October 19, 2009
07:05 am | 0 recommendations | 3 comments
Living room rock gods, take note: the battle of the bands is on, and this time the arena is portable. Electronic Arts, MTV Games, and Harmonix have finally launched Rock Band for the iPhone, challenging Tapulous's monopoly in the "rhythm music" space currently cornered by the popular Tap Tap Revenge series.
For $9.99, iPhone users can shred solo to the likes of AFI, Pixies, Foo Fighters, and Blondie, or connect up to four phones via Bluetooth connections to create subway car quartets jamming Steve Miller Band's "Take The Money And Run." The game has 20 songs pre-loaded, with more songs available via in-app purchases (a tantalizing feature for both user and app developer).
Like its game room equivalent, Rock Band for iPhone allows users to choose between guitar, drums, bass or vocals, but vocals are (oddly) performed through tapping rather than singing into the phones mic. Push notifications will allow friends to invite you to jam sessions, and an in-game message center allows you to check your bands' status. The app also integrates Facebook Connect, another avenue users can take to invite friends into the game.
Naturally, Rock Band's goal is to take some share away from Tapulous, whose apps are installed on more than a third of iPhones. But it doesn't end there. Activision Blizzard has yet to adapt Guitar Hero, the console game that took rhythm music games to super-stardom, to the iPhone. Meanwhile, Tapulous released its own update, Tap Tap Revenge 3, two weeks ago.
With all three game makers targeting the same audience, the competition should be as fierce and challenging as the guitar breakdown at the end of Beastie Boys' "Sabotage." Try not to miss your subway stop.
[VentureBeat, Washington Post]
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 12, 2009
09:00 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Sky wants a slice of the iTunes market, but in focusing on music delivery, it could be missing music's next profitable leap forward.
In the digital music arena, it often seems like there is iTunes, and then there is everybody else. (A spoof of an iTunes ad pictured left.) While Apple cornered the market early by dropping the iPod on the world and then shrewdly tethering it to its iTunes money machine, many a competitor has attempted to grab a piece of the MP3 action, some through paid subscription services, some through download sales. Now Sky wants to do both and grab its slice of the iTunes-dominated market, but in focusing so singularly on music delivery, it joins a roster of media companies that may be missing music's next profitable leap forward.
Launching in the U.K. on October 19, Sky Songs will let users access more than four million DRM-free digital tracks, offering a download-to-own, iTunes-style option or advertising-free streaming via a subscription, a la Spotify and Rhapsody. The music will be sourced from four major labels (EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner) and a slew of indie imprints, including the Beggars Group.
Users can stream unlimited tracks for a monthly subscription of about $10 or download DRM-free albums to own for the same price (individual tracks cost about a buck, offering no apparent advantage over iTunes). Or, for those who prefer a hybridization of the two options, users can get unlimited downloads, plus download one album per month to own for around $13 per month. But while the hybrid option offers a pricing scheme that deviates from what we've previously seen from other services, it feels like we've heard this song before. Which begs the question: how can services like Skytunes compete with iTunes?
The easy answer: They won't. That's not to say there's no room for music subscription services, though the field gets more crowded by the day--Virgin Media has also announced it will launch a U.K.-based subscription service later this year, and Rhapsody, Spotify, and others are still in the mix. But even the record companies are backing away from digital music sales as their sole revenue streams. Spending on physical music formats will fall by half by 2013 to $11.3 billion. Meanwhile, digital sales will double to nearly $15 billion, but that still leaves a shortfall of between $3-4 billion. Music is selling, but it is becoming increasingly less profitable to be the seller.
As such, even the major labels are looking elsewhere for revenue. Last week Warner Music Group struck a deal with Outrigger to sell ads across various digital platforms. An eMarketer study sees the online music-video ad spend jumping by as much as $500 million across the music business, and online music video sales leaping from $850 million this year to $3 billion in 2012. The music business sees online branded content, not the selling or streaming of individual tracks, as the next big money maker for the industry. There's simply more value in Ashley Tisdale's four million facebook and twitter fans than there is in however-many listeners Sky Songs can get on the line for a subscription (or for 99-cent song downloads).
In this circular scheme, content feeds advertising, which feeds content, and those strong branding messages from music's elite will turn the next big profits for those churning out the content. Subscription services like the one Sky envisions will have to do more than just deliver audio downloads to remain relevant to consumers and the labels producing branded music videos and other creative content. But the advent of so many audio-centric services makes one wonder if they're listening.
