Welcome to Glass House Sign in | Help

New v. Old Media

Ah, some things never change -- the best story is always about conflict, so easy the story almost writes itself, as it does it does in this story looking at old and new media. In several hundred words, it paints the picture of "old" media, mad as hell, starting to fire back at the GooTubes and iTunes of the world. It makes for good copy, and has the added benefit of being at least partially true -- media companies are increasingly worried about the loss or potential loss of revenue for not protecting the media going online, esp. to YouTube and Google.

"[Old media] is being a bit more aggressive in asserting their rights," said Forrester Research entertainment analyst Josh Bernoff.

No kidding, Josh. And I'm not sure I buy into those who make comparisons between the way the music companies blew the digital music revolution and what is happening to video - in the p2p area, there was no revenue and no real middleman. Here, there is -- YouTube (and parent Google) have the potential to make significant dollars off the creative content of others -- this is where the battle is. And this note:

So far, it appears as if old media's hostile posture has only served to dampen buzz, not traffic. The YouTube community reacted swiftly after Viacom pulled its content, with users posting video pleas to boycott the company. According to Internet tracker Hitwise, YouTube's audience actually grew by 7 percent the week after Viacom demanded the site remove its pirated content.

Is just crazy -- I'm sure the traffic did go up, controversy drives traffic, but I'd bet folks looking for a comedy central hit will soon be looking at the comedy central site -- and there go the numbers.

 

Published Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:54 PM by FrankShaw
Tags: ,

Comments

 

Kevin H. Watson said:

It should also be noted that Viacom properties like Comedy Central were providing content online for years before the birth of You Tube.  But of course mentioning that might have weakened the “old media” vs “new media,” “analog” vs. “digital” labels.

But you have to hand it to the copywriter who produced the headline teaser for the Post's main online Business page.  I didn’t know if it was a preview of the article or this summer’s big new Hollywood blockbuster.

February 19, 2007 8:15 AM
 

FrankShaw said:

What's changed is the nature of search -- YouTube showed there was a market for video, and it developed as the center of gravity. Now, there is a value to the aftermarket video, and since people can expect to find it, why not find it on its true home?

February 19, 2007 8:29 AM
 

Kevin H. Watson said:

Very true, I always had a problem with the label of "user generated content"  in this case, it could more  be called user recycled content.

Another consideration will be how producers of television content re-evaluate their rights model.  Studios (not always a single layer) produce programming, which they license to networks for distribution.  The networks in turn re-license that content to affiliates and other platform distributors like cable and satellite.

Will the online distribution be shaped by the networks or will the studios assert the right to go direct to this new channel?  You Tube is also not a first line distribution channel, its more like a new path to syndication, which throws another wrench in the debate.

It'll certainly make for an interesting media evolution.

February 19, 2007 8:59 AM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

WE reserves the right to refuse to post or to edit or remove, in whole or in part, any Information that is, in WE's sole discretion, unacceptable, undesirable or in violation of these rules.
Submit

Syndication



» Blogs that link here
» View my profile

Powered by Technorati