User generated content meets mainstream media

This Wednesday I’ll be moderating a panel discussion for Ross Dawson’s Future of Media Summit 2007 in Sydney. The topic I’ll be moderating is ‘User generated content meets mainstream media’. It’s a topic of great interest to me, as it poses two questions that I’m very keen to see answered …

(more…)

By Brad Howarth on July 15, 2007 7:04 pm | Permalink

New Future of Media Participant Blog

The Future of Media Summit 2007 participant blog is now launched.
The blog on this page, which was for the Future of Media Summit 2006, will remain as a record of some of the post-event conversations from last year’s event.
Last year we only launched the participant blog for the Future of Media Summit 2006 at the time when the actual event kicked off. This year we’d like to build an conversation beginning before the event, and extending far beyond, so we will continue with the same Future of Media Summit blog for Summits in subsequent years, rather than create a new blog each year.
See you on the new blog!

By Ross Dawson on June 23, 2007 11:56 am | Permalink

Global discussion on the future of media

The Future of Media Report 2006 has certainly achieved its intention of generating discussion with dozens of posts and also good media coverage. So far there has been discussion in five languages from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Peru, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, UK, and the US (these are representative links only – in most of these countries there have been many references to the report).
Here is the full list of links to the report and Summit website (Technorati).
There were two particularly thorough and thoughtful analyses of the report, the first of the reviews from Robin Good at Master New Media, and another one from Sanjana Hottotuwa – these are both very much worth reading. I’d like to pick up on and respond to just a few of their comments.
Robin says:

The report is way too US-centric. The revolution in the making is a global one, not an American one. Do you think that if by accident the US had a sustained black out this would somehow stop? Many other local and regional realities are at work, and often with a much greater impact on society and with a faster evolutionary speed than what the US content and advertising marketplaces have done.

Given the highlights and the relative majority of research data focusing on the US-UK-Australia triangle only, ironically the report could have been better titled something as The Future of American and Anglo-Saxon Media.

Absolutely a fair comment Robin. The reason we limited the research focus of the report to US, UK, and Australia was primarily one of resources. While Future Exploration Network is a global organization, these are our “home” countries. In creating the report we considered whether to include other interesting media markets, which could have included China, Brazil, Scandinavia, or many others. However the report was pulled together very quickly, and we simply didn’t have the time and resources to extend beyond these three markets for the research portion of the report. The other themes and issues, such as the strategic framework, absolutely apply in all media markets, and it’s certainly been encouraging how global the response to the report has been. We would love to do a report either truly more global in scope, or addressing specific markets such as East Asia, continental Europe, or Latin America, however this would require some resources. So if any organizations are interested in sponsoring or getting involved in a report that would go further than the original one, definitely get in touch with us.
Robin says:

Global media market highlights.
32 years [for the media and entertainment industry to double its share of the global economy]? I think it will take much less time than that, and looking at the report I get no reference or URL to verify and deepen my understanding. The data reported to support this point say only: “based on 1999-2004 trends” (page 3 of the report).

Sorry, yes this is worth elaborating. In 1999-2004 the global media and entertainment industries grew by 28.5%, while global GDP increased by 18.7%. If these growth rates continue, the share of media and entertainment of the global economy will double in 32 years. Since these years include both the dot-com boom and subsequent bust, they may not be representative. I too believe that it will take less than 32 years, but it’s an interesting extrapolation. While the global economy is likely to grow at a strong pace (barring disasters), the shift to intangible value will definitely accelerate.
Robin says:
Continue reading the rest of the post…

(more…)

