-
Website
http://www.blackweb20.com/ -
Original page
http://www.blackweb20.com/2009/04/21/bob-johnson-speaks-on-urban-television-part-1/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Of course that's going to call for someone to be the EP of the entire channel so that it doesn't turn out like Manhattan Neighborhood Network cable and just ANYBODY putting ANYTHING on the air, just because they can afford to pay for the slot.
Also, not doing that is how you end up with ALL music video shows and informercials and here we go again...
What syndication possibilities will develop to give opportunities to create "technologically competitive products that will draw and maintain viewers that will provide the numbers to meet the network's financial expectations? Will the network purchase syndicated programming that will allow producers to share in the wealth.?
To me it seems like a pyramid scheme that will never enable those on the bottom to ever reach the top, and guess what, there usually is only one person at the top. It sounds like a great idea, but needs non self-serving organized effort to create a fair opportunity for us all. Get it together and I'm in.
I am not downplaying whatever this network that he is involved with is doing. I just hold individuals like Bob Johnson to a higher standard then others. Advertising is shifting and will ultimately dominate over print, television, and radio.
Its a good idea, it just seems like a waste of money on a polished half baked idea. Especially since whenever Angela mentioned the web he sort of brushed over it.
Just my thoughts
http://www.blackweb20.com/2008/12/03/bob-johnso...
Thanks to all who have commented thus far :)
I would think they should do a black or multicultural HULU (www.hulu.com) - that would be the best move. Or go back and get black shows that were very popular - Girlfriends, Martin, and other new pilots that can't get picked up by mainstream and support them and bring them on. That would bring lots of fans and respect in my opinion - but I am not a TV head - so I don't know...
Making people pay for streaming videos for anything - no go.
Also, I find it's interesting to say it's open to all how can do the "rate card" - but most small/mid size publishers wont be able to afford it. Also, it's not that easy to get sponsors - ad agencies like old media - only want to work and back established brands or publishers - so this seems like the same ole with the same 5 brands with money. But, I will support and see what happens.
"I would think they should do a black or multicultural HULU (www.hulu.com) - that would be the best move" already out." One of the people behind it is Robert Townsend [ http://www.africast.com ]. At present they have lots of African content and my understanding is that they are doing some things on this side of the water too.
In terms of widgets, yes, you got it right on the money. Basically, publishers tailor the widget to their sites-picking the news, movie, or other video content from Africast that is relevant to the themselves-the publishers. It is essentially a premium white label content add on for the publisher and for Africast it is distribution. There is more to it and I must say also, that this is something that I am personally involved in. As a matter of fact, if you don't mind discussing it further-I think its a topic that we'd like to revisit with you within the near future.
Please let me know. Thanks.
No problem. I appreciate the response. And can see where you are coming from with the programming piece-especially for African Americans. But the way that these types of platforms get traffic is primarily through the widget distribution. So the traffic levels for such services will depend upon which sites the widgets are on. If premium publishers buy into the idea, then viral growth would likely follow. there is another company that is doing something similar called broken curve. Similar to Africast their concept was originally aimed at one of the Diaspora groups-Jamaicans, but is attempting to harness the spill over effect to target African Americans.
When you say "widgets" do you mean that the video is embeddable on other sites? Or are you saying that a viral widget showing the content from the site that lives on other sites to direct traffic?
Stanley is just trying to get any content in there - yeah it's cool content - but not what I would be checking for. Same for Africast - cool - but nothing something I would go crazy over. The outlet needs to be something that will cause a crazy following and in my eyes bringing new and old successful shows will get things rolling quickly and create quite the following.
I don't really like widgets - I presonally don't use them on my site, unless it is something I had to post. But, most publishers I know don't have widgets on there site. If you do see them they are on blogs - but I can't say I have actually clicked any. Also lots of publishers don't have a place on their site for it, unless its in a post. I can't and wont place a widget on my site the need is not there and my design of my site don't allow for it.
The only widget I have put on my site was a CNN Electorial WIdget for he election last year and that was a post on our daily news blog and I knew my audience wanted it. And if you notice, one these publishers grow and get a professional designed site - the widgets get dropped.
