Most, meaning 90%, of the parents think that they are more internet-savvy than their kids. But are they? In this video Lydia Leavitt and Leila Makki went out to find out.
Showing posts with label video. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
GoPro HD camera
Log
Got this new toy delivered on my doors steps. It is GoPro Hero camera for extreme situations. I really need to go scuba diving now. Shoots HD, is really small, 30/60fps and the best part you can take it to 60m depth!
Below are a couple of videos what you can do with it.
And this is what I am going to do with it.
Got this new toy delivered on my doors steps. It is GoPro Hero camera for extreme situations. I really need to go scuba diving now. Shoots HD, is really small, 30/60fps and the best part you can take it to 60m depth!
Below are a couple of videos what you can do with it.
And this is what I am going to do with it.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The State of Online Video [Infographic]
http://www.clicker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/YOUTUBE-NATION-12-2.png
Thanks to Jeffthomastech.com
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Future of TV Is Not On Cable
I re-post the blogpost on NewTeeVee. This just hits the spot.
The $100 cable bill is dead. The cable industry just doesn’t know it yet. What killed it was not just a combination of ad-supported online video sites and cheap subscription video services, but a fundamental inability on the part of TV programmers and cable companies to reach the next generation of consumers.
It’s still heady days for the cable industry. Cable, satellite and IPTV companies have continued to draw in new consumers to their pay TV services, and have even been successful in convincing existing subscribers to pay more for premium video content. But one needs only to look at audience demographics to see that big cable’s ability to draw in new viewers is waning, and that spells trouble for the TV industry as a whole.
CNET reports that the average age for broadcast TV viewers has risen dramatically over the past two decades. Marguerite Reardon writes:
Twenty years ago, the median age for ABC viewers was 37; today it’s 51. Fox’s median age has also jumped, from 29 to 44. And NBC and CBS, which have always had older viewers, are also seeing the median age of their viewers rise.
Even the NY Times, which took on the cord-cutting phenomenon with the headline “Plenty to Watch Online, but Viewers Prefer to Pay for Cable,” couldn’t ignore the obvious. Despite the fact that 677,000 new subscribers signed up for pay TV services in the first quarter, the number of young people that are willing to pay for cable continues to decline. According to a Times/CBS News survey “found that people under the age of 45 were about four times as likely as those 45 and over to say Internet video services could effectively replace cable.”
In other words, cable companies and broadcasters aren’t bringing in new customers. They’re just selling more stuff to existing customers.
Some companies have tried to remedy the model, with new services that are meant to appeal to the on-demand everywhere demands of the next generation. Comcast, Time Warner and others are pushing hard to make their cable programming available on-demand through broadband TV Everywhere services so that their subscribers can watch shows online at their leisure.
But so-called TV Everywhere services miss the point: the existing audience paying $100 a month for TV doesn’t care about watching True Blood on a laptop. And the people watching True Blood on a laptop aren’t going to shell out $100 for a cable subscription.
Consumer behavior is fundamentally changing, and it starts with the young people who don’t see the need for cable.
Today, there’s an entire generation of consumers that has grown used to turning to Netflix and Hulu for their video entertainment. You think you’re going to sell them a $100 a month cable subscription, when they’ve been doing fine just paying for broadband? The TV industry is going to need to find a way to reach those consumers — because there’s only so long you can cater to an increasingly aging audience.
The $100 cable bill is dead. The cable industry just doesn’t know it yet. What killed it was not just a combination of ad-supported online video sites and cheap subscription video services, but a fundamental inability on the part of TV programmers and cable companies to reach the next generation of consumers.
It’s still heady days for the cable industry. Cable, satellite and IPTV companies have continued to draw in new consumers to their pay TV services, and have even been successful in convincing existing subscribers to pay more for premium video content. But one needs only to look at audience demographics to see that big cable’s ability to draw in new viewers is waning, and that spells trouble for the TV industry as a whole.
CNET reports that the average age for broadcast TV viewers has risen dramatically over the past two decades. Marguerite Reardon writes:
Twenty years ago, the median age for ABC viewers was 37; today it’s 51. Fox’s median age has also jumped, from 29 to 44. And NBC and CBS, which have always had older viewers, are also seeing the median age of their viewers rise.
