Unlimited choice seems to be the defacto "nirvana" when it comes to any and all things video. We all want what we want, when we want it, how we want it, for free if at all possible.
The reality is that even though we may index everything and anything digital and use search engines thinking we truly have access to everything, that is far from the truth. Google users "choice" goes as far as their search algorithms take the first results page. Rare is the search that goes beyond the 1st page. Which is exactly why SEO is so important to so many
We don't hunt through pages and pages of Digg or any other "wisdom of the crowds" engine. in fact, I've begun to use Mahalo (disclosure, Im an investor) more and more simply because it has a real person extend options beyond the basic algorithm.
Advances in storage technology have taken us to the point where we can and do put everything and anything on a hard drive and then make it available online. The choices far exceed our capacity to consume.
So how will we find new stuff ? New entertainment choices ?
Will it be purely from friends on social networks ? Will we verticalize and go to movie and music sites (or any other interest we may have) and join their social networks ? Will we just continue to trust Google and search engine algorithms to get us "the most relevant:" options with a suggestion here or there? Will it be a combination of the two ala Mahalo ? Or will we find "trusted brands" to guide us.
I know that TV networks want to be brands that we look to for specific types of entertainment. Spike wants to be for boys, USA Networks is all about crime, etc, etc.
At HDNet we focus our content on Men, 25 plus. Those who have graduated for the most part from Spike and want a mix of smarter programming and presentation. From Dan Rather to Torchwood to our brand of MMA, HDNet FIghts. We try to go older and smarter than other networks. But how do we get more people to connect. How do movies get people out of the homes to connect ? How does any tv show, let alone a tv network. What about a book ?
Is Oprah the best model ? Is she really a social recommendation engine with an outreach network of millions ? She obviously is a brand trusted by millions, are there others that could be as powerful ? Do they require a hit TV show ? A website , a blog, a Youtube channel ? What is the inflection point of impact in terms of numbers ? Or could Facebook or Myspace pages truly turn into trusted recommendation points that actually lead to purchases on a repetitive basis ?
If Mark Cuban on Facebook lists my favorite magazines, books, movies, what have you, will anyone care ?
I just don't think that people searching and results based on algorithms or context is the future of advertising and marketing.. There is another answer out there, the question is "what is it "?
Will you watch what I watch ?
Recent Posts
- The Ala Carting of Video on the Net - Will it lead to disaster ? (5/04/2008)
- Talking Mavs (5/02/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. I don't think there's any question there will always be a need for filtered content.
In my business (music) that used to be the function of record labels. They gave away a huge chunk of that authority and expected involvement to peer groups and social sites, sure.... but now there's so much noise it's difficult to even manage to listen to everything promising.
I see people putting their trust in sources that have proven to be useful and validated somehow... the question I have going forward is this : how difficult will it be to start a new channel or filter, after Brand Name Filters/Channels already establish themselves? In some ways the channels or filters that build the earliest involvement on a new technology (or the social site of the month) are the winners in that derby. But the crowd can't keep chasing the technology or the hot website, can it? I get tired just trying to keep up!
Posted at 5:04PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Daniel Holter
3. Facebook`s answer was Beacon, but we all saw how it backfired. Who wants their personal information broad casted like that? People look to a source which are credible, emotionally appealing and logical. Blogs, brands,or even a persons homepage on a social network can all embody these characteristics.
If someone who I view as successful or smart says to buy something because it will be a good investment...heck I`m probably going to believe that person. If I see someone with sophistication or a style that I admire and they come out with a fashion line, again, I will probably be a customer. The problem is that a lot of celebrities dilute there brands without having built up much ethos,pathos and logos. These are the celebs who fail the most in their business ventures.
To answer your question people are going to look towards the credibility of the source. If I say something is a good investment and you people know I rent a small apartment in Chicago with my girlfriend and don`t have very much money, but Mark Cuban says it`s terrible investment and people know he vacations on a private island i`m going to bet people are not going to take my investment advice.