[Digital Spy, AdWeek]
[iTunes ad spoof by Martin Krzywinski; Man with headphones by Fernando de Sousa Via Creative Commons]
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 9, 2009
07:14 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
This morning, around 7:31 EST, NASA's "moon bombing" went off without a hitch as the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite captured footage of its Centaur counterpart impacting a crater on the moon's south pole at 5,600 miles per hour. The impact displaced about 350 metric tons of lunar terrain, leaving a new crater about 65 feet wide and 13 feet deep.
Just after Centaur's impact, as the LCROSS satellite makes it's approach.
Following four minutes behind, the LCROSS satellite analyzed the resulting plume of soil, rock, and (hopefully) water ice, beaming its observations back to its NASA handlers on Earth before crashing on the lunar surface as well.
Getting closer.
Scientists believe they've already detected plenty of water at the lunar south pole, but there's no detecting quite like actually touching the stuff, hence NASA's mission to throw some ice up into the air and empirically observe its presence there. Confirmed sources of water on the moon would have vast implications for the future establishment of a long-term moon base, as well as for engineering ways for lunar explorers to refuel via fuel-cells or to refill their oxygen tanks during prolonged moon missions.
Closer still.
Details about what LCROSS found won't be available immediately. In the meantime, a rather enthusiastic LCROSS left us with a Twitter feed detailing its final minutes racing toward certain demise. As the LCROSS team eulogized on said feed: "The LCROSS mission has ended. But the scientific discovery continues."
The end of LCROSS.
[NASA, The New York Times]
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 7, 2009
08:56 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Those working in the media, particularly old media, are constantly cognizant that current revenue models for media companies are not working. Those who aren’t were reminded just how fragile things are this week as magazine house Conde Nast shuttered culinary mainstay Gourmet along with four other once-successful magazines to cut costs. 
As the hammer drops, old media magnates and new media startups alike are scrambling to find a middle way in which storied news organizations can continue to deliver the news in an online marketplace where everything is free. Below, five ways old media are trying to stay relevant, and solvent, in a new media world:
Exclusivity: For global news wires like the Associated Press, the value in their product is derived from its ability to gather news smaller organizations can’t. But news wires have lost a good deal of competitive edge to online aggregators and have even tangled legally with search sites like Google News that circulate the AP’s exclusive stories quickly around the Web, a practice which nets the AP nothing. On Tuesday, AP CEO Tom Curley told the Hong Kong Press Club the company may consider a short-term exclusive license that offers premium content to some news organizations before releasing it to the pool, giving them a 20-30 minute head start to make headlines. We’re unsure how this will deter aggregators and search sites from proliferating the AP’s content, but at the very least it could add to its bottom line.
Paywalls: News Corp. Chief and media magnate Rupert Murdoch famously announced a few months back that by next year, he will be charging for access to all of his Web properties, a decidedly old media approach to the new media model. His recently acquired Wall Street Journal is already partially paywalled, and has managed some success with the model. The problem with the paywall model is that it assumes the reader should pay for the news, which has really never been the case. The cost of a print subscription to most publications covers the cost of delivery only, with advertising revenue paying for the actual content. Rather than placing the burden on readers, it seems proponents of paywalls should first look at ways to boost advertising revenues to sustainable levels. That, of course, may require a rethinking of Web advertising as we know it.
Scale: Though no formal plan has emerged, rumors abound that magazine companies have kicked around the idea of a cross-publisher advertising network that would allow them to scale costs. The idea isn’t brand new, but the fact that it’s being considered is. Under such a plan, magazines would essentially pool their advertising space, enabling them to sell brands a swath of advertising space across several publishing companies at better rates. Will it save print magazines? Not likely, but it may stem the bleeding until something better comes along.
New Media Delivery: The rumor mill swung into high gear last week when it was reported that Time Inc. has been floating the idea of a kind of iTunes for magazine delivery that would manage users subscriptions and deliver digital versions directly to their e-readers. We like this plan because, unlike those above, it actually makes strides to pull print journalism into the digital century. But it’s also fraught with problems: device makers like Amazon and Apple already have their own plans for content delivery that don’t jive with Time’s designs, and they’ll have to convince consumers to sign up for yet another subscription delivery service. Still, the idea could have legs if the device makers get on board.
