Popular Posts

Thursday, August 02, 2007

The future of social networks

Dr. Media says watch this space, the issues of identity, profiling, transfer of identities, are just the tip of the iceberg. Which identity, is the REAL one, who says so, who says I want you to know my REAL identity, what this issue is about is reputation management, and underneath that and more importantly it's about trust and intimacy. Are you ready to have only one ID, only one email address, how soon will users be willing to give up anonymity, remember social security numbers, that was the first single sign on.


The future of social networks


Posted by Dan Farber @ 2:26 pm
Categories: General, MySpace, Social networking, Facebook, AlwaysOn
Tags: Social Networking, Facebook, Network, Dan Farber





What will social networking be like in ten years? Who knows, but we won’t be having panels about it. At the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit 07, there was such a panel, titled “Social Networking 3.0,” led by Charlene Li, a senior analyst Forrester Research.


The panelists (below) included representatives from some of the more
prominent social networks: Travis Katz, senior vice president and
general manager of MySpace International; Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder
of Facebook; Rich Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media and former MySpace
executive; Gina Bianchini, CEO of Ning; and Karl Jacob, CEO of Wallop.


socialnet.jpg


Jacob dealt with the ten year question: “If we are here in ten years
talking about profiles, web sites or social networks, something is
really wrong. Social networks will be woven into every product and
thing we touch,” he said.


One of the big questions is whether social network would be more
open, especially in terms of allowing profiles to be shared among users
of different social networks.

“We are pushing boundaries of what closed and open mean. It’s very
necessary for people to take identities with them and supplement with
content from elsewhere,” Facebook’s Moskovitz said. At this point
Facebook users cannot export their social graph or profile to another
service–nor do any of their competitors with large populations offer an
API for sharing the data.


Facebook’s definition of open is allow external developers to tap
into the social graph so that users can maintain their identity and
graph of friends across apps build on the Facebook platform.


MySpace’s Katz waffled on the question. “I’m not sure if it will
happen or not. It’s fairly complicated and there are privacy issues,
but interesting concept,” he said.


Rosenblatt said the Demand Media is developing a portable profile
for its users that allows them to have a single log-on and to pick and
choose what to expose on different social nets.


Bianchini’s service allows users to create their own social
networks. “In ten years we’ll see millions of social networks for every
niche, need, language, location and passion,” she said. “I disagree
that people want a single profile–they want to have identities for
different social networks.”


That may be true, but users will want to manage their identities in
a unified manner and to have the kind of openness that would allow them
to map friends list across different services.


The application of social networks like MySpace and Facebook in a
business context has been an issue of late. Many corporations are
turning off access to social networks as productivity wasters.


Katz cited one to many communication and sharing files as tools that
can be interesting for businesses, with a caveat: “I shudder to think
how addicting and how much time is spent on social networking. I can
imagine it going terribly wrong,” he said.


The panelists put targeted ads at the top of the list for how they
will make money. Moskovitz noted how businesses that integrate with
social networks, such as Netflix, could surface better recommendations
from the social graph and generate more revenue.


A question was asked about the MySpace, Facebook and a few others
owning the social networking space in the long term. “The lesson from
the Internet is that it’s never game over,” Katz said. Indeed, looking
back over the last decade you can see the leapfrogging that went on in
the search arena.

Let’s Talk. Let Me Outline the Ways. - New York Times

Dr. Media says, here we go the 1st wave of the return of old tech, the phone, how appropriate just coming on the heels of the iphone intro.
Why? As the below article indicates email is spam heaven, text messaging, Iming, all good, but phone,the quickest most reliable, AND, no written records.
Hmmm, what do you think?

Let’s Talk. Let Me Outline the Ways. - New York Times
July 12, 2007
Life’s Work
Let’s Talk. Let Me Outline the Ways.
By LISA BELKIN

AT a planning meeting I attended earlier this summer, a legal pad was passed and we were each asked to write our name and our “communication preference.”

Some people prefer e-mail, some prefer cellphones, some want to be sent a text message on their cellphones,” the leader of the meeting said. “We want to reach you the way you want to be reached.”

Time was when making contact meant finding someone’s phone number and dialing. You might connect with your party; you might leave a message. But you had done all you could.

Now contact means decoding the quirks of the person in question, the better to predict how to actually get your message through. And if you misread your target, it means the risk of a frosty response, or sometimes deafening silence.

Does he or she hate e-mail, letting it build up in the inbox, but quick to answer the cellphone on the first ring? Does the person refuse to carry a cellphone, but grab the office line through the Bluetooth that is literally attached to one ear? Is it solicitous or stalkerish to send an e-mail message, then leave an office message, then try the cellphone just to be sure?

Would it be better just to text the person’s assistant instead?

“It’s reached the point of absurdity,” said Olivia Fox Cabane of Spitfire Communications, an executive coaching business in New York. “We have become a culture where we expect everything to be done our way. We go to Starbucks and order the half caff, two shots, extra hot, low foam, whatever, and that makes us feel entitled to leave a message on our voice mail saying, ‘You can call between 8 a.m. and 8:05 a.m., but only if you speak in a soothing tone of voice.’ ”

There are no shortage of pushy messages out there stating exactly what the caller should do.

“I typically check this voice mail less frequently than I do my office number,” says the cellphone message of David Goldsmith, president of the MetaMatrix Consulting Group, who refuses to give out the number to clients and is piqued when they lift it from caller ID. The message instructs callers to try his office.

The office line of Ellen Kassoff Gray, an owner of the Equinox restaurant in Washington, D.C., in turn warns callers, “I don’t check messages here too often, so if you want to reach me in a timely fashion please e-mail me.”

While such messages may be gauche, at least they provide clues. The alternative is a game of communication concentration — trying to keep track of all your contacts as well as how they wish to be reached.

“I prefer to be contacted on my cellphone,” said Jeni Hatter, the director of media relations for Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla. “It is immediate, and it is always with me.”

Then again, not everybody packs a cellphone. “Don’t have one, don’t want one,” said Trudy Schuett, a librarian in Yuma, Ariz. “I would do everything by e-mail if I could.”

E-mail “can be blocked by spam filters,” countered Jon Mazzocchi, a partner in the New York office of the Winter, Wyman Companies, a staffing firm. “Phone is the only way to go.”

The phone works only if you don’t “allow yourself to be interrupted,” said Alan Weiss, president of the Summit Consulting Group in East Greenwich, R.I. So he does not actually answer the device when it rings, but has a message promising he will return all calls within 90 minutes “during regular business hours, Eastern time, in the United States.”

A game once limited to cellphone versus office line versus e-mail has exploded exponentially as texting has gone mainstream. And while cellphones are at least experientially related to the land line, and e-mail feels tangentially related to the fax, texting is simultaneously a throwback to the telegraph and a harbinger of a new age.

In other words, you either love it or hate it.

Ms. Gray, on the one hand, sees texting as the purest form of communication: “short, sweet sentences, just business,” she cooed. Ms. Schuett, on the other, sees it as a threat to civilization: “Sentences should have punctuation and rules of grammar,” she said.

Texting also seems above and beyond in its ability to offend. Cory A. Booker, the mayor of Newark, learned this firsthand. Apparently thinking that instant access would please his constituents, he gave out his number fairly freely, only to learn that one critic took the offering as a slap. The previous mayor could be reached with a phone call, the critic complained to a newspaper reporter, so what was this texting about?

I too learned how a preference can ruffle feathers. My office voice mail explains: “I only check this voice mail sporadically. The best way to actually contact me is by sending an e-mail to belkin@nytimes.com.”

I do this for the efficiency. And yet, like drivers parked under the No Parking sign, callers regularly leave me messages on the same tape that asks them not to.

Most sound diligent, or perhaps apologetic, but a good number sound cranky. A percentage of the annoyed say they don’t have easy access to e-mail, and to that I am sympathetic; in fact they are the reason I make it a point to check my voice mail in the first place. Many others, though, are just plain insulted by my taped advice.

“That is so rude,” one caller said. “Who do you think you are?”

He failed to leave a name or a phone number, which means I can’t call to tell him that I am thinking of rerecording my message. Not only because I really hate being seen as impolite, but also because I am weary of e-mail. There are 118 messages sitting in my inbox as I write this. If I had just picked up the phone when it rang, many of these bits of business would have been finished within moments.

That is another unpredictable factor in the what’s-the-best-way-to-reach-you game: we all tend to change our minds.

“It used to be e-mail,” said Shel Horowitz, an author who writes books about business marketing. But thanks to spam filters, e-mail “has gotten so unreliable.” He has to follow each message with a phone call to make sure it arrived.

“I’m back to the phone,” he said.

At least for now.

» The future of social networks | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com
The future of social networks
Posted by Dan Farber @ 2:26 pm Categories: General, MySpace, Social networking, Facebook, AlwaysOn Tags: Social Networking, Facebook, Network, Dan Farber
icn_balloon_154x48
+0
0 votes Worthwhile?

What will social networking be like in ten years? Who knows, but we won’t be having panels about it. At the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit 07, there was such a panel, titled “Social Networking 3.0,” led by Charlene Li, a senior analyst Forrester Research.

The panelists (below) included representatives from some of the more prominent social networks: Travis Katz, senior vice president and general manager of MySpace International; Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook; Rich Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media and former MySpace executive; Gina Bianchini, CEO of Ning; and Karl Jacob, CEO of Wallop.

socialnet.jpg

Jacob dealt with the ten year question: “If we are here in ten years talking about profiles, web sites or social networks, something is really wrong. Social networks will be woven into every product and thing we touch,” he said.

