Five Ways to Save Your Video Content from Devouring Itself

Video content poses unique challenges to content marketers, content managers, and content strategists. Especially since it is often hosted on constantly evolving, proprietary platforms. The incorporation of outside links in YouTube videos is a fine, current example.

Search and content have a long, dysfunctional history. Search algorithms change to address unsavory content practices. New unsavory content practices pop up to exploit newfound vulnerabilities. This cycle continues, and will, for the foreseeable future.

These algorithm adjustments also apply to video content. I happened upon an article on ReelSEO, written by Chris Atkinson, detailing the introduction of including outside links on YouTube videos, and its potential search and content implications.

(These platform-specific announcements are especially important to we content folks, as they often have a direct impact on the whats and hows of our content delivery.)

Link to anything you fancy

Link placement within videos has been an option for years. Up to this point, YouTube has limited the nature of those links to other YouTube videos, YouTube channels, or fundraising appeals. Most recently, they added "merch" as an option for channel owners to link to YouTube-approved retail sites like iTunes, GooglePlay, etc.

Now, the floodgates are open. Links to any site are now allowed on any YouTube video. Gone are the days of only placing a link in the video description area. CUE THE PARTY HORNS. Sort of.

Some video content creators will abuse this. I guarantee it. Others will link to too many things in a video, causing confusion. We'll see videos so laden with links, calls-to-action, and more that your old GeoCities page will seem like a serene utopia in comparison. Link to the Facebook page! Visit this microsite! Fill out this email signup form! LINKS!11

Start by creating great video content

The best case scenario here sees content creators using the in-video link option to focus their channel-specific video messaging even further. We want to provide the best content experience possible, links clicked, Watch Time, and otherwise. How do we do that with video?

1. Create content that people want to watch. Think palatable, not gimmicky. Effective and straightforward trumps trying-to-be-funny or attempted-edgy on most occasions.

2. Make content clear and concise. Make your point in as few seconds as possible. Be direct helpful. PEOPLE LOVE THAT. A shorter video makes the link placement have less of an SEO impact. It's easier to watch a shorter video, from a life-expectancy point-of-view, too.

3. Focus on a single topic, concept, or task. The linear presentation of a video and its (new) links precludes an easy message hierarchy. Stick to a single message, and don't try to do to many things at once. Otherwise, you're likely lose your audience on all of the things in frustration and confusion. 

4. Give it context. Resist the urge to start off videos with a Ken Burns-style mini-documentary about the company. Instead, give them the background they need to make use of the rest of the video. If your messaging is consistent, this context should flow easily from one platform to the next.

5. Tell the story. Use a video's linear constraints as a force for good. Take advantage of it with an equally-linear storyline. Beginning, middle, end. Even if it is a :30 second piece. To quote Steve Martin's character Neil Paige from the holiday travel film, "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles": "When you are telling these little stories, here's a good idea: Have a point."

Place the link carefully

The ReelSEO article touched on another important part of this equation: inclusion of a "Watch Time" variable as a metric used in SEO. In other words, the longer a viewer watches your video, the better your stature in search results.

The Watch Time metric will be a considerable challenge for some. It's not exactly new; YouTube has been doing this since March 2012. This is fine for short videos with a quick and concise close.

However, longer videos were often published with the optimistic mindset of "viewers can watch a little, or they can watch all 18 or 32 minutes." The impact was the same. Now, the opposite is true. Watching a portion of a video to the end, once started, now has a potentially detrimental effect on the placement of the video within search results.

Atkinson notes that this presents a paradox of sorts. Ideal link placement within the video becomes a Schrödinger's content cat situation:

• Place the link at the beginning, where more people will see it? (Assuming more people will start your video than watch it to the end.) 
• At the end, to receive more SEO mojo? (At the risk of fewer people actually seeing and clicking on said link.)
• In the middle, to strike a perilous balance?

Link to appropriate web pages from your video (And vice veresa.) Strive for a seamless experience across platforms with branding, messaging, and tone & voice. Great content makes it all a more satisfying endeavor, all around.

More content tips from Neil Paige:

(Top image adapted from "Skip containing discarded VHS tapes" by Flickr user Rob Pearce.)

Online Content Readability Tests: Content Strategists Beware

Old-fashioned readability scores and indices don't account for some of the most critical elements of online content presentation. Avoid using them as the only measure of the true readability of online content. 

The story of a story

"Go Dogs. Go!" I love this book. Well, a version of this book. (The small one.)

Several popular children's books from publisher Random House are available in two physical formats: the standard hardcover book and the board book. Each format has its pros and cons.

• Hardcover book. More, thinner pages for more content. But, thinner pages tear easier.
• Board book. Fewer, thicker pages means less content. Super durable.

The more / less content situation wouldn't be an issue if you were writing a book from scratch.

Instead, publishers are most likely taking their more popular, large-format titles through an editing and re-versioning process. In the end, they can introduce a more durable version to another audience: page-chewing babies.

Getting to the point

This content editing process HAS to be complicated, from an editorial point-of-view. Imagine the task of conveying the familiar storyline in one-sixth the number of words.

In the case of "Go, Dog. Go!", the longer, hardcover version was trimmed from 528 words to only 70 words in the shorter, board book version. Each one of those 70 words matters, believe me. (I've read it hundreds of times.)

Sure, there are fewer words. But, fewer words doesn't always make a message or story clearer and easier to read.

Testing the readability of "Go, Dog. Go!"

Readability tests are equations using syllables, word counts, sentence counts, and familiar-word lists. Most often, they produce a number that corresponds with a grade level.

From a readability metric standpoint, you might think that such a dramatic reduction in content (the 528 versus 70 words) would make the story easier to digest. Based on five of the major readability tests, results were mixed.

Two tests showed improvements in readability in the shorter version, one saw no change, and two others came back with less favorable scores:

While the goal of the publisher, editor, and author is fitting the same, beloved storyline into fewer pages, another, more-interesting thing starts to happen: a brutal distillation. Only the essential remains.

The shorter version  of "Go, Dog. Go!" sheds some of the more superfluous elements of the story. Gone are the hat-disapproving dog, unrelated sub-plots, and unnecessary filler. What we are left with is pure magic. Seriously, you need to read this short version. I still love reading it.

