Exactly: Jesse Cleverly: What if YouTube was the future for TV producers? | MIPBlog

Media_httpblogmipworl_bsgfy

Excerpt from: http://blog.mipworld.com/2012/01/jesse-cleverly-what-if-youtube-was-the-future-for-tv-producers/

Jesse Cleverly is CEO & creative director of London’s Connective Media, a consultancy helping TV companies with the challenges of multiplatform content.

"As another year begins and media workers look out at not just the year ahead, but the future in a more general sense, we cannot but help ask ourselves – where does my future lie? In many ways we have always had versions of these questions – “will my show get picked up?”, “will I rise up the corporate ladder?”, “will I get enough freelance work?”…

Now however, with the imminent ubiquity of internet enabled televisions and the announcement by YouTube that it is funding 100 channels as an advance against future advertising revenues (the mere mention of investment recouping ad revenue and YouTube in the same sentence should alert us to seismic changes ahead), it seems that the question of where one’s future lies is much more fundamental.
A broadcast channel we all understand. It is a largely one-way communication channel, with general appeal within a wide demographic group, for which content is commissioned in order to make as many advertising messages as possible palatable to a largely anonymous, territory specific, mass audience. This is a reasonably straightforward (and, until recently, stable) world with clearly defined areas of operation and expertise which divide roughly between creative/production, sales, broadcast and the financial engine which drives them all: advertising.

A digital channel (and for the sake of argument let’s use a YouTube channel as our template) may look superficially the same – i.e. it delivers video content to audiences -but any deeper and the similarities are soon dwarfed by the differences:

1. A YouTube channel is not a one way piece of communication – it is the crucible for a conversation between creators and the individual members of the communities they curate. YouTube, like Facebook, is an epicentre for social media and some of those who were recently granted YouTube channel funding told me that it was their commitment to the social side of their proposed channels, as much as their ability to produce good content, which won the day.

2. A YouTube channel is likely to be talking to a global niche of some sort, and as such will be more much narrower in its focus and appeal, but much broader in its potential global reach. A YouTube channel is often what people in television would call a show, and it is the way that these mono-brand channels are networked together via partnerships which creates the tipping point, rather than the sheer size of the media monolith standing proudly alone..."

Read the full post on:

http://blog.mipworld.com

The Colbert Report: The Most Cunning ARG You've Never Heard Of

The Colbert Report:  Flying Completely Under Your Radar.

1712141975_8d7e6172ed

I’ve been thinking about this for months, years in fact, watching The Colbert Report. Launched on October 17, 2005, satirist Stephen Colbert’s portrayal of Stephen Colbert, right-wing pundit (an homage to Bill O’Reilly), and know-it-all Wikipedia editing expert, is so seamless that the ‘performance’ of his faux character is almost forgotten. Search him online (forget Wikipedia today folks!) and it is virtually impossible to find interviews with the ‘real’ Colbert. Think back to his appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner 2006, billed as a Special Edition of The Colbert Report, where he delivered a masterpiece parody of the George Bush era and what he termed the “No Fact Zone.” Now, with his ongoing shaming of the Federal Election Committee (FEC) and the absurdities or criminalities of Super PACs in the US electoral process, he’s done a flurry of interviews this past week, again in character, with George Stephanopoulos and Ted Koppel. In each of these interviews, the extremism of his character is marked by some absurd proposal or claim that foregrounds the artifice of his performance. Watch his exchange with Stephanopoulos here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/stephen-colbert-runs-president-talkss-geo....

Now if you’ve never thought about The Colbert Report as a transmedia ARG, pause for a moment. What Colbert has done is promote a fictional character with a subversive agenda across multiple platforms: the TV show, multiple websites (www.colbertnation.com, www.nofactzone.net/, http://www.indecisionforever.com/). What he’s doing definitely stretches the model of the ARG (hey! wait! Is there a single model?). But it’s definitely transmedia & cross-platform and he’s had complete buy-in from his audience:  he’s led an activist rally in the 2010 March to Keep Fear Alive (see its companion website, http://colbertrally.com/), and successfully solicited who knows how much $ through the contributions to his Super PAC that, as he repeatedly points out, he will not have to report on legally for an undetermined period of time. Yet this performance is only now being commented on widely as a performance: ABC news just today ran an article on Who is the Real Stephen Colbert? 

Colbert’s control of his performance and the media’s responses to him has been absolute and to get a sense of how he has created a storyworld in which his character exists as unchallenged, watch his September 2011 interview with Al Gore, who does the unthinkable on live TV by commenting on ‘your character.’ Colbert is clearly aghast and in character, crushes Gore with "finger quotes." Or watch Colbert’s interview with Frank Luntz October 2011 on how to set up his Super PAC focus group and sell the message that Corporations are People Too. Here, Colbert slips into his highly racist Chinese character, Ching Chong Ding Dong, and says: “I’m not responsible for anything my character says.” This moment is genius as it reveals the strategy underlying Colbert’s parodic persona. That he is now raising serious debate in the US as to the validity of Super PACs, generating numerous articles and news reports is an indirect homage to the persuasiveness of his performance over time.