One of the big questions is whether social network would be more open, especially in terms of allowing profiles to be shared among users of different social networks.
“We are pushing boundaries of what closed and open mean. It’s very necessary for people to take identities with them and supplement with content from elsewhere,” Facebook’s Moskovitz said. At this point Facebook users cannot export their social graph or profile to another service–nor do any of their competitors with large populations offer an API for sharing the data.

Facebook’s definition of open is allow external developers to tap into the social graph so that users can maintain their identity and graph of friends across apps build on the Facebook platform.

MySpace’s Katz waffled on the question. “I’m not sure if it will happen or not. It’s fairly complicated and there are privacy issues, but interesting concept,” he said.

Rosenblatt said the Demand Media is developing a portable profile for its users that allows them to have a single log-on and to pick and choose what to expose on different social nets.

Bianchini’s service allows users to create their own social networks. “In ten years we’ll see millions of social networks for every niche, need, language, location and passion,” she said. “I disagree that people want a single profile–they want to have identities for different social networks.”

That may be true, but users will want to manage their identities in a unified manner and to have the kind of openness that would allow them to map friends list across different services.

The application of social networks like MySpace and Facebook in a business context has been an issue of late. Many corporations are turning off access to social networks as productivity wasters.

Katz cited one to many communication and sharing files as tools that can be interesting for businesses, with a caveat: “I shudder to think how addicting and how much time is spent on social networking. I can imagine it going terribly wrong,” he said.

The panelists put targeted ads at the top of the list for how they will make money. Moskovitz noted how businesses that integrate with social networks, such as Netflix, could surface better recommendations from the social graph and generate more revenue.

A question was asked about the MySpace, Facebook and a few others owning the social networking space in the long term. “The lesson from the Internet is that it’s never game over,” Katz said. Indeed, looking back over the last decade you can see the leapfrogging that went on in the search arena.

Friday, June 08, 2007

Nielsen To Measure The Mobile Media Consumer | Nielsen Media Research

Dr. Media says, finally even Nielsen,. good old Nielsen the ratings lords, get that their numbers are completely out of sych with the new media world, just think cellphones--some might say the greatest democratic invention of the thee end of the century, no users group needed and you get to talk to people--needed to be tracked to find out what people want, especially young and poor people, no land lines.





Nielsen To Measure The Mobile Media Consumer | Nielsen Media Research

Nielsen To Measure The Mobile Media Consumer

More than 33 Million Persons Used Mobile Web and 8 Million Persons Viewed Mobile Video in the Past 30 Days
Contacts
Karen Gyimesi at The Nielsen Company:

NEW YORK, NY - June 6, 2007 - The Nielsen Company today announced that it will begin measuring mobile phone users through a new service called Nielsen Wireless. This service will measure how many people use content services such as mobile Internet and mobile video and what impact this has on established media behavior.

Nielsen Wireless is led by Nielsen Vice President Jeff Herrmann, who also leads Nielsen Games, Nielsen's video game measurement service. Nielsen Wireless is designed specifically for the wireless industry and also complements Nielsen's Anytime Anywhere Media Measurement (A2/M2) initiative, which will measure television usage on all television and video platforms, including personal video devices such as mobile phones. Nielsen already supports the wireless industry through customer segmentation, ringtone sales tracking (Nielsen RingScan), attitudinal and behavioral surveys and mobile polling. Nielsen Wireless will work in tandem with these existing Nielsen services.

Nielsen Wireless' first product - Mobile Vector - will launch in the U.S. in July 2007. It will use information culled from Nielsen's existing National People Meter TV sample to report on media behavior and audience demographics segmented by wireless carrier. This will:

* Help wireless carriers develop more efficient advertising campaigns to reach their most valuable subscribers, while helping mobile content producers decide which mobile content distributor will be most effective in extending their brand.

* Help the mobile media industry establish competitive positioning and differentiation.

* Identify how the subscribers of different wireless carriers consume media in the home (i.e. TV viewing preferences, video gaming activity, media technology adoption).



"The value of an entertainment medium is directly proportional to how well it is measured," said Herrmann. "Reliable and accurate measurement of mobile consumers will enable advertisers to properly evaluate the mobile marketing opportunity. This new mobile measurement service demonstrates Nielsen's continued commitment to follow content wherever consumers take it. Independent measurement of the cross-media behavior of the growing mobile audience will support and accelerate the evolution of mobile media business models."

"Understanding the consumer value proposition of mobile marketing can only come from understanding user behavior," said Courtney Jane Acuff, director of denuo, a Publicis Group Company. "The announcement of Nielsen's Mobile Vector now gives brands and agencies insights that were previously unavailable. Education is so critical to the overall success of this new medium and having trusted syndicated research resources to better educate and ultimately inform the planning of new media initiatives is crucial to success and longevity."

Later this year, Nielsen will expand Nielsen Mobile Vector to include a survey of mobile phone users that will provide information about their consumption of mobile media content. Through continued collaboration with wireless industry stakeholders, Nielsen's ultimate goal is to develop a system that will support a market-wide view of mobile media consumption.

The Mobile Consumer

Nielsen Wireless estimates that in the first quarter of 2007, more than 33 million persons 12 and older used mobile web in the past 30 days, and more than 8 million persons 12 and older viewed video on their mobile phone (this excludes videos created with a phone's camcorder function). According to the CTIA (the international association for the wireless telecommunications industry), there are more than 230 million wireless subscriptions in the U.S. Nielsen also estimates that:

* At least 7% of 18-34 year-olds viewed mobile video programming in the first quarter of 2007 while at least 25% used their mobile phone to connect to the Internet

* As of May 31, more than half, 55%, of primary users of video-enabled mobile phones lived in households with total incomes of $75,000 or above.

* Subscribers to different carriers vary in terms of cable status: people in Sprint households were 30% more likely than people in T-mobile households to have a digital broadcast satellite (DBS) system. People in Verizon Wireless households are 26% more likely to have digital cable service in their home (39% of Verizon Wireless household persons had wired digital cable compared to 31% of U.S. Persons 2+).

* The mobile video audience skews somewhat older and male: 46% of the mobile video audience is 35 years or older and 54% of the audience is male.

* There are differences in traditional television viewing by wireless carrier:

* The rating for the May 23 American Idol finale on FOX was higher among people in Verizon households than those in Sprint or AT&T households by differences of 11 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

* Looking at primary users of mobile video-enabled phones across the TV season, American Idol earned the highest rating among Sprint subscribers, averaging a 13.2 rating during Tuesday telecasts and a 13.5 rating during Wednesday telecasts among Sprint's primary users of video-enabled phones.



About Nielsen Wireless

In October 2006, Nielsen launched Nielsen Wireless and Interactive Services, a measurement service for video games and mobile phone users. Due to the expansion of scope beyond media measurement, that service was subsequently split into two services: Nielsen Games and Nielsen Wireless. Mobile Vector is the first product to come out of the Nielsen Wireless service.



About The Nielsen Company

The Nielsen Company is a global information and media company with leading market positions and recognized brands in marketing information (ACNielsen), media information (Nielsen Media Research), business publications (Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, Adweek), trade shows and the newspaper sector (Scarborough Research). The privately held company is active in more than 100 countries, with headquarters in Haarlem, the Netherlands and New York, USA. For more information, please visit, www.nielsen.com.




Powered by ScribeFire.

WP: Does virtual reality need a sheriff?

Dr. Media says, at last real reality hits the Disney world illusion of VR, whats actually the most interesting thing about this is the reactions to the virtual event, no animals were harmed during the filming as it were, folks this is NOT REAL. The Iraq war, is REAL, people REALLY die. Here in VR, there is an illusion the illusion is based on the fantasy of the participants, these moral objections are to a fantasy made public which EVERYONE knows some people hold privately.
What about those privately held religious, or political, beliefs, should they also be policed, or only sexual fantasies.
VR becomes reality!