Why we test content readability

Some of us might test content JUST FOR FUN. Others are tasked with the duty of measuring how consumable the content is by some score or index. The duty of measuring readabilty does not end there.  We want to:

• Determine if current content meets existing standards
• Establish a baseline readability score
• Set goals and standards for future content production
• Measure edited, re-vamped, and re-organized versions of the same content

How we've tested content readability in the past

The major readability tests were constructed in the 1940s to deal with printed texts. These equation-based systems improved the texts of the day: newspapers, books, etc. Familiar-word lists were refined, and other adjustments were made. Things were set for some time.

Research completed in the following decades took into account one of the foundational concepts for clear and concise online writing: structure. However, it proved impossible to fold structure-based variables into a traditional readability equation. Text needs are much more complex than could have ever been anticipated.

Today, a quick search online will produce several sites that offer options to measure content via cut-and-paste or by entering a page URL. Simple, quick, and easy. Right? NOT SO FAST.

This has an impact on online content

As we approach online content itself from a messaging and editorial standpoint, we encounter similar issues as seen in the children's book example. Adjusting text content can have a positive or negative impact, depending on the test. The worst-case scenario has people adjusting text to game the tests into delivering favorable scores.

No current readability test accounts for the hallmarks of easily-consumed online content:

• Concise sentences free of filler words 
• Bullets 
• Subheads 
• Emphasis (bold, H1, H2, etc.)
• Shorter, easily-read paragraphs

Add a few more variables into the equation by considering responsive design implications, device capabilities, and context, and soon the notion of an agreed-upon readability score is RIGHT OUT.

We are creating content destined for literally thousands of different environments. Even if we had a measure that took into account how that content was displayed now, it would by out of date in a week.

Don't measure readability only with a number

Content strategists are often asked how we might measure the effectiveness of our efforts. Sometimes we can point to cost savings, favorable return on key performance indicators, or other data-based measures.

Other times, our value is best presented in refinements to the overall user experience. Which can be tough to measure with a series of numbers.

It's hard to resist. You might be begging for an easy, scalable, plug-and-play solution for your online content readability measurement needs. Instead, you might wish to make a checklist of sorts, from a messaging point-of-view:

• Does this page/element stick to a single message overall?
• Does the content avoid jargon and language inappropriate to the audience ?
• Are the ideas presented in a clear, logical fashion from a user perspective?
• Does the page have a clear objective (and call-to-action, if appropriate)?
• Can users scan and quickly understand what they will get from the page?

Readability scores are not completely without merit. I still use them for passages and paragraphs, when appropriate. But they simply cannot be used for measuring an entire page's readability.

In the meantime, go find the board book version of "Go, Dog. Go!" at your library. (I didn't even let any story spoilers slip. The ending is AWESOME.)

Coke Fiends and Content Strategy

The Coca-Cola Company has unleashed a new type of soda fountain into the world. They've put some online marketing muscle to work to promote it. But is it enough?

My wife is an unapologetic Diet Coke enthusiast. When she breathlessly told me about a new sort of soda fountain at the local Dairy Queen, I was curious.

What could make a soda fountain new? Isn’t it just soda? Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite, and maybe lemonade and root beer?

I was in for a surprise, as this was no ordinary soda machine. This was a Coca Cola Freestyle machine.

The Coca Cola Freestyle soda fountain

Warren Buffett, Freestylin'

This thing is kind of a big deal. Most soda machines offer 8-10 choices. That is it. I’ve seen some convenience store fountains with more exotic options, like a shot of cherry flavor. Beyond that, the soda fountain world has been fairly static for decades.

This soda fountain changes all of that.

With a footprint smaller than a regular soda fountain, this one boasts not only a touchscreen, but a MIND-BLOWING array of options. Over 100, in fact.

Thirsty patrons touch the screen to choose a brand (Coke, Sprite, etc.) and then choose an optional flavor. Brilliant. Did I mention that there are over ONE HUNDRED OPTIONS?

How has the Coke Freestyle machine been marketed?

Well, there is a sign in the window at the DQ. And another at the cash register. But what is happening online?

They have a slim microsite set up, primarily to point people to these three things:

They've set up a Twitter account, @ccfreestyle:

• Listening for terms like "drink machine" "100+" etc. in addition to the brand names
• @ replying to mentions of those terms, asking "What did you like?"
• Getting little to no response (I've been there. It can be tough.)

They've also established a Facebook page.

• Running a "Fan of the Week" contest
• Offering lots of "What's your favorite?" questions
• Allowing users to post images in a largely unfettered fashion (not going to link to that one)

They have apps for Android and iOS.

• Primary function: a memory game mimicking the Freestyle's touchscreen
• Also includes a Freestyle machine locator map, via GPS
• Game-ified badge rewards for high scores and use of the Freestyle locator
• Apps can link to users' Twitter and Facebook account to share scores/badges

Looks nice. Game play? Check. Direct interaction? Check. But, I can't help but feel that they've stopped a bit short.

Coke fiends and their friends

Many real-world Coke fans are more than enthusiastic. Fiendish, even. They already devote status updates to the brand. I've seen more than one person add it to their social network bio. With this level of devotion, a does a considerable opportunity await? YES.

The Freestyle machine begs for deeper engagement. It already has a touchscreen and an OS, for Pete's sake. Just think of the possibilities. A couple of examples:

• Challenge drinkers to try all 100+ choices, track progress and share
• Award badges for different achievements, share them via Twitter and Facebook
• All Coke flavors tried
• All sodas in orange flavor tried
• Number of different machines visited
• "Mayorship" of machines (to borrow from Foursquare)
• Facilitate the invitation of friends for competition
• Issue QR codes from the machine send status updates via the app to Twitter and Facebook ("Drinking a Pibb Zero from @ccfreestyle.")
• Create a Freestyle Re-mix: make-your-own mix of sodas, name it, and submit it

These things go one step beyond brands interacting directly with the consumer. They allow people to have a conversation facilitated, originated, and/or augmented by the brand that bridges the gap between the real world and the online world.

B2C interaction is VERY important. But, the brand-facilitated consumer-to-consumer interaction is more organic. It's happening between one brand advocate and other potential brand advocates.

