As long time listener to audio podcasts such as Leo Laporte’s TWiT network (Windows Weekly is among my favorites) and Creative Screenwriting Magazine, I can say I love listening to podcasts. There are many great shows that I have sampled, and I’ve found that I much prefer listened to audio podcasts instead of video.
The first reason is obvious: audio shows do not require your full attention. One can listen to a show while driving in the car, doing menial chores or eating lunch and allowing you to stimulate your brain while doing routine or mundane tasks.
Given its nature, video shows generally work best in shorter format. You have to be at a screen and it requires one’s full attention. That’s not to say that long-format shows cannot work. I have enjoyed Kevin Pollack’s Chat Show, Jason Calacanis’ This Week in Startups and Stupid for Movies from time-to-time, but I find it difficult to stick with them because of the screen requirement and, given their hour plus length and without an audio-only alternatives (which some of them have), they are more difficult to fit into one’s schedule of content consumption.
Also, because video requires much more production time and expense, they are consequently more limiting in terms of who has the resources to produce them. This leaves the door open for some smart entrepreneurs to bootstrap a good idea and get it off the ground with little investment in the audio realm. It also means that content producers must focus more on that what of the content instead of the how and, in the end, that generally compels podcasters to make sure they’re creating intellectually stimulating content.
This is certainly not always the case, nor does it rule out the possibility of a video show accomplishing the task of stimulating the mind. However, in general, audio shows tend to be more about ideas as such and allow for more in-depth analysis of a subject as they can be more liberal in their production length.
Such low overhead in producing audio podcasts has its negative side. While the door is open for successful shows to exist on extremely niche topics, this also means there is a lot of bad content out there one has to sift through. But generally, when you find a good one, they are extremely rewarding and enjoyable.
I do not want to say that video shows are unworthy of attention. They can be more lucrative for content producers as they command much higher advertising rates. That’s not to be discounted. The potentiality for higher profits nets bigger investment in such content, and people will make take time to watch a show if it’s good enough (see my article: Eight Reasons to Quit Cable TV as a first point of instruction for how to clear some room for any video podcasts you might be inclined to watch).
But, for the reasons discussed here, I think people tend to be more loyal to the audio shows they do consume. They’re easier to fit into one’s busy schedule and audiences therefore have more time to get to know a show’s personality and style. As a result—and content permitting—there is higher potential to become more invested in these types of shows.
A recent article in The Financial Times titled “Net Neutrality Comes Back to Haunt Google” demonstrates why Google should stand on principle in its business practices and should give one pause in advocating Net Neutrality.
Many in the tech industry advocate Net Neutrality, which is the idea that all traffic transferred over the Internet should be treated equally with all other traffic. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner are most people’s conduits to the Internet. Net Neutrality would force ISPs from throttling or prioritizing traffic through their networks. For example, some ISPs have slowed down or blocked certain types of traffic (or even prioritized other types of traffic), such as heavy users or traffic transferred by certain applications such as those involved in illegal file sharing or voice over IP data transferred by applications like Skype.
Before you jump in and say whether that’s good or bad for customers, consider that these companies own these networks and as such, it is their right to set the terms for their service. If customers do not receive the quality or quantity of service they want, they are free to select another provider (or no provider). They do not have the right to dictate how ISPs must run their service.
Google has advocated Net Neutrality, according to the article, because they believe the lack of Net Neutrality will hurt their business. But now they are under fire on a new front but up against the very principle they have been advocating. Some now want to regulate search results on the Internet, and dictate how Google must rank their search results.
Why? Google has “too much power,” the argument goes, with respect to sending traffic to sites on the Web. They determine who gets placed and how high up Web sites are shown in search results. A small change in search engine positioning can make or break a business, and an entire industry has been borne around search engine optimization (SEO) by businesses in order to exploit the value Google has created for Web publishers.
But it is Google that has created the value of search in the first place, and to dictate how they must run their business is a violation of their rights and an attempt to expropriate the value they did not earn by that which they did not create.
Google commands such “power” because it has won customers over in terms of the value of their search engine. From recipes to song lyrics to news articles to photographs, Google will help you find the most relevant content on the Web in the most convenient way possible to you. That is their purpose and that is the core of their business, and they have won customers over by being the best at it and, as a result, earned the position of the dominant player in the market.
But to force Google to modify their search results by force will destroy this value, and that is exactly what proponents of “Search Neutrality” desire. They want to make Google give results to customers according to their standards and whims, and determine how search should be optimized, not by the free choice of customers (such as by creating a competing search engine that is better than Google that customers want to use), but at the point of a gun. How did Google gain the dominant position in the marketplace? Blank out. They just are, and they want a piece of it–a piece they did not earn and cannot win legitimately.
That same threat is currently being faced by ISPs by telling them how they must run their business. Google had better wise up to the principle involved here and defend ISPs rights and oppose Net Neutrality, or they won’t have a moral foundation to stand on when regulators come after them as their next target.
In the latest episode of NBC’s late-night lineup debacle, Conan O’Brien issued a statement today that he will refuse to host The Tonight Show if it is moved to 12:05, and The Jay Leno Show is aired at 11:35.
It is absolutely the right move by Conan, and kudos to him for taking a principled stand among what appears to be a sea of pragmatists at NBC.
