Popular Posts

Thursday, October 11, 2007

'CSI: New York' killer will get a Second Life sentence

Monday, October 08, 2007

More Internet users getting a virtual life






Dr media says, , quoting himself from Wired, 5+ years ago, "A Virtual Life is better than no life at all."
2nd life has had explosive growth, you still can't port an avatar from one world to another world so far as I know, thats when this will really get interesting. But for now it's still cool, see you after the VR conference , for an update.


More Internet users getting a virtual life

Monday, October 8, 2007

The online universe is brimming with dozens of virtual worlds vying to build sustainable life.

From Gaia, a Japanese anime-inspired site, to vSide, a hip nightclub scene, they represent the latest way people are interacting through the Internet. Users create alter-ego avatars to navigate these online worlds, where they meet and hang out with other people, go shopping, watch movies, even start a business.

And they're live: Day and night, they change as people join in.

Though the idea is not new, the technology and the business to support these virtual worlds are starting to catch up. And now a new generation, inspired in part by Linden Lab of San Francisco's Second Life, is starting to evolve.

"We call it the avatar age," said Reuben Steiger, CEO of Millions of Us, a Sausalito startup that helps create in-world communities and promotions for advertisers. "We're able to connect with each other in real time and represent ourselves as we want to be seen."

For some, virtual worlds could become a means of social networking, replacing static pages with live ones as destinations for people to spend time.

"The first generation of virtual words is a step in the right direction," said Scott Raney, a partner with Redpoint Ventures and an investor in Gaia.

Estimates vary on how popular the virtual worlds will become. Technology research firm Gartner forecast this year that by 2011, 80 percent of active Internet users will have a "second life" in some sort of virtual world. Another research company, eMarketer, predicted last month that more than half of U.S. children and teens who use the Internet - about 20 million people - will visit virtual worlds by 2011.

About 8.2 million young Internet users, or 24 percent, already are checking out a virtual world once a month, eMarketer estimated.

In the past year, investors have put $1 billion in 35 virtual-world companies, according to a report advancing the Virtual Worlds Conference, being held Wednesday and Thursday in San Jose.

Some companies included in the report are more game-oriented than virtual world-oriented, and therein lies one of the debates for the nascent industry. Some draw the line between virtual worlds and games such as World of Warcraft, in which millions of players pillage and battle each other to advance. Others contend that the massive multi-player games nevertheless take place in an online world where participants don't necessarily have to follow the arc of the story and can create an avatar just to go inside and meet other people - or orcs.

"It's definitely a changing landscape," said Chris Sherman, executive director for Virtual Worlds Management, which conducted the study.

The virtual worlds are taking all kinds of shapes.

San Jose's Gaia had 2.5 million users last month, including 100,000 logged in at the same time. It was created by comic book artists, with two-dimensional avatars that resemble Japanese anime characters.

In vSide, which began about two months ago and has about 200,000 registered users, the online world is more about the music scene, with nightclubs where groups such as All-American Rejects drop in.

"You have something to come back to every week," said Tim Stevens, CEO of Doppelganger, the San Francisco company behind vSide. "If you're a fan, you want to get the rush you get from going to a concert or a music festival or finding that new song."

One of the criticisms, however, is that each is its own little world, disconnected from other virtual worlds. To join another one, users have to create new avatars and find new friends.

Metaplace is testing a service that would allow people to create virtual worlds that they can share with friends and publish on their blogs and social-networking profiles.

"Our goal is to democratize virtual worlds, to put them in the hands of everybody," said Raph Koster, founder of Metaplace.

The reality, though, is that while the virtual world is essentially limitless, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution still applies. Some aren't easy to use, discouraging participants from returning, or they don't have enough activities or people in them at one time to make it fun.

"It's inevitable there will be too many," said Raney, the partner with Redpoint Ventures. "We know there's going to be tremendous activity in this space. There's no shortage of places competing for people's attention."

And with most virtual worlds still attracting a large population, it isn't clear how users will react.

"My biggest worry is it's going to get so fragmented that people are going to be discouraged," said Ben Wilson, CEO of Makena Technologies, which runs There.com and also helped MTV build a series of virtual worlds for its television shows, including "Laguna Beach" and "The Hills."

