Archive for the ‘comment’ Category


May the Force (of old media) be with you

21 February, 2009

I’m sitting here with a copy of Brad Howard’s article in Digital Media entitled “Print Strikes Back”, about how digital is taking a very long time to kill of the print industry. I do think that the death of newspapers at the hands of online was always a tad exaggerated. I think that even more when tucked up in bed of a Saturday morning with Herald and a cup of tea.

But I still think that too much value is placed on heritage media format, and sadly, often by other forms of legacy media. Is that a kind of ‘scratch my back and I’ll scratch your’ I wonder.

Brad’s article (worth the read) talks about the 10% rule – newspaper circulation accounts for about 10% of readership, but online activities account for only about 10% of revenue (hat tip: Scott Karp). That said, it seems that old media still has the credibility and, as I’ve blogged before, is definitely seen as where the money is…

I’ve got a couple of particular cases I am grappling with right now, which I won’t got into, but I am struggling with how to get people to let go of traditional media- and take the plunge. In one case, a major brand is thinking of a beautifully targeted reality TV series. Talent is organised, audience (nicely niche) is assured – but they want free-to-air TV and not subscriber TV. In reality, 35,000 dedicated viewers who will shop in their store is a lot better than being shown to 120,000 uninterested people – but they want the ‘reach’ of FTA (who, sadly, aren’t interested because it is too niche!).

Another: when going after a target market of 35+, would you rather a three page spread in a magazine in a Saturday paper (circulation figures are 600,000+ – if you can trust them); or front page mentions, full page coverage and links from all over one of Australia’s most popular celebrity/lifestyle portals (Unique Viewers more double that of the print publication). Sadly – the online coverage is second to the legacy coverage, even if the right audience is more likely to be online.

There is a great chart I found on an Amnesia presentation which highlights this from an attention angle really well. I don’t have their permission (sorry, boys), but am hoping the liberal mentioning of their names will make them go gentle on me:

Media consumption across Australian's online (ht: Amnesia)

Media consumption across Australian's online (ht: Amnesia)

What it basically says is that we spend 18.7 hours on average on the internet, and only 3.7 reading print media. In the target market of 35+, online is still 17.7 hours versus 3.65.

I love old media. New media would be so boring without it – but isn’t it time we really started to think about where our audience is (and how we might reach them)?


Rights that are Wrong

9 January, 2009

I’m currently working on a White Paper (read: conversation starter) on the issues for Screen Content Producers in getting more engaged with the digital environment. I’m close to finished, but determining when enough is enough is hard.

When talking to film makers and other producers of screen content, the issues that really came up for them were two-fold. The first key point was that many makers of heritage (linear or non-digitally consumed) content simply don’t get the online/mobile/interactive world: the language is different, the concepts are different, and the expectations are different. The second issue that came up was rights: rights required to be approved to place material online, right required to be approved to go digital, rights of people to get access to content (paying or not).

So the paper really has two parts – a fairly simple overview of the three main areas of education for digital (distribution, audience and monetising); and a section on what the issues over rights are, and what some of the solutions might be.

I’m not a lawyer, which is a good and bad thing here. It means that I ask big questions (like “why can’t we….”) but it also means that the reasons take a lot of investigation so I can understand them. Here are some of the issues and things that frustrate me.

  • music isn’t a single thing. There is incidental music and theme music and published music and recorded music
  • and then there are synchronisation rights that let you ‘synchronise’ the music with you content

There is a film in the US (Sita Sings the Blues) which uses recording from the 192o’s which went into the public domain years ago. However, to use these in the film, the producer needs to pay synchronisation rights. Sadly – the record companies are demanding more for the music than the whole film cost to make.

  • Australia didn’t keep particularly good records years ago when we first started making movies and documentaries
  • But none of these can go online until the rights in all the elements are cleared by everyone concerned
  • And we often don’t even know who those people are…

So about 15 years of video content that tells Australian stories in documentary, film and other forms of narrative is going to be destroyed because it has “no value”. I’d love to see this, and I don’t think I’m alone, but unless all the rights holders can be firstly identified, and their approval given – it ain’t going to happen. And it only needs one of them to say ‘no’ and the content remains unseen. Add to this that some documentaries including footage from news items and all these people need to be found also – and the problem just compounds.

Digital needs to mean thinking differently. Digital and online means we need to consider that public access is actually the prime requirement. Digital should recognise that theft of a car (a tangible object which is lost) is different to digital piracy (where the item still remains). Don’t get me wrong – I absolutely believe that authors should be recognised and rewarded for their work. I just think that we need to find ways of doing that that don’t limit what we can access.  In particular, I don’t want our inability to find new ways to address rights to means that years of fascinating video footage, part of our history, is going to be denied to us.

Some rights are just wrong. We need new rights that recognise contribution, that have the potential to reward creators, but that do not result in the public being denied our stories.


UGC – who cares and who is responsible?

21 August, 2007

Lots of questions lately about the responsibility for User Generated Content: to moderate or not; when does one take down; what obligations and responsibility does the publisher have?

At an AIMIA conference yesterday on Social Networking and User Generated Content, Matthew Hall from Swaab Attorney aptly summed up the situation as ‘analogue legislation trying to regulate digital media’. Yes, it’s a mine field.

There is a view that the best way to treat UGC (comments, reviews, responses etc) is to take a stance of either ALL care (and thus all responsibility) or no care and no responsibility. Simplistically – one either vets, edits, moderates and reviews everything which is published and thus has full responsibility for accuracy, libel, spelling, the lot; or else you don’t touch it and let the public decide.

Of course, providing ‘take down’ or ‘mark as inappropriate’ buttons can help in having the public act as moderators of the data. It also helps to let threads develop – so that comments about comments can be made – effectively allowing a right of reply.

So will we ever have and Australian version of ‘Yelp’? Until the right of free speech (or free spray, however you want to see this) is enshrined in some Bill of Rights – it is unlikely. The different libel and privacy laws in different countries lead to different outcomes based on the regulation.

And, in three years time, when the law has caught up with UGC – we’ll all be troubled by some other aspect the legislators are yet to get their heads around.