famebook™

Hulu Turns to American Idol Creator to Produce New Online Show - #fail IMHO

Jan Simmonds — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:23:10 +0000

Re: Hulu Turns to American Idol Creator to Produce New Online Show - MASHABLE ARTICLE

Personally I don't see this working for two reasons:

Firstly the Idol format on network broadcast still gives the performers, judges et al an implied superiority and 'backstage' cache whereas the internet actually does the reverse. (Now we the audience are the judges as opposed to just the suckers who waste millions in call charges phoning in to vote. Similarly we're accustomed to everything on the internet being free!)

Secondly these kind of shows have so devalued celebrity that the reward of achieving it is being eroded away. When the show fails inevitably to make any of the participants famous (or in the unlikely event that it does but we all know that it is only for the immediate duration of the show and aftermath and is in our wiser viewing eyes an illusion with no material value) then how does it run to a second series or even survive the first? The TV formats still currently have the proven potential for success both in record sales and subsequent careers because the shows are able to garner popular attention and architect the marketing machinery accordingly.

These shows still cost money to produce and I think Simon Fuller is suffering from illusions if he thinks that this show will make ongoing sustainable profits wholly via the internet imho. What I think is much more likely is that Simon Cowell will use the springboard he now dominates to leak some of the Idol/ X Factor asset online in a controlled way and massage it to a successful formula online.

As I've said before.... all roads lead to Famebook! ;-)

Please let me know your thoughts and RT where poss!

To Journalists - You may have more power than you think! - Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?"

Jan Simmonds — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:06:09 +0000

Video from: Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?" via SVW

Response:-

I've watched the VIDEO ABOVE and with the advantage of humility and objectivity, I think the overall solution/ likely outcome of all this is clear and I can't believe it wasn't immediately obvious to the panel:

Firstly, being a strong advocate that all great success comes from people not corporations, then surely it is logical to look at all journalists as individual monetizable channels. This model then defines the structure, reward and audience loyalty for the traditional newspaper brands as agents and caretakers of those revenue sources. (An Iraq based journalist would then be a channel within their 'sponsor/ host/ agent's branded environment, receiving a retainer or advance against royalties! Rather like a Record Company!)

Secondly this then creates the platform for a 'positive' upward trend where the various institutions WSJ, NYT etc. will proactively compete to attract the most popular writers in their genre. Extended of course, those journalists also become the audience's natural filters for Twitter et al realtime info.

Finally, and I've regularly been on record about this in the past, this creates a compelling and monetizable format for creating a 'club' type atmosphere where instead of a pay for content focus, audiences pay for membership to access that content and the channels. This membership provides for access, kindle et al downloads, some hard copy 'The Week' style summaries and maybe further added benefit too. In terms of branded entertainment and sponsorship of particular channels, I would then exclude all Google adsense and sell branded sponsorship packages for each journalists' channel. Top journalists will also get higher commissions/ royalties but the pool can also be afforded on a much wider basis to bloggers etc. Business journalists and channels would attract high end biz advertisers, entertainment channels would attract relevant brands etc. The niche value of the WSJ and NYT then becomes a consumer statement. (I am a proud MEMBER of the WSJ etc...)

I know this may describe in some sense what is happening naturally on some sites, but instead of everyone moving towards aggregation, perhaps there is more money and security in locking down some of those those brands and promoting the individual journos based on their experience etc. Imagine all the long standing Newspapers locking down their IPR and by implication making a clear statement that any content aggregated via Google or anyone else is inferior and unsubstantiated. It would force Google to re-negotiate its inclusion and access to any respected content!

If these guys don't do something like this, then eventually all these journalists will simply move over to Demand Media or similar and create their own channels, and Demand will eventually become uniquely able to own the whole thing! Conversly of course, Richard Rosenblatt could potentially partner with all the main global Newspapers and offer a platform for that model and totally usurp Google altogether!

Wouldn't that be big news?

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times!"

Jan Simmonds — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:52:41 +0100

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times". Peter Kafka - All Things D

My response:

Peter,

Nice article. I understand Bruce’s response above, but imho it’s reactionary and though in the moment may have merit, it is based on too narrow a vision.

The latter ‘vision’ being the operative word…Richard has seen that traditional media isn’t necessarily broken, it is just going through a Star Trek style transporter and is still all in pieces mid journey. His model is based on the notion that all the pieces will still come back together on content and we are gradually seeing the evidence of that materialise.

DM have placed themselves at the forefront of that whilst all eyes are still on pure user-generated models and cheap self-serve advertising. DM are the biggest single contributor of content to You Tube for example.

If FB holds a valuation of 6.5bn which has evidently decreased from more than twice than that, then in a recession, my bets are on a more modest but tangible valuation slowly going upwards. DM’s assets may be of varying IP value, but they are genuinely all owned and paid for. The big social networks, only ‘own’ the inconvenience of their users migrating away, not the content itself.