Tiffany Stoddard, a 19-year-old psychology and sociology student at Macalester College in Minnesota, uses Zwinky and IMVU.

In Zwinky, part of InterActiveCorp, she and her friends dressed up as security officers and bugged other players in a virtual shopping mall. In another instance, she acted as a minister to "marry" her friends.

"You can't do all that stuff in real life, so it's an opportunity to do things you can't normally do," she said.

Stoddard, who is black, also experimented with race, creating avatars with different-color skins and testing how others reacted to her. She found that she received different responses as she looked for a virtual boyfriend, getting, for instance, responses only from white men when her avatar was white.

"It's a break away from reality," she said. "You can dress up your avatar. It doesn't have to look like you, and you can interact with people all over the world instead of interacting with someone right next to you in the real world."

A galaxy of virtual worlds

Gaia: gaiaonline.com

Habbo: habbo.com

IMVU: imvu.com

Kaneva: kaneva.com

Metaplace: metaplace.com

MTV: vmtv.com

Second Life: secondlife.com

There: there.com

vSide: vside.com

Zwinky: zwinky.com

E-mail Ellen Lee at elee@sfchronicle.com.

Users' complaints to FTC show another side of Google

I'm baaaack from the Summer hiatus--I got a long one, thank you. Dr. Media says watch this space, Google is becoming the biggest advertising agency in the world, they want to do cell phones--see GOOG-411 as an example-AND they are moving towards being a TV network, whats next, production? They can afford it, but as the saying goes, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? This little blip, is the 1st in what may become on of many of turning the do no evil empire into the 2nd coming of he who shall not be named. Stay tuned.


Users' complaints to FTC show another side of Google

All they wanted from Google was $10.

The Internet colossus had offered this enticement to people who signed up for its online payment service, Checkout - but some customers said they failed to get their promised credit.

After losing patience with Google's customer service, several users acted: They filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission.

"I feel that I was misled," one user from San Francisco wrote.

The dustup over online offers is just one example of the discontent Google's growing legion of users have voiced to the agency responsible for enforcing consumer protection laws. Aggrieved, annoyed and occasionally misguided, users have lodged hundreds of complaints about everything from Google overcharging for advertising to returning pornographic Web sites when users search for their own names.

The grievances highlight customer service challenges Google faces as it assumes an ever more important role in its users' lives. Dealing with hundreds of millions of people doesn't always go smoothly - even for a company with incredible global popularity.

The seemingly mundane complaints come amid a larger federal review of Google's proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of online advertising firm DoubleClick, following concerns that the deal will create a monopoly and harm consumers.

Against that backdrop, The Chronicle obtained Google's consumer complaints for three years through open records requests. The names of people who groused to the government were blacked out, as were more than a dozen pages that were said to be part of law enforcement investigations.

One person from Frederick, Md., told of being booted from Google's advertising program without explanation, wasting the 120 hours he spent preparing his Web site. Another from Hopkins, Mich., was flummoxed by software he downloaded from Google that he couldn't figure out how to remove. Yet another from Omaha, Neb., was shocked that a search of her name returned a pornographic Web site and worried that "this may tarnish my reputation and affect my career."

Not surprisingly, the number of complaints against Google has increased in tandem with its popularity. In 2005, the agency received 74 complaints related to the Mountain View company, followed by 133 in 2006 and then 176 during the first six months of this year. Still, that's a small sliver of consumers, considering that in August, Google had 128.5 million U.S. users, according to comScore.

By no means is Google the leading target of consumer ire. A top 10 violators list for 2006 made no mention of the search engine. Rather, the rogue's gallery is led by the three major credit reporting agencies. Experian topped all others with 7,701 complaints; Equifax followed with 5,806; and TransUnion had 5,504.

The Federal Trade Commission invites consumers to file grievances about any company and organization that they suspect of fraudulent business practices, and hundreds of thousands of people use the system annually to voice their displeasure. Few companies escape the public's wrath.

But when consumers vent to the government about Google, it tends to be about highly individual matters rather than sweeping indictments about the company as a monopoly or the incarnation of George Orwell's Big Brother. Either they insist that they are owed money by Google, or they feel personally wronged in some way.