Since we are talking about it - I would love to know how our demo uses widgets, as well as a report from bloggers that have widgets - meaning do the ones they use or are placed on other sites really bring in traffic. Any research on this?
As for your platform using them [widgets] - I have never seen a widget for a video site so I don't know how they would work (meaning a video based site - with a widget with links to drive traffic back.
The one thing that comes to my mind is why would I place a widget on my site to drive traffic to another site - for me it has to be two reasons - it's a online friend that I want to support and help or I LOVE the sites content and want to share it with everyone, but even then I wouldn't put a widget I would just present it to our readers.
In my opinion a widget does not bring any value to my readers. Also for me - if I don't like the content - then I am not going to put it in front of my audience - it's like I would be cosigning or supporting a product I am not in love it or back.
Articles on Widgets:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/...
http://chiefmarketer.com/Channels/online/web_wi...
My advice is get the design and content together, as well as get your traffic to a point where you have a big following then introduce the widget - cause they seem to only work for sites with a big following and the big sites are not using them to drive traffic - they are creating them as add-ons for their advertisers to help them (the ad client) to get visibility for a campaign or application - but if you are using this for brand visibility and traffic - I honestly don't see this strategy working.
Also, I hope you are not thinking of this widget as a affliate or ad network - meaning if a publisher puts in on their site you pay them or something. Cause that sounds kinda different and different in a bad way. Your target "Premium Publishers" will see this coming a mile away and it won't get any traction. In this day and age when publishers get approached by companies trying to do this daily - you won't get your foot in the door before you hear "no thanks".
Traffic and visiibilty can't be bought ---well it can for a little while --- but if the product is not where it needs to be when they show up you risk the chance of them never coming back or giving your brand the time of day again.
I'm no expert though...really...
Herb.
I hate how we sometimes wanna discount or play down someone's concept. We all know how BET started, and we know how Sunday's on BET was laden with infomercials. Who gives a crap no body else was doing it and people still have that crab in a barrel concept running through their veins. It's time for some of us to step up or Shut the Hell up...
This was a great article/podcast I'm interested, very interested...
I don't believe a word he's saying, that's a reasonable conclusion to draw in light of his history. However, its an interesting listen. I look forward to parts 2 and 3.
Angela has likely done more original reporting on Urban Television in this segment than I've seen and I have it set up on Google Alerts :)
That annoys me as well, Gina. This reminds me of the people over at HuffPo that were actually defending that darn RushCard. Like, because he's "our brother" and is an executive that he is to be lauded, no matter what the cost or impact on the community (the community that, incidentally, enables him).
Now, there is a chance Urban Television MIGHT attempt to break new ground, it MIGHT provide opportunities for intelligent, creative Black folks with progressive ideas and it MIGHT provide jobs for Black folks that do not sacrifice their integrity on the alter of "make that paper at all costs."
Operative word: MIGHT.
But back to the crabs in a barrell thing. Bob Johnson has consistently proved (not only with his previous network, but with his candor during our recent election) that he isn't someone Black folks should be holding their breath for to do some right. So, as far as I'm concerned, the distrust is warranted.
I want him to prove me wrong because I want US to succeed, not just HIM.
He didn't say he'd sell your advertising. You always have the option to pursue Barter syndication right now.
I have a producer's license at my local public access station. Same professional quality equipment as the pros, plus access to all the editing bays and software. The only requirement is that you air your program on the station first, after that you are free to do whatever you want with it and several producers have syndicated their programming for profit.
Hats off to Bob Johnson for doing what he does. Lightening may not strike twice for him but he is making strides with his ventures to create black products with Our Stories, this, and other ventures.
Cant wait to see the hear the rest.
I want to help him do it!
If approved, I would definitely look to support the venture, but I will definitely tune in to the rest of the series to hear some of the other thoughts shared with BW2.0's Angela Benton who gets major accolades for scoring the interview!
First, Angela should have asked or better yet grilled Johnson on how and why he partnered with ION Media to create Urban Television in the first place. I specifically would have asked Johnson why his venture with ION Media would be a success when previously a year ago ION Media made a big announcement that they were launching their own slate of multi-racial or black programming. And to date that never happened and ION even had a major national brands as partners for its slate of licensed black TV shows.
http://www.targetmarketnews.com/storyid01180801...