WP: Does virtual reality need a sheriff? - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
As recent advances in Internet technology have spurred millions of users to build and explore new digital worlds, the creations have imported not only their users' dreams but also their vices. These alternative realms are testing the long-held notions of what is criminal and whether law enforcement should patrol the digital frontier. "People have an interest in their property and the integrity of their person. But in virtual reality, these interests are not tangible but built from intangible data and software," said Greg Lastowka, a professor at the Rutgers School of Law at Camden in New Jersey. Some virtual activities clearly violate the law, like trafficking in stolen credit card numbers, he said. Others, like virtual muggings and sex crimes, are harder to define, though they may cause real-life anguish for users. Virtual killings, muggings, rapes Simulated violence and thievery have long been a part of virtual reality, especially in the computer games that pioneered online digital role-playing. At times, however, this conduct has crossed the lines of what even seasoned game players consider acceptable. In World of Warcraft, the most popular online game, with an estimated 8 million participants worldwide, some regions of this fantasy domain have grown so lawless that players said they fear to brave them alone. Gangs of animated characters have repeatedly preyed upon lone travelers, killing them and making off with their virtual belongings. Two years ago, Japanese authorities arrested a man for carrying out a series of virtual muggings in another popular game, Lineage II, by using software to beat up and rob characters in the game and then sell the virtual loot for real money. Julian Dibbell, a prominent commentator on digital culture, chronicled the first known case of sexual assault in cyberspace in 1993, when virtual reality was still in its infancy. A participant in LambdaMOO, a community of users who congregated in a virtual California house, had used a computer program called a "voodoo doll" to force another player's character to act out being raped. Though this virtual world was rudimentary and the assault simulated, Dibbell recounted that the trauma was jarringly real. The woman whose character was attacked later wept -- "post-traumatic tears were streaming down her face" -- as she vented her outrage and demand for revenge in an online posting, he wrote. Since then, advances in high-speed Internet, user interfaces and graphic design have rendered virtual reality more real, allowing users to endow their characters with greater humanity and identify ever more closely with their creations. 'Double-edged sword' Nowhere is this truer than in Second Life, where more than 6 million people have registered to create characters called avatars, cartoon human figures that respond to keyboard commands and socialize with others' characters. The breadth of creativity and interaction in Second Life is greater than on nearly any other virtual-reality Web site because there is no game or other objective; it is just an open-ended, lifelike digital environment. Moreover, Linden Labs, which operates Second Life, has given users the software tools to design their characters and online setting as they see fit; some avatars look like their real-life alter egos, while others are fantastical creations. This virtual frontier has attracted a stunning array of immigrants. Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has opened a virtual campaign headquarters. Reuters and other news agencies have set up virtual bureaus. IBM has developed office space for employee avatars. On May 22, Maldives became the first country to open an embassy in Second Life, with Sweden following this week. Second Life is intended only for adults, and about 15 percent of the properties on the site -- in essence, space on computer servers that appear as parcels of land -- have been voluntarily flagged by their residents as having mature material. Though some is relatively innocent, in some locations avatars act out drug use, child abuse, rape and various forms of sadomasochism. "This is the double-edged sword of the wonderful creativity in Second Life," Dibbell said in an interview. One user found herself the unwilling neighbor of an especially sordid underage sex club. "Tons of men would drop in looking for sex with little girls and boys. I abhorred the club," wrote the user on a Second Life blog under the avatar name Anna Valeeva. She even tried to evict the club by buying their land, she wrote. Disagreements among countries The question of what is criminal in virtual reality is complicated by disagreements among countries over what is legal even in real life. For example, virtual renderings of child abuse are not a crime in the United States but are considered illegal pornography in some European countries, including Germany. After German authorities began their investigation, Linden Labs issued a statement on its official blog condemning the virtual depictions of child pornography. Linden Labs said it was cooperating with law enforcement and had banned two participants in the incident, a 54-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman, from Second Life. Some Second Life users objected on the blog that Linden Labs had gone too far. "Excuse me. You banned two residents, both mature, who did a little role-playing? No children, I repeat no children, were harmed or even involved in that act," protested another user on the Second Life blog. "Since when is fantasy against the fricking law?" Philip Rosedale, the founder and chief executive of Linden Labs, said in an interview that Second Life activities should be governed by real-life laws for the time being. He recounted, for example, that his company has called in the FBI several times, most recently this spring to ensure that Second Life's virtual casinos complied with U.S. law. Federal investigators created their own avatars and toured the site, he said. In coming months, his company plans to disperse tens of thousands of computer servers from California and Texas to countries around the world in order to improve the site's performance. Also, he said, this will make activities on those servers subject to laws of the host countries. Rosedale said he hopes participants in Second Life eventually develop their own virtual legal code and justice system. "In the ideal case, the people who are in Second Life should think of themselves as citizens of this new place and not citizens of their countries," he said. © 2007 The Washington Post Company Rate this story Low Rate it 0.5 Rate it 1 Rate it 1.5 Rate it 2 Rate it 2.5 Rate it 3 Rate it 3.5 Rate it 4 Rate it 4.5 Rate it 5 High Current rating: 0.5 by 2 users • View Top Rated stories Print this Email this Blog this IM this MORE FROM WASHINGTONPOST.COM HIGHLIGHTS washingtonpost.com Highlights Section Front Immigration bill gains momentum Tortured lives of interrogators What is your dog thinking? Pakistan cracks down on TV Court ruling splits in antiabortion movement Caring for autistic triplets GI teacher, Baghdad teen forge ties Clinton accents her Midwestern roots U.N. still looking for Iraq's WMD Ex-con tries to cash in on greed washingtonpost.com Highlights Section Front Add washingtonpost.com Highlights headlines to your news reader: Add to MyMSNAdd to My Yahoo!Subscribe with Bloglines • More RSS feeds from MSNBC.com Top MSNBC stories Al-Qaida group: Abducted GIs slain Congressman indicted on 16 counts Putin offers warning on U.S. plan Charges nixed for Gitmo detainee Democrats debate in N.H. NBC News highlights Miss USA on boos and the fall 69-year-old climber reaches Mt. Everest peak TODAY to broadcast from Cuba Prevent cancer by pumping up on vitamin D Medal of Honor tributes SPONSORED LINKS Get listed here Real Music Ringtones Download ringtones to your phone. Get them complimentary now! ringringmobile.com Have You Invented Anything? We help inventors! Invention submission & patent servic

Saturday, June 02, 2007

For Pornographers, Internet’s Virtues Turn to Vices

Dr. Media says, check this out, the porno guys are losing money, who knew. We did, think about it, if Napster worked to break the music logjam, why wouldn't porno aficionados--some estimates are that 60% of all searches are for sex related items, FYI--use video sharing software to get it for free, and besides,I guess amateurs like amateurs, after all, the climax is always predictable!!





For Pornographers, Internet’s Virtues Turn to Vices - New York Times

June 2, 2007
For Pornographers, Internet’s Virtues Turn to Vices
By MATT RICHTEL

The Internet was supposed to be a tremendous boon for the pornography industry, creating a global market of images and videos accessible from the privacy of a home computer. For a time it worked, with wider distribution and social acceptance driving a steady increase in sales.

But now the established pornography business is in decline — and the Internet is being held responsible.

The online availability of free or low-cost photos and videos has begun to take a fierce toll on sales of X-rated DVDs. Inexpensive digital technology has paved the way for aspiring amateur pornographers, who are flooding the market, while everyone in the industry is giving away more material to lure paying customers.

And unlike consumers looking for music and other media, viewers of pornography do not seem to mind giving up brand-name producers and performers for anonymous ones, or a well-lighted movie set for a ratty couch at an amateur videographer’s house.

After years of essentially steady increases, sales and rentals of pornographic videos were $3.62 billion in 2006, down from $4.28 billion in 2005, according to estimates by AVN, an industry trade publication. If the situation does not change, the overall $13 billion sex-related entertainment market may shrink this year, said Paul Fishbein, president of AVN Media Network, the magazine’s publisher. The industry’s online revenue is substantial but is not growing quickly enough to make up for the drop in video income.

Older companies in the industry are responding with better production values and more sophisticated Web offerings. But to their chagrin, making and distributing pornography have become a lot easier.

“People are making movies in their houses and dragging and dropping them” onto free Web sites, said Harvey Kaplan, a former maker of pornographic movies and now chief executive of GoGoBill.com, which processes payments for pornographic Web sites. “It’s killing the marketplace.”

It is an unusual twist on the Internet-transforms-industry story. The Internet quickly presented a challenge to some businesses, like recorded music and newspapers. But initially, the digital age led to a kind of mainstreaming of pornography by providing easy and anonymous access online.

The spread of high-speed Internet access promised even further growth. Instead, faster connections have simply allowed people to download free movies more quickly, and allowed amateur moviemakers to upload their creations easily.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the market continues to be flooded with new video releases, both online and on disc. Mr. Fishbein said that this year he expected to see more than 1,000 X-rated DVDs a month produced for retail sale, a figure driven in part by the new spate of low-budget filmmakers.

“The barrier to get into the industry is so low: you need a video camera and a couple of people who will have sex,” Mr. Fishbein said.

Some companies say they have had success with selling subscriptions to their Web sites, and in offering movies for download or watching online. But Internet revenue, while growing modestly, is not compensating for the drop in video sales and rentals. In 2006, revenue from online subscriptions and sales was $2.8 billion, up from $2.5 billion in 2005, according to estimates from AVN — an increase but nothing near the e-commerce growth enjoyed by many industries.

The more traditional pornographic film companies are not giving up, of course. They say they have an answer to the new competition: quality.

They are seeking to differentiate themselves from makers of inexpensive films by selling with fancier packaging in stores or through slicker Web sites, and by using better cameras and more experienced directors and performers. They are banking that viewers will be discerning when it comes to sex.

“We use good-quality lighting and very good sound,” said David Joseph, president of Red Light District, a production company in Los Angeles that has made films like “Obscene Behavior.”

Mr. Joseph said his company did not waste its time, or that of the viewers, on unnecessary plot lines.

“There’s not a whole lot of story — it’s basically right to the sex, but we’re consistent with the quality,” he said, noting that the company is also careful to pick interesting backdrops. “We use different locations, rooms and couches.”

Red Light’s sales have dropped more than 30 percent in the last two years. To counter the trend, Mr. Joseph says the company plans to start giving film buyers an extra promotional DVD with more scenes from its movies, which typically cost $20. He also plans to improve the packaging of his DVDs.

A similar tactic is planned by Sean Logan, chief of Nectar Entertainment, which has made movies like “Exxxtasy Island.” Business is down 25 percent in the last year, Mr. Logan said, and, because his movies cost $50,000 to $80,000 to make, he cannot afford to compete with some DVD competitors who are dropping their prices as low as a few dollars a film to maintain their volume of sales.

