Categories
Business & Marketing New Media Presentations

The New Now of Television: Surviving the changing business of Television

The New Now of Television: Surviving the changing business of Television. http://bit.ly/9WoyNi LA for Television Academy members, starring me! 🙂

This is a custom version of my “How to grow your production or post-production business in any type of economic conditions”, which has been presented in New York in March, and will also be in San Francisco on June 19. (Along with an afternoon session on “Growing and Monetizing and audience for your independent production”.

Your personal brand defines how people perceive you: what work they’ll consider you for, what you get offered. You’ll learn how to manage your brand – and the stories you tell around your personal brand. You’ll learn how to build an internet presence by understanding how marketing, PR and social conversations have changed the business promotion and networking landscape. We will conclude with the top tips on maximizing your business’ visibility on the Internet.

  • KNOW WHAT BUSINESS YOU ARE IN – IT’S PROBABLY NOT THE ONE YOU THINK IT IS
  • HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR PERSONAL BRAND – WHO ARE YOU, WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR AND WHAT PROBLEMS DO YOU SOLVE?
  • UPSCALE YOUR MARKETING, PR AND SOCIAL CONVERSATIONS TO GROW YOUR PERSONAL BUSINESS AND PROJECTS

  • MAXIMIZE YOUR VISIBILITY SO PEOPLE CAN FIND YOU TO GIVE YOU WORK
  • Categories
    Item of Interest Media Consumption

    If you’re not totally bored with Adobe v Apple re Flash…

    If you’re not totally bored re Apple v Adobe re Flash MC Seigler “Adobe You Brought An Advertisement To A Gun Fight” http://tcrn.ch/9PjWYp

    Adobe, no one seems to want to say this to you, but I will. Stop it, you’re embarrassing yourself.

    You’ve just spent God-knows how much money on an ad buy that blankets much of the technology press (including this site). It’s a strange passive-aggressive message that just makes Jobs’ aggressive-aggressive post from a few weeks ago seem even more forceful. And it’s transparent. But worst of all, it won’t work. You must know this.

    Jim Whimpey also has his say about who is really “open” and who is claiming to be open but isn’t:

    Adobe: not open, claim to be.

    Apple: not open, don’t claim to be, contribute heavily to that which is truly open.

     

    Categories
    Distribution Item of Interest

    What iPads did to Chuck Hollis’ Family

    What iPads did to Chuck hollis’ Family http://bit.ly/c48YsP Exactly what i imagine normal people will do with iPads. I am not normal 😉

    This is interesting, if you consider this anecdotal evidence with Charlie Stross’ “The Real Reason Steve Jobs Hates Flash” (don’t worry, it’s way more significant than the current battleground – read the full story, it is important)

    Seems to me that Jobs is betting that the cloud-oriented (based?) life on an iPad will be the next generation of computing; and the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that maybe it’s a fairly safe bet.

    i still don’t know how I’d use it but maybe, if it could give me anywhere, anytime access to whatever “other” computer I might have – like a MacBook Pro – then I think there would be times when this would be an attractive alternative to my main computer. But still, how couldn’t I do this on my iPhone? (If I had one.)

    Categories
    Apple Distribution Media Consumption Video Technology

    What is it with Flash?

    I’ve just been reading my daily round of news, and there’s still more on the whole “Flash v HTML5” or “Flash v H.264” thing and I’m just arrogant enough to believe I can contribute something here.

    Flash is an interactive player that produces a consistent result across browsers and platforms. That’s why publishers like it. But most Flash use is at a very basic level: a simple video player. That is also why early QuickTime interactive programmers liked to use Flash (yes, as a QT media type) for controls and text as QT text did not display consistently across platform.

    Flash is a player and not a codec or file format. The current iteration of the Flash player plays:

    • the original “Flash video” format, which is sequential JPG files, up to 15,000 a movie
    • Sorenson Spark, the first real video codec for Flash; based on the very ancient H.263 videoconferencing codec it did not produce good video quality.
    • On2 VP6, a good, high quality codec now owned by Google with their purchase of On2. Still not a bad choice for Flash playback if you need to use an alpha channel for real-time compositing in Flash.
    • H.264 in MP4 or MOV (with limitations) format. Licensed from Main Concept (now owned by DivX).

