Google has started pushing Google+ integration with YouTube, urging its users to replace their old YouTube user names with their Google+ profiles when posting comments or videos on the video-sharing site. Now, when you comment on or upload a video, YouTube will ask if you want to “start using your full name on YouTube,” which will mean displaying your Google+ name and photo next to your comments and videos. If you decline, Google will make you select your reason for doing so -- for example: “My channel name is well-known.” News that Google would try to revamp YouTube’s notorious commenting system emerged last month, when a YouTube product executive hinted that changes to the system would be forthcoming at Google’s I/O conference. The move toward Google+ integration is widely seen as a first step toward eventually cleaning up YouTube’s notorious comments section for each of its videos -- which is rife with foul language, and sometimes abuse. The idea is that people are less likely to engage in bad behavior when their name and photo are associated with their comments.
Redbox and Verizon on Monday offered up some more details about their forthcoming Netflix competitor, Redbox Instant by Verizon, including the executive lineup, which will include former execs from both companies. However, the so-called alpha launch left out important details like how much the service will cost and what content it will carry. Shawn Strickland, previously Verizon’s president of New York south/east region, assumes the role of CEO of the joint venture. Other key appointees include Chief Marketing Officer Amy Gibby, formerly CMO of Redbox; Chief Product Officer Joe Ambeault; Chief Technology Officer Jack Gallagher; VP of Business Development and Performance Management Pete Castleton; and VP of Customer Operations Tina Altmann -- all Verizon executives. Redbox Instant by Verizon will be branded as a Redbox product, while Verizon will build the service and handle behind-the-scenes streaming operations. It will be available on a wide range of streaming devices. All Things Digital’s Peter Kafka points out that because Redbox Instant by Verizon is starting at square one, it will probably start small. After all, both Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Videos started small. Kafka thinks the streaming offering will likely be “bolted on” to a Redbox subscription in the same way Netflix used to offer streaming as an add-on to its mail order DVD rental service. “That could morph into something bigger, later,” he says. “But for now, I don’t think this one will keep (Netflix CEO Reed) Hastings up at night.”
A new report predicts that tablets will emerge as the primary platform for mobile ad revenue in the next two years as a result of their larger screen and the more immersive media experience. The Yankee Group study forecasts that tablets will account for 53% of mobile ad dollars in 2014 compared to 47% for mobile handsets. By 2016, tablets’ share of mobile ad sales will rise to 60%. Ads within mobile applications in particular will help to drive growth. Yankee Group found that a quarter (24%) of tablet owners clicked on ads while using apps, and 29% purchased extra content. “Although the stats show impressive levels of engagement, only a handful of players have mined this revenue opportunity,” stated the report, pointing to the gains of social gaming companies. The study indicated tablets outperform smartphones across advertising, direct payments and in-app commerce. For example, tablet owners on average buy 1.7 paid apps per month compared to 1.1 for smartphone users. And 35% of tablet owners purchase digital media from online stores versus 21% on the smartphone side. Reports Monday that Amazon plans to come out with several new tablet models in a range of sizes underscore the promise that major retail players see in using the devices to enhance sales. News and information apps account for about 15% of tablet app downloads, while shopping and banking apps make up about 20%, boosting m-commerce. “Shopping apps are taking advantage of the larger screens and concentrated use associated with tablets,” noted the report. “Fashion brands are also ahead of the pack. Tablet-friendly commerce features used by luxury brands and retailers include virtual store tours and magazines with branded content.” Video has also gained traction on tablets, with almost two-thirds of users watching video at least once a week, up from 48% last year. The key for traditional content owners is to think small in mobile. That means relying on revenue from micropayments and advertising (rather than subscriptions) and focusing on low-cost development, since mobile offerings will have shorter shelf lives. “Publishers should make content easy to access through proprietary and third-party-owned apps. In TV, partnerships with mobile specialists are an efficient way for production divisions to rethink programming,” according to the report authored by Yankee Group principal analyst Jason Armitage. He advises advertisers to plan tablet-specific campaigns to take advantage of the format. Rather than simply repurposing TV ads, they should create new spots suited to the short sessions on tablets. Marketers should also use insights gleaned from app and social media use to improve engagement with a brand or service.
