I was just alerted by Live Nation that the API is terminated. I never had much fun with the API, but this email is so cold.
This email serves as notice that Live Nation is discontinuing its Open API program and is hereby terminating your license agreement. You must immediately cease using the Live Nation data feed, remove implementation of the data feed from your website and delete all copies of the data feed.
Unless you aren't really following the social landscape, you probably know that Bing revealed it's social search this week. I think it's an interesting time with search and social media. The key component, however, will ALWAYS be including the social graph.
In the next 6-12 month timeframe, the technology that will impact the media industry the most will be a combination of search and the Web 2.0 cornerstone technologies. For the purposes of this blog post, search will be defined as the ability of user to get access to all of the web’s data at the point of interest. Recently, new technology has been included in the definition of digital media; including social networks, location based applications, blogs, crowd sourcing, real time results and push notification. These technologies will be defined in this post as social streaming services, and they have created their own significant silos in the industry.
A major difference between social streaming and search is the method in which data is distributed and consumed. Social streaming technologies use a push method for interacting with users by leveraging that user’s social graph. As an example, a person’s friend updates their status, posts a tweet, or shares their location. The data is then sent directly to the user without a need to search for it. Search technology uses more of a pull method of data delivery. Users indicate a point of interest (a search) and the data that relates to that point of interest is provided. This data is uncorrelated to the searcher’s social graph, and is often presented in an overwhelming amount.
Both point of interest search and social streaming, however, continue to be at odds with the trends that seem most significant to today’s web user who wants simple, immediate and trusted data about their interests. Within both areas of the digital media industry, users are often submerged by information. It is widely considered that users don’t want 8,000,000 results for their search. Recent articles about “social fatigue” also suggest that they don’t want 8,000,000 social streams from their friends about a seemingly endless array of information. Even crowd sourcing sites like Yelp and Amazon are theorized to provide too many reviews, with no clear indication if those reviewers have the same interests as the user, thus failing miserably on trusted data.
Although startups like Foursquare and Twitter have experienced success, I believe the next 5 to 10 year time frame companies will leverage social streaming sites at the point of interest. This technology was recently coined with the term “right-time web” by Brian Ascher. The right-time web is defined as social media filters that help categorize data and, more importantly, make it available to other users at a time when it is most valuable. As an example the a friend of mine in the city posted that he was in “Joe’s Pizza.” I am back in DC now, and a tweet like that holds no value to me!!!!
The right-time web takes a separate approach to filters. Today people handle over tweets by limiting his/her friends (I stopped following him because he only tweets - banned word by NY Times.. lol - about restaurants in the city). The right time web filters that user’s friend’s comment until the optimal time. In such an example, if I were searching for “pizza near nyu” the my friends’s tweet from a few weeks back might appear. At this time, and theoretically only this time, the endorsement of Joe’s Pizza would be in fact very valuable, and something that I may not have found if I had decided to stop following him. The idea of point of interest does not have limited to search. Points of interest can be defined as “checking in” with apps, or searching directories like Yelp and Google, or selecting a product in a shopping cart.
Under this model media companies would sponsor social streams in similar format as Google keywords. Presently, media companies have generally been working with both point of interest and social streaming separately. They have relied on point of interest by purchasing keywords, and through aggressive search engine optimization. They have embraced the current version of social streaming by providing easy ways for users to share their marketing materials across social stream. Within social media, they have actively sought to turn every user into brand ambassadors, and measured those campaigns on click-thru.
Success with social streaming has been varied, likely because the technology has yet to meet its master design. For example, Hot Tub Time Machine and Paranormal Activity were considered successful campaigns, while Bruno was a failure. The failure, however, could be that media viral campaigns have no readily identified influencers. Companies are forced to hope that everyone will be of influence, regardless of topic, and that good reviews from trusted friends, aren’t buried by those from associates. A major mistake is assuming that if a person seems to influence a user for a subject like “restaurants in ny,” that the person would also influence the same user for a subject like “dark comedy.”
