Yes.



But...



There's still the "chicken or the egg" question of: Is the online audience large enough, and discerning enough, to WANT an exclusive channel of quality shows (yet)... or do we need to work harder to create more quality shows across multiple channels in order to DRAW that larger audience in? Because that exclusive channel needs to monetize, and will likely have higher overhead due to the expenses of promoting those 10 shows than a standard channel that offers literally millions of videos.



Quality is more expensive (all around) than quantity. Are we there yet?

Justin, thanks for your comment. I think that paradox of choice has it effect on online video consumption. Maybe this kind of channel will increase over all market size. Also, the shows don't have to be exclusive - just located in one place together under the umbrella of "quality first" brand.

Assuming you're in the U.S., your wish is in the process of being fulfilled by a project codenamed 'newsite', a joint venture between NBC Universal and Fox-owner NewsCorp.



Here's a bit more about it:

http://www.adweek.com/aw/iq_interactive/article...

Would Next New Networks be that? I think that Tim and Fred and the rest of the people I never name by name are out there making a real rockstar product. I think THEY are the HBO.

Chris - What about aggregating other's material, but handpicking it?

beyondnessofthings - Is there room for such a thing in your opinion for independent content?

These ideas are in opposition to each other. Good content costs money and has a TV size audience. HBO has good content because they pay for high production values and the talent that requires. And they charge users for it.



You can't overnight create a subscription model online video distribution platform without Hollywood talent behind it without a lot of money. Don't forget HBO is Time Warner.

Kfir, this is a great question, and it's funny - we've heard people describe us as the HBO of the Web (flattering for sure). I do think there is a role for highlighting great shows on the Web, but the beauty of the Web is that great content can grow...and grow... That's one of the reasons not to cut off the pipeline and also to give shows a chance to breathe and not force them into instant success, like the traditional networks do.

Dina, thanks for your comment - I like what blip are doing, but you are an open platform - everyone can upload his show. So, when I go to blip.tv, I see various quality levels of content.



Ben - do you believe that quality online video shows cannot be created without major financial backing?

Short answer is yes..



I want quality, and would pay for it, but I repeat some earlier sentiments by saying I want IPTV, on my BOX in the corner of the room, just like Sky, or Freeview, I do not desire to watch a film on a computer or laptop.



It will come, just like voice over IP has, the key really is in my mind transparent technology, so mother can hit a button and put her feet up on the sofa, watching box in the corner like she always has.



Mainstream adoption will provide funding mechanism for quality control as it always has.



Just a thought.



Chris

I tend to agree with Kfir that the endless choice and possibilities that the Internet provides for this medium also have the potential to create too much noise for the average viewer. So there is definitely room for a quality imprimatur.



(I don't think, apropos Dina's comment, that this would necessarily have to cut off the pipeline for people trying new and innovative things).



The bigger question is whether this imprimatur will come from a media player producing its own quality content (a la HBO) or else a new player coming in, finding good quality stuff, and presenting it in one place. If the latter succeeds, I could see it then developing into a kind of studio that would also fund new productions.



IMHO this is unfortunately a game for an established media player. I don't hold out too much hopes for "NewCo", since everything I've read about them screams old media thinking. Perhaps Joost or one of the other well-funded players will be able to be the one.

Kfir, this is a pretty great thread.



I suppose it's a question of defining quality. Don't get me wrong, there is some great online programming - much of it on blip.



But programs online are forced to be a lot more lean, and the artistry that goes into large scale productions on HBO are an entirely different level.



The HBO of online can not be done until the content is so good and so well done that it trumps just about everything else. And to do this and promote it requires more money than just about everyone (other than NewSite) has.

Shai, Chris, Ben - thanks a lot for your insightful comments. I love this discussion!

Ben, I agree with you about the need to define quality. Personally I believe that nothing beats a good story (I wrote about it here http://pravdam.com/2007/04/18/when-poor-%e2%80%...)

IMHO, this is the only way that indie content producers can create strong market position. the main question is - can we find good stories that are told by people who don't get a lot of money for their work. not sure what's the answer on this one.



Shai - Main question for me is - why do you think that only Joost and big guys can do it? Yes, it requires marketing, but that's why god invented Facebook, blogs, and forums :) Also, you can always team up with traditional media guys looking for ways to be players in this market....

Kfir, I think it is a great idea. One channel to go to and easily - the key word - find great shows, professionally produced. Like a TV station - limited to 20 shows. Like FrenchMaids or Somethingtobedesired.

