The digital distribution of video has already revolutionized the news industry and has given would-be auteurs the chance for instant fame on YouTube. TV and movies on demand online are in the process of becoming serious competitors to their old media counterparts. But independent feature films have been missing action.

Wired News' Jason Silverman writes about the Sundance Film Festival drastically scaling back its online distribution this year, an odd reversal considering the digitizing of every other medium. Indie film producers constantly struggle to get their movies into theaters, but I believe they should be more worried about getting into living rooms.

Studio execs only pick a few films each year, and the returns on those films at the box office are dwindling. The small theater has been elbowed out by the megaplex that emphasize mass market action and youth-oriented films on big screens with screaming sound. The focus is now on taking the kids to blockbusters or if they are older giving them $20 to go with their friends. The reality is people are less able (and probably inclined) to see character-oriented films on the big screen, and a resurgence is unlikely.

DVD rentals and online rentals are an even bigger, and that requires advertising and distributing online. Independent film organizations need to band together to streamline distribution and promotions.

The steps to take are obvious, but I'll mention them anyway.

1. Get film trailers promoted through a YouTube channel, Apple's iTunes movie trailer section, MySpace and IMDB. Through free promotion and paid advertising, get the trailers in front of millions of eyeballs. Let the social networks and enthusiast websites provide the long tail audience that are the prime target for indie flicks.

2. Set up an industry-wide website. Independentfilms.org discusses movies, Sundance lists the film it is featuring, but where in the name John Waters are the trailers? Allow user ratings, and have hooks into social networks and rental sites.

3. Sign distribution deals with Joost, Veoh, Netflix, MovieLink, etc. As soon as a trailer gets enough views and ratings, put it online.

Hollywood churns out a few great films, but hundreds of films that a sizeable minority of folks would find entertaining won't satiate the mainstream appetite. That's where the economics of online distribution shines.

Net neutrality legislation -- which would prevent ISPs from giving priority or blocking traffic to specific websites has been highly contentious, but this issue is attacking the wrong aspect of the perceived problem.

ISPs shouldn't worry about any type of peer to peer application or destination, individual customer bandwidth use is the real issue.

If Bit Torrent or text messaging is a popular application, so be it. ISPs have the right to set thresholds for megabytes downloaded, such as Time Warner's plan to set pricing based on the volume of downloads per month. Hosting companies have similar agreements based on a website's traffic, and tiered pricing should likewise be offered to consumers.

We all want fast downloads, but I shouldn't be paying the same as the next guy who is using his connection 25x more than me in a given month. Bandwidth available at any given moment is a slightly different issue, but I think we'll find that by charging the most aggressive downloaders/uploaders more, they'll be more discriminating in their usage. And this would not require any federal legislation or lawsuits.

Poor Apple. The company shows off a lighter that air laptop and a revised Apple TV, and the stock tanks.

Kudos to Mr. Jobs for admitting that the original Apple TV was the dog that I said it was. A rare act of humility, and the second version is better, but not enough for it to be a success of any kind, much less a runaway like the iPod or iPhone.

Adding rentals will help as ordering from the sofa, and paying $3.99 and not having to worry about returns will be preferable for many folks to making Blockbuster runs. But, you still have to spend $229 for a box, so it would take hundreds of movie rentals for the price to be competitive.

However, Apple TV can't yet compete with the TiVo, Comcast, Sling Media and Netflix offerings on many fronts.

TiVo has taken the bold and necessary step of integrating RSS feeds for watching web content online. Comcast's video on demand and  cheap DVR services  are  superior and more convenient. Netflix' free online viewing and all you can watch menu make it much more cost effective.

So Steve, if I can call you that. make an offer to TiVo now so that in 6 months after Apple TV continues to disappoint Wall Street and consumers, you can make the purchase public. TiVo and Apple would be much stronger together than they are apart (not that Apple's stockholders have anything to complain about). Work together on an advertising model (not Apple's strong suit), and give us the products that we want.

 

 

 

Today's news on the social networking front centers on how MySpace's growth has reversed, but it still gets three-quarters of all traffic to social sites. A rosy picture is painted for Facebook, which grew by 43 percent in page views between December of 2007 and the prior year.

Traffic is great, but monetization is all that really matters. By some quick calculations, Facebook isn't on the same page as MySpace in deriving money from visits while social networks pale in comparison to search.

According to my rough guide to earnings compared to traffic, Facebook makes approximately 1/10 of a penny per page view, while MySpace brings in a little more than a penny per page. Both these look lame when compared to Google's nearly 4 cents per page for revenue from Google.com

This tells us that in terms of understanding how to earn ad revenue from its visitors, Facebook isn't in the same league as MySpace, and it isn't in the same sport as Google. How is it that MySpace earns roughly 10 times as much per page view as Facebook? Is parent company News Corp. that much smarter? Or does its longer history give it an advantage in recruiting advertisers?

Per page view revenue is important because of the overhead involved in administering the servers and monitoring performance. I doubt that social networking sites -- despite knowing who is doing most of the browsing -- will every have the same revenue earning capacity as search sites. But they should be able to close the gap.

The shift is nearly completion: every publisher and every topic will soon have its own Internet TV channel. Video is to 2008 what social networks was in 2007.

Robert Scoble is moving his technology webcasts to FastCompany.TV backed by FastCompany and Inc (where I've contributed previously) parent Mansuetto Ventures.