Colbert’s application and appearance before the FEC was a fascinating moment in his ongoing ‘alternate reality performance.’ One, for Colbert, he was surprisingly monosyllabic and undemonstrative, whereas outside the hearing, he was emphatically the satiric pundit. That moment in the hearing however, raised the question of who exactly speaking before the Commission. As, if it was the character, then the legality & authority of the FEC were being mocked & challenged - technically a dicey move - yet watch him immediately after speaking outside to the press. Colbert played that moment ambiguously because he had to, but he also didn’t commit or reveal himself as the real Stephen Colbert.

And, given the specifics of the ruling as to what Viacom and Colbert’s Super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, could and could not do, Colbert has neatly circumvented the restrictions on broadcasting outside of his show or network by allowing the net to do the job for him as his Super PAC negative campaign ads can be watched on multiple sites, including YouTube, and as embedded content in multiple news reports (Take that! SOPA!). If you haven't seen them, catch the latest Super PAC commercials here: Mitt the Ripper and Vote for Herman Cain

Colbert has used his comedic position to introduce new words to the lexicon, ‘truthiness,’ ‘anchor baby,’ and now it’s starting to look like his relentless and inventive challenge to the Super PAC might actually galvanize change. If he’s successful, I can’t wait to see what he tackles next.

 

You can read the Federal Election Committee's Advisory Opinion from June 30, 2011 here: 

http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/advisory/Advisory-Opinion.pdf 

And, if you haven't been following this, here's a great recap by Sarah Mimms:

“Federal Election Committee rules on Colbert’s Super PAC application”

by Sarah Mimms, June 30 2011

http://nationaljournal.com/hotline/fec-rules-narrowly-on-colbert-request-20110630

“In filing his initial request for an advisory opinion, Colbert sought to take advantage of an exemption traditionally used to allow media outlets to report and comment on campaigns and endorse candidates without having their work considered “in-kind” political contributions, triggering filing and disclosure requirements with the Federal Election Commission.

The request came down to one essential issue: whether Viacom can legally donate production costs, airtime and use of Colbert's staff to create ads for the so-called super PAC, to be played both on "The Colbert Report" and as paid advertisements other networks and shows.

The commission said no, ruling that once ads created using Viacom resources were broadcast on other networks, Viacom would have to report them as political contributions.”

 

POV Interviews Transmedia Expert Anita Ondine | DOCspace :: The Home of Canadian Documentary

Media_httpdocspacecas_khgwd

Read the full interview on docspace.ca

http://docspace.ca/news/pov-interviews-transmedia-expert-anita-ondine

Here's an excerpt to get you started:

"Posted by Robin on January 16, 2012 - 5:37pm

Point of View magazine recently spoke with the internationally renowned transmedia expert Anita Ondine about the challenges and opportunities of transmedia. Ondine is in Toronto this week to headline Merging Media TO on January 19 to 20 at TIFF Bell Lightbox.

POV: Transmedia requires content creators to completely rethink how they engage their audiences and to rethink the concept of ‘media consumption.’ It’s a big task to grapple with...

Ondine: Yes, transmedia is a different paradigm altogether. I hesitate to use the word ‘consumption’ or I use it broadly. The word I like to use most is participation. Not every member of the audience will become a participant but it’s my sincere hope that we get a large number of audiences to move from the lean- back mode of consumption and go even beyond the interactive stage. I like to make this distinction, that what we’re moving through right now is something of a continuum, which started a century ago with the lean-back consumption of [visually created] stories. When the first silent films came out, people would sit there and watch them. And as that moved through TV and broad scale film distribution, we still were in that lean-back mode of accepting content in a very uni-directional manner. Then, depending on where in the world you’ve been, in the last five to ten years there have been increasing efforts to make stories interactive. There have been some really good examples out of the UK because Britain in my opinion has been one of the leaders in the world [in this activity] and the BBC has been behind a lot of these projects. But there has been more and more emphasis on interactivity.

Interactivity is a state where the audience chooses to interact with the story but the interaction has always been contained in a specially predefined set of potential outcomes. What I mean by that is the storyteller--the documentarian, the director, the producer or whoever is defining it---knows what the potential set of outcomes can be. That’s interactive. Now transmedia, I believe, takes that a step further and we move from interactive to truly participatory storytelling. What that means is we enable the audience to step into the shoes of a protagonist and actually become storytellers themselves.

