New Media Isn't New Anymore, But It's Definitely Different

I can't believe it's been several weeks since I posted.  Some periods in our lives are like that.  We get really busy and time flies by.  Technology is definitely changing the pace of our lives, including how we use media.  It's an impact that all of us in the entertainment business need to understand.

I went to a great program this week at the Screen Actors Guild.  It was a discussion of the New Media business, how people are starting to make real money at it and where it's going.  The first point the panel made is that there is no longer a "New Media" business -- it is just the "Media" business.  Online and mobile content are important sources of entertainment and information for a huge portion of the population.  It's not the fringe anymore, it's the mainstream.

What do content creators need to know in order to successfully participate?  Cindi Rice of Epic Level Entertainment, a very sharp digital media producer, pointed out that the ideal length for an online program now seems to be between 2 and 6 minutes.  This is a very revealing and key piece of information.  In the online media environment, why is the length of a story so much shorter than the 90 minutes we spend in a theater, or the 30 to 60 minutes of a television program?

First, the Internet is a vast universe of content with no real limits, and it's expanding at a mind-boggling pace. Ready for this statistic?  There are now 48 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute.  Read that again and think about it.  That is only one website (albeit the largest), and that is every minute.  For all purposes, all of us now have an endless number of online media choices.  We could watch videos 24 hours per day, and we'd only see 1/2880 of what is placed on YouTube.  For all intents and purposes, the choices are infinite.

When you are at the world's biggest buffet, you take smaller portions of each dish because you want to try some of everything before you get filled up.  A bite of this, a taste of that.  That is what the online media environment is like -- people only have so much time, and there are an infinite number of choices.  Given that paradigm, it's an achievement to hold anyone's attention for even 2 to 6 minutes.

Another reason that online stories are shorter might be the way we use digital media.  For many of us, digital media is not really something we do so much as something to fill time between the things we do.  It's the halftime show.  It's the master of ceremonies making a couple jokes before he brings up the next act.  It's like the previews before the movie or the funny ads in between acts of a TV show.  Digital media gives us little bits of entertainment and information that keep us energized before we leave for work or head out to that next appointment.  When you look at it like that, a 2 to 6 minute story is just about the right length.  2 or 3 of those is a nice coffee break, and then it's back to work.

Admittedly, that is the perspective of someone who is older than the typical YouTube user.  I asked my 16-year old son about his online watching habits.  It is a little more of a real activity for him.  He likes to stay abreast of certain video series that he is following.  But he doesn't want to spend more than a few minutes on any one video because he wants to get on to the others.  If he really likes something, he'll go back and watch it again -- maybe several times.  Younger media consumers are perhaps simply becoming used to a faster pace.  They take their entertainment a bite at a time instead of by the plateful.

As content creators, what does this mean for us?  Everyone still likes a good story, but each medium is appropriate for its own type of story.  A complex story should be told in a novel or a film.  A nice three-act story works in a play or a TV show.  In the digital realm, it's all about one good, fast act.  Set it up, deliver the punchline and move on.

As Marshall McLuhan noted so many years ago. the medium is still the message.  And when the medium is digital, that message should be about 2 to 6 minutes long.

iPad 2: Digital Media Becomes A Conversation

At first glance, the new iPad 2 appears to be a combination of already-existing technologies in a superior, user-friendly design - a fairly typical Apple product.  That may be an accurate description, but this particular package of features might also provide a new vision of what digital media can and will become.

If you want to get an orientation on Apple's new tablet, check out this video.  It's worth watching.  In the meantime, here's a quick summary of the new features:

• Two cameras, front and back, to give simultaneously looks at the user and the user's environment. 
• The ability to tether the tablet to a television to provide a 1080p view of whatever is on the iPad.
• Faster processor to provide smoother, higher quality video.
• Improved display.
• Removable "smart" cover that protects the display, turns the device on and off and folds up to hold the device in two different orientations.
• Great battery life.
• Flatter, smoother design.