By Ross Dawson on July 28, 2006 11:22 pm | Permalink

The convergent newsroom

Table 3 discussed how newsrooms around the world are embracing the concept of convergent journalism. Ifra estimates that about 500 media companies around the world are working across media. Stephen Quinn, who has published 3 books on the subject in the past year, gave an overview of the factors leading to acceptance of convergence.
Frances Green, national training adviser with the ABC, discussed what she had learned at a conference on convergence in London. Werner Vom Busch, executive director of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Singapore, talked about how media companies use incentives to get journalists to work across platforms.
Phil Sandberg, publisher of BroadcastPapers.com, talked about how he had written about convergence at Al-Jazeera in the latest edition of his mgazine. Nicole Manktelow, freelance writer and film-maker, said new digital tools gave journalists new freedoms and possibilities.
Most participants agreed that the chance to have a round-table discussion with other people at the conference was an excellent idea. We exchanged ideas and business cards, and wanted more time to talk and debate a major concept. My apologies if I missed out on reporting what other people at the table said.
Stephen Quinn, facilitator for table 3.

By on July 26, 2006 4:30 pm | Permalink

New business models

Our audience session looked at new media business models. It was pointed out that Australia has a chance to differentiate itself in the media market with highly targetted content that can demand much higher CPM. Many new media models are based on knowing and better monetising the customer relationship. Investing in CRM and then creatively working out ways to leverage that relationship creates powerful new media models. Extend, extend, extend. Leverage users and brand to extend into as many new revenue streams as possible. Events, research, podcasts, videostreaming, etc. Media cannot dictate the medium and mode of delivery but this should be seen as an opportunity not a threat. New devices will bring them new revenue opportunities. iPods, tablets, e-paper, etc all have the potential to extend media reach.

By philipsim on July 25, 2006 12:49 pm | Permalink

Prediction Markets for Media Trends and Planning

As John Maloney blogged * I mentioned the use of prediction markets to inform future of media strategies at the summit.
If you don’t know about prediction markets please skip over to the Wikipedia article and Chris F. Masse’s industry reporting.
How can prediction markets help with media future strategy:

  • Information aggregation/discovery – use the ‘wisdom of crowds’ to get a handle on where road trends are going or whether your specific initiative will be pan out.
  • Risk management – hedging and speculation.

Public and internal corporate markets have uses. Examples:

  • Contract pays if NYT daily circulation declines 2005-2006.
  • Contract pays if redesign of xyz.com launches by 2006-08-22.

Both of these are pretty mundane. The second is probably an internal market used to as a check on what the redesign team is telling management.
Since nobody knows what the future of media holds, using prediction markets may give you a critical edge (until their use becomes common, in which case navigating without prediction markets will put you at a critical disadvantage).
There are now many ways to try prediction markets: public real money markets, public play money markets (you can set up your own), open source software for running internal markets and consulting outfits ready to … consult. Chris F. Masse has a comprehensive guide to these categories and more.
I’ve posted about prediction markets on my personal blog several times, though usually with a policy or technology focus.
As I said at the summit I’d love to hear about how media organizations and agencies that play in the media field are using prediction markets or ideas how they might — including ideas for claims related to Creative Commons or more broadly the impact and role of peer production and related on media and vice versa.
* Actually John wrote “… the critical question on how information markets will be used in the creation, use and syndication of media in the future.” As worded that’s a separate but very interesting and more speculative topic. The implication is that PMs could be an integral part of media production and consumption at a very low level.

By mikelinksvayer on July 23, 2006 3:12 pm | Permalink

Print on Demand

Technology Rewrites the Book
“The print-on-demand business is gradually moving toward the center of the marketplace”
Software from Blurb.com provides templates for various genres, like a travel book.
By PETER WAYNER — Published: July 20, 2006
When Steve Mandel, a management trainer from Santa Cruz, Calif., wants to show his friends why he stays up late to peer through a telescope, he pulls out a copy of his latest book, “Light in the Sky,” filled with pictures he has taken of distant nebulae, star clusters and galaxies.
Skip to next paragraph
Steve Mandel, above, created his book “Light in the Sky” using software from Blurb.com; the cover image is of the Hale-Bopp comet. “I consistently get a very big ‘Wow!’ The printing of my photos was spectacular — I did not really expect them to come out so well.” he said. “This is as good as any book in a bookstore.”
Mr. Mandel, 56, put his book together himself with free software from Blurb.com. The 119-page edition is printed on coated paper, bound with a linen fabric hard cover, and then wrapped with a dust jacket. Anyone who wants one can buy it for $37.95, and Blurb will make a copy just for that buyer.
The print-on-demand business is gradually moving toward the center of the marketplace. What began as a way for publishers to reduce their inventory and stop wasting paper is becoming a tool for anyone who needs a bound document. Short-run presses can turn out books economically in small quantities or singly, and new software simplifies the process of designing a book.

