The Future of Content
Still covering the Google/MacFarlane story when I came across Eric Berlin’s post over at Online Media Cultist, which pretty much sums it up:
‘The questions over how successful it will be are many of course, but Google and MacFarlane are starting out with sharp assumptions: animation is popular on the web, Family Guy itself is one of the most popular TV shows that people watch online, and MacFarlane himself is a geek’s geek, idolized by the men and young people most likely to watch shows online. The Times goes on to report: “In an interview, he described the installments as ‘animated versions of the one-frame cartoons you might see in The New Yorker, only edgier.’”
And on the distribution side, Google AdSense gets you in front of millions of viewers. If you’re online in anything like a regular manner, you’re going to be exposed to MacFarlane’s new show. It’s just that simple.
Now, the quality of the new show is obviously going to affect how popular it is, but more than likely that won’t be a huge factor in the overall storyline. More interesting questions: will people reject the notion of shows playing through slots set aside for advertising? Will some publishers feel that MacFarlane’s Cavalcade will upstage their own content? Will viewers accept the advertising-on-content that Cavalcade will utilize?
And perhaps more important than anything: will Cavalcade prove to be a money-making venture?
If the answer to that question is anywhere close to a yes, then we’re seeing a huge shift right now, right here, in how content will be thought about, produced, and distributed from here on out. ‘
AdSense has the network, but this new area is wide open for further innovation, for example a widget which you embed in your site (which is what AdSense is in effect), you feed the widget some data, say movie’s you like, so when people visit your site they see movie trailers reflective of your preferences together with additional short form content. Who doesn’t like a movie trailer?
No Comments »



Leave your reply: