www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from iainmhepburn. Make your own badge here.
Monday
08Mar2010

Good video can make all the difference

Brian May's quote may have been directed at the music market, but the big haired physicist could just as easily have been aimed at digital news providers.

It emerged today that the New York Times is considering launching a daily lunchtime news video. There's speculation over what form that video will take - a bulletin, reporters talking about the process of creating their stories, a chat show... according to the reports online, the format for the programme - which could be as little as a month away - is still up in the air.

Now, that's timely.

A couple of weeks ago I was down at the Digital Editors Network meeting in Preston, where there was much talk and debate about the value of video online. Lots of papers threw themselves at the video market back in the day, producing their own bulletin-style news shows. But their numbers have dwindled, and anecdotally the reason seems to be down to low audience numbers.

Obviously the NYT has far a bigger resource pool than most nationals in the UK, let alone the regional publishers, but doubt still remains in my mind as to the value of doing news bulletin shows online.

For a start - what are they comprised of? The same headlines as the paper and the website? Then what do viewers get from watching the video they don't get from reading the product. Different stories? Then why aren't those stories in the paper or the website in the first place.

Plus, people still watch the news on TV. A web-based video has to offer something that the local TV can't - and from a purely resources issue, for all its woes right now, local TV news stations are still going to win that battle. Especially in this day and age, where they all have their own website, complete with embedded video packages from that day's news or sports shows. Nobody in Scotland could compete in terms of video with STV or the BBC.

That's not defeatism, it's realism - trying to take on broadcast rivals with limited video resources is the equivalent of trying to stop a rampaging safari park rhino with a chicken wire fence. You might get away with it for a while, but eventually it'll just trample right over you.

Bulletins do have their value, in niche areas. the Birmingham Post's daily Business Bulletin, for instance, is a nice idea executed well, and covering a niche market effectively, while MirrorFootball's long-running Football Spy series has become cult viewing online.

As for the idea of a show featuring reporters talking about their stories and how they got them? I've talked before about the dangers of meta-journalism and getting too hung up assuming Joe Public cares as much about the process as we in the industry do.

Video online has to offer added content to be worthwhile. Replicating what users can get elsewhere's just pointless. But equally, as I've said before, doing video for the sake of video's just as pointless an exercise.

The Herald website's coverage of the Red Road tragedy, for example, is illustrated by some video of the flats. But it's just a few seconds of wobbly raw footage, lacking context or narrative. Yes, it's nice to see what the flats look like, but in this case I wonder if it offers anything a still wouldn't. As always, there's a difference between illustrative video, and video that's there for the sake of having video.

The worst example I've seen recently is the Guardian's weekly video series, GNews140. Yes, as the name suggests, Kings Place has taken its obssession with Twitter in front of the camera, with a video bulletin featuring someone reading out other people's Tweets about the week's news.

Basically a shorter, Twitter-based version of The Digg Reel -  but lacking Andrew Bancroft's wit - never has a website's video output looked so much like a vanity project. For while the Digg Reel at least features videos favoured on Digg, this is just a trawl through some celeb Tweets. It's like a charmless two minute long video retweet.

However, it does show the direction web video for newspapers may be going. The Telegraph has its Gadget Inspectors series. The Guardian GNews140. The Record has the Green Room. Niche content, easily produced, bulletin-styled yet still aiming at web-friendly subjects and audiences. Interestingly, the idea of Flip or mobile footage of events to illustrate stories seems to be moving more towards the hyperlocal sector than the national or regional press.

These are odd days for online video, which seems to be moving into a weird kind of flux. In many ways a growth area, it remains a novelty and, in many cases, a vanity project. There's an illustrative value to video, but it's also a time and labour-intensive one, which makes the NYT's move very interesting and regular use of video off-putting to smaller, less resourced companies.

Yet in many ways it feels as though many companies feel, because they publish cross media, they should be trying to compete with TV rather than using video to add value to their existing - and in many cases outstanding - content.

Sunday
07Mar2010

Alba an Aigh? The BBC's bastard station that could cost more than just money

Amidst all the BBC 6 Music, Asian Network and website cuts rows kicking about over the last few days, there's been a smaller story up here which has gathered far less attention, yet is potentially as big - if not bigger - a drain on resources and vanity project for the BBC than its DAB music offering.

