This “article” is actually a transcript of a live event between a few individuals within the online entertainment industry. The moderator was James Montgomery, CEO of Montgomery & Co. The rest of the panel consisted of John Edwards, CEO of Move Networks,
Adam Berrey, SVP Marketing & Strategy of Brightcove, and Iaain Scholnick, CEO of ImageSpan. In the talk, Adam Berrey stated that are three major segments of content, and different ways to monetize each. I included that particular excerpt of the article here:

1. The highest interest long-form content; you ad sales force can sell sponsorships. But this is a small slice of web audience and content.

2. Next band of content, also often sold direct,

3. Remnant content, either fragmented content, or fragmented audience, or peak demand that you didn’t forecast accurately.

    I like this article as it contains a plethora of information that come straight from industry professionals. The talk focuses on video but the concepts touched upon throughout the transcript apply to other types of monetization as well. I plan on using information within this article chiefly to talk about Hulu.com and YouTube.com. Additionally, I believe that this article would strengthen my argument because I will be able to directly quote industry leaders within my paper. Being able to do this is essential when talking about internet based operations as the industry is usually rife with predictions and misinformation.

Montgomery, James. "OnMedia Panel: Monetizing Online Video." Www.paulallen.net. 30 Jan. 2008. 8 Apr. 2009 <http://www.paulallen.net/onmedia-panel-monetizing-online-video/>.  

This video talks about Social Media and the struggle it has been to monetize it. According to the article, ComScore rates YouTube as the second largest search engine next to Google. However, the video states, it does not have a solid monetization model. Based on the video, apparently YouTube users don’t care what’s going on around them - they only want to watch a video. These users approach advertisements much like they do on television, by either flipping to another channel or leaving the room until the ad is finished. The article also talks about Twitter. They throw around the idea “What if Twitter would start charging for their usage?” Since Twitter recently announced that Pro accounts are coming this year, but has yet to disclose what they consist of, this seems like an ever more poignant question to answer. Lastly, the video talks about Facebook. It states that “contextual advertising on Facebook is based on the freely submitted data Facebook users provide” and that Facebook’s model is more accurate than a search engine’s technique of ad targeting.

I found source to be particularly interesting as it approaches social media much in the same way I do. I do not exclude YouTube (and also Hulu.com as well) even if it is an entertainment medium as they have social element to them as well. I also felt that this source was interesting as it discussed current trends like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (the latter being a little old in the fast paced world of the internet monetization). I believe that this source will be a foundation text within my research paper and want to delve deeper into each of the monetization models for each of these businesses. The question the article addresses is a important one for every serious company to consider.

SES NY: Will Monetization Models for Social Media Ever Come? Www.webpronews.com. 8 Apr. 2009 <http://videos.webpronews.com/2009/04/03/ses-ny-will-monetization-models-for-social-media-ever-come/>.

    The Newsweek article focuses on Hulu.com and its “formula” for success. Instead of the long commercial breaks that television audiences have become accustomed to, only one ad is shown during each segment break. According to studies done by the website, fewer ads make the ones on the site more memorable, allowing the site to charge higher prices for each ad unit. Hulu.com conducted a customer survey with 18,000 respondents and they said that the site had the right amount of ads given the free price of viewing; 17 percent said there was less advertising than they expected. The survey also found a 22 percent bump in advertiser message association and a 28 percent increase in intent to purchase among users. Additionally, the article states that users are encouraged to click buttons indicating whether they like or dislike each ad they see.  As they collect more and more data, the site personalizes the ad experience for each individual user.
    I felt that this article is a great source to use within my paper and for my presentation as it focuses on one of the main websites my project is on: Hulu.com. The site is a joint-venture between Fox and NBC that brings TV shows from both channels to the web to view for free with an ad supported monetization system. The site also boasts full length films from many distributors including Universal, Fox and Disney. This is a great article as it shows one ad supported system that “works” online. Although the system makes markedly less money that TV on the set, it’s better than the alternative way individuals would gain this content online: Piracy.