    Note that those same H.264/MP4 files can be played on Apple’s iDevices using the built-in player; or using the <video> tag supported by HTML5 in Safari or Chrome (and IE9 coming sometime).

    Flash as a simple video player is probably dead in the water. Flash for complex interactivity and rich media experiences probably will continue for a while, at least until there are better authoring environments for the more complex interactivity provided in “HTML5”.

    That brings me to HTML5, which is not a simple player but a revision of the whole HTML tags supported by browsers, that allow native video playback by the browser without plug-in (the <video> tag); local storage (similar to Google’s temporary Gears offering, now replaced by HTML5 support) and a whole bunch of other goodies. Add to this CSS for complex display (and I mean complex – mapping video to 3D objects in the browser, for example); Javascript for interactivity and connectivity to remote servers/databases; and SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) for creating graphic elements in a browser (useful for interface elements in rich media).

    Javascript used to be very slow and not even comparable to the speed of interactivity possible in Flash, but over the last three years all Javascript interpreters have become massively faster, making complex software possible in the browser. (Check out Apple’s implementation of iPhoto-like tools in their Gallery – online version.)

    Summing up: HTLM5/CSS/Javascript is already very powerful. Check out Ajaxian for examples on what is already being done. For simple video playback, Flash is probably not the best choice. MPEG-4 H.264 video AAC audio probably is the best choice. For rich interactivity targeted at anything Apple, build it with HTML5/CSS/Javascript – it’s the only choice. It is also a powerful one: Apple’s iTunes Albums are essentially HTM5-based mini-sites; iAds are all HTM5/CSS/Javascript based and not lacking in rich interactivity or experience.

    If you’re building a rich media application to connect with a web backend targeting mostly desktop computers, then Flash could still be the best choice.

    For building Apps for iPhone, iPad: use the Xcode tools Apple provides free. While Adobe might be complaining to the Feds looking for “anti-trust” sympathy, they won’t get it as Apple is nowhere near dominant in any market, which has to be proven before taking up the point as to whether or not they have abused a monopoly position. Apple are not the dominant smartphone manufacturer; nor dominant MP3 player, nor dominant Tablet manufacturer. (Ok, they probably are dominant in MP3 players and Tablets but they are not, by definition, a monopoly, and Apple will work very hard to ensure they never are.)

    Categories
    Apple Video Technology

    There’s no QuickTime on Apple’s Mobile Devices Either!

    In the discussion about Flash-on-iDevices following yesterday’s post it occured to me that not only was there no Flash on the iPhone, et al., but there was no QuickTime either!

    Not what QT was at least. The iDevices support H.264 video and AAC audio, primarily in a MPEG 4 file wrapper (although some devices will play H.264/AAC in a MOV wrapper) that is really not what QuickTime has been. (More below). Try playing a Sorenson video file on an iPad. What about QuickTime interactivity (Wired Sprites)?  Ever seen a QT VR play on an iPhone?

    Of course not. QuickTime is not supported on any Apple device other than desktop and laptop computers. I also believe that the QT I loved and evangelized heavily late last Century is destined for the scrapheap. It’s been increasingly obvious, since around 2002/2001 that Apple decided that the future of web video was MP4: open standards. Initially they supported the MPEG-4 Simple Profile (just MPEG-4 in Apple’s world) in QuickTime 6 and then H.264 – the Advanced Video Codec from MPEG 4 Part 10.

    Now, a lot of MPEG-4 is adopted from QuickTime. Apple donated the QT container to the MPEG group for consideration as their container format. Because of that MPEG-4 can do pretty much anything that QT could do, except there are very few implementations of anything beyond basic video playback. So with the QT container at the center of MPEG-4 it was easy for Apple to adopt and support this evolving (at the time) technology.

