Malleable Media

I had been all over the place for a couple weeks, it was the holidays and new years, so maybe I had missed some advance warning. All I know is that one day I tuned my radio to Indie 103.1 only to discover that it had transformed into El Gato. Just like that, the frequency that had until recently been carrying both legitimate and faux indie rock began broadcasting Spanish-language music, repurposed at the whims of the frequencies’ licensee Entravision (Indie was run in partnership with Clear Channel Communications).

In the past, perhaps I would have made a defiant stand and condemned Clear Channel and Entravision for betraying the community of listeners that had developed around the channel. At the very least I will say that closing down operations abruptly and firing the entire workforce without any notice is pretty ruthless. But what I am more interested in is how a radio channel can change its identity so suddenly. Of course there is a limited amount of radio spectrum to go around, so it’s not as if Entravision could have just created a new frequency to broadcast on, but it all goes to show the malleability of radio waves as a content delivery channel. Despite that, it is hard to ignore the real social consequences of this metamorphosis of the 103.1 MHz frequency in the Los Angeles area. The radio spectrum is a public good, and to be sure its licensee has the right to do as it pleases within the limitations of their license, but there are evidently different kinds of responsibilities when managing a public good as compared to a private channel, and the risks of offending that public trust are worthy of consideration. On the other hand, of course, one must consider the audience that will now be served by El Gato that was previously not listening to the station – we cannot allow the frustration of one group’s loss erase the potential benefits of another group’s gain.

Still, it leaves us with the question of where the Indie (or most any other non-mainstream music genre) lover has to go. Although the internet has blossomed as an avenue for musicians of all degrees to get their music out (through channels like MySpace, iTunes and the thousands of internet radio broadcasts), it too is no panacea. Its resources, like the radio spectrum, are finite (these ones too). There’s plenty of room yet to create considerably more focused channels online, (although some people do talk about the potential limits of the present system of Internet Protocol (IP) allocation), and it’s worthwhile to note that an online El Gato wouldn’t need to replace Indie 103.1 in order to succeed; it could simply outperform it on its own channel.

Terrestrial radio isn’t going to go away – indeed, swathes of new spectrum have recently been auctioned for additional uses, and the impending switch to Digital TV transmission will open up further spectrum allocation battles. But fortunately for my desire to hear Henry Rollins play 63 minute long experimental hardcore songs, Indie 103.1 understands the preferred value among its target audience of a direct channel through the internet.  Click here to listen to their live stream at indie1031.com. El Gato, for its part, is still en construccion.

Back Once More

To the readers out there, Blunks is yet again relaunching with a new design and using the Wordpress blogging suite of Content Management Systems – special thanks to Alex for that!

As before, this blog is a personal blog for Richard Nevins, a graduate student in media & communications at the University of Southern California and the London School of Economics. I will take up any areas of interest to me and hopefully select a couple items of interest to you as well!

Please feel free to comment on the posts here, and if you want to contact me, make use of the links on the sidebar. If you think that I am full of it, let me know and we can grow Pinocchio’s nose up there to keep me honest!

Happy reading!

CAPTCHA, or discrete tasks, as Internet Currency?

An interesting story in the New York Times about CAPTCHA technology sparked an idea in my head for a proposal to address the real problem of poor financial returns in web content.

First, a quick primer: CAPTCHA’s, or Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart are those sometimes annoying little boxes that you encounter when signing up for a web service such as email. Within the box is a Turing test, meant to determine whether you are a human or a machine that is automatically filling in the question field. The most common types ask you to type in a sequence of distorted letters and numbers, although now the automated bots are getting better at cracking those CAPTCHA’s, so you may encounter a box showing you a picture of a dog and a cat and asking you to select the one that is a cat.

The idea behind these tests is that it is quite easy for a human to recognize a cat from a dog, but it is actually surprisingly difficult for a computer program to tell the difference, especially given the nearly infinite variety of poses, angles and lighting attributes that are possible in a given picture of Fido. Thus, CAPTCHA’s provide a security layer that is intended to – and largely does – keep automated bots outside of the walls.

So what does all of this have to do with bringing higher financial returns for web content? Well the Times article I linked before brought my attention to reCAPTCHA, a service that is using the 60+ million CAPTCHA’s that are solved every day and applying them to the problem of automated book digitization. There are numerous projects underway to digitize massive amounts of books and store them in digital libraries, but these projects are often slowed by the fact that the recognition software is not foolproof. Some words are blurred or otherwise misinterpreted by the software when translating them to a digital form. reCAPTCHA uses the images of those misinterpreted words in their tests which effectively brings the power of the Turing test to bear on these misidentified words. Once enough human users have identified the word as the same, that word is substituted into the digital book’s text, replacing the garbled or mistaken translation.

It’s a pretty nifty trick, and certainly a noble cause. But could the same kind of process be put towards more commercial purposes and done in such a way that human interpreters who tagged images or deciphered text that computers could not gained money or credit that could then be put towards consuming digital content? One existing example that is something like what I am thinking of is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk initiative, which offers micro-payments to human users who go through the companies vast stores of digital photos and page-scans to tag and identify data for Amazon’s stores and other sites. Amazon and its clients pay users in cash (albeit at very low levels) for the work, but what if the client instead offered an exchange: tag photos or copy scanned documents for our digital archive and we’ll give you a month’s subscription to our content. For some media houses like Time Warner or even the New York Times, there are decades of back issues that could benefit from this kind of arrangement, and it would provide them with some value to help bridge the gap between costs and revenues from advertising.

