Scobleizer has a video (appropriately enough) interview with Kyte.TV CEO Daniel Graf outlining the new features to Kyte.TV, a YouTube competitor for users to self-publish video content to the Web and mobile users.

Kyte.TV has added a new API, a new video player, and advanced features for video subscribers to converse about the what they are watching.

As previously reported, Kyte.TV automates the process of posting videos from mobile phones or web cameras, and now the player works on every mobile phone platform, including the iPhone. Kyte.tv creates branded channels that can be delivered via RSS or SMS, or embedded in a website.

Kyte.tv is a great way to stay in touch with friends and marketers will find a way to make money with short "raw" video (even live) and develop community around it, including live chat. Video distribution companies such as Kyte.tv and CozmoTV still need figure out the advertising and/or subscription models, but the simple to use technologies make it clear that video marketing is on the way.

Universal Music Group wants to partner with the other major labels to launch a music subscription service and partner with hardware makers to make it free to consumers, according to BusinessWeek.

Sony BMG Music Entertainment is already on board, and Warner Music Group has been brought into the discussions. Music player companies such as Microsoft would pay the industry a fee of up to $90 per player sold which would be passed on to consumers, who would have free access to the combined music catalogs.

As much as I agree that someone needs to break Apple's hegemony in music downloads, this is not the business model that will do it.

First off, the DOJ's antitrust unit would probably find that a music service run jointly by the industry is a monopoly. The music industry should instead jointly bargain with any and all music services to provide more options, not less.

Creating all you can eat subscription services for as low as $5 per month could destroy music industry revenues. If existing services can't afford to pay the royalties for less than $13 (as RealNetworks charges), then how will the copyright holders and composers both be sufficiently compensated at only $5 per month?

And what about folks like me who only listen to music through their PCs? What would my choices for downloads and subscriptions be? Not everyone likes the subscription model, so downloads must remain an option, or else piracy will escalate.

The music industry basically wants hardware companies to pre-pay for the music that would be consumed over the lifetime of the player. A more viable option would be a lower licensing fee to the hardware companies ($25 each?), but then an equitable split of the subscription fees. Consumers could be given a free 90 day subscription out of this fee, and the additional fees are split between the hardware companies and the industry.

Universal may be pissed at Apple right now, but this plan would do as much or more harm to itself as to iTunes.

It's fine to be TechCrunch and cut back on the rate you are paying your bloggers if: you can't be profitable at the current rates, if ad sales isn't expected to grow sufficiently, or if you are trying to appear a bit leaner to prospective buyers.

But boasting about revenues on one hand and cutting back on the other don't wash, and TechCrunch is being called on the carpet for hypocrisy. TechCrunch might have expanded to quickly, but the cutback underlies the difficulty in blogging for money. You need a large audience of a desirable demographic with targeted ads.

Even though the TechCrunch home page has more ads than a Nascar jumpsuit, the revenue isn't enough, at least according to the latest moves.

Complicating this story is hype-meister Henry Blodget saying that TechCrunch could fetch up to $100 million from CNET. At the same time you have CNET and ZDNet writers questioning TechCrunch's traffic/value.. So is this disparaging a company that you want to acquire for less? I'm sure CNET's bloggers aren't aware of the any conversations between the companies, but appearances are everything.

New search engine Attendi indexes people of common interest based on what they are conversing about. The fledgling site lets you search on a topic and find people who are online by exposing past conversations to the public.

Launched at DEMO in late September, Attendi's "content" is fairly limited as the first half dozen subjects I searched on (in the realms of technology, sports and literature) found no "experts." Attendi.com is the brainchild of Drew Rayman, the chairman of interactive agency i33 Communications.

This isn't a completely novel concept. Message boards and social networking sites let you find people in a similar way, but Attendi ups the ante with a slick interface using Web 2.0 technologies and lets you know who is online at the moment. Communication options include what we used to call forums, live chat sessions, and blogs.

To monetize the site, i33 is developing ad units that let consumers chat with customer service representatives about the products. It fits in with the theme of live conversations, but I'm not so sure that consumers spend their days hoping that someone would be there to talk about a product. Using the web for sales/customer service is an effective alternative to automated voice response systems. Whether or not consumer want to engage in it during search activities remains to be seen.

Local search companies are raking in the VC because that's where the greatest opportunity in search is today. To wit, ReachLocal netted $55.2 million in venture funding, while Outside.in received a $1.5 million investment.

Google is putting boots on the ground, hiring contractors to meet in person with local businesses to get them to at least try free listings in hopes that the added exposure will lead them to buying enhanced ads.

Education will be a major component of this effort as many local businesses still don't get that the ROI of online marketing is several times greater than print advertising. It's not rocket science to understand that paying for ads for people who are looking for your service or product is much more cost-effective than blanketing the general population in hopes that one in a hundred reader gives a hoot.