    So QuickTime became the pre-eminent MPEG-4 player. When it came to the Apple TV, iPhone, iTouch and now iPad, the decision was made to only support simple MP4 playback. When QuickTime X was announced it referenced “the experience of the iPhone video” suggesting that QuickTime X was a different approach. When it was released it’s clear that QuickTime X will be the next generation of consumer-facing video playback.

    So I expect that QuickTime X will never get the advanced features that QuickTime currently has. There’s no business model for it within Apple, which was always the problem with QuickTime. Frankly that Apple never provided a development environment was why Flash was able to so quickly “take over”. Remember that in QuickTime 6, Flash 5 was a supported media type. (Support was dropped because of security concerns with that version of Flash.) It took Flash to version 8 before it equalled all the features of QuickTime 3! (Seriously).

    Few people made use of the advanced features of QuickTime. Our Australian company was one of them, making all the movies for the DV Companion for Final Cut Pro, and most of the other Intelligent Assistants with QuickTime wired sprite animations so the file size was acceptable. We were in the era of small hard drives after all. There was never a development environment from Apple: Totally Hip stepped up with our development environment (LiveStage Pro). Had there been a business model within Apple for QuckTime then the story of the web would have been different.

    The advanced features in QuickTime have had no development since, well, QuickTime 4 (before the return of Jobs to Apple). I believe, without proof, that there was a fundamental shift within Apple around that time to, really, abandon the features they could get no return on, and make QuickTime the best MPEG-4 player; a great architecture for creating media and the foundation of their total media strategy. Without the advanced features, because, by this time Flash had “won” the interactivity war.

    Now we can have better interactivity using features from HTML5, Javascript and CSS, which are all web standards overseen by a body outside of one company. It’s not just Flash that won’t see the iDevices, but any resemblance to the old QuickTime won’t make it either.

    And I’m OK with that. QuickTime – MOV distribution – served Apple well and continues to power their iLife applications and Professional Video and Audio applications, but without the features that it had, and no longer needs. Apple are always “good” at dumping technology that no longer meets their need. I think it’s one of Jobs’ strengths.

    I also believe Apple are being consistent by not allowing Flash: it’s on a par with their own technology also not getting on the platform.

    Categories
    New Media Studio 2.0 Video Technology

    What are the four major trends in production?

    Having just got back from an North East trip – New York, Boston and Meriden/North Haven CT – I’ve had a good opportunity to think and observe trends outside my own environment. I see four major trends happening across production and, despite the publicity and inevitable NAB push, I don’t think 3D stereoscopy is among them (at least not yet).

    Stereoscopy is indeed a trend in feature film production with an impressive percentage of last year’s box office attributable to 3D movies, but it will be a long time before it’s more than a niche for non-feature production. In fact the supply of 3D content vs the number of theaters equipped to display, is probably going to limit 3D distribution to the major studios and their tentpole releases.

    That said, this year’s NAB is likely to be full of 3D capable rigs, cameras and workflows. For what display?  Until the viewing end is more established production in 3D won’t be that important.

    Right now the trends I’m observing are: more multicamera production; extensive use of green screen even for “normal” shots; 3D sets, objects and even characters; and a definite trend toward larger sensor cameras (both DSLR and RED).

    Multicamera Production

    The appeal is simple: acquire two angles on any “good” take. Of course reality television takes this to almost-ridiculous levels with up to 68+ hours recorded for every day of the show’s shoot. On more reasonable shows, Friday Night Lights shoots multicamera in real world locations for a very efficient production schedule.

    While it no doubt saves production time, and therefore cost, it can limit shot availability (as one camera ‘sees’ another) or more bland lighting (to make sure each camera angle is well lit). Multicamera studio shoots – the staple of the sitcom – tend to be lit very flat, but Friday Night Lights doesn’t suffer for the multicamera acquisition.

    All major editing software packages support multicamera editing. We’ve also seen an increase in requests for multicamera support in our double-system synchronizing tool Sync-N-Link.

    Part of the reason that multicamera acquisition is becoming more practical is that the cost of buying or renting camera equipment has dropped dramatically, so that three cameras on a shoot are not necessarily a budget buster.