Even the NY Times, which took on the cord-cutting phenomenon with the headline “Plenty to Watch Online, but Viewers Prefer to Pay for Cable,” couldn’t ignore the obvious. Despite the fact that 677,000 new subscribers signed up for pay TV services in the first quarter, the number of young people that are willing to pay for cable continues to decline. According to a Times/CBS News survey “found that people under the age of 45 were about four times as likely as those 45 and over to say Internet video services could effectively replace cable.”
In other words, cable companies and broadcasters aren’t bringing in new customers. They’re just selling more stuff to existing customers.
Some companies have tried to remedy the model, with new services that are meant to appeal to the on-demand everywhere demands of the next generation. Comcast, Time Warner and others are pushing hard to make their cable programming available on-demand through broadband TV Everywhere services so that their subscribers can watch shows online at their leisure.
But so-called TV Everywhere services miss the point: the existing audience paying $100 a month for TV doesn’t care about watching True Blood on a laptop. And the people watching True Blood on a laptop aren’t going to shell out $100 for a cable subscription.
Consumer behavior is fundamentally changing, and it starts with the young people who don’t see the need for cable.
Today, there’s an entire generation of consumers that has grown used to turning to Netflix and Hulu for their video entertainment. You think you’re going to sell them a $100 a month cable subscription, when they’ve been doing fine just paying for broadband? The TV industry is going to need to find a way to reach those consumers — because there’s only so long you can cater to an increasingly aging audience.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Content Creators "Have No ROI" in Producing Videos Just for Their Own Destination
Business
We at Videoflow have been working heavily on this opportunity. Truly, on web you are connected by nature, therefore there is no reason to produce content just for yourself or for you own properties. As a content owner you should distribute, distribute and distribute!! And use Videoflow to help you distribute and monetise your content. I believe this way you are able to reach more and wider audience for your kick ass content. Makes sense, right?
Lets say you are a wineblogger producing high quality content. Or you are a production house creating a 15 episode show for TV. Would it be nice to get access to different medias by someone else working for you without fee. Thou taking a cut from your advertising sales. Cooperation on the distribution benefits the whole ecosystem.
Here is a link to the Beet.TV article about it.
We at Videoflow have been working heavily on this opportunity. Truly, on web you are connected by nature, therefore there is no reason to produce content just for yourself or for you own properties. As a content owner you should distribute, distribute and distribute!! And use Videoflow to help you distribute and monetise your content. I believe this way you are able to reach more and wider audience for your kick ass content. Makes sense, right?
Lets say you are a wineblogger producing high quality content. Or you are a production house creating a 15 episode show for TV. Would it be nice to get access to different medias by someone else working for you without fee. Thou taking a cut from your advertising sales. Cooperation on the distribution benefits the whole ecosystem.
Here is a link to the Beet.TV article about it.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Videoflow beta phase (sample video)
As some of you might know, we have been busy developing Videoflow, an online video distribution and monetization platform. For more, go check out www.videoflow.com (in Finnish at the moment). We are currently testing the service out with certain bloggers.
Here is a link to Pupulandia lifestyle-blogger, where you can see the service in action. http://pupulandia.indiedays.com/2010/06/22/pikavisiitti-my-o-my-putiikkiin/
Friday, April 30, 2010
Online Video Advertising to increase 35% in 2010
On Beet.TV blog they say, online video is the fastest growing sectors in advertising, with spending expected to be up nearly 35 percent this year, says Geoff Ramsey, CEO of market research firm eMarketer.
This poses some interesting points. Online video is really the fastest growing sector in online advertising and has some real meaning for paying customers. Still, despite the rapid rise, the medium faces challenges in technology and content quality.
According to my own knowledge, I have learned that the challenges are:
- How to produce quality content
- How to distribute the content to generate good enough reach
- How to develop more intuitive technology
- How to target your target group better
Two latter ones are on acceptable level by know. Currently media are wondering how to solve the two first points. Well, we are developing a service this, check it out: Videoflow
This poses some interesting points. Online video is really the fastest growing sector in online advertising and has some real meaning for paying customers. Still, despite the rapid rise, the medium faces challenges in technology and content quality.
According to my own knowledge, I have learned that the challenges are:
- How to produce quality content
- How to distribute the content to generate good enough reach
- How to develop more intuitive technology
- How to target your target group better
Two latter ones are on acceptable level by know. Currently media are wondering how to solve the two first points. Well, we are developing a service this, check it out: Videoflow
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Gaga wears Daniel Palillo (video)
Impressive I must say. Here is an interview of Daniel Palillo in his native finnish.
