In 2006 Conan O’Brien was on Charlie Rose and made a comment to the effect of being in “The Golden Age of TV”. I’ve heard several people in the last few years mention this Golden Age of Television – the idea that with high competition from a multitude of cable/satellite channels and saturation of the internet, networks are being forced to break out of the mold. It makes sense, right?
I watch a lot of television, and I think we are in yet another Golden Age of Television*. However, this might be the last Golden Age of Television on the actual television. And by that I mean the next wave of great episodic, small screen, short format, motion pictures (my new definition of TV Shows**) will be all digital and delivered in a variety of avenues, not just on your TV set.
The networks (finally) realize this, so they’re pushing out the best content in years to keep you tuned in, but I think this latest Golden Age of Television is helping accelerate the migration. The shows are so good and so discussed – both online and off – that normal viewers are changing their behavior to consume them. Now, admittedly, I’m not a normal viewer, but I do use several of the outlets that are becoming more commonplace. I have Tivo, ReplayTV, and Apple TV. I also “Slingbox” from a DirectTV/DVR and watch YouTube on my iPhone (or Wii ) when I’m bored. But most recent - and now my most popular choice - is watching shows directly from network websites.
This last outlet is the one I want to discuss in more detail, because I believe it’s the future, and possibly the only place networks will be able to run when TV as we know it goes away. Now, I mentioned watching shows online as being a recent thing, but it isn’t really for me or anyone else, I just mean that it’s finally a viable option. Basically, all the other things I mentioned, from Tivo to Apple TV, are crutches, hybrids, mere toys that are helping me along until the inter-web catches up. It’s close now with the quality of video players that are showing up on network sites and the increase in bandwidth to homes across the land. At this point we’re only lacking a way to easily put these sites up on our current TVs; my Apple TV*** and Wii get me close but not quite there (and that’s a whole article in itself).
So why are network (and other online) video players the future? It’s the ability to control content and display sophisticated advertising, as well as other benefits like tracking, ease-of-use, social networking, and instant gratification which the web provides. On-demand content through cable/satellite providers come close, but lack some of these aspects. And by the time they catch up, the game will have changed again.
Back to networks. Through my online video player, not only can I serve up specifc episodes instantly, I can incorporate ranking and recommendations from the community, promote other content properties that I own, and pull in complentary content (games, wikis,etc…) that reinforce the brand.
Example: I can watch Burn Notice on USA and sit through all the commercials (12 - 16 minutes worth), I could watch it on AppleTV for $1.99 through iTunes, or I could watch it on usanetwork.com (1 - 3 minutes of commercials, never more than 30 seconds per break). Even if I Tivo’d Burn Notice (which I do on occasion) assuming I remembered or had it scheduled, I still have to fast forward through 8 or so commercial breaks, which typically equates to more time fast forwarding than the 3 minutes online. When I do end up watching on USA’s site, I’m served up ads that I usually don’t mind watching because they’re more targeted. I also get links to a Burn Notice game, Burn Notice character profiles, and I get to see a funny clip for Monk (which I might start watching now).
I’ll touch more on this in the days to come; I’d really like to look at what networks are doing right and doing wrong in the way they broadcast their content on the web. For now, I would love any comments you have, especially video players and sites you’ve visited. If nothing else, go watch something: NBC, USA, TBS, ABC.
*All you TV historians will probably classify this as the “Third: Golden Age of Television”.
**Give me some slack, it’s a work in progress. I probably need to take out “small screen” once my new contacts make it irrelevant.
*** If I could bring myself to hack my Apple TV I think I would have the technology part of this equation solved, but I don’t want to risk it and it’s not easy for the average user.
Facebook was launched when my older sister was in her senior year of college. I remember her saying she avoided the social network because she “didn’t need another distraction.” That’s an admirable decision; I personally have spent many hours browsing bumper stickers to avoid term papers. I’ve had multiple friends suspend their profiles for months at a time because they “can’t get on a computer without getting on Facebook.”
A recent survey stated that “22% of firms ban social networking websites.” Their reason? Facebook lowers productivity. I completely agree. However, what would all of us do if we couldn’t get on Facebook once or twice (OK, ten times) a day? The end of the article does note that some firms use Facebook for actual work purposes, so a ban would not be feasible. Here at Engauge, we need to have access to Facebook to study it as marketers. So what’s next? Will there be a way for firms to add a filter to their employees’ Facebook pages so that only “approved” pages can be viewed?