Stetler, Brian. "Web Site?s Formula for Success: TV Content With Fewer Ads." The New York Times. 28 Oct. 2008. 04 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=hulu%20advertising&st=cse>.  

This is a nice article by Wired magazine that talks about the future of Twitter.com and one of the monetization systems that it is going to put in place. In the article it states that the company is preparing to create commercial accounts where corporations and other types of businesses could pay a fee to receive an enhanced version of Twitter. The traditional use of the website is a free service that allows people to send short, text message length updates to their network of friends, or as they are called on the site “Followers”. The Wired article also states that Twitter recently closed a round of venture capital financing “pegged at $35 million by media reports, following two earlier funding rounds totaling $20 million.” Although Twitter initially planned to begin seeking revenue streams in 2010, the article mentions that the company recently decided to accelerate the schedule and find ways to monetize its service this year.
    This article is a very good account of one of the methods that one of the emerging giants of social media is doing to monetize its service and make money for its investors. The commercial or premium account model is one that many other websites use to make money. How successful that particular method will work for a site like Twitter is yet to be seen. However, it should be noted that Twitter is extremely unique as it can do real time searches of a mass of individual’s opinions at any given time. Perhaps companies would shell out the cash to be given analytics of their own to study the chatter on twitter.
    Additionally, I also heard of other pay-to-play programs popping up on Twitter from Microsoft and CBD. ExecTweets and MarchTweetness were two ventures that tested out the waters for Twitter being a paid service. It’s too soon to tell the real success of the programs, but I personally believe that may be useful.

Rueters. "Twitter to Offer Business Accounts, at a Price." Wired News. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/03/reuters_us_twitter>. 

   This article is simply a Wikipedia article that talks about Online advertising as a whole. I wanted to include it in my Annotated Bibliography as it is probably one of the best sources to learn about such a new advertising/marketing phenomenon. As we learned in class, Wikipedia is often more accurate than other encyclopedias because of it is online, editable, and under shared license. Some of the subjects the article touches on are the competitive advantage of online advertising over traditional advertising, purchasing variations, E-mail advertising and Affiliate marketing. The article also talks about two types of advertising Hulu.com and Facebook utilize: Contextual advertising and behavioral targeting.
    I felt that this article was actually very informative and helped to broaden my understanding of the online advertising world. The concepts within it are directly applicable to websites that I will be using for case studies in my research paper. The monetization models of YouTube.com, Hulu.com, and Facebook.com are all talked about in depth with sources there as well for additional information if I am so inclined to do so. Basically this article will serve as the framework to help me better understand the principles of advertising online.

"Online Advertising." Wikipedia. 5 Apr. 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising>.  

    This article is about how Hulu.com is struggling to find advertisers for its On-Demand video streaming website. The article states that the site is facing many problems, including hesitant advertisers, partners that provide entertainment content but will not negotiate prices, and parent companies concerned that the site might cannibalize their own competing media. The article states that Hulu.com is under pressure from content providers, and it has gone back on its pledge to allow anyone to syndicate its content anywhere on the Web. One analyst stated that the site is struggling to find ads for many of its videos. "What we've seen is rapid growth in consumption, but the advertising isn't keeping up," he says. "I don't think that anyone can say they are impervious to the macroeconomic environment, but we're still hugely optimistic about our ability to monetize the service." Based on numbers from Hulu.com, the site has only sold about 60% of its ad inventory. The rest of the remaining space is filled with public service announcements.
    I thought this article was another good one I could sue as a counterpoint to the success that Hulu.com has found in recent months. Although the site has millions of viewers daily, advertisers are still hesitant in putting their money into the still emerging market of online advertising. It should be noted that YouTube.com also has problems making money and still does not have an efficient advertising based system to monetize itself sufficiently on. Having small commercials play online is a old-fashioned approach to persuading consumers in this new medium, and Hulu.com will live or die by this fact.

Macmillan, Douglas. "Hulu Attracts Crowds but Not Ads - BusinessWeek." BusinessWeek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090330_571175.htm>.  

