Local news in Chicago is a very competitive environment. With the promotional clamor to be one step ahead of the other, especially in superior picture quality, you would think broadcasters would understand the importance of streaming media on the internet. Unfortunately, I still wonder if they really do. With some video screens either smaller than youtube sizes, pushed to the side of visibility, or in some cases, difficult to find all together. Other broadcasting sites have a full screen mode, but the frame rate has been lowered to where it causes discomfort or nausea in less than a minute. Nearly all the sites read more akin to a newspaper site than a television station. Only one station appears to get it: ABC 7 Chicago. Interestingly, they also happen to be the number one station in Chicago as well. The site is laid out with video at the forefront and center of the homepage, large and easy to navigate. They also have a great zoom feature that scales the video to a larger size and dims the rest of the page for easier viewing. Something happens during the viewing: You actually feel like you are experiencing the television news on your computer. Although the video has compression artifacts, which is expected in today’s high bandwidth costs, the compression is manageable to where you can read the titles to the on-air graphics and map details that are a struggle to read on smaller screens. There is a greater user experience that draws viewers in - and even more important - does not frustrate your existing viewers who have certain expectations. Especially when many viewers are so accustomed to full screen video on television as it has been for decades. It is important to understand what your product is and it’s relation to your consumers and maintain it at all costs. When you visit a newspaper site, you expect them to have current articles for reading. When you turn to a television channel, you expect your news in a full screen video format. Your association to any other associated product, in any form, should be as close to that product as possible. When you can hardly find even a video stream without clicking a link, or the video is too small as in the case of some affiliates, you won’t find an audience either. (Disclaimer: author was a former employee of CBS 2 Chicago)
Archive for April, 2008
After hearing a snippet of the banned keynote speech by Tim Robbins last week, I can understand some people’s frustration towards network news. Having worked in an owned and operated CBS affiliate, I have seen the difficult balance that broadcasters play. It is important to note that most journalists I have had the pleasure to work with are truely dedicated to providing quality news stories, and do. Many great news stories are written every day, they just never air. The problem with today’s news is you the viewer. Say again? Let me step back for a moment if and try to follow me. Like everything in broadcasting, advertising funds the production of news. There is no billionaire financier throwing money at news. News has to stay competitive to survive. Because nielsen ratings drive the value of a network’s airtime, viewership is imperative to the station’s survival. The number one age group of consumer spending is 18-34. These age groups are mostly fascinated with stories that revolve around hollywood. In general, it is also easier for a station to get people to watch the local brownie troop 142 get a cat as a mascot then bloody gang violence where most of the footage is unsuitable for broadcast. It is also easier to watch, for some, Britney Spears make a fool of herself then the death toll pictures in Africa. Media buyers know it and would prefer to follow softer news than harder news. Face it, you find yourself unable to pay attention for a few moments after a difficult story airs that shakes your psyche for a bit. We’ve all seen network news struggle to find the right chemistry with six figure anchors that can make and break the competition’s stride. Salary pay continues to be competitive. I never met a professional journalist arriving to work eager to report a story of Paris Hilton crashing into a tree. You like those stories. Maybe not all of you - I certainly don’t care, but I have friends and family that find it entertaining. You can change covered topics if enough of you just refuse to watch. People are watching this smut - which means viewership - which means money to fund news for next month. Stop watching it. Refuse to watch any news that doesn’t meet your standards. Broadcasters will listen. They want you to care as much as they do about good journalism. They can’t do it for free.
There is a convergence in media today that happening but has not quite taken a polished form. You might have heard about internet citizen journalism growing in popularity. The problem is that these streams can be easily lost in the endless world of RSS feeds within the internet. Consumers have to know where to look in order to find the media. Podcasts for example, which use RSS feeds are great but again, you need to subscribe to the feed in order to get updates. If I could imagine the greater use of the future internet is the ability to move within clouds of data with user voted page ranks and trusted source ranking. Have I lost you? Let’s imagine there is a breaking news story where a fire breaks out at a nearby factory. The media breaks the story with a reporter on the way to the scene. Meanwhile, a person near the scene begins a streaming video from their cell phone with a cloud tag of: breaking news, factory, fire, Chicago, north-side, Broadway & Addison, Date, Time. The media could immediately be alerted to the stream and start feeding the source. A bulletin would be broadcasted: is this a trusted source? - with a page rank alerting the status of user submissions. News media uses phone call-ins frequently for this but a connection needs to happen between the two parties. Another video stream opens covering the scene with a higher trusted rank and now you can have more coverage. While you’re listening to the broadcast, you click on the history of the factory with articles on prior news that extends to that area’s neighborhood history. The user has more control of how much or how little they want to learn.