And it's also sparked a little sense of deja vu in me. Since it also proves there's nothing new in news...

I first wrote about the BBC Alba situation in 2008, and returned to it again last September - long before the Sunday Mail's 'exclusive' follow-up last week (and Edinburgh agency Deadline's follow-up of that). Indeed it was one of the stories which helped me win the multimedia journalist of the year award at last year's Scottish Press Awards, so it's been fascinating to see how it's been returned to by the news industry in the light of the BBC cuts row.

The row, if you missed it, revolves around BARB - the national viewing figures board which measures the number of people watching British TV channels. Or rather, TV channels except for ALBA - the only BBC network not accounted for by conventional means. Instead, polling is done to gauge the reach of the channel among the Gaelic community and beyond.

It is a channel paid for by taxpayers with no way of accurately measuring delivery and value for money. Now, the BBC and MG Alba argue that by providing a Gaelic-only service, it's delivering to an audience not currently properly served on Scottish TV. And to an extent, that's spot on. But it is also a channel which is shored up by buying in live music, football and other sporting rights. And it's a channel viewable by only a small proportion of the available audience.

Now, ALBA's response to the viewing figures situation is, to be fair to them, also correct. They point out that BARB's measuring system only covers mainland Britain - and by not covering the Islands, excludes a substantial part of the potential viewerbase. Currently the channel is only available on Freesat or Sky, thus limiting the potential audience reach further.

Now that situation could change - in dramatic fashion - as the BBC Trust, scourge of new music fans across Twitter, are currently consulting viewers over a proposal to ditch the BBC radio networks from Digital Terrestrial TV (Freeview, in other words) in order to make way for ALBA.

The problem with this is that 90,000 people use the radio on Freeview feature on a regular basis in Scotland - a nation of just 60,000 Gaelic readers. The BBC believes the move would increase the viewing figures for ALBA by as many as 180,000 viewers a month - but again, we would never be sure, as the BBC currently has no plans to add ALBA to its BARB accounting.

And for many, listening via DTT is the only way they can get access at home to football commentaries - particularly for midweek European games, after STV's problems.

And with a £15m a year price tag on ALBA, that's an expensive gamble for the BBC, MG Alba and the Government to take.

It also risks ghettoising the Gaelic language in Scotland - with STV and the BBC already producing content for it, how long before we see ALL Gaelic broadcasting shovelled off onto ALBA, and ending public service commitments on the mainstream broadcasters north of the border to air local language programming?

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the idea of a Gaelic language channel for Scotland. You only have to look at the legacy S4C has had in Wales, both culturally and economically, to see the benefits of it. But S4C is also a measured, accoutable channel with a wide broadcast reach.

ALBA is effectively narrowcast, and its expansion would only come at the expense of other, more popular services. At a time when the BBC is under increasing scrutiny to deliver value for money, not least from itself, questions remain over whether ALBA is currently a valuable service, or a £15m-a-year vanity project.

And don't get me started on BBC Three... oh, all right then.

Sunday
07Mar2010

Avoiding Hubris 2.0: Wired's "where are they now" piece sends signal to today's Social Media Ninjas

Another month, another fascinating feature in UK Wired. This time around it's a where are they now feature looking at the dotcom bubble superstars of a decade ago, and what befell them.

The article's not on their website yet - so you'll have to go buy it (hey, a paywall of sorts!) but reading the feature provides a sobering reminder of just how quickly the Bright Young Things of Web1.0 fell from grace - partly through economics, partly through market changes, and in many cases, notably, through their own hubris.

Such as Ernst Mamsten, co-founder of Boo.com, the online fashion etailer that burned through £125m of other people's money in 18 months without much to show for it other than some plane tickets for Concorde, as anyone who had the misfortune to sit through Mamsten's 'wisnae oor fault' book Boo Hoo will remember.

Or Bernie Ebbers, founder of WorldCom - now doing a 25-stretch for fraud and conspiracy.

Or Napster founder Shaun Fanning, responsible for

Single-handedly sparking the file-sharing revolution from his dorm room and dragging the music business into the digital era

Wired helpfully points out the cost of settling all those pesky RIAA lawsuits came in at £17m. But let's not forget that, as a result of Fanning's hard work, we now face the Digital Economy Bill and all the nonsense coming with it.