But Mr. Logan said he could improve his packaging for retail shelves. He has begun adding a sleeve around his box covers that includes a foil logo and metallic sheen to bring out the images, as was done on “Brazilian Island Trilogy.”

He said he was sticking to his plan to shoot his movies in exotic locations like Brazil or simulating them with elaborate sets. For the movie “Mystified,” Nectar built an elaborate set that included a waterfall in a warehouse in Canoga Park, Calif. It is not your everyday backdrop for hard-core sex, Mr. Logan noted: “It looks like ‘Lord of the Rings.’ ”

Nectar, like Red Light, recently introduced a redesigned Web site to compete better online. Nectar charges $29.95 a month for access, which allows members to look at thousands of still photos and stream 35 movies from its library.

But this is a far cry from the price and the volume of free X-rated content available on some sites. One site operated by Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network has 200,000 videos, many of them submitted by amateur videographers, said Scott Coffman, the company’s president.

“We get input from all over the world — Japan, Germany, Brazil,” Mr. Coffman said, noting that even he was surprised by the number of contributors. “It’s the same thing as YouTube, where you’re wondering, How many people out there have cameras and are filming this stuff?”

Mr. Coffman said he was not in the business of giving away content. About half the videos submitted to the site, he said, are from pornographic movie companies looking to get viewers interested and persuade them to pay for a longer download or DVD. Some companies pay to have their clips displayed on the site, and some give it a cut of the revenue if a visitor turns into a customer.

In fact, many of the free video clips circulating online are distributed by companies using them as marketing tools. Mr. Kaplan of GoGoBill.com said he thought that was a failed strategy.

“They think that if they give people enough of a free sample, they’ll come back and pay, but that’s not true,” he said. The reality, he said, is that people are surfing for free material, getting what they want and then leaving.

But some in the industry disagree. Manny Ulele, the founder of a Las Vegas-based video production company and Web site, said the use of these teaser videos was turning the online pornography business into something of a science. (That is not his real name, but one he uses for business purposes.)

Mr. Ulele said his company could pay $500 to $600 a day to get its short clips listed prominently on popular video clearinghouses. He said that fee could be justified by the rates at which people follow through: 1 in 1,000 viewers of the free content click onto his site, he said, and 1 in 600 of those might buy something — a subscription, DVD or other product.

Over all, he said, his Web site has around 10,000 customers paying $30 a month to download or stream video clips.

“The perception of the consumer is that there is free porn,” Mr. Ulele said. “But most of it nowadays is controlled.” He added that he and other operators understood what length of video clip, and what kind of clip, would hook viewers.

“We’ve been fine-tuning it for years,” he said. “We’re able to determine exactly what works and what doesn’t.”

Selling Web Advertising Space Like Pork Bellies --WSJ

Dr. Media says welcome to the brave new world of advertising. check this out, an entirely new market, what they really need is a way to target their audience, and track the effectiveness of the campaign.But wait thats not new thats what Dr. Media calls Market research.This is where web analytics and the Semantic web, Web 3.0 come in, with out these new technologies, there will be no data to mine, only money to spend.





Selling Web Advertising Space Like Pork Bellies





Exchanges That Pair Buyers,

Sellers for Available Ad Slots

Attract Internet Giants

By ROBERT A. GUTH and KEVIN J. DELANEY



The next big Internet race might turn the buying and selling of advertising space on Web sites into the online equivalent of the pork-bellies pit.



Over the past few years, a host of small companies has started electronic exchanges where advertisers and Web sites can buy and sell online advertising space. The companies, with names like Right Media Inc., AdECN Inc., Turn Inc. and ContextWeb Inc., have been an obscure sideshow to a broader battle over Internet advertising.



That's changing quickly. The biggest Internet companies, including Microsoft Corp., Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc., are focusing attention and money on the emerging business, hoping to be first with the kind of large-scale, dynamic market for the ad industry that the Nasdaq market brought to stocks.

[Combo]



Over time there will be "a handful of winners that build very high-tech marketplaces," predicts Jim Barnett, chief executive of San Mateo, Calif.-based Turn. "That's what we're trying to do; that's what Google is trying to do."



Today, online publications and Internet companies have space for display ads built into their Web sites. Typically, that space gets filled with ads either the old-fashioned way -- through a salesperson -- or by a mix of computers and people called an ad network that automatically sells ads for the spot. But a significant portion of the available ad space -- called "inventory" -- remains unsold, or is sold for next to nothing. Enter the exchanges, which use automated systems to match buyers with sellers of unsold space.



With ad exchanges, member advertisers specify the price they're willing to pay for a certain type of ad spot, such as a banner ad that will be viewed by a female in Boston. When a woman in Boston pulls up a Web page of an exchange member with a banner slot available, software assesses the exchange's offer. If the price offered is better than the site's minimum rate for that page and higher than what it can get from other sources, such as ads sold by its sales staff, the site will usually accept the exchange-brokered offer. The exchange's computers can then deliver the winning ad to be displayed as the Web page loads on the consumer's PC. The exchange immediately notifies the site if it doesn't have a buyer for the ad space, and the site can then put in a nonpaying house ad or try other means to unload it on the fly.



Web sites rely on data such as IP addresses -- identifiers for PCs connected to the Web -- to know the general location, gender and other characteristics of the Web surfer pulling up an ad. Sites also use cookies, small files stored on users' computers, to track their Web activity, such as recent searches. Web publishers say the cookies generally don't allow them or advertisers to know the actual identity of specific users -- and any data are made anonymous. But for a car maker who might want ads to be shown only to consumers who had previously visited auto sites or had done car-related Web searches, for example, the targeting such technology makes possible can be attractive. By bringing together a lot of ad sellers, exchanges can potentially help advertisers buy a larger quantity of such specifically targeted ads across different Web sites.



AdECN says it can complete an auction for the ads on a Web page in 12 milliseconds after a consumer clicks to pull it up. AdECN runs an exchange where 28 advertising networks, which purchase ad slots from many different sites and sell them at higher rates to advertisers, buy and sell ads.



Exchanges usually collect payments for ads and pass them along to the sites, taking a commission. Ads are generally priced per thousand times they're viewed by consumers, a unit known in the industry as CPM.



Online ticket seller StubHub in recent months started using exchanges and ad networks to spread its reach to sports and music fans on the Web. (Historically, the company used ads tied to Internet search results on Google to reach customers.) The exchanges have allowed StubHub to place ads on a broader universe of sites large and small that it never had used before. Some of those, including ads on Gawker, a gossip blog, and Internet radio station Accuradio, led to ticket sales, StubHub executives say.



In a few months of use, ad networks and exchanges "have already become material to our marketing mix," says Michael Janes, chief marketing officer at StubHub. He estimates the company now spends about 15% of its budget (up from zero at the beginning of the year) for display ads over networks and exchanges. There's still some disagreement over the actual differences between networks and exchanges. But many industry executives agree that transparent pricing and an open neutral marketplace where anyone can buy or sell ads are distinguishing characteristics of exchanges.



Q Interactive of Chicago this month started selling some ads on its sites through the Right Media exchange. And it believes that buying ads on other sites through the exchange, which it has begun doing as well, will offer a 20% to 30% better return on investment than its previous practice of going around and buying ads from different sites individually. "Right now if you want to do a media buy you have to buy on a lot of different networks and with a lot of different publishers," says Q Interactive CEO Matt Wise. "Theoretically, with an exchange, one technology platform can cover an enormous swath of the Internet."



Or so the big players hope. Yahoo thrust exchanges into the spotlight in April when it agreed to pay $680 million for the remaining 80% of Right Media, following a 20% stake it bought last October. Yahoo said that it wanted to own Right Media as a way to take a leadership role in promoting the exchange model. The company has been selling some ad space on its site through Right Media, and says it has seen increases of over 50% in prices for ad spaces sold through Right Media compared with what it brought in for them on its own.



The Right Media acquisition followed Google's $3.1 billion deal to purchase DoubleClick Inc., which is building an ad exchange. DoubleClick last week began conducting transactions for actual ads on the exchange it has been building.



David Rosenblatt, chief executive of DoubleClick, estimates exchanges could eventually handle 50% of all display ad sales. He compares the exchanges to auctions that Internet search providers like Google used to ignite search-related advertising several years ago. "I think the exchange concept will have the same impact on the display market," he says.



Meanwhile, Microsoft has started developing a prototype of an exchange and has also considered buying one of the start-ups, say people familiar with the company. Microsoft General Manager Joe Doran declined to give details but said Microsoft has been studying the exchange model and "what it would take to build an exchange." But, he said, "it's still very early for the exchange concept to really catch on and drive to large scale."



Indeed, if the dream is to have the same kind of impact on advertising that spot markets had on commodities and stock markets on equities, one or more exchanges will need a critical mass of buyers and sellers. As with stock markets, "liquidity" is key for the ad exchanges: the more participants, the greater the chance of finding buyers and sellers.



But with a bevy of exchanges large and small, the industry risks not having a critical mass of buyers and sellers on any one exchange to make a viable market. "That's the thing that's uncertain," says analyst Greg Sterling of Sterling Market Intelligence in Oakland, Calif.



It's also unclear what percentage of their ads Web sites will be willing to sell through exchanges. Many industry executives say the exchanges are suited only for "remnant," or leftover ads and ad space that the biggest brands aren't interested in. Big advertisers generally want to have more control over where the online ads appear and who sees them.



