I stumbled upon a article by Kyle Studstill titled the future of content delivery and production published on PSKF. Thinking about future developments of content and the opportunities for new business models keeps me busy. The article focusses on the production and delivery of movies and the way Edward Burns is experimenting with new mediums like iTunes since the release of Purple Violets in 2007.
What cought me in this article was the way Burns experienced the opportunity's ahead.
Below are some key notes from the discussion on the future of content delivery and production, wich I copied from the article of Kyle.
When experimenting with these new models, you can’t immediately expect a home run just because you’re being innovative. The wins will be small hits, from which producers will learn what works and what doesn’t.
Indeed it will take some time and experiments to figure out what works. It looks like Burns is a believer and uses some kind of a mashup approache. The platform provided by the channel iTunes is a first step to figure out how the market on the other end of the channel looks like.
By distributing content on more fragmented channels, you can worry less about press and marketing concerns influencing the creative integrity of the film – you can just produce the content and let it find its own market.
I do not know about this one. Yes when posting a BLOG or a tweet the channel provides a mean to the message to find it's own audience. But when you take the concerns about press and marketing influencing the creative integrity of the film, can you worry less on these issues when distributing content on a more fragmented channel?
Digital distribution is indeed changing the filmmaking landscape, but it’s important to remember that big-budget productions are still going to have a place in traditional channels – it’s always going to be fun to watch a new film with 200 other people in a theatre.
Digital distribution is a mean to reach out to other markets, effecting the traditional market of film theatres. In this context it adds speed and ease to the digital distribution through the video tape and later carriers like DVD.
Platforms that allow for episode-by-episode releases open the opportunity for innovation in the way the story is put together; there’s the potential to allow the audience to impact the way future episodes unfold.
This remark cought my attention. Indeed in my belief using the possibility to collaborate on producing content (movies as well as music or documents) can add enormous vallue to the end product. The digital channel provides the needed reach and speed to make interaction possible. These talkback fases have some interesting effects. The story develops toghether with the audience. Every part as well as the end product is very unpredictable at the start.
By splitting up larger works that would normally exist as one film into smaller episodes, producers can now explore freemium revenue models where the first parts of of production are free, charging for future episodes further down the line.
Besides of the more creative approache of the former item this one is the money machine which could safe the movie industrie. Binding together the techniek to interact and collaborate and a creative revenue model is a start to earn money early in the production process. Even financing a production from the very start with a open model is one of the possibilities. The production of the film will make it to it's collaborative end product in a way the audience likes or won't make it at all.
Showing posts with label Collaboration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Collaboration. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Meet IBM 2010 - See IT differently
Remember
It's a strange feeling. It has been a few years since I attended a IBM business / technology conference. Nowadays I attend mostly to sessions about the same subjects seen in the perspective of Microsoft technology. When I came across this event and checked out the program I became interested.
Today there are not a lot of familiar faces, but interesting subjects. Time to look at the same subjects that interest me everyday, but from another perspective and also with another market aproach.
Host of the day Roelof Hemmen.
A vision - smarter planet
Core in the IBM vision is Smarter Systems in a Smarter World. The world is getting instrumented, interconnected and more intelligent. Kees Donker opens the event with his vision on the changing and more demanding world. He just scratched the surface of the trends where technology is used to support change, connect different fields in the communities to become more smart. IBM is using a more technology driven approach. (Microsoft is more People focused, but also uses the work smarter concept in essence).
Kees Donker is asked by Roelof Hemmen a few times when the developments described by IBM will be practically adopted and used by real people. The answer was not given, no timeline, no roadmap. Well I do support the idea that things has to change in this world. I do think lot's of technology can implement the technology to fullfill a lot of needs. Still I wished IBM had the nerve to make a good guess of what is happening when.
Also the examples are just mentioned. A trafic information system, a system at the Schiphol that processes the luguage more effective and efficient. These examples are more than just an experiment, they DO mean something to efficiency. The Smarter System is heavily supported by technology. Technology developed by IBM. The barcode, an idea of B. Silver first adopted by IBM is now evolved in RFID (IBM is one of the driving forces, making the technology affordable). This is typicaly a strong element of this company, pitty they do not magnify these investments and the measurable effect on our everyday experiences.
The vision Instrumented, interconnected and more intelligence are translated in the more practical themes:
Today I try to capture the simularities and the differences in the perspectives of these to companies in the fields insight, collaboration, contentmanagement etc
It's a strange feeling. It has been a few years since I attended a IBM business / technology conference. Nowadays I attend mostly to sessions about the same subjects seen in the perspective of Microsoft technology. When I came across this event and checked out the program I became interested.