Many people were concerned about personal information available through Google, such as one who wanted all traces of an old bankruptcy filing removed or another who was embarrassed by racy conversations he had on various Internet message boards. Google generally refuses to remove such material from its index except by court order, and instead advises users to take up the issue with the owner of the Web site that published the embarrassing material.

Only a handful of complaints took aim at Google's proposed merger with DoubleClick or the information Google collects about its users. Privacy groups said the limited public concern shows how unaware people are about the potential dangers.

"Marketers are compiling dossiers on you based on the pictures you post and the Web sites you visit," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a digital rights group. "Most people have no idea."

Chester's organization helped spur the Federal Trade Commission to review Google's merger and to plan a town hall meeting about online advertising and privacy in Washington, D.C., next month after filing complaints directly to the agency's commissioner and secretary. Because of their reputation and access to the media, public interest groups tend to get the Federal Trade Commission's ear more easily than individual consumers, who typically file their complaints through an online form on the agency's Web site.

Alana Karen, a manager at Google who helps oversee the company's response to customer inquires, said that Google strives to give its users and advertisers as much assistance as possible. The first step is creating easy-to-use products and then providing online FAQs that answer most questions, she said.

For additional assistance, Google offers e-mail help for individual products or online chat. Google staffers respond with prepared answers for the most frequently asked questions and, if necessary, give more personal help.

"We try really hard to satisfy customer complaints when they come in to us," Karen said.

A common thread among the complaints is Google's failure to respond to customer service e-mails, or users being told their problem would be investigated only to hear nothing back. Some railed at Google for providing no telephone number to call when things go wrong.

Asked about difficulties in getting Google's attention, Karen said, "We're always looking for ways to improve."

The Federal Trade Commission can use the information it collects to open investigations and prosecute wrongdoers. However, many of the complaints it receives simply reflect poor customer service - not fraud.

In some cases, the agency forwards complaints to the companies targeted so they can take a stab at fixing the problem. Google said it occasionally has received a heads-up, but declined to provide any more details.

Google was conciliatory to users who failed to get their promised rebates for using the Checkout online payment service. A spokesman acknowledged that the company got user feedback about the problem, and that it eventually resolved the issue by giving credits to people who asked.

A number of Google's small advertisers and publishers also were well represented among the complaints.

Several advertisers said Google continued to charge them for ads after they dropped out of its ad program. Dozens of online publishers said Google wrongly confiscated their earnings - sometimes thousands of dollars - after accusing them of click fraud, the practice of publishers illicitly clicking on ads that Google supplies to inflate their earnings.

Over the past few years, Google has adjusted its products to mollify consumer outrage. Whether the changes were in response to complaints to the Federal Trade Commission is unclear.

For example, Google's reverse telephone directory, which allows users to search a telephone number to find out who it belongs to and get a map to that person's home, generated a deluge of complaints to the Federal Trade Commission after the service was introduced four years ago. Google soon started allowing users to remove their numbers from the service, although that didn't stop people from continuing to file grievances with the government.

"I am single and live on a dead end road in the country alone," someone from Floral City, Fla., recently complained, fearing the directory would lure a burglar or worse to her home. "Guess the answer will be for everyone to arm themselves."

Unhappy with Google

Some of the most frequent complaints the Federal Trade Commission has received about the Internet search giant:

Privacy: Search results turned up personal information that users want suppressed.

Reverse telephone directory: Users fear it will be used by criminals and stalkers.

Checkout: Google allegedly failed to deliver on promised $10 credit for signing up; products ordered using the online payment service never arrived.

Advertising: Advertisers say they were overcharged, that Google jacked up ad prices and confiscated earnings due publishers whom the company mistakenly accused of fraud.

DoubleClick: Opposition to $3.1 billion acquisition of online advertising company because of monopoly or privacy fears.

-- FTC's consumer complaint form can be found at ftc.gov.

-- Google offers online help centers at google.com/support.

Source: Federal Trade Commission, Google

E-mail Verne Kopytoff at vkopytoff@sfchronicle.com.

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