    Green Screen (Virtual sets)

    If you haven’t already seen Stargate Studio’s Virtual Back Lot reel, do it now. Before seeing it I had the sense that there was a lot more green screen used out there, but I had no idea that shows I’d watched and enjoyed employed green screen. The Times Square shot from Hereos, for example, did not feel at all composited. When simple street scenes are being shot green screen – things that could easily be shot in the real world – then you know it has to be for budgetary reasons.

    Green screen (and blue screen for film) technologies are well proven. There are good and inexpensive tools that fit within common workflows to build the green screen composite. In other words, the barriers to entry are simply the skill of the Director of Photography on the shoot, and that of the editors/compositors in post.

    When 70% of a show, like Sanctuary uses virtual sets, the necessity for anything beyond a good screen screen studio, with a good lighting kit and some smarts seems less important.

    3D sets and enhancements

    The third major trend goes hand-in-hand with the use of Virtual Sets: sets that are created in the mind of a designer and rendered “real” with 3D software. There are literally hundreds of thousands of object models available for sale (or free) online. You can hardly read a production story now that does’t feature 3D set or character extensions.

    I should probably add motion tracking as another technology coming into its own, because it’s an essential part of the incorporation of actors into 3D sets, or the enhancement of character with 3D character extensions.

    Larger Sensors

    Fairly obvious to all, I would think, but the trend toward larger sensors includes the DSLR trend as well as RED Digital Cinema and the new Arri Alexxa. Wherever you look the trend is toward larger sensors with their sensitivity improvements, greater control of depth of field and drop-dead gorgeous pictures. Among other uses they make perfect plates for backgrounds in green screen work!

    All four (plus motion tracking) trends contribute to reducing production cost, making more shows viable with ever fragmenting audiences.

    Categories
    Business & Marketing New Media

    I’m presenting my first East Coast Seminars

    From the press release that went out today.

    In conjunction with the New York based MoPic group and Boston’s Final Cut Pro User Group, Intelligent Assistance’s Philip Hodgetts will bring his business development and new media seminars to the North East for the first time.

    These seminars have been among the most popular at the recent Digital Video Expo and have attracted crowds of interested people in San Diego and Los Angeles. Now New York and Boston get a chance to experience world class presentations.

    “Now more than ever business owners need to know how to grow their production or postproduction business,” says presenter Philip Hodgetts. “This seminar is based on my book from last year The New Now. It summarizes the most practical advice into a interactive seminar.”

    In an age where the democratization of production tools is almost complete people have turned their focus on equivalent democratized ways of growing audiences and making money from their work. In the How to grow and monetize and audience for your independent production independent producers will learn how to identify their core audience, grow the audience through social media and modern PR before understanding the many ways that producers earn a return from their independent production.

    “The [MediaPro Camp] Day was capped off by a keynote address from Media Guru Phillip Hodgetts. He is a true Renaissance Man of the media. If you have ever been to one of his seminars, read one of his books, or his blog or heard him speak, you know what I mean.”

    John Coleman, at MediaProCamp San Diego

    In conjunction with the The Moving Pictures Collective of NYC both seminars are being offered in New York sponsored by AJA Video Systems and Video Corporation of America. The seminars will be held at VCA’s facility on 7th Ave, one block from Penn Station on Saturday March 20th. Details and signup can be found at http://mopictivehodgetts.eventbrite.com/.

    In Boston Hodgetts has joined with the Boston Final Cut Pro User Group to present the How to grow and monetize and audience for your independent production on Tuesday evening March 23rd at The New England Institute of Art. Details can be found at http://newnowboston.eventbrite.com/.

    About Philip Hodgetts (as if you didn’t already know)

    Philip Hodgetts is an expert and consultant in digital production and post-production workflows, encoding, web applications, digital delivery and technology innovation. He is the President and CEO of Open Television Network, a company dedicated to democratizing distribution through monetized RSS feeds.

    He remains President of Intelligent Assistance, Inc – a systems and technology developer – and one of the “Big Brains” of “Big Brains for Rent” consultancy. He is an experienced trainer and has written extensively online across a range of topics.

