And I would like to agree with Wasik that the Kindle may be a beacon of hope for short content producers and aggregators, but first I have to be sold on the Kindle. A test drive might just do it, but I don’t know how to get one.

I’m in the market for a reader that will let me subscribe to and leaf through newspapers and magazines, including ads, with little or no scrolling, and I probably would’ve bought a Kindle and lots of subscriptions by now if Amazon had a kiosk in the mall where I could cradle one in my arms. If they can’t figure out how to make this sale, I don’t have much hope of Bezos blazing a profitable path for short content.

Once again at a crucial point in history, it’s advertising to the rescue. The simple proposition that has bankrolled news and entertainment in print, radio, and television is the only way for short content to make some cash: Bring eyeballs to our ads, and we’ll pay you for the show.

The great advantage and opportunity for advertisers and aggregators that the Internet offers over the above media is that there is no shortage of people willing and able to put on the show for free.

For, as Wisik said in his opening response to the question: What are the pros and cons of viral media? one gobsmackingly revolutionary upside is the democratization of production and distribution that can enable anyone to find an audience of millions in days. The freelance production department needs no further incentives.

What has yet to emerge, to my knowledge, is a profitable short-content aggregation model. Short-content consumers have the attention spans of hummingbirds and, whatever their threshold of patience with webvertising, it isn’t high enough for them to  sit still through a profitable amount of ads.

I predict that a new model will emerge. In fact, I’ll propose it right now as a class project we can knock out next Thursday since we don’t have class. It’s a hybrid of YouTube and Facebook called YouFace.

YouFace puts on a show and you and your friends come to watch and give us your personal information, exchange juicy and boring stuff, longings, aspirations and pictures of your kids. We hoover everything  into the database along with your surfing and content-consumption habits.  Then YouFace can charge more for the ads that are targeted to your particular pastime, politics and fetish, ads for which you have a greater tolerance because you just watched 16 videos about your fetish and you’re feeling understood. You share this experience with your friends, and so on.

Nobody gets paid but us.

“The problem is, the 27-year-old geniuses have run amuck in these companies… It’s not difficult to take a $3 billion product and give it away for free, then pat yourself on the back for attacking (sic: surely she said “attracting” ) millions of viewers.”

Clearly, Hulu cannot continue to give TV fans the painless alternative of having on-demand access to it’s most lucrative content. Martin has done the math, and Hulu’s growing popularity will only continue to pull eyeballs and ad revenue away from the networks unless, in my opinion one of these four scenarios transpires:

1. Ad volume and rates on Hulu increase to narrow the yawning revenue disparity between Hulu and TV. While the consensus is that the web-viewing TV fans wouldn’t possibly tolerate anything close to TV’s average 32 ads per hour of programming, the portion of the Hulu audience for whom web-viewing has high value, could be expected to tolerate more than Hulu’s current four ads-per-hour. If this audience can be documented to of greater value to advertisers, i.e., they buy more tech gizmos with their greater disposable income, or they at least pay more attention to ads than passive TV viewers, Hulu could charge more than the current premium rate of $50 CPM (compared to TV’s current $35 CPM). Ultimately, ad revenue alone is unlikely to make Hulu economically viable, so…
2. Hulu has to become “worth paying for.” The most auspicious metrics from the MediaPost article are that Hulu is the sixth most visited site on the web and that “the average Hulu viewer watched 12.7 videos in August, totaling 1 hour and 17 minutes of videos per viewer, compared with the average 3.7 minutes for online video across the Web.”  The low-hanging fruit for the subscription model are the users who watch more than that average. The subscription version of Hulu, e.g., “Hulu Premium,” could be commercial-free and include features like a “Backstage Pass” with interviews, director and star commentaries on episodes, ring tones, games and other digital merchandise. The lowest hanging fruit are those heavy Hulu users who are thinking about canceling their cable TV subscription and just using Hulu. In lieu of their current basic cable costs of $50/month or more, a Hulu Premium subscription at $9.95 to $19.95 would seem very attractive.
3. Hulu could continue as is and turn out to have yet unmeasured longer-range value as a platform for building a following for TV shows that are “sleepers,” and as a lower-risk way to pilot shows before putting them on the air. 