This is not to say that social streaming content is not valuable, it remains true that friends trust friends. I believe filtering the stream by point of interest will help deter what’s often described as “social network” fatigue. In order for media companies to take advantage, however, they need an algorithm that can distinguish between a positive mention in social stream and a negative mention. Companies could then sponsor positive social streams using a model system to Google keywords. The model could be extended beyond a simple replication of a keyword, to one that uses conceptual phrase understanding and attributes in the meta-data. For media companies there is an even stronger value in meta-data. As an example, a search for Bryan Greenberg would display streams about the actor/musician but might also reveal sponsored social streams about Bryan or his shows, like “Dawson’s Creek” or “How to Make it in America”. A user that performed the search could access the media’s company’s ad by clicking the sponsored stream.
The technology improves the distribution of marketing material across social stream at high value points in the decision making process. It also, however, increases a company’s understanding of influencers within a social network. Companies will have access to person searching, there present point of interest, and the person that influences them in that area. It is a difficult challenge in terms of technology and data ownership, but I fully anticipate it to be a challenge that will be resolved within the next 5 years.
As with the simple concept of Joe’s pizza, a person may not be interceded in a friend’s glowing movie review the day it happened. It is quite possible at the time of the review the stream will either be dismissed or read and forgotten. Eight months later, however, if the same person is perusing Netflix for a rental, the review could be presented at the optimal time.
I have to say, I was a big Spotify fan last year. I played it, I loved it, and I was pissed when my friend couldn't install the app on my iPhone. After a while, based on the US restrictions, I just stopped using it. I was patiently waiting for Apple to "go cloud." My patience was suddenly interrupted when I got the beta invite to Rdio. It's a 3 day trial before you have to pony up.. but by day 1.5, I was in love.
They are taking on Spotify (and every other playlist services), ITunes Cloud (whenever that happens) and my boys at Pandora. The music business was pronounced dead, but there are so many fun business models being illustrated at its wake.
Check out Rdio, and let me know if you need a beta invite.
TiVo’s early adopter strategy never translated, and there was no alternative strategy. At the time TiVo’s strategy seemed to be to target early adopters, and hoping that those users, couch potatoes by nature, had the communication skill and the social network to market the product to their associates. TiVo’s executive team assumed that their early adopters were technology enthusiasts, but I think they were TV enthusiasts. The size of the adopter’s network may be smaller than what may have been imagined. TiVo didn’t focus understanding the adopters. Couch potatoes wouldn’t seem social enough to be effective evangelists, possibly preferring to stay home enjoying their passion. Today, those couch potatoes could have a large network because the Internet. In 1999, however, that was not the same case. In retrospect, I would recommend Tivo to look closely at the early adopter profile. I wouldn’t simply measure their willingness pay or value for DVR, specifically TiVo, I would also measure the breadth of their social networks.
Although, they had a strong pull with early adopters, TiVo suffered from premium pricing without a clear product differentiation. Tivo's entry strategy shows no forethought about potential competitors, which is odd since the product could be reverse engineered and there seems to be no clear barrier to entry. There wasn’t any compelling marketing message that informs a customer why to choose the premium TiVo brand. This is further exacerbated by no internal reference price marketed to consumers to be used during the research phase of their decision process. I would recommend penetration pricing for the initial purchases, but a premium pricing on the subscription. This would given them a captive customer, and could have increased customer perceived value. They could use the subscription as product differentiation, marketing the product as constantly evolving and growing with consumer, perhaps a tagline “the dvr that grows with you.” The annual renewal cost would have to be priced less than that of the standalone competitors. If they keep premium, I suggest lessening the seemingly high cost by extending a six month money back guarantee. If the products actually get returned they could use the refurbished boxes for product differentiation and field expirments.
In a not-so-subtle move Google illustrates how it has always been involved with video chatting, and allows it users to get better adjusted with bringing it into there every conversation.
Google Makes Video Chat More Accessible in Gmail: Google’s redesigned the chat window in Gmail, making the video, voice and group chat functions much more prominent via some new buttons. While these features were all available previously, they were hidden away in a “Video & More” link at the bottom of the window, which many users may have missed — now you can access them with a single click.
Since video and voice chats require a plugin, if you click the button and your chat buddy doesn’t have it installed, Gmail will invite them to install it first.
Cable should see unprecedented growth in Internet subscriptions, but as consumer consumption patterns change, cable will need to avoid cannibalizing its television subscriptions to match consumer’s interest. As more content comes online it will help cable’s internet growth, but concurrently those consumers will realize that television services aren’t necessary, perhaps even the newly offered phone services. This is an ugly reality, that likely has no fix, because television it an outdated technology and the Internet has no limits. The window of television’s inevitable death, however, is something that Cable will need to control.
