J.J. Abrams was at SXSW and reflected on the democratization of filmmaking through technology. I read that and thought about my days as an agent for filmmakers and television producers, and I have a different perspective to relate.

Yes, as costs are reduced and the financial barriers to entry are dismantled, it is easier to make films than ever before. But this is a bit of a red herring, in that consumer-level technology, from Super 8 cameras and projectors, to affordable film stock and mail-in processing, meant that anyone with a few extra bucks and a passion could be their own mini Otto Preminger. That’s what I did for years as a teenager, but what really made all the difference in the world was having no means of distribution. Sure, I could show it to my friends and family, but there was no YouTube or Vimeo that would make these little epics available around the globe.

In some respect, yes, J.J. Abrams is right about the technology, but it isn’t the smaller, cheaper equipment. It is all about the access to distribution. In my agent days, you either sold to a studio or network, or tried to get some traction as an independent producer, but these were very limited. Today, my advice would be for aspiring filmmakers to eschew the great spec script in favor of a killer short film. If you get the right people to share it on Facebook or another popular social network, it is much easier to get the industry’s attention if you can point to millions of views. At the very least, it will be a less steep climb to send it around if it just entails emailing a link.

I suppose that the way I look at it is, while filmmaking technology makes the process of putting a script on-screen, the internet represents a true paradigm shift in distribution, which any producer will tell you, that’s what it’s all about. Don’t you remember about the tree falling in a forest, but no one is around to hear it?

Ever since the emergence of YouTube as a video platform, I wondered why more entities couldn’t just take control of distributing their own content. Well, we’re definitely seeing that with major sports leagues, and even big publications. But now, here’s an article about Comic-Con streaming not just their conference, but a whole host of sci-fi properties, in conjunction with Lionsgate Entertainment. It’s a complementary arrangement, since the well-attended convention is not able to sustain a permanent presence on the web, they team with someone who has content that will easily fill the empty spaces. Sounds  like a win-win to me.

But it also begs the question – why wouldn’t every major corporation have a streaming service to call their own? I suspect that, much like having a Twitter or Instagram account is now de rigueur for marketing, a video delivery channel will be a necessity.

As mentioned in this AdAge article, Facebook is now streaming shows from other networks (in this case, E!), and thus begs the question: Will every streaming service soon occupy a place in your television ecosystem, alongside the familiar favorites? And in the midst of writing this post, I saw this article from the NY Post about Twitter joining the battle for streaming viewers.

I’ve been saying for years that other digital content providers – usually newspapers – would eventually compete with broadcast news, especially as the tools for producing such video content was simple, compact and portable. But with any service that promises a mass audience, will content producers look increasingly to the likes of Facebook and Twitter to stream their content? If the NFL is any indication, there will be a healthy marketplace for popular content, especially if it is live. And if selling the rights to content presents a conflict for the owner, then it may be more valuable to keep it in-house.

Changes are happening so fast that I can barely keep up with developments, but if you are looking to advertise, monetize or capitalize on these new formats, then you best keep tabs on the latest news, and try to guess what might come next.

First with phones, and now with desktop browsers, apps are continuing to make inroads into our daily digital lives. But reading this article about the success of the NCAA tournament streaming app, it made me wonder how apps will ultimately fare in this evolving ecosystem.

I distinctly recall an event at the AFI in Hollywood back in 2001 (or so) when CBS was touting the integration of CSI (the original one) into a digital component that would augment the TV series. I was curious who was making money off the ads that shared space in the browser window, how that money was allocated, and who controlled the real estate on the page.

Likewise, now that apps are proving to be popular for video and music, what role do the stakeholders, such as sports leagues, telecoms, broadcasters, etc. have in determining how they are managed, especially in terms of who can buy and sell advertising, who gets a piece of the action, and so on? And the more interesting question is whether this will be just a phase in the evolution of digital media distribution. I suspect that there are other technologies on the horizon poised to supplant the popularity of apps. One thing I’ve learned from watching MySpace, Sony, Blackberry, BitTorrent, Digital Audio Tapes (DAT), etc. is that, when it comes to technology, the consumer is both fickle and flighty. Loyalty is not to be counted on.

In particular, I continue to be underwhelmed by the advances in connected televisions. I would have thought that their central position, both physically and figuratively, in most Americans lives, would have them be more interactive, more connected, and largely essential to the consumer. What I also find interesting is the appeal of Amazon’s Echo, which may be the next big thing. It is slow catching on, but that may be more a matter of Amazon taking a cautious approach to its rollout. But the possibilities are breathtaking, and may just be the first of the alternatives to the app – at least, as we know of it today.