Ok, all of that is great, but each of those features has appeared on various other devices.  So why do I think this is a landmark moment in the evolution of digital media?  Until now, the iPad has been used primarily as a means of accessing robust media without being anchored to a stationary screen.  It allowed you to take your media with you in a size and quality that didn't feel like a compromise.

Now, with the cameras and tethering capability, it is suddenly more of a fully interactive 1080p experience.  High definition, user-generated, real-time video going back and forth between the iPad and the TV.  It's morphed from a primarily passive device to a much more active device in one generation.

From here, it is only a small leap before the wired connection between the iPad and television becomes a wireless connection.  Then it will become an IP addressable connection and the distance between the iPad and the TV becomes irrelevant.  When that happens, whatever I'm doing can be captured from two angles and placed on any television in the world.  Or any ten televisions, or any million televisions.  It's just a question of speed and bandwidth.  Suddenly, I am broadcasting real time high definition images to the world.

In that environment, tablet users are no longer just watching; they are creating and participating and infinitely connected and engaged with one another.  That is a completely different paradigm than watching YouTube videos while taking a walk.

Are you seeing this vision of  the kind of access we'll have?  Instead of watching pictures of a young student facing down a tank in Tiananmen Square, we will see what he sees, and watch the expression on his face as it is happening. It becomes a first-person experience, not a second-person story.  And in more mundane applications, we will be able to share any moment of our lives simultaneously with relatives in different countries.  We will walk a group of shareholders through our new facility in Hong Kong while they each sit in their own living room.  We'll be at our kids' shows, events, games -- anything at all, and share it immediately with anyone and everyone who is interested in seeing it.

In that new paradigm, technology serves to connect us in ways that we could never be connected before.  It bridges gaps and brings us together instead of isolating us.

Am I naive or ridiculously over-optimistic?  Perhaps, but I don't think so.  When I look at the iPad 2, this is the future I see.  A day is coming when we will all be in a 24-7 conversation that covers the entire globe.  It makes me smile to think about it.

Real Victories Are Won In The Marketplace, Not In The Courtroom

This may sound odd coming from a lawyer, but courtroom victories often have limited value.  In fact, winning legal battles can sometimes do more harm than good.

 In 1999, TiVo invented the DVR, and registered patents to protect its novel ideas.  Initially, TiVo was so successful in bringing its product to market, that the word "TiVo" actually became a verb (a good indicator of massive market acceptance).  If someone said, "I'm going to TiVo that program," you knew that they were digitally recording it so they could watch it later.  By January of 2007, TiVo had about 4.5 million subscribers -- millions of households that had TiVo boxes attached to their television sets, ready to receive all types of digital programming.

Now, only 4 years later, Apple and Sony and Google and Hulu and Roku and Netflix and several other companies are all fighting to be the leader in bringing digital programming to the world's TV's.  Certainly, TiVo is still in that race, but it is struggling to keep up.  TiVo was several years ahead of everyone else and now, when the stakes are becoming meaningful, TiVo is trying to remain relevant.  How did it lose such a huge head start?  

In its most recent quarter, TiVo's revenues are down to $41.3 million, with a net loss of $20.6 million.  It now has about 2.2 million subscribers -- less than half of what it had only 4 years ago and the number is still falling.  In the meantime, Netflix (which started around the same time as TiVo) has close to 17 million subscribers and continues to grow. What happened?

TiVo apparently decided early on that its patents were its most valuable asset - more valuable than a direct relationship with consumers.  This was a critical strategic decision that probably made perfect sense at the time.  TiVo recognized that cable and satellite companies were in the best position to sell or rent DVR's to consumers, so it began licensing its intellectual property to those companies.  But in 2001, Echostar decided it wasn't going to pay a royalty to TiVo.  In January of 2004, TiVo sued Echostar (and its now-former affiliate, Dish Network), and almost 7 years later, the litigation continues.  

And the most ironic (or perhaps saddest) part is that TiVo is winning!   TiVo has prevailed at virtually every stage of the litigation, but Echostar refuses to give up.  Instead, Echostar appeals and raises new issues and makes minor modifications and continues to fight, while all the while the clock is ticking on TiVo's patent rights.  (Echostar did pay TiVo about $100 million at one point in the litigation, but that money is being depleted by operating losses.  With that said, TiVo is not in financial trouble; it has plenty of cash for the time being.)