By johnmaloney on 2:14 am | Permalink

Information Markets and the Future of Media

Mike Linksvayer of Creative Commons kicked off the Future of Media Summit in SF by proposing the critical question on how information markets will be used in the creation, use and syndication of media in the future.
In a hyper-differentiated media market, where consumers are producers, and long-tails abound, how will crowd wisdom help in sensemaking?
Information markets or knowledge exchanges are the development, application and wide usage of market-based mechanisms for resolving questions of entertainment, science, media, journalism, technology, management, strategy, planning, public policy, etc.
Information markets are exploding worldwide. The Prediction Markets Cluster® is the open industry network for prediction and information markets.
Crowd wisdom makes an important impact to long tails and media ‘futures.’ Literally hundreds of new information markets for media are popping up everywhere.
The next triangulated deep-dive (tools, process, and theory) is Nov 2 in Vienna at the PM Summit – Europe.

By johnmaloney on 12:14 am | Permalink

Review of Future of Media Summit

Nicole Khan who attended the San Francisco side of the event offers some reflections on the Summit on her blog. The summary of her thoughts are below – check out the original post for specific reflections on what speakers had to offer at the event:

My overall thought on the event? I think it was well done! I liked the format, I can see that working again in the future, in a variety of contexts. I had hoped that more people would have added stuff to the event blog beforehand, oh well… and the framework and report (PDF) which were released before the event were helpful in developing pre-panel ideas. The collaboration was cool – I saw a definite difference in perspective (not goals or ideas) of the media world and the topics under daily discussion between Sydney and SF. This helped broadened the panel discussion and hopefully helped to close the gap between U.S. and Australian perspectives on the topic.
In the future I hope to see more collaboration, more exchanging of ideas in other countries, in ad hoc formats like videoconferences.

We are definitely considering this as a starting point. Future Exploration Network will certainly do more multi-location events, and we hope others will too.

By Ross Dawson on July 22, 2006 10:14 pm | Permalink

Discussion on Australian media legislation

The main points of discussion of the Implications of Australian Media Legislation participant panel were:
* The chances of Communications Minister Helen Coonan’s proposed Media Reform Package getting through the Senate
* The two most difficult Senators: National’s Barnaby Joyce and Steve Fielding of the Family First Party
* Difficulty with take up of Digital and the cost to the Government of simulcasting of analogue and digital on ABC and SBS
* The possible uses of the Spare Spectrum for mobile TV and digital services
* Explanation of multichannelling and the success of Freeview in the UK
* The need for separation of content and carrier for datacasting and telecommunications
Panel convened by Peter Cox: http://www.coxmedia.com.au/

By petercox on 1:49 pm | Permalink

Hagel on the long tail

In the aftermath of John Hagel and Chris Anderson‘s conversation at the Future of Media Summit, John has posted an interesting commentary on the long tail and Chris’s new book on his blog. As John was bringing out at the Summit, he is very interested in the impact of the long tail on media industry structure. While Chris seems to believe this will not necessarily be radical, John thinks it will be. In particular, the unbundling of existing media companies may take place along the lines of infrastructure management and customer relationship management. Well worth a read – complementing the live conversation with written reflections…

By Ross Dawson on July 21, 2006 5:34 pm | Permalink

Bloggers – what is their role in the media?

