I recently saw Frost Nixon starring Frank Langella and Michael Sheen and Sam Rockwell and directed by Ron Howard. From what I understand the film is based on a play written by Peter Morgan. Honestly, I was blown away. What a gripping edge of your seat politically charged piece of cinema. I won’t give away the entire story for those who actually want to take my advice and go and see it, but I am telling you it is time and money well spent. The premise of the film is about David Frost a British television host who wants to be the first to interview former President Richard Nixon just after the whole Watergate scandal has happened, and President Gerald Ford had pardoned Nixon for his involvement in the scandal. Essentially, Frost is trying to get Nixon to say something incriminating during the 30 hour interview.
Wow! as a filmmaker this movie for me, brought out all the good stuff. Intrigue, a battle of the wits between Frost and Nixon, triumph (won’t tell you who that is), empathy for the characters and their situations, the consequences of taking a huge risk on something. Overall, just great stuff.
I can’t say that I am partially to any one particular actor’s portrayal of their respective characters, Frank Langella as Richard Nixon and Michael Sheen as David Frost, because just when you think you have them pegged as a certain type of person, they surprise you in a very real, very human way.
One of the few films I could watch over and over again without being bored. Certainly a lesson in human psychology, and a little bit of history rolled in.
So glad to see some Golden Globe Nominations for Best Actor for Frank Langella, and Best Picture, among other nominations. Hope they win something!
Go see it if you get a chance. Thanks Brian for recommending the film. Just awesome.
I am sure that alot of people have been hearing about this idea of IPTV over the last several years, but I wanted to take some time to explain exactly what it is, and why its considered to be revolutionary to the television industry.
First of all, IPTV stands for Internet Protocol Television, which is essentially television over the Internet. It basically takes all of the systems and networks designed to deliver the Internet to your house via computer and connects it to your television set. While I won’t be getting into the specific details in terms of the delivery technology and infrastructure, some people believe that IPTV will change the way we currently watch television.
The reason IPTV hasn’t caught on in a big way just yet is because of the low broadband penetration in households. A 2007 Gartner Research press release indicates that is about to change in the next couple of years. Gartner’s research suggests that the number of households with broadband will reach 400 million households by the year 2010. Which is double the number of households that had broadband connection back in 2005.
The current major markets for IPTV which exist at this time include France, South Korea and a variety of Asian and European countries. It appears to be growing in popularity in countries like China and India, but it does not appear at this time that countries such as Canada, the United States or the UK television viewers are subscribing to IPTV at the same rate as their European or Asian counterparts.
The benefits that IPTV has over traditional cable operators are enormous. First, it is relatively easy to use, (I think a large majority of the population these days is now capable of surfing the Internet and doing so on a remote control just makes it that much simpler), personalized content in the sense where you have the ability to watch what you want when you want it, and have a wide variety of programs in which to choose from. I am not just talking in a sense of wanting to watch a particular hockey game (I’m Canadian what can I say?) but being able to watch multiple games at the simultaneously, and with a click of a button player stats can appear as if by magic. Later, if you still need a hockey fix you can also play a hockey-related video game right on your television set.
So essentially, IPTV allows you the best of what television and the Internet have to offer with regards to programming and direct interaction with state of the art technology.
That ladies and gents is what makes IPTV a relevant and important medium in which to watch for in the years ahead.
I am in the middle of development of a new film at the moment, and I find it really fascinating how similar a film is to an actual consumer product. We have been going back and forth about specific details about the film, but I find ultimately what it is boiling down to is the audience. Who exactly is our target market? A question surely being asked by every marketer around the world. The funny thing about it is how difficult it can be to come to a consensus about who the target actually is. There are so many other factors that come into play when deciding to undertake a project, in particular investors who want to see their products highlighted in a positive light. The question as the marketer or filmmaker though it boils down to a question of ethics. What if the product doesn’t perform to what investors want it to be marketed as? do you simply highlight what positives actually exist and downplay the negatives? or do you present both the positive and negative aspects of the product proportionately and allow the general public to come to their own conclusions? Do you just find another target market that won’t mind the negatives because the benefits outweigh the negatives? or do you simply choose not to take on the project at all, at the risk (in the case of film) of not being able to produce your project at all.
