justin.tv p0wns King Content

enric wrote this 1:48 am:

In NewTeeVee's March 29, 2007 article, "Eisner: The Web Doesn't Change Content", Michael Eisner makes the same contention as Barry Diller that content is king across all media. Michael Eisner:

I don’t look at it as web content. It is being distributed in a different mode. Hopefully [people] will forget whether it’s sitting on their lap or on a screen or on a desk, they’ll just be engaged in what the characters are saying. I don’t care about the technology, except that it opens up eyes to content.
Barry Diller:

"There is not that much talent in the world," Diller said. "There are very few people in very few closets in very few rooms that are really talented and can't get out."

"People with talent and expertise at making entertainment products are not going to be displaced by 1,800 people coming up with their videos that they think are going to have an appeal."

Now I love the p2p DVD quality downloads of Veoh's "Battlestar Gallactica". But what appears to be missing from Eisner's and Diller's perspectives is that a mass conversation system has existed as long as radio, film, and television. First as telegraph, then telephone and now with the internet. But it isn't until recently that Doc Searls, Jeff Jarvis, Richard MacManus, et. al. have clearly and popularly conceptualized the net as conversation.

With the convergence of film/television media with telephone technology in the internet, conversation enters into the media milieu. The dynamic of unreal and scripted reality-tv explodes into actual reality tv of justin.tv. The tech geek, Justin, who probably couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag to write compelling content has constant avid viewers, traditional media coverage. There are no writers, producers, actors or editors. Viewers are in a conversation with justin.tv in chat, in person by showing up in a location of his daily itinerary, calling him on his cell phone, and so forth.

The traditional media addage of "content is king" now has a powerful new competitor in conversation media.

Tags: , , , .

Defining Videoblogging

enric wrote this 6:15 am:

Interestingly the discussion on Amanda leaving Rocketboom has branched into a defining videoblogging. Now I see accurate models of entities as powerful and useful. For instance, Mathematical models of architecture allow the freedom to design new and revolutionary structures often in a few years. Prior to this in the Middle Ages, it took generations to build a cathedral. While the cathedrals are beautiful, there are few and large groups of people devoted their entire lives to constructing them.

However the danger in defining is dictating ones non-objective views and taste on an endeavor. This is what appears to be the purpose of some who'd like to narrow "videoblogging" to a style or method like "personal" videoblogs. This would be a hinderance to the growth and vibrancy of videoblogging for which a lack of stated definition is preferable. It is better to trust the wisdom of individuals acting in aggregate practicaly toward videoblogging than imposing a definition that excludes expressions.

However, I see that videoblogging has been around long enough with a large enough population for me to take a stab at a accurate definition. There are two aspects to videoblogging:

  • Technological architecture
  • Individual behavior

The physical architecture is the easy and apparent part of videoblogging. And it was defined early on. Currently wikipedia states:

A vlog is a video which uses a blog as its method of distribution. Regular entries are made and presented in reverse chronological order. A typical vlog entry combines an embedded video or video link with supporting text, images, and metadata.

Vlogs often take advantage of web syndication. Web syndication allows the distribution of video over the Internet using either the RSS or Atom syndication formats, for playback on mobile devices and personal computers.
So the physical aspects are:
  • Video in a blog format with entries in reverse chronological order
  • Which use syndication (like RSS or Atom) for distribution.
    Note: Syndication is not always considered a requirement

The human behavioral aspects I have observed is that people require personal control and distribution of videoblogging. From freevlog tutorials on how to shoot, edit, upload and present videoblogs on your own to numerous and continued questions on how to encode, techniques of shooting, hosting sites, etc. on the videoblogging yahoo group, the apparent feature of usage is personal control in creating media without requiring approval from a gatekeeper. For distribution, when a service like Veoh violates individual control of distribution -- contradicting the creative commons licenses of vlogs -- videobloggers will not stand for it. So the behavioral aspects of videoblogging are:

  • Personal capability and control of creating a videoblog entry
  • Personal control of distribution (syndication) of one's videoblog

Combining the technological and human aspects of videoblogging, I propose the videoblogging definition of:

Videoblog: Video in a blog format with entries in reverse chronological order that can be syndicated for distribution. The creation and distribution of the videoblog entries are personally controlled by the videoblogger(s) without approval required from any media gatekeeper.

Update on July 10, 2006: I have modified the part of the videoblogging definition from "The creation and distribution of the videoblog is personally controlled..." to "The creation and distribution of the videoblog entries are personally controlled..." This change is to the first comment by Steve Garfield that the individual posts or entries are being created and modified, not the videoblog itself. Thank you Steve for the clarification.

Update March 2, 2007: Adrian Miles, Steve Garfield and Michael Meiser have put up thoughtful and important responses to this post. I have been away doing other things and will respond soon.