Our group’s topic was “Bloggers. Are they newsmakers, newsfinders, opinion shapers or annotators”? We were a small group – but lively – including owners of businesses and people who although not owning the company would obviously have significant influence on decision-making. Experience included very senior corporate, finance, media, small business networks, creative, advertising, technology transfer. Two or three bloggers in the group.
These notes which I took as host of the group are mere snippets from a lively discussion – I’m hoping others who participated will add/comment/disagree etc.
One person was interested in the possibilities for using blogs to help with a small business network, another as part of developing corporate cohesion across several formerly discrete companies or business units. Interest expressed in the intra-corporate possibilities of blogs “behind the firewall”, ie in VPN mode.
Discussion about Australia’s government majority owned (for a while) telco Telstra and its Now We Are Talking group of blogs It was stated that the blog/s had been introduced on the initiative of one of the new American execs at Telstra and not without angst/resistance from others at a high level. Are the Telstra bloggers newsmakers, newsfinders, opinion shapers or annotators? Is there mainly a ‘top down’ view expressed – ‘depends on who you talk to’. Feeling was that this was largely annotation. Noted there is some filtering by a person or persons with editorial overview, but as far as we know this is for inappropriate language etc, rather than to censor deviations from a corporate line. See also the acerbic post on Telstra’s blogging venture, by Future of Media panelist Mark Jones on his Filtered blog – Now we are NOT talking.
One participant felt that the only reason for a blog or blogs would be to attract people to the company website. There was some inconclusive discussion about the community-building aspect and also the role of blogs in enabling a company to be more transparent.
One consultant regularly sees opportunities for clients to promote themselves more effectively by setting up a blog, especially in industries where there is tangible value in demonstrating openness, transparency, honesty, and getting people to trust the company – not every client wants to do that or follow through with a blog once initiated. A blog doesn’t suit every client.
Noted in the small business context that only 44% of Australian businesses have a website.
Mention of the challenge of seeing that a blog could help the company you are working for and then having to get the CEO and/or senior management onside to enable it to happen. Wariness? Scepticism?
Brief discussion about wikis.
Mention of Trevor Cook as a leading and prolific blogger in the PR industry – see his Corporate Engagement group blog.

By Des Walsh on 12:33 pm | Permalink

Experimenting with a large group blog

Over on my Trends in the Living Networks blog, I’ve posted about this blog, as below. Join the conversation!
Haven’t posted here yet on yesterday’s Future of Media Summit, as I am now spending more time over on the Future of Media Summit Participant Blog – go check it out. This is kind of an experiment – we’ve set up a blog that every Summit attendee can write posts on. All attendees received a personal login and password, and were given a participant blogging instructions page. We didn’t get a whole lot of blog posts during the event, partly because of WiFi problems in Sydney, but it is now picking up a little as people join the discussion. There has been a lot of discussion globally on the Future of Media Report (more on this later), which is beginning to be reflected in the blog. In addition, there were 14 “audience panels” at the Sydney event, where participants gathered around their chosen theme. (It’s interesting to see the top themes people chose.) The Drivers of Mobile Content and User Generated Content panels have already posted a summary of their discussions on the blog – hopefully some of the other panels will report back too.
So this is what you could call a Large Group Blog. Around 175 people have logins to the blog – everyone who physically attended the Future of Media Summit in either Sydney or San Francisco. While not many have posted yet, more may do so. I’ll invite a few other people who couldn’t make it to the event, to join in if they choose. Starting points for blog discussions are of course the general theme of the future of media, the Future of Media report, the blog discussion around it, an article on the Summit in the Sydney Morning Herald, other media coverage, with more content to come very soon, including a videostream of the event, a video summary, and more articles. So if you have anything to contribute to the discussion, whether or not you were at the event, just email us at fen [AT] futureexploration [DOT] net and we’ll set you up with a blog login. No idea what will happen with this, but I think it’s time to experiment with blogs with large numbers of people around a particular theme. In the past this has been done on forums and discussion boards. Blogs have usually been for one or a few authors. An event seems like a reasonable starting point to get some interesting people to discuss things of common interest, especially since they’ve met before. It’s also an opportunity for people who have never blogged before to try it out, especially when you have not only the die-hard fanatics in the audience. It seems kind of obvious, but I’m not sure anyone’s done it before quite like this. So whatever happens with the blog, be it small or large, it will be very interesting.