With exchanges, "the underlying assumption to that is you're buying a commoditized product that anyone can sell you," says Steven Kaufman, senior vice president at Publicis Group SA's Digitas interactive agency. Many of the high-end ads that Digitas handles require human negotiation and tailoring before appearing on a Web site. "That's not coming through an exchange," he says.



Others disagree. Such high-end ads represent at most 10% of the ad market, counters AdECN CEO Bill Urschel. "And everything else is up for an exchange."



Write to Robert A. Guth at rob.guth@wsj.com and Kevin J. Delaney at kevin.delaney@wsj.com

RELATED ARTICLES AND BLOGS

Monday, April 30, 2007

Coming Online Soon: The Five-Minute ‘Charlie’s Angels’ - New York Times

Dr. Media says, here you go the ultimate junk food, just imagine, wasteland TV from the 70's-80's packaged just right, the 5 minutes of the program that was actually interesting in any way. I wonder if we can use this method as a method of brainwashing, forcing people to watch endless snacks of terrible programming, but we need the cigarette commercials to make it really work.

Another example of networks re purposing assets to bleed some bucks, moreto come.

I'm waiting for the Chaplin, Keaton , Keystone cops, Gumby, etc.











Coming Online Soon: The Five-Minute ‘Charlie’s Angels’ - New York Times

April 30, 2007
Coming Online Soon: The Five-Minute ‘Charlie’s Angels’
By BILL CARTER

The question probably never occurred to viewers in the 1970s and 1980s, but suddenly it is highly relevant: exactly how much worthwhile entertainment content was there in shows like “Charlie’s Angels,” “T. J. Hooker,” and “Starsky and Hutch”?

The Sony Corporation and its production studio, Sony Pictures Television, which controls the rights to those and many other relics of a distant era of television, have come up with an answer to that question: three and a half to five minutes.

That’s the length Sony has shrunk episodes down to in order to create what the company hopes is an appealing new business in retooling old shows for a new era of entertainment. Sony even has a name for these shrunken slices of television nostalgia: minisodes.

Sony Television is planning in June to introduce an Internet-based service called the Minisode Network, initially offering the mini-shows for an exclusive run on MySpace. (The company may consider establishing a separate Internet channel called the Minisode Network later.)

However and wherever it appears, the network will consist of a lineup of tightly edited versions of shows lifted off the shelves of Sony’s television library. These are not clips of the shows, but actual episodes with beginnings, middles and ends, all told in under six minutes.

As Steve Mosko, the president of Sony Television, described it, “So in ‘Charlie Angels,’ they have a meeting, Charlie’s on the intercom telling them what the assignment is, there’s a couple of fights, and then a chase, and they catch the bad guy. Then they’re back home wrapping it up.”

“T. J. Hooker,” an especially formulaic cop show from the early 1980s, can be seen in short bursts of action as William Shatner interrogates suspects, fires shots and chases bad guys. “Shatner is just hilarious,” Mr. Mosko said.

That sums up the main aim of the minisodes. Nobody expects these shows to captivate anyone with their exciting plotlines, writing or ageless acting. “It’s really campy and fun,” Mr. Mosko said.

What he would like it to be as well is lucrative. Like other holders of vast libraries of filmed entertainment, Sony Television has been seeking ways to squeeze new value out of old assets.

“We’ve been looking for a legitimate way to make money from our library,” Mr. Mosko said. “Something that could bring new life to shows that have been on the shelf for awhile.”

The idea for condensed editions of these classic shows sprang from a casual conversation over a year ago between Mr. Mosko and another Sony Television executive, John Weiser, the head of distribution. They had noticed that an increasing number of people liked watching snippets of entertainment on Web sites like YouTube, rather than entire shows. The two Sony executives were aware that Viacom had been successful foraging through old libraries of shows on its cable channels like TV Land and Nick at Nite.

“Take classic shows and, rather than try to jam them into the digital world, look at what the consumer wants,” Mr. Mosko said. The plan gained even more traction when Sony executives saw the “Seven-Minute Sopranos,” a condensation of the 77-hour HBO series that was posted on YouTube in March.

One advantage Sony Television holds over a channel like TV Land is that the company holds the rights for all the shows it will use on the Minisode Network. TV Land must license all the shows it runs.

Clips from shows do appear on the TV Land Web site, as do, occasionally, some full-length episodes. But often, according to the network, the license deals for TV Land do not include the kind of extensive digital rights that would allow wide use of the episodes on the Internet.

So while you can go on the TV Land site and see the famous clip from “I Love Lucy” of Lucy and Ethel trying to keep up with the conveyer belt at the candy factory, you cannot see that whole episode — or even a condensed version of it.

Mr. Mosko said Sony had gone through all the proper channels to make sure it covered all the rights associated with editing the shows this way and posting them as episodes on the Internet. “We have all the credits on every episode,” Mr. Mosko said.

“There are no expensive costs,” Mr. Mosko said. “It’s just editing. Our people are really having fun with this. We’re not overthinking the process. You could almost look at this and say a group of college kids put this together.”

The hourlong action shows at Sony’s disposal proved especially easy to edit down, Mr. Mosko said. Comedies have proved slightly harder to condense, he said, because certain jokes have setups and reference points that must be included for the jokes to make sense.

Sony is even making a mini-version of “Ricki Lake,” one of its syndicated talk shows. “It’s great,” Mr. Mosko said. “The people get introduced, there’s a big fight, then they come together, and cry and hug. You get everything in five minutes.”


Coming Online Soon: The Five-Minute ‘Charlie’s Angels’ - New York Times

April 30, 2007
Coming Online Soon: The Five-Minute ‘Charlie’s Angels’
By BILL CARTER

The question probably never occurred to viewers in the 1970s and 1980s, but suddenly it is highly relevant: exactly how much worthwhile entertainment content was there in shows like “Charlie’s Angels,” “T. J. Hooker,” and “Starsky and Hutch”?

The Sony Corporation and its production studio, Sony Pictures Television, which controls the rights to those and many other relics of a distant era of television, have come up with an answer to that question: three and a half to five minutes.

That’s the length Sony has shrunk episodes down to in order to create what the company hopes is an appealing new business in retooling old shows for a new era of entertainment. Sony even has a name for these shrunken slices of television nostalgia: minisodes.

Sony Television is planning in June to introduce an Internet-based service called the Minisode Network, initially offering the mini-shows for an exclusive run on MySpace. (The company may consider establishing a separate Internet channel called the Minisode Network later.)

However and wherever it appears, the network will consist of a lineup of tightly edited versions of shows lifted off the shelves of Sony’s television library. These are not clips of the shows, but actual episodes with beginnings, middles and ends, all told in under six minutes.

As Steve Mosko, the president of Sony Television, described it, “So in ‘Charlie Angels,’ they have a meeting, Charlie’s on the intercom telling them what the assignment is, there’s a couple of fights, and then a chase, and they catch the bad guy. Then they’re back home wrapping it up.”

“T. J. Hooker,” an especially formulaic cop show from the early 1980s, can be seen in short bursts of action as William Shatner interrogates suspects, fires shots and chases bad guys. “Shatner is just hilarious,” Mr. Mosko said.

That sums up the main aim of the minisodes. Nobody expects these shows to captivate anyone with their exciting plotlines, writing or ageless acting. “It’s really campy and fun,” Mr. Mosko said.

What he would like it to be as well is lucrative. Like other holders of vast libraries of filmed entertainment, Sony Television has been seeking ways to squeeze new value out of old assets.

“We’ve been looking for a legitimate way to make money from our library,” Mr. Mosko said. “Something that could bring new life to shows that have been on the shelf for awhile.”

The idea for condensed editions of these classic shows sprang from a casual conversation over a year ago between Mr. Mosko and another Sony Television executive, John Weiser, the head of distribution. They had noticed that an increasing number of people liked watching snippets of entertainment on Web sites like YouTube, rather than entire shows. The two Sony executives were aware that Viacom had been successful foraging through old libraries of shows on its cable channels like TV Land and Nick at Nite.

“Take classic shows and, rather than try to jam them into the digital world, look at what the consumer wants,” Mr. Mosko said. The plan gained even more traction when Sony executives saw the “Seven-Minute Sopranos,” a condensation of the 77-hour HBO series that was posted on YouTube in March.

One advantage Sony Television holds over a channel like TV Land is that the company holds the rights for all the shows it will use on the Minisode Network. TV Land must license all the shows it runs.

Clips from shows do appear on the TV Land Web site, as do, occasionally, some full-length episodes. But often, according to the network, the license deals for TV Land do not include the kind of extensive digital rights that would allow wide use of the episodes on the Internet.

So while you can go on the TV Land site and see the famous clip from “I Love Lucy” of Lucy and Ethel trying to keep up with the conveyer belt at the candy factory, you cannot see that whole episode — or even a condensed version of it.

Mr. Mosko said Sony had gone through all the proper channels to make sure it covered all the rights associated with editing the shows this way and posting them as episodes on the Internet. “We have all the credits on every episode,” Mr. Mosko said.

“There are no expensive costs,” Mr. Mosko said. “It’s just editing. Our people are really having fun with this. We’re not overthinking the process. You could almost look at this and say a group of college kids put this together.”

The hourlong action shows at Sony’s disposal proved especially easy to edit down, Mr. Mosko said. Comedies have proved slightly harder to condense, he said, because certain jokes have setups and reference points that must be included for the jokes to make sense.

Sony is even making a mini-version of “Ricki Lake,” one of its syndicated talk shows. “It’s great,” Mr. Mosko said. “The people get introduced, there’s a big fight, then they come together, and cry and hug. You get everything in five minutes.”




Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Dr. Media says, the shoe dropped, a size 20. This article does not over state the case.So whats the deal, IMO, simple ad money sharing.Google becomes the largest ad agency in the world, selling space on infinite channels with niched up the yin yang primetime. The whole world is watching. For TV guys, once they figure it out, Happy Days are here again.

Viacom v. Google could shape digital future

Lawsuit hinges on 1998 act protecting net copyrights; does YouTube qualify?

Kevin J. Delaney And Matthew Karnitschnig, Wall Street Journal
14 March 2007

The $1 billion question prompted by Viacom Inc.'s suing Google Inc. yesterday is how a 1998 law that was supposed to retrofit copyright protection for the digital future applies in the YouTube age.

While the suit was expected -- Viacom in February publicly accused Google of copyright infringement -- it raises the stakes in the running scuffle between Google's YouTube and media companies over copyright clips posted by users to the video-sharing site without the consent of the clips' owners. In the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, Viacom seeks damages and an injunction against Google to stop the alleged infringement. The suit accuses YouTube of using technology to "willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale ... and profiting from the illegal conduct of others as well."

Since the video-copyright spat intensified last year, YouTube has claimed it qualifies for protection from liability because it removes clips from its site when copyright holders ask. Such a procedure is outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, a landmark law that updated intellectual-property rights for the Internet and laid the groundwork for the widespread hosting and searching of content originating from ordinary users. The DMCA also contained important so-called safe-harbor clauses, provisions designed to protect access providers, search engines, Web-hosting services and others from liability for copyright claims if they met several conditions.

But now some legal experts say there is little consensus or precedent on how that protection applies to video-sharing sites like YouTube. The safe-harbor dispute could hinge on several key issues, such as the extent to which YouTube has direct knowledge of copyright clips posted on its site without permission and whether it profits directly from them.

The safe-harbor issue is at the core of several other pending copyright cases, including Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group's suit against News Corp.'s MySpace.

Some lawyers say court decisions may have broad ramifications. "The DMCA safe harbor covers a lot of businesses, and it's hard to see how you could go after YouTube without threatening all of the others," says Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

The Viacom suit comes after failed discussions between the media company and Google over licensing content such as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and "Laguna Beach" for use on YouTube and indemnification of Google from copyright suits. Those talks fell apart by late last year amid disagreement over a number of issues, including how much Google might pay, say people familiar with the matter. Viacom in February publicly accused Google of profiting from copyright infringement; Viacom requested that YouTube remove more than 100,000 Viacom clips from its site.

Viacom says it decided to file suit because its request last month that YouTube remove Viacom clips failed to keep them off the site. As recently as yesterday, one of the most viewed videos on YouTube was one from "The Colbert Report," owned by Viacom. The media company says it spends "tens of thousands of dollars" a month searching for its programming on YouTube so it can request its removal.

[A message notifies YouTube users that a clip of Viacom's 'Colbert Report' has been removed.]
A message notifies YouTube users that a clip of Viacom's 'Colbert Report' has been removed.

"It's hard for us to believe that [Google] has any desire to protect our content," said Viacom Chief Executive Philippe Dauman.

In its suit, Viacom alleges that the availability of copyright works on YouTube "is the cornerstone of [its] business plan." Other major media companies are talking tough but appear less inclined to follow Viacom in filing a lawsuit, partly because they have existing partnerships with Google that they don't want to jeopardize.

"Time is up for YouTube," said Time Warner Inc. General Counsel Paul Cappuccio. "It's no longer permissible for them to have unauthorized copyrighted material on there."

But Time Warner, which has a deal with Google through its AOL unit, believes companies should reach a compromise. "We are still of the opinion that we can negotiate a business solution with YouTube that will efficiently identify and filter out unauthorized copyrighted works while also allowing us to license copyrighted works to them for a share of revenue," Mr. Cappuccio said.

Many media executives think that the Viacom suit is part of an effort by the company to pressure Google into working out such a deal. Mr. Dauman has pledged to double Viacom's digital revenue to $500 million this year, a goal that a YouTube pact would make it easier for him to reach.

Google lawyers contend that there is little ambiguity in the safe-harbor clauses' protections for YouTube. "It is a relatively clear statute, and Web hosts in general have been confident their activity is not something that will subject them to copyright liability as long as they comply with the notice and takedown procedures outlined in the act," said Alexander Macgillivray, a Google associate general counsel.

When the DMCA became law in 1998, it was an earlier age of the Internet where the principal legal preoccupations related to access providers, like AOL, and hosts of online forums, Web sites and simple search engines. But now with ubiquitous high-speed consumer Internet connections fueling an explosion of digital content and the growth of sites that host photos, video and music uploaded by consumers, the application of the DMCA safe harbor is in dispute.

In its complaint, Viacom signals clearly its belief that YouTube oversteps the protected activities: YouTube goes beyond just hosting users' Web sites and "itself commits the infringing duplication, public performance and public display."

"These provisions were tailored for AOL and their like because these services couldn't know everything that was going on in their chat rooms," said Mike Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel. "YouTube is a different business." Google supporters say YouTube's actions simply reflect the evolution of what an Internet company does and that protections intended for Web hosts in general should apply.

Legal experts say the main points of contention also include how much knowledge the Internet companies have of specific examples of infringement. Viacom in its suit contends it can be impossible to look at YouTube without seeing specific examples of infringement, copyright video clips uploaded by users.

Mr. Macgillivray declined to comment on that, saying it was one of the issues under litigation. But the video site has in the past contended that it doesn't examine individual videos and that it is often nearly impossible to know whether a video is infringing or not, since media companies sometimes upload the clips themselves. Google has said it plans to introduce automated systems for identifying copyright content.

Under one interpretation of the safe-harbor clauses, the video sites lose their protection when they start making money from the infringement, which is arguably happening as they begin to add advertising. Google and YouTube "profit handsomely from the infringement," Viacom says in its complaint.

YouTube has anticipated such an issue and doesn't display ads on pages where consumers can actually view videos unless it has an agreement with the content owner. But advertising does appear on pages listing results users see when they search for videos on YouTube.


Source: Wall Street Journal

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Hollywood Shines on Sundance; Independent Film Gets Burned

Dr. Media says,


Dr. Media says, Dargis is on the money. Anyone interested in the Indie films should mediate on what he says, AND remember that this has been true for 25 years in various forms. The BIG difference is he alludes to, that those indie flicks that are never likely to get a theatrical , which are most, have a better shot at getting seen on the web, BUT, that means that the budgets better be very low, cause the cost of acquisition has gone down just like the cost of production--if it's digi that is.
Of course what filmmaker wants to think that their movie is going get seen only on the web, or cable, or DVD, or VOD, none.


January 21, 2007

Hollywood Shines on Sundance; Independent Film Gets Burned

The big news last January from the Sundance Film Festival was the $10.5 million that Fox Searchlight, a specialty division of 20th Century Fox and part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, paid for the independently produced charmer “Little Miss Sunshine.” One year, numerous 10 Best lists and many millions of dollars later, the Little Independent That Could has become Fox’s best hope for a major Oscar.

As this year’s festival gets under way, the success of “Little Miss Sunshine” marks an impressive victory for Fox, but feels like a Pyrrhic one when it comes to authentically independent cinema. Once upon a time not very long ago, it seemed as if the studios’ specialty divisions might take independent film to another level, like the rich uncle who plucks you out of the weeds and makes you a star. One day you’re working in a video store; the next day you’re Quentin Tarantino.

Much as the Republicans shifted the political center to the right during the 1990s, the sale of Miramax Films to Disney in the mid-’90s shifted public perception of what constitutes an independent film. It’s old news that once Miramax hit the $100 million mark with “Pulp Fiction,” the company changed focus, growing bigger and bigger until it sized itself out of the Magic Kingdom. Still, it proved that a studio division could make money, win awards, attract talent and excite the audience, which is why Miramax and all it helped wrought is one of the best things to happen to Hollywood since the end of the old studio system.

In the last decade the divisions have released some of the finest movies being put out by the studios. Specialty division films tend to be well-made and directed at thinking adults; they’re prestige pictures and star Helen Mirren. Some are bad, some are brilliant. Few rock the world or the art, and fewer and fewer speak in foreign tongues. But in a studio context of franchises and repurposed television shows, these films are often the designated Saturday night alternatives. Alternatives that are sold, it is worth noting, on television and in big-city newspaper ads costing $100,000 apiece. To put it another way, an ad rate that is about half the take for another Sundance favorite, Kelly Reichardt’s “Old Joy.”

The two films had their premiere the same day, within a half-hour of each other: “Old Joy” played in a 150-seat house, and “Little Miss Sunshine,” in a packed 1,270-seat theater. People who actually saw “Old Joy,” a low-fi story about two friends on a weekend trip in the Oregon woods, seemed to love it, but, like many Sundance films, it left the festival without a buyer. Four months later it was picked up by the small New York distributor Kino International for what Gary Palmucci, the head of its theatrical sales, called the “low five figures.”

“Old Joy” first opened in Portland, Ore., before moving to Film Forum in New York on Sept. 20. Mr. Palmucci was leery about opening on that date because September marks the start of the most competitive season, when studios and independents alike roll out many of their prestige titles. But this was the time frame Film Forum offered, so Kino bit. “Old Joy” did spectacularly well at Film Forum, bringing in more than $29,000 the first week. It earned more than $21,000 the second week, but by then was competing with new studio-division arrivals, including Miramax’s film “The Queen.”