Watch this space!

If you receive as many newsletters as I do about the state of television, you probably noticed a distinct trend in streaming, over-the-top (OTT) video accessibility. It was recently revealed that Canada will soon be requiring cable providers to offer a basic entry-level service that can be customized in an ala carte fashion. And other media companies are beginning to offer new ways to receive television programming without a hefty subscription fee.

At the same time, pay TV has seen a marked decline in subscribers – affectionately known as cord-cutters – and it shows few signs of slowing. This may explain why the trend is happening outside the U.S., but not here. The subscription model has made some people very wealthy, so it’s not surprising that we are last to get the freedom to choose that our own media companies are offering abroad. The articles below are just some of what I’ve been seeing lately.

“Want control over your cable bill? Move to Canada.”

“Cable A La Carte Is Becoming a Reality — Outside the U.S.”

“Starz CEO Touts Direct-to-Consumer Offering Outside the U.S.”

“Kagan: Pay TV Lost 1.1M Subs in 2015”

But as more consumers are viewing video on their mobile devices, as well as with the success of providers such as Netflix, Amazon and Hulu, and streaming devices (Chromecast, Roku) and connected TV sets get a foothold in domestic households, we see cable providers offering so-called skinny bundles, and specialized packages for premium channels like HBO and Showtime. Yes, they are adapting, but slowly and very cautiously. Sad that we are the last to reap the benefits of these new technologies, but as a rich nation, we are also the last bastion of reliable revenue.

I like to think of myself as a somewhat humble person, but when I read this article from Match 10, 2016, about The New York Times launching a television website (whatever that is), I had to retrieve a portion of a column I wrote way back in February of 2007 – yes, 2007!

2/28/07

As the article below indicates, more and more web sites are offering video, thanks in large part to the ease with which people can embed content from places like YouTube into a web page.

“NYT to Post Users’ Videos on Web Site”
For the first time, The New York Times will begin posting user-generated videos on its Web site.

By Mike Shields for Mediaweek
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003548945

But this begs the question: At what point does a news web site like The New York Times cease being a newspaper’s online manifestation and instead become a direct competitor to one such as ABC News or MSNBC?  The very definition of a newspaper is being completely remade to accommodate the realities and possibilities of the Internet.  In fact, some believe (such as myself) that the days of print newspapers (and magazines, for that matter) are numbered, although in years, maybe even decades.  With the addition of video to many web sites, the merging of media continues and portends a landscape that will put all the media outlets in head-to-head competition for essential advertising dollars.  The days of true broadcasting are numbered, with the exception of events like the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards.

 

I am a semi-proud owner of a Google Chromecast adapter for my television set, and after a few false starts, have become somewhat comfortable using this inexpensive little device to stream from the web onto my TV. But I get the sense that it has been existing just under the radar currently occupied by the likes of Roku and Apple TV. But when I read this article about how many units have sold, and its steady growth in this segment, I can’t help but be reminded of how, while the iPhone was all the rage, Android devices were overtaking the market in sheer numbers.

Per the study – Global Connected TV Device Vendor Market Share: Q4 2015 — the $35 Google Chromecast took down 35% of the 42 million digital media streamer shipped last year, followed by Apple TV, Roku and Amazon Fire TV products.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Google is simply waiting for the blockbuster content play to really leverage their position in the streaming television. What that play is, well, I don’t know, but with NFL negotiating with the likes of Amazon and Facebook, the marketplace is getting more robust. We’ll have to wait and see.

I honestly don’t have the complete answer to this, but I read about another weapon in the battle of ad blocking here, and was a little surprised about this factoid:

“The company says its browser with built in ad-blocking technology is 45% faster than Google Chrome running Adblock Plus and 89% faster than Microsoft’s Edge running the same extension.”

Perhaps you have tried to figure out ways to download websites faster, from upgrading your modem or router, to buying faster DSL services, to adding memory to your device. But if simple ad blocking can make that much of a difference, then it’s no wonder that there is a race to unveil the best ad blocking technology.

Of course, this has major implications for those who rely on advertising dollars to subsidize their content. And there is a major push by the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) to reconcile these opposing forces, but the move by Opera – which will likely bleed over to other major browsers – seems to indicate that there is still not unity on how to balance optimizing the user experience with providing access to consumers for the advertisers, who are critical to the business model.