Even the success stories are less than glorious, reflecting the ridiculous expansion and 'it's the web, it must be awesome' insanity of that millennial period. Such as Martha Lane Fox, now a key member of the Government's Digital Inclusion Task Force, and then, as Wired points out:

Known for becoming a poster child for the tech boom after Lastminute.com was valued at £570m at IPO, then a poster child for the collapse as the stock price fell

It's a fascinating glimpse back at a world when the web was still shiny and bright, and sticking .com at the end of your business could guarantee you untold paper millions... at least until reality kicked in.

Back then, the web was the bandwagon everyone jumped on until the wheels spectacularly blew off. Now social media is the new dotcom. So will we be reading a similar feature in Wired in 2020, providing a where are they now about Cashmore, Jarvis et all? The social media evangelists who predict the death of the news industry? The gurus behind Spotify?

I can't help but wonder what names we'll see in the equivalent piece in a decade's time.

Saturday
27Feb2010

6 Music: When the Twitterati strikes back in the wrong place

Once again the Twitterati have been spurred into action. Last year it was Jan Moir, Stephen Fry's critic and Trafigura which sparked the ire of the 140-character chattering classes. Now it's the leaked report in the Times that the BBC is considering axing two of its DAB stations and halving the size of BBC Online.

As soon as it was mentioned that 6 Music, the digital network which offers both 'the cutting edge music of today, the iconic and groundbreaking music of the past 40 years'. was in the frame for the axe, the social media Avengers leapt into action, launching online campaigns and flooding the web with hashtags, Facebook groups and digital petitions to protect the channel.

Firstly, and fascinatingly, the vast majority of those launching into action to defend Auntie Beeb and battle the visigoths seem to have ignored that the Asian Network is also under threat, despite it offering an arguably far more vital service than 6 Music's often self-indulgent musical output

This is nothing new, of course. As we saw last year, if something's sacred ground for the Twitterati then the forces of hell are unleashed upon those who oppose it. Dare criticise Stephen Fry for being a teensy bit dull? Prepare to be burned at the stake. The Guardian wants to cover a story but has been gagged by a superinjunction? Let's sail as close to the contempt laws as possible by pointing people in the right direction as to what the story is anyway.

But if all these people flooding Twitter with their #save6Music tags and Twibbons were really concerned, either by the channel's potential demise or the BBC being under threat, surely they'd be listening to the channel already? There seems to be a substantial disconnect between the volume of campaigners demanding the channel be saved at all costs, and the 600,000 people who regularly listen to it. And if it were about defending Auntie's honour, surely we should be seeing an equal amount of #saveAsianNetwork or #saveBBCOnline tags about.

However, 6 Music is staffed by internet darlings such as Adam and Joe, Andrew Collins and Richard Herring, and Lauren Laverne. It's a channel aiming largely at a white, middle-class, digitally savvy, demographic that sits almost exactly in the same bracket as social media's main users. So the focus moves heavily towards protecting 6 Music rather than the ethnic channel.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't particularly want to see 6 Music shut. Nor do I want to see Asian Network close, or the BBC to feel the need to switch off half its website to appease news industry rivals. Nor do I think they should be forced to drop their iPhone apps. Yet the BBC Trust is the driving force behind these, clearly preparing for the potential of an incoming Conservative government by wanting to be seen to be scaling back in size and operation.

I had an interesting email conversation yesterday with a friend of mine down south, who was livid at the BBC even considering scaling back at all, and proclaiming that 'all newspapers are shit' in comparison with the BBC. I can't agree with that, for obvious reasons, but there's a lot in his angry defence of the BBC that I do sympathise with.

Auntie finds itself being attacked on three fronts simultaneously. It faces a battle agains the right wing papers, led by Murdoch's titles, who see it as a bloated, overfunded threat to the competitive broadcast and digital markets. And it faces equally niggling, damaging attacks from the leftist media, especially the Guardian, which sees it as a threat to Kings Place' bid to become the leading free, liberal home of news on the web.

