Earlier this week I observed a lecture by Nancy Chappelle, the Managing Director of Content and Programming for TVO. If you’ve followed what goes on at TVO in the past but have perhaps lost touch do check in again. I was (and still am) amazed and inspired with not only their web presence but also their social media penetration.

We all know the typical model for a television networks website whose general purpose is to bring eyes back to the TV. Although we are slowing seeing a shift in this behaviour, with examples like Hulu, the flow is generally one direction and the intent is to direct all eyes back to television. The ads are on television, the ratings are tied to the television, there are definitely legitimate reasons for this behaviour, but things are changing slowly and surely.

Increasingly we are seeing networks putting up full episodes and bonus content because perhaps there is some value to the web. Acknowledging that now might not be the best time to experiment with fantasy revenue streams, there is still a growing potential for this shift. Anyone heard of Netflix? Is there anything they are doing wrong?

Although TVO doesn’t fairly compare to a major network (mainly because of where their funding comes from) they are still an excellent example of online potential for networks. They specialize in children’s content and have an entire website of over 150 games. Yes we are still talking about a television network. They produce podcasts (TVO Parents, The Agenda), they are on Twitter (@AgendaCamp, @TheAgenda), they have Facebook groups, they’ve got all the basics covered. But what goes above and beyond simply existing on the web is that they not only do all those things (which should now be considered requirements), they also promote topical unconferences and social events with an educational theme for children. They physically and virtually exist in the world of the audience.

They are creating online social communities. They are connecting with their audience(s). They aren’t just selling a product, they’re creating brand advocates. I urge you to take note of what they are accomplishing and if it’s not the next step for all networks.

After leaving the class on Monday evening a couple thoughts struck me from the discussion with Susan Ross.  The main point being her feeling and perhaps the feelings of Corus as a whole with regards to the current shifts in technology and entertainment.  The sense I got from her was the expected “wait and see.”  In retrospect this could be based on a few significant reasons: Firstly, this may actually be the attitude held by Corus as they might well believe that waiting is the best strategy.  Secondly, the current state of the economy is likely a factor resulting in less investment in new technologies and experimental revenue streams.  For Corus, as Ross explained, “keeping to what we know,” might very well be the best option.  Finally, there is the chance that perhaps Ross did not want to give away some key secrets that the company may have plans for in the future. I find it interesting to compare the path taken by Corus versus what I’ve read in the past couple of weeks regarding Netflix and other CES offerings.  In my opinion Netflix is doing all the right things.  Two weeks ago they introduced HD streaming on top of their already stable web/television entertainment services.  Compared to what we are seeing in the Canadian market as consumers and what we heard from Ross there seems to be few mainstream ventures in technological evolution.  Granted the infrastructure is not the same and the costs associated with creating a wider consumer market are quite different than in the States, it still feels like slow motion. My specific question was related to changes in children programming and how it will or should evolve in Ross’s opinion.  There was the example of the Tree House Direct failure which seemed to be a retreat from a now rapidly expanding market.  Of all audiences children want to be involved and active in the toys they receive, the movies they watch and the media they consume.  Although Tree House Direct appeared to be a different way for getting the same content, I would think that these directions need to be explored further.  Perhaps everyone’s quest to bring TV to the computer is the wrong solution.  We should be bringing the social nature of the web to the big screen.

 

  I got into a discussion after my research class about formatting.  Formatting papers, formatting bibliographies, formatting academia in general.  An issue that frequently comes up is how to format something when its on the web.  Is there a proper technique? What is it? Is it assumed that we format everything the same as we do in paper? Does that not seem somewhat archaic?  I have many thoughts and opinions on the subject which I wouldn’t necessarily qualify as right all the time but in this case I don’t think there is a wrong either. Have you ever read an article on the web from an authoritative news site such as CNN?  Well I have and it pisses me off.  Not the fact that every article is about Obama but the fact that sourcing is somehow impossible to navigate.  Let me try to be clearer.  When you read an article and the talk about a website for example, why do these news sites never link to the discussed website itself?  It’s like they have a fear that they will lose readership by linking to the actual site they are discussing so they decide to not include the source.  Its insane! In good old fashion paper formats we leave a visual trail for the reader to refer back to. Be is in the bibliography or footnotes or author names or lose references in text, it doesn’t matter.  The fact remains that you have to physically go from one text to the next and this system has made doing so possible just simply by using the proven techniques.  If you think about it its quite an incredible process and simply works.  To draw links between two physically unrelated texts by simply following a proven language or code.   The web doesn’t work this way.  It’s completely different.  The idea that I have to take that information from a bibliography and then search for a place where the text is located and then have the track the text by author or publisher and then find the title of the work and then look for a physical location through a code system that has not been accessible till now (and which varies from library to library) is simply archaic.  It works when a physical text is required but simply isn’t possible on the web. I think bloggers have figured out how the system should work.  Lets call it web sourcing.  What bloggers do is when they are talking about another source or website they link to the actual website in that sentence.  For example, this is not a popular choice of methods by CNN. By discouraging readers from travelling to the source they not only piss people like me off but they also cut potential readership.  If your there your already there, your not coming back once you leave anyways.  In the blogging community individuals and sites use this technique to not only source their information but create communities of blogs and site who link back and forth enriching the content.  If anything it increases readership. On the web there are a completely different set of physics that apply.  Everything is tangible and within arms reach.  Although the old rules can still apply they may not be the best or most appropriate models to adopt in this environment.  We have the ability to touch the actual source, why not take it.  Imagine if you could push your finger into the footnote of a book and the page turned into the source of the footnote.  Does that not increase the value of the book you hold?

It may have been thoughts in my head from a lecture earlier today.  Perhaps it was my mind trying to decompress.  Generally when I sit in front of a television I have the illusion that I'm relaxing and not having to mentally work.  Is that what TV is for?  This time however my mind was on overdrive.  Maybe it was the fact that I knew once this was finished I needed to think of something write about.  How long has it been? Three minutes?  Maybe if I look deep enough into the television I'll find something to watch.     Why is it black?  Is black a proper representation of off? Or the absence of colour in motion? I guess that's a fair assessment.  Perhaps this blank screen does not represent anything.  It's definitely saving electricity.  How much time has past now I wonder, maybe six to eight minutes?  Maybe more.  Maybe this wasn't supposed to be a narrative at all.   Once I got into it I realized afterwards that time had passed much faster than I had expected.  Aside from the forced air system in my house the absence of droning static was definitely a plus from this show compared to most others.  My mind continued to relax.  All that I had to focus on was my breathing, which lead to a positive experience in itself.  How often each day do we take the time to meditate?  I continued to stare in the direction of the television while attempting to focus only on my breathing.  I pulled out of it after twenty two minutes or so.   The experience for me was really an exercise in relaxation and breathing.  That all came of course once I got over the need to think of something to write about.   I wonder if I'll get different results if I try it with the HD TV next time.