Cue the QR code

Bridging the gap between online and offline

Tosca Fasso, Content Strategist at Razorfish, recently wrote a blog post about the blurring of online and offline worlds. She writes:

"Publishers are creating linkage points between offline and online media to build an ecosystem of opportunities for audiences to connect with their brands."

There is a major shift happening. It's already having a significant impact on content creators and those tasked with content governance.

The technology now exists to make these online/offline connections in a swipe or two on a mobile device. How does that fit within the core strategy and business goals, if at all? How can these advances be shared across department lines? Shared across other spaces? How can they be best put to use?

Ms. Fasso continues with this in her closing paragraph, detailing the impact this has on content strategy:

"It’s time to start thinking about handoff opportunities, places where our work can pass the baton. Done right, these integrated efforts can help build optimal experiences for users while helping brands meet users where they are..."

Coke has built some of the foundation for bridging the gap between online and offline worlds with the Freestyle soda fountain. They are engaging people on Twitter and Facebook. They've got social-graph connected apps with game layers and rewards.

By further fostering that online/offline connection, Coke could enjoy even greater brand loyalty and engagement.

Not all brands can do this. Not all brands have 100+ of anything worth sharing. And not all brands have Coca-Cola's brand recognition.

As any wise content strategist will tell you, it is not about the tactics. It's about the approach. Tackle those content strategy and social strategy projects with an eye on bringing real-world experiences to the now-ubiquitous social graphs. You'll be even closer to fulfilling those core business goals.

Or one step closer to the Borg. Either way...

Happy 200th Post, Content-ment. Plus, a Look Ahead.

Cheers, mate! (image: The Contented Drinker, by Adriaen Van Ostade)

In July 2006, I started a blog. This blog, in fact. Because I needed to know what blogging was all about.

Now, my CMS tells me it this post is my TWO HUNDREDTH POST.

So, instead of baking a blog cake with 200 candles, I thought I would do something more fitting. Like writing a blog post with both a look back and into the future.

Where this blog has been

I started this blog under the moniker of "Superfly Media." I even had the URL for a while. The name was a bit of an inside joke.

There were lots of posts about online and mobile technology and how it related to broadcasting. (I was working at Public Radio International at the time.)

In the meantime, some exciting things have happened.

One of the posts, "BBC and DRM, OMG," from this humble blog was excerpted on the BBC's Backstage blog. OMG, indeed.

Another post, "Content Curation versus Content Aggregation: A Velvet Mr. T Painting," was featured prominently in Steven Rosenbaum's book "Curation Nation." (Rosenbaum's book excerpt is on the Brain Traffic blog.) A book? My words, in a book? Even more OMG!

In 2009, I changed the name to Content-ment because:

• It was a clever play on the notion of contentment and content
• The old blog name lost its appeal and utility, as inside jokes do
• The URL was available

The emphasis of the writing here has always been on content strategy, production, distribution, consumption, and its value. And it always will. For instance...

Where this blog is going

There is a big project coming.

A fun project. An exciting project. It'll happen right here, on this blog. Mostly.

I've been sketching out a series of posts about the changing dynamic of content ownership, consumption, and its impact on the content lifecycle. There are going to be a bunch of them. There will be infographics. Interviews. Probably more references to Miles Davis.

I can't wait to get it out into the open. And share it with you.

This project will end in a grand experiment, of sorts. In the cheeky tradition of Internet, I shall keep some of it a secret for now. That'll be part of the fun.

And, thanks for reading thus far

Some of you have been reading since day one. Others have just found it. Some have shared it, some have left comments. Some agreed with my thoughts, others not. I thank all of you for spending the time with it. Really, really, for real.

When I started in 2006, I just assumed that no one would read it. I am still in awe that anyone does. Thanks!

And now, The Dells singing "Dreams of Contentment."

Prince, The Internets, and Content Strategy

Last week, the Artist Formerly Known as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince made some provocative and telling statements in an interview with “The Mirror” in the UK.

 "The internet's completely over. I don't see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won't pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can't get it.

"The internet's like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good.

"They just fill your head with numbers and that can't be good for you."

Much has changed in the past few years in the music industry.  New avenues of digital distribution have popped up, physical music sales overall have fallen to dismal levels, and an entire generation is living music-filled lives without buying a single CD, cassette, or LP.

Prince still wants people to hear his music.  He is simply unwilling to give it to them in the way that they devour it.  That is Prince’s strategy.  He is an artist, and he can do as he pleases, however ill-advised it may be.

The reality of Prince's strategy

Based on his statements, here is a rough distillation of Prince's strategy:

Who: Prince
What: Releasing music
When: Whenever, suckers
Where: Where he deems suitable, rather than where people already are
How: Not on the internet, as it is "completely over"
Why: The internet and digital gadgets are no good

And, in direct conflict, the reality of the situation:

Who: Prince fans
What: They want to buy the latest album
When: ASAP
Where: From the comforts of their keyboards
How: Digitally, in a space they trust, like iTunes
Why: This is how they buy and listen to all of their music

What is wrong with this picture?  Looks more like a contrary strategy than a content strategy.

Success, reality, and a content strategy

Prince has always been a bit of a populist, looking to get his music in the hands of as many folks as possible. Hi newest album, "20TEN", was available for free with the purchase of a newspaper, "The Mirror," in the UK. When I saw him in concert a few years ago, he handed out free CDs of his most recent album to each ticket holder.  It is clear that he wants people to hear his music.

Prince is an established artist, and his past successes grant him the freedom to engage in contrary behavior.  What if that attitude were not from Prince but from an incorporated business?  What would stakeholders say if they were to examine a similar content strategy:

• Don't sell our product where millions and millions of products have been sold (iTunes)
• Avoid the largest communication phenomenon of the last 25 years (the internet)
• Give the product away with another, masking any true measure of performance
• Proclaim that the newest product will be in a format on the decline stuffed in another format in decline (CDs in newspapers)

Content strategy has been described as "the planning, creation, delivery and governance of useful, usable content" by Kristina Halvorson.  That is quite the opposite of the above strategy on nearly every point.