I think it would be interesting to conduct an experiment where you could baseline the productivity of employees at work and college students at school. Then, suspend their Facebook accounts and re-measure their productivity after a few months. Are they more productive now? Or, did they find another way to procrastinate? (Word of Warning: good luck finding participants, I know I won’t be volunteering!)
Now take a step back and think about this. We’re addicted to a social network. Not a website that tells us what’s going on in the world, but a social network that tells us that “Sally is excited for the weekend” and which of your friends are attending (or “maybe attending”) the party on Saturday night. Have you ever tried to explain Facebook to someone who isn’t on Facebook? Chances are you got the same look my parents gave me, which is utter confusion and astonishment at the amount of time I’ve invested being on Facebook.
So why do we invest all of this time and energy into Facebook and other social networks (keep in mind that many of us are maintaining multiple social networking accounts)? Below is a picture of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow says that there are five levels of needs; each level needs to be fulfilled before we can move on (and up) to the next level.
So if you’re on Facebook, it can be assumed that your Physiological and Safety needs have been met, otherwise, how and why are you on a computer? The next level is Love and Belongingness (i.e., Social Needs). Does Facebook really make us a sense of love and belongingness? I believe it does. When your friends write on your wall or send you a bumper sticker, it means they were thinking about you. Come on, admit it, you love getting notification emails from Facebook.
Recent research has indicated that in-world interactions in virtual spaces have improved users real world social skills. So I believe that Facebook, while still the primary cause of my procrastination, has its benefits. Facebook is similar to other virtual worlds or online games in this respect: it gives shy users a level playing field. While some people may be too shy to go out and interact with strangers, the use of a computer makes the situation much less intimidating.
So in the end, we all must decide for ourselves if Facebook is a friend or foe. I vote friend!
As a huge fan (and three-year member) of the social networking site Facebook, I try to keep in the loop when updates are being made. Back in March (2008), Facebook noted that they would be making updates to the Facebook Profile. They created a “Facebook Profiles Preview” page to allow users to subscribe to updates regarding these profile changes.
Every week, The Facebook Team provided updates to their most loyal fans, seeking their thoughts and feedback on the changes being made. Screen shots were uploaded followed by over 600 comments with “I love it” or “I hate it” responses of varying degrees. As adjustments were made, they provided commentary and updated screen shots.
Yesterday they sent out an update noting that the new profile has “finally arrived” for general use. They’re slowly rolling out the new layout and are still seeking feedback from users. Within the next few weeks the “trial” period will end and everyone will move over to the new version. If you’re interested in checking out the new layout for yourself, you can do so here.
When Facebook first decided to change the layout everything, my initial thought was “Why mess with a good thing?” but quickly remembered the advancements made with the news feed, applications, etc. I figured I’d give the new layout a chance, and I found that I don’t hate it. It will definitely take a day or two to get used to the changes:
The biggest difference is the layout and spacing of the different sections. In the old layout, content seems concise and put together. In the new layout, there’s a lot of white space on the page. I don’t know that I feel it’s necessarily cleaner…but it does take advantage of the amount of space on the page. Rather than having the secondary navigation (search and applications) on the left, everything is now on the right. Moving the search bar to the top right corner follows standard site design, so it’s not surprising to see this move. And the newest navigation change is moving from the ‘Profile’ button to a link using the user’s name.
The new profile design, in my opinion, is cleaner. You’re not forced to have all of your profile content on one page. It’s broken up to help you sort out the information you’re looking for. Rather than scrolling down the page to read someone’s wall – it’s the first tab you see. From there, you have the option of filtering what you see “All Posts”, “Posts by User”, or “Posts by Others.”
Next is the Info tab, which contains your basic, personal and information, education/work history, as well as groups/pages. Standard information, but not the most important to the users.
Photos are by far my favorite thing to look at/share on Facebook. Within the new layout, they’ve made it easier to access your friends’ photos, as well as your own, since they’re now located on their own tab too.
With the addition of applications, profile pages started getting messier and messier. Fear not, with the new profile layout – they’re on their own tab and no longer on the main profile view.
