Digital Dish

It’s finally crunch time on the show project I’ve been developing. It’s out being pitched and there has been some pretty good early interest so far. I can’t wait to find out if anybody buys it, and, especially, whether the interactive components I tied to it will appeal to network executives.

As I mentioned before, I’ve always wanted to create media and entertainment projects that bridge the gap between old platforms and the Internet. I would love for the show and its interactive concept to become a model for what can work in the business. We’ll see!

Speaking of the business, last Wednesday was my five-month anniversary of expanding into entertainment.

When I ask myself what has stood out in making the move from the Web world, it has been the many layers to the industry, and how revenue is always the first thing on everybody’s agenda.

It’s a long ways away from the mindset of “Build it first, monetize later” that you hear/see on the Internet side. I have since adopted this mentality and can only say it’s been for the better of my business efforts.

I also understand why the entertainment business has all those layers to it.

I can relate to the many producers and writers who want to create Web content. It’s incredibly hard to make and sell a television show. There are only so many slots a network can fill. I have met with several in the industry who are eager to create ideas they’ve had, concepts that were pitched and shot down, etc. It’s really fun to see people get excited about the possibilities of the Web like this!

It makes me wonder if someday it will be more competitive for networks to find writers, producers, etc. We’re probably a long way from that.

No less, I definitely love the entrepreneurial spirit and climate in Hollywood right now. It’s fantastic!

In all, I’m having a blast, but we’ll see how things go with my projects.

I do sometimes miss writing about things like handbags and patent yellow flats. I might have to create a fashion show next!

Next week, off to New York—I’ll be blogging Digital Dish from there.

If there’s one important element about the internet, it’s that what we do now can set things up for the future. I’ve posted in the past about how the web is a sophisticated communications structure designed to merge multiple existing platforms (telephone, TV, etc.) into one, and that industries must learn to marry their audiences to it in order to successfully adapt.

One of the web’s goals, by design, is to merge into broadcast television. We are seeing the very early signs of this now.

What this looks like if you peer ahead: television as we know it, only better. More stable, more accessible, and most importantly, more open. It’ll pipe right into your 52” flat panel, your handheld’s new video-ready screen, or over your traditional computer–anywhere you go.

It will open up the opportunity for exciting new “television” networks, like Strike.TV, and enable greater capacity for a wider variety of shows. Right now, it’s extremely difficult to get a series made, as there are only so many slots a network can fill. With the web, this will be expanded. Model.Live is an early example.

It all sounds very exciting but there’s one critical flaw: it needs revenue models.

I read two New York Times articles today about Web television, both of which were well written and informative, citing a lot of the key people, including a few this TV/Internet blogger considers pioneers with the right mindset.

It was exciting to read both stories. It means the path the Internet was designed to take dozens of years ago is actually starting to materialize in the market.

But also, in reading both articles, I couldn’t help but get the sense that they stemmed more from research and interviews than a real sense or understanding of the Web TV market. One article left out two big elements in the webisode/professional content market, while the other didn’t match the things heard or seen among networks regarding the Web. Neither referenced anything related to the development of IP-ready television sets or what the Internet is designed to do in relation to television distribution. One of them should have.

It’s not a failure on the part of either publication or any journalists or bloggers. Web TV is new, the Internet as a platform is new, and it is going to take time for everybody in business to adapt and adjust to it. It’s complicated stuff.

As I write this, I’m watching Vogue’s Model Live webisode. Surprisingly, I remembered the Vogue.tv URL and hit it rather than going to Bebo (perhaps a testament to what Vogue has done well).

After a too-long page load, I’m on the site. I never understand why companies don’t listen to what was learned in the 1990s about usability. Not everybody is on high-speed, and Flash sites load slowly. While design is important, overly designed or stylized pages please you more than us.

The interface is smart, clean and shows me exactly what to do. I would have opted for left-to-right navigation with the show player as the first thing my eyes laid on. Instead it was the store, which maybe was intentional.