Video is on the rise. According to comScore, 36 billion videos were watched online in May and the number of video ads served in the month bypassed 10 billion. Netflix users are streaming more and the adoption of new devices is skyrocketing. Video consumption remains robust on television, which continues to hold sway with advertisers and viewers. Though consumers’ appetite for video content on any platform seems to be insatiable, for the most part, we continue to buy and sell media the same way we did 25 years ago. We define ourselves as two separate advertising industries -– “television” and “online video” –- even as the digital divide has disappeared from consumers’ lives. But buying and selling advertising through different systems and teams can’t last long. Our legacy technology and organizational structures are proving inadequate to handle the demands of multiplatform media consumption. What can we do as an industry to enable the creation of a single, streamlined video advertising market? The first step is to acknowledge that consumers are already there. For years, many have anticipated (eagerly and not) a dramatic share-shift in spend from television to digital advertising. But what we’re actually seeing is the convergence of these two historically separate markets, at least from the audience’s perspective. It turns out consumers aren’t giving up TV sets for smartphones and tablets; most are simply browsing, searching and sharing while they watch. In a recent survey of media-savvy consumers, time spent watching TV stayed flat, while time with smart devices increased. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they had used another device the last time they watched live TV. While understanding we are one media market is the first necessary step, we still have a long way to go. Here are three areas we need to focus on to make buying and selling media across platforms easier and more efficient for advertisers, agencies, content providers and consumers. Focus on technology All advertisers want is to reach their target audiences efficiently and effectively, regardless of where they consume media. But as long as television and online video advertising are sold, scheduled and delivered through different systems, this won’t happen. We can integrate our systems to sell, manage, measure and invoice video advertising through a single front-end across television and online video. The media companies that do this now will emerge as the industry leaders in our consolidating media marketplace. Focus on organization It’s great that more media planning is happening across platforms, but now the same alignment needs to happen within the buying process. Buyers for television and online video need to work together. Forrester’s latest “Future of Media Measurement Report” noted: “Media buyers are getting cross-media religion.” Once this becomes a reality on the buy side, we’ll start to see alignment fall into place on the sell side too. Focus on measurement We should be selling all video advertising against one audience guarantee, measured across media platforms. Leading advertising technology companies are investing to enable content providers to manage video campaigns across platforms and track progress against a single guarantee. At the same time, metrics are emerging that can enable us to measure cross-platform guarantees, such as the Cross-Platform Campaign Ratings product that Nielsen rolled out earlier this year. So what’s holding us back? We are. Let’s break down the silos, work together toward better integration of buying and selling across platforms, and think and act as one media marketplace.
Hiring Marissa Mayer was a huge statement for Yahoo, but as a wise man told me privately, the company gets no points for simply anointing her. To use a sports analogy, it’s akin to hiring a defensive-oriented coach at a franchise known historically for its offense (or vice versa). The move made headlines, but only results will matter. In Silicon Valley the move drew applause, but there’s a silent majority who are wondering: “Is Yahoo really ready to pause and reset strategy?” This might be why Mayer’s first memo’s message was “Keep Moving,” realizing that Yahoo “has been through a lot of change in the past few months, leaving many open questions around strategy and how to move forward. I am sensitive to this. While I have some ideas, I need to develop a more informed perspective before making strategy