websites are rising to a critical mass.

The strategy of production companies and TV stations is probably to wait how the series perform in the US key market before selling it to the global market in order to minimize their risks. But in my opinion, like in the movie industry, the global release has to be simultaneously in the future. The TV companies must react and have to change there release windowing strategy for the global market. Synchronizing issues can´t be an excuse.

It seems these days that the more effort I put into things the less I get out of them – It appears, everybody seem to expect Mozart even if they have been trained by Basil Fawlty!

I am working in video and I have found that with the economy the way it is, people are unwilling to pay cash for work and yet clients, suppliers and others want even more of your time and skills – for less or even nothing these days. This appears to be particularly the case in the film and t.v. industries – especially in the new digital and video media areas.

This appears to be the case especially online where younger people expect to be given things for nothing and not to have to work hard to achieve something on their own. This can be tracked back to web 2.0 – sites which claim to match-up people with similar needs or desires. Which ever way you want to look at it though, you often seem to find people who use these web sites as looking for something for nothing. You could argue, I suppose, if you don’t ask you won’t get – but I still feel there is a climate out there which reinforces these assumptions. Heck, I even use this web site!

The Sundance Festival starts today and Qik is doing a nice pilot project. Kevin Rose and Ashton Kutcher are hosting a little “interactive” game show “24 hours at Sundance” … something like a “scavenger hunt” / paper chase … live on several Qik channels.

For 24 straight hours during the Sundance film festival, a few contestants will compete to complete a series of tasks, as announced by hosts Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Rose, in real-time. Each player attempts to complete the tasks as they are revealed. The players can complete a task and win points for doing so, or can pass and move ahead to the next task and lose points. You can follow the tasks on Quik, and watch the entire event as it unfolds in real-time.

I like the concept, but the implementation maybe could be better… especially Qik had some performance problems … the stream was often broken… so changing the channels … it wasn´t much fun… following the game was very difficult… a bit chaotic… but watch yourself… there are a few hours left.

Anyway I think that`s the way and the potential of good old “television show formats”. Without big budgets you can deliver a real time interactive experience… we will see what comes next…