Like another TV nemesis, the DVR, Hulu could turn out to be a “loss leader” way of building audiences for TV. A pleasant surprise for the networks in recent recent Nielsen data, is that, when DVR viewership was factored in, ratings for several struggling shows increased significantly; e.g., NBC’s “Heros” jumped 22 percent and ABC’s “Flash Forward” increased 14 percent. Better yet, 46 percent of viewers 18 to 49 years old for all four networks taken together are watching the commercials during DVR playback, up slightly from last year. So much for TiVo killing TV. Hulu could ultimately have similar unexpected positive consequences.
4. Comcast could get its controlling interest in NBC and shut Hulu down.

Because of their efficient file sizes, online comics and pictorial slide shows gained popularity as storytelling forms a decade before YouTube introduced practical video streaming to the mass internet audience in 2005.

While bandwidth and compression technology is improving the quality and efficiency of the video experience, I believe that still images will remain the bedrock of visual storytelling on the Internet, especially for non-entertainment applications such as news and marketing, because of the “Get-to-the-Point!” imperative that drives people who go sites to get specific information.

In her introduction to Steiner, Ryan notes that one the factors that gave rise to narrative painting was the need to tell stories to those who could not read. Compared to video, still image formats better accommodate a large part of the web audience who are “those who cannot wait.” Slide shows, for example, give these users far more control over starting and navigating through content than they generally have with video. The latter requires a greater commitment of time and attention and can be off-putting to consumers who are looking for initial product information, and who are more inclined to invest in watching a video once they arrive at a deeper level of interest.

Use of still images on Internet political sites

On page 157, Steiner writes: “..the repetition of figures in a realistic rendering has the power to suggest narrative even when the events shown are not specific.” The “Impeach Obama Campaign” is an excellent example of how this being done to appeal to (and extract donations from) a conservative political  base by reinforcing negative perceptions, myths, racial prejudice and paranoid conspiracy theories about the President — even before the visitor reads a word.

The long, scrolling homepage of impeachobamacampaign.com is also distributed as an email. One litmus test for the effective use of images in this context is to quickly scan this single page, see what images and headlines get your attention and note your immediate impressions. Even without reading the body text, the negative images of Obama (from non-specific events) along with the oft-used bold-text of “Barrack Hussein Obama,” effectively do the job of rallying the target audience described above.

A note of personal experience in online comics

in January 2000, as a promotional device for my client, Grist Magazine,  I created and wrote an original online comic strip, Zed, Last of his Species, about a critter who’s species is nearly wiped out by global warming. Because the strip was full color, optimizing the file size for dial-up users way back then was an issue. But the decision to not compromise on the artwork paid off. Grist was unable to continue funding Zed in after 2002, but the strip continues to be a popular feature in Grist’s archive, in part, I believe, because of the quality of the artwork (by Tom Dougherty).

Zed is also currently featured in an exhibit at Seattle Central Community College on “Climate Change Comics.”

Not get consigned to the ice flow.
One of my prime motivators for entering the MCDM program back in (yeow) Cohort 2 is more relevant than ever: professional obsolescence prevention.

When I entered the advertising profession in 1987, intra-company email was all the rage and the ARPANET was still a year away from being opened to commercial interests. The impact of digital media on my profession has been as disruptive, game-changing and opportunity-creating as it has been for the music industry.  I can testify that there is no better currency in the world of marketing communications right now than to be able to display some kind of credentials and savvy that assures a client that you know how to apply the principles of advertising, branding and direct marketing to the online and social media arena. I have also seen many former colleagues fall off the future-train by failing to keep their skills and knowledge current, and my periodic lunches with them, though often painful, reaffirm my direction.