Today there are not a lot of familiar faces, but interesting subjects. Time to look at the same subjects that interest me everyday, but from another perspective and also with another market aproach.
Host of the day Roelof Hemmen.
A vision - smarter planet
Core in the IBM vision is Smarter Systems in a Smarter World. The world is getting instrumented, interconnected and more intelligent. Kees Donker opens the event with his vision on the changing and more demanding world. He just scratched the surface of the trends where technology is used to support change, connect different fields in the communities to become more smart. IBM is using a more technology driven approach. (Microsoft is more People focused, but also uses the work smarter concept in essence).
Kees Donker is asked by Roelof Hemmen a few times when the developments described by IBM will be practically adopted and used by real people. The answer was not given, no timeline, no roadmap. Well I do support the idea that things has to change in this world. I do think lot's of technology can implement the technology to fullfill a lot of needs. Still I wished IBM had the nerve to make a good guess of what is happening when.
Also the examples are just mentioned. A trafic information system, a system at the Schiphol that processes the luguage more effective and efficient. These examples are more than just an experiment, they DO mean something to efficiency. The Smarter System is heavily supported by technology. Technology developed by IBM. The barcode, an idea of B. Silver first adopted by IBM is now evolved in RFID (IBM is one of the driving forces, making the technology affordable). This is typicaly a strong element of this company, pitty they do not magnify these investments and the measurable effect on our everyday experiences.
The vision Instrumented, interconnected and more intelligence are translated in the more practical themes:
- Insight & Action
- Efficiency and Effectiveness
- Managing risk
- Empower people
- Agile organization
Today I try to capture the simularities and the differences in the perspectives of these to companies in the fields insight, collaboration, contentmanagement etc
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Collaboration - shifting mind set
Collaboration is the essence of being an organization. Nothing new in having a common goal and working together to achieve that goal. Still in time there has been different mind sets in the way how this could or even should be organized.
Looking at the period that Taylor ruled (he still is in many cases in my opinion), organizations established a strict hierarchy where collaboration was enforced. In this structure there are goals and people are working together. But are these goals common?
Collaboration can't be compared with the definition we handle today. Working together has a broader meaning and a common goal means really share information to the extent of knowledge.
The strict hierarchy and the scientific study of tasks do not fit the purpose of shared goals and shared information. Organizations have to change to make collaboration successful. Move away from the detailed instructions and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker's discrete task. This demands a collaboration mind shift, a change in how the organization is organized.
This doesn't just mean that the employee of the organization has to get used to share information, but more important management has a very important role in facilitating this change in cultural and social structure.
The biggest mind shift is the change in management style. Other competences are needed. Understand how to facilitate cooperation and how people are encouraged and motivated to contribute in the collaboration, how these people can take control over their work by being and acting responsible. Build trust.
Very often organizations forget this very important mind shift when introducing a new way of work based on collaboration. Often a tool is the first step, where it only should support the way in which the target is reached. Tools do have a purpose; they can lower or overcome barriers. For instance; collaborating between two people that do not work close together or even in another organization. They will not support the change of the organization.
Looking at the period that Taylor ruled (he still is in many cases in my opinion), organizations established a strict hierarchy where collaboration was enforced. In this structure there are goals and people are working together. But are these goals common?
Collaboration can't be compared with the definition we handle today. Working together has a broader meaning and a common goal means really share information to the extent of knowledge.
The strict hierarchy and the scientific study of tasks do not fit the purpose of shared goals and shared information. Organizations have to change to make collaboration successful. Move away from the detailed instructions and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker's discrete task. This demands a collaboration mind shift, a change in how the organization is organized.
This doesn't just mean that the employee of the organization has to get used to share information, but more important management has a very important role in facilitating this change in cultural and social structure.
The biggest mind shift is the change in management style. Other competences are needed. Understand how to facilitate cooperation and how people are encouraged and motivated to contribute in the collaboration, how these people can take control over their work by being and acting responsible. Build trust.
Very often organizations forget this very important mind shift when introducing a new way of work based on collaboration. Often a tool is the first step, where it only should support the way in which the target is reached. Tools do have a purpose; they can lower or overcome barriers. For instance; collaborating between two people that do not work close together or even in another organization. They will not support the change of the organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
