Written on July 15, 2008 – 3:57 pm
Ernst-Jan Pfauth, editor in chief
Although some say television has become redundant - co-editor Boris doesn’t even have a TV subscription anymore -, I do believe that television series are here to stay. Why? They fascinate people. Because of the long time spans, extra complexities and layers are added to the series - persuading us to follow six plot lines at the same time. Apparently, most people are fond of that - as new monster hits keep popping up. And you know what? It even makes us smarter - says Steven Johnson in his book Everything Bad is Good for You. London-based Paul Cleghorn has built a social media experience around these series with Tape it off the Internet (TIOTI).
UGC can be enlightening, if there is any
This social media aggregator for television allows users to browse through almost all successful TV series - each with a page containing wiki-like content, a link to a torrent, and loads of UGC. Spoofs, bloopers, alternative endings, mash-ups, and commentary from lovers and haters dominate the series’ profiles. At least, that was the idea when the service launched in October 2007. So far, there isn’t much going on.
When I’ve seen a movie that leaves me questioning “What the hell just happened?”, I browse to IMDB to see what other film freaks have to say about it. That’s always great fun - sometimes even enlightening -, and I’m glad to have found a potential similar experience for TV series. If only more users would leave their blunt comments.
The torrents might be responsible
The torrent links are a nice side-effect, making it possible to track down the episode you’ve missed. Or all of them, if you’re like me and refuse to stay at home for an episode. But I do think that the torrents are partly responsible for the lack of activity on TIOTI. Users just click through, eager to see the episode, and forget about the whole social aspect.
An aggregator after all
Although TIOTI has hardly any social activity on its site, it does link to other sources where discussion take place - like TV.com. Combined with the torrent links, YouTube clips, Flickr pictures, and official links, this makes TIOTI a good aggregator after all - handy for people who want to quickly see a show or learn more about it. But I guess Cleghorn isn’t satisfied with that. I’m sure he wants an active community. Of course he wants that, since it will give his social media aggregator for television soul.
I hope you like that post!
The Next Web Blog covers start-up news from all over the world (not just the Valley), exciting new technologies and inspiring entrepreneurs. If you're new here, you may want to read our '
About' page and subscribe to our
RSS feed.
Do you have a start-up that we should write about?
Contact us! Thanks for visiting and hope you come back again!
Written on June 2, 2008 – 11:55 pm
Steven Carrol, Next Web WebTipr France
Michael Arrington published an interesting article yesterday, concerned about the sheer amount of UGC being generated, ’spewing’ out onto a world where the signal to noise ratio is being lowered daily.
We have evermore tools allowing users to create, capture and clutter the Internet, all of which is forcing the attention span of consumers down to seconds.
Consumers are bombarded with messages and streams from feeds and sources which at some point along the way were picked up and are now spewing out of every conceivable crevice. All competing for attention, but the louder they become the easier they are to ignore.
But the essence of Mike’s desire is this: “we need open standards and businesses to emerge that help people link all their disconnected content together into a single online identity”, he goes on “to enhance real world social interactions”.
Aggregating all this spewing data solves the disjoint information problem sure, but this does nothing to curate all that data down to the most interesting nuggets.
I would argue that simply aggregating data into a single online identity is not going to enhance real world social interactions, but instead decrease our attention span even further.
Instead what will be successful are tools that curate all this noise in unique ways, ways that save us time, guessing what we need and predicting when we need it, then serving it on a plate like the morning paper.
Written on May 24, 2008 – 12:00 pm
Ernst-Jan Pfauth, editor in chief
During the weekend, most people have time to reflect, even tech bloggers. Ok, maybe not all tech bloggers, but those who aren’t that sleep-deprived have a few hours to think about the meaning of life and all that. So may I please claim 15 minutes or so from that time?
The thing is, I’ve stumbled upon a post by ReadWriteWeb’s Josh Catone in which he discusses the need of blog coverage for start-ups. He has come across a lifestreaming service called Mugshot. After some research he found out that Mugshot has been around for two years. He then wonders why FriendFeed has become so booming while Mugshot is still relatively unknown. The answer is, of course, blog coverage. FriendFeed is beloved by blogging giants as Arrington and Scoble, which geek wouldn’t want to follow them?
Yet this theory isn’t always true. Yahoo! Photos received less media attention than Flickr though it was bigger than the later acquired service. So here’s his conclusion:
It would appear that the tech blog echochamber has the potential to work against new services targeted at early adopters. If a new service relies on early adopters, it appears that it will only have a chance if it can get love from early adopter blogs.
It reminded me of a discussion we sometimes have here at the office about whether we should cover start-ups that don’t have any traction yet. You know the type: the only user generated content is from the founders and some friends. To write or not to write? I’m facing this dilemma every day and most of the times base my decision on the idea, UI, and design. Since even really early stage start-ups deserve attention if the quality is high enough.
What do you think? Do you consider it to be annoying when you come across start-ups here that don’t have any traction yet? Or do you think it’s interesting? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
Written on January 29, 2008 – 9:02 am
Guest blogger, sharing views on The Next Web
This article is written by Tessa Sterkenburg who has a background in publishing and web technology.
Since online user generated content is picking up, newspapers get continuously slashed for their inability to adjust to modern times and the demise of the old media was predicted. Now it turns out that the old-fashioned publishers are still going strong.
Newspapers were late to the game because, for years, they had near monopolies and fat profit margins, and therefore weren’t pressured to innovate. In 2005, all newspapers were still earning most of their profits from the print versions, and young people turned away from papers, leaving newspapers with a declining reader base, and declining revenue potential.
Last week The Newspaper Association of America announced that a record number of readers visited U.S. online newspaper sites last year. The number of unique visitors to newspaper websites rose more than 6 percent to a monthly average of 60 million. Monthly visits climbed 9 percent in the fourth quarter from a year ago.