Explore new platforms for fictional storytelling.
Among the resounding hits of the digital age is the 3-minute-or-under video. Among my credentials is a certificate from UW for completing the year-long fiction-writing program. The American short story had its heyday in the golden age of magazines in 1920s and 1930s, and thereafter begin a steady decline in mass popularity with the advent of the competing in-home entertainment mediums of radio and television. The print magazine, the once thriving medium of the short story, is now as endangered as the newspaper. I’m optimistic that the short story, in a narrative format yet to be defined, will enjoy a resurgence in digital media, and I’d like to explore ways to help make that happen.

Pass it forward and help leave something behind.
For my final five credits, I’m investigating the viability of doing an independent studies project about the applications of digital storytelling and social media to palliative care, i.e., treatment that’s focused on enhancing the comfort and quality of life for chronically and critically ill patients. Storytelling has emerged as a powerful tool for helping these patients and their family’s cope with pain, disability and death, compose a narrative legacy, and inform and inspire others who are facing similar difficult decisions about their treatment and care options. UW Medical Center has acquired video cameras through a gift for this purpose, but according to Dr. Stuart Farber, a palliative care physician and professor at  the UW Medical School, the majority of patients and families who are interested in using the equipment abandon the idea due to production difficulties and other hurdles. I see a potential opportunity for myself, and other interested members of the MCDM program, to help the hospital structure a practical and valuable digital media storytelling program for their patients in palliative care.

For this assignment, I thought it would be a good exercise to first see how effectively  the print edition directed me to video on the website that supplemented today’s print content (Tuesday, October 20).

I was surprised to I find only three direct references pointing me to video that related to today’s  articles. The best was for a series by Times reporter, David Rohde, about his several-month-long ordeal as a captive of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The second was an entertaining piece on the site’s sports page profiling the two American men who comprise the world’s sixth-ranked synchronized trampoline team. The third was a harder-to-watch talking-heads exchange with the Time’s baseball writer on the playoffs.

If one’s first impression of the Times’ use of video were based on these three trans-media referrals, one could easily think that video has a very limited role. Two of the videos appeared in players that resided in their respective topical sections of the site. The third took me to the site’s central, well-developed Video portal, where it is clear that the Times has made integration of video a much more significant part of its strategy to attract eyeballs.

I returned to the home page to see how easily I could navigate to the central Video page and quickly found the Video link in prime real estate at the upper left. When coming to the central Video page via this route, the video player is now labeled “Latest Video,” and quickly begins loading and streaming. Today, it was an article about the Pope inviting conservative Anglicans into the flock  that I didn’t see in the print edition.  (Addendum: the article appeared on the front page of Wednesday’s edition. I’d say that the Times is shooting itself in the foot here by reinforcing the message that, compared to the free website, today’s $2.00 print edition is yesterday’s news.)  A topic-based menu resides to left of the player. The page also includes menus for Most Viewed and Others You May Like based on your current choice.

Video on the NY Times site is generally well produced, loads quickly and streams smoothly, often comprises of an efficient mix of video and stills. The archive is impressively deep and wide and the search function from the Video page is fast, accurate and satisfying. The menu makes it easy to share videos via email and social media sites. Pre-roll advertising is generally brief enough to not annoy.

There are also sponsored video players on the site, such as one on the Arts Beat page sponsored by American Express that offers videos from various sources in the categories of Music, Theater, Golf and Fashion. These are generally of lesser quality than those on the central Video page.

In bleak coincidence, today’s edition of the Times also featured an article titled, “Times Moves to Trim 100 in Newsroom” about the paper’s latest staff reduction. There was no accompanying video.

The Times is said to be working on a strategy for charging for its content. As one who prefers to page-turn through the print edition, I hope the paper can pull a monetizing rabbit out of its hat. As the 104th most heavily visited site on the Internet, attracting 
.92% of global internet users, with a 10% increase in the past three months, it’s having the kind of success that could be fatal.

