Web 2.0 Summit: Media and technology behind it

Picking from the Web 2.0 Summit videos was a difficult task, but only because I thought everything was very interesting. These people are helping lead the way in how we communicate on the web and building the technology that will be used to do it.


The Media Business: New Approaches


With that thought in mind, the first video I watched was the panel discussion between Joel Hyatt of Current TV and Evan Williams of Twitter that was moderated by Ken Auletta of The New Yorker. They were figures I was familiar with being that I'm a Twitterholic and I had been looking at Current as a way to get some video news pieces I planned to work on in the future.

Anywho, the panelists provide some background on their respective companies and models they were working on to create a profitable business, which is when my favorite word came in: monetize. (FYI: note my sarcasm). Williams discussed how Twitter was considering charging commercial enterprises to tweet as a way to generate revenue. He described it as an alternative model to the ad-revenue system that has been the only real model used in old media. So with the proposed Twitter model, instead of having advertising placed among your tweets, you follow the tweets of a company voluntarily.

One issue we discussed in class was what criteria would be followed to designate a Twitter account as a commercial one. Would newspaper or network news accounts be considered commercial accounts that require payment? Once Twitter explores this business model some more, perhaps we will learn how they plan to implement it and differentiate commercial and non-commercial accounts.

Auletta referred to Twitter's plan as innovation seeking the business model versus the business model seeking innovation since business are already tweeting. I think that's a very apt description that old media finds a very scary because the possibility of failure is fairly possible versus the tried and true old ad model.

One thing is for sure, though. Twitter is becoming a mainstream player in the world of interactive web communication and the disbursement of news. While Williams contends Twitter is not on the level of Facebook or Myspace, I think they are on the verge of getting there. The adoption of Twitter by some news media outlets is proof of that. Current is one example.

Hyatt discussed their collaboration with Twitter on the presidential debates this year, which was called Hack the Debate. The digital cable news channel and Twitter joined forces on Election Day again - along with Digg - to provide viewer responses and user-generated content. Hyatt touted the fact that 40% of the content on Current is user generated and it was a way to "unleash the creativity of young people." However, he also said they were experimenting with new ways to generate revenue as well, which includes their user-generated ads.

Here's my issue with Current. In order to submit pods, which are the mini-news stories that Current airs, you have to submit release forms for legal purposes. So basically, anyone who appears in your video has to sign a release in order for it to appear on Current TV. Also, if you film on private property, you have to get a location release for that too. Speaking from experience, because I had to do this with my Choose or Lose gig, it's a giant pain in the behind because it is not something the typical journalist has to do. I understand why Current and other media corporations do it. They have to protect themselves legally, obviously. However, I don't know of ANY news stations or journalists in general that have to do this.

I love Current. They have great content. However, if they want to keep that "news network" mentality, the releases have got to go. It's one thing that hinders it from growing, I believe. Granted I couldn't get paid by posting my video on YouTube (Current pays content creators $ if their stuff makes it on air), but I don't have to get a release for the protester that was just beaten at some rally.

Paul Otellini


So enough of my rant on monetizing and release forms. The next video I watched was a talk with Paul Otellini of Intel. I had never heard of the guy, but I'm glad I know about him now.

He discussed the need for professional networking and the need for a customized web experience, which he said was close to fruition. The big point he was trying to drive home was the advances in chip technology Intel has been able to create and how they would help propel Web 2.0 to new heights. I particularly enjoyed how they used camera-like gadget to translate Chinese characters to English (in this case, the name of a restaurant) and provide a variety of links and videos to items related to the restaurant.

Otellini claims this is the future of interactivity, but when I saw this demonstration, I couldn't help but think of an iPhone app that Cindy said I should download (I did) called SnapTell. The app has image recognition technology for CDs, DVDs and book covers. When it figures out what book, CD or DVD it is, the app provides link to the Wikipedia page, amazon page and any other web pages it finds relevant.

I think the technology that Otellini described is there, but making it even more powerful and accessible from compact devices is oh so close to coming.

Bringing the two together

Each video discussed very different, but very related topics involving Web. 2.0. Some assessments:

• In order for news media to survive, it must evolve by adapting to new technology.
• However, news media must first learn about the technology, which is where the real problem lies. When someone from Intel is talking about the processors that are continuously getting smaller and faster, someone needs to break down the information for those that don't understand it. I think reality has begun to sink in for those news organizations that haven't jumped onto technology bandwagon. Simplifying the information may help get these media organization over the fear of the new.
  
• The tech community should continue seize this opportunity. Granted there will always be some entities resistant to change, but that's why they will die out and innovators won't. They might fail at one thing (Twitter could with their proposed revenue model), but eventually find a formula for success.

Innovation and experimentation is where it's at. You can't be afraid to fail, because you will. Eventually, though, a solution can be found.