If the Red Hot Chili Peppers say they are fans of a particular new group, I will absolutely check out that new band because I like the music they make see them as having a good reputation. That is how I got into the Mars Volta.
Posted at 5:07PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Gregory Rueda
4. Keep in mind any search must be initiated with a preference in mind. Also keep in mind that preferences have both spatial and temporal relevance.
If I’m interested in “News” for example, the type of News I want to hear, see or read about is highly dependent on where I am, what I’m doing or about to do and my frame of mind. Would it be appropriate for me to list out those attributes? Or should the search algorithm intuitively know.
What happens when I get home from a long day at the office and plop down in front of my TV? With as little overt stimulus put forth I want to be captivated. Currently my choices don’t extend far beyond my dozen or so favorite channels and the content some programmer thinks I want to watch. I suppose there’s always Tivo but the time relevance may not be right or I forgot to tell it last night what I wanted to watch tomorrow. Maybe I had a “really” hard day and I just want the TV to make me happy. Can I say, “make me happy”? Imagine all the relevant attributes your TV would need to know to make that happen.
Then again maybe all I really care about is what Oprah is interested in…
Posted at 5:13PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Tim Elliott
5. I think you're on track with the Oprah model. I find that most of my recommendations come from "trusted brands"--as in, bloggers that I enjoy and friends on social networks.
More and more, shared items from my friends are pointing me to the next site I want to check out or the next book I put on my "To Read" list, a list that keeps on growing the more time I spend on the Internet. I don't stumble upon too many things on TV anymore because I watch very little of it, and I tend to phase out advertising and marketing.
6. Late night infomercials, duh! j/k :P
Brand recognition only goes so far with me now. Sure, it's important but I want to know what experiences people have had with the product.
I've noticed that I tend to rely on online product reviews more and more frequently. Either reviews from a respected entity (ie: Tom's Hardware) or a community review (ie: NewEgg.com).
I recently purchased 2 books that were on a recommended reading list of a blogger (CodingHorror.com) I read daily. I wasn't even in the market for a book.
When I am in the market for something and I don't have a trusted source, I look for community based ratings to help me decide.
If reviews and recommendations were aggregated into a single search where ranking was based on end-user feedback, that would be handy for me as a consumer. I'd also need a guarantee that ratings would be genuine and placement could not be purchased.
7. Actually, I wonder if the future of Big Money advertising and marketing is already in peril... when word gets out that someone or something is actually posing as 'independent' or is 'free from corporate backing', the backlash is significant - and for good reason.
I think it all comes down to being authentic. Maybe the Mahalo results are, in some not-so-small way, more authentic than the SEO-gamed Page 1 results at Your Favorite Search Engine.
Say what you will about Oprah, her authenticity has never, in my mind, been questioned. Same should be said about you, Mark. You are who you say you are, and there's not a lot of 'gaming the customer' going on there... people respect that, and if they dig what you have previously dug, chances are that pattern will repeat itself as long as the established trust isn't broken.
A million sliver-sized channels of recommendation, that's where marketing is headed, imho.
Well, that, and companies paying people to be 'undercover recommender agents'... oh, if only we knew all the tricks up the proverbial sleeves of corporations and their Big Money advertising agencies.
Posted at 5:34PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Daniel Holter
8. Mark- I think the future of marketing is reaching exactly the right people with the right message. That will be easy to do when the Internet has a personal identity layer. The "Privacy Provider" companies that occupy the layer between each user and the rest of the Internet will know everything about their users. To preserve privacy, they will be able to sell access to, but not information about, those users.
I have just started a website explaining and implementing this idea at http://thetrustednet.org. The ideas there were very well received when presented at an identity community event several months ago.
9. Social, period. It will come full circle. In a land before search engines and Wal-Mart local business thrived or died based solely on "social" marketing. Bill told Bob told Sue and Sue's opinion of Bob shaded what she thought about what Bob told her.
Oprah always recommended good things and when she messed up she admitted it.
Costco, in my opinion, always buys quality items to sell therefore I trust their recommendations. Sam’s club buys the same crap they sell in Wal-Mart therefore I don't trust their recommendations.