I hope Richard hold’s on to his baby for a few years so his vision is truly born out. Personally I’d invest in whatever he does now or next!

Jan

More information about Demand Media at Demand Media Website

Calling all my Facebook, Twitter, FF et al 'social network' friends and Blog followers! Please help me answer a simple question - "What is your perception of me?"

Jan Simmonds — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:06:58 +0100

I was speaking to my business partner the other day and she was saying that one of the hurdles/ tasks we have ahead is that I am relatively unknown as a Founder/ CEO in California where we are going to be based or anywhere in the US for that matter and our business model is highly disruptive and challenges the way we will look at media especially, and technology in the future. This got me thinking about my 'social network' which extends to several thousand people and which includes not only people I have known all my life, but also people I only know through work, my blog and many also, who I simply admire and would very much like to know better. (Some I confess I've connected to, just because I thought they had cute profile pics too!)

Naturally we're in discussions with some of the very best PR firms about how to deal with this over the ensuing months, but what I would love to know is what my social network's perception is of me right now! Instead of paying a big agency to do market research which I assume one might have done some time ago, I figured why not just ask 'my wonderful network' the question and see what happens! To my knowledge noone has ever done this before, so it could prove an interesting social experiment! I also have great faith in my American friends' support of true entrepreneurs but want to know where exactly I stand.

So if it's okay with you, I'd really appreciate it if you would just ping me a paragraph saying what you think you know about me, why you might check up on me on FB, FF, Twitter etc. from time to time and maybe what you feel we 'socially' or business wise have in common. If you know me well and have something nice to say then great, or if you want to tell me why you hate me that's fine too. If you don't really know me, then are we competitors or potential partners, potential lovers or fighters or am I just a curiousity or 'one to watch' ??...whatever. You can post to my wall on My Blog/ Facebook or email me privately at jan [at] famebook [dot] com. I'm hoping everyone will have an opinion, even if we hardly know each other and if I do get significant responses, then not only would I repay the compliment where asked to, I will also spill the beans on much more about me and what I'm about and what we are doing at famebook!

Absolutely any reply will have value, whatever our connection and just remember it's about YOUR perception of me at this point in time! Wouldn't you love to know the truth about what I like about you... (I'm not connected to people I don't like!)

Here's hoping for an interesting response...

"My Quest For A Personal Dashboard" - Brad Feld - my response...

Jan Simmonds — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:11:08 +0100

My Quest For A Personal Dashboard - Brad Feld - my response... (Original Article Here!)

Brad, this is the digital nirvana question, but I would suggest that what you think you want, isn't actually going to be what you want...at least not yet. (Certainly in terms of investment areas!)

I have exactly the same dilemmas, and suspect we could both use existing tools to facilitate most of the above. There is one key issue, though highlighted of late, which is 'trust'. I only have the privacy of one business (about to launch a highly disruptive model and with some key players) to worry about, but you have many. Are you really confident in a future where all your dialogue, social interaction, facts and figures are cloud hosted by one provider? I'm certainly not. It is that reason I stick with Exchange not Gmail and store my financials et al locally.

I think the next big business model is for the provision of a tangibly private hosted solution, perhaps with a new universal encryption model which convinces me as a consumer that all my data can only be accessed by myself or those I choose. Only then might I be tempted to lock my life into one dashboard. Maybe Dell et al, could have a new lease of life, providing personal servers, which operate in a cloud environment, protected by firewalls and multiple encrypted offsite back ups. In other words, the box becomes your personal privacy wall.

The other big thing is filtering, which again I think needs to come first. Tons of news and entertainment sources will inevitably die and then a handful of feeds will provide personally filtered versions of what matters to us. We are working on that at Famebook, where apart from our 'famous people & famous brands' tag, we are also focused on subjective and not objective content, which we believe is the next huge shift in media.

Hope that makes sense...

To Traditional Publishers - Create tribes, amalgamate or die...

Jan Simmonds — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:20:58 +0100

Previously, a few scoops, exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

In my humble opinion there are only two ways out and that's to amalgamate print brands on a less is more basis to fewer titles and/ or create online tribes of loyal members by packaging the top content to relate to hardcore audiences and then serve that mix as a membership option. (Monthly mag + platinum site access + unlimited Kindle et al downloads and a big hug from the boss = $x per month/ annum)

Personally, the reason I'd walk past the rack at a departures lounge is that I've already packed my laptop with all the best of what I care about, so paying for some dead trees just makes me even more guilty for flying in the first place. Noone can fix that in a traditional way...and as for charging for content Rupert, it's like me submitting an invoice to Facebook for using my content to sell ads around...kinda pointless!

Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines” - How stupid is that!