or direction changes.” Everyone is expecting Yahoo to take a 180-degree turn and move away from being “the premier digital media company” to taking on Google and Facebook head-on through products, innovation and technology. It’s perfectly plausible that Mayer’s pitch to the board was a utopian, bold and ambitious plan to reclaim some of the value created by Google, Facebook (and Twitter) over the past decade at the expense of Yahoo’s market cap. Let’s face it: an outsider (coming from Google, no less) can make that pitch to the board, awhil n incumbent like interim CEO Ross Levinsohn had to (I’m speculating) stick to what he views as the reality on the ground, which is what the New York Time’s David Carr echoed very recently: “In business, people will tell you that everything else is secondary to being first. And Yahoo, despite its tattered reputation, is No. 1 in 10 content categories, according to the measurement service comScore, including news, finance, sports, entertainment and real estate.” Former Yahoo executive Mike Walrath (who sold RightMedia to Yahoo) was brutally candid when he opined: “I think the idea that Yahoo was ever a ‘truly great technological innovator’ is a myth. Yahoo’s strength has always been its audience and media assets, not its great technology. Their last 2 CEOs have been ‘product leaders’ who could ‘help return the company to its roots of product development and technical innovation.’ It hasn’t worked. The more Yahoo tries to fight Google, Facebook and the like on front lines of product/technology innovation, the more they play into their opponents’ strength, and the further behind they fall. Yahoo has been tilting at windmills trying to fight Google for more than 10 years, and the results are clear.” In fact, I think it will be easier (but not necessarily successful) for Mayer to take the billions from the proceeds of the Alibaba sale and acquire Yelp (Yahoo Local?), Twitter (Yahoo Social?), Groupon (Yahoo Commerce?) and/or Foursquare (Yahoo Mobile?) than try to build, develop and grow internally (maybe that’s why Twitter and Foursquare investor Fred Wilson recently wrote: “Yahoo Is No Longer Dead To Me”?) But acquiring those companies is expensive -- and integrating them into Yahoo will be challenging, with no recipe for success. Indeed, Mayer wasn’t only Google employee #20, she was there until recently, seeing Google’s shift toward becoming a media company, acquiring Zagat, funding video content at YouTube, etc. In that vein, in some ways, Google is trying to be more like Yahoo. So why would Yahoo now try to emulate Google? Enter the Contrarian View As such, I will take a contrarian view (what else is new?) and suggest that before long, Mayer’s alleged outlook will change from clashing against Facebook and Google via products, innovation and technology to innovating via technology to deliver enhanced content and advertising experiences as personalized products (or something like that). My company provides video content to Yahoo as an official partner, so I will avoid getting too specific, but it’s clear to me where Mayer can help Yahoo in video and where she can’t, where she can help them improve and be successful and where she will fall flat on her face and lose the ground made up by those who have made Yahoo Video successful. Wanting is one thing, knowing is another Mayer is no idiot: she left Google for redemption after Google CEO Larry Page excluded her from his inner circle. An unremarkable or unsuccessful Yahoo tenure will only validate Page’s decision; a successful one will vindicate her. But her tenure can only be successful if, and only if, she plays to Yahoo’s strength, which is media and content. Boards and investors sometimes realize that with increased risk comes return, but executives tend to be risk-averse and pragmatic (Mayer’s got all the money she needs, and she wants to win). As per Levinsohn, the decision to go with Mayer was tough, and given everything he’s done since joining Yahoo, perhaps unfair. But life’s unfair, and it goes on; I’m guessing he’s already being courted by starry-eyed boards elsewhere. As such, life’s good for him, as his stock has soared since replacing his predecessor. He can stay or he can go; either way, he’s a winner. In an ideal world, Mayer and Levinsohn combine forces and accelerate Yahoo mojo in media by leveraging technology to innovate how consumers engage with content, which would play to both their strengths.