And while TiVo has enjoyed a lot of legal victories, the fights have not been easy or inexpensive.  In 2009, TiVo filed another patent infringement case against AT&T, and that lawsuit caused Microsoft to file its own infringement action against TiVo!  Then, earlier this year, a portion of the TiVo patents was potentially weakened by rulings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.     

If you had a company that lost $20 million in its last quarter, would you want to be fighting simultaneous legal battles against Echostar and Dish Network and AT&T and Microsoft?  And what impact do you think that would have on your ability to compete effectively against Apple and Sony and Google and Netflix in bringing digital programming to the living rooms of the world?

Just to be clear, my purpose here is not to criticize Tom Rogers and his team.  I understand the importance of protecting intellectual property. (I counsel clients on that topic almost every day.)  Instead, I am pointing out the potential cost to a business when it focuses its resources on winning legal battles.  And I don't just mean its financial resources, but also its time, energy, human resources and the attention of senior management.

Echostar and Dish Network will probably be writing a big check to TiVo some day.  It might be as much as a billion dollars -- who knows?  And TiVo will then have a very healthy balance sheet and rightfully claim victory.   But where will its business be by that time?  If TiVo had viewed itself as a leader in consumer empowerment, and put more of its energy into further innovation of the consumer experience, it might still be leading Netflix, Apple and Google in the digital media business.  But that's not where it finds itself today.

A company's early strategic decisions are vitally important, and now more than ever, it is critical to focus on satisfying your customers.  Netflix decided early on that it was in the business of giving consumers the media experience that they want.  Apple is in the business of giving consumers experiences they don't even know they want until they get them!  Google is in the business of giving consumers access to all the information in the world.  

On the other hand, TiVo made that early decision (before Tom Rogers ever took over) to focus on the value of its intellectual property.  It now appears to be primarily in the business of protecting 10 year old technology that is becoming less relevant every day.  Given the choice, that's not a business I would choose to be in.  I don't think there is much of a future in it, no matter how many legal battles you win.

You Can Be The Next Entertainment Mogul, If You Act Now

We are about to experience the most profound metamorphosis the entertainment industry has seen since the commercialization of television.  It is a huge opportunity for anyone who is willing to jump in with both feet, but you need to start now.

Since the introduction of television into the living room around 1948, the broadcasting industry has been controlled by a virtual handful of people.  Even after commercial cable was deregulated in 1972, the number of companies that control your television has remained relatively small.  This paradigm is about to change in a big way. 

As we know, the Internet allows anyone to transmit content to millions of other homes and businesses around the world.  At first, the limited bandwidth made it suitable only for sending simple written communication.  But bandwidths and transmission speeds have steadily increased to allow for the quick transfer of larger and larger files.  We are now at the point where high definition broadcast-quality files can be transferred almost instantly. 

In this new environment, there are already several inexpensive choices for hardware that will stream high definition content from the Internet directly to a big screen television.  Apple TV, Google TV, Roku, Boxee and several other devices will already bring the Internet to your living room.  With some models priced under $100, a whole lot of those devices are going to be sold this Christmas.  Within a year, watching Internet content on a TV will be much more common than watching it on a computer.

But wait, that’s not all!  The success of the iPad has induced about 10 other major manufacturers, and at least as many minor manufacturers, to create their own version of the portable personal media device.  So, not only is Internet content migrating to TV’s, but it is about to also be in everyone’s hands – literally.  Hundreds of millions of media tablets will be sold in the next few years.  The consumer nirvana of watching whatever we want, whenever and wherever we happen to be, is about to become the societal norm.

The obvious opportunity is that anyone can now be in the broadcast business.  The barriers between content creators and consumers are gone.  We can sell premium content, individually or by subscription.  We can sell advertising and product placements.  We can create entire networks or distribute films, all with virtually no borders or limitations.  The door has been kicked wide open.