Taking a stance on who the target market is can be a little more complex than meets the eye because you may start to alienate certain people. Also, despite a new found ability to be able to fragment audiences into smaller categories in terms of interests, how does that affect the bottom line? In the case of film, blockbuster summer tent poles are written and produced in order to find as large an audience as possible in order to maximize profits. While, some people may feel that these films are so contrived and predictable they often involve themes with universal appeal, love, revenge, adventure, action, etc.
The good thing about these films is that their success paves the way for films that will only find a small audience, perhaps some critically acclaimed independent film that wouldn’t have ever gotten made had it not been for the success of the blockbuster. I am just not sure these days whether fragmentation of audiences, while great for individual audience members, is so great for film industry profitability. Will this mean that less niched films will get the opportunity to even get made if this trend continues? If that is the case then doesn’t that counter-act the idea of fragmentation in the first place?
For the life of me I am trying to figure out why companies out there are still attempting to advertise in the traditional sense of the word on Facebook. Personally, I can’t say that I have ever bother to look up Jennifer Aniston’s Acai Berry Weight Loss Diet, or stopped what I was doing in order to dress my very own Zwinky Doll. Clearly, the message that these advertisers are trying to send got to me, and I am sure thousands of other fellow facebook friends, however, the point is that I, much like the 99.96% of facebook users**, don’t ever actually click on the link. According to an online youth survey conducted by Forrester 86% of people use Facebook to see what their friends are up to. (And about 65% should be considered Facebook creepers (People who look up profiles of people they don’t kno)w…who has time for this?)
But I digress, it should seem pretty clear that no one is on Facebook in order to look at banner ads created by clever advertisers. Taking into account people are primarily on Facebook to write message and interact with their friends, Facebook has introduced a new way for advertisers to reach a very lucrative young audience by using something called Engagement Ads. Engagement Ads come in three forms: Comment Style Ads (allows users to post their comments, similar to wall posting), Virtual Gifts Ads (people can share virtual items with friends) and Fan Style Ads (joining a fan page for something you are particularly passionate about). Now of the three, I can see the Fan Style Ads working pretty well. I have seen a few of my Facebook friends who have subscribed to this type of advertising, and I must admit that I am often curious about some of the products that have piqued their interest. However, I can’t say that I have ever personally followed up on their fan page. From an advertiser’s perspective, however, I would see this as a great way in which to offer up new updates and information about products to a dedicated audience. Let’s take for example RIM (Research in Motion) and their Blackberry products. While I am not aware if RIM has a fan page, (I would imagine it does) it would make sense to me that when its time to release a new product (say the Blackberry Storm for instance) that said fan page should contain information regarding new product specs and possibly links to a virtual view of the product. Perhaps consider offering free trials to some of the most passionate RIM fans based on comments and interaction with the fan page. Wouldn’t this be the ideal way in which to engage in two way communication with customers? I can see this Engagement Advertising Model working in the long term.
The other “Engagement Advertisement” ideas I am not too sure about. If I wanted to add a comment couldn’t I just do that on the product’s fan page? so why create a separate space just for Facebook user comments? and am I really going to trade around miniature versions of the Blackberry Storm with all my friends? I don’t know maybe I have gotten too old and it doesn’t hold the same appeal for me as it does for others. Maybe it can happen with the right product, but I would still see these two forms of EA getting boring really quick. I suppose that’s the thing with new technologies and in particular Facebook Applications, once you’ve played with them for a while, they become like forgot toys never to be played with again.