[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly8pj6c_BrY]
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Great slides about Social Media
[slideshare id=2005829&doc=wtfissocialmediapgedition-090916075838-phpapp01]
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Ad survey
Business
Brightroll's Video Advertising Report 2009 on Q1 is released.
Some findings:
* 87% of agency executives plan to spend more of their online advertising budgets on video in 2009
* 71% of survey participants view online video advertising as a complementary medium to television
* A majority of respondents estimates CPM prices to be at their lowest, and 20% thinks the price of pre-roll will drop to half what it is today
* Prices of pre-roll continue to fall (early Q2 data suggests this trend will continue)
BrightRoll's average CPM (cost-per-thousand impressions) numbers from the industry at large confirm the trend:
* Average pre-roll CPM: Q408 vs. Q308 – down 12.5%
* Average pre-roll CPM: Q408 vs. Q407 – down 25.0%
* % of Campaign Revenue from Pre-roll: Q109 (80.6%), Q108 (63.1%)
The drop in CPM pricing "could be a good thing," because cost may have been limiting growth, TechCrunch observed. If they come down further, say to $7-9 instead of $20, they'll give TV commercials, which range between $15 (primetime) to $50 (niche, targeted cable channels).
In addition to cost (27%), 31% of agencies cited "lack of targeting capabilities" as a factor limiting online video ad growth. Some 18% said online video has limited reach, and 12% cited ad format limitations. Just 7% thought it was held back by poor inventory quality.
Both pre-roll and in-banner ads were regarded as preferable units, with one out of two respondents saying their use of one or the other depended on the situation and advertiser goals. Reasons for their preference, according to the survey, are guaranteed impressions, overall engagement, and noticeability.
The most surprising finding of the survey was the lack of data and effort around video advertising efficacy; 87% have not performed any in-house research around their online video campaign efficacy.
Asked what they would want to know if they were to conduct research:
* 39% would explore the impact of online video advertising on offline purchase behavior
* 36% would explore changes in purchase intent / brand lift
* 25% would measure efficacy vs. television advertising
Brightroll's Video Advertising Report 2009 on Q1 is released.
Some findings:
* 87% of agency executives plan to spend more of their online advertising budgets on video in 2009
* 71% of survey participants view online video advertising as a complementary medium to television
* A majority of respondents estimates CPM prices to be at their lowest, and 20% thinks the price of pre-roll will drop to half what it is today
* Prices of pre-roll continue to fall (early Q2 data suggests this trend will continue)
BrightRoll's average CPM (cost-per-thousand impressions) numbers from the industry at large confirm the trend:
* Average pre-roll CPM: Q408 vs. Q308 – down 12.5%
* Average pre-roll CPM: Q408 vs. Q407 – down 25.0%
* % of Campaign Revenue from Pre-roll: Q109 (80.6%), Q108 (63.1%)
The drop in CPM pricing "could be a good thing," because cost may have been limiting growth, TechCrunch observed. If they come down further, say to $7-9 instead of $20, they'll give TV commercials, which range between $15 (primetime) to $50 (niche, targeted cable channels).
In addition to cost (27%), 31% of agencies cited "lack of targeting capabilities" as a factor limiting online video ad growth. Some 18% said online video has limited reach, and 12% cited ad format limitations. Just 7% thought it was held back by poor inventory quality.
Both pre-roll and in-banner ads were regarded as preferable units, with one out of two respondents saying their use of one or the other depended on the situation and advertiser goals. Reasons for their preference, according to the survey, are guaranteed impressions, overall engagement, and noticeability.
The most surprising finding of the survey was the lack of data and effort around video advertising efficacy; 87% have not performed any in-house research around their online video campaign efficacy.
Asked what they would want to know if they were to conduct research:
* 39% would explore the impact of online video advertising on offline purchase behavior
* 36% would explore changes in purchase intent / brand lift
* 25% would measure efficacy vs. television advertising
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sex in High School
Love this quote on a Videoplaza blogpost of their CEO Sorosh Tavakoli. So true!
“Online video advertising is like sex in high school: Everybody talks about it, nobody really does it and the ones doing it are pretty bad at it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)