Micropayments: The idea to have consumers pay for the news incrementally, in small payments of just a few pennies per article, has been out there for a while, but Google announced in September the roll out of tools to help news organizations charge for page views, a big-name endorsement that could actually push this model closer to reality. However, we raise an old objection; consumers are loathe to pay for the news, especially when they can get it free somewhere else. While the idea isn’t toxic, we’re dubious about its long-term prospects as an old media savior. Would you pay three pennies for this article? Would you pay it multiple times each day as you gather your daily news and entertainment?
Perhaps old media simply needs a wholesale re-thinking, but emerging trends in new media (that is, lots of blogging, little editorial oversight, and wide-ranging standards of quality/veracity) have drawn the ire of old-school journalism proponents and defenders of democracy who feel that an implosion of old media would be detrimental to life as we know it (and they’re likely correct). If we knew the way to save the media, we’d have cracked the model by now; in the meantime, we’ll keep blogging about it. Oh, and that will be three cents, please.
[Advertising Age, PaidContent, AllThingsD]
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 6, 2009
12:26 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments
As the Supreme Court goes back to work this week it once again will determine just how far the First Amendment stretches. But rather than the usual "prayer in school" or "mandatory pledge of allegiance" cases that generally clog the docket, the high court is weighing how far journalists and documentary filmmakers can go when depicting animal cruelty, and what ramifications that has for other graphic visuals, like violence, pornography, or, say, negligence at slaughterhouses. Cast that in the age of endless Web video, pocket digicams, and citizen journalists who instantly post videos to the Web, and the case quickly becomes personal.
The arguments stem from the arrest, conviction, and subsequent appeal by filmmaker Robert Stevens, who received a 37-month prison sentence for including footage of a Japanese dog fight in one of his films. (That's 18 months more than Michael Vick served for actually running a dog-fighting operation on U.S. soil). Stevens didn't shoot the footage or participate in the fight, which was conducted legally in Japan; he simply included it in his film Catch Dogs and Country Living (a scene pictured above), violating a 1999 statute aimed at curbing the depiction of animal cruelty. Stevens appealed the conviction and won, and now the Supreme Court is weighing whether or not a First Amendment exception for animal cruelty is constitutional.
At stake, of course, is not just Steven's freedom, but the creative process itself. The government wants depictions of animal cruelty to be treated the same as child pornography? Not only is that overreaching but it would have the sort of "chilling effect" Justice William Brennan warned about nearly five decades ago during another First Amendment case--a media afraid to speak the truth for fear of penalty quickly becomes impotent.
So where does that leave the creative process, and where does that leave, well, news? There's an argument for keeping objectionable material from the airwaves, but the backers of the 1999 Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law go a bit too far. In the Information Age, users have access to an unprecedented amount of media, some of which has cultural value, and some of which doesn't. But for the court to begin making First Amendment exceptions for certain subject matters and not others warps the whole premise of freedom of information. Should the law start making a distinction between the video of a young woman bleeding to death in an Iranian street--which news networks played repeatedly during the recent Iranian election protests--and that of a legal dog fight conducted on foreign soil? Is one considered good journalism, the other akin to child pornography?
Plenty of us wish we hadn't seen the Neda video from Iran or the widely circulated video of the beheading of U.S. contractor Nick Berg in Iraq in 2004. But they caused discomfort because they were supposed to. And if journalism and documentary film are to remain relevant, punishing creatives for shoving viewers outside their comfort zones serves no one.
[The Wrap]
[Neda Memorial Photo by Traveling Mermaid]
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 6, 2009
08:13 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
That familiar "Buy Now With 1-Click" button, so enticing on Amazon.com, is about to become a temptation for mobile customers everywhere. Amazon is offering its Mobile Payments Service (MPS) platform to third parties for integration into mobile apps and Web sites. That makes it easier for users to purchase goods or information on mobile devices through their existing Amazon accounts--without having to re-log into a Web site or an app each time he or she wants to buy something.
Amazon MPS lets third party developers build Amazon's payment system, complete with familiar yellow purchase buttons, directly into their apps and Web sites. Users can then enable mobile payments through their Amazon accounts and use the payment methods and information stored there to make purchases from third party apps or sites, even using Amazon's "1-Click" purchasing option, which automatically initiates a transaction without mousing through several order confirmation screens.
