The Economist has this excellent, short article on the mass media’s migration to the Internet. Clearly sparked by the overwhelming success that CBS has had with March Madness, the article takes a look at the big picture trend of major media companies shifting their strategic growth plans toward the web.
What particularly caught my eye was a statement by MTV Networks’ president that almost all of the company’s video content will be available on the web in a “few years,” a window of transition that strikes even me as unusually short.
In just a few years, says Michael Wolf, president and chief operating officer of MTV Networks, almost all the company’s content will be available online and on several platforms. Because people in offices will be able to gain access to it, he says, “daytime will become the new primetime.” (For people watching March Madness at work, CBS has thoughtfully provided a “Boss Button”, which at a moment’s notice calls up a fake spreadsheet.)
Which of the major media companies is farthest along in embracing the Internet, according to the article? Murdoch’s News Corp, although I would question this assessment given that, despite News Corp. Internet buying spree, very little Fox video content is available online right now.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 4:35 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Anyone interested in “the MySpace phenomenon” might want to take a look at two recent posts that focus on very different aspects of the online social networking service.
Scott Karp, not one to shy away from controversy, calls MySpace “a ticking time bomb.” Scott’s post looks at MySpace from a parent’s point of view and also from a business and advertising perspective. It’s worth a read, as is the discussion (in which he participates) in the comment section that follows it.
Try doing a Google News search for “MySpace murder” or “MySpace sex” and check out all the stories in reputable local media outlets (which have no obvious ax to grind with MySpace)…Still not disturbed? Try spending some time on MySpace. See how long it takes you to find sexually suggestive or explicit content…this is what you get when you remove all social barriers - you get humanity in the raw.
I will say this — my greatest fear of MySpace is as a parent. That’s my personal view, which I won’t try to foist on to anyone else. But as Web 2.0 watcher, I have a strong view from a business perspective, which leads me to this prediction: Rupert Murdoch will come to regret the purchase of MySpace. Why? Because the reality is that MySpace can’t be controlled, and that’s a liability. Yes, I know, Web 2.0 is all about “ceding control” to the “edge.” But MySpace pushes this evolution to the extreme.
Before you respond, let me be repeat - this is NOT a moral critique. It’s a practical, business critique. “Social media” may be all the rage, but “society” functions best somewhere in between anarchy and fascism. Let it drift too far to one extreme, and things can get ugly. And when things get ugly, it’s hard to sell advertising.
Kathy Sierra, at the Creating Passionate Users blog focuses on other aspects of MySpace. She begins by quoting her daughter Skyler, who she describes as “an extremely passionate myspace user.”
According to Skyler “If you’re not on myspace, you don’t exist.” When asked why by Kathy, her response is that “myspace keeps doing what everybody really wants, and it happens instantly…As soon as you think of something, it’s in there…It’s always evolving. It changes constantly. There’s always something new…myspace is like a whole new plane of existence.”
Kathy goes on to recommend the transcript of an ETech presentation by Danah Boyd, a PhD student at UC-Berkeley and a researcher at Yahoo! Research Berkeley, who Kathy says “knows as much about the culture of myspace as anyone, and she has a ton of insight and knowledge about online communities. At a deep level.”
Kathy also discusses the significance of Skyler’s comments about “how myspace keeps changing and growing organically, almost every day,” which she described as “a passionate user’s view of what the developer’s call quick release cycles.”
I wonder if quick release cycles become almost addictive to the end users…we’re so used to thinking of how upset they’ll be when we change things, but clearly this is a different (and frickin’ HUGE) group of users who not only don’t mind the change—they THRIVE on it. Perhaps those quick releases are a little like quick fixes. Code Crack.
Kathy concludes with “So, quick release cycles and a new plane of existence. I have to think about this some more…” Add to the mix Scott’s argument that MySpace is “a ticking time bomb,” and maybe some of his other musings on the transition to Media 2.0 and, yes, there’s plenty to chew on when considering MySpace, online communities and social networking in general, and their relationship to the younger generations of users and creators who will inherit and be increasingly responsible for the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 to Web 3.0, etc.
