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>.

Ray, Bill.  "Google's Android 'designed to drive fragmentation.'"  The Register.  April 3, 2008.

In this article from science and technology news site The Register, correspondent Bill Ray provides a brief description and analysis of Google's potential strategic interests in the fragmentation of the market for mobile operating systems.  Some open source experts have complained that Android uses its own Java (programming language) machine rather than use mainstream Java, which in turn makes Android less streamlined with other open source software.  Google explains that its reason for using its own Java machine is to keep its source code under an Apache license that will permit more customization among Android users.  According to Google, its Java machine allows users to modify the Android code however they want - so a user can, for instance, replace all the Google software with Yahoo software.

Ray points to Microsoft Windows as an example of what Google is fighting against in the mobile industry.  Since many people like to use Microsoft Office, and Office works best with Windows, most people end up using Windows in order to stay in sync with their peers/co-workers.  If Google were to successfully fragment the mobile OS market so that no one OS dominated, then Web 2.0 applications (that is, applications that are not tied to any particular OS, but rather exist on the web) would be the most viable.  Since Google's strong point happens to be Web 2.0 applications (consider Google Docs and Google Maps, etc), a fragmented mobile OS market would therefore be desirable.  While Ray does not attempt to assert that Google's has been fragmentation all along with Android, his article at least provides one potential commercial interest in pushing for an open source mobile OS.

<!-- /* 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.

Thesis: Because first amendment protections and laws protecting Internet Service Providers impede a great deal of government regulation, the best way to ensure minors are protected from improper content online is to empower individuals, companies and organizations to take the intiative to self-regulate.

Citation: Majoras, Deborah Platt. “Rights and Responsibility: Protecting Children in a Web 2.0 World.”  Keynote Address at Family Online Safety Institute.  6 December 2007.  Federal Trade Commission. 6 April 2009. http://ftc.gov/speeches/majoras/071206fosi.pdf.

             This document is the copy of a speech made by the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission describing methods used to protect children from dangers lurking online, including harmful content, cyber bullying, and privacy invasion.  After describing the media use of children and some of the dangers they face online, Majoras summarizes the law enforcement efforts the FTC has taken to prevent exposure to harmful content.  The laws the FTC works to enforce have provisions including requiring adult content to be notified as such in the e-mail tagline and preventing websites from asking children too much personal information.  Majoras then describes the FTC’s push and efforts to educate and empower parents and children to stay safe.  These efforts are viewed by the FTC as important because first amendment restrictions will prevent the government from being able to completely restrict dangerous content themselves.  Marjoras also said that it is important for companies to self-regulate content.  Majoras concludes by stating that a multidisciplinary approach is needed in solving this problem.

             This article is important in the broader context of regulating Internet content for children, because the FTC is a major governmental organization involved in the issue.  A governmental organization believing that education and self-regulation needs to supplement governmental regulation enhances the importance of education and self-regulation, which could be seen as an alternative to the government.  This article gives good specifics about the role of the FTC in law-enforcement and education, and describes different features of education programs and self-regulating devices; those details could be useful for figuring out the absolute best way to determine how to protect children.  Although this article was written by someone in the Bush administration, it is likely that the opinions of Obama’s FTC workers are not too different; protecting children from harmful content on the Internet is a bipartisan issue.

 

In this article, Zamiatin explores why fashion blogs have attracted so many readers in the past few months. She attributes their growing popularity to two major factors: a sense of immediacy (blogs respond to what is happening currently, and provide updates more frequently than magazines, which are generally issued once a month) and a candid, often humorous writing style not found in fashion magazines. She briefly discusses the recent efforts among fashion bloggers, such as the editors of Coutorture, an online fashion blogging community, to bring together all fashion blogs in one place where users can find them all quickly and easily. Such a community would help democratize fashion by allowing for a multiplicity of voices and allowing readers to leave feedback.

Zamiatin comments that some of the more popular fashion blogs concern themselves with celebrity fashion, thus treading on ground traditionally covered by the mainstream fashion press. However, Zamiatin does not think that fashion blogs will eclipse traditional media such as magazines – instead, will they supplement mainstream media by providing new, current information for fans to consume and discuss.

Zamiatin’s discussion of immediacy and style as two distinguishing features of fashion blogs can be widened to describe much user-generated content created in today’s participatory internet culture: YouTube videos are known for their quick stream-times and often satiric content while web comics such as Achewood or Toothpaste for Dinner are updated daily and offer ridiculous, humorous content. A fashion blog community, such as Coutorture or ShareYourLook.com (see entry) would act as a sort of YouTube for the fashion industry, allowing the best blogs to rise to the top and gain the most pageviews, thus placing fashion even further into the hands of the masses.