By Ross Dawson on July 20, 2006 10:21 pm | Permalink

User Generated Content

The author of this blog volunteered at our table as I had a laptop and thought it would be appropriate to make good use of the technology at hand at the Future of Media Summit and enter directly into the blog. Unfortunately, I spent a good 10 minutes getting my laptop up and running before it crashed and now must consider what is ahead of me given the blogging interest regarding Dell’s Customer Service as discussed on the day!
Our table was equally devided between those belonging in the content camp and those in the advertising camp.
In respect to User Generated Content (UGC) there is the question of “to censor or not to censor”. Hugh Martin noted that the BBC copped a lot of criticism over the censoring of posted content during the London tube bombing last year. This was different to the BSkyB approach of putting it all out there. A media service with a strong brand still needs to maintain a level of editorial integrity to ensure that UGC is considered appropriate for its audience.
So in the case of UGC there are, broadly, 3 options (i) uncensored (the MySpace, YouTube approach) (ii) manual filtering (resource intensive) (iii) automated content filtering – use heuristic models (“editor is an algorithm!”) to filter content based on language/topic/image content etc. Or a blend of all 3.
The topic of viral marketing was discussed with ads like Carlton’s Big Beer Ad and John West’s bear Ad being great examples of these. The point was made that these can either win or lose an audience – a case in point being the tastefulness of the VW Polo advertisement (personal opinion… I would NEVER buy a Polo! … current model Golf GTI is a different story! ;^)
A recent classic example of viral marketing was the tagging of AirForce One “Still Free”. One estimate suggests that, at twenty-five frames per second, this video clip is worth over 3,000 words every time it’s viewed given the amount that has been written about it on internet sites and newspapers around the world. 87M views in the first week alone!
From viral communications we moved onto the topic of UGC in the context of creating “mini sites” on brands and products. General consensus is that this would work for fast moving consumer goods such as beer or cars but not necessarily toothpaste. One needs to be able to engage consumers at a mainstream level. If there is general passion around a topic (where’s the passion in toothpaste?!?) then there exists the opportunity to create sites on given topics with blogging/creative marketing/content aggregation on the topic from other sources. If a given audience with a specific demographic starts to build on these sites, then the opportunity exists to monetize through specific advertising. The author would suggest that knowledge of a consumer’s behaviour on that site (what they search for/write about/view/purchase at the site) would provide the essential events to analyse and therefore target highly personalised advertising even to a site that attracts and extremely broad audience.
Many more interesting topics where discussed at the table, however my mind kept wandering to the Dell service challenge that confronts me and, alas, I feel I was way too distracted from the task at hand. Any others at the table that day or others that feel so inspired, I invite to you keep the thread alive!

By seantoohey on 4:04 pm | Permalink

Coverage in Sydney Morning Herald and ABC TV

The Sydney Morning Herald has a nice piece today on the Future of Media Summit, titled You read it here and watched it there first. The article opens…

MEDIA owners and journalists will have to join big advertisers in chasing consumer “mindshare” across a myriad of channels they may not own or control to ensure their editorial efforts sustain current attention levels.
The “multichannelling” of editorial was a key theme to come out of a media forum yesterday in which a line-up of trend spotters from the US and Australia argued that media companies must move quickly from managing their assets as individual products to creating diverse “content networks”.