Prince has his Prince-osity to get him by.  Businesses do not.  Focus on what sets you apart, craft it sustainably with realistic goals, and measure to gauge success.  Do that, and you shan't have a need for Purple Superpowers.




For more on Prince's technological confusion, watch for his phrase at 4:48 into the "Batdance" video:

Hey Duckie
Let's Stick the 7" in the computer
Ha ha ha ha ha ha

(The 7" refers to the old 45rpm record singles, of course. You can 't put those into computers.Silly Prince.)

["Prince @ Coachella 2008" image courtesy of Flickr user Mick 0 (cc: by-nc)]

Content Acquisition, Miles Davis, and a Motherf*cker of a Content Strategy

[left to right: Pete Cosey, Miles Davis, Michael Henderson]

Jazz icon Miles Davis is known for lots of things.  Playing the trumpet. Cantankerousness.  A mouth like a SAILOR.

I'll bet that you didn't know that he was pretty motherf*cking savvy when it comes to content strategy.  Really!

While he wasn't known for his razor-sharp technical prowess on his instrument, he was a great bandleader.  He assembled some of the greatest bands, ever, in fact.

And he knew it.

In 1969, when he had assembled the band that suited his fancy, he stated that it was “really a bad motherf*cker.”

In 1970, his bass player left.  Miles needed someone able to produce the content he couldn't create on his own.  Miles played trumpet.  And some keyboards.  But he wasn't a bass player.  A content gap analysis would show that a band as funky as Miles' in the 70s could not be without a bass player.

Allegedly, Miles walked up to Stevie Wonder after seeing him in concert and said, "I'm stealing your f*ckin' bass player."  And he did.  Poor Stevie Wonder had Michael Henderson, his bass player, acquired.

Many companies produce some content, but have a need for other content to complete their online presence.  It may be only a small portion of the content on the site.  In some cases, almost all of the content is created by third parties.

There are times when the economies of scale make content acquisition a smart choice. There are lots of good reasons to do it:

• Properly accredited content is not cheap.
• A full-time content production staff or position might not be feasible.
• It puts content creation into the hands of a dedicated specialist.
• Frees up the staff to do what they do best.

This is something not to be taken on lightly.  Miles didn't acquire just anyone's bass player.  He acquired Stevie Wonder's bass player.  He hired a content creator.

Many content acquisition relationships include a pre-produced set of content, plus options to publish future content created. Delightful!

It can also lead unwitting contract signers down apocalyptic paths of frustration and insanity.  Not delightful! This is important to note for several reasons:

• Can the creators maintain their output level? Do they have a solid content strategy?
• Does the content match the tone and voice of your website?
• Do they provide the content in an easily-published format?
• Do they provide the appropriate metadata?
• Are your competitors using them, or a similar service?

The most important consideration when evaluating third-party content acquisition is this: The content still needs to meet your business needs/customer needs.

Miles didn't hire two or three bass players.  He hired one.  He only hired a bass player because he had a need for a bass player.  He didn't hire a bagpiper.  That brings up another point: don't consider content acquisition only to take up space on your website.

Though it will be delivered to your figurative door, the content will still need attention It will need to be finessed and published. Curated. It will need to be incorporated into workflows and editorial calendars.  The governance portion of your content strategy will still apply.

Finally, put a plan in place in case the relationship ends.  The content producer may go belly up, the contract may expire, or you simply might choose to stop using them.

If there is a gap in your content, acquiring it from a third party is a proven method of creating a more complete online experience.  Don't fear it.  Your website may work so well that Miles Davis himself may have praised it as, “really a bad motherf*cker.”

Miles in Vienna, Austria on November 3, 1973.  And yes, that is Michael Henderson on bass.

Content: Cut the Crap

Has anyone ever gone to a website, or a park, and said, "This place would be even more awesome if it had way more crap on it."?

Probably not.

People slog through their online experiences everyday battling cluttered content.  It stands between them and the thing they want to get done.  Tasks are barely completed, with frustration.  Even worse, they may throw their hands up in disgust and go somewhere else.  That somewhere else might be a 1-800 help desk or order center (more expensive than the web). Or, they may go to a competitor (even more expensive). 

Content ends up on websites for lots of reasons.

• Some are noble (This is core to our message on all platforms.)
• Some are not (Lady Gaga outfit picture widget.)
• Some are forced (Put this on the online internets. Or else.)

Websites are funny things.  You can fill them with content until they are OVER 23,000 PIXELS LONG.  Just because you can doesn't mean that your should.

The impulse may be pure.  Serve the people. SUPER-SERVE the people.  Give them everything they ever wanted to know about your product/service.  Show them the Facebook widget.  Give them all of the images of all of the products on the homepage.  The people coming to the site will find what they need that way...right? 

This is neither an effective nor sustainable content strategy.

For every piece of content destined for the website, ask these questions:

• Does this content help to achieve our business aims or support our primary message?
• Does it really?
• No, REALLY?

The criteria thereafter will vary from situation to situation.  This sentiment is universal. Here it is, again. In bold.  Does this content help to achieve our business aims or support our primary message?

There is room for secondary content that fills out an experience, or deepens engagement with a brand.  It can make the difference between a dull visit and an experience that creates lifelong devotees.

Secondary content must be vetted, examined, tested, and cautiously implemented.  Keep governance in mind, too.  Will the content ROT (suffer from redundancy, outdated-ness, and triviality)?  While the content may serve a secondary purpose, it requires the same diligence as any other content. 

Weigh any potential benefit of the secondary, additive content against the possible cost it may incur:

• Unintentional dominance of overall site messaging
• Additional noise and clutter added to the user experience
• Distraction from business aims and message
• Resources and attention required to acquire and maintain it

Go ahead.  Take that pooper scooper to your content inventory.  Everyone will be happier in the end with a little less crap around.

[No Pooping! image via Flickr user crowbert (cc: by-nc-sa)]

Content, Scalability, and Making More Pie

In the world of content, as in pies, more isn't always better.

My mother is a good example of this; she is often charged with the task of making food for church events.  This works well, as she is fond of cooking and baking.  However, when the situation calls for 40 pounds of potato salad or pies baked at a two-per-week pace, things start to suffer.  She begins to enjoy it less than cooking for family.  She cuts some corners by buying pre-made pie crusts from the store just to keep up.  Both the process and end result are affected.