    He is the co-creator of “Assisted Editing” and an expert on metadata-based postproduciton workflows.

    Philip is the author of “The HD Survival Handbook”; “Awesome Titles with FCS” and “The New Now: How to grow your production or postproduction business in a changed and changing world” among other publications.

    He has presented at many conferences and seminars including Keynote addresses for the New York DV Show; Academy of Television Arts and Sciences’ NEXT TV symposium in 2006; and the 2007 Podcast Summit at NAB as well as presented at Streaming Media East and West; NAB Post|Production, Seybold among others.

     

     

     

    Categories
    Distribution New Media

    Why is the “first audience” important?

    One of the important things I learnt from Distribution U back in October last year was the importance of knowing who your “first audience” is:

    “Another primary theme, from both Scott and Peter, is that the distribution for every project will be different, because the primary (or starting) audience will be different and what attracts one audience will not attract another. In modern distribution the “primary” audience for any project is one that is already engaged, in some way, by the topic or content. That helps get word-of-mouth buzz going and the audience can spread. Targeting a specific audience is easier (and cheaper) than trying to build a generic audience.”

    Then I come across an IPTV Evangelist post by Levi Shapiro titled “The Only Successful Model for Indie Film,” which naturally caught my attention. While I’m not convinced that there is only one model there are some nice parallels drawn for the modern era of distribution from models of the past: what is the modern equivalent to the ‘Miramax’ model of the 1990’s. Number two on their list for modern distribution is this:

    2. Nurture a built-in audience: “The film was supported by the army from the beginning. We asked for their help and advice, they read the script and said, ‘Yes, we want you to make this movie and we will help.’ So they gave us access to a base to shoot, and we had a full-time adviser on the set. So we knew that officially the army as an institution was behind the movie.”

    Now I think I’m beginning to see a pattern when along comes an uncredited post on the (highly recommended) Future of Movies blog titled “A Target Audience means a Better Box Office.” This whole post is well worth reading because it really accurately sums up the issue:

    Let me repeat that key phrase from the quote: ‘…you have to make the movie for someone. Movies that are for a specific audience tend to overperform.’

    After a little slam on “personal movies” (I’m just making it for myself!) the post goes on to note that metaphoric Hollywood makes “movies for everyone.” But it is the answer to the question “Who is your Audience?” that cuts to the heart of the subject:

    “If you say everyone, you are either kidding yourself or better have about $300 million to make the next Avatar.

    If you say the audience is yourself and forget the audience, you should just stay at home and not waste your investors’ money.

    However, if you can create a project that speaks to an audience – a specific, identifiable audience then your story can be focused, your casting choices should make sense, you trailer will talk to that audience, and the film will entertain them and have them sharing and Tweeting and Facebooking and Rotten Tomatoing all over the place.”

    All that “tweeting and Facebooking and Rotton Tomatoing” is what independent productions need to grow their audience. This is the crux of social media marketing: give your target audience something they love and they’ll spread the word for you. From among these people will come your fans – those few who actively promote the show.

    If you consider some of the more successful independent productions – documentary or not – you can see the wisdom of this approach.

    For One Six Right – a documentary about “the passion of aviation” focused on LA’s Van Nuys airport – the target audience is the body of pilots. Pilots have magazines and website dedicated to them making it easy to reach out to the audience.

    2004’s Napoleon Dynamite’s target audience – the first people interested in viewing – was clearly people like me: nerds! Yes, it was fortunate and crossed over to the mainstream because the movie was entertaining and the word of mouth spread. But without that first audience tweeting and telling their enjoyment of the movie, who would have been interested in one nerd helping another nerd win Class President?

    When Joss Whedon needed a project to fill in time during 2008’s writer’s strike, he pulled together Dr Horrible’s Singalong Blog. While appealing to SciFi fans the “first audience” to get that all-important word-of-mouth going were Joss Whedon, Neil Patrick Harris or Felicia Day fans. OK, we can’t all get that sort of head start, but do note that it wasn’t made “for everyone.” (Joss Whedon’s work is always targeted to specific niches.)

