Webware

Oprah's second-ever tweet. Um, yeah.

(Credit: Twitter)

A correction was made to this post. See below for details.

Oprah's crazy about it. Ashton Kutcher and Anderson Cooper are making fools of themselves trying to show what rabid fans they are. Friday, April 17, 2009, will pretty much go down as the day when the loyally followed indie-rock band known as "Twitter" made its big major-label splash.

If it were the late '90s, this would be its big debut on "Total Request Live" with Carson Daly emceeing and a bunch of screaming girls outside waving posters with crudely drawn fail-whales and "MARRY ME, EVAN WILLIAMS!" scrawled on them. But in keeping with the '90s pop-culture references, it's starting to remind