What was once sustainable in pie-making becomes unmanageable as the environment changes.  The same happens with the making of content.  In a terrific blog post titled, "Content Strategy Is About Publishing," Erin Kissane writes:

"...the internet is made of publishing, and its new and often anarchic publishing models are messing with older models in all kinds of ways."

This became clear in the content strategies of two major content producers: the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

The BBC announced last week some significant budget cuts; the web budget would be cut by 25%.  As a part of this, "The Guardian" reports "The BBC's internet operation will see the number of web pages it publishes halve by 2013." (emphasis mine)

Cutting back on projects/initiatives is something that the BBC has done many times in the past. In 2001, they ceased shortwave broadcasts to North America and Australasia.  They trimmed or cut entirely some of their language services in certain markets/regions later in the same decade.

The budget cuts will mean changes in the web staffing and managerial structure of the BBC.  It also means that there will be considerable changes in their content strategy in the next few years.

For a bit of history:  broadcasters once enjoyed the luxury of creating content in an environment that had great built-in features.  Content could be created in a much different way. This is no longer the case.  It is almost hard to image now:

• Little or no public facing archive
• Automatic context provided via linear broadcast timeline
• Massive reach in an uncrowded landscape

Capacity to produce raw content is only one part of the equation.  To be successful, the rest of the editorial workflow must be given the proper attention.  Getting the story on-air is no longer the sole aim. Editors, publishers, and those governing the long-term life cycle of the content share an equal seat at the table.  These positions need not be separate people, but each duty requires time, resources, and diligence.

As newsrooms and broadcasters look to make their content available on all platforms, additional hours are required (once people are trained) to translate the content into appropriate formats.  Translation in this case means that some things will need to be added or subtracted from the formerly-finished product in order to remain in-context and relevant to its surroundings:

• Text version of audio content
• Video to accompany audio content
• Images to populate slideshows
• Text transcripts of video content
• Interactive/casual gaming features
• Platform-specific metadata
• Branding, rights management, and editing all of the above

Online video, for example, has been viable and mainstream for years.  Many content producers are only now beginning to incorporate it into their content production and editorial workflows.  The chorus has often been "all content to all platforms."  The CBC recently stated this on their "Inside the CBC" blog post titled "The CBC's Digital Content Strategy."

“We don’t know what will work,” (Richard Stursberg, the executive vice president of English programming) said, “One of the big outstanding questions is how long content will live on various platforms.” But he reiterated his commitment to pushing content onto new platforms regardless, “We’re gonna have to absolutely be there,” he said, if we don’t move to these new platforms, “we just lost all our viewers.”

This brings about a question that the BBC may have asked themselves: If it takes longer to create content that is viable on a multitude of platforms, could the current page counts on the web be unsustainable?  The answer was a budget cut and subsequent planned page count reduction.

Is publishing a story in audio form, with an image slideshow and text version plus an interactive/gaming feature causing a change in focus?  Are the raw number of pages published no longer the benchmark?

A change of this magnitude allows for an alternative to the "content farm" model by offering an in-depth, robust slate of content--neither the BBC nor the CBC are strangers to that.  As Erin Kissane writes, creation of content that fits the new modes of consumption is "...largely made up of new applications for old skills."  That is good news for the news.  What is left is this: content producers must now reconcile the amount of time and resources required with changes in output volume.

If it means baking fewer (but better) pies (or content), then I am all for it.

["Pie Chart" image via Flickr user net_efekt (cc: by)]

Compelling Content: Irresistibly Shareable vs. Content Farms

Does it pay to produce content that values craft, careful research, and proper grammar?  Do people want content so irresistibly compelling that it must be shared? Two pieces this week out of the "New York Times" shed some light on this issue.

The first, titled "Plentiful Content, So Cheap," says that content farms like Demand Media are capitalizing upon a near-loophole-like situation of content creation by low-paid writers.  Demand Media discovers "needs" by parsing popular search requests and publishes 20,000 articles each week.  Writers are paid $15-$20 for each article, and editors about $3.50 each for proofing and vetting.  The texts are produced to rank them high in the world of SEO.

The articles produced on one content farm, eHow.com, show a definite flaw in this type of content strategy. A search on that site for clogged drain reveals articles titled "How to Clean a Clogged Drain Pipe," "How to Open Clogged Drains," "How to Open a Clogged Drain Full of Water," and "How to Clear a Clogged Drain Easily," among others.  This reveals a strategy of "more is better."  An overabundance of similar/duplicative content will lead to confusion and, ultimately, a poor user experience.

Christine Anameier wrote about the end product of content farms on the Brain Traffic blog in a post titled "Sorting through the digital debris."  She sums the situation up well:

"If the whole idea behind the site is “We know all sorts of stuff about everything,” beware. (Except for Wikipedia, which has enough critical mass to make its own rules much the way Amazon does.)...The content farms have learned to game the system, and dubious content is clogging up the works."

The second "New York Times" article, titled "Will You Be E-Mailing This Column? It’s Awesome," points out a different kind of content phenomenon.  University of Pennsylvania researchers have been poring over the email-to-a-friend data from the "Times" itself, and have uncovered some interesting trends.  Long-ish articles are popular (a surprise, there) as are articles about science (a surprise, too).  Positive articles outnumber the negative ones.  It appears that senders are not just trying to impress their friends with their acumen, but rather "seeking emotional communion," according to one of the researchers, Dr. Jonah Berger.

The difference is between the content featured in the two articles is not How-To guides versus canonical works, but rather a matter of intent. Quality versus quantity.  Spartan, functional content has been around for ages.  Lots of it.  So has the top-notch, compelling content.  The new ingredient is the manipulation and overloading of the system in order to have content of a lesser quality supersede the real thing where it matters most: in search results.

What became apparent to me immediately was that these are two very different kinds of content.  The stories topping the shared-with-a-friend lists in the "Times" are examples of content that affects people on a different level.

Content must be created and presented in a way that will meet goals and objectives, rather than simply filling quotas, bloating site content holdings, and search engine placements.  A content farm might teach you four ways of how to remove that wookie from your shower drain, but it will not inspire and fill you with awe, let alone meet a true need.

