« FCC Drops Morse Testing for Amateur Radio | Main | Dave, it really only does take one tag (or 5): »

December 17, 2006

Internet Video: To RSS or not RSS, that is THE Question

While RSS stands for "Really Simple Syndication", it seems that there are a number of Indie Internet Video producers who have read Shelly Palmer's book "Television Disrupted" and feel that RSS stands for "Really Simple Stealing."

There was a time when TV quality content was only available on TV. And the relationships established was between the TV channel, the TV Network, the actors, the show and the fan. And this is a "one to many" relationship. Maybe it is 1 in a 1000 or maybe it was 1 in 10,000 who actually reached out and tried to connect with the show. With RSS, producers have the unique opportunity of having an intimate one to one relationship with everyone who subscribes to their RSS feed and then watches their latest episode as soon as it becomes available. But it is up to these producers to recognize this and then execute on it.

Case in point, an Indie show currently available on Feedburner. The video from this show is freely available as on Feedburner. And on Feedburner there are links to sites like: podNova, newsgator, netvibes, fireAnt, pageflakes, doppler, mimiq and winpodder as well as iTunes. And for what reason? To help the fan of the show subscribe to the RSS of the show and watch it on their favorite designated viewing medium. This includes watching the show live on line or place shifted by downloading an episode to an iPod.

At the moment, this show, like many others, is offering out their content for FREE. FREE as in, please come to this feed and "Watch my Show!" To some people FREE is just another four letter word.

And funny how it is that there are no doubt a growing number of people who subscribe to video RSS feeds and watch these feeds in a variety of viewing experiences.

So a funny thing happened to me after I went looking for a show to add to Network2. I recently stumbled across a show that looked interesting and after watching a couple of sample videos, it seemed fine enough to add to the guide of shows we have listed up on Network2. So I added the RSS from the show to the Network2 Guide.

Fast forward two weeks later and this all starts to get interesting.

At Network2 We make it a point to contact every show that gets added to the index of shows at Network2. We are not hosting their content and just point to it and most people so far have expressed their appreciation for our help in getting some attention for their show. I believe in Long Tail TV and look at Network2 as a platform for such content to be curated and discovered.

But not this guy. He believed that his content should be added to our guide on an opt-in basis, not opt-out. So regardless of whether or not I or another member of the Network2 team added the feed, or a visitor to our site suggested their feed, he would rather see it such that we get his permission to add his show to our guide. Interesting approach. Interesting given that anyone or any software application can just spider the web and subscribe to his RSS feed without his knowledge or his permission. With RSS it just happens.

Personally I'm an opt-out, not opt-in person when it comes to growing an industry sector. The world of Internet TV is moving too fast to have to wait for every exec producer to get back to me in order to showcase their show. Just a difference in philosophy...

Things were quiet for a couple of weeks until this guy got wind that Network2 was a commercial endeavor and he then felt that he should be compensated for his content. The same content that is otherwise available for viewing for FREE! Content that was getting more visibility over at Network2 than the way it was being marketed on its own on the public internet.

And do we currently have advertising on the Network2 site? No. Does it matter? It seems not. I'm sure there are people who understand how we plan to collaborate with executive producers, while others might not.

But since: RSS + TV = "The Future", I am committed to going long on this.

I am convinced RSS will play a major role in the future of TV on the Net. I can only hope that over time, more and more of the people who are getting involved inside the Indie Internet Video space will eventually appreciate the power of what Internet Video delivered via RSS offers. Same can be said for those people working in established media companies also exploring the concept of adding RSS to commercial content.

And as new quality episodic content for the Internet becomes available via RSS, my hope is help expose it in our guide to our growing audience over at Network2. And if you are associated with a mainstream media company which has added RSS to your commercial videos, don't be shy. Please send a quick email to jeffp@pulver.com and give me a heads up. Together we can help build up this industry.

Oh and with regard to show in question? It has been put to sleep on Network2.

###

(disclosure: I am the founder and Chairman of Network2.)

tvnet.jpg (image designed by: Chris Brogan)


Tags: , , , , , , ,


Share this post:

Digg | del.icio.us | Reddit | Newsvine | Google Bookmark | Yahoo MyWeb | StumbleUpon

Posted by jeff on December 17, 2006 09:22 AM | Permalink

Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos

Comments

One excellent portal with online media is http://www.mediaplanetaria.com.
They have thousands of online video, tv, radio, newspapers, etc

Posted by: Gabriel at June 16, 2007 05:55 PM

Why wouldn't you pay your best content producers some cash?

Even your less-than-best producers?

Why not?

Posted by: Jan / The Faux Press at December 19, 2006 07:47 PM

RSS is a double edge sword to content makers. On the one hand it is a great method to distribute content to sites with higher traffic (such as yours, and RSS aggregators, such as Netvibes, my personal favorite). On the other hand, it can kill business models based on eyeballs of the show's site. I believe that in this phase of the industry, it is more important to get exposure to your content than to try to get extra money from aggregators /online guides....