What strategies and business models will work?  All of them.  Anything that worked in the tightly controlled entertainment business can work in the new broadcasting democracy.  The scale might be smaller (as the multitude of choices creates a buyer’s market), but the opportunities are there. 

Here are the two keys to success which need to be accomplished as soon as possible.  First, establish strategic relationships with strong players.  In the early days, it will be much easier to get distribution through major platforms as they will still be expanding their offerings.  But as things fill up, this will become much more difficult and costly. 

Second, find your audience and start earning their loyalty.  Consumers will develop viewing habits and favorite outlets.  Establish your style and find the audience that responds to it most passionately.  Keep them happy, and they will tell their friends.

A whole new frontier is opening up right now.  Go stake your claim.  Big players like Tom Hanks, Ben Stiller, Michael Eisner and many, many others are already doing it.  You can do it too, but if you wait another year to get started, it could be too late.  Do it now.

We Spend Half Our Lives Staring At Screens!

Briefly, take a look at this extremely important article which has emerged from the conference being presented this week by The Wrap.  The article makes many great points.

The main thrust is a summary of research showing a vast expansion in the amount of time people are spending interacting with electronic media.  No surprises here, but the numbers are very interesting to see.

Also, it goes deeper to discuss how media is now being used and some of the factors that have yet to have their full impact felt.  It points out that the line between media use and communication has completely blurred, if not disappeared.

Finally, it foreshadows the  impact of personal display devices such as the iPad.  I can't overemphasize how important I think this new class of devices will become.  It is the tipping point in digital media ultimately coming to dominate the entertainment business.

Take a look at the article.  It is really worth the read.

"The Resistance" - Starz Tries A New Release Strategy For The Digital Age

Starz Media is blazing a bit of a new trail with its pending release of the sci-fi thriller, The Resistance.  I think their strategy on this release is an excellent vision for combining digital and traditional media platforms.  (Another really good article on the program and strategy is here.)  However, I'm not sure their particular approach is the best for maximizing revenues.

The program is essentially a one-hour piece (actually a little shorter) from Sam Raimi's Ghost House Pictures.  The Starz strategy is to initially release the entire program in a single showing on SyFy (including 9 minutes of extra footage that is not a part of the digital release).  Then, they will carve it into 5-minutes pieces available on Hulu (through an ad-based model) and for purchase on iTunes, Amazon and other platforms.

I applaud the cross-over use of media.  I think it is absolutely critical to have digital media be an integral part of every media strategy.  Most distributors of content now include social media promotion and online advertising as a part of their release strategy.  However, the real cutting edge is to utilize digital platforms as a part of the actual distribution scheme, as Starz is doing in this case.  The question is, "What is the best way to do this, from a business standpoint?"

I spend a lot of time advising my clients on these types of strategic issues.  My personal view is that it is important to capitalize on the primary strength of digital media as a  low-stress, efficient content delivery system.  This is a crucial part of the mechanism for building a buzz about your programming. (Of course, the "buzz" part still comes mostly from promotional efforts - access by itself does not create a buzz.)

I also believe that digital media will become a substantial source of revenue (especially as mobile media devices become more ubiquitous), but that's not the case today.  So, the production and distribution of The Resistance with an eye towards digital media platforms is right on target, but the value of the broadcast platform shouldn't be sacrificed in the process.

If it were my choice, I don't think I would show the entire program on SyFy prior to the digital release.  Instead, my strategy would be to release some of the content online, build a buzz and then schedule the broadcast release (with extra material) once an audience has already been assembled and primed.  The broadcast release would be an "event" at that point, and probably generate much greater viewership and revenue.

That's what I think today, but I'm sure that will change.  I seem to adjust my view almost daily as the landscape continues to shift.  The folks at Starz are very smart and this strategy could work out really well for them.  I'll be watching carefully, and more than ready to update my opinion based on the outcome.

Hot Topic: Digital Media's Impact on Film & TV

There are interesting developments this week in the intersection between digital media and the more traditional media of film and television. These events raise the question once again of whether digital media will have a positive, negative or neutral impact on traditional media.