Let’s takes that same concept and apply to a network where an aspiring journalist or even a concerned citizen records their own account, and after editing the media could submit it to multiple feeds within the internet and broadcast channels for them to review and publish in parallel. If the network decides not to broadcast it, you still have he option to float to the other media articles for more information. All of this comes from recent media management software that opens the accessibility of information. Although the big networks may at first shy away, the need to stay competitive in today’s market may lead to this adoption. The benefit for the larger networks is that they could also get a higher visibility from the smaller social media as well.
When I worked in broadcast news, we had thousands of archived news stories on tapes with a database to source that information. Now with new media management tools and a tapeless workflow, there is greater access to a larger network of media for better information. The next step is opening that access further into the internet pool of relevant, user submitted experiences for greater insight into our world. A tapeless world is just the first step. Capsulized media is on the brink of non-existence, as we once experience it. When we get there will be determined by both the consumer and the networks.
This is just one example of the de-regulation of media and can even apply to consumer generated advertising and social consumer shopping as well. It’s going to be an interesting future when you stand back and look at the larger picture. Will the larger players sit back and wait for it to happen without their support or will they embrace it with open standards? Let’s hope for everyone involved, it makes for a greater knowledge and user experiences.
Yesterday at NAB 2008 in Las Vegas, Red announced their new 5K Epic and 3K Scarlet camera continuing to push the industry in a direction that is very exciting. Although they are not taking pre-orders, with a delivery of early 2009, the rumor is the 3K Scarlet camera price is going to hover in the 3-4 thousand dollar range. If you need a catch up: That’s a rather inexpensive camera that hovers above the quality of an HD image and just below a Film 4K image. Having seen the amazing 4K clarity of Peter Jackson’s Crossing the Line last year at NAB on a 4K projector, I can understand how film celluloid is going to be replaced. Less people are going to the theater with their new HD home installations. You also have pro-sumer and professional content developers that will soon have the capacity to raise the quality of their production beyond HD for a reasonable price. The question I raise is this: Will HD broadcast networks and film studios be able to compete in a few years? Today’s television SD and HD standards obviously are created to keep compliance with consumer products that have been established and maintained by the industry NTSC and FCC governing board. Two things can happen in the next two years: A inexpensive introduction of a 37″ or higher computer display that displays resolutions that exceed HD 1080p (the highest ATSC standard). The second is a higher efficient codec that can delivery lossless quality within manageable download times. This is going to happen eventually. The thought is that the film and television industry may not have an advantageous quality edge in the future. Perhaps this is why organizations such as the MPAA as so freaked out. If consumers in the future witness the ability to see films in 4K and the costs are affordable, the phrase “Keeping up with the Joneses” is going to take on a whole new meaning. Story is still king and I am left baffled why people send me links to youtube such as a skateboarding dog. As the dusto of what I describe as “internet awe” clears, decent content with well written subject matter are emerging. The near future may be that your future movie trailer could be saying “coming soon to your 4K home theater” and possibly “starring Mr. and Mrs. Jones.” With the ease of posting to a growing youtube community, will the dominate streaming video posters in the adoption of this not too future technology create a standard over the regulation of the networks and film industry? Will the mass market create a better market?