Ben hit it on the head with his comment. As much as professional production teams are creeping into the "independent" video sector, this kind of thing still requires MONEY! :D



Forget about making several video series under one umbrella... To make just ONE quality show calls for actual *talent* in _all_three_areas_ of writing, acting and post-production. You can pretty much get over on cinematography by placing the camera on a tripod and having your on-air talent stay within the frame.



Each position that needs to be filled is in direct competition with the exact same position on a broadcast television show or film. What's the incentive for someone that can shoot or edit for television to join an internet video production team at a fraction of their rate?



The only up-side for the internet is that not everyone CAN get film or broadcast work, so there are lots of people looking to internet shows as their opportunity to either remain on the internet or build their reel so they can try again for broadcast in the future. Even if the people are available, it still takes $,$$$ to make them decide to work with an internet video production team instead of waiting tables or being a personal instructor.



The reason there's no money is that there's no way to prove demographics from internet "hits". You can't tell if it was the "head of household" or their 10-year-old son that visited a page on your site or played your video. Without proof of demographics, you have no advertisers. Sure, there are sites with stats high enough that advertisers are willing to take the shotgun-style chance that out of 300,000 site views or video plays, whatever percentage of actual viable consumers they reach is worth what they're paying.



So... An online HBO is not possible unless you recruit MULTIPLE SETS of actually talented people across the board, which is going to be monetarily infeasible in terms of explaining ROI to investors.

I agree with Bill and Ben on the money point.

But only if we are literally comparing HBO quality on a level playing field with independent internet-only producers. Obviously, you can bring HBO and other TV programming to the net, so we are talking about net-born video content.... and it's not practical to compare what can be achieved on little-to-no budget verses budgets of millions of dollars. Crap will always exist everywhere, no matter how much money was allocated to produce it, but that doesnt work on the flip side, with a few exceptions on occasion.



If we are to take the concept of HBO being the best content on TV (when i had tv, i certainly agreed with this and still love the shows they put out) and apply that to net video, without literally comparing the two for the obvious reasons stated above by others and myself.... then we have an interesting topic to continue discussing.



Early on, the mention of something like this... a site that only would host or aggregate or cherry-pick "quality content" was frowned upon... an anti-longtail project was often considered evil.

Even things like rating a video we somewhat controversial.

The counter to that was... one day there will be so much shit video on the net that filters will be the next big thing. And we talked about filters. I often ranted on about "human filters" for video content. I originally wanted one of my sites (spreadthemedia.com) to be all about that.



So, there are plenty of sites now that attempt to bubble up content that is popular, viral and good quality etc. Some will even just aggregate the top whatever videos from several popular video hosting sites. But I dont think thats any true answer to the question raised here.



Maybe the answer is in between somewhere. There are some production houses that are only outputting to the net, some are divisions of MSM companies, some are not. Either way, $$$ is needed or you're looking at student films and the such, which can often be quite good.



So, what's great quality content mean? Answer that first.



Sull

I think that we still have a ways to go as far as the subscription model goes. Right now advertising seems to be the way its going. Once enough people realize that they can easily hook their laptop up to their large screen TV though, I think alot of the amateur-ish content will go bye bye.



Bill-I agree with alot of what you said. I think that right now it is tough to bring good talent from traditional media to online because of the lower pay. I've been trying to establish myself early on in the online space having come from the film/broadcast world and seeing an opportunity to get in now, and it has certainly been a struggle.



My longterm goal with neovids.tv has always been to try and be the HBO of the web...when that becomes feasible. In the meantime I'm just trying to cobble together deals without losing my shirt while continuing to work on "real" shows.

Bill, I don't agree that having money has to equal quality.



We do insert show here! with no budget at all. Been doing it that way every Wednesday for a year now and haven't missed an episode yet. And I'm quite sure that people would argue about whether or not that's a quality show (and I would agree with them on some of the stuff) but the whole point of the "show" itself is to allow us and other artists a chance to experiment and play. And wouldn't you know it, we have an audience that digs our stuff and is pretty rabid about it.



Which brings me to the point that quality is subjective. Has nothing to do with defining it, because it's different for everyone. There are some shows out there that I don't think are very good at all from a professional/quality standpoint, and yet have a huge audience that would try and flame the hell out of me if I suggested that.



When we launch our new show in the near future here, it's going to be a step up in terms of quality shows online, because I'm constantly pressing all of us to be better than the shows that we feel are the best online from a production/story standpoint. And we've done our entire Season Zero for no money at all.