To me that is one of the very, very exciting elements that makes transmedia so powerful. It really flips the whole concept of what distribution means altogether. It’s a different paradigm. It allows for engagement. I can see looking at Point of View magazine, for example, that you’re very socially aware, so there are often stories about socially conscious storytelling. Transmedia is fundamentally such a powerful tool for those kinds of topics to be aired and to be discussed and to gain support and to get people actually active in taking the change forward. Not only do we tell people about what’s going on, but we give them tools to participate. Whether this means participation in a purely entertainment mode, or it goes further than that and it has an activist element which is also entirely possible. One of my major projects has an activist orientation to it. So what we do instead of giving people purely entertainment based participatory experience is we say: ‘so you have heard about this, now this is how you can participate in the change.’..."

Print Your Own Tie & Who Knows What Else? The Wonderful World of Thingiverse & 3D Printing - Rebecca J. Rosen - Technology - The Atlantic

Media_httpcdntheatlan_qwion

Rebecca J. Rosen, original post in The Atlantic
JAN 10 2012, 2:15 PM ET

"Do you have some tape but no tape dispenser? Or perhaps you need a doohickey for storing your earbuds? Well, if you've got a 3D printer and an Internet connection, the newly updated website Thingiverse can supply you with the necessary designs.

Thingiverse, founded in 2008, is a design library from the folks at MakerBot Industries, the Brooklyn-based company that is designing and building open-source 3D printers. On Thingiverse, people can download the plans for obsjects, tweak them, and share their improved versions. As CEO Bre Pettis explained, "You just download this digital design or you create one yourself, and the thing is made right there for you. ... Up until now, you've been able to download books, you've been able to download movies, you can download music. Well, now you can download things. And, once you download the digital design, you can just crank up your MakerBot, fire it up, and print it out."..."

The Future is SO NOW: Urbee: The world's first 'printed' car rolling off the 3D printing presses... | Mail Online

Media_httpidailymailc_ngevb

Read the full article for all of the mind-blowing details:

"The world’s first 'printed' car has finally rolled off the printing press.
The 'Urbee' was made using a special printer which built up layer upon layer of bodywork - almost as if the car was 'painted' into existence, except using layers of ultra-thin composite that are slowly 'fused' into a solid.
But unlike most 'innovations' in cars, this one won't break down after 5 years - Urbee is built to last 30. Project leader Jim Kor, told MailOnline today: 'For us, this unveiling was quite a milestone..."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2041106/Urbee-The-worlds-print...

3D Printing: What does the power to make ANYTHING mean to the world? W.W.T.I.D? New Post is Up!

Media_httpwwwwwtidcom_nwogd

What Would The Internet Do? Jan. 17, 2012

Sasha Gujicic, Len Kendall, Siobhan O'Flynn, and Gunther Sonnenfeld

Imagine a world where 3-D printers are as common as dishwashers.

The technology has been around for about a decade on an industrial level, but 3D printers are beginning to be marketed as home devices with prices getting lower, and lower. It’s predicted that in the next 3-5 years anyone will be able to afford to print/build anything in their own homes. 3D printers will likely be mass marketed to developed countries and developing nations will see quick adoption based on availability of necessary ‘ingredients.’ As simple as the device may be, its proliferation may send massive ripples through industries, legal systems, and obviously the D-I-Y movement.

What industries/products will be disrupted most of 3D printing becomes mainstream?

[Len]: To quote The Graduate, “Plastics.” The substance is everywhere, easily reusable, moldable, and cheap. The substance also comprises so many of the small items we buy at department and hardware stores. While plastic suppliers may still be generating revenue by selling material to 3D printer users directly, the middle-men who sell objects are going to see aisles of products drop in demand....

Read the full post on wwtid.com

Press releases/English Wikipedia to go dark - Wikimedia Foundation

English Wikipedia to go dark January 18 in opposition to SOPA/PIPA

San Francisco -- January 16, 2012 -- On January 18, 2012, in an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.

Wikipedia administrators confirmed this decision Monday afternoon (PST) in a public statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action#Summary_and_conclusion):

Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a "blackout" of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.

“Today Wikipedians from around the world have spoken about their opposition to this destructive legislation," said Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. "This is an extraordinary action for our community to take - and while we regret having to prevent the world from having access to Wikipedia for even a second, we simply cannot ignore the fact that SOPA and PIPA endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, and set a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world."

We urge Wikipedia readers to make your voices heard. If you live in the United States, find your elected representative in Washington (https://www.eff.org/sopacall). If you live outside the United States, contact your State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs or similar branch of government. Tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and want the internet to remain open and free.

About the Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org
http://blog.wikimedia.org

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix, Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation receive more than 474 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most popular web property world-wide (comScore, November 2011). Available in 282 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 20 million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of more than 100,000 people. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.

Media Contact:

For the Wikimedia Foundation

Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
Wikimedia Foundation
Tel. +1 415 839 6885 x 6609
jwalsh@wikimedia.org