Mr. Palmucci estimated that by the end of its nearly six-month theatrical run “Old Joy” will have played in almost every major market in the country. Kino can’t afford to buy full-page ads in big-city newspapers but did run a few small ones. It also spent about $40,000 to blow the film up from 16 millimeter to 35 millimeter; $24,000 on 22 prints; $6,500 on 200 trailers; $4,000 on 50,000 postcards and about $3,000 on Web advertisements. Kino also bought posters and radio spots, and hired outside publicists. It has been a heroic effort, but the postcards, the trailers and all the glowing reviews have not been enough to make the film a hit for the distributor. As I write, “Old Joy” has pulled in less than $200,000.

OUR choices now in entertainment are “staggering,” said Eamonn Bowles, the president of Magnolia Pictures, adding “something needs to be extremely compelling to get people motivated to leave the house.”

Magnolia’s parent company, 2929 Entertainment, has decided that if people won’t leave the house, then it will start knocking on their doors. The company has begun releasing films simultaneously in theaters, on DVD and on cable, a strategy called day-and-date. It tested the waters in 2005 with “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” but its splashiest day-and-date release was Steven Soderbergh’s “Bubble” last January.

A story about murder in a small town, “Bubble” was shot in high definition, the first of six such features Mr. Soderbergh plans to make for 2929. Its release was widely deemed a failure (it earned about $150,000 the three weeks it was in theaters), but Mr. Bowles maintains that the film racked up more revenue through day-and-date than it would have with a traditional release.

“Bubble” didn’t rock the world; it didn’t have to. Paradigm shifts happen slowly and the day-and-date model is just one promising survival strategy being tried out by independents. This year Kino will introduce downloads on its Web site. Other distributors meanwhile are joining with Netflix — and its more than 5.7 million subscribers — to widen their reach.

Last year Netflix and the distributor Roadside Attractions combined forces on a tiny film called “The Puffy Chair” (Class of Sundance 2005). Netflix sent E-mail alerts to its subscribers when “The Puffy Chair” was in theaters, where it earned $200,000 after two months. And when the film hit DVD, 100,000 subscribers put it in their Netflix queue. “If those people were buying tickets, it would have made a million dollars,” said Howard Cohen, a co-president of Roadside Attractions.

Last March IFC Films, which is owned by the Cablevision Systems Corporation, inaugurated a day-and-date series called First Take. The idea was blissfully simple: Each month two films would open in theaters, including the IFC’s destination art house in Greenwich Village, and be made simultaneously available as video on demand available to subscribers of major cable companies like Comcast. Among the films released through First Take were such critically well-received titles as Patrice Chéreau’s “Gabrielle” and Hou Hsiao-hsien’s “Three Times,” voted the best undistributed film in The Village Voice’s 2005 critics poll. Cable subscribers in cities like Fresno, Calif.; Pensacola, Fla.; and Birmingham, Ala., could watch a film by the internationally revered Mr. Hou, whose work has been largely unavailable in this country.

“Every month our number of buys has increased,” said Jonathan Sehring, president of IFC Entertainment. “Right now I think there are 24 million homes out there that are digital-cable homes, and we’re probably, on a monthly basis, 1 percent of them, sometimes more, sometimes as high as 2 percent, sometimes as low as six-tenths of a percent. But that’s anywhere from 60,000 to 150,000 people buying a month. It’s fantastic.” All those cable viewers are watching six to eight IFC movies a month. But, as Mr. Sehring explained, “if you extrapolated it, a lot of movies would be doing a million or two million at the box office.”

Those numbers sound puny, but they are startlingly good in a climate in which even an American independent like “Half Nelson,” another 2006 Sundance favorite and one with a recognizable name (Ryan Gosling), earned only $2.7 million in theaters last year. For filmgoers a series like First Take means they no longer have to wait months for “Gabrielle” to come to their local art house — if they even have one — or wait even longer for the DVD. Instead they can read about “Gabrielle” or a documentary like “Drawing Restraint 9” on the day the film opens in New York and then watch it at home that night. “Gabrielle” certainly looks better on the big screen, but for many Americans this is a moot point because it will never show up at the local multiplex.

“I believe in the idea of the big tail,” Mr. Sehring said, invoking the title of Chris Anderson’s best seller “The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More.” In a nutshell Mr. Anderson argues that the Internet has allowed companies like Amazon to thrive from selling a little bit of lots of different things. Mr. Anderson cites Netflix as another example, but what works for a DVD rental company with 70,000 titles won’t necessarily work for a distributor like Zeitgeist Films, which releases five to six features a year. Much like the studio divisions, distributors like IFC and Magnolia are owned by companies with diverse holdings and are thus part of two “long tails.” That gives them a strategic advantage over small distributors like Kino and Zeitgeist.

Film critics wax nostalgic about the golden age of art-house cinema, back when Jean-Luc Godard was making news not specialty films. But releasing independent fare has always been a tough racket, and distributors were talking about getting out of the art-house business as far back as the 1960s when there was a perceived glut. To survive, companies are being forced to think outside the theatrical box with downloading and day-and-date, and that isn’t a bad thing. These days, intrepid cinephiles know that some of the best films are playing in one of the hundreds of festivals that have sprung up around the country; they also know some of those same films can be bought online.

In March IFC will release Ken Loach’s origin story about the Irish troubles, “The Wind That Shakes the Barley,” which won the Palme D’Or at Cannes last year, through First Take. I could buy that same film online from British Amazon or a video store that sells imported DVDs, but it will be cheaper to watch it at home through my local cable company, and my soda won’t be watery. For right now IFC has found a way to get interesting films to audiences that have long been radically underserved. Video on demand may not be the great savior of independent film, but it bodes well for those who will never go Hollywood and wouldn’t want to even if Harvey Weinstein himself signed the check.

The Media Equation


Dr. Media, says, Carr is on to something here, as is M.Dot, the upside is, he gets to spend his time in his basement being creative and gets a once in a lifetime premier at the Egyptian--way cool--the downside, no pay day. Thus the wheel turns, it's cheaper to make movies digitally, and it takes vision , but harder to get paid, or just as hard as it always was, that's why it's called the movie BUSINESS.

January 22, 2007
The Media Equation

M dot Strange Finds a Way at Sundance

PARK CITY, Utah — In the daunting hierarchy of the Sundance Film Festival, with its hype machine, big stars and indie royalty, a young movie maker named M dot Strange would seem to have little chance of gaining much attention.

A 27-year-old guy from San Jose, he gave new meaning to the term “studio apartment” by jamming eight computers into his place and producing “We Are the Strange.” The movie has a wide visual vocabulary borrowed from the far reaches of the Web, anime, video games and children’s nursery rhymes. And dolls. Lots of dolls.

But his film received a premiere last Friday night at midnight at the Egyptian Theater, a coveted slot at Sundance, and quite a few members of the audience left midmovie.

But what would have been crushing for another young filmmaker was no big deal for M dot Strange, who arrived at Sundance with a huge audience in tow. During the last two years, he has been posting a video blog on YouTube letting people know how the movie was coming along. And then two months ago, he finally posted a trailer, and almost immediately it was downloaded hundreds of thousands of times.

While we were talking at the Kimball Art Center in Park City, he checked the site and showed me that over 648,000 people had already viewed the trailer for a film where he served as writer, director, animator and effects coordinator.

Kevin Donahue, vice president of content at YouTube, said M dot Strange has created an audience in part by talking to it. “The originality of the work is quite high, but he has also built a real rapport with his audience,” said Mr. Donahue. “He has an online film school and a very active community.”

And so what about his big fancy premiere?

“Well, it all felt very foreign to me, watching it in a room with strangers,” M dot Strange said Saturday. “Some YouTube kids came up from Salt Lake, which was cool, and they seemed to really enjoy it.”

Wearing a black stocking cap and sporting a wisp of hair under his lip, M dot Strange, whose actual name is Michael Belmont, looks more like a snowboarder who wandered over from the nearby chairlift than a big deal filmmaker (see for yourself at carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com), but he represents a new paradigm of filmmaking that could have a profound effect on the traditional models of film production, distribution and animation.

The money is not there yet — M dot Strange is doing a brisk business in T-shirts associated with the film — but the Web has proved that if you produce something the consumer wants, a business model might follow.

Another Sundance film, “Strange Culture,” premiered at the Egyptian on Friday, but will get a second premiere today on Second Life, the online virtual community, including a live Q. & A. with the director Lynn Hershman Leeson, and the stars Tilda Swinton and Peter Coyote, among others.

Ms. Hershman Leeson, an established filmmaker and artist, made “Strange Culture” to bring attention to the case of Steve Kurtz, an artist and professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo, who called 911 when his wife died of heart failure in her sleep.

The medics who responded to the call became suspicious of his art materials — his work centers on germ warfare and genetically modified foods — and called the F.B.I. Agents in Hazmat suits showed up immediately and began impounding his computers, books, his cat and even his wife’s body. Mr. Kurtz was detained as a suspected bioterrorist, eventually accused of mail fraud and is now part of an ongoing federal trial.

Ms. Hershman Leeson, 65, felt that the film needed to get out quickly by all means, and after working with the Stanford Humanities Lab to create a digital archive of her work on Second Life, building a theater there and premiering the film seemed like a natural step. Admission is by invitation only so that demand does not swamp the servers.

“These are important social networks that we could not have had before,” she said over coffee in Park City last week. “By having the film both here at Sundance and on Second Life, we have two streams that we hope will eventually become many. And that’s really exciting.”