Overall, I’m pleased with the new look and feel of the site. The one thing that I haven’t seen Facebook promoting is that the changes are going to occur. For those users that aren’t part of the “Facebook Profile Preview” group – there was a bit of confusion when I mentioned the new layout. I think Facebook should look at past roll-outs and realize that making sudden changes that impact the site will cause uproar amongst users. They’ve noted the change will be in the coming weeks, but I think they should start preparing everyone for what those changes will be.
Until recently, I didn’t understand the hype that surrounds virtual worlds. It was not until reading a recent article on virtual in-world therapy that I realized the incredible opportunities that virtual worlds have to offer.
People use in-world therapy sessions for a number of reasons. In-world therapy has become so popular thanks to the ease of finding someone who shares your concerns and/or issues. According to Second Life’s Health Support Coalition, there are more than 70 health support groups. Second Life offers islands that were created by medical institutions, such as Jokaydia II by the Online Therapy Institute. Other support group and therapeutic islands were created by peers looking for a cathartic outlet.
Coming from a small town, rare diseases were, well, rare. It’s safe to say that when my friend from high school was diagnosed with Lupus during our junior year, our friends had trouble relating. We all obviously cared for her, but we couldn’t come close to giving her the type of advice and support that her friends in a virtual world were. She met people who, like her, had just been diagnosed, as well as people who have been living with Lupus for years. The article that I read made me realize why, even after all these years she remains so committed to her in-world support groups.
Additionally, the anonymity factor is extremely important. Being from a small town, I understand that there is no such thing as a secret. Everyone knows everyone’s business. So when a mother of three children goes to group therapy for substance abuse, the rumor mill goes into overdrive. In order to avoid having her dirty laundry aired in front of the whole town, she keeps her mouth shut and a smile on her face. Now, thanks to virtual worlds, she has an anonymous outlet for her inner turmoil.
Unfortunately, many health care institutions still don’t recognize many psychological disorders. Even when health insurance companies recognize behavioral health issues, they limit the number of visits to a therapist and the client usually has high copayments. Yet people suffering from anxiety and depression may have found an outlet. Without the added stress of expensive doctors visits and medication, people can let out their frustrations and worries during their in-world therapy sessions. Most sessions are peer-based, so like my friend with Lupus, these patients are able to learn from others who are fighting the same battle. Other sessions are monitored by medical associations.
The cathartic relief found at in-world support groups rivals the same results patients get from spending hundreds of dollars with a therapist. Furthermore, the convenience factor is unbeatable. Need to talk at 1am? Chances are good that someone else is in the same boat. Can’t get away from work or the kids? A support group is just a few clicks away.
So what’s next for in-world therapy? Real-world therapists recognize the opportunities and have started to offer their direct services in virtual worlds…for a price, of course. So will in-world sessions with a therapist become more popular than traditional visits? Maybe not right away, but this will definitely be an interesting trend to watch.
Attending the first ever MediaPost social media conference (OMMA Social) made me feel good. Why? Because it’s good to know that the experts in the industry have just as many questions about social marketing as I do.
It was an interesting day to be sure. The conference re-affirmed much of what I knew alredy, and provided a few new insights as well. I thought I would share key take aways from this conference, in case you were wondering if you should dip your toe into the world of social marketing.
Users are systematically ignoring traditional advertising both on and offline.
As social media tactics are just beginning to emerge, learning and optimizing is key.
Because advertising has been in the forefront of media for such a long time, people are used to thinking that if millions and millions of eyeballs aren’t looking at your messaging, then the efforts are inconsequential. What they’re missing is the value in the relationships that are created through conversations.
To facilitate / create social marketing the following groups need to be involved:
PR
Media
Creative
Old metrics of ROI / RFM / CPM do not work with these new tactics. Measurement must be developed on a case-by-case basis depending on the campaign goals.
Walking away from a social media campaign isn’t an option
And finally: How do you know when a social media campaign succeeds?
10.”You get it on Oprah, and you’re done,” said one OMMA Social speaker.
A huge goal to reach, as I’m sure Oprah has a long list of things to talk about already .
But I’m interested in hearing from you – have you started any conversations through social marketing yet? And what are you seeing?
