If I Can Dream is probably the biggest Internet/social media/network-style crossover programming we’ve seen so far. The show’s premier on Hulu (see above) doesn’t do it justice, but this summary on Mashable offers a fine explanation of how the episodic nature of the show will integrate with social media beyond Hulu.

So Mashable pretty much covers the bases on the cross-platform brilliance of this show, but I’m asking why Hulu even did this in the first place? Here’s one possible reason, and I’m sure it’s one of many.

Hulu has to license all its content from the networks, studios and other copyright holders with whom it partners. This can get expensive. And it’s risky if the content providers start pulling hot titles off Hulu. By co-creating and hosting its own content, Hulu saves licensing fees and, more important, controls its own destiny by maintaining exclusive access to a premium show. And I can only imagine that this also lets Hulu keeps a larger share of ad revenue generated against the videos on its site. This is particularly important because CPMs on online video are already too high and facing downward pressures, and Hulu’s rates in particular are perceived as inflated. At least if ad rates are dropping, Hulu can try to soothe the pain by reducing its payout to the networks.

From Mashable:

“The show’s tagline is ‘Welcome to the New Hollywood.’ That refers to the show’s premise — it’s about a group of young artists seeking to become the next big stars in Los Angeles — but it’s also easy to read as a mission statement for the show’s presentation and model.

The house that the five cast members will live in is equipped with 50 cameras that will live stream to the web for free 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That’s accessible at ificandream.com, and it’s accompanied by a ticker at the bottom of the site that announces when and where interesting events will be happening along with the current weather and time in LA where the house is located.

The cast’s Twitter , Facebook and MySpace accounts are linked and chock full of content. The music they’re (supposedly) listening to will stream on iheart radio. Short clips will be posted on Hulu every day.

In an interview at the Hulu blog, executive producer Michael Herwick summarized the project this way:

It’s about creating sort of a 21st century platform for legitimate, up-and-coming talent. It’s such a broader form of entertainment, where you have the 24-hour live streams, you have the weekly episodes on Hulu, and you have all this video-on-demand content. It’s very interactive and it’s very much in tune with what young people are doing these days. They digest the internet, they’re socially interactive, and they’re shooting their own videos on YouTube and getting discovered. We’re just saying that’s where it’s at right now, and we’re creating a project around that.”

srdash:

fletter:

Anthony Burrill  (via counter-objects.co.uk)

srdash:

fletter:

Anthony Burrill (via counter-objects.co.uk)

The City of New York should embed this video on its homepage, NOW. I don’t live in New York and I never have. I retain an outsider’s perspective of rotating fascination, romance and, I must admit, occasional distaste. But when I watched Sam O’Hare’s faux-mini film of a day in the life of the city, the only thing I felt was pure love. The soundtrack by Human only heightens its power. I’m really excited to go back there next week.

Nokia holds the trophy for the most amusing OOH ad of the moment. They created this larger-than-life signpost that points the way to local attractions and businesses in London. Best of all, it’s fed by consumers’ mobile text and online activity, making it a glittering example of the strengths of combining digital and analog, online and offline. Moreover, rather than talk AT consumers, this ad requires that they talk WITH it. Without our input, it can’t possibly live up to its purpose of pointing people in the directions that they need to go. It grants us full control.  

What happens when a brand begins to talk with and recognizes the power and integrity of its followers? Suddenly, a giant signpost ceases to be a blight on the skyline (like so many giant billboards) and becomes a beacon for millions.

Google’s autocomplete for the phrase “how many” is a grim reminder of death and destruction. Depressing. (Sigh…)

Google’s autocomplete for the phrase “how many” is a grim reminder of death and destruction. Depressing. (Sigh…)

"Hats off to Murdoch. He’s serious about print journalism. He’s the last guy standing who believes in it."

Former Times Editor Joe Lelyveld

"The difference between a spark of genius and an idle daydream is what you do with the idea.