    This article was extremely interesting as it outlines the reasons why advertising is not working extremely well on the internet. The first reason the author states is that “People don’t trust ads.” The goes on to state that the internet is at it most basic level a much different vehicle for spreading information than other mediums like television or newspapers. He then goes on to say that “People don’t want ads.”  As individuals watch content, the author remarks “when is the time people get up to get a snack, during their show or the commercials (paraphrased).” Lastly, he states that “People don’t need ads.”  He supports his argument by stating that the way people buy online is different than offline. He states that reviews take much more priority when people decide what they are buying  than advertisements online.
     I love this article as it provides a skeptics opinion on the future of online advertising. It supports my probably hypothesis of my research paper: traditional advertising will never survive online. People go online only to find content, so even the ads need to be tailored to their preferences to be able to keep eyeballs. After reading an article like this, it makes me feel that monetization systems like those utilized by Joss Whedon (Dr. Horrible) and Facebook (behavioral targeting) will be the future of the medium. Individuals need to feel that they are not being forced to buy anything, and instead should come to thier own colclusions online. By allowing consumers to feel this way, companies can better thier brand image as well as thier clout in the online sphere.

 Clemons, Eric. "Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet." TechCrunch. 22 Mar. 2009. 6 Apr. 2009 <www.techcrunch.com>.

          This article talks about Biz Stone, one of the co-founders of twitter, and his hesitance to monetize the service. Other major Web 2.0 companies such as Facebook and YouTube who came before the relatively new company have struggled to find stable streams of revenue as they rushed into building their audience first and then find their source of income later. However, as the article states, these earlier giants have shown that converting eyeballs into money hasn't been easy. The article mentions that Facebook has yet to start generating meaningful amount of profit, and Google has said it has “yet to find the right business model for monetizing YouTube's considerable traffic.” The article infers that Twitter, despite some plans Mr. Stone has, may find itself in the same position. Stone states "How would they respond to us putting ads on the site?" "Are we going to end up pissing them off?"
            A company called Federated Media thought of an idea that creates websites that pull together tweets about a certain topic or by a select group of people. The company is getting corporations to sponsor the sites and will share the ensuing advertising revenue with Twitter. The first site was ExecTweets by Microsoft, a collection of tweets from executives. The second was MarchTweetness, with tweets about the March Madness basketball tournament. I think that this is the best method for monetization for the company and will focus on this during my essay and presentation. Being able to have focused live-streaming information is a new, meaningful way to gain information and I believe people will pay a modest price to be able to do so comfortably.

Gustin, Sam. "Twitter's Business Model? Well, Ummmm..." Wired News. 4 Sept. 2008. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2008/08/portfolio_0804>.

            The article is an interview between Knowledge@Wharton and Joss Whedon, creator of the “Firefly” series and the web-only musical "Dr. Horrible". Dr. Horrible was released on the web in three parts last July and Whedon's plan was to remove the free online versions and sell all three episodes as video downloads through Apple's iTunes Store after a certain amount of time. A week after the series moved to iTunes, it appeared online on Hulu.com. Later, in December, a DVD version became available on Amazon.com. Dr. Horrible utilized various distribution channels and  serves as, according to the article, “something of a case study for marketing independently produced content.” The mini-series cost $200,000 to make from crew and production costs alone and the actors weren’t even paid at first. However, the endeavor ended up making around more than twice the original cost. Whedon stated that he wants what he has done with "Dr. Horrible" to serve as a model for similar original content.
            I am using this source as one of my main texts in my final paper and my presentation. Just as the article states, I want to use “Dr. Horrible” as a case study in the marketing and monetization of independent content online. I find it very interesting that this particular piece of content was able to double its initial investment. The story of Whedon’s online series, and the methods that he used to distribute the content are interesting in the fact that it actually worked. I will definitely use the information I obtained in this lengthy interview to further enrich my paper as it serves as a great example of independent content monetizing itself successfully. Comparing Whedon's work to other ways to monetize entertainment online will be a focus of my presentation and paper.

