|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Nov 17, 2006 9:22 pm |
|
re: re: re: re: re: How's the breakthrough coming? |
| Tom Foale
| |
It's definitely very interactive, it's on-demand, it is delivered over broadband and it's free to the average guy to watch.
You're right though, it is definitely not free to post stuff on Miomni - however, it could be if one of the brand companies decides to pay for people to post their own content on their service. In that way it would be no different from YouTube. What would be different is if one of the brand companies decides to pay people for the most-watched content, which would tend to take both content and viewers away from YouTube.
If we separate the technology from the business model, the technology is pretty much the same. The big difference is that Miomni is a substitutional marketing business model that replaces other media spending by the big brands and promises to target a key market (yoof) better. The content is paid for by the brands out of their marketing budgets. It's business as usual, just a new channel to communicate with the customers and no change to the value chain required.
The standard VoD model is a substitutional one too, but it substitutes one delivery mechanism for another. The standard VoD model relies on the content owners, who normally licence their content for large amounts of cash (often paid up front) over and over again to different markets, to see an internet audience with no market boundary controls and little control over the delivery quality as a good opportunity for their premium content - and getting paid in revenue shares while risking piracy, when there is no evidence that a lot of consumers want to pay for content. So far, none have. What this model is missing is someone like a Warner or BSkyB - a content aggregator that buys content from owners and manages their delivery to the customer base. It's a risky business, as BSkyB will tell you, which is probably why no-one has taken on the role yet. Murdoch bet his entire business several times to acquire and retain the rights to UK premiership soccer.
YouTube is a new video business model, user-provided entertainment. Unfortunately it is not TV-quality because TV-quality requires a much more sophisticated set-up. How much that matters remains to be seen. It is very unlikely to attract content with high production values.
I don't understand your model yet - I don't know where videoconferencing leaves off and community publishing starts. Do you provide and pay the experts? How do you handle copyright issues? You call it a TV channel - how does it get to display on a TV?Private Reply to Tom Foale (new win) |
|
| |
|