Posted by: Kfir Pravda at December 19, 2006 06:03 PM

Wow!
As a bit of a neophyte, but one who got on the feeddemon bandwagon for rss a few years ago, I'm amazed at the your attitude Jeff.

The original spirit of rss was that it enabled content creators to be subscribed to by end users.

This is a little different than someone with financial motives aggregating and embedding someone's shows in your own commercial site (arguably leaching the creator's bandwidth and preparing to cash in off their work).

I'm sure that advertising gets added at some point. My advice is you better get your VC cash in and cash out in advance of the shitstorm you're going to face when you have a groundbreaking CC suit against you.

No animosity around the $$$ part (I am a total capitalist), but I'd caution you that you'd better learn more about this and get more in touch with content creators or this is just going to get worse!

Posted by: Rob at December 18, 2006 11:33 AM

We also follow the opt-out approach. If you don't want the public's attention then don't try to hide in plain sight. If you've got proprietary content you want controlled then take the steps to actually control it. Do not depend on merely being omitted from the public's attention through inclusion in a directory. That's just nonsense.

That said, repurposing the content of others is a bad idea. Not that this applies here, but the content should ALWAYS be clearly shown as a product of it's owner, not wrapped as if it were somehow a product of the intermediary. Does a directory clearly show the source of the content? Does it clearly and easily link back to that source? If so there's really no harm in building an audience for both parties.

Now, one could cry foul that bootstrapping one's effort on the merits of directing to another's content. But if the content is being made freely available it's rather disingenuous to complain. Oh woe is me, poor content publisher, getting an increasing audience! For shame on that directory for capitalizing on focusing it's audience in my direction! Seems a bit naive, no?

Posted by: Bill Kearney at December 18, 2006 11:31 AM

Jan: only if the original site and feed producers do a lousy job optimizing their blogs, podcasts, and show notes for Google. Remember that Google's ranking algorithm is fundamentally an Eigenvector centrality formula, modified to disqualify duplicate content and spam (to a more or less effective degree). What that means is that N2 is actually passing more rank from individual show pages than it is gathering. If show producers don't link to N2, then N2 doesn't benefit from their Juice. Google's algorithm counts links to pages as "votes" in a sort of popularity contest, so N2 is in effect passing a "vote" for the show in its directory.

Where producers will get hurt is if their pages are semantically poorly formed or not optimized. If your blog's homepage is "Default Page" or "Page1" then of course you're going to get nailed by N2 by sheer fact that your own site doesn't emphasize that you are who you are.

Being listed in N2's directory should not harm your show if your show's site is properly optimized for search. If people are finding that N2's listing in search engines is higher than their show's page, they need to do a little bit of homework on search engine optimization. I recommend downloading and using the free WebCEO software to run basic checks on your web site.

http://www.WebCEO.com

Chris

Posted by: Christopher Penn, Financial Aid Podcast at December 18, 2006 08:40 AM

You're right, but there's a rub, Jeff: feed aggregation sites often wind up sucking the Google juice right out of producers' shows.

No small thing.

Google juice has value.

Posted by: Jan / The Faux Press at December 18, 2006 12:08 AM

Call me silly, but if you don't want your content to be syndicated... DON'T PUBLISH IT IN A SYNDICATION FEED! Or if you do, password protect it with .htaccess and then give your friends and the people you want to have access to it access, and lock out the rest of the world.

There are DOZENS of mechanisms for protecting your feed if you want to go semi-private. Here are just a few meager examples:

In PHP, do authentication and if a client does not authenticate with your method of choice, spool them an Adwords ad or porn or whatever you want.

In Apache, use .htaccess and a 301 redirect for non-authenticated responses.

In your robots.txt file, specify that you don't want your RSS feed indexed or cached.

Using Feedburner? Under the Publicize tab, you'll find a Password Protector item.

The bottom line is, if you don't know how to protect something you want to publish, don't publish it until you know how. If you don't want to know how, hire someone who does. Once you publish, in the age of Google, caches, and spiders, you can never un-publish.

Posted by: Christopher Penn, Financial Aid Podcast at December 17, 2006 09:33 PM

Methinks you presume too much. Firstly Ive seen no evidence that the show in question was getting more expossure through your 'network' than through other more respectful channels.

Secondly, the point you seem to miss, is that you embed all of the videos in question within pages of your site, so you get nice traffic to make you look sucessful. This isnt the same as being a guide, you are being a cheapo network by paying neither for content nor distribution. You are using other peopels content to build your empire. And you dont get it, which just makes it even worse.

Even if it turns out that 80% of content creators dont mind your sort of presumptious style of 'partnering' with them, you have no right to force the 20% who may not enjoy such things to opt-out.

In cases where you are embedding video that is covered by creative commons licenses, you are supposed to display details of the license on the page, your 'network' doesnt do that. And many of the creative commons licenses are non-commercial.

I sincerely hope this incident ignites a debate on the web about these things.

Posted by: Steve Elbows at December 17, 2006 02:58 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?