Kansas City-based Handmark Inc., which sells mobile games and apps through mobile storefronts, is the first to integrate the service into its apps. While the company still offers other payment options like PayPal and Google Checkout, it's notable that the only other one-click payment option it offers is one in which customers charge an item directly to their wireless bill rather than to a credit or debit card--not ideal, especially for those who charge their phone bills to corporate. And down the line, as more media companies embrace micropayment-based
billing systems for content, ease of transaction is a major selling point.
By having Amazon be the mobile middleman for transactions made on the go, mobile vendors benefit because MPS lets customers pay without the hassle of logging in on a mobile device. It also eliminates a valid concern for customers who are fearful of sending sensitive information over a network they may not trust--to a site they don't know. Amazon wins because it reinforces the trust and familiarity it has fostered with consumers over more than a decade of Web retailing.
Amazon joins a bevy of other companies posturing for a foothold in the exploding mobile payments space. Boku is developing financial marketplaces with social networks and gaming sites as well, while rival Zong is managing Facebook's virtual currency. The more senior Obopay allows users to move money between individuals as well as businesses using nothing but cell phones, and as such it has been tapped by Nokia to create a mobile banking business in parts of the developing world where physical bank branches are scarce. But none of these startups yet offer the ease that Amazon brings to paying on the go, and that may be the key to bringing mobile payments from the background to the forefront of online commerce.
[Amazon via VentureBeat, KC Bizjournals]
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 2, 2009
11:45 am | 0 recommendations | 5 comments
Rio de Janeiro? After years of speculation, a rigorous four-year $50 million pitch by Chicago’s bid team, and impassioned pleas by Oprah and, you know, the Obamas, Chicago was the first city eliminated as a possible host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics by the International Olympic Committee this morning, followed by Tokyo and finally Madrid.
Chicago, considered a front-runner along with Rio (Chicago was last year’s American Fast City of the Year), lobbied hard before the International Olympic Committee this morning, with Chicago figurehead Oprah Winfrey and both Barack and Michelle Obama in attendance. But as soon as the decision to eliminate the Second City was handed down, pundits began the finger-pointing. Many thought the decision to remove Chicago may have hinged on the bid’s lack of federal funds, a peculiar detail considering Obama, father of a massive multi-billion stimulus package earlier this year, was there stumping for the city. Others called Chicago’s presentation simply flat next to the colorful pitches by Rio and Madrid.
For Rio, hosting the Olympics is especially significant because the South American continent has never hosted the Summer Games. The city is also riding a wave of enthusiasm after hosting the Pan American Games in 2007, which went off largely without a hitch, proving its stature as an international city.
But Rio has big shoes to fill. Beijing re-imagined the Summer Games last year, pushing architecture and theatrics to new highs. The 2012 London games look unlikely to compare. We know Rio has the passion and the personality. Whether not it will have the imagination--and the economic might to support its ideas--remains to be seen.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 1, 2009
09:55 am | 0 recommendations | 6 comments
Reports yesterday that Web ad sales have overtaken TV ad sales to become the largest advertising medium in the UK underscore the possibility that the Web holds the key to the future of marketing. But findings by a joint comScore/Starcom study paint a less rosy picture for Web advertising’s effectiveness, at least in terms of the standard banner ad. In less than two years, the number of people who click on display ads has declined by 50%. Moreover, just a few people compose the vast majority of those clicks, as 8% of Internet users account for 85% of all click-throughs. That raises two important questions: Is the banner ad really effective, and is the click-through rate, the standard by which banner ads’ values are determined, even relevant anymore?
Of all Internet users, only 16% actually click on display ads, down from 32% in July 2007. The concentration of those clicks has halved as well, with the 8% that are responsible for most clicks down from 16% that were responsible for 80% of clicks two years ago. Those doing the clicking aren’t necessarily the most desirable demographic for many advertisers either; most are lower-income young adults, so click-through numbers do not take into account the media and buying habits of the vast majority of Internet users.
So is the click-through rate a relevant metric by which to value Web content and the effectiveness of Internet ads? Display ads certainly aren’t worthless. Previous comScore studies have found that consumers exposed to display ads are 65% more likely to visit a brand’s site than those who aren’t exposed to the ad (which makes sense--you don't visit a Web site you know about). Display ads also up the number of searches for a particular brand’s name among those people exposed to the ad. Exposed to both display and search ads, comScore found that users are nearly twice as likely to make a purchase from the site advertised.