Like Gladwell, I retain an economic interest in the  “old media” model. He’s made lots of money as a journalist and author who sells books made of paper, and I’ve made a living for more than two decades in advertising, persuading people to buy the stuff my clients did not want to give away.  If Anderson is correct, and I think he is, that the nature of digital media will continue to drive down the prices of everything “made of ideas,” both Gladwell and I have reasons to be nervous.

As a best selling author and highly paid speaker, Gladwell is obviously less threatened then the beleaguered newspaper editors and journalists he cites in this review of “Free.”

As Gladwell paraphrases Anderson, journalists “may be paid far less, and for many it won’t be a full time job at all. Journalism as a profession will share the stage with journalism as an avocation.”

Anderson suggests that professional journalists may have to subsist by teaching their skills to the crowds of amateur bloggers who are willing to cover the city beat for the giddy satisfaction of “non-monetary awards.”

Gladwell raises the kind of critical question that Anderson apparently skirts: Just how does a business reorganize itself around “getting people to work for ‘non-monetary rewards’? Does he mean that the New York Times should be staffed by volunteers, like Meals on Wheels?”

Also, like Gladwell, I tire easily of what he calls the “technological utopians” who predict music-industry-like melt-downs for old media business models and Deus-ex-machina salvation on the wings of whatever Next Big Thing their book is about. Like the utopian wing of the Information Wants to be Free crowd, Anderson simply brushes away the obvious and logical impact of Free-ness on the quality of the reporting we will be left to sift through when Seymour Hersh has been replaced by an infinite number of bloggers pounding away on an infinite number of public library PCs.

In his blog reply to Gladwell smugly titled, “Dear Malcolm: Why so threatened?” Anderson cites the success of his second blog, “GeekDad,” as an example of the emerging Free business model.  Anderson started GeekDad on a whim, quickly stirred up a large following, then handed the blog off to a mostly volunteer crew. GeekDad pulls in ad money for Wired; the editor has now had a book published; and the rest of volunteers are reaping those non-monetary rewards. What’s not to like, Malcolm?

Curiously, Anderson never extends the Free business model to Wired, the glossy, ad-filled old media publication he gets a handsome salary to edit.  Because if he were to fill it with articles by volunteers (or worse, writers of the caliber of Seth Godin and Marc Cuban whose contributions to this exchange on “Free” were so weakly crafted as to not merit comment), he’d soon have fewer subscribers and less ad revenue than the Marysville Globe.

So why am I so threatened?  I’m happy to report that I feel less threatened all the time. Advertising, and specifically commercial web video, is something that looks easy but isn’t — like journalism.  Many people think they could be a Mad Man if given the shot. Neither the waning consumer-generated ad craze nor the recent crowdsourced advertising enterprises have yet to produce anything paradigm shifting. http://adage.com/digitalnext/article?article_id=136019 Social media is having a dramatic and welcome impact on the relationships between brands and consumers. Yet, according to recent surveys,  most Americans continue to get the vast majority of their information about products from television.

And besides, with all those companies having to give away all that stuff for free, they’re going to need my help more than ever to get anyone to shell out for whatever can still support a price tag.

“Making a Living”

The pitch:

It’s a topic of broad, universal interest and imperative that can be approached from infinite angles: personal, global, economical, political spiritual, historical, realistic, aspirational, biographical  and autobiographical, with pathos or bathos, angrily or comically.  No one is immune from having to do it at some level, whether they’re dumpster-diving or just keeping an eye on their  fat  portfolio.  The wording of the topic is subtley but significantly different than “Work,”  which can refer to things that don’t make a living.  Music and imagery on the topic is abundant. And no one should have to scratch their head very hard to think of something they’re keen to say, show, investigate or settle a score on the subject.