During the Summit ABC TV caught me in a break and interviewed me on the future of media – this appeared on their Midday Report nationally. The producer particularly asked me to speak about how older people are participating in the changes, as much of their audience is not-so-young. I referred to the fact that 18% of over-65s in the US have created content on the Internet, and 7% of over 70s in Australia have downloaded music from the Internet. The way older people have experienced how email and video calls can connect them to their children and grandchildren has led them to find other ways new media is of value to them personally.
The Australian Financial Review also has an article on the event in today’s issue, though unforunately this is not available online. I’ll summarize it when I’ve had a chance to get a copy of the paper…

By Ross Dawson on 2:47 pm | Permalink

Audience panels

I think any worthwhile event will have solid discussion between participants. The implication of the traditional “talking head” conference is that the speakers have infinite wisdom to impart, and the audience are there to absorb as much of it as they can. At any good event the participants can have as much insight and experience to share as the speakers, so to have only a series of speakers doesn’t make sense. At the Sydney side of the Summit, we created “audience panels” – we established a number of topics, people signed up for these, and speakers and other experts in the audience acted as convenors for the discussions. It’s always interesting to see what panels people choose to join. The audience panels – in approximate order of their popularity – was as follows.
New business models: how to monetize content
What advertisers want today
Online social networks and media
The drivers of mobile content
Content overload and user filtering
User generated content
Globalization of media
The impact of legislation
The convergent newsroom
Bloggers: are they newsfinders, newsmakers, opinionshapers, or annotators?
Blogging and media
The long tail
Issues for specialist publishers
The Drivers of mobile content panel have posted a summary of their panel discussions. If you participated in one of the other panels, it would be great if you could post some of what you discussed or what was useful to you from the panels so others can benefit – thanks.

By Ross Dawson on 1:56 pm | Permalink

How can you encourage creators to become consumers?

At my talk on Creative Commons last night (I believe heard only by the San Francisco audience, alas), I used the “strategic questions” posed by the Future of Media Report as a foil for the role of the commons in the future of media. I want to post here about small points I raised regarding a few of the questions.

How can you best draw on social networks for content and ideas?

How can you encourage consumers to become creators?

Turn users into stakeholders: give them some rights.
Turn the second question around: “How can you encourage creators to become consumers?” Creation is often a consumption good: rather than expecting to be paid to create, people will pay you if you can help them be better creators. The millions of bloggers who pay for blog hosting are a case in point, as are the vast majority of artists and musicians who spend more in a year on gear than they will directly earn from their artistic efforts in a lifetime and (back to the web) those who pay Flickr for a “pro” account so they can better share their photography.
Remix is not just [re]creation, it is a conversation. Make that explicit — and thus more exploitable, sticky, etc. A particular implementation.

How can you faciliate social media commenting on and annotating content?

One emerging technology that I like to turn people on to are semantic wikis. The data in your wiki (assuming you’re using one) may be more valuable than you imagined.
Users should obtain private benefit when annotating. If they do, the social benefit (or the value added to your website) may be enhanced.
Again, make users stakeholders: allow them to export annotations they’ve contributed at a minimum. Several [inter]related ideas here, which may be exploited selectively.
Regarding several of the questions, which I won’t repeat here, I mentioned the importance of . Consumers are rapidly becoming aware that the media they create (and that you help them create) should be usable for their lifetimes — decades. Users who couldn’t care less about open source software want access to their data. Stay ahead of the curve and make open formats and open standards compliance a part of your strategy.
These are just some relatively narrow considerations. For a big picture introduction to Creative Commons specifically, visit creativecommons.org and watch Get Creative (5 minutes) and for the big picture check out the book Free Culture.
Finally, I forgot to mention that Creative Commons has a monthly event in San Francisco featuring people (essentially) building the future of media. Hope to see some of you at one.

By mikelinksvayer on 11:27 am | Permalink

User-created – what about user-rewarded?

In the previous panel session Chris Anderson, editor-in-cheif of Wired magazine, made reference to how his new book The Long Tale has been something of a collaborative process between him and people responding to his blog. It would be fair to assume then that those comments have influenced the content of the book – and hence Anderson has benefitted from their input.
In the current panel, host of TechNation, Dr Moira Gunn, asked the question of whether or not Anderson is planning on sharing some of the wealth from his book with those bloggers. Apparently he will be on TechNation soon. It will be interesting to hear his answer.
This raises the question of where the revenue from user-generated content should flow to. YoutTube now experiences 100 million downloads per day, costing it millions of dollars in bandwidth each year. No one would begrudge the company using advertising to cover its costs – but how far can the model be taken before the site is accused of profiteering from the hard work of others?
Now it is true that no one is forced to post content to YouTube, and that content creators can walk away. It is also possible that users may turn off in droves should the feel the site has become too commercial. But at the end of the day, someone will want to make money out of this ….