Second, Angela should have gone over Johnson's non-productive rant about TV One and his openly hostile letter trying to publicly shame (or beg) TV One's CEO Jonathan Rodgers to drop their FCC opposition to Urban Television. This TV One fight over the FCC does get back to the Johnson acting a fool on the 2008 presidential campaign trail. I highly doubt anyone in the new Obama administration forgets Johnson's bitter, stupid and insensitive remarks about Obama's high school drug use during the South Carolina Dem primary.
And after that and when Hillary Clinton winning the nomination was much in doubt from a mathematical standpoint--Johnson signed on to another ill-advised letter begging Dem
super-delegates to still choose Hillary instead of trusting millions of voters who wanted Obama to be the Dem nominee. And then later on Johnson sent another divisive open letter saying that Obama had no choice but to make Hillary the VP choice because the Democrats had to “put its best team on the field".
A large majority of black America have not forgiven Johnson for his Hillary loyal-to-death attitude. And if I was the new head of the FCC the last thing I would be doing in my first year or two on the job is help a blatant Obama hater like Bob Johnson getting anything he wants or needs to succeed. Angela should have asked Johnson to directly post a comment on Black Web 2.0's recent article about the whole subject.
http://www.blackweb20.com/2009/02/26/robert-joh...
Lastly, Johnson really has no Hollywood credibility. His RLJ Partners started Our Stories film division on the assumption and promise that he was going to make high quality and commercial black films. But his first and only studio backed flop was Who's Your Caddy. Why wouldn't Johnson just approach all the producers or writers (no matter what their race) that previously submitted film projects to Our Stories to partner up with Johnson's Urban Television? There has to be a more deeper reason why Black Hollywood is not jumping all over a chance to create shows for Urban Television.
You could listen to Angela's interview a million times and only true entertainment business accomplishment you could assign Johnson was his ability to become a billionaire by selling off his stake in BET. Other than that I challenge anyone to think of Johnson's 20 plus year tenure at BET and say what his major achievements or even unique programs that he approved or greenlit by himself.
Launching a successful new cable network no matter what the niche agenda depends on the quality and quantity of TV programs and the relationships with experienced and cost effective TV producers. Johnson should already have a full slate of potential shows and not be relying on anyone off he street for shows and justifying it by saying he is giving people new digital media opportunities. It is gonna take more than a press release and an angry open TV One letter to make Urban Television a viable business now or in the near future...Money out.
David L. "Money Train" Watts
FuTurXTV.com
BET was great for what it was, but its only competitor EVER was MTV. It never really challenged the big networks. Viacom came in, bought them out, and that solved that problem.
This venture sounds like it will also be second rate. Its only real competitor is going to be BET. They are are still not competing with the immortals. A "black Hulu" would be great but strategically the project is too far behind. All Hulu would have to do is syndicate the black programming and it completely crushes a "black Hulu". Hulu would become a one stop watch. We don't just watch black programming. Thats why MTV always had an edge over BET.
That's also the problem with monetizing black media... especially online. An advertiser knows that a campaign reaches a black audience when they advertise with the "general market" sites (Google, Yahoo, Youtube, HULU, etc). Why should they go African American specific? I hear it all the time. For the few who want to go AA specific they spend on BET and Essence... they have the numbers. There are not many sites even close to them.
Quite frankly, until black media houses stop thinking black media and think media... they will not be able to demand the same ad dollars as general market sites.
I admire Bob Johnson, but when it comes to media there are three people to watch because they do it right. Tyler Perry, Oprah, and Barack Obama. Strategically they were never in a position where it made more sense for them to sell to their competitors... they competed with the immortals.
BTW: Hulu + Netflix + the production of internet enabled television... cable? #FAIL
You are right too, if I could use an analogy citing coca cola's syrup as an example-I'd say that Bob Johnson thinks that the syrup is in the content. However, as you hinted above the syrup is more so in the partnerships. This is what makes Hulu so special and as you said, companies like Hulu already have the content edge, so its harder for a newer company to come in and compete from that angle.