Jan Simmonds — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:17:50 +0100

Response to nice Mashable article by Barb Dybwad - Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines”

I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or ignorance, but what traditional publishers seem to be conveniently overlooking is that there has been a metaphorical earthquake at the foundations of their whole business model and this has nothing to do with Craig's List or Google poaching their classified advertisers either.

Previously, a few exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

A Hulu for Magazines is as ridiculous as Murdoch charging for news content and is in my opinion tantamount to an online graveyard for a heap of publishing brands who, with some lateral thinking, (shown by UK Telegraph, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, WSJ) could actually re-align themselves and thrive. In reality, they'll find that each of them only has about 10% of their normal print content with any sustainable audience appeal and the ad value will be dumbed down and therefore diluted/ shared to boot. If this is their chosen path, why not call it what it is; which is an amalgamation of lots of brands under one roof and into one online magazine brand..... which I suppose may get bought cheap by Google or Microsoft one day anyway... and if they're really lucky, seemingly like so many these days, it will be at a greatly over-inflated price.

Kill CPM - Shelby Bonnie/ Kill Advertising - Jan Simmonds

Jan Simmonds — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:52:34 +0100

Response to "Let’s Kill The CPM" by Shelby Bonnie on TECHCRUNCH

Great article – very Jerry Maguire! Maybe it’s not just time to kill the concept of CPM, but also that of ‘advertising’ in its current guise. Rather like the brave move of finally accepting that the ‘paper’ in ‘newspaper’ is no longer relevant in helping to define those publishing brands’ future, the term ‘advert’ may also now be redundant in the face of what is already becoming ‘participatory social influencing’ between brands and consumers, wherein one may perhaps look to a more positive future again because the pricing can be more geared to actual revenue based results and not just potentially irrelevant numbers of eyeballs.

I still think that the core influence on purchasing is peer consensus and strong brand value. The rest imho is just mud on the wall and currently feels like a bunch of random graffitti. User generated content will only feed user generated ad models, but bring branded content into the mix and then things get exciting. Humbly J

For more dialogue with agencies, brands, celebrities and investors on this subject and our place in it, door is always open via jan [at] famebook [dot] com... Also happy to stand up and be different at relevant events!

Bob Iger - 'People Will Pay for Quality Content' - Yes, but......

Jan Simmonds — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:36:12 +0100

My Response to THE WRAP article - READ HERE!

Hi Sharon,

It always amazes me how big media who, on the face of it, should have the luxury of objectivity still sees things so subjectively!

Years ago now, I remember having a conversation with a rather well known head of one of the big record labels who was very excited that their new corporate website project would offer people the chance to buy records online. I said at the time the idea was flawed because it would be impossible to attract audiences to all the labels individually and sure enough Napster ensued not so long afterwards and subsequently iTunes!

This period in terms of video, news and even social content is no different and all of the big media brands are currently kidding themselves that they can create chargeable ecosystems within their own portfolios. It is true that people will pay for quality content and also that big advertisers are also yearning for an elegant online home, but it won't be found within any individual platform owned by one media company, rather with the most successful aggregators of that content! (No prizes for guessing who I'm hoping one of them is!)

I think Bob Iger is a pretty smart guy, but he's trapped by corporate responsibility and duty to Disney, as are the innovators at TW, Newscorp et al to their own brands. The principals are sound, but even in the clouds, it's all about execution. Regretably I anticipate more AOL type disappointments before these guys learn how to be portably profitable rather than waste so much time and money competing with each other building fortresses.

In the meantime of course it leaves the floor wide open for us humble entrepreneurs who are unencumbered by the confines above. Perhaps they should all rally round and invest more in us and save themselves further expensive mistakes!

Jan [at] famebook [dot] com

PS. Nice offices btw

The Internet Is Dead (As An Investment) - or is it?

Jan Simmonds — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:50:32 +0100

ORIGINAL ARTICLE - WSJ - James Altucher

The great FRED WILSON's response - HERE!

My humble take:

Thanks Fred - Some great 'Yang' to a load of old 'Ying' - I replied to the same article -

A great sensationalist headline maybe, but a totally flawed argument nevertheless. It isn't the internet as an investment that is dead, more a coming to terms with the fact that millions of eyeballs doesn't, on current business models, equate to big returns and that those properties have been wearing the emperor's new clothes for far too long.

The smart money will however recognize that consumer loyalty is increasingly moving online and so far the big brand advertisers haven't really found a new home yet so they can follow suit. Opportunity abounds for investors in platforms which offer that new home as they will be the delivery mechanism for all media in the future. So far on an 80/20 rule, all the big online names have built businesses which don't and won't accommodate the rich 20% because of their format. (Look at the quality of advertising as a percentage on any of the above sites.)

Some of us feel there is a chunk of money in that 20% slice which has not yet been claimed and it has ours and our investors name on it.

Jan Simmonds - Founder/ CEO at famebook