In the past, a filmmaker had to throw a Hail Mary pass at a place like Sundance, hope for attention amid the clutter, and then against all odds, get a film picked up for distribution. For every “Little Miss Sunshine,” a breakout Sundance film that has been a critical and commercial success, there are hundreds of films that never found an audience.

But a number of digital commercial initiatives, including The Daily Reel, an online video site (www.thedailyreel.com), allow audiences and filmmakers to meet in new ways. Jamie Patricof, the producer of “Half Nelson” and one of the people behind The Daily Reel, said he wanted to create “a breeding ground for new filmmakers and a place to find them. It’s hard enough navigating a film festival like this one, let along finding the people who are doing great work online.”

Because of the limits of bandwidth and attention span, most of the film content online is short-form, but that will change. M dot Strange, who has a series of 10 films planned, already has members of his active, vocal community around “We are the Strange” weighing in on a proposed ending after he put up 18 minutes of the film. “It’s like a real-time focus group,” he suggested.

There have been talks about traditional distribution, but M dot Strange said he didn’t really care one way or the other. Other than attending his own premiere, he hasn’t been in a movie theater in six months.

“I’m already part of a big campfire,” he said. “We talk to each other all the time about what we are seeing and thinking. It’s a personal experience without anybody in between.”

The playing field between audience and filmmaker is shrinking as well. When M dot Strange blogged about his rather awkward pursuit of buzz at Sundance on Thursday, one of his fans made an animation overnight with a hilarious bee motif in response. M dot Strange laughed and called his colleagues over to look at it on YouTube. “This guy is amazing. He’s faster than I am,” he said.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Fakesters

Dr. Media says, watch this space, is Mr. Roush on to something, or just a techie wining about how his " dream" of real social networking has been co-opted by corporate America, in the demon form of Rupert Murdoch, no less. Murdoch is to Media as Gates is to Software, FYI. Dr. Media thinks that the kids will ignore ads on the net, in the same way their parents ignored them on TV, which means Madison Avenue will still be around.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Fakesters


On MySpace, you can be friends with Burger King. This is social networking?

By Wade Roush
Web users have created more than 116 million profiles on MySpace, the social-­networking site owned since 2005 by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. As I will explain in a moment, many of these profiles are fake. Still, 116 million is more than the number of people in Mexico and the number of cable TV subscribers in the United States.
Parents and members of the U.S. Congress have begun to take note--and they don't like what they see. Conservative groups fomented a media panic this year over the supposed rash of sexual predators on MySpace and pushed a bill through the House of Representatives--the Delete Online Predators Act (DOPA)--that would cut off minors' ability to access this and other social-networking sites from federally funded facilities like schools and libraries.
In the opinion of experts such as Henry Jenkins, a professor of literature and director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT, the threat of sexual solicitation on MySpace is not as great as many fear. The company has indeed been hit with a high-profile lawsuit over an incident in which an adult molester allegedly met his underage victim on the site. But teens who use the Internet have said in surveys that online "solicitations" often come from people under 25--and are simply ignored. Furthermore, MySpace is likely to get safer: an October Wired News report that as many as 744 registered sex offenders have MySpace profiles will likely push the company to cull such members.
But while MySpace's bad rap as a haven for sexual predators is probably undeserved, there's good reason to be disturbed by the site: it is devolving from a friends' network into a marketing madhouse.
If any social-­networking company has found a way to rake in cash, it is MySpace; for example, Google recently agreed to pay $900 million for the exclusive right to provide Web searching and keyword-based text ads on the site. Of course, targeted advertisements distributed by Google and other companies provide the revenue that keeps many Web-based businesses afloat. But MySpace's venture into consumer marketing has gone far beyond traditional advertising. The site has given members the technological tools to "express themselves" by turning their own profiles into multi­media billboards for bands, movies, celebrities, and products. Think MTV plus user photos, bulletin boards, and instant messaging.
I realize that in criticizing a pop-culture mecca frequented by millions of people, I risk sounding just as out of touch as DOPA's supporters. But after spending the last few years chronicling the emergence of social networking and other forms of social computing for this magazine, I had higher hopes for the technology. To me, the popularity of MySpace and other social-networking sites signals a demand for new, more democratic ways to communicate--a demand that's likely to remake business, politics, and the arts as today's young Web users enter the adult world and bring their new communications preferences with them. The problem is that MySpace's choice of business strategy threatens to divert this populist energy and trap its users in the old, familiar world of big-media commercialism.
My biggest worry about MySpace is that it is undermining the "social" in social networking. The general expectation when one joins a social network is that its other members are actual people. On MySpace, this isn't always so. The movie Jackass: Number Two has a profile on the site, as do Pepsi, NASCAR, and Veronica Mars, the CW network's teen detective. The company interprets the idea of a "profile" so broadly that real people end up on the same footing as products, movies, promotional campaigns, and fictional characters--not exactly the conditions for a new flowering of authentic personal expression.
As a site organized around an enormous collection of profiles, MySpace was modeled on Friendster and other earlier online social networks. Users are given pages where they can post self-descriptions, photos, short videos, blog entries, and the like. Every profile includes a list of the other members its creator has "friended," and a comment section where those friends leave feedback. (Most comments are encouraging, casual, and shallow: "Love the new look! How are you not married yet?")
But one feature that makes MySpace different from earlier sites, and evidently more appealing to users, is its friendliness toward independent artists. Cofounder Tom Anderson, who has a background in the Los Angeles arts scene, has said that he and business partner Chris DeWolfe started the site in 2003 because the older social networks didn't give musicians, photographers, digital filmmakers, and other artists adequate ways to promote themselves and their work. From its beginning, then, MySpace has functioned as a public stage. It lets bands and solo musicians create profiles, publicize upcoming shows, and upload their songs, which other members can then embed in their own profiles. Filmmakers can upload video clips. Indeed, the site has become one of the main places where unknown artists go to be discovered by major studios, or at least to develop a base of fans who'll attend shows and buy CDs and DVDs.
In the early days at Friendster, only real individuals could create profiles. Bands were lumped in with other "fakesters," the term coined by Friendster users for profiles created by impostors or dedicated to someone other than the author, such as a pet or a celebrity. The company eventually relented, and fakester profiles became an accepted part of Friendster's culture, often taking on the function of fan clubs.
MySpace, however, has been hospitable to fakesters from the beginning--so much so that it's now perfectly kosher for a company (or one of its fans) to create a profile for a fast-food chain, a brand of soda, or an electronics product. Other MySpace members can friend these profiles just as if they represented people. As of early October, Burger King had more than 134,500 friends, and the Helio cell phone had 130,000.
The fakester phenomenon gives network members a way to declare their cultural affinities. These declarations are a huge part of a member's online identity, according to social-media researcher Danah Boyd, who is studying MySpace and other social-networking sites for her doctoral thesis at the University of California, Berkeley's School of Information. "It is important to be connected to all of your friends, your idols and the people you respect," Boyd writes. "Of course, a link does not necessarily mean a relationship ….The goal is to look cool and receive peer validation."
But profiles are about more than looking cool, in Boyd's view. She argues that social-networking sites are among the last unregimented environments for young people, places where they're free to explore issues of personal and group identity. Members of such sites "write themselves into being" through their profiles, Boyd says, trying out personalities and slowly coming to understand who they are and how they fit in.
Ideally, every networking site would be this liberating. Alas, MySpace tends to herd its users into niches created for them by the mass market. If MySpace members are writing themselves into being through the profiles they friend and the products they endorse, then today's 14-to-24-year-olds are growing up into a generation of ­Whopper-­eating, iPod-absorbed, ­Hollywood-­obsessed Red Bull addicts.
Take BillyJ (not his real handle), an 18-year-old high-school graduate and UPS employee in Louisville, KY. BillyJ smokes Kools, prefers Coke to Pepsi, counts X-Men: The Last Stand among his 393 friends, admires New Jersey Nets guard Jason Kidd, likes to work on car audio systems, doesn't have a girlfriend yet, and apparently covets a Ducati motorcycle (his profile features customized Ducati backgrounds, color schemes, and ads). BillyJ may have deeper, more personal interests, but you won't find them on his MySpace profile. It's unclear what he contributes to the network--but as a single 18-to-24-year-old male with his own income and lots of friends, he is a viral marketer's dream vector.
In fact, MySpace can be viewed as one huge platform for "personal product placement"--one different from big-media-style product placement only in that MySpace members aren't paid for their services. There's nothing new, of course, about word-of-mouth marketing. What's sad about MySpace, though, is that the large supply of fake "friends," together with the cornucopia of ready-made songs, videos, and other marketing materials that can be directly embedded in profiles, encourages members to define themselves and their relationships almost solely in terms of media and consumption.
This can't be all that social computing has to offer. Older Web-based social networks were launched with serious (or at least creative) missions: LinkedIn is about making business connections, Flickr and Fotolog are for sharing photographs, Meetup is for planning book clubs and campaign events. Of course, there's no requirement that a social network have high ideals. Like television and every other technology that started out as a shiny showroom prototype, social networking will inevitably accumulate some dings and scratches on the road to mass adoption. But if MySpace is to be the face of online social networking, it's fair to ask whether it's making our culture richer or poorer. To date, the only people who are profiting are Rupert Murdoch and his stockholders.
Wade Roush is a Technology Review contributing editor.

MySpace
Author's profile:
www.myspace.com/wroush