All it takes is finding people who are dedicated. You find people who want to do it for the love, because it provides them an outlet. I produce national tv, docs, and commercials, and I still do g14 for free because it lets me do stuff I love. That's why everybody else at g14 does it too. New Media people shouldn't do it for the money, or else it shows that you're focused on the money and guess what, you've just become Hollywood. Do it for the love, and that's what will show, and it will constantly drive you to be better than you are now. Quality follows, and the money follows that. But it never takes money to produce something good, it just takes love, dedication, and patience.

Matthew,



To clarify my point on quality - I should have said it's a question of your definition of quality, no argument on it's being largely subjective.



But HBO has an established record of what is widely considered high quality content to the point of consensus. The fact that it is universally understood when Kfir writes "I want the HBO of online video" qualifies this argument.



Money matters and you can't discount it by thinking of online video versus television content creation as two separate things. In the quality realm video is video and story rules assuming you do production right.



When you are able to watch something delivered over IP on your HD set in your living room in the next 5-10 years, you won't care whether it came from g14 or HBO. But HBO will still have a hand up in promotion, and unless you can pay people with talent, HBO will lead on that as well.



It's great that you're doing it for the love, but all due respect it does take money to produce something good. New media people shouldn't do it for the money? I don't know about you but if I work hard creating something great, I expect there to be a value exchange such that people will be willing to pay to see it. And if not then the work I am doing is certainly not worthy of HBO.



This is why people who shoot something great on a low budget spend tens of thousands of dollars fixing in post what they couldn't afford to do during a shoot after it gets picked up.



If you put enough love dedication and patience into something shot on you 1 chip camera you may create compelling content. But eventually it needs a color correct and a sound mix, to compete with what is high quality from a purely technical standpoint.



Don't forget whether you're "new media" or "old media" in the end what is created is all just media - and it is in competition with all other content for people's time.

Kfir,



HBO, ESPN, MTV and all their cousins came out of the new world known as "cable," that unleashed consumers from what the "networks" decided were worth broadcasting. But remember that both the "networks" and "cable" were the result of big money getting behind these bold new worlds. Business models need to be clear (oh, they will change, as they did in these other medium, but there needs to be some revenue generation ability to start). And the quality is a must.



The Youtube guys claim they created a new 3 minute format. Nonsense. We want to sit down and watch 30 minutes and more. And at least I would not want to watch 60 minutes of 20 3 minute spots...



Don't forget that quality includes must-have content such as sports events, some news, etc etc. All that takes capital as well.



Bottom line: the new medium of the Net promises change, more flexibility, and even more openness, but not anarchy. The companies that figure out how to filter and present content in this new day and age will win long term. But they will need money to succeed!

Hey Matt. :)



I think your g14productions crew does good work, and I'm always intrigued when I find out that you did something new.



As far as "no budget", what that means is that you and your crew are VOLUNTEERING your time, and as the saying goes, time = money... So you DO have a budget. You're paying yourselves to do what you love to do, which is pre-produce, produce and post-produce.



Same thing as when Justin announced the weekly budget for STBD. The show doesn't actually get done for that low amount of money. It gets done for that low amount of money PLUS the in-kind donations of TIME that the people involved give to the project because they love what they do and want to put on a good show.



You bring up an interesting philosophical idea: "Do it for the love". I don't know how easy it is to put together a crew of talented people that are all willing to "do it for the love" on ONE show.... much less a "network's worth".



My point isn't about people that love to do what they do. :) My point is about attracting talented people to a project that are trying, as neovids said, to work on "real" shows without losing their shirts. Even if you put together a team that as you say "does it for free, because it lets them do stuff they love", that means they have to take time out from concentrating on their new-HBO show in order to go 'pay the rent'. Imagine how much better a weekly internet show would be... any show... if the ~8hours/day spent getting money were focused on tweaking scripts or shooting coverage or 40 extra hours per week on editing?



Ben has another good point in his recent reply. People have no idea how long it takes to do things like an audio mix for even a 5-minute video. Forget about color correction, so that someone's shirt isn't red in one scene and pink in the next scene because of different camera placement /lighting. Those elements aid immersion and bolster the feeling of "quality" in a production. By decreasing the budget on a production, perhaps all the way to $0, something's got to give.



On the other hand, you have the Lonelygirl15 crew, which created apparently compelling internet content with a static webcam-looking shot of a bedroom. :) One could argue that THAT was a quality presentation, and throw out the idea of budget altogether. :) However, the song remains the same... If someone's not paying them, they're paying themselves with in-kind donations of time, so there's no such thing as "no budget".