If Mark Cuban lists his favorite mags and movies, and he truly believes those recommendations to be good ones, and the people who take those recommendations believe them to be good ones then people will care. I don't think that you need a Facebook to make good recommendations.
Posted at 5:42PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Shawn from Realado.com
10. It's amazing that you put posts out like this that basically give us a really good problem to solve that could be worth tons of money.
I love the idea of a brand driven search engine. And yes, people do care about what other people are recommending, particularly famous and/or rich people.
Posted at 6:28PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Tim Taylor
11. I have no idea why the affiliate marketing companies don't take on the business model of cross checking and categorizing customers then sell that information at a premium as better adwords/links/etc.. on their existing customer sites?
IE: You browse Amazon for Maverick posters. You've spent and average of $50.00 per purchase, through 3 purchases in the past 6 months. And you've purchased twice from NBA.com after clicking on an affiliate link on the Amazon page.
So, the next time you come to NBA.com's site, or Amazon's site, your ads are based on BOTH your current search and your purchase history not only at Amazon but your collective value of all your partner's business.
If an affiliate want's to participate in this additional feature, the cost per ad or click is at a higher rate because the particpation percentage is always greater.
This is the direct mailing list model applied to affiliate marketing.
I don't see why the same doesn't apply to TV media advertising and radio.
Now, if you have access to or own multiple media companies, you have access to advertising delivery streams not available to other sources.
There is a disconnect between those who sell advertising and those who evaluate the response from it. If I was HDNet, I'd not only want to know the demographics and numbers, but the purchasing history and conversion rates of the advertisers and customers.
Through trending, you can charge more or less or even put together packages that accurately advertise to exact demographics that historically not only see the advertisement but actually purchase.
Suddenly, if you see a conversion rate of your advertisers spike during a particular show, then you'll know if your advertisers are hitting their demographic and be able to market that.
13. I get tips for new content primarily from my RSS feeds and some forums I frequent.
But I don't even have the time to look at everything I come across. There is just too much average content that you waste time recognizing is average.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of trying to keep up with and consuming new content all the time. It's like caffeine or sugar, you get a short boost (OK, that was good [or not]) and then you are looking for your next fix of something new to starve off your boredom. The other day I actually sat down and read a dead-tree book!
Posted at 8:25PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Jojo
14. Post #2 for me.
http://mogulus.com/
Why do I always look at the number of people watching a channel and I'm drawn to see what I might be missing. This is the dynamic of the mob mentality. It encompasses all.
You want to solve all your advertising needs? Figure out the dynamic of why everyone in the US heard that school principle's wife yell at that 13 year old on his answering machine. What about that event caused all the news and tabloids to cover it and all of us to hear it?
15. i like your blog , keep up the good work.
Interesting Websites Blog
Posted at 10:13PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Furqan
16. focus.
finding a core homogenous group. focus on attracting them and then expanding beyond that core. Brands coalesce - it's like gravity.
Oprah pioneered lowbrow culture and has been cultivating her brand. Interestingly enough, she has grown up with her audience - she took a youngish audience in the 80s interested in lowbrow stuff, and progressed with them as a brand. To younger women (and many women in my age group 25-30 watch her regularly and move on any brand she co-signs) she is aspirational - and represents a blueprint to personal growth. To older women - they've grown up with her - matured with her, etc. They feel they know her.
The point of the foregoing is that this group coalesced organically. The point of all this: GET THEM WHILE THEY ARE YOUNG.
young people establish habits that don't change. I read somewhere that it's extremely rare for an individual to change music tastes and/or explore different kinds of music after 30. By the time most people hit puberty, on average they already have life habits that will not change. Fat kids more than likely remain fat. Athletic kids keep playing sports. Geeks remain geeks, emo kids stay crying and writing lame poetry, etc. The thing about getting them young is that at that time it's more important than ever for them to belong to something. And once they belong, they CLING.