By Brad Howarth on July 19, 2006 2:25 pm | Permalink

So what are the challenges for new media and old?

Seems there is some consensus forming around the new paradigm for traditional media as being a ‘brand’ that carries some level of trust for its audience. Regardless of the fragmentation of information, consumers will still go to trusted brands as their first port of call.
Where things get interesting tho is in the formation of new brands. Sites such as Digg are creating a new models for content selection and presentation, leaving that ‘editing’ process up to the public.
So what are people going to pay for? In an earlier session someone questioned whether leaving choice of news selection to the consumer would lead to sensationalisation or dumbing down of information, as information sources seek the widest possible audience. While that is to some degree too, the audience is both wide and fragmented – those who seek broad, general interest news will also have a call for specialised knowledge about areas of interest.
So when Phil Sim said that content was being commoditised, he was right. In fact it pretty much always has been. The higher value still lurks in niches, and that is where smaller, interested groups of people are willing to hand over their cash to the brands they trust.

By Brad Howarth on 1:53 pm | Permalink

Globalization and the future of media

The nature of the media business is both very local & global. There are is a standardization of consumer trends, taste, commercial models and innovation across large parts of the media business. Atomization of markets and the growth of user generated content as well as the desires by many segments of the market to sieze control over their media consumption appear to be, in large part, universal.

By tonysurtees on 1:28 pm | Permalink

Videostream…

One of the issues highlighted today is the challenge of new technology combined with a relatively poor internet infrastructure in Australia…
The on-demand archive of the conference will be available in the next few days
Ian
www.viocorp.com

By iangardiner on 1:23 pm | Permalink

Drivers of mobile content

Notes from the discussion on Table 2 – The drivers of mobile content
The mobile is not just a mobile phone. The car is also becoming moble. Holden is doing a lot of work with Daimler in the US that will be incorporating screens into just about everything they make. This can then form a marketing medium.
The ABC (Australia’s government-funded broadcaster): Wanting to licence content to on-sell to carriers. Are working with DBVH trials. This technology uses the broadcast paradigm to send television-lige content to phones, and provides an interactive mechanism to feed back to the broadcaster. The trial is working with Bridge Networks, Nokia and Telstra, and is charged on a subscription basis. The ABC also has an interest in producing content specficlly for the mobile platform. In selling their content to other platforms tho, the ABC must be careful not to dilute its brand.
Who is the consumer? The example in Asia is young people who spend a lot of time out of the house. That is possibly going to dictate the content. This leads into the notion of generation C – Generation Connected. MTV is expeirmenting with using content from mobile phones.
For the guys in the building trade mobile is their media device. Now that they have been educated on how to use their mobile phone, the challenge for the company BangItUp.com is to find ways of getting more and more content from the industry through this medium.
It won’t work for everyon, such as Harvey Norman, but will work for something like Burton Snowboards. People will happily load up content in a field where they are passionate. Kids get a kick out of thinking they are influencing decisions that are being made at Burton – it is especially viral on mobile.
Who will pay for the content? Good content costs a lot of money to create. And they how do you split up the revenue? Australians will go out of their way to get something for free, as opposed to paying for something that is more convenient. But the consensus is that if it is important enough, peope will pay. If you really love golf, you will pay for the PGA results.
People are going to trusted brands, but how will they find the content they really want? How also do advertisers determine how much is too much, and not risk upsetting even those consumers that have opted in.
Location-based is another area of great interest – the carriers know where you are on the mobile phone. If you look up YourRestaurant.com, on the mobile it wll show you the ones that are nearby. But in one instance when this was usd by a hardware retailer, the clients got freaked out and thought they were being tracked.
Back to the trade industry – BangItUp will ask users a series of questions to build up a profile, that will then be used to deliver job leads to their mobile phones. So the only ones they get are relevant to them, now that the database is sufficiently refined. BangItUp makes money from the number of job leads that it delivers.