Cable obviously needs to control the window, and clone the competitor’s threatening cable’s control of “Internet TV”. My one caveat, however, is that even if cable can control Internet TV, the industry must not fall into the trap of assuming that cable will always be the most efficient (combination of speed and cost) way of delivering the Internet to the customer. There are questions about other forms of Internet delivery that can could possibly rival the Cable provided Internet, where consumers might prefer a slower web if the cost is that much less. FIOS is the clear forefront, but could the Internet be delivered at a competitive speed of Cable in other ways? What about delivery over television waves, radio waves, satellite? Will there be TV that people can just stick their mobile devices onto which could then load some Boxee type of software? Could there be routers that spread a mobile’s 3G connection like wi-fi? Could there be a projector on iPhones which could be used to display images in a wall or screen? All of these things threaten to chip away at Cable’s Internet share, and with the Internet as the consolidated revenue stream, all of these things can be considered threatening. It’s therefore important for cable to react quickly, create time for testing, determine revenue generating methodology within broadband, ownable and sustainable strategy,
And, of course, the question becomes how it will generate revenue? This is idea is about saving revenue, it’s an operational perspective on revenue generation, through cost savings, efficient channels, creating bottle necks, and removing competition. Cable needs to respond quickly, and I think they should extend the window between the consumer’s complete embrace of the Internet as a source of content. They could do so by encouraging content providers to delay video over the Internet. They should then explore a sustainable way to move into the Internet in a way that gives them control. They should embrace sites like Boxee, but in doing so focus on limiting live programming (sports), and premium programming HBO, to the Television. Cable could clone Boxee as they did with the DVR offering their own Boxee-like cable boxes. In addition to extending the windows by working with their partners, they could also extend the window by increasing the cost of Internet, and setting new prices based on the amount of consumption; a premium broad band. Finally, they should investigate the top limits for mobile delivery and other potential technology replacements.
The digital revolution leaves money on the table, which the music industry may be able to claim. First, when I mention the music industry in this post, I am speaking strictly about major music labels. Artists are able to release and sell music independently at an increasing rate. Presently, the only added-value the labels have is the potential increased marketing budget and established relationships with radio and licensing firms. Their strong stranglehold on distribution has been wiped away, and they could use a method to replace it. In addition, for both major and independent labels, an all digital marketplace means that music could only be purchased on the web, furthermore all music buyers would need to have a credit card. It should be mentioned that mp3 players have additional hidden costs of the user needing both a computer and Internet access. This digital revolution wipes away impulse purchases at concerts, in airports, and eliminates purchases by children under 18 (and others without credit cards).
I think the music industry can still rebound. The industry needs to setup a barrier of entry that would increase their added value (in comparison to artists going independent). Further, they need to efficiently capture the impulse buys and non credit card customers. As technology has been the game changer, they need to focus on commercializing technology for the music industry. An idea could be the use of custom media players and storage devices. For example, I think the industry could develop headphones, which could be used as either digital storage devices for album content or stand alone mp3 players (or both). The headphones would store the digital data for an album and could be attached to any mp3 player, or iPod, and it would then transport the songs to the player. The headphones would requires digital storage, and an output device (encode with software which can communicate with the typical mp3 player). They could be designed like an album cover; they can be customized to match any art with variation of colors, print, as well as varying proportions; allowing it to be fully flexible to the artist’s (or sponsoring partner’s) concept. After transporting the music, the customer can either keep the headphones or use their own. The purpose of this is twofold; the process removes the need for a computer and a credit card, and it allows for a real world impulse purchases. How will it generate revenue: The headphones should be designed and produced with a retail price of $8.99, just under that of a CD and just over that of regular replacement headphones. As mentioned, in addition to the internal chip required to transport the data to another mp3 player, there also could be a chip that consumes the data and allows it to be played. I believe that the limited number of songs on an album would only require small capacity for an mp3 player, in addition there would be no need for an interface, as the mp3 player could also be embedded in the headphones. If done correctly, self playing headphones could be marketed as the new CD. The product could potentially be consumed by people that don’t have the desire to spend 200 on an iPod, or that aren’t interested in downloading music from the web, or are easily frustrated with syncing to their computer constantly. If successful this product could restore the dominance of the music industry, as it would again create the necessity of a mass produced product.