I won’t lie. I wanted to know what the store was about.

When you think about it, reality programming is kind of a gift. It’s less expensive to produce, can be done fairly efficiently, has nearly endless ideas and subjects and, most important, audiences seem to like it. It can be done in different formats: docu-reality, scripted reality, competitions, etc. If you’re lucky to nail a winning concept, it can spin out ancillary revenue streams and cross-platform capabilities.

Most important, it’s Web TV-friendly. I think it has the potential to help migrate online audiences to adopt small-screen television.

But, for all the potential reality programming seems to have, finding and creating winning concepts appears challenging. A recent trade magazine article commented about the redundancy of formats, themes and formulas among networks, and how it ultimately was making things feel stale.

More than once, I’ve heard women viewers complain that all reality seemed to paint women in the same light. Many, male or female, who I’ve tapped about the topic have said they feel shows are too silly and sensationalized.

I’m really excited about all of the webisode content announced this week. The most notable element is that it’s mostly coming from big entertainment companies. That’s a good thing because it can mean a healthy ecosystem.

In my last post I mentioned that I wasn’t watching much Internet video, in part because I wasn’t into any of the content, but I’m interested in both the MTV and Vogue magazine shows mentioned in the news this week.

Both are reality format, which is smart for Internet video at the moment. It’s less expensive, can look a little rough and still be palatable, feels familiar to the audience and seems likely to be a natural fit for online.

Vogue’s show seems marketed well. I first learned of it through a print ad in Vanity Fair, then saw it somewhere online a few days later.

I’m writing today’s post from Nassau, Bahamas, where I’ve been grounded due to Tropical Storm Fay hitting Florida. I’m confused about what to expect. Is the airport going to close in Miami? Where is the storm going? And more importantly, should I expect to be able to get home? I’ve been tapping televised and Internet media to try to figure things out.

Nearly every Web page I hit in my efforts offered a video clip in addition to an article. Every time, I skipped the video and went straight to the text.

It got me thinking: I almost never watch video online. I’m the right demographic, Internet-savvy, etc. I tend to be an early adopter—I ditched MySpace for Facebook long ago, and have since left both for Twitter. As a digital consultant and blogger/journalist, I spend nearly half my working hours online.

So why is it, then, that I ignore most Internet video?

There’s nothing interesting on. I don’t care for current webisodes. Truthfully, no series has really piqued my interest. The short news clips on CNN.com catch my attention, but somehow they never seem to load. After an attempt or two, I move on.

The idea of sitting in front of my laptop, let alone my handheld, watching “television” doesn’t appeal to me at all. I know that in the future, traditional televisions will pipe in Web TV shows, but that’s far off at the moment. Unlike the iPhone, my BlackBerry isn’t ideal for watching shows. Also, content is hard to find. The Web is very fragmented and disorganized at the moment.

So how could a network or producer sway me to watch their online stuff?

Create what appeals: Nothing in traditional television gets a green light if it doesn’t fit what development executives believe the audience wants. The same should go for Internet TV content.

Expand the viewpoint: Why is most online content webisodic? Why so much comedy? Most importantly, why isn’t anybody trying anything else? If I were creating shows, it’d be much different than what’s seen now.

Stop “freeing” it: The Internet is vast enough without users having to figure out who is hosting your content. Rather than giving us video “where we want it,” focus on how to drive us to you. It’ll make things so much easier for all.

In the late 1990s, dozens of startup companies saw a future for mobile devices. They knew that we the people (especially business people) would want to have “anytime, anywhere” access to e-mail, the Internet and other documents.

More than half of those companies aren’t even around today. Some had to close their doors without even giving employees notice, or worse, severance. Others held out, like Palm. Very few became success stories.

Were they wrong about mobile? No. They were just too early for the market.

In 1998, the promise of the mobile Web was real, but it was just that: a promise. Despite plenty of mobile-ready devices, the users weren’t there yet and wouldn’t be for some time.