(image: "Field with farm equipment in the distance" via Flickr / Library of Congress (no known copyright restrictions))

Putting Metadata to Work for You

A poor metadata component in a content strategy can render precious content virtually nonexistent.  Search engines cannot find it, recommendation engines cannot recommend it, and it may end up lost forever in a content purgatory of sorts.  A strong metadata strategy will pay off when it considers both the limitations and opportunities found in its application.

Robert Stribley recently wrote a post on the Razorfish Scatter/Gather blog about metadata and tagging within the music library of iTunes. This got me thinking of my own experience.

The music library is one of many components that makes iTunes like a Swiss Army Knife.  There are movie rentals and purchases, TV shows, a photo and video library, iTunes U, the app store, and the one that I spend some quality time with each day: podcasting.

Public broadcasting has ridden the wave of podcasting's immense growth in the past 5 years.  Each month, millions of public media audio and video files are downloaded, delivering the content to the people that want it.  iTunes is the most popular choice for accessing that content.  Therefore, having the content appear properly in that space is very important.

Mr. Stribley indicates in his article about the iTunes music library, there are some hurdles to clear.  That holds true within the podcasting space as well. A few podcast-specific ones:

• Store displays only 24 characters of a title in certain areas
• Search only examines the first 12 keywords in a podcast feed
  
• Feed images display in many places at 50x50 resolution
• Channel-only indexing for search, rather than by individual episode

A couple of examples of truncated titles.

Apple has included a well-written summary in their "Making a Podcast" guide titled "Creating Your Feed and the Importance of Good Metadata."

Like any other space, iTunes provides its own set of limits and rules.  Apple likely does this for a number of good reasons.  If they let the public decide on the design, iTunes runs the risk of looking like a GeoCities site, not to mention search result speed concerns, intentional gaming of search algorithms, etc. 

Reasons aside, the charge is the same - operate within the rules to get in front of that sizable arena of content-hungry people.  The key is providing the right information (directly or indirectly via search results) to those people, so they can accomplish their intended task: devouring your content.

However, there is a compatibility balance to be considered.  While it is the dominant player in the podcasting field, content published with iTunes in mind often has multiple, additional syndication outlets:

• Text-based RSS with other attachments
  
• Widgets
• Mobile apps
• Dynamic pages on other sites
• (insert here a technology developed in the next 18 months)
  

With that in mind, content creators can no longer publish with a single set of guidelines.  Outside of detailed specification documents, there are plenty of ways to make content as outlet-friendly and more important,  user-friendly:

• Use every field to its fullest, even those outside of iTunes spec
  
• Be mindful of character limitations
• Ensure that the text is as potent as possible
• Create graphic identities that are powerful even as thumbnails

When strategy is drafted, consider the reality that many of these systems/components are connected, often in ways that may not immediately be evident.  The environment may change along with technology and new business opportunity, but the core business aim should remain clear.  As ever, provide the best experience possible with your content.  And that includes helping them find it, with the help of metadata.

("iPod Touch Back (2)" image from Flickr user Fr3d.org (cc: by-nc-sa))

Is Your Content 'Good Enough'?

A couple of weeks ago the Geek Girls Guide featured a post about the relatively new and inevitable phenomenon of "Good Enough."  Sometimes the answer to a need is less about the most-est and more about the most well-suited.  The example is the handy Flip camera -- not the most sophisticated or high-tech, hi-res device.  But, it is good enough for most people. (myself included.)

There is a luxury that creators and publishers of content are able to enjoy that the hardware and device manufacturers are not: the flexibility of multiple versions of content.  This concept can apply to many different kinds of content:  feeds, documents, or other file types.  It also applies to variations of those, like resolution and format.

Enter the stadium of rock-n-roll content resolution.  Radiohead guitarist Johnny Greenwood and Nine Inch Nails founder Trent Reznor have opposing viewpoints on "Good Enough."  They shared their views in a recent set of "New Yorker" articles.

Greenwood argues that average mp3 files are fine:

We had a few complaints that the MP3s of our last record wasn’t encoded at a high enough rate. Some even suggested we should have used FLACs, but if you even know what one of those is, and have strong opinions on them, you’re already lost to the world of high fidelity and have probably spent far too much money on your speaker-stands.

Reznor on the other hand, argues:

Walk into a Best Buy and everyone’s obsessed with the highest possible resolution for their TVs. 1080p versus 1080i resolution, hundred-dollar HDMI video cables...yet everyone still walks around with those terrible quality white iPod 'earbuds'...I want you to have the same feeling I do sitting in the studio listening to a final mix, surrounded by sound, in heaven.

There are two clearly different attitudes here. 

The first looks at the way things are.  Why go to much trouble if most people are going to take the low-resolution road anyway?

The second looks more at the way things could be.  Offer the high-resolution experience, but offer convenience as well.

This gets to the core of the issue: the user experience.

Lots of folks are happy with average-quality resolution mp3s.  But what of the people that are looking for a better user experience?

Radiohead put their most recent full-length album up for pay-what-you-like downloading  But, they used mediocre-quality mp3s: 160kbps.  The album, titled "In Rainbows," was eventually released on CD and vinyl LP.

Reznor, however, released a recent album, "Ghosts," in a much different way. Five different ways, in fact:

• First 9 tracks in high-quality 320kbps mp3 - FREE
  
• All 36 tracks, in one of three hi-res formats - $5
  
• 2-CD set, with access to above downloads - $10
• Above, plus data DVD with files for remixing, plus Blu-Ray ultra-fidelity version and hardcover book - $75
• Above, plus the album on 4-LPs and Reznor's autograph, limited to 2,500 - $300 [sold out]
  

You can easily give people too many choices.  Reznor didn't release the album on cassette or 8-Track.  [Even though some people would likely have bought them.]  However, he did release it in a way that offered people a variety of attractive, relevant choices.

Consider the option of multiple versions early in the analysis phase.  Know the client, know the audience.  Keep the design and interface clean.  Clearly explain what is available.  People want choices, but not to be overwhelmed.

People that choose their own version of "Good Enough" will think your company is more than just good enough.  They may think it is awesome, even.

["Like a record baby" image via Flickr user itchy73 (cc: by-nc-sa)]

Evergreen content not all that evergreen.