    When  Aaron Woolf was looking to promote King Corn (a documentary about how damaging subsidies on corn farming has been) he chose to find their first audience through blogs about sustainable agriculture and slow food movement.

    Robert Greenwald ‘s audience came from MoveON.org where he was an in-house filmmaker.

    And so it goes. By focusing on a target audience – a niche if you will – the marketing becomes clearer and more focused. By saying “no” to the rest and targeting and appealing to the target audience, how you reach the audience becomes clearer and more practical.

    When we were creating the Intelligent Assistants for various post-production software programs, I had a very clear audience in mind. In fact, I could probably name the half dozen or so people that I was writing for. They never knew it, but it was easier for me to write something that really met the needs of those people than something aimed at “everyone” using Final Cut Pro or Boris RED, et al.

    During the years I was programming the Digital Production BuZZ I again had a very specific group of people that I was programming for. It was clear in my mind who I was not programming for. That made it much easier to determine who would be an appropriate guest for that audience, keeping it relevant and focused for those few and contributing, I believe, to its rapid growth.

    You can never make an audience for “everyone”. The market for Predator has very little overlap with Princess Bride! To some degree Hollywood has semi-targeted specific demographics. But demographics aren’t people.

    When you talk with me about promoting your independent project (as I will be in New York on March 20th and Boston on March 23rd) expect to be challenged with the question “who’s your target audience?” to clarify any questions. If you can’t define your target audience – the first you’ll promote to – you should stop everything and refine the project until it perfectly meets the expectations of a single, first, starting audience.

    Then you can start production.

    Categories
    Apple Distribution New Media

    Why are 99c TV shows only a step in the right direction?

    In a January article “Apple pushing TV Networks to slash prices on iTunes” and more recently “Apple to offer $1 TV shows in April” Business Insider/Silicon Alley Insider suggest Apple are pushing the price of programming through iTunes down, with the goal of selling “some shows” for 99c.

    This is absolutely a step in reality’s direction but it still prices individual programs at well above the traditional income-per-viewer that networks have traditionally received, and way above what it would cost for an average viewer via a cable or satellite subscription.

    At 99c, the content owner would get 65c per download as Apple take 35% and pays for the bandwidth (at about 10c a GB).

    65c per viewer per show is right at the top end of what the big four networks have been able to command from advertising: per show, per viewer. (Even the Superbowl only gets 85c average per viewer per 3 hours show).  At the other end, the big four get a low of 25c per viewer per show.

    But not all television is “big four” nor is it always worth the network premium. Take one of my favorite shows: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The best research I can find is that Comedy Central pays Stewart’s company about $5 million a year or $32,000 each for the 160 shows a year that are produced. The Daily Show has an audience of around 1.5 million viewers according to Wikipedia and other sources. Cost of production to Comedy Central is just about 2c per viewer.

    Presumably Comedy Central are turning a profit between the 60c per subscriber per month they get from cable carriage and whatever advertising revenue is generated across the 5 or so showings of each episode.

    And yet, through iTunes that show is currently $1.99 or 99c per episode if you buy a season pass for 20 episodes. (One of the few cases where a season pass gives significant savings). It’s still too much.

    If Jon Stewart’s company sold direct through iTunes at, say, 10c an episode (because once watched it has little future rewatching value, unlike episodic drama or comedy) then gross revenue would be $150,000 per show or $97,500 after Apple’s cut. (Apple’s bandwidth cost would be around .6 of a cent in SD, or $8550 leaving Apple $43950 gross profit on the sales.)

    On the other end of the equation, the content creator (Stewart) gets $97,500 or three times the income for the same show as working for Comedy Central brings.

    So, while 99c TV shows are a step in the right direction there’s still a long way to go before Internet, on demand, video reaches fair price parity with traditional revenues. This is not an opportunity for the existing entrenched players to dramatically increase their margins: it will kill the nascent future.

    Categories
    Distribution Media Consumption Studio 2.0 The Technology of Production

    What about the iPad and Media Production?

