It's not exactly the Sundance Film Festival, but Red Hat's new Red Hat Stories film series is setting the standard for technology marketing through film.
These aren't product pitches. Instead, they pitch "the Red Hat way" of doing things, attempting to broaden the appeal well beyond bits and bytes of operating systems and application servers.
While you'll find the films on YouTube, Red Hat doesn't want you to label them as "videos." As Red Hat's Chris Grams explains:
I use the word "film" rather than video on purpose because it better captures the spirit of what we are trying to do with digital media at Red Hat. Films are what you make when you are capturing stories. Videos are what you make when you are selling your stuff. So we aspire to film, certainly with our most strategic work, but sometimes settle for video when the project demands it.
Red Hat is careful to pitch product strategy when positioning its products: you're buying freedom and its attendant value, not simply Linux. These short films do much the same: they're surprisingly interesting to watch, and they push the audience to think beyond the simple questions "will it run?" and "how much does it cost?"
See for yourself:
Grams suggests that "the combination of a talented group of internal storytellers and a passionate group of smart employees with something to say can create some pretty effective communication." He's right. Red Hat continues to set the standard for how an open-source company--or any company--can reach and potentially inspire its audience.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Much is made about YouTube and the democratization of content, but if the top-20 YouTube videos of all time are any indication, the future of YouTube is corporate, as The Guardian reports.
A look last week at the site's current 20 most viewed clips of all time--all with more than 50m hits--offered a snapshot of the corporatizing effect. A good half of them were professional music videos...Even among actual user-generated content, many of the most popular clips are based on bestselling pop culture.
So, while Hulu has been winning the profit war against YouTube because of its focus on quality, corporate quality may end up propping up YouTube before long, and pushing out eyeballs for user-generated content in the process. Nick Carr has long pilloried the glorification of the "amateur class," and has derided YouTube's staying power as a bottoms-up phenomenon. It looks like he may be right.
We keep wanting to tell ourselves that the Internet and the "mass collaboration" it engenders has changed everything. But this appears to be more aspirational than actual. It still costs a lot of money to consistently create great content (and software). It still costs a lot of money to market it.
The only cost that appears to have gone down is that of distribution. On the Web, distribution is (largely) free, which is both a blessing and curse. It facilitates piracy (making The Dark Knight perhaps the most pirated movie of 2008, for example) just as much as it facilitates distribution.
Until we come up with ways to manage content online that don't unduly impede distribution while simultaneously safeguarding content for its creators, YouTube will be stuck with cats falling off TVs rather than higher-quality content like The Office.
Over at All Things Digital, Peter Kafka has some interesting news for those that believe YouTube won the online video war: it's actually losing.
Hulu.com, that stodgy competitor created by News Corp. and NBC, is beating YouTube, at least in terms of profit: Hulu is making roughly $12 million in profit, while YouTube is bleeding cash, according to Screen Digest analyst Arash Amel, with whom Kafka spoke:
Amel's model assumes that while Hulu is showing far fewer video streams to many fewer people than Google, it is able to sell ads on most of them-perhaps 80 percent of all streams have a paying advertiser, he thinks. Google, meanwhile, is thought to be able to sell ads on just 3 percent to 4 percent of its views.
Just as important, but not widely discussed: Amel believes that YouTube's costs are much more significant than most observers guess. That's because YouTube isn't just paying massive bandwidth and hosting costs for all those clips. It's also paying out huge licensing and content fees to copyright owners like music labels. Amel thinks YouTube is paying more for those fees than it does for infrastructure/bandwidth.
Perhaps we should be blaming the entertainment industry for charging such high fees and for withholding its content from YouTube, but this misses the mark. The entertainment industry wants to make money, and apparently feels that YouTube doesn't adequately protect its intellectual property. There is no reason that YouTube couldn't displace Hulu: it simply needs to show equal care for the industry's IP.
It also needs to improve quality. This is, of course, possible, as Monty Python's recent foray into YouTube suggests.
This will be hard as long as YouTube's model thrives on user-generated content, a significant portion of which turns out to be user-pirated content. (I should know, I was booted from YouTube for uploading a video that I shot at an Arsenal game last year. I didn't have broadcasting rights....)
This isn't to suggest that YouTube should become Hulu. It just means that YouTube needs to find advertising models that are suitable to its content...like user-generated commercials.
- prev
- 1
- next