The ever-wise and observant Jennifer Kane, consultant at Kane Consulting sent this tweet yesterday, causing me to consider my past history with "evergreen content":

In the radio world, an episode of a program with date-neutral content is produced to fill air time should calamity strike [snapped tapes, sunspots, old-fashioned user error, etc.]  These episodes are called "evergreens," and are used only as a last resort to avoid the dreaded "dead air."

They are replaced often to keep things somewhat current, actually making them less "evergreen" than the name implies.

Evergreen content is thought to be a godsend to some content creators and publishers.  It was relevant before it was even published.  It will be relevant for all eternity.  It is EVER GREEN.

But what content is really evergreen?  What content does not require some degree of maintenance?  What content is not made out-of-date by SOMETHING?  Content that few will find really valuable or compelling.

What could possibly happen if content is dealt with in the RonCo Rotisserie method -- set it and forget it?  Lots of things.  Your content might:

• Become out-of-date
• Gain a new context
• Become unusable due to CMS updates
• Expire, from a legal or rights standpoint
• Confuse people with multiple versions
• And more, unfortunately

All of these can lead to a terrible user experience, and even worse, legal liabilities.

Publishers and content creators are strapped for time and resources. Many are too busy pushing the content out the door, leaving no time to put a proper content maintenance strategy in place.

Having a strategy in place that considers the lifespan and life cycle of content can help avoid these issues.  Good questions to ask when putting one together:

• Is the content good for 6 hours or 6 months?
• How do editorial considerations apply?
  
• Are different versions of content tracked properly?
• Should it be archived or deleted?
• What triggers activities like archiving and relocation?
• What stays on site, what shows up only in searches?
• Are legal contracts, rights, and obligations in sync with content?
• How are new contextual opportunities managed?
• How are new business opportunities applied to existing content?
• Plus many other considerations.

Plans take time.  Content maintenance strategies take time.  Workable content strategies take time.

Putting a strategy together may add more to existing workflows.  Editorial oversight requires staff resources.  Long-term CMS issues will be confronted.   But, a good maintenance strategy can also provide new opportunities as new business models and development pop up.  The final result will be better than evergreen. 

You will soon find out that your content can remain vibrant and relevant long after it has been published.

["Pine tree / 松(まつ" image by Flickr user TANAKA Juuyoh (田中十洋) (CC:at)]

Music = video games & deodorant

[ image courtesy of Jordon / Flickr ]

As I sit listening to a real CD, I am nearly put to tears today about where the music industry has tread.

Two announcements passed before my eyes:
1. Def Leppard art debuting their new single in video game "Guitar Hero III" [thanks Shiny Shiny]
2. Hip-hop producer Jermaine "JD" Dupri has partnered with P&G, makers of "Tag Body Spray" to create TAG Records. [via Trendcentral]

While my own loyalties hew to the old model of the business, however outdated they may be, I can see why they are doing this.

Things are different from the days when I was working for Capitol Records, an independent record store, the college radio station and the local public radio station. [At the same time.] Capitol has moved further down the ladder in importance in the industry, becoming yet another barely defined brand in the EMI Music behemoth cache of holdings. That record store closed its doors. The public radio station was absorbed in a statewide consolidation. All that is left is that tiny college station.

The crossover between video games and music is nothing new, but taking it to the point of debuting a single from a diamond-selling band within one is. This is a band that used the old outfit to sell an astounding 12 million copies of a single title. As store after store reduce their inventories of CDs and DVDs to make room for video games, then that seems to be the best place to show up. Fish where the fishes are, yeah?

I think the TAG collaboration is a bit more indefensible. Aside from the easy jokes ["Our records don't stink." Or, "Our records sometimes stink, but we cover it up." Or...] it seems like less of a natural transition from one to the next. TAG has tread near this before, with an item highlighted one year ago this week by yours truly. That has worked well for TAG -- they have had 26 million people see that video, and by extension their logo. And more importantly, there have been 26 million views of the dreamy Pete Wentz using the TAG product.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to see how the TAG brand is expressed in this new record label/deodorant relationship.
.

Yahoo to add video to photo sharing site Flickr

[ image courtesy of Robert of Fairfax / Flickr ]

Word on the street is that Yahoo, proud owners of one of the most prominent photo-sharing sites on the Internets, Flickr, will be offering video hosting.

This is interesting to me, in particular, as I downloaded the Flickr Uploadr for photos just this morning. [Soon I will have a great need to share photos, and this looks to be one of the easiest ways.]

There are some truly odd restrictions, though. According to this article, only Pro users [those paying the $24.95 annually] will have access, and even then they will only be able to upload videos with a duration of less than 90 seconds.

The other option is for folks to put their videos on YouTube for free. Videos up to 10 minutes in length. For free.

I don't know that the value proposition is great enough for folks to pay the $25/year to have their videos next to their photos. As long as those videos are less than 90 seconds. There are more benefits to the Pro membership than this new video hosting, so perhaps those already paying will see it as an added benefit.

I would image that Yahoo's reasoning behind the project is this:
1. Most videos that people want to share are less than 90 seconds
2. Most people are not interested in your video past the 90-sec mark.
3. Bandwidth cost savings.

Maybe I'll go pro and report back. Who knows?
.

The more things change...

[ image courtesy of karindalziel / Flickr ]

...the more they stay the same.

Symantec, the company that provides millions of folks with their Norton anti-virus software, has put some resources into a project that will give a better understanding of online behaviors. This survey is interesting because of its multi-national [eight countries, in total] perspective. From the site:

The Norton Online Living Report gives a snapshot of how different cultures and different countries approach the Internet and provides insight into how their daily lives are affected by the online world. All the data is constantly changing and will be updated in further iterations of this first bi-annual report.

The report focuses primarily upon the things you might think a company involved in provided security software might zero in on: the confidence index of web users, types of activities those users engage in, and overall tech literacy. There are many other gems to be found in there. It is worth examining, but laid out in a funny way on the site--there is no single report to download that covers all things. Visit this page and hit the links.

So why the tired platitude of a title to this post? I point you to this tidbit, from page 6 of the UK report:

Nineteen per cent of UK children say they do things online that they know their parents would disapprove of. That figure is even higher in China with 55 per cent responding in the positive.