Forget the hoops, gymnastics, swimming, chasing of steeples and Vegas bombast of the opening ceremonies - I'm tuning in to the Summer Olympics for the stories, man. I long to learn about the orphanage-reared handballer who triumphed over homelessness, poverty, addiction, obesity, anorexia, bullying, pollen allergies, bad hair, smoking, sassing one's elders and chronic tardiness; about the trampoliner who fell off the trampoline that one time and hurt his arm but somehow mustered the courage to get back on the trampoline; and about the equestrian dressager who had to overcome the emotional disrepair inflicted by a slightly distant father. I hope as many of these stories as possible are told by Bob Costas, whose jocular, whimsical drollness cannot overwhelm the gravitas conveyed by the vague tint of grey on his temples. Here's the problem, though: No matter how many times NBC sets the focus to "pillow-soft" and attempts to drown us in audio syrup, it still won't be able to match the strength, passion and humanity packed into the 90 seconds of "Meet the Superhumans." The clip, produced by England's Channel 4 to promote its coverage of next month's Paralympic Games, does everything that NBC's prefab story packages do not. It sets the scene without reverting to shadowy lighting, hissing steam vents or similar stagecraft; it inspires without first announcing, "We are going to inspire you now. Please prepare yourself for what will surely be a tidal wave of inspiration." As such, it's as skillfully, powerfully rendered as any promo I've seen in quite some time. Set to the strains of Public Enemy's "Harder Than You Think," the clip mixes shots of the athletes' preparation and buildup with ones of them competing. We see a basketball team unite in a huddle, a swimmer bundling her hair beneath a cap, a sprinter descend into his pre-gun crouch. That the players are in wheelchairs or competing with the aid of a prosthesis is beside the point. They're presented as athletes and ass-kickers, not as broken individuals elevated by pluck and moxie. And then, midway through the clip, "Meet the Superhumans" drops the hammer, in the form of a quick sequence that illustrates how the athletes may have come into their disabilities. The music stops and, jarringly, images of a combat explosion, a sonogram and a car accident flash on the screen in quick succession, followed by a shot of a rugby player next to the crumpled automobile in which he was injured. The overall suggestion? These athletes earned their mettle in a way that LeBron James sure as hell never did. Just as quickly, the clip shifts back to game and training sequences, with an emphasis on the camaraderie and shared sense of mission among competitors. It closes with a few succinct flashes of text - "Forget everything you thought you knew about strength [and] humans. It's time to do battle" - and a three-pointer for the ages. And with that final flourish, I'm ready to watch the games and cheer like it's my sister or best friend competing and run through an f'in cement wall in the spirit of shared humanity. In theory, "Meet the Superhumans" is an ad. But it has as much in common with spots for soda and shoes as host city London does with subequatorial Africa. It's a celebration, really, and one in which we're all invited to join. That's the best kind.
July 21 marked the 40th anniversary of George Carlin’s arrest for performing “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” [audio from album here] at Milwaukee’s Summerfest. Carlin was charged with violating obscenity laws, but the case was dismissed that December, with a ruling that his language was indecent, but not obscene. In 1973, spurred by a radio broadcast of Carlin’s material, a five-year battle of F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation ended with a Supreme Court ruling that the routine was “indecent but not obscene,” and that the FCC could require that indecent broadcasts air during hours when children were not likely to be listening (“safe harbor” hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.). Carlin talks about how he came up with the brilliant monologue here. Today, we open the doors to our Archive of American Television interview collection to see what various TV legends have said about their own experiences with TV censorship (interviews slightly edited for clarity). Holocaust denialNorman Felton, Producer [http://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/norman-felton] On Playhouse 90’s “Judgment at Nuremberg” (1959), the gas company was a sponsor and they said they would pull out if we used the word “gas” on the show. But telling the story of “Judgment at Nuremberg” and Holocaust without using the word “gas” seems ridiculous. The network said when they got close to airtime, “We can’t give up the gas company. We promised them that we’ll take out the word.” It was all live. … “They’re sending an engineer here and if the word is used we’ll bleep it.” That’s what happened. It was the worst thing for the gas company, which got the worst publicity it could possibly have when it came out that the word was bleeped out. Throw the lay overboardDick Martin, Performer/Host [http://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/dick-martin] In the first “Laugh-In” show, I think there were three pot jokes. [The network] had no idea. JoAnne Worley said, “a little pot was Tupperware for midgets.” They said, “Hold it!” We said, “What's the matter?” We always knew better than to say OK. “Tupperware is a plug.” We said Tupperware is not a plug -- they don't sell it in stores, they've got to have a party.” They said, “It's offensive to midgets.” So we got Billy Barty [an actor who was 3' 9"] to come over. And he said, “That's a fun joke.” So we got away with it…. [Another