Friday, 13 April 2007

What's the point of TV channels?

With Joost coming out of its Beta phase, I have been doing a lot of thinking about what's the point of television channels? If the Joost concept of Drag and Drop content (similar to the Drag and Drop technology that we use when we build our iTunes music playlist) comes to fruition, then what's the point of television channels?
What are they actually needed for?
Do television channels become like record labels, a place that buys up and launches talent? But less of brand in and of themselves?
Or does the role of the television channel get more important as the sheer amount of content increases - almost like a navigator or a seal of approval?

I don't  think that the answer is about giving the creative control over to the viewer, UGC is fine but up to a point.  When I want to watch something  on a screen larger than a mobile one, I want to see  quality stuff.  I think it's more to do with understanding how people want to engage with certain programs. C4 showed an incredible program last night, The Mark of Cain about prisoner torture in Iraq . It was the most compelling, incredible piece of content that I had seen for a really long time. I went online afterwards as I wanted to learn more about the show - I wanted to hear about the direction, how far it was based on truth, whether they had worked with members of the armed forces to bring it to life, I wanted to talk with other people who had watched it, but I couldn't find anything like that at all. I was looking to engage, but couldn't.

On a lighter note, the new series of Peep Show - the funniest thing around at the moment - starts tonight on C4. Today I will watch it on the television. Tomorrow, I'll be able to download it in chunks on YouTube. Next year will I download it all directly from www.peepshow.tv? .

Anyway, enjoy these clips - they're brilliant.

Thursday, 05 April 2007

RSS and the sad death of the pun

I think that  the headline writers in The Sun are some of the wittiest, most intelligent writers around.

There is a debate that Dan Taylor recently highlighted which  poses the question of whether the growth of RSS and short, to the point headlines signifies the death of funny "make you think a bit" headlines.

I am not a huge lover of The Sun, but their headline today was brilliant:
Sun03
In fact there was another brilliant headline yesterday after the Liverpool thrashing of  PSV Eindoven:

"Rollover Eindhoven."

Pure literary genius in my opinion.

They are on a roll at the moment.

A shame if puns like this were lost to banal RSS headline copy, but then I just looked at the headline for this post and it was fairly straight-forward. I tried to think of a witty headline, but maybe I'm just not that funny/punny.

Let me know if you could have come up with a better one!

Tuesday, 03 April 2007

Jade Goody and Unreal "Reality"

L1020223_2The highly imaginative season of 100 Ideas continues at the South Bank in London.

Tonight was a panel debate entitled: Reality TV – The New Reality?

Interesting panel, although incredibly biased in favour of reality television: George Galloway and Jade Goody,  Tim Hincks from Endamol the production company behind Big Brother and Layla Smith from ITV’s “alternative programming.”

This was one of the problems – what the evening really needed were some forceful characters arguing strongly against reality TV, what you had instead was the very nice but slightly ineffectual Rev Richard Moy, though flanked as he was in between Jade and George maybe it’s not surprising that he was the quiet one. He did make a good point though when someone pointed out that he was the only one not in favour of the Big Brother type of Reality TV, he simply answered that he was the only one not to have personally made money out of reality television.

Fair enough.

There were some good discussions up-front: The question of agreeing the definition of reality TV, if it is content that is unscripted, “characters in search of a story”, then does that includes real life documentaries, and actually should we say that reality TV started in the 1970s with Paul Watson’s controversial documentary of working class life, The Family?

The critical role that digital technology plays in the production of something like Big Brother was not something that I had thought about before, but it makes total sense. The way in which production teams can take 24 hours worth of cotent into an hours worth of programming literally overnight is something that 10 years ago I am not sure if it could simply have been done?

Though interesting to hear about Jade and George's experience of life post Big Brother and the fact that their experiences with ordinary people were markedly different from the way that they were portrayed in the mainstream media, it was actually not that unexpected or illuminating. It was also fairly predictable that ITV and Endamol would keep coming back to the fact that in their opinion Reality TV is the ultimate form of democratic television and anyone who thinks that Big Brother is lowest common denominator television is "under-estimating the British people." I wish Matthew Wright ,who was chairing, asked tougher more probing questions. They needed a proper chair, a Paxman type who really would have got the gory heart of the subject.

The evening became more interesting when it moved away from the panel and to the floor as tougher questions were being asked: is Big Brother simply the modern day equivalent of the Victorian freak show? (to which Jade took enormous offence); Does Big Brother normalise freaks and encourage children to believe that  orange-tanned women with enormous fake plastic tits are the route to success in life? Why is it that Tim is happy to produce and encourage people to participate in his reality shows, but he would be really upset if either of his daughters became reality TV stars? These were actually the questions that the panel could not really bring themselves to answer properly.

Of course it's all entertainment the TV guys argued but "you can't predict it,  you can only produce it" but doesn't that defeat the purpose of "reality" TV? If Big Brother is an artificial construct, filled with people specifically chosen to create the most sparks possible, then content is edited and produced by a team behind the scenes, is there actually anything "real" left?

Ben at Noisy Decent Graphics was behind the beautiful website and blog. There was so much discussion that was cut off due to timing issues that I hope that some people went to the blog to comment and continue the debate. I did.

Funny, as we left the Purcell Room a gang of 4 fat paparazzi swarmed around cameras at the ready hoping that we were famous. Happily we were of no interest to them whatsoever and we scooted back to South London to a dinner of red wine and fat burgers.

Tuesday, 13 March 2007

The Uglyfication of Betty

Stan at Brand DNA picked this up first , then Neil at Only Dead Fish  posted about this brilliant Channel 4 trailer for Ugly Betty

I think that it is interesting for a number of reasons - It's a great parody of the Dove Evolution YouTube video,  it's an example of Channel 4 being really plugged into the "cultural  currency" of their target audience and it reminded me about the story behind the original video. 

Apparently after having shot the ad, Ogilvy New York were told that it would not be allowed to run on US network TV for fear of pissing off other beauty advertisers. They fought the ruling and lost, so had to think of an alternative channel. In the end YouTube was chosen. And the rest as they say is history.

Sunday, 18 February 2007

When Online Media Planning Goes Wrong...

Toyota_placement_1




Oh dear...

The problems of online media placement.

Wonder if Toyota ever knew about this?

There was also a great example of the annoying Mitchell and Webb "I'm a Mac" ads running next to Charlie Brooker's enormous anti-mac rant which was quite amusing

If you've seen any other dreadful online media placements pass them along!

My Photo

Stats

  • Stats

Gaping Void