The thing about adults is... and god bless them... is that they are more stable. If they are successful, they already belong to something - several things, be it alumni assn, or fraternity, or company, or community, or family, etc. It's not easy to convince them that what you're doing is good for them to invest anything more than casual interest in - as it is evident that the things they're already involved in have WORKED FOR THEM. Frankly, go after the young because they are impressionable and EASILY impressed.
I work in film. The two largest demos for film are the 13-24s and the 45-64s. The film industry can sell Epic Movie, say, to 13-24s very easily. It's not even a flick, but a loose collection of skits. Good stuff, but has little redeeming value. It's the movie equivalent of a bag of skittles or something. Cheap to produce, review proof - the things reviewers hate about these movies makes the intended audience love them more. 45-64s need good scripts, strong actors with impressive resumes, perhaps the legitimate co-sign in the form of a bestselling novel or provoking true story. As a producer you know that anything that increases in complexity becomes harder to do right. Quite frankly it's hard to impress adults. My nephew, when he was five, was impressed by the coin from behind the ear magic trick (it was the only one I knew). He was impressed by it for like two years until someone showed him how I did it.
Google coalesced on college campuses. My brother (2 years younger than I) remember first using google on campus - it circulated organically as the best search engine to use. Then it became cool to use google (as an early adopter) and this critical mass allowed them to expand. Also, the notion of a cultural movement as the province of the young - as they are more likely to play with language and redefine how things are done to offset their relative lack of power - is very important - that's how it went from searching for something to GOOGLING for something. Google is to search what Ipod is to DAPs, it's going to be very difficult to unseat them because they are synonymous in name with what they do and this is widespread in language. This inertia will take a LONG TIME to shift. It's more likely to be done through technological paradigm shift. When search becomes natural language prevalent - i.e. when I ask my computer to find something using my voice - there is perhaps the opportunity to corner something there. Searching on my phone should go something like this: Where can I see Jumper? (vocal question). Response: (using GPS to determine my location) Kips Bay Movie Theater 9:30. Would you like to buy tickets now? Etc.
Here's the other thing: Two syllables or less. I'm not sure if I've read this elsewhere before. Two syllables is the magic number for the word of a BRAND. On the internet: Google, Yahoo, Hotmail, Flickr, Myspace, FaceBook, etc. If you can't say it with two syllables it won't stick. You can do three in some instances but two is the magic number. It should not need to be shortened or acronymed. It should be two syllables and it should be a word not in common usage so that any langauge adoption can naturally occur. Even Oprah fits this bill as it's an uncommon name. It's not uncommon to hear the word Oprah thrown around as a brand, independent of the woman. Two syllables. If I label something "Oprah" we all know what that means.
Let's recap: Go young. corner something they like: games, sex, sports, drinking, etc. and focus on building them and establishing a brand that way. Two syllable brand name. Three if you can't manage two. A word not in common usage. START THEM AS YOUNG AS YOU CAN.
Interestingly enough, you want to go above the Spike Brand. they'll be positioned to organically move into HDNET's demo couple of years because they'll just grow with the audience.
Just my two cents - more like 8 cents: just had tons of sushi and a whole bunch of sapporos with this hot chick. not much a fan of sushi and can't tell if this feeling I have is from being plesantly drunk of mercury poisoning from that farmed fish. *Shrugs*
Posted at 11:48PM on Feb 27th 2008 by blyx
17. Oprah hates MEN, God her show sickens me. Have you notice a recurring theme on her show? Men are ALWAYS the abuser, Women are always the victim. Please Mark don't let yourself be one of those brainwashed by her propaganda. When you start a talk show or show movies on HDNet don't fall into the trap like the rest in the media of portaying men in a bad light the way Oprah and the rest of the world does.
A suggestion, show some Cary Grant movies, the guy's a good role model of manhood for young boys. He's funny and the consummate gentleman.
Posted at 12:10AM on Feb 28th 2008 by M
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
1. Mark, I really enjoy reading your blog. Thank you for keeping the masses informed......
JW Stringer
http://pregame.com
Posted at 4:30PM on Feb 27th 2008 by JW Stringer