So, all is going well then and newspapers are finally becoming innovative news sources online. Indeed newspapers are making steps in the right direction. They are embracing RSS feeds and video, ask their best journalists for their online versions, make more content available for free and there is even some collaboration. I can’t help noticing however, that this news comes together with reports that the biggest growth group online today are the baby boomers… coincidence?
Maybe not. The Wall Street Journal recently announced that they will not go along with the trend and hold on to their subscription model. The reason: it pays them good money. Not only in subscription fees but particularly in advertising revenues. Their well-defined paying user group of affluent 50-year old male decision makers turns out to be an attractive group for advertisers. Great model.
Unfortunately, as a new generation of decision makers is approaching, it might not last.
Written on January 11, 2008 – 12:03 am
Ernst-Jan Pfauth, editor in chief
Tripr is a recently launched travel site where people can post video reviews of the hotels they’ve visited. The goal of the Dutch founders is to create an archive of reviews, so that visitors on the basis of the videos can determine whether they want to stay in a hotel or not.
When a visitor decides to book a hotel based on a review, the makers of the video earn 33 percent of the commission.
Jan Kooman, founder of Tripr.TV: “We’re some sort of YouTube for the travel industry. Because the videos are shot by hotel guests, visitors can get a good impression before booking. Moving images are more realistic than those often outdated pictures”.
In the press release (Dutch), the founders claim that the visitor gets an independent impression of the hotel. I dare to differ.
If I were to shoot a video for money, I would show the most beautiful parts of the hotel and, for instance, not zoom in on the dirty parts of the bath room. And really, I’m a nice guy. It’s just that I would feel like I was shooting a commercial, instead of a review. Why would I tell about my negative experiences if I could earn more money by drawing a nice picture?
When asking Kooman for a reaction on this remark, he said: “The good thing about video is that it is particularly hard to disguise the truth. On traditional websites with the well-known pictures, faking beauty is way easier. You just take a good picture from the right perspective and you’re done. When you’re filming, you’re actually walking through the hotel. Moreover, we’ll also publish video reviews made by an independent Tripr adviser”.
The customers and ‘independent’ adviser have the same goal though, and that’s making money. I agree with Koopman that it’s harder to disguise the truth when using video, instead of stamp-sized outdated pictures. Those photographers can turn crappy rooms into royal suites. Yet I don’t think that the label ‘review’ is the right one, since it’s more like a user generated commercial.
This doesn’t mean I don’t like the idea. I’m pretty sure that next time I want to book a night in a hotel, I can’t resist the temptation of checking what the room is like through the eyes of others.
Update: Tripr is now also available in English
Written on December 11, 2007 – 11:28 am
Ernst-Jan Pfauth, editor in chief
Le Web 3 kicked off with pumping house beats and an excited couple LeMeur: “We’re all changing the world, so spread the word!”. After this enthusiastic start, Le Web switched to a more critical view on the web revolution. Dan Rose (Facebook), Michel Jaccard (attorney), Jarwoong Lee (Daum Communications, South Korea) and Chris Alden (SixApart) talked about the dark side of web 2.0.
Foto by LeWeb
The four gentlemen seemed to agree: the online world is nothing more than a reflection of the real world. Alden:,,It’s the anonymity that brings the ruder side of us out. The companies SixApart is working for, now more and more often ask us to give users a profile. As it turns out, people behave more polite then”.
Online bullying
The government of South Korea is taking this approach to an extreme level. In order to stop online bullying by kids, the government wants to give their children a personal key to access all the available services. Lee doesn’t agree with this drastic way of preventing bullying: “Privacy is more important. Particularly when you consider the risks of identity theft. Moreover, bullying happens on the schoolyard as well. The government therefore should focus on education instead.”
Then all the eyes focused on big shot Facebook. Rose: ,,Half of our 57 million users comes back every day. They are part of 50.000 plus individual networks. Almost nobody uses Facebook anonymously, since our service is based on real world relationships. People won’t become your friend if they don’t know you. So Facebook loses its value when you use a false identity. Therefore, people behave the same way as they do in real life.”
Privacy
Rose also admitted that Facebook made mistakes during the launch of Beacon: “We didn’t listen to our users when they said that didn’t feel like they had control. That contrasted with our normal approach, namely giving users the options to choose who can see their info. Moreover, we did a bad job explaining Beacon. We’ve launched it together with an advertising platform. Therefore users thought it was primarily an advertising tool. It wasn’t designed as such.”
Yet, Rose still believes in the concept of Beacon. “Users still want an easy way to share info with friends. We just have to give them control when we develop a new way.”
User generated content is crap
Lee: “The talks about soccer used to only take place in café’s, now they’re also published on the web. So yes, a lot of user generated content is crap.” Alden didn’t agree, stating that we too often regard Internet as an newspaper. “We think: if information is irrelevant, it’s crap. On the Internet this is not the case, it’s more like a living space. What’s crap for somebody, is relevant to others.” Rose noticed an evolution in ugc: “The first content produced by users were the customer reviews on Amazon. Those were valuable sometimes, however you never knew who had written it. Then bloggers emerged, and we were able to put the reviews in a context. Even though we don’t know them personally. We do know our Facebook friends personal, so their reviews are most relevant to us.”
That’s probably also the reason why on Facebook, there isn’t a lot of spamming going on. The critical discussion ends with a positive note by Rose: “It’s a movement to better content”.
Email
Facebook
Netlog
Linkedin
Twitter
The Next Web Blog is closely associated with The Next Web Conference which is held annually in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. At this event speakers from all over the world come together to talk about, and show of, the future of the Web. (