For ten years, I have devoted my career to the profession of content creation in television and new media. New media, to clarify how I am defining it, is spot media on a non-traditional network of remote public displays: digital signage, DCNs (Digital Content Networks) or kiosk displays are terms thrown around today. Today, I am looking for the next big opportunity in my career after a recent merger regrettably did not come together as promised. This recent opportunity has allowed me to create Flash interactive media for clients. Seven years ago when I was freelancing and 56K modems were king, I worked on a few HTML projects with limited flash components. Although there was endless opportunity for dynamic content, the lack of default browser adoption and limited internet transmission held the industry back. Recent broadband adoption has enabled the viability of the medium. Not surpisingly, the job boards are full of senior creative jobs that require internet knowledge. It is an exciting time for dynamic media and the industry in general. It’s been seven years, and it’s quite possible my job hunting search term skills may be lacking. What is surprising is the minute or absolutely vacant postings for art or creative directors with broadcast/spot production skills. I am beginning to wonder after three months if the internet is not just the growing trend, but the only developing norm. Has broadcast as we know it has reached an industry growth plateau or is it just a temporary flux? It’s far to early to tell, after all my search has only covered the last three months of the Chicago market. I have done my best to kept my career experience open to a more holistic approach to media, from broadcast production, new media and interactive. I believe spot production, telling a good compelling story, is very relevant even in today’s dynamic and streaming media. I am enthusiastic as I re-engage myself back into dynamic, interactive content or broadcast. I am just a bit surprised, perhaps befuddled, and even a bit concerned, at the early thought that there is potentially a growth omission in a medium that has ruled the industry for decades. My hope is that both mediums, that are not too far akin in my belief, will continue to be healthy and show growth in parallel. I guess we can only wait and see.
This is a difficult subject to write about but I thought it was important to discuss it from a media angle. Being a parent, and having been bullied as a kid, my heart goes out to the parents who had their daughter savagely beaten by a group of peers. Aside from the obvious social issues that are at so prevalent in schools today, there is a media issue. During the interview with the parents, the father vents his frustration with “these internet companies” stating that “MySpace is the anti-christ for children.” There are alot of obvious issues in sites such as MySpace that are of great concern for parents. The social issues ranging from child neglect to teen pressure have placed impressionable character traits on some disturbed teens clearly evident in this video. Most of this behavior gets overlooked by parents today whether by sheer ignorance or perhaps neglect in having to work two jobs in today’s economy. The burden of neglect is also on the institutions of today - our educational system. As I mentioned earlier, I was bullied in Jr. High by a group of kids that came from broken homes. It was a hard time for me to balance the embarrassment let alone the school’s frustrating, passive approach to the problem. I remember the social councilor seemed to be concerned, yet without proof of these incidents, could do very little and the school continued remain confident that they did not need to get the school’s parents involved. Looking back, I wish technology would have been there to shed some light on this subject and force the schools and parents to start talking. The video captured is very troubling for any parent, or morally upright person to watch. The anger and disturbing behavior of these girls were not fueled by this current access to internet technology we have now. I don’t remember picking up my parents Super 8mm camera when I was younger and suddenly thinking - man, if I could just beat a person senseless and film it. The father of the young woman, to his credit, has a right to be angry and horrifically disturbed. Yes, it is true that teens do have easier access to media that contains violence and aggression. We have to be better parents in this increasingly confusing world, and it’s not easy at all. There is no manual that comes with child birth. My son, who just turned four, is crazy infatuated with Star Wars and Transformers. I worry about where his threshold needs to be at his age. I try to make an effort to watch Star Wars I, IV and V and explain that this is all make believe. I steer him away from the darker sequels of II, III and VI that have too much fighting. I even watched a behind the scenes Star Wars DVD with him to illustrate that there is only fantasy in this. I was four and a half when Star Wars first came to the screen in the 70’s. I remember it fondly and don’t consider myself a violent person today, or growing up. Parents have to open up and talk with their kids daily. The girls who created this horrific event, were not born dangerous. Somewhere, along the way, they developed issues that they couldn’t deal with as a youth. For some unknown reason, the parents didn’t keep a daily, open dialog for their kids to talk about what they are dealing with. It’s a hard thing to swallow as a parent. You want to believe that all of your hard work at the end of the day is enough. My wife and I remind ourselves during the frustrating moments that parenting is total zen work. Being a good parent yesterday cannot justify neglectful behavior today. It’s how you cope and properly address their issues that they have at that moment. Technology doesn’t fuel aggressive behavior, it only records it. We as parents, as a society, we need to monitor these mediums daily to keep our community and our families in check.