It’s a great example of one of the most important elements of Internet business: timing.

You can see plenty of examples of it in more recent years. Very few MySpace or YouTube clones have done well. On a smaller scale, similar happened with my first start-up, Stylediary.net. Within an eight-month time frame, seven similar companies formed. Most are not in business any longer.

Anything too late to a market won’t stick, while anything too early will more than likely starve as it awaits user adoption.

The reason why it happens, in part, is because the Web is constantly evolving as a technology itself. Where the Internet is in terms of its development plays a role in what’s possible. Other factors, like user adoption and devices, also can take part. It’s one of the hardest elements of Web business. How does one determine what’s early and what’s late in the market?

It takes a look beyond future predictions and toward the immediate. For example, mobile video and Internet gaming are tracking extremely well, with enormous potential. But I don’t believe the supporting technologies are there just yet, or that user adoption is where it needs to be to make initiatives truly viable at the moment.

To quote a February article regarding mobile TV online, “Press releases outnumber viewers.” I believe it. Audiences haven’t yet fully moved to watching Internet video via laptops and PCs, let alone handhelds. Most are still carrying Razr and traditional cell phones, rather than devices that can support initiatives in the capacity that a business would need them to.

Broadband speeds in many parts of the country just aren’t there yet, either.

So what does it mean for entrepreneurs and executives, who may feel pressured to get involved? Relax and know there’s still a little time. Should you have these types of strategies in the queue? Absolutely. Do they need to happen right now? No.

Focus on drawing mass users to your traditional Internet platform (aka Web site) and map mobile and other initiatives for the not-too-distant future. Most importantly, take a lesson from Web 1.0 and look past what’s expected to what is. It’ll help.

In the offline world, we are exposed to and engage with brands just about everywhere we turn. In the online world, it’s a bit different. You never casually pass by MySpace as you might pass a McDonald’s on your way to work. You don’t regularly see Starbucks to the point where you think about it and stop in.

Instead of being seen and heard, brand names are typed into an address bar or search engine. If it’s passed onto another person, it’s spoken, e-mailed, posted or sent via instant message.

This means anything that’s difficult to say or spell, or has unusual wording, can make it difficult to find your company online. It can make or break your online efforts more than you think.

I’ve had a lot of thoughts that don’t exactly make for a whole blog posting lately.

For instance, I think the Google/Seth MacFarlane deal was really bright. An ad’s an ad no matter how you slice and dice it to the audience, but people probably will watch it, and it is a creative play while the market tries to sort itself out. I keep wondering who was behind it—Google? Endeavor? Smart. I want to have drinks with them.

I love the new Web shows coming out from Hollywood veterans. You have to understand, tech/Internet people have been doing this kind of stuff forever, and it’s very nice to see some variation and improvement of stories, content, etc. (both from you and them). I’ve been really impressed with how well some have marketed themselves, too. Good on it! It’s still really early for video online, but early stuff is important.

I’m also excited to see Silicon Valley/tech trying to angle into Hollywood. I heard that Revision3 was in the local press about having dreams of moving into entertainment. Glad to see it. Revision3 is a decent brand with the right idea, even if it’s a little techie for Hollywood/TV.

Confidential to Revision3: Create a few non-tech shows. Make some things that appeal to the same viewers being courted by Disney and CBS.

One thing that’s interesting is that Web projects out of Hollywood are almost entirely episodic, while those out of the Silicon Valley are short, newsy shows. It’s because the latter is cheaper and easier. WallStrip sold to CBS for $5 million. Just saying.

Also in recent news, the idea of magazines producing Web TV shorts on their print stories. Brilliant. What a cool, cool move on content and a smart play by print media in the Internet dog fight. That puts them right smack into the playing field with traditional television for Internet audiences, and that with a slightly slicker card to play, too.

We are so lucky to be riding through a major technological revolution like we are. It’s like the invention of the telephone, only better.