All, thanks a lot for your comments. I hope you will come to podcamp boston - I will be there, and I'd love to meet.

your comments raised many interesting points. Here are my thoughts:

1. What is quality? Can you get more philosophical than that:)? for me quality is good story. nothing more, nothing less. Yes, you must have good sound, normal video quality, but in essence you must have a good story to tell. Everytime someone talks with me about production value, I think about the scobleshow. Scoble internet TV show has low production value - the audio is not the greatest, not enough light, and in the first shows there was almost no editing. BUT I kept watching, cause he got to interesting companies, asked the right questions and showed me cool products. So, his show is of high quality, even if video production people would bash it.

2. The format - yes, Internet TV is different than TV. Period. the length is different cause the medium is different. It affects story telling for sure.

3. Combating for talents - this is the tricky part. really. and it makes me think all the time that maybe we are missing the point. maybe we compare ourselves to the wrong medium, a battle that is lost before it was started. maybe calling our work Internet TV is the source of all evil in this aspect.

4. Money - yes, we need money to succeed. A burger shop also needs money to succeed. The question is if we can find ways to create cheap formats with high quality.

There's actually a bunch of companies with some serious cash (obviously not comparable cash to an HBO programming budget, but a good deal of $ by web standards) that fulfill Bill's talent requirement - good writing, good acting, good post-production - that are already in the quality content game.



MyDamnChannel.com was launched last month by Don Was, David Wain, and Harry Shearer with funding from Okapi Venture Capital. I had my initial doubts, but the Was interviews are incredible, "Wainy Days" looks like it could be a winning sitcom, and they're rolling out new shows weekly.



(FYI, I'm not including FunnyorDie.com because I don't really think it applies here. It's got great talent and $ in the bank, but allows uploads and focuses on a specific genre.)



HungryManTV.com launched a couple months ago with original programming created by the commercial production house, HungryMan (you may know the them from the "This is Sportscenter..." campaign). Granted, the quality leaves a lot to be desired, but they have all the trappings of a web-based HBO.



60Frames.com was started by UTA with a $3.5 million investment and has already made a deal with the Coen brothers for an online series. They'll obviously be able to wrangle top talent across the board and have the cash to back it up.



And then of course there's the Michael Eisner backed Vuguru. They already have two successful web series with SamHas7Friends and Prom Queen, and are working on a third - The All-For-Nots - with the creators of The Burg.



(Chris mentioned Next New Networks above, but I'd disagree that they're the next HBO. They're not trying be. They're focused on creating top-quality, micro niche content. Not mainstream hits.)



Granted Vuguru and 60Frames aren't websites, they're production companies. Their products are going to show up all over the place (at least for now), not on one catch-all warehouse for quality content.



But in the online video space is there really a need for an HBO? Does there have to be one site where all this content lives when everything's just a click away?



I don't automatically watch HBO because Deadwood was the best thing ever, just like I don't habitually tune into CBS because I'm a fan of Letterman. Yes, I am more aware of what's on HBO and more willing to give the content a shot because I like what they've done in the past. But it's in the same way that I'm more likely to watch the next Tarantino film and make fun of whatever Joel Schumacher puts out.



Because web video hit the mainstream with YouTube and we can't help but call what we watch "online television", we've been looking at the medium through the lens of a one-stop-shop or with a network mentality.



But that's not what it is. The web is different. You can have a bunch of quality programming living in all corners of the internet without an overarching brand because the method of distribution doesn't require it. You can pick and choose what you want to watch just like you can on television, it just might be harder to find the programming you like.



The medium is also still in its infancy. Give 60Frames and Vuguru some time to produce shows and I'm positive that we'll be impressed by the content and likening them to the next DreamWorks or The Weinstein Company. Give Kownacki and the We Need Girlfriends guys some cash and I'll definitely tune into whatever they produce next.



So who's going to be the HBO of online video? I don't think we need one.

From the standpoint of a content producer, I think the logjam of online content right now is the difficulty of making good content known to more people. There's plenty of mediocre stuff out there, there are few easy ways to find what you like.



To make finding quality easier on Blip.tv, they put their roster of quality shows on their 'jumbotron' - gardenfork.tv is a regular there, yeah. I think the jumbotron has 20 slots, more than the 10 Kfir suggests.