This is a huge opportunity for local Chamber of Commerce groups. Imagine if they hired search marketing experts to get their companies strategic placement. They could gain incredible loyalty from businesses and generate substantial revenue for their city/town if they could master the art of local search marketing.

Pay per click isn't going away, it's just that the best days are behind it. That summarizes the feelings of Gary Stein at ClickZ.

Pay per click isn't ready for retirement, rather between click fraud and less risky alternatives (pay per action), PPC is finding its niche as the industry's low-hanging fruit. PPC is easy to implement, has a track record of reporting tools, and for better or worse it's value is understood. PPA and more interactive ad units require additional work, so they appeal to a different audience.

But the low hanging fruit still needs to be picked, and PPC will continue to thrive in that space. The transition to other ad models (such as Linkshare's embracing PPA) will be a slow process because even in this "new" medium, there are conservative types who are resistant to investing and experimenting with other options.

PPC will be the answer for "commodity" content and large networks, while large publishers with dedicated audiences will increase their CPMs through targeted ads that match behaviors with actions. Many of these sites will also continue to run PPC ads as wells since multiple ad units are the standard.

Competitors are known to diss the market leaders out of envy, but sometimes they can make a point. In an interview with AFP, Blinkx' founder Suranga Chandratillake compared YouTube to AOL from the late 80's to early 90s, and in some ways he's right.

Until recently AOL grew big, and for a long time profitable, as a walled garden, directing users to a limited subset of Internet content from which it derived its income.

"In that sense, YouTube spotted a demographic and a content type that would work in today's marketplace and went for it. But, user-generated content shared by college students is not the only kind of video we are all going to be watching, there is a lot more to it."

In that comparison Chandratillake is correct - YouTube focuses on mostly user-generated content. But blinkx in fact is more like AOL in basing its success on leveraging relationships with content from "traditional" and professional media companies. While blinkx does index the greater web as well, its strength is in organizing content from the leading media companies. Instead of charging subscribers like AOL, however, like YouTube blinkx is relying on ad revenue to compensate its media partners. Revenue sharing agreements have replaced the licensing fees of yesterday, and blinkx is keeping with the times while avoiding risk.

The company will also roll out a Joost competing Internet TV application soon. Is Joost the Netscape of internet TV?

TiVo continues to add features for accessing Web content, this time partnering to make RealNetworks' Rhapsody music service available through its DVR boxes. This is significant because now TiVo users have a simple way to stream music through their home entertainment systems without setting up a wireless network or running lots of cables.

I'm assuming that Rhapsody will also be available from PCs for current subscribers, giving added flexibility. I don't consider this a huge win for TiVo or RealNetworks because anyone who has TiVo probably has digital cable, which includes a music service. The "on-demand" aspect of listening to tracks is nice though.

RealNetworks already has a deal with Comcast, so this will marginally increase exposure for the music service. There must have been some interesting contract clauses in determining payments in the cases where Comcast is providing the TiVo boxes.

TiVo could become even more killer if you could watch your recorded shows from your PC (ala SlingBox) or if they introduced a monthly movie rental service in partnership with Amazon. If through NetFlix and Blockbuster I can rent a maximum number of DVDs per month, then why not offer the same thing for rental downloads? A virtual queue of 6 movies per month for $19.99 eliminates trips to the video store and reduces the cost of shipping/producing DVDs.

From: The New York Times blogvia CrunchGear.

Social news sites are reshaping news to become a conversation, and are justifiably sucking advertising dollars from mainstream media into the new frontier. New site Mixx will give Digg a run for its money, while Newsvine is destined to grow now that it is under MSNBC's wing.

People want to participate in the news and are doing more so every day online. Unlike viewers satisfied by being spoon-fed local and nightly news, "citizen journalists" and bloggers are passionate and active participants, which makes for a great demographic. The big money will be in advertising on sites that can be customized by readers and foster the community that brings a consistent and impassioned audience.

Current.TV to the blog forums on the Washington Post will build large followings and justify their CPMs. This is user-generated content with value to advertisers who target appropriately.

Most print and TV shows have started by including viewer commentary into their broadcasts. Look no further than the presidential debates, which have been remade for the YouTube generation. We've come a long way since the letters to the editors page, man on the street interview, and Andy Rooney's mailbox as the only public participation in news.

The TV networks are charging more per thousand for ads on streamed shows than for live TV, which one analyst Tsays ain't right. But the networks are appropriately pricing based on value.

While Nielsen provides demographic data based on surveys, the networks can (with one time registration and cookies) more accurately track viewers. The sought-after 18-49 demo is also more likely to be watching online than other groups as well.

Streaming viewers can't skip past ads via DVRs and are less likely to leave the room and not see the ad. The biggest advantage is that interactive ads can get an immediate response from viewers on their PCs (such as signing up for an offer or contest), something that's still not done today through televisions. So a better demographic, more likely viewing, and interactivity are 3 reasons why advertisers should be willing to pay more online.