The state of online video – Part 2: Quality Content
Ever noticed that the majority of online video content is mindless garbage? Not to say that TV or film isn’t mindless garbage but the online content has lowered the standards dramatically. It’s as if the entire world has become contributors to America’s Funniest Home Videos and Jackass. And that’s a problem. Not for broadcasters but for those who want the internet to be the new TV.
Many people who talk about this topic make one big error right off the top: The TV industry is nothing like the music industry. Time and again people compare the explosive growth of video sharing sites with that of mp3s and digital music sharing. But this comparison is false at it’s very core. And here’s why: While it’s easy to make quality music on the cheap, making quality video content on the cheap is damn near impossible. Why? Because unlike music which only requires talent, instruments and some basic recording equipment, video production requires expensive equipment, know-how, talent and most of all an ability to tell a story in a compelling manner. There’s a reason why most of the people you see on TV or in movies have an education in what they do: It’s damn hard to keep people glued to the screen. Hard, that is, unless you exploit the shock value to it’s fullest and focus on that and that alone. But there’s a limit to how many people falling off skateboards, girls farting into the camera and babies laughing the viewers are interested in seeing.
No doubt many will disagree on this standing firm in their belief that the two are one and the same. So let me just say it again: They’re not. Not even close. Because while a talented musician can make the world’s best album in his basement no TV or film maker can ever reach the same standards of quality and content as the major producers and distributors without considerable financial backing. And herein lies the problem: How do independent internet video producers compete with established broadcast producers with million dollar budgets? The simple answer is they don’t. The complicated answer is they could if they managed to redefine the market.
You might know there is a strike going on in Hollywood right now. The writers guild is striking because the writers are not being paid their share of the revenue generated by their content being published on the internet. And while the big networks claim they are not earning any money off this content the reality is that there is far more money to be made in internet advertising than there ever was in broadcast advertising. Why? Because unlike broadcast where you have to shove your ads into shows and chop them to bits you can post prominent ads all around a video screen on the web and inundate your viewer with ads 100% of the time without interfering with the video content. This is a foreign concept to an industry which has spent millions if not billions of dollars perfecting the art of keeping the viewer in front of the TV through 3.45 minute advertising breaks.
And this is where internet video has an advantage: Your show no longer has to conform to the rigid standards of broadcast. But they do have to conform to the standards of the viewer. Because unlike a TV viewer who is likely to sit through tedious commercial breaks an internet viewer needs to be entertained immediately and consistently. No wonder farting girls are so popular. It’s mindless 30 second entertainment. But this kind of content will never bridge the gap between the computer screen and the living room plasma TV. To do this you need quality content.
Right now there are two very different approaches to this problem being tested out: In one corner you have the online sci-fi series Sanctuary from the people behind Stargate SG-1. This is a pay-per-view service where for a set fee you can watch the show in full quality video and interact with other viewers. In the other corner you have Quarterlife from the people behind 30something and My So Called Life. This online-only series is offered free of charge to the viewers who can watch it in full quality video and interact with other viewers. The difference between the two is that while Sanctuary is an extremely expensive production heavy on visual effects and featuring famous(ish) actors Quarterlife is relatively low-budget and features up-and-comers and relative unknowns.
What both of these have in common is that they offer up programming tailored to the viewer by keeping a close eye on the forums and interacting with the audience. That way they give the viewers a sense of belonging and create a tight-knit community where you become more than just a passive observer. And by doing this they can steer away from the mindless shock value content and focus on story driven material.
But how do you draw the line? What is “good” content and what is “bad” content? And who decides? One of the reasons why several of the major broadcast networks are now creating their own video sharing sites on the net is because they don’t want to be associated with skateboard accidents, dramatic chipmunks and dice stacking. And trust me, when you sit down in your couch you don’t want to watch this stuff either. There needs to be a clear demarcation between “cheap thrills” and “quality entertainment”. And this is where no one has succeeded – at least not yet.
The true test will come when one of the high quality sites starts accepting user generated content with proven staying power and paying the creators to help the production. For this to happen the major networks have to admit that they are not the only ones who can create compelling video material, but the average Joe with a camera must also admit that no matter how funny his cat is it will never make for compelling TV dinner entertainment.