Yup. Kids are doing things their parents wouldn't approve of. Still. Now online, in sizable percentages. We can end with yet another tired platitude: There is nothing new under the sun.

Something we have touched on a number of times on this blog is how technology often amplifies existing activities / impulses / social constructs. Rather than creating a new phenomenon, we see the new thing [be it gaming or social networking sites or IM] giving kids a new chance to sneak a cigarette behind the bleachers.

Artist = Consumer = Artist

There has been no shortage of discussion on how the line between content consumers and creators is being more and more blurred. A number of artist have offered tracks up for remix, whole albums, artwork, etc.

Now, it appears that there is a new group in Dodge that is looking to gather like-minded folks around this very directive. It is called CASH [for Coalition for Artists and Stakeholders.] Before the Wu-Tang Clan refrain of "cash rules everything around me" begins, look at what the group is set to do:

CASH Music: a Coalition of Artists and Stake Holders. CASH is a platform for engagement. A way for audiences and creators to exchange creative perspectives and ideas. Why is this good? Because it's how thing are now — and in our humble opinion it's a change for the better. An engaged and participating audience has a stake in the continuation and existence of the artistic output. An engaged audience is a healthy, vibrant 'scene' grown up around creative works.

They are using the Creative Commons licensing concept to eventually let fans do legally what they have been doing in basements and garages for years. And, they are letting them post it near the original conceptions. It is a subscription based model, offering at least some semblance of a business model. Keep an eye on it!

Stalled, or not?

I snapped this pic with my camera phone this morning, and I thought it to be quite apropos. The writing on the side of that van says "WCCO News 4." They are a local CBS TV affiliate, and their van has stalled right out in front of their studios. Hoods are up, jumper cables in place. They are trying to jump-start the news [van]. There it sits, on the side of the road, in a tableau fit for the topic at hand today.

Harvard Business School professor John Deighton authored a paper with Canadian entrepreneur Leora Kornfeld titled, "Digital Interactivity: Unanticipated Consequences for Markets, Marketing, and Consumers." It is an illuminating piece that codifies some of the chatter related to the corporate insertion into the world of social media.

Two things resonated in the paper for me. The first was this, pertaining to the attitude companies must cultivate in order to avoid alienation:
"...If the marketer wants to thrive it has to be by becoming an ally, someone who is welcomed into social or cultural life and is, perhaps, even sought out as someone with cultural capital."

The second will likely frighten some marketers away:
"...marketing in this paradigm aspires to be an author in the culture of its customers."

Do yourself a favor and view this quick read: .pdf here.

Todd Mundt, at his blog Converge, points us to an interview with Merlin Mann and America's Radio Sweetheart & host of "The Sound of Young America" Jesse Thorn. This interview [or segment, one of six] is of interest because Thorn is one of these cats who is young, gets it, and has the faculty to articulate what it means to try to bring technology and content and the users together.



All of this points to the direction we shall point ourselves in: not to be the broken down old media, stalled in front of our office, not to be the media that is still on the road, but to be the media that is traveling in places that people want to see.
.

Clear Channel tries social networking

Mark Ramsey at Hear 2.0 points out that media juggernaut Clear Channel is launching a social networking service on some of their large-market youth-oriented radio stations. They are doing this via a white-label social network provider.

As you can see in the photo above, there is now a user by the name of Superfly on the Clear Channel Top 40 Hits station KDWB in Minneapolis, one of the stations in the beta group. They are calling it KDWB V.I.P. You can ask me to be your friend, if you sign up...

This is a variation on the venerable MySpace concept in both thought and execution. It is all there, profiles, photos, friends, etc. OneSite.com, the provider, has given them a very basic setup with some templates and features. It looks passably effective, but is that enough to sustain a community?

There are fewer users [about 90 signed up so far, but it launched only yesterday], and those numbers are going to be limited primarily to local users. There is an advantage for the station inplacing the DJs and on-air personalities prominently. After all, this is taken on by Clear Channel not as a charity but as a promotional vehicle. That level of promotion would be a more labor-intensive project on one of the existing social networking sites; creating a universe of your own eliminates that. That's good for the station, but does it translate into a sustainable community?

If there were a way to connect these members with the members of users at other stations in other cities, this would have a greater chance of success. If there were a content base outside of the 3 minute pop songs they play, they might have a chance. Are the local talents and remote events enough to sustain a community?

Is Clear Channel over-estimating the brand loyalty of their Top 40 Hits stations?

Am I missing something?

I think even NBC's upcoming social networking venture has more of a chance. At least they have some content, be it produced or distributed.

Otherwise, this looks to duplicate the efforts of the existing communities out there.

Time & Money

[ image courtesy of Refracted Moments™ / Flickr ]

Edison Media and Arbitron have released a report detailing the usage habits of consumers of audio. Not a great deal has changed; online listening and awareness of satellite radio services remain flat, almost everyone uses a mobile phone and an AM/FM radio at some point during the week, and iPods continue to sell. It is a good survey of where things stand at the moment, and it keeps in check notions of how quickly things are changing for those not in close proximity to it.

The awareness of HD Radio, according to the report, has almost doubled but not translated into people buying the sets, or even considering it. Perhaps the inclusion of the HD Radio product line at Best Buy stores will change some minds.

Americans have $1,200 to spend annually, on average, according to the folks at the Consumer Electronics Association, via the CNet News Blog. Households with teenagers in them spend $500 more than that. Teens themselves are spending about $350 each year. Some of them will go to Best Buy, and some will buy HD Radios.

Americans have taste for entertainment

[ image courtesy of frackandys / Flickr ]

eMarketer reports that Americans have quite the jones for media. The average citizen's consumption went from 3,340 hours in 2000 to 3,543 hours last year. For the sake of conversion, that is about five months.

From 2000 to 2005 television, internet use, and home video [DVD & VHS] all increased. Newspapers, books, magazines, and listening to recorded music all suffered small to moderate decreases.

Some have proffered that competition for consumers' limited consumption time is a "shelf space" issue that cannot be overcome. As it turns out, the trend indicates that the solution is simple, from the consumer's perspective: just consume more.

Who needs sleep, anyway?
.