In a recent alert on Jakob Nielsen’s site, the “guru of usability” helps us understand the really important website analytics and how to interpret them better. He then helps us understand the ways in which to improve our analytics, particularly the dreaded Bounce Rate.
The bounce rate of a site is measured by calculating those who enter through any page and leave from the same page versus those who enter through any page and click-through to another page.
Recent research has shown that an increasing number of people are entering sites not though the home page, but through some deeper, interior page. This can be due to the increase of social bookmark sites like Digg and Del.icio.us, which points the web user to particular content. As a result, the bounce rate of most sites is going up.
To better understand one’s own bounce rate and how to reduce it, Nielsen recommends understanding the bounce rates of particular visitors. Alas, not all bounce rates are equal, just as not all visitors are equal.
There are basically 4 categories of visitors:
1. Those entering from the likes of Digg. These are the least important to you because they are a fickle bunch and will have unusually high bounce rates.
2. Those who enter from direct links from other websites. These visitors are in essence receiving a recommendation from some other site. People who follow these recommendations may not have been looking for your site or product directly. They have some degree of interest, but if the usability of the site is poor or does not match their expectation, the bounce rate will be high.
3. Those entering from search engine traffic (whether it be SEO or paid links) will have a specific interest in your brand and your product. They are actively searching and wanting to engage with your company. Nielsen state, “If they leave immediately, there is something wrong with your landing pages.” Check your usability, your copywriting, and don’t forget to modify keywords.
4. Loyal users are those that return repeatedly to your site. This is your core consumer audience. If they return repeatedly, they may only be checking for new content on the site. Upon finding it, they will engage longer with your site than many other visitors. As long as they keep coming back, it’s okay if this user has a low page count.
All in all, Nielsen recommends shifting your attention from the “unique visitor” as the gold standard for a site’s success. Because the majority of unique visitors will be of the #1 and #2 variety above. Instead, count loyal customers and convert them with new content, new products, new special offers just for them. And try your best to convert the unique visitor into a repeat visitor.
Make sure the site doesn’t have confusing navaigation and is light on the copywriting. Insure that there is a clear path for the visitor to follow and provide them with next steps. Don’t force them to guess where the special product or offer is, expose it.
Google finally has an answer to Second Life. Their virtual world, called Lively, is a browser based world that you can bet will integrate all the Googley things we love (search, gmail, documents, etc.).
There are three reasons I always thought Second Life was going to fail. First, the search functionality in Second Life is about as bad as it could be. No doubt Google will fix that problem. Another problem with Second Life is that it isn’t browser based which I think severely limits the amount of people that will be willing to try it. And in the end, Second Life has a pretty steep learning curve. You spend the first few hours trying to learn how to fly and navigate, all the while being propositioned by naked avatars to do things you aren’t even sure are possible. The great thing about Google is that they consistently produce products that are intuitive to the user.
Unfortunately Lively isn’t available for Mac yet so I can’t play with it, so if anyone out there is able to test it and try it out, I’d love to know how it compares to Second Life.
Last week news broke that Adobe is working with Google and Yahoo to allow search engines to access content within Flash files or SWF file formats. In essence, Adobe released a code in the form of a SWF library that allowed these search engines to crawl and index text that’s embedded into the Flash file in almost any language (NOTE: bidirectional languages such as Hebrew and Arabic are currently not accessible).
I’m sure that Flash developers rejoiced at this news since text within Adobe Flash files has been invisible to search engines up until today’s advancement. But the question that comes to mind is whether this news is actually significant (since I’m blogging about it you would think that I feel that it is). In my mind, I can see three things that will come out of this change. These include:
Additional Competitive Pressure on Microsoft
In case you didn’t know, Microsoft and Adobe are at war over the Rich Internet Application development market. In April of 2007, Microsoft released Silverlight, a web browser plugin that allows developers to combine crisp animation and multimedia sound to create a rich experiences, to compete with Adobe Flash. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Flash is found on more than 98% of internet-enabled desktops, making Microsoft’s task of unseating Flash quite a feat. Now it is common knowledge that there’s little love between Microsoft and Yahoo or Google so in my opinion, Adobe is just using their search engine friendly Flash format to further drive a wedge between these companies and solidify their market share.