There are certainly a lot of potential problems with this kind of a system at the outset (an article from Salon.com suggested that mturk might be considered a “virtual sweatshop”), and many people might be unwilling to provide this sort of service in exchange for their daily dose of media – not to mention some media houses would no doubt balk at the idea of untrained, anonymous users having any measure of control over their archives – but it does seem like something worth giving further consideration to. Until internet advertising revenues reach more comfortable heights (which may take some more time) or users get more comfortable whipping out their credit cards to pay for content online (which seems quite unlikely), this method may be worth a try.

Who Clicks Those Ads?

One of the big trends of the Web 2.0 movement is towards advertising-supported websites and services. I am sure that there are a number of VC’s out there who (after a while) started pulling out their hair every time a new-jack kid came down to the Valley talking about their ‘breakthrough’ social networking/bookmarking/video hosting/rating website and how they would fund it with ads, usually from Google’s AdSense or Yahoo’s Sponsored Search. But who is clicking those ads?

I’m not saying that advertising isn’t a reasonable means of making money off of your website, but advertising is not the be-all end-all answer to your financial problems. Not all sites are conducive to ads. For instance, YouTube and other video sites have been trying to figure out how to better monetize their sites for some time now – YouTube only features text ads on search result pages, instead of the video ads that one might expect on a site that, after all, hosts hundreds of television ad videos – without success. Some video sites have experimented with including ads before or after a video, but none of these sites have traffic anywhere near that of YouTube, the dominant video site on the net.

Despite these complaints by yours truly, money is pouring into sites in the form of ads. So this raises the question: who is clicking those ads? Personally, I try to not even look at them, and when some annoying ad chooses to float across my screen or unroll when I happen to drag my mouse across it, it tends to drive me away from the site hosting the ad rather than encourage me to click on it. After conducting an informal poll among some friends and colleagues, none of them said that they clicked online ads either – or at least they wouldn’t admit to it.

So who is generating those billions of dollars a year for web properties? Is there some kind of demographic split, where there are just scads of people who are happily clicking away at every ad that catches their eye, while I carefully avoid them? Apparently so, as online ads generated as much as $15 billion last year and are poised to continue to grow this year. At first I considered that this was similar to the split between those who flocked early on to DVR products like TiVo and those who were happy to watch the ads, but now that we’ve learned that two-thirds of DVR owners still watch ads, I don’t know what to think anymore!

Don’t get me wrong, I see a massive future for contextual, targeted ads – online and elsewhere. Obviously it is a benefit for the advertiser to be able to target their audience, that way they don’t waste time sending ads to people who aren’t interested in their product. Of course, there are some pitfalls to be wary of, but I’m sure they can be worked out in the future.

The New Proprietary Video Site

Ever since the emergence of online video on the internet, the new medium has presented a major challenge to the profit models of traditional television broadcasters and cable service providers. As the networks and cable providers were used to the idea of controlling the time and venue of broadcasts (requiring you to sit down on your couch at a certain time to see your favorite show), it has taken them awhile to begin to see some of the inherent advantages of digital distribution of video content. Now, belatedly, video content providers are beginning to realize just how valuable digital distribution can be for their product. But is it too late?

The real issue behind the recent announcement of News Corp and NBC’s decision to create their own video site to challenge Google’s YouTube is the future of video content distribution. We are seeing the end of the network schedule. Consumers will no longer be willing to watch the shows they want to watch when the network wants them to watch them. This much is pretty well accepted, and between video on demand, DVR and Apple’s recently released Apple TV, it is clear that the way that people watch television is changing rapidly.

As it is, YouTube is the premier video website out there. It is as a result of this popularity that YouTube finds itself hosting all of these proprietary videos that are (illegally) uploaded by users. Google, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s Safe Harbor provision, says that it is not liable for copyright violations posted by its users, so long as it promptly removes them when requested to by the rights holder. Frankly I am not sure whether the networks should be creating such a scene over these copyright infringements, as YouTube has proven itself to be a very useful tool in promotions of television programming. Generally speaking, networks WANT their users to be more involved with their products, and few statistics can speak to the popularity of Viacom’s programming than the fact that their content has been viewed 1.5 billion times on YouTube, as they allege in their lawsuit. Certainly they will say that those viewings represent 1.5 billion missed advertising opportunities, however it is not clear that the people who watch a Daily Show clip on YouTube would necessarily watch the program on television. As with the controversy surrounding pirated music, it is not always true that a download represents a sale lost, but it is always true that a download represents an impression gained.

The fact is that many, if not most, of the people watching The Colbert Report on YouTube would happily watch it on a Viacom-backed alternative. The problem is simply that that Viacom alternative does not exist. Sure, Comedy Central (and other Viacom properties) do offer selected video clips on their sites – indeed, they were one of the first of the major broadcasters to provide this kind of service – but the message that is being clearly sent by users who post copyrighted clips on YouTube is that they want to choose which clips they can see. If Viacom had been providing comprehensive video clips of their programming on their website from the get-go, then I see no reason why users would feel compelled to upload the same clips to YouTube or any other online video site. Instead, by telling consumers what they want, Viacom is driving their own loyal viewers to infringe on Viacom’s copyright by uploading the clips that they actually want to see.

Ultimately, judging from this newfound desire to defy YouTube by the major content providers, we may find YouTube returning to its roots – hosting amateur and independent video. Although I suspect that Google would like to get into the content-brokering business (and it has tied up with a number of serious rights-holders), it could be that YouTube and the major broadcasters decide to go separate ways, with the broadcasters providing their own clips and shows on a proprietary site while YouTube continues to grow in the amateur space.

What will be really interesting to see is if, given the widespread choice of videos by amateur and independent content creators on YouTube, consumers begin to spurn the major studios who fought so hard to separate their expensive content from the riff-raff, effectively walling themselves off from the vibrant marketplace contained there.