Zamiatin is probably correct in arguing that blogs will not displace traditional fashion reporting, but she misses one of the more obvious reasons why this is so: the advantage of an actual (as opposed to virtual) magazine is that you can roll it up, toss it into a backpack and read it in the park or on the beach. While Sidekicks and other devices that allow users to access their email remotely are growing more and more popular, there is something about curling up with a magazine that can not be replicated with a tiny Sidekick screen.

Furthermore, while Zamiatin argues that fashion blogs democratize fashion culture, one could also argue that by focusing on celebrities, many blogs actually reinforce the cultural distance between celebrities and the greater reading public. Instead, it seems more likely that street style blogs, who random stylish strangers, have the potential to democratize fashion by portraying it as something exemplified by ordinary people.

The Hot or Not of the fashion blogosphere, ShareYourLook allows users to upload photos of themselves in their favorite outfits and then asks other users to rate their style on a scale of 1 to 5. The site also contains a slew of web 2.0 features that savvy Internet users have undoubtedly become accustomed with – users can email photos, comment on them, tag them or filter them based on style or price. In addition, each user has a homepage, which includes recent fashion photos and personal information. Fun features, such as “The Wall” will randomly generate 20 photos posted on the site, and a “News” page contains links to a variety of blogs sorted into categories: fashion, shopping, celebrities, beauty.

ShareYourLook is an important development for the online fashion community because it allows anyone with a camera and an internet connection to partake in the creating and judging of fashion trends. While street style blogs capture ordinary fashionable people, ShareYourLook contains photos from people across the globe, many of whom may live in areas where fashion bloggers never venture or whose simple styles are unlikely to catch the eye of bloggers seeking unusual, cutting-edge trends. ShareYourLook is unique in that it features ordinary everyday looks alongside more cutting edge looks, and asks users to comment on both. While many of the top-rated looks feature trendy, “high style” items, common items are highly ranked as well, such as skinny jeans and black rain boots. By placing new and unusual items alongside already popular favorites, ShareYourLook’s top-rated looks represent a more accurate compilation of what fashion fans actually find stylish, drawn from a larger pool of varying styles. Like YouTube, the top rated looks on ShareYourLook are those that have received high ratings from multiple users; thus, like YouTube, ShareYourLook provides the tools for a truly democratic fashion culture.

Yet while ShareYourLook provides the tools for fashion democratization, as of now, it does not have enough users to truly represent anything other than the opinions of site-users. While the main page boasts that the site has users in 54 countries, numbers still seem low: the most-viewed look only has 1398 views, as of 11:10 p.m. on March 7, 2007, compared to the top video on YouTube, which has 43,546,227 views as of the same time. Technorati only lists three incoming links to the site, making it relatively insubstantial in the current world of fashion blogging. Even so, ShareYourLook could be the future of fashion blogging – thus democratizing the tools of culture even more.

 Variety.com - Fox Atomic brings new twists: Genre Label Adds to Conventional Tactics.

Tue., Feb. 20, 2007

 by Steven Zeitchick

The article discusses the creation of Fox Atomic--a division of Fox Film Entertainment dedicated to genre films and youth markets. However, Fox Atomic doesn't want to just create and market movies, rather "it wants to create entire worlds around those movies." The Fox Atomic website enlists current trends in digital culture to reach out to young, tech savy audiences. The studio has a presence in Second Life called "Fox Atomic Island, a virtual movie studio where citizens can pick up and play with avatars from all its leading pics." It also holds mashup and machinima contests, includes movie related video games on its website, as well as user forums and information on forthcoming releases. In addition, Fox Atomic has created a comics division that will release comics based on movie properties that are not adaptations of the films, but rather engage in "cross-media" storytelling. Current and upcoming film releases include The Hills Have Eyes 2, 28 Weeks Later, and Touristas.

Although other film studios and distributors have a web presence and engage with digital culture, few have ventured quite as far as Fox Atomic. The article remains skeptical as to the success of this strategy as it is still unproven in its ability to generate ticket sales, but this sort of "web 2.0" interactivity and media convergence may be something that film studios can ill afford to ignore.

 

This project seeks to explore how fashion blogging has democratized the fashion industry by granting both fashion fans and the fashion industry access to the same information at the same time and by allowing fans to adopt and modify trends introducted online.