Finally, it has to battle its own ridiculous eager-to-pleaseness. The spineless BBC Trust folds like a bad poker player every time someone peeps up to protest at a new BBC innovation which impinges on an area critics might be able to make some money from. Post Hutton, the BBC is so desperate to not be seen as the bad guy that it often upsets the people who actually watch and care about it the most.

Which is why we end up in the situation detailed in the Times' report. 6 Music and the Asian Network face the axe, to save money and appease those in the commercial sector who claim the BBC stifles competition. Radio 2 is told to play music for older listeners, again because commercial radio can't compete. BBC presenters' salaries come under scrutiny, despite in many cases the vastly inflated sums of money representing not just wages but production costs and fees for their shows.

Last week it emerged the BBC Trust could block the BBC's new news and sport iPhone apps, because newspaper companies object to the competition. This one really gets my blood boiling, and it's unsurprising to find the anti-paywall-but-charging-for-Apps Guardian chief among those wanting the apps killed before they even hit the stores. But it's also the worst example of pettiness, because there is a clear public demand for BBC phone apps, judging by the hundreds of thousands of downloads of the unofficial versions on the iTunes App Store.

And yet there's no attempt to counter some of the other ridiculous decisions being made by the Trust. Most notably, the likely move in Scotland to get BBC Alba on Freeview by sacrificing the BBC Radio channels. So while all the Twitterati south of the border scramble to join the hashtag bandwagon and save 6 Music, up here those of us who use the TV to listen to the radio - at last count a similar number to 6 Music's TOTAL audience - face losing not just 6M, but Radios 1, 1X, 2,3,4, 5Live, 5LSX, 7, Asian Network, World Service and, incredibly, Radio Scotland and Radio nan Gaidheal - for the sake of a £14m vanity project which isn't even accounted for by BARB.

And among all the talk of closing channels BBC Three, possibly the most pointless BBC network ever, still remains untouched.

Ultimately, we need a strong BBC, both to serve the needs of the country as its public service broadcaster, and also to provide a balance to the mainstream press. No other broadcaster in the world could produce shows like Planet Earth or The Nazis: A Warning From History or Screenwipe or Doctor Who. As a public service broadcaster it delivers that the public wants. It delivers regional radio and television at a time when the commerical sector's withdrawing from offering local content. And it needs to be preserved, rather than bullied, for doing what it does.

But that also means looking at delivering genuine value for money for the public - and if that means scaling back a radio channel here or dumping a TV channel there so be it, no matter what a few thousand media dahlings and Twitterati might say.

Monday
22Feb2010

AvP v C4: Product placement by scheduling?

(originally posted on TheThumbcast.com)

You probably didn't notice, but something very odd happened at the weekend, buried away in the TV schedules.

At 12.50am yesterday morning, Film4 showed Aliens. Nothing particularly odd about that - it's a great film, James Cameron's high visibility at the moment thanks to Avatar and they often show horror in that late night slot.

Then last night, at 9.40pm, parent network Channel 4 showed Predator. Again, nothing particularly odd about that. It's a fun actioner, they had a night of genre films, and clearly they needed to throw something disposable on against the all-conquering might of the BAFTA film awards over on BBC1.


Except...


During the first ad break in Predator, just before 10pm, there was an advert. A very lengthy advert for British games firm Rebellion's new PS3 and XBox version of Aliens vs Predator, which was released on Friday.


The ad took up pretty much the entire slot, and was bookended by a specially rendered C4 logo, done out in the thermal imaging of the Predator's eye view, with THIS IS AN ADVERTISMENT in large white print below it.


Now, scheduling films on TV to cash in on high profile other films or TV shows is nothing new. C4 have a habit of sticking on one of the Peter Cushing films whenever Dr Who is due to start back on BBC One, for example. But did they really schedule these two films to cash in on the release of a video game? Or were they swayed by the fact there was presumably a shitload of advertising cash coming their way for that break TO schedule the films?


An ad that length, in prime time, won't have been cheap for Rebellion and publishers SEGA, and if they had to tag that Predator-ised logo on the front, there must have been some hoop jumping along the way.


So as debates kick off over the value of product placement on television, is this an modern example of TV scheduling being dictated by entirely commercial requirements? Or just an almighty coincidence?


Horseferry Road, over to you...