On the negative side, Voltage Pictures filed its lawsuit this week against all persons who have infringed its copyright by selling pirated copies of The Hurt Locker.  The lawsuit is the first step needed for Voltage to attempt to find the identities of the alleged pirates.  This will lead to settlements and perhaps a few trials, but the philosophy is certainly designed as much to deter piracy as to collect damages.  Clearly, the underlying assumption is that digital media facilitates piracy and that this is a dangerous trend that must be stopped at any cost.

It is much the same strategy the RIAA has used for years in the recorded music industry, with varying success.  There would be some argument as to whether the cost actually justifies the benefits.  There still seems to be plenty of unlawful sharing of music files going on.  And iTunes has probably done more to curtail that problem than the RIAA's legal actions.

On the other end of the spectrum, Time Warner chairman and CEO, Jeff Bewkes, this week told investors that he views digital media as a positive factor in the media business.  He emphasized that film, television and magazines are not the same as the music business, and are not impacted by piracy in the same way.

Of course, Bewkes' message needs to be considered in proper context.  He was talking to investors.  He is likely attempting to allay their concerns so that they will keep investing in TW stock.  However, I don't think there is anything misleading in what he is saying.  I believe Bewkes and his team view TW as a broadbased media company, and digital media is a part of that business.  He is making a point of not getting mired in any particular business model or medium and I applaud that approach.  This is a guy who is moving his cheese before someone else moves it for him.  (If you don't recognize that reference, look here.)

So, who is right?  As data pipelines expand and it becomes easy to move entire full-screen films between computers, do producers and distributors need to call in armies of lawyers to fight the pirates?  Or does film and television content have inherent value for which consumers are happy to pay?

I think it comes down to value and user interface.  iTunes moves a lot of music because it works well and the price is right (kind of -- they would sell a lot more at 25 cents than 99 cents, but that wouldn't satisfy all of the stakeholders in the content).  I think the same economic theory applies to film and TV content.  If consumers can get it easily at a price that doesn't inflict too much pain, the vast majority will continue to pay.  Netflix and its competitors might be the iTunes for the film business.  Actually, iTunes might be the iTunes for the film business if its interface with the living room television works well and penetrates the market.

Bottom line - the entertainment business continues to change and those of us who make our living in it must use the new tools to give consumers an experience that they value at a price that makes sense.  Quality plus Value equals Profit.  That's the only formula for success that always works.

The Most Important Trend for Entertainment 2010

At this time of year, it's interesting and fun to think about where our industry is headed.  More specifically, what are the important trends in entertainment?  Which changes are most likely to impact those of us who don't work at NBC Universal?

We can talk about the various developments and what they might mean for the various sectors, but I think this coming year there is one single development that will be a game changer in almost every area of the business.  It is the convergence of the Internet with the home theater. 

Internet content has been moving closer to the living room for several years.  One major hurdle in that process has been the lack of enough bandwidth and speed to deliver large format HD content on a real time basis.  The combination of effective compression and faster networks has pretty much solved that problem.

Also, a truly effective and dominant solution for getting the digital content on to the TV screen had not yet emerged.  The TV manufacturers have taken matters into their own hands by integrating Internet inputs into the hardware architecture, and establishing alliances with content providers.  Problem solved.

So, for 2010 we will see the emergence of huge, sharp TV screens equipped with hardware and software that provides seamless access to everything on and off the 'Net.  We will be able to get endless amounts of full-sized HD content with surround sound at the push of a button.  Vevo, Netflix, Hulu and dozens of lesser known companies are poised to fill this newly minted content pipeline. 

And all of those TV sets boast at least a 120 Hz refresh rate, so they are 3D ready.  (In-Three and Reliance, Katzenberg, Cameron, and dozens of others are poised to feed dimensional content to consumers, both in theaters and at home.)

What's the business impact of this new technical capability?  It's quickly eliminating the DVD business.  It will be the final and fatal blow to the CD business.  It is putting pressure on theater owners to develop and deliver a superior experience.  It is already eliminating the "windows" strategy in the film distribution business.  It will give small film makers the ability to find their own audience (just like iTunes allowed independent music artists to find an audience).  It will create upheaval in the broadcast and cable businesses, forcing these companies to find better business models and deliver better programming. 