I’ve been going to NAB for years now. I started attending in 1998 just before my graduation to start networking as a junior artist. Much has advanced over the years, especially eliminating the need to bus between the Sands and the unexpanded LVCC. For many years NAB has been the place to attend for Broadcasting. You can spend four days and still not see everything, something I don’t recommend. I swear I’m an inch shorter after two days and have never been into sensory overload on slot machines. Regardless, I have usually taken something away that was interesting. Although NAB will continue to serve the broadcast medium for years to come, I found myself disappointed with the convention speaker engagements last year. There was a clear disregard and lack of recognition in new media including podcast and streaming media. I was baffled by the ridiculous display of egotism by a NAB lawyer during a keynote presented by Sling Media CEO Blake Krikorian. After years of never having to fight for technology dominance in media delivery (i.e. a viewing screen), now more than ever, broadcasters are losing viewers that are turning to laptops and cell phones for content. NAB should be using their clout, while they still have it, to position themselves as the door front to the revolution that is happening now. Think about it this way, which came first: the Apple, or the AppleTV? I find myself disappointed about today’s announcements that the focus, once again, will be about DTV. Last time I checked, I have two HDTVs in my house, one that I’ve had for five years. I just can’t seem to justify flying out to NAB this year as much as I would like. The senior members of NAB should be working endlessly on positioning the television as the center piece of the living room for the foreseeable future. The committee should be harvesting the current, unconventional media platforms. Why? Advertising funds every show produced. As consumer interest continues to grow rapidly into new media, there may come a time when the balance shifts to a computer. Consumers are using computers today to surf the internet, play games, send email, video chat, view family photos and video, watch youtube and get news from around the world - oh yeah, and they can even view OTA and unencrypted QAM stuff too (with the proper equipment). Television, by itself as most people use it provides cable, OTA and satellite programming. So where is the future going? Will the future of the living room look like today’s current setup of a computer table and television or will the TV get the boot? What will happen when consumers realize they are enjoying their favorite youtube and podcasts more than the television? NAB appears to bloster that the future will be HD. HD is already here. The future is appears to be more about convergence. I see nothing in today’s press release that positions NAB as the leader of innovation, a role it has had in the past. I believe that standards are necessary for obvious reasons, so long as they don’t cloud one’s openness to new ideas. It was the idea that life could be transmitted and projected onto phosphors, beyond the radio standard, in the first place that created the industry as it is today. That same openness allowed color frequency to be piggybacked onto the B&W signal so people could watch MASH and Johnny in technicolor. No one knows the future. Here’s what I do know: Growing up, we bought a B&W television on the dinner table to watch our favorite show at dinner. Eventually, our habits changed as we started using T.V. trays to watch our color television in the living room. Will the computer desk become the next T.V. tray in a unforeseen form? Of course for most NAB members, they can write always off as the future, just like some of them did with HD.
I hate to start my blog on what is to some respect, an unfortunate subject that is close to me. I believe it is relevant to what is may be a long post of future subjects regrading the changing face of media. The other day, CBS 2 Chicago, a broadcaster that I was proudly affiliated with two years prior, had a large and public layoff that included a eighteen high profile anchors, reporters and seasoned staff. This followed an earlier smaller staff layoff from the week prior. There is a shift happening in our media market that is taking place faster than I anticipated. I left CBS 2, difficult as it was to make the decision, because I realized that in a few years people’s changing habits might adversely affect my career in a way that I would not be able to avoid. That change is happening quicker than I imagined. Are the days of highly paid anchors a thing of the past? Will they be replaced with fresh-faced younger members who lack experience but reach a younger audience? Is reading the news off a prompter any different than a youtube or podcast? The unfortunate concern for me is when great professionals who have dedicated their lives to the refinement of news media are cast aside in the wake of shifting mediums. What happens to solid journalism between turning off your television and opening your computer for the latest RSS feed? During the four years in broadcast, I struggled with the balance between relevant but tragic journalism that bled and a grandmother who found her stolen wheelchair - in order to reach a general audience. What is the lesser or two evils in a half hour time slot? When award winning journalists are cut for cut-rate costs, who wins? You can easily shrug it off assuming they were just overpaid. Somewhere between the eastern hemisphere of African genocide and the silent rape crime that happened on the west side, we need to stay informed either by television or an internet stream. Cautiously, we must be of our habits though. Viewer habits in the distraction of overwhelming headlines, are quite different on-line. Lost are if we choose what we want to hear. We have a tendency to tune out what we don’t want to hear and it’s usually the seasoned journalists that remind us what we don’t, but need to hear.
Recent Comments