**(The stat came from Jeremiah Owyang’s blog for Forrester Research www.web-strategist.com/blog/category/facebook-strategy/)
I am struggling these days (as I am sure many of you are these days as well) with the cost and effort that goes into producing content for websites. While the path should seem simple enough, find appropriate content that attracts a lot of people who are interested in a certain niche category, convert online traffic into advertising dollars or sell merchandise on the website itself and then Bob’s your uncle. However, those of us who are responsible for keeping online users happy know that people can be fickle and they constantly need to be entertained. When is that point where revenue starts to surpass the cost of content acquisition? and when I talk about content acquisition I mean everything involved in making sure that everything on the site stays relevant and fresh and interesting to online users. These days it seems to take more and more dynamic content in order to keep people interested. Anywhere from online videos to music, to online chats and forums etc. Its like a never ending challenge! and that stuff can start to get expensive!
So I pose this question out to anyone who has managed to figure out the best way of creating content without breaking the bank….how do you do that?
First of all I would like to apologize to all my readers for my month-long hiatus. I have been extremely busy over the last month with new projects and was unable to find time to continue my writing. I am back now and you have my sincerest apologies.
I wanted to talk today about and an announcement I saw recently about YouTube. It appears that Google has finally found a way to monetize one of the most popular sites on the Internet with a business model that looks strangely familiar. The concept is that users who post videos on the site will have the opportunity to bid on keywords which will be associated with links to their videos that pop up whenever someone searches for a video on YouTube. I don’t know about you, but to me this sounds a lot like Google Adwords. I mean bravo for Google finally finding a way in which to try and attempt to get some type of return on their initial $1.65 billion investment. I am surprised, however, that it took two years in which to implement a strategy that has already been proved successful (and mighty lucrative might I add) with its search engine. Why didn’t they attempt this strategy from the beginning? I would be curious to see how well it works. For Google’s sake I hope it does. Otherwise, they would still have one of the most expensive video hosting sites in the history of the Internet.
I recently attending a seminar entitled “Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2008-2012″ presented by Jerry Brown of PWC fame and found it fascinating how media consumption patterns are expected to change, as well as the differences of media consumption in different regions around the world. For example, the media and entertainment industry in BRIC countries (Brazil-Russia-India-China) are expected to increase by 13.6% while in contrast, the rest of the world’s is only expected to grow by 5.9%. Having personally worked in the film industry in India, and having witnessed the numerous amount of projects that are already being produced there, I can only imagine the astronomical number of projects that will be in production over the next five years. I am very excited to see the developments that takes place in these regions and how it will affect traditionally media-rich areas of the world. My prediction is that there will be alot more cross- polination happening the future. More collaboration say from Canadian or U.S. directors with Chinese producers or Indian cinematographers, or TV show platforms like Pop Idol which has created regional based talent-competition type shows that have spawned all around the globe.
Another point that was stressed in the presentation that I have brought up in previous blog entries has been the idea of “multiple technology tipping points.” That is to say that audiences are looking for content in a variety of different platforms when they want it and how they want to consume it. From a content producer’s perspective, however, it is important to realize that how content is consumed on each platform will be different. Most people (this is just my assumption) will not regularly watch long-form programs on their smartphone. While I have seen it done, I just don’t think MANY people are going to spend 100 mins watching something on a really small screen. However, a 3 min clip of a new TV show that will soon be available via the web or IPTV, which gives viewers a taste of the full-length version, I can see as a viable mobile content option.
This phenomenon isn’t just going to happen to individual producers but is also an important issue in large organizations, “As 25% of Entertainment and Media CEOs strongly agreed that collaborative networks will be a defining organizational principle for their business” Jerry Brown, Director, PWC, Global Outlook Presentation. I can totally see how it is going to be relevant. My thoughts on this is that for a large media organization to be successful, it is either going to have to acquire companies that have access to various either mobile or web technology networks, or they are going to have to learn to collaborate with various organizations that currently own the technology. Considering the speed in which new channels are popping up, its more cost-effective to just collaborate with the technology du jour instead of investing or acquiring a technology based organization that will in 2 years become passe. I also think from a content standpoint it is going to have to take alot more thought in the strategic planning phase in order to determine how the content will be edited properly for different platforms and then released in windows that are appropriate for the content. Say for instance starting a trailer campaign for a new TV show on mobile which then leads audiences to a website with select 22 or 48 minute episodes, which then gets them engaged enough to lead them to watching the TV show on their actual television sets. All the way through I can see an opportunity to work with a variety of different advertisers to ensure that various advertising messages are seen by the target audience.