Update: Kathy has posted a follow-up that’s also worth reading. In it she suggests that MySpace “developers are figuring out what people want as much (if not more) from watching and anticipating behavior as from taking specific feature requests.”
Jason Fried makes a big point of the fact that they (37signals) are users of their own software, and that they are in as good a position as anyone to recognize what is—and is not—important…The Threadless guys said the same thing—that as developers, being RIGHT smack in the middle of the demographic of their users has really helped them…So there is a huge challenge for developers/authors/teacher like myself who are creating for people who are younger than we are. And the same is true if we are developing for any user group we are not a part of and don’t understand at the cellular level.Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 3:46 PM | Print | Comments (1)
Nat Torkington at O’Reilly Radar flagged a handful of employment listings posted at Google, all of which point to the search giant’s serious intent to enter the online “television” business. Based on these listings, Nat says
Anyone who doubts that Google is moving into television in a big way should think again.
Of course Google is looking for software engineers with experience in the interactive TV business, but the posting for an ITV “project manager” is the most illuminating. Here’s part of the job description:
You will identify key market trends that are shaping user behavior when watching Television. These include but are not limited to the intersection of internet and Television technologies, video-on-demand, personal video recorders and emergence of next generation set-top-boxes with IP connectivity. You will then identify areas where use of Google’s search and advertising technology can enhance this user experience and define appropriate products to deliver these user benefits.
But Google is not, apparently, looking to bypass traditional TV distributors. The search giant obviously has plans to work with cable and phone companies to create products that these traditional TV players can leverage, if this part of the job description is any indication
As part of this role, you may also be required to interact with strategic partners in the telecom and cable segments across the world. As part of these interactions you will be required to present product and business strategy to senior executives at these companies and work with them to deploy these products in their network.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:03 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Google won a big victory yesterday when a federal judge ruled against the government in its demand that Google turn over a sample of search queries by Google users. The Department of Justice had originally demanded that Google turn-over billions of search queries and URLs found by search queries, a request later scaled back to a sample of 50,000 URLs and 5,000 search queries.
The Justice Deparment had subpoenaed Google (and other search providers) for this data in order to conduct research to support the now-defunct Child Online Protection Act.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled that although the search engine giant must turn over the sample of URLs requested by the Justice Deparment, it does not have to hand over the search terms. In the complex decision, Judge Ware said the government could create an impression of privacy violation if it forced Google to reveal actual search terms used in queries.
The expectation of privacy by some Google users may not be reasonable, but may nonetheless have an appreciable impact on the way in which Google is perceived, and consequently the frequency with which users use Google. Such an expectation does not rise to the level of an absolute privilege, but does indicate that there is a potential burden as to Google’s loss of goodwill if Google is forced to disclose search queries to the Government.
Moreoever, the court found that the DOJ might not end its demands with only a small sample of search queries, opening up the prospect that Google would have to submit even more data and in the process jeopardize its own trade secrets.
[T]his court is concerned that a narrow sample of Google’s proprietary index and query log, while in itself not likely to lead to the disclosure of confidential information, may act as the thin blade of the wedge in exposing Google to potential disclosure of its confidential commercial information.
More importantly, however, the court determined that the Justice Deparment could not demonstrate why it needs both a sample of URLs found in searching and a sample of search query terms. Given the seemingly duplicative request, the court found that
[T]he marginal burden of loss of trust by Google’s users based on Google’s disclosure of its users’ search queries to the Government outweighs the duplicative disclosure’s likely benefit to the Government’s study.
Google is clearly ecstatic about the decision and proud of its solitary efforts to fight the government’s overly broad demands (AOL, Yahoo and MSN gave the government what it asked for — presumably these Internet titans have lost some degree of user trust by just automatically caving to the feds). On the official Google blog, Associate General Counsel Nicole Wong wrote
We will always be subject to government subpoenas, but the fact that the judge sent a clear message about privacy is reassuring. What his ruling means is that neither the government nor anyone else has carte blanche when demanding data from Internet companies. When a party resists an overbroad subpoena, our legal process can be an effective check on such demands and be a protector of our users.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:10 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