time] I was with Goldie [Hawn] and I had Hawaiian shirts and leis. The ship captain said, “Well, folks, did you enjoy your stay?” I said, “We certainly did!” He said, “There is a custom here that as you leave Hawaii, you throw your lei overboard.” I picked Goldie up and threw her over the side. I don't know how it got through. But every script was just a fight. Son of a bitch, she said it!Norman Lear, Creator/Producer [http://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/norman-lear] We did a “Maude” [1974] which had to do with the possibility of Walter's infidelity. We wrote with Maude looking at Walter and saying at the very end, “You son of a bitch,” and they embraced. [CBS head of Program Practices William] Tankersley said, “you're kidding about the last line, you can't use that language.” I said, “Bill, it's the only line we could think of that fit the situation that was as funny as it had every right to be and it was clearly something Maude would say. Nothing in the least gratuitous about it.” After a considerable talk… I said, “if you can come up with a line for Maude, I don't even have to agree with you, but if you can look me in the eye and say, Norman, this is every bit as good as saying son of a bitch, every bit as right, as effective, I'll do it. But the condition is, that you have to look at me in all honesty and say. I think it's every bit as good, and I'll do it.” He called back a couple of days later and he says, “Son of a bitch, I can't think of anything - but you can't….” I said, “Bill, I'm taking you at your word.” The show went on the air, there wasn't one state that seceded from the union, there was no big deal, no fuss, it was dead-right. [See a portion of that episode here. The line is at the very end.] No labia. No G-spot.Alan Ball, Creator/Producer [http://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/alan-ball] We did a really funny “Cybill” Valentine’s Day episode about how the heart is actually a symbol of labia, and if you turned it upside down…it was hilarious. We weren’t allowed to say “labia,” because I guess CBS felt it was too offensive, although people said “penis” all the time… I really thought, well, that’s bullshit. We had to cut some really funny stuff, just because at the time, it wasn’t appropriate for CBS. Later when I created my own show for ABC, which [was] kind of [a stupid frat-boy show, I had to fight to allow a character to say “G-spot.” On “Grace Under Fire” we did a story about a where Grace fell on some ice and she went to a chiropractor and we were not allowed to say what he did in any way, which I think had more to do with advertiser craziness. What’s wrong with sex?Alfred Schneider, Standards and Practices Executive There was one scene in “Soap”, a feminist kind of scene where the women sat around the table talking about their sex -- much before “Sex and the City” -- and dealing [with] their enjoyment and pleasure. [Watch a clip here ] The editor felt it was inappropriate and eliminated some lines. [Creator] Susan Harris came in and said, "What's wrong with sex? If it was men sitting around the table you'd let them talk that way." And we did let that scene in. We had difficulties with some of the stations about it, but it played and it was the first time that the subject matter was dealt with that way…. So, the balance between permitting the creative community to do what they do best, keeping advertisers within the programs, keeping the affiliated stations accepting the program material, was the standards and practices balancing role that we exercised. Lower, no, no, there, stop!Tom Fontana, Writer/Producer [http://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/tom-fontana] On “St. Elsewhere,” we were dealing with things like mastectomies where the networks freaked out. We did an episode about testicular cancer, and the word "testicle” had never been said on television before, ever, in any form. You couldn’t use the euphemism…. We were like, “How does the doctor give the diagnosis if he can’t say ‘testicle’? What’s he going to do? ‘Just go, you know, down there, you know, no, no, lower, no, no, there, stop, stop!’” So Bruce [Paltrow] went to bat and fought for that one. ….I think you have an obligation to get in trouble with the censors. Just, do it.Anne Beatts, Writer/Creator [http://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/anne-beatts] Censors at “Saturday Night Live” were always on the lookout for obscenity and dirty words. It seems very funny and antiquated now, but we had a big fight with them about the expression “do it.” They didn’t want us to say that, they wanted us to say “have sex with.” So you could say things like penis, but you couldn’t say schmuck. They were upset by slang expressions, That was very disturbing to them, so we had to fight to say “do it.” Everybody wants to keep their FCC licenseJonathan Murray, Creator/Producer [http://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/jonathan-murray] When the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident happened, there was a lot of attention on MTV, so we got some concerns about what we were showing and what we shouldn't show. “The Real World” is not an island, and depending on who's in Congress, who's in control, it can influence the decisions that are made. Everybody wants to keep their FCC license. And it's never to the point where we can't tell a story we want to tell… When you're dealing with a racial issue, can you use the “N-word”? Sometimes… we talk with MTV and we say, “OK, we'll use it the first time because we have to hear it in order to understand why it offended.” And from then on, we just won't hear the word. So there are those kinds of decisions that you have to make. Click here for more interviews on the topic of censorship.