To me, Blip is already an HBO of content in that they highlight their good shows, they seek out shows they like { i kept on making them buy me drinks for weeks before I moved Gardenfork.tv to Blip from Brightcove }, they seek funding for shows to grow, and they cultivate new talent. The soon to be released how-to section on Blip is an online school on how to create a show.



Its like baseball, where you have the minor leagues and the majors. Blip allows anyone to post a show, and if its good, or gets good, it moves up and onto the front page of Blip.tv



Its been said already here, but the beauty of creating content online is that it can incubate a lot longer than would be allowed on broadcast/cable TV. Traditional TV shows have to hit a home run at their first bat. I pitched Gardenfork.tv to the lifestyle-DIY channels, and they passed on it, then I realized I didn't need them.



And now I'm glad they passed, as my shows, gardenfork.tv and realworldgreen.com are where they {the cable/broadcast networks} want to be.



Going forward, will HBO and the rest bring their regular TV mentality with them and cancel online shows that don't hit homes runs right out of the box?

Hey Matt. :)



I think your g14productions crew does good work, and I'm always intrigued when I find out that you did something new.



As far as "no budget", what that means is that you and your crew are VOLUNTEERING your time, and as the saying goes, time = money... So you DO have a budget. You're paying yourselves to do what you love to do, which is pre-produce, produce and post-produce.



Same thing as when Justin announced the weekly budget for STBD. The show doesn't actually get done for that low amount of money. It gets done for that low amount of money PLUS the in-kind donations of TIME that the people involved give to the project because they love what they do and want to put on a good show.



You bring up an interesting philosophical idea: "Do it for the love". I don't know how easy it is to put together a crew of talented people that are all willing to "do it for the love" on ONE show.... much less a "network's worth".



My point isn't about people that love to do what they do. :) My point is about attracting talented people to a project that are trying, as neovids said, to work on "real" shows without losing their shirts. Even if you put together a team that as you say "does it for free, because it lets them do stuff they love", that means they have to take time out from concentrating on their new-HBO show in order to go 'pay the rent'. Imagine how much better a weekly internet show would be... any show... if the ~8hours/day spent getting money were focused on tweaking scripts or shooting coverage or 40 extra hours per week on editing?



Ben has another good point in his recent reply. People have no idea how long it takes to do things like an audio mix for even a 5-minute video. Forget about color correction, so that someone's shirt isn't red in one scene and pink in the next scene because of different camera placement /lighting. Those elements aid immersion and bolster the feeling of "quality" in a production. By decreasing the budget on a production, perhaps all the way to $0, something's got to give.



On the other hand, you have the Lonelygirl15 crew, which created apparently compelling internet content with a static webcam-looking shot of a bedroom. :) One could argue that THAT was a quality presentation, and throw out the idea of budget altogether. :) However, the song remains the same... If someone's not paying them, they're paying themselves with in-kind donations of time, so there's no such thing as "no budget".

I don't think 'the HBO of Online Video' refers to a device that separates the wheat from the chaff as Eric seems to suggest of Blip.tv. HBO produces and procures quality content for its community of subscribers. In a world with infinite channels, we've seen the emergence of countless niche HBO's which create quality content that appeals to much narrower markets, but there aren't enough eyeballs yet to substantiate the production values that we see on HBO.



I tend to think that the aggregate of community ratings from a platform-agnostic source serves as the purest indicator of quality.



Also, as an audience member, I find persistent self-promotion unappealing.

Bill,



That sentiment I can definitely get behind, as some might argue that we pay out in not only our time, but our sanity. :)



Matthew

There is already lots of great content streaming illegally over at ovguide and joost. However, due to dated (and sometimes not so dated) distribution agreements with foreign syndicates and itellectual property ownership issues (HBO and other premium networks may or may not own all of their own shows, often they only own the domestic broadcast rights) these shows will not be streamed to Israel anytime soon.



When I was over in Beit Shemesh a few months back I suddenly found that many of the network sites I had frequented for industry reasons no longer allowed video streaming. It's not only a major annoyance, but contrary to the very nature of the web we have created.



HBO and others have strong ties to their distribution partners (cable and satellite companies). Online distribution of this content would require significant restructuring on their part. This isn't something they need to do today, but it's something they should be doing by tomorrow.

Jon, yes, technology is usually faster than legalization. The main question - will we have an indie quality content arena?

I just have to follow this up considering a year and 2 weeks after you wrote this HBO hired Nalts and Michael Buckley to make this kind of high quality original online content. Good call.

Ben - yep, amazing how things changed in a year...