The New York Observer
From YouTube to the iPlayer via newspaper sites offering moving pictures, the digital landscape for video already looks well-established.
But four years on from the moment we went from Dial-up Britain to Broadband Britain, we still have much to learn.
In my latest contribution to Journalism.co.uk I look at five lessons from the last seven days. Namely:
1. If you build it they will come…
(…provided you build something elegant and easy to use. And then market it like crazy.)
2. Don’t do video unless you’re adding value
3. You can’t control the message
4. Brands love YouTube
5. Death is a good career move online too
More on each here: Five lessons from a week in online video
The Blog Herald
Charlie Beckett, Polis
“Hi, I’m Chris Brown. Since February my attorney has advised me not to speak out…”
Why has he chosen a video-sharing site, rather than a newspaper column or TV interview, to make his first public utterance on those events?
To control the message and to avoid awkward questions? If so, the plan seems to have back-fired.
One of the biggest promises of web 1.0 was disintermediation (ie) cutting out the middle man. It’s an attractive proposition for everyone, from those seeking cheaper car insurance to celebrities keen to protect or repair their reputation.
As with much else on the web the promise doesn’t necessarily match the reality. And in a web 2.0 world, a one-sided, unmediated opinion gets challenged by the crowd.
Witness the 7,793 comments (and counting) left below the video, most of them hostile, many abusive.
Steve Yelvington, Cato Unbound
Paul Starr, Cato Unbound
Philip Meyer, Cato Unbound
Clay Shirky, Cato Unbound
Yann Gourvennec, BNET.com
Continuing the series looking at the arguments made against hyperlocal. This is where we’ve got to:
- Hyperlocal is hyperboring (read>>)
- It can’t be trusted
- It won’t make you any money (coming soon)
- Nobody is doing it well (coming soon)
So let’s deal with:
2. It can’t be trusted
Lack of quality and lack of credibility are always accusations thrown at the “amateur”. But here’s the thing:
Hyperlocal is not news as we know it
Often those publishing and contributing to hyperlocal sites are not putting a story together in our conventional, media-land understanding of a story.
They are instead sharing information, gathering evidence, swapping experiences, pooling resources. Witness last weekend’s The Big Lunch as just one example.
Hyperlocal content is best looked at bottom up, generated not by an abstract, detached journalist but by people on the ground who it affects. seen from that angle the trad top down issues fall away – grass roots hyperlocal content is defined by its own creation.
And yet, I think there is a role for the locally-based journalist and publisher to work hand-in-hand with the amateur, taking that raw material – and harnessing the energy and local expertise – and turning it into a water tight, double-sourced investigation. Continue reading You Just Can’t Trust It. In Defence Of Hyperlocal, Pt 2
And the magic figure is $48m over a 30 day month. News-monitoring service VMS based its figure on the 2.73bn impressions generated by free media. Contributions break down like this:
- TV – 57%
- Newspapers – 37%
- Magazines – 5%
Apparently, CNN name-dropped Twitter more than its rival Fox News but the latter network delivered more “PR value”.
The numbers could well be conservative given there’s no allowance for smaller US newspapers and media. And, of course, there’s no notion of the global impact.
As a point of comparison, Microsoft’s marketing and PR blitz around the launch of its Bing search engine generated 63m impressions, or $573,834.
– Guido, Jacko And Miliband’s Phantom Tweet
– Five Ways News Organisations Should Use Twitter
– How Twitter Left Google News Trailing Over Iran
– Have The Young Deserted Facebook In Favour of Twitter?