We hear a lot about the power of ideas, the power of inspiration. Truth is, the perfect idea counts for little by itself. What matters is execution: what you do yourself, what you share with others, what you finish before you go to bed every night."

- Jeffrey Tang, The Art of Great Things

(via heyamberrae)

In my earlier post, I asked whether people would pay to read brands online — whether as consumers of digital content we still develop deep affinities for specific content providers. This new study from Pew suggests that most consumers don’t turn to a single news brand online; in fact, 57% get their Web-based news from 2 to 5 sources, while just 21% regularly turn to one source for news and information. This at least indicates the challenges of building an online news brand, when so many people retrieve news from a mulitude of sources (not to mention the vast number that receives news through social networks or email forwards).

A telling quote from the study:

“Moreover, many do not have strong loyalty to particular online sources. When asked whether they have a favorite online news source, the majority of online news users (65%) say they do not. Among those who do, the most popular sites are those of major news organizations such as … CNN and Fox.”

When books become hyperlinked

Penguin recently unveiled its new e-book prototypes for the iPad, and as a McNugget would say, I’m lovin’ it! Here’s why:

1) Books are becoming more like games — which is a great thing; it means interactive learning and reading will flourish. If you caught Jesse Schell’s recent talk about social games at DICE 2010, you’re probably at least a little on board with this notion that gaming can improve our communities by using rewards systems and rich technology to encourage positive behavior. Now imagine if every illustrated children’s title carried interactive elements that would enhance the learning experience through game elements. Moreover, picture a how-to book that not only taught you how to do something through engaging interactive media, but because this book is always tied back to a Web-enabled device, readers can contribute their own content in a social context. For example, gardeners could use the helpful videos of a gardening e-book to raise the best tomatoes in America, or the most brilliant roses. All of their exploits are captured on video or Flickr photos and uploaded to the e-book, and made available in realtime. The winner could receive a year’s worth of seeds, a set of author-branded garden tools, or a nice fat cash prize. Runners up could track points on a leader board and compete for the next round of prizes, which will be dispensed based on a combination of user votes and author judgment. Suddenly, a book is more than a static piece of text; it harbors community. The book is the base product, the catalyst of content that drives this action and fuels the passions of thousands of readers. But it becomes bigger than itself. All thanks to the new capabilities of digitized, linked content. I also wonder what sort of price an e-book like this can command, if it promises a wealth of social, rich media experiences.

2) What does this mean for the role of authors and publishers? Companies like Vook have already produced enhanced e-books with video content, all of which is compatible with the iPhone and, I can only imagine, the iPad. So whereas for decades cookbooks were largely the work of one or a couple devoted writers, suddenly now they are a collaborative effort between the author, a production company like Vook, traditional publishing houses, and any talent that might appear in the videos. For example, Vook’s recent collaboration with Woman’s Day includes several recipe and technique videos that, while shot and edited by professional filmmakers, feature users as the on-camera talent.

3) And what about e-books that link to outside sources? For example, a book about the American Civil War that links to Wikipedia or a Ken Burns film, or Library of Congress videos about Lincoln? When books become hyperlinked, open, collaborative projects, who is the author? And given that these products could sit on the Web and evolve over time, has the idea of “editions” become obsolete? Will we “buy” iterations of books, or download them as app updates? The possibilities just boggle my mind.

I only hope that publishers and device-makers always seek the frontier of possibility, pushing for new ways to build the business and improve the experience for consumers.

DISCLOSURE: Many book publishers, including Penguin, are personal clients. While I personally don’t work for or do business with Vook, both Vook and my employer TurnHere share a founder. The companies occasionally do business together.

How do advertisers know so much about you? Elves. Tiny, pixel-sized elves embedded in your computer screen. Watching you as they make secret cookies. At least that’s what I think this Quantcast guy’s talking about.

1 of 24
Themed by: Hunson
Powered by: Tumblr