Search engines take many factors into account in determining the rankings of a website. Since content within Flash files could not be accessible by search engines, interactive marketers could easily sway clients, who begged for Flash-based sites, to use AJAX in the site construction since it provided a search engine friendly way of developing robust text animations. With the announcement by Adobe, there’s been an outcry by some of the best known SEO experts (specifically Bruce Clay) about a resurgence of websites built entirely of Flash because now the text is accessible. While I can see why Bruce may be worried (I thought of the same concern when I read the news), I think that he forgot the basic rule of search engine optimization: highly ranked sites are composed of multiple pages that have unique, non-repetitive content. So for those thinking that they can build a site entirely of Flash, they’ll quickly realize that their Flash site will be composed of a single page and that goes against the rule above. So while I can’t put it past some folks to develop Flash-based websites, the trend to avoid content-rich Flash develop will likely remain at or near current levels.
Ace in the Hole for Google and Yahoo
While the first two deal with short term benefits to the search engine giants, I also believe that Google and Yahoo are viewing the a bigger value (that may not be exploitable today) in being able to search Flash files. The one area that both companies share is in their video sharing sites (Yahoo! Video and Google’s YouTube). Neither companies are able to sufficiently capitalize on the strong growth of online videos since the content within these videos is not readable to search engines. While the current Flash indexing advancement does not allow for Flash videos (which are FLV format) to be accessible by search engines, one could imagine that after this trial run both Google and Yahoo will ask Adobe to make the indexing of FLV a reality. I would also imagine that Google and Yahoo will look to buy some sort of Voice-to-Text technology so that can read their video assets and leverage them in search advertising. If you’ve looked at my blog entries you’ll know that I’ve beaten recently on Google for the lack of new search advertising assets but with this advancement one can see that there’s new value in video.
Do you ever wish that all of the things you desire could be found on a “one-stop shop” site? Lucky for virtual world enthusiasts, I think I might have found the one-stop jackpot of virtual worlds. Small Worlds is a 3D virtual environment that combines multiple virtual media forms into one cohesive online world. Small Worlds runs in your web browser, so there is no downloading of software onto your desktop. This will appeal to many people who do not want to clutter up their memory by downloading virtual world software.
Because Small Worlds is targeted towards preteens and up, it is likely that many of its users have had prior experience with Webkinz. Similar to Webkinz, users have the ability to design a living space for their avatar, adorn the living space with furniture and various décor, and invite friends to check out their virtual home. However, Small Worlds has differentiated itself from other virtual worlds by embracing the concept of integration and taken virtual living spaces one step further. Avatars may invite friends to watch YouTube on virtual televisions, view Flickr pictures on virtual picture frames and listen to last.fm on virtual radios that decorate your avatar’s living space.
While still in beta testing, content in the Small Worlds virtual environment is created by site administrators, though Small Worlds representatives have hinted that users will have the ability to create and modify content in the future. Just like in Second Life, users will be able to create places, clothing, vehicles….the possibilities are endless. Similar to other virtual worlds, users will be able to sell the virtually created content to other online avatars to make real world money.
As if those two worlds integrated weren’t enough, Small Worlds also plans on being a virtual world recognized for social interaction, casual gaming and media consumption. Like I said before, Small Worlds sounds like the “one-stop shop” for everything you might need from a virtual world. The only complaint I have about the Small Worlds Beta, is the navigation within the virtual world. All navigation is done by mouse click and is sometimes hard to see where you are going or to click the desired location within the virtual environment. However, the navigation is a small obstacle for the Small Worlds creators to overcome.
After spending a long day navigating through Small Worlds watching YouTube videos and chatting with friend avatars, there’s nothing I like more than relaxing in my virtual hot tub with my dog Patty Mayonnaise nearby.
At Spunlogic, we have a lot of great experience and unique ideas to share. From work with clients to new approaches and trends, in this award winning blog you'll find Spunlogic experts sharing their opinions and ideas on all aspects of interactive marketing.
ability to design a living space for their avatar, adorn the living space with furniture and various décor, and invite friends to check out their virtual home. However, Small Worlds has differentiated itself from other virtual worlds by embracing the concept of integration and taken virtual living spaces one step further. Avatars may invite friends to watch 