Virtually everything about our business will change when this final link is placed in the chain.  It is something that cannot be ignored; it must be embraced.  There is tremendous opportunity afoot for those who are poised to take advantage, and tremendous struggles for those who delay or resist.  My friends, the cheese is about to move in a big way.  If you have any doubt about whether I'm right, come to CES in Las Vegas next month and tell me what you see. 

The new horizon is now going to be solving the marketing problem.  It's hard enough to figure out what to watch with a couple hundred available channels.  How about when that number is infinity?  How do you decide what to watch when your choices are endless?  Whoever solves that problem stands to make a lot of money.  (Personally, I'm betting on Google.  They are really good at solving that type of problem.)

As always, I welcome your thoughts.

TV Widgets - A Revolution In Interactive Media

For those of us who watch the media landscape (and make our living in the entertainment business), the development of truly interactive television is an elusive landmark that has been slowly approaching for years. It has become almost a myth, with millions of dollars already lost because it failed to develop as quickly as many hoped it would.

In the past year or so, I have written fairly often on the development of the new generation of web-enabled TV's and the various deals being made between web-based companies and hardware manufacturers. It has been clear for some time that web-based media is finally heading for the living room big screen. This should be the key to real-time interaction between consumers and content providers. However, the actual mechanism for this interaction has not been clear -- at least not to me.

This article in yesterday's Hollywood Reporter gives a simple explanation of the missing link between consumers and big-screen web content -- it's widgets. With companies like Yahoo taking the lead, there is a quickly growing inventory of software widgets which will sit on the screen of web-connected televisions. These widgets will allow viewers to interact with the programming, or keep track of information unrelated to the programming, or engage in any variety of online activities without pausing the program or looking away from the television.

Up until now, a growing number of consumers have been simultaneously using their computers to access web content while they are watching their favorite programs on TV -- risking neck injury as they quickly look back and forth between the big screen and the small screen. This chiropractic dilemma will soon be solved as widgets will allow consumers to create custom web interfaces that sit in the corners or edges of their TV screens, allowing them to enhance or supplement their viewing experience in any number of ways.

From a business standpoint, the article outlines the cost of developing these software tools vs. the lack of a clear revenue stream. The revenue potential is obvious to me. This is the "buy" button that has been fighting for space on TV remote controls for years. Using the same payment system that powers pay-per-view (or pre-loaded secure credit card information or prepaid debit accounts or PayPal or any number of other methods), we will be able to order any product or service at the very moment it is being shown to us. We will be able to participate in game shows as the broadcast is unfolding. We will be able to engage in genuinely shared viewing experiences with friends on the other side of the room or the other side of the country. The possibilities are almost endless.

Read the article and then just think about it for 10 or 15 minutes and I bet you will have a half dozen great ideas for how this technology will be used. Those ideas are the basis of a huge business opportunity. Interactive television will be its own media category. Decades from now, these widgets will be looked upon as one of the developments that completely changed the media landscape. This has the potential to be as revolutionary as television or the Internet itself.

Cross-Platform Synergy Isn't Just an Advertising Strategy

A day doesn't go by without some media executive talking about "promoting a brand across all of our platforms." In normal person speak, this means, "I think we're finally figuring out how to make the Internet work for us."

Initially, I think traditional entertainment companies viewed the Internet as a threat (of course) and then as another place to advertise their films and programs. Now they are recognizing that digital media is not only a powerful tool to educate and attract an audience, but it has the potential to drive new revenue, as well.

The key is interactivity. This has always been the magic of the Internet. It is the only medium that allows instant, individualized feedback and action. You see something you like and - click - you're on it. This dynamic interactivity has given a tremendous boost to research departments. The instant feedback allows creative and media approaches to be adjusted almost on the fly in order to maximize impact and efficiency.