    On October 31 last year Edo Segal wrote an article on TechCrunch with the title For The Future Of The Media Industry, Look In The App Store. The article is definitely worth a read but this jumped out at me:

    But the entertainment industry has a vested interest in the success of this new type of convergence, as within it lies the secret to its continuing prosperity. The only way to block the incredible ease of pirating any content a media company can generate is to couple said experiences with extensions that live in the cloud and enhance that experience for consumers. Not just for some fancy DRM but for real value creation. They must begin to create a product that is not simply a static digital file that can be easily copied and distributed, but rather view media as a dynamic “application” with extensions via the web. This howl is the future evolution of the media industry.

    It brings together some of the thinking I’ve been doing on how to challenge the loss of revenue from direct consumption or from advertising revenue when digital files of programming and music are so easily shared and copied. Techdirt.com like to summarize their approach as CwF + RtB = financial success: Connect with Fans and give them a Reason to Buy some scarce goods. Many musicians are already doing this and the results are summarized in the article The Future of Music Business Models (and those who are already there).

    I agree that CwF + RtB is part of the future: we can’t charge for infinitely distributable digital goods but we can charge for scare goods (or services) promoted by the music.

    But I’m not as sure that will work in the same way for the “television” business, which I define as being “television style programming professionally produced” even if it’s never broadcast on a network on cable. Certainly it will be possible to sell merchandising around programming, and everyone is encouraged to do that.

    I’ve also written and presented – as long ago as my Nov 2006 keynote presentation for the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences – that producers and viewers have to be more connected, even to the extent of allowing fan contributions.

    Well, last night I had something of an epiphany that bought together Edo Segal’s thoughts and my own as I contemplated the implications of the recently announced Apple iPad.

    As a brief aside, I find the iPad to be pretty much exactly what I was expecting (although I thought maybe a webcam for video chat) and interesting. Although I don’t see where it would fit in an iPhone/Laptop world, I can see plenty of uses particularly for media consumption. (For example a family shares an iMac but each of the older children have their own iPad for general computing, only using the iMac for essays etc.)

    But the iPad doesn’t really lend itself to static media consumption as it has been: where the producer sends stories fully finished and complete to viewers who passively consume. That’s when the import of Edo’s comment struck: there is more of a future in media consumption for those producers who create the whole environment.  This has definitely been done by many movies and shows but usually with more of a consumption-of-information about the show, rather than a rich interactive experience where fans of the show are as important as the producers.

    The future of independent production and media consumption is an immersive environment (website, or better yet and iPad app) with:

    • Content
    • Community (forums, competitions)
    • Access to the wider story, side stories or “back story” in various media formats
    • Character blogs
    • Cast and crew blogs
    • Fan contributions and remixes.

    Such an experience would be almost a cross between a typical television program and a video game environment. Sure programming is part of what can be consumed on the site; but there are competitions, games, back stories; additional visual material edited out of the program source, with additional shooting, using technologies like Assisted Editing.

    Any unauthorized distribution of content will only be distribution the content, not the experience of the program in its full glory.

    Now, there’s no particular reason why this couldn’t be largely done on a website, but it is as an immersive iPad app that I think it will really be fantastic. The iPad is very immersive and tactile. It presents no “border” (i.e. browser window and other computer screen elements) to distract from the programming. It begs to be interacted with because holding it in place to watch a 22 or 44 minute show doesn’t appear to be going to be all that great.

    There’s one more selling point for the iPad: it allows in-app sales, so some of the “reasons to buy” can be sold very transparently without even leaving the app’s environment. Avatars, screen savers, certain games or activities might carry a small charge. Yes, even the media itself (or some of it) could carry a small transaction charge. Smooth, frictionless sales in an environment optimized to engage people in the story of the show.

    Apple’s iTunesLP format is a very small start in this direction by building a micro-site for the album artwork. This is very powerful because it supports most modern web technologies in a tight package and interactive features (all, b.t.w., without Flash but looking a lot like Flash).

    Edo has some further good ideas and I recommend reading the article at the top of this post.