"Joss Whedon's Plan to Monetize Internet Content (Watch Out, Hollywood) -." Knowledge@Wharton. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2152>.

      This article is great because it states all of the reasons why Hulu.com is succeeding online where other websites have failed. To sum up the way the website works, in the place of the long commercial breaks that the television audience has become accustomed to, only one ad is shown during each segment break on Hulu. According to the article, fewer advertisements make the ones during each show more memorable, which in turn allows the Hulu to charge higher prices for the ad units. In a customer survey commissioned by Hulu, 76 percent of nearly 18,000 respondents said that the site had the right amount of ads given the cost of absolutely free cost of viewing; over 17 percent said there was less ae was less advertising than they expected. The survey also found a "22 percent bump in advertiser message association and a 28 percent increase in intent to purchase among users." Additionally, Hulu users are encouraged to click buttons indicating whether they like or dislike each ad they see. By doing this the group collects more data about each individual which allows them to personalize the ad experience for you.
      I thought this was a great article because it mentions why Hulu.com is a leader in online television viewing. While the numbers here say that Hulu's ads are more effective because of the method of presentation, I feel that many advertisers are still very skeptical about the emerging online video market. Because of this, I do not see hulu becoming a powerhouse media outlet for another 5 years. This article goes very well with the other article about Hulu.com that I used for bibliography: This one give the positive aspects of the service, while the other one talks about the troubles it has since its inception.

Stetler, Brian. "Web Site?s Formula for Success: TV Content With Fewer Ads." The New York Times. 28 Oct. 2008. 04 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=hulu%20advertising&st=cse>.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->     This “article” is actually a transcript of a live event between a few individuals within the online entertainment industry. The moderator was James Montgomery, CEO of Montgomery & Co. The rest of the panel consisted of John Edwards, CEO of Move Networks,
Adam Berrey, SVP Marketing & Strategy of Brightcove, and Iaain Scholnick, CEO of ImageSpan. In the talk, Adam Berrey stated that are three major segments of content, and different ways to monetize each. I included that particular excerpt of the article here:

1. The highest interest long-form content; you ad sales force can sell sponsorships. But this is a small slice of web audience and content.

2. Next band of content, also often sold direct,

3. Remnant content, either fragmented content, or fragmented audience, or peak demand that you didn’t forecast accurately.

    I like this article as it contains a plethora of information that come straight from industry professionals. The talk focuses on video but the concepts touched upon throughout the transcript apply to other types of monetization as well. I plan on using information within this article chiefly to talk about Hulu.com and YouTube.com. Additionally, I believe that this article would strengthen my argument because I will be able to directly quote industry leaders within my paper. Being able to do this is essential when talking about internet based operations as the industry is usually rife with predictions and misinformation.

Ziaukas, Tim. "100 Years of Oz: Baum's 'Wizard of Oz' as Gilded Age Public Relations." Public Relations Quarterly. Vol. 43. No. 3 (Fall 1998). 28 November 2008 <http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/books8-Ziaukas.htm>.

Ziaukas' article is an explanation of L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz, the storybook upon which the film is based. This article, like Hugh Rockoff's famous article entitled "The ‘Wizard of Oz' as a Monetary Allegory," discusses the story in light of the "financial question" which was the center of American politics when Baum wrote the fairytale in 1899.In the 1890s a heated debate consumed the United States; should the amount of money in circulation be tied to silver, gold, or a combination of the two? This dispute divided American into two camps. East Coast, urban, industrialists generally favored the gold standard and poor, Midwestern, workers and farmers supported a silver or bimetallic system. William Jennings Bryan ran for president in 1896 on a platform which promoted tying money to silver, but ultimately lost the candidacy and money became completely backed by gold. Ziaukas suggests that Baum's story is highly politicized and overtly promotes the silver standard. In Baum's version, Dorothy's slippers are silver and are the tool which eventually allows her to return home. On the contrary, the yellow brick road, which represents the gold standard, leads Dorothy to the Land of Oz, which is actually filled with false promises. The Wizard cannot help Dorothy return to Kansas, instead she must rely on the help of her silver slippers. The symbolism in Baum's text provides the necessary evidence to assume that Baum's greatly favored the silver standard over the gold. Furthermore, Ziaukas' article offers something new because it not only discusses the monetary allegory, but also suggests that Baum's story was a piece of political propaganda, or an early form of public relations in the United States.