By Brad Howarth on 12:25 pm | Permalink

More on where the money is…

Peter Cox from the floor says that the big boys will not let IPTV happen, because it jeopardises their interests.
Advertiser funding content is now still mainly product placement. We have a lot of learning to do on this, says Mike. But Brad says that people want content when and where they want, and may pay more not to watch ads.
Phil Sim of Mediaconnect says that people don’t mind ads if they’re the right ads. So the issue is how do we get to targetted ads? That will drive everything, so the question is how we create targetted ads across every type of media.
Brad says that he may avoid ads on TV, but he still passes billboards, reads magazines, and so on. So how do advertisers reach people when they avoid ads? We still do see things.
Alisdair Faulkner from the floor talks about click fraud. What’s the impact? Phil says the CEO of Google says this will self-correct. But it is a huge issue.

By Ross Dawson on 11:53 am | Permalink

Shifting how advertisers spend

Mike Porter of mediaedge:CIA says that we are on the cusp of a big change towards the internet as an adivertising medium. Now consumer behavior and the internet are the first considerations, and then how traditional media fits into that next. It’s a complete about face.
Peter Evans of Toyota says that their efforts are more about dialogue and two-way rather than traditional mass media. The other major trend is to integration, for example Toyota’s landmark deal to buy across all PBL’s properties.
Another issue being discussed is performance-based journalism. It is a real challenge for journalists to be measured on how popular their stories are.
On TV, Mike says that Australian legislation will drive a proliferation of TV channels and media, which means that the one advertising campaign will no longer work – there will have to be multiple campaigns to address the different audiences. Consumers are now far more reactive – and fast – in their behaviors, due to the Internet. It will be swifter, requiring far more nimble agencies than before. The data is there, so how do you respond to that data? Will increasingly know the value of advertising.
Peter says that media needs to create content that is relevant to them. This gives more customised messages than creating a TV commercial. Content will be driven by advertising.

By Ross Dawson on 11:44 am | Permalink

How will content be created?

Just a few quick snapshots from what the content panel are saying:
Ross Gibson says that older people were brought up with a didactic model, but younger people operate with a heuristic model – they experiment and try things, use content in different ways. This dirives use of smaller, shorter media.
Ian Gardiner says that he doesn’t think that feature films will be released online for a good while. People need to be able to use a remote control, which can’t be done on a PC now. But in the future movie stars won’t get paid $20 million a film – big films will exist, but attention will shift elsewhere.
Ben Barren said that local content and local search is not going away. Content creators can begin to make money. RSS needs a new name.
Hugh Martin had an editor who thought readers should read about important political things. That’s not what people want – people can now choose. The real question is how we subsidise expensive content when old business models fade away.
Just a few tiny gems from a fantastic panel….

By Ross Dawson on 10:49 am | Permalink

Welcome to the Future of Media

To all San Francisco participants in the Future of Media — Welcome!

By johnmaloney on 7:54 am | Permalink

Welcome to the Future of Media Summit Participant Blog

The Future of Media Summit is intended to be a highly participatory event that will spark conversations and new ideas, strategies, and initiatives.
Anyone who is participating in the Future of Media Summit in Sydney, San Francisco, or via live videostream, can post to this blog. Click here for instructions on how to log in and contribute to the blog. If you have registered for the event you will be able to log in.
The blog will run live during the event, and for (at least) one month after the event, so event attendees can discuss and reflect on the ideas and conversations generated during the Summit.
If you did not attend the live Summit in person and virtually, but would like to participate in this blog, please email us at fen [AT] futureexploration [DOT] net and we will provide you with a log in.
Welcome to the conversation! We hope to get many people who are not regular bloggers to participate in a broader dialogue, and to generate a useful and stimulating conversation on the future of media. Please join in.

By Ross Dawson on July 18, 2006 9:33 pm | Permalink