There are also new channels by the striking writers, the BBC and USA Today, plus channels on surfing, swimming, and even one for babies (can you get a toddler sized keyboard?).

This influx of video content will take eyes away from the tube and change the Internet experience as people get more used to watching streaming content. Just yesterday I watched some of the Senate hearing on steroids in baseball and the Democratic presidential debate from my desk. (Full disclosure -- I'm also involved in launching an Internet TV channel).

The nature of the content is different. Videos can be shorter, and there's more focus on the depth of the dialog than television, which prioritizes inane imagery and broad appeal. For example, Vator.tv features lively in-depth discussions on innovations without the glitz or silly banter of TV's talking heads.

Advertising platforms, video advertising content, and distribution networks are all needed to make these channels viable. This influx will also have a huge impact on search as the engines must integrate video into general results, as well as creating new navigation features that goes beyond keywords.

There will come a day soon when you can do without a cable connection -- anything that can go out over coax will be streamed, and IP-based video offers so much more in variety -- if you can find what you want.

Startup Overlay.TV is attempting to realize the elusive promise of interactive TV with an online advertising platform.

The company, based in Ottawa (the coldest place I've ever been in January), is licensing a platform for commerce companies and publishers to monetize video content. The platform includes tool for hyperlinking areas of video to ecommerce on information websites.

This could -- emphasis on could -- be an alternative for professional video producers to get around pre-roll or post roll ads. If they can find an entertaining way to match the images with relevant content that doesn't distract from the viewing experience. The technology can also be used to add entertainment value that could generate viewership outside of TV. For example, watch American Idol live, then see it again online, with the lyrics displayed, or bios of the original artists plus the contestants.

Interactive TV has to happen and will happen, and for now online is a superior technology platform to what the cable infrastructure supports.

Come on, admit it, you've been frustrated many times by not being able to quickly find items in the supermarket or at a megastore. I've wondered many times why their weren't a few kiosks to show you where to find things (like where the heck are bread crumbs -- with the condiments or near the cooking oil?) since finding an employee to answer questions can be nearly impossible.

Enter the MediaCart, a shopping cart with a video screen that uses controls on the handle to help you locate the items you need. In partnership with Microsoft, ShopRite is rolling out the smart cart that generates special offers and targeted ads based on the data from your customer loyalty programs.

This is a useful integration of technology that should not draw objections for privacy concerns. Loyalty programs are opt-in, and consumers choose to have their cards scan so that the carts know who they are.

The benefits -- showing you where items are, info about store specials and targeted coupons -- are worth the small amount of privacy you give up. If you don't want to participate, you don't have to.

I can't wait for this technology to arrive at the Home Depot and Lowe's, where finding hardware requires a sherpa and packing a lunch.

Via Search Engine Journal.

ValueClick is reportedly close to settling a case with the FTC for its failure to comply with rules about how to advertise "free" products. According to MediaPost, ValueClick is not following rules requiring products that require purchases or service contracts to include language that shows just how those strings are attached. The FTC is right for cracking down on those ubiquitous free ringtone and free iPod ads. Any consumer who believes that companies will give away stuff out of the kindness of their hearts are naive, but spelling out the terms up front will save people from wasting their time. Clarifying and enforcing marketing rules is good for everyone. Legitimate offers will get more attention from consumers who won't be as jaded from being burned by deceptive practices.

Network Solutions' policy of holding the domain names that people search on for hostage must end.

If you search on an unclaimed domain name at the registar's site, the company then blocks you or anyone else from registering the name on any other site for the next five days, according to Webb Alert. So instead of paying $10 or less, you are stuck paying NetSol $35, or else you must wait nearly a week to try again elsewhere.

The blogosphere has correctly responded to this policy by slamming the company, and ICANN is reportedly investigating.

The market could react to this situation by boycotting using Network Solutions since there are many much cheaper alternatives. But ICANN needs to intervene by addressing the practice of searching on domain searches by making that data off limits.

The URLs that are being searched on should be the private information of each registrar and should not be used for its or speculators' advantage. If no one knows what is being searched, then everyone is at the same starting point. If people are forced to come up with their own ideas, then all's fair in love and domain speculation.

NetFlix is living up to its name by now offering unlimited viewing of TV and movie content on PCs. But without an advertising strategy to pay for it, this defensive move could thrash the company's bottom line.

People love the thought of subscription services for video, hence NetFlix popularity. Why anyone cotinues to pay $4 a pop for a movie rental when you pay less than $20 to watch a dozen or more movies a month is beyond me.

Because most folks still (and will always) prefer watching movies on TVs, the use of NetFlix' service that lets people an unlimited amount of 6,000 titles probably won't be huge, but it could be enough to hinder the company's profitability. NetFlix has fallen into the same trap as Blockbuster, which tanked after it ended late fees and gave consumers free in-store rentals with its onine service.

What NetFlix, Blockbuster, Apple, and Comcast need is a marketing strategy that generates some revenue from the shift to all-you-watch content. Through ads at the beginning of the video or sponsorship (this free viewing of the Office is brought to you by GM), they need to make something from each viewing. Or, they could earn commissions by pushiing set-top or wireless boxes that simplify watching movies on TV.

I just can't see how offering unlimited movies for $17 a month can keep these companies in the black. While $4 a movie may be too much, subscription services are likely too little, so ads are a necessary part of the picture.