But even more important, digital media brings the impulse buy into the living room. Take a couple beats to think about that. When the programming on your TV screen is being served from the Internet, you have the capacity to see it and buy it, without leaving your chair. That is a development with enormous impact.

That was the holy grail that was envisioned a decade or more ago when the first "BUY" button was put on a remote control. As it turned out, those buttons never did anything. But now that vision is finally becoming reality. We have the infrastructure and the technology that has turned TV advertising into point-of-sale advertising. That's huge and it will be the norm, probably within a couple years.

Whether it's Tivo or the new Netgear box or the Netflix Roku box or one of the Vudu joint ventures with TV makers, or any other similar device. As long as it has an input from the Internet and an HD output to your TV, it is part of the revolution.

So, while the media producers are crossing their platforms, the guys upstairs are getting ready to sell stuff. When you can point your remote at the sweater on a Desperate Housewife, and it shows up at your door the next day, the decreased value of content won't sting the entertainment companies nearly as much.

Prop 8 - The Musical Shows The Power of New Media

It's been only a day, and Marc Shaiman's creative musical take on Prop 8 (the California anti-gay marriage initiative which was voted into law last month) is today's "next big thing" on the Net.  In less than 24 hours, the 3 minute video featured on funnyordie.com has already been seen almost 1.3 million times.  Those are pretty  impressive numbers when you consider the marketing budget is essentially $0.00.

This shows the power of viral marketing combined with a ubiquitous, instantaneous distribution system.  This media power is available to everyone, and we have barely begun scratching the surface of what can be accomplished with it.

Of course, Shaiman's musical features Jack Black, John C. Reilly, Neil Patrick Harris and a whole lot of other popular stars.  That certainly drives the huge appeal.  But all of that star power (not to mention Shaiman's own brilliant material) was spread through the power of the medium.  Without a digital media infrastructure, Shaiman would have had to make DVD copies and put them in a rack at Whole Foods Market (or some other establishment where his intended audience was likely to see it).  In other words, he probably wouldn't have bothered to create it at all.  But the ability to instantly make it available to the world is really what made it worth doing.  The digital media infrastructure facilitated and perhaps even inspired the creativity.

Of course, it is the power of this medium, and the fact that it is literally in its infancy, that caused  the WGA strike and may well lead to a SAG strike in the not too distant future.  Everyone sees where the entertainment business is going and they don't want to be left out in the cold.  Both sides probably have some valid points, but they might well kill the goose before it ever lays its first golden egg.  After all, over a million people may have already viewed Prop 8 - The Musical, but it certainly hasn't generated enough revenue to begin to pay for the production (if everyone hadn't been working for a cause instead of for their normal paychecks).

What the Writers Strike Really Accomplished

It looks like the WGA labor action will be coming to an end in the next couple of days. The show runners are heading back to work today, so that's a pretty good indication that the union anticipates a positive vote from the membership on Tuesday evening. (http://www.variety.com/VR1117980626.html)

There is already a lot of talk about what the writers accomplished with their job action. The most important provisions of the new deal would appear to be those which focus on the writers compensation in connection with new media (including mobile), both original and derivatives of broadcast shows. Is it a good deal? At first glance, it would appear to be pretty good as it ties into a lot of the current television provisions. However, I still don't think we know enough about the ultimate digital media landscape to determine what constitutes a good deal. Everyone is still doing a lot of speculating and projecting of possible scenarios.

What's more interesting is that the 14-week strike used up the inventory of new television shows. This appears to have driven viewers towards the Internet looking for different content. Although the strike is over, many of those viewers will continue to visit the digital media outlets they discovered during the strike.

So perhaps the most important impact of the strike is that it not only helped set a framework for the compensation of creative personnel in the new media environment, but it also contributed to the speed of evolution towards that new model. That seems ironic, but if the WGA has indeed cut a good deal in connection with new media, then I would call it a double win.

Personally, I like anything that helps speed the transition to a new, stable digital media environment with enough users to create a critical mass of revenue. So, while I never like any job action or other event which slows down production, this one might have had an unanticipated positive impact. I'm glad it's over, but perhaps it wasn't all bad.