In the grand scheme of online streaming, three big names including Pandora, Spotify, and Last.fm could be considered the “big 3″ of their market. If you love the latter, you’re going to want to pay close attention to their new project titled: “Last.tv”. This new venture will revolve around (obviously) video content. Initially, CBS owned Last.tv will feature content from music festivals across Europe and is reported to be launching this coming January. Until then, CBS will be hard at work lining up sponsors and pre/post-video advertisers. Last.fm has so far enjoyed pretty widespread popularity with these new goals aiming to expand their brand name globally by pulling on board new technologies and services.
Adding video to the mix is a smart move that should bolster Last.fm’s presence. What’s interesting is that Last.tv will be available both online and offline, as well as operate separately from it’s music based sibling. Though initially, the new site will piggy back on Last.fm which will be the only way to access Last.tv at launch.
Taking on video will mean new competitors for the UK born streaming service with the most notable and immediate threat being YouTube. One leg Last.tv should have is that while YouTube initially started on not so stellar terms with music labels and had to “earn” their way to said content, Last.fm has enjoyed a relatively rosey relationship with the same labels. Hopefully for the greater good, this relationship transgresses over to the video site, Last.tv.
I’ve gone ahead and shot an email to Last.fm inquiring further, specifically on any U.S. plans for Last.tv service. I’ll keep you guys (and gals) update as I find out more.
Pocket-lint > MusicWeek
While here in the U.S., labels and content owners are just getting around to actually using YouTube instead of banning artists’ videos and songs from it (ok, so a few stateside have actually taken advantage of YouTube), our neighbors across the pond in the UK are a few steps ahead of us. In what can be seen a extraordinarily large step forward for big media, Channel 4, a popular network in the UK is reported to be this close from signing a deal with YouTube. What’s the big deal? Only that Channel 4 in its entirety (30 days worth) will be available on YouTube. That’s right! Not just a 1/8 clip of a show here or there or fragmented “best of” episodes littering the space. Instead, Channel 4 content will appear just as it does on it’s own online catch up service “4 on Demand”.
The way this grand partnership came together revolves around advertising. Usually YouTube controls advertising and then splits accordingly to the various parties involved. However, in this particular instance (and I’m sure many more to come), Channel 4 controls and “owns” all advertising around it’s content and instead it shares earned revenue with YouTube.
So far the actual revenue percentages split between the two is being kept away from the public eye. “Several sources who have had experience negotiating deals with YouTube” peg YouTube’s cut as “at least” 30% over a supposed multi-year arrangement.
**While I knocked the U.S.’s media/content owners earlier in the post, some U.S./YouTube “full-length” style deals have already been coined with the likes of Sony, Lions Gate, and MGM just to name a few.
Telegraph
Image Source
- September 15, 2009 12:38 pm
In what is certainly a shame, the free nature of the Wall Street Journal iPhone and BlackBerry app is about to become a little less free. Starting “soon”, users of said mobile apps will have to begin paying up $2/week, according to Rupert Murdoch as he spoke at a Goldman Sachs conference. Even worse, subscribers of the actual news paper who shell out over $100+/year will also have to pay albeit a slightly lower fee of $1/week. Well, so much for that stint on my iPhone. Looks like the WSJ app is going bye-bye. While $2 is a paltry amount to complain about, the fact that the news is everywhere and can be had for far less means I will certainly seek out those other channels.
Even worse though is the fact that he “predicts”, (read: it’s coming) that Hulu, owned by NBC and partnered with Murdoch’s News Corp., will soon also adopt a paid structure. Whether it’s pay-per-view or a subscription based model is still up in the air as either one or both options could become available means the currently amazing Hulu, will become another resource of which I avoid — a great resource in the internet age destroyed by another big corporation looking to overcharge, restrict access and innovation, etc. etc.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the capitalist mindset and economy as well as the right to be paid for your work, but the method that Murdoch, News Corp., and so many others are going about it is all wrong. When will they understand the internet is a completely different animal from print/physical media and because, can’t have the same rules and regulations applied. It won’t work. But I guess instead of coming up with a new business model why not just slap some dollar signs on it and call it a day huh?
**In case they need a hint: Google “Internet Manifesto” (or look on the sidebar to the right).**
That certainly puts a damper on my day. You feeling it too?
Source: Gizmodo, Paid Content
When one thinks of an “over night success” or a company or product that has become so big, so ingrained in our everyday lives that it begins to be used as a verb, you almost take for granted said service. The service I’m talking about is YouTube. While it has only been around a few short years, YouTube has gone from a niche site on the web to an online video powerhouse with millions upon million of users and videos. What would happen if all of a sudden that resource was gone?