But, as a measurement for an ad’s monetary value, it’s time to retire the click-through. The connection between the number of times an ad is clicked and the amount of business it generates for a brand is a dubious one at best. The amount of time users engage with an interactive ad and time spent on a brand’s Web site after clicking through are far more important than the click itself. The metric also can't measure the value derived from users who are exposed to the brand message but do not click through the ad. The click-through rate is a tempting stat because it’s so easy to measure, but it’s time to find a better standard for valuing ads on the Web.
[Advertising Age]
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 30, 2009
08:39 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Tesla Motors--they made that cute all-electric Roadster no one actually owns--wants you to know the money they received from the government is NOT the same money that bailed out Detroit, but rather a loan from the DOE to accelerate the production of fuel-efficient vehicles. So what are they doing with $350 million of your money? Well it’s actually pretty exciting; according to a blog post on Tesla’s Web site, an all-electric minivan, a crossover, and a utility fleet van will join the Model S family sedan on Tesla’s sales floor in the not-too-distant future.
After a fairly stringent application process and a thorough DOE review of its operations, in February Tesla joined Ford and Nissan as the first recipients of federal loans designed to move America’s car companies toward more fuel-efficient technology. No funds have been dispensed yet, but Tesla has big plans for its taxpayer injection, most importantly the development of an assembly plant for the Model S sedan (the first actual mass-production car from the company) in Southern California and a powertrain manufacturing facility in Northern California, which combined should employ about 1,650 workers. Tesla unveiled the Model S sedan in March, but so far there's no word on when it will hit showrooms.
Tesla hopes its proprietary all-electric powertrain will be adopted by other manufacturers, saving them the time and cost of developing their own technology (and making a buck or two for Tesla). But it’s the derivative products slated for development that will thrill car-lovers and eco-junkies: a family-sized minivan, a crossover SUV, and a fleet vehicle that could help large entities like utilities or municipal governments save big money while drastically reducing carbon emissions.
As for the Roadster, well, 700 of the proof-of-concept vehicles are coursing roads in the U.S. and Europe. With a range of 244 miles (on electricity only), the Tesla Roadster is six times as efficient as a gasoline car, and twice as efficient as a Prius. Now that the Roadster has proven Tesla’s powertrain works, if the company can flip that technology into mass-marketable vehicles, more power to it.
[Tesla via Treehugger]
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 29, 2009
11:01 am | 0 recommendations | 4 comments
How much do you know about your favorite baseball team? Who are your best Facebook friends? Which pin-up girl do you most identify with? The passing about of seemingly inane quiz-style apps on Facebook is a pastime for some and a nuisance for others. But to advertisers, it’s user engagement. Now, Seattle-based AppBank has created a Facebook app that provides users with the tools to churn out their own apps featuring AppBank’s targeted ads. It even shares a cut of the ad revenue with the app’s creator. Welcome to the age of the amateur app developer.
AppBank, which launched in beta today, provides a quick four-step process for Facebook app creation inside the user’s own Facebook page. First you choose what kind of app you want to create (a trivia or personality quiz, a gifting app, or a name decoder). Then you provide a name and description. Finally you add content (trivia questions, gifts to give, etc.). The App walks you through the simple method of taking the app live, and faster than you can ask “Which Gossip Girl are you?” your app is sent to your friends and the money starts rolling in. Well, potentially anyhow.
Far from rudimentary, AppBank’s tools lets you polish your apps so they take on a professional appearance, with embedded images and even YouTube movies. A dashboard pumps out numbers, derived from Facebook, that track the app’s performance--it even tells you where in the U.S. the app is getting the most traction. It includes stats on the app’s financial performance, and breaks down its daily or weekly take.
As for the financial incentive, AppBank places targeted banner ads (companies like Netflix and Victoria’s Secret are in the networks supported by AppBank) within the apps based on the content of the app and the kinds of users who are making the app popular. Just how lucrative can a silly facebook quiz be? The most popular apps coming out of AppBank pull in $700-$1,000 per month, no sum to scoff at for that “Which breed of lap dog do you most resemble?” app you pulled together while you were supposed to be doing your real job.
Will user-generated apps strike a nerve with Facebook's 300 million-strong community and garner some serious clicks? It's appealing to advertisers, and could be lucrative for users in tune with popular memes. Just try to keep your apps tasteful, or at least legal. While opening app development to the masses should provide some good fun (and a fair degree of nuisance), there are some questions that just aren’t funny.
[AppBank via GigaOm]
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