While this article is specific to Baum's story, it also offers insight into the film version of The Wizard of Oz. Although the slippers are changed from silver to ruby red, they yellow brick road remains a symbol for the gold standard in the United States. This was again relevant in 1939 during the post-Depression era, when the film was produced, because the United States temporarily went off of the gold standard during the tumultuous years of the Depression. As a result, it is possible that the yellow brick road in the film also reflects the false promises of the gold standard. Furthermore, this analogy remains relevant without Dorothy's silver slippers because by 1939 a return to the silver standard, or a bimetallic system, was irrelevant. The Wizard of Oz, the story and the film, are clearly symbolic of political and economic tensions in the United States during the 1890s and the 1930s respectively. Ziaukas' discussion of the story as political tool is also relevant here; as film began to reach an increasing number of viewers throughout the 1900s, it is likely that the medium also began to have a greater impact on audiences' beliefs and attitudes toward American politics, economics and society.

This landmark case deals with the concepts of digital sampling and fair use.  Video Pipeline, a video promotion company, created trailers of home videos to be shown in stores.  These videos, intended to benefit the store's sales, were shown in the store and consisted of film clips acquired from the film distributors.  Video Pipeline continued this practice until 1997 when it considered the internet as a bigger, better, and more efficient way of distributing these previews.  It viewed its idea as a sort of sampling; much like a person can often sample a few pages of a book in a bookstore before buying it, they wanted to make short clips of movies available for preview before purchase.

After a few years of this distribution, Disney told Video Pipeline to stop.  However, Video Pipeline thought it was within their rights of fair use to distribute these clips and thus filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare that these rights were in fact theirs.  Disney countersued for $100 million in damages.  The court ruled in favor of the defendant, Disney, and claimed that because the trailers were compiled of exact clips, they were derivative works illegal under the law.  In addition, the Plaintiff was ruled as violating performance and public display laws.  Last but definitely not least, the court ruled that the trailers did not fall under the argument of fair use for lack of adherence to the factors of fair use, which are as follows: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value for the copyrighted work.

This once again justifies the fear of filmmakers to borrow from copyrighted material, despite possible claims of fair use, because as is exemplified here, even a small borrowing of a film clip can cost millions.

Book pages 184 through 199.

In these two sections, Lessig argues that copyright laws constrain people from creating and innovating.  By mentioning and discussing the conceptions of all different types of artists, including painters, film makers, and musical artists, Lessig shows how the laws originally meant to protect these authors are now hurting them by constricting their abilities.  As Lessig states towards the end of this section of his book, "If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and much less creativity."

The argument of fair use of course comes up in these sections, but Lessig puts it this time in a different and interesting way, claiming that "fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend your right to create."  It's all about money and the market, and those who don't have the former can't hope to have their works distributed in the latter.  One simple infringement such as illegally downloading a song could cost a person millions of dollars in this country; however, a doctor, thanks to malpractice insurance, cannot be liable for more than $250,000, regardless of the damage to his patient.

Lessig also makes particular note of the internet and how it has increased the quantity of work out there and the speed and efficiency with which it can be shared.  Unfortunately, this should-be miracle is not utilized to its full potential because those creators and innovators that cannot afford to clear copyrights are too scared to make their work available on the internet for fear that it might be seen by someone who could sue them.  

This money driven, lawyer infested problem is stunting our culture and preventing our growth and expansion because no one wants to risk their life to put something creative and new out there.  And when the possible repercussions of taking such a risk include losing millions of dollars and consequently a livelihood, creativity and innovation suddenly begin to dwindle.

This source solidly supports my argument that copyright law is killing creativity rather than doing what it's meant to and protecting it.  It directly relates to my thesis and contributes to my claim.