Needless to say, I think the future is going to be very interesting, albeit a lot more complicated!
I remember doing my final thesis paper on “The Effect of Digital Cinema Technologies on the Motion Picture Industry” as part of my MBA studies, and recently came across a couple of articles http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/10/01/five-studios-pledge-support-digital-cinema-upgradeshttp://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/081001/clw108.html?.v=54 which talks about the new deal the DCIP (Digital Cinema Implementation Partners) has struck with five major Hollywood studios to help offset the cost of new digital cinema projector systems for 20 000 screens across the U.S. While this is hardly a new deal (I had been writing about this in my thesis paper over a year ago) I am glad that the proverbial ball has started rolling and we can all move towards a happier, brighter digital future.
The problem essentially is this, film distributors wanted to go digital because it will be cheaper to produce films (eventually) on digital format and much easier to create really cool stuff in editing (currently happening). Theatre Exhibitors, (your AMCs, Cineplex Odeons (in Canada) of the world) didn’t initially see how digital formats could help them make any more additional revenue, considering they make the majority of their revenues from the concession stands. The question then was, who was going to pay for to upgrade the theatrical exhibitors’ current film projectors to new digital projection systems at $70 000 per screen?
The current solution: a $1 billion line of credit from JP Morgan Securities from DCIP and the studios’ promise to pay $1000 per screen in “virtual print” fees to offset the costs. Fees they would have otherwise paid to get multiple film reels printed in order to release films domestically first before shipping those reels to other parts of the world for screening.
I am a big proponent of digital and am all for moving into newer digital projection systems. Though I wonder from a film distributor’s perspective whether they are getting the short end of the stick in this deal. With the advent of new 3-D technologies and more IMAX films being released (remember The Dark Knight anyone?) more people are expected to migrate towards their local theatre than ever before. Theatres now have the ability to screen live events (concerts, sports matches etc) on these snazzy new digital projectors outside of traditional peak Friday and Saturday night screenings. Which would mean more bums in seats and hence additional revenue for the exhibitor, which has little to do with film distributors that are not necessarily responsible for distributing this type of non-film related content.
Why then should film distributors be responsible for shouldering the cost of upgrading to digital cinema projection systems when it is the theatrical exhibitor who has the most to gain from this new technology system?
Film distributors save money by recycling film reels and doing a staggered release window strategy in various territories (that’s why films get released overseas a little later than in the U.S.) but having to pay $1000 per screen is going to get mighty expensive. Especially if you consider the fact that piracy is so rampant that for some films, distributors will have to consider a day and date release strategy (i.e. a simultaneous release of a major film around the world) in order to maximize their profits for a film. I am curious to see how all of these changes are going to affect ticket prices in the future. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
The T-Mobile G1 was just announced on Sept 23rd and is looks like it might come pretty close to be considered a viable “iPhone Killer.” I, for one am a big fan of the emerging crop of smartphones that are coming out these days, Apple iPhone, Blackberry Thunder, T-Mobile G1 etc. Though I haven’t seen one yet that makes my heart go a flutter, I think that the G1 may come the closest. Smartphones are great for those of us who are are constantly on the move, and need to receive and send info all the time. (Definitely me). So its a perfect little device that allows you to be on the go so you can walk, talk, surf, send and receive e-mails, basically conduct business from your local park bench. (And in my case being able to carry around a multi-media business card which allows people to see some of my film work immediately) Hooray! to not having to lug around hefty laptops that weigh a ton, or waiting to get back to your desktop before being able to anxiously send out that e-mail that you meant to do before you left the office, and most importantly, Heaven forbid, you don’t receive and respond to that important e-mail within a 15 min timeframe.. Oh! the Horror!
Smartphones have the ability to prevent such tragedies from ever happening. While I don’t want to get into the technical specs of each of the phones and virtues of why more storage capacity is better, etc. etc. etc. For me, what I like most about the T-Mobile is that it gives me a lot of choices. Being able to customize a device to my own personal settings is a huge bonus in my books. Personally, I am not a big fan of touchscreens. I find them messy,cumbersome and awkward. the T-Mobile gives you a choice. Touchscreen or QWERTY keyboard. You decide. Also, Google Android Operating System. Again, love all products by Google because they are designed for real people and are simple to use. Why then would the Android be any different? (I hope!). Love the fact that it is an open-source system which allows developers the ability to go out there and create thousands of different applications. Any developers looking for their next project? A word processing or spreadsheet software for the T-Mobile would be fantastic! Appears to be a reasonable price, although I guess that remains to be seen and will vary from region to region, while giving you all you’d expect in a smartphone these days, built-in camera, 3G, 1 GB storage etc.
While I know there are people who would swear by their iPhone or Blackberries and I happy that it works really well for those people. Based on my personal lifestyle I am all about choice, and as far as I can see T-Mobile gives users just that.. and lots of it.
Didn’t get a chance to watch the Emmy’s this year as I was busy helping my sister get settled into her new apartment on Sunday night. However, I did catch the winners on the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences website. I am not always a big fan of the Emmy’s as typically the only awards ceremony I watch is the Oscar’s. (Haven’t missed it in about 4 years! Oscar party next year anyone?) but am very excited that Mad Men won overall Best Drama Series and 6 awards in total. So proud. As well, Jeremy Piven as Ari Gold on Entourage picked up an award for outstanding supporting actor in a comedy series. Absolutely LOVE him!.
Seeing alot of press around 30 Rock and Tina Fey, (who is awesome!) lately and wondering if I should start getting into it. Apparently, its really good, and considering how much I adore Tina Fey perhaps it might be interesting.
Seems to be a lot of great stuff going on in television programming these days (American shows, but other countries including Canada are in that mix no doubt) I wonder if people watch more TV during an economic crisis than going out to the movies? How much of an effect does the economic cycle have on people’s entertainment preferences?
Granted there has been more of a switch to net-based programmes in recent years. Clay Shirky, a new media professor in NY suggests that by 2011 net-based tv programs will have more viewers then TV shows distributed on traditional TV networks . This, however, is an ongoing issue and has little to do with how a Bear or Bull market economy affects or TV viewership.
Economic downturns certainly have an effect on the number of programs available to watch on television. As advertising revenues decline in a Bear market, so does the amount of dollars broadcasters/networks are able to spend picking up new shows.
But now if we think about it from a viewers perspective, if I (as said viewer) am faced with a clamp down on my discretionary income due to a downturn in the economy, then I am going to have to think really hard about whether the latest film release is worth the $12 plus popcorn and pop and gas and babysitting. Despite the fact that the economy is in a recession, I still need to be entertained in some way non? albeit a less expensive way. And am I really ready to call the cable company and ask them to cancel my subscription to The Discovery Channel, The Movie Network, HBO etc.? probably not. Thus, I will probably resort to watching what is on television as a source of entertainment. Probably more so when I don’t have the discretionary income to go out 3-4 times a week. Oddly, shouldn’t that mean that advertisers should be spending more on TV commercials rather than less in times of economic crisis? since more people are at home watching TV?
Bear Market= TV Watching
Bull Market= Film Watching
and it doesn’t hold the same appeal for me as it does for others. Maybe it can happen with the right product, but I would still see these two forms of EA getting boring really quick. I suppose that’s the thing with new technologies and in particular Facebook Applications, once you’ve played with them for a while, they become like forgot toys never to be played with again.