This mess was foreshadowed back in ‘04 when Leno renewed his Tonight Show contract. NBC worked out a deal where Conan would take over the Tonight Show once Leno’s contract expired in ‘09. It was what Conan wanted, but Leno seemed less excited about it.
On the 50th anniversary of The Tonight Show (9/27/04), Leno made the announcement, but implied NBC pushed him out, (paraphrasing) “NBC said ‘We don’t want to lose Conan’ and I said ‘What does that mean?’” He did not seem excited about it, but played along.
NBC has been trying to have its cake, and eat it too. Both hosts are late night giants in their own right, and NBC made a gamble promising The Tonight Show to Conan, enticing him to stay with the network in lieu of other opportunities. “I worked long and hard to [host the Tonight Show and] passed up far more lucrative offers…” Conan said in his statement today. Meanwhile, they must have simply hoped Leno would stay on their network or retire.
Leno may deserve some criticism here. If he indeed did not want to retire, why didn’t he stand up to NBC back in ‘04? Why doesn’t he accept the risk he took with his 10pm show, and now pack his bags and move to another network or do something different?
Leno moving back to 11:35 is wrong. A talk show on NBC at 11:35 is The Tonight Show de facto, and it doesn’t matter what title they give it. And that move would be a broken promise to Conan.
NBC had a leading late night lineup for a five year period, a position it was able to maintain for a time. Ultimately, however, both Leno and Conan have earned the status of late night giants in their own right, and keeping them on the same network may just not be possible.
If that is the way it is, then I say: let it be. The right question for NBC, at this point, is “What should we do with Leno?”
Personally, I’d love to see Leno host an American version of the TV series Top Gear. Or do movie reviews and take over At The Movies, now that Ebert is out (its replacement current hosts are quite a bore, and Leno was a guest at one point and quite good). But the bottom line is I think it’s time for Leno to move on if his 10pm show can’t cut it on the network. And if NBC doesn’t have the balls to make that call, at least Conan O’Brien will step up to the plate and force the issue.
Conan has the most to lose here. That he is the one willing to take the biggest risk at the same time demonstrates true leadership. That he won’t settle for less illustrates who the real people of character are in all of this mess. If this were an election, I would say he has earned my vote. Vote for Conan in o’10.
A recent article in Home Media Magazine headlined that “$1 DVD Rentals Could Cost Industry $1 Billion,” according to an industry report. The report argues that lower revenue as a result of lower prices will lead to less movie production activity, hurting the economy as a whole.
What about the customer in all of this? Let’s re-write the article’s headline from his point of view: “$1 DVD Rentals Could Save Customers $1 Billion.”
As a customer, this sounds like a good idea to me—and I can put that extra $1 billion (or however much of it is my portion) into other areas of my life that are more productive for me.
The report reeks of union protectionism and overpaid workers whining about a pay cut, as well as brick and mortar rental stores who can’t compete with cheaper and more convenient alternatives, such as Netflix and Redbox. It evades the fact that producers set the price at which they’re willing to sell their products. They sell their products to the likes of Netflix and Redbox, and they set the price for doing so. If they feel they’re not being paid enough, they are free to raise prices (and customers are free to not buy it as well). All this amounts to is a complaint that the market is not paying them enough to make movies that audiences aren’t willing to see (i.e., pay enough to see).
If it’s not profitable to make movies for some producers, fine. Those people may have to find other ways to make a living and be productive. Even if it means less movies are made, as the report argues, so what?
Let’s face it: when it comes to entertainment, quantity is the not the problem. Netflix and others throw buckets of money at research and development, trying connect you to movies that you actually want to see.
If jobs are lost as result of less revenue, those left standing and making movies will be the ones who can make a profit doing it, and ultimately that means those skilled at producing content that audiences want to consume will prevail. It means better movies for you and me, and less crap to filter through.
This report is really a sign of progress, increased efficiency and productivity based on innovation and technological progress, not a negative. So enjoy your $1 DVD rentals and Netflix subscriptions, and enjoy them guilt free.
If your Netflix queue is well over 100 movies, it could take a year or longer before that just-added title arrives in your mailbox. This creates the problem of having to remember the reason you wanted to watch something. How many times have you opened that red envelope only to discover a movie you’ve never heard of and have no interest in seeing? It’s time to put and end to these situations.
Adding an option where you can attach a note to each item in your queue would remind you why you put it there in the first place. When you get that e-mail telling you such-and-such a movie has just been mailed, it will include your note. You could write anything you want in there, such as:
“Don said this was good, call him after and discuss fight sequence.”
—Following up with friends is always a value.
“Movie torturous, hilarious with Rifftrax.”
—Don’t forget about it later when it finally arrives.
“Wife wanted this one.”
—Time to schedule a night in and prepare the snacks.
“Jessica Biel. 1 hour, 3 minutes, 15 seconds.”
—Are you beginning to see the value here?
Hopefully Netflix will add Facebook and Twitter integration soon, too. The notes feature would work well here. I might tweet: “Just added ‘Talk of the Town’ to my #Netflix queue as part of my legal-themed movies marathon.” Please, Netflix, allow us to attach little notes to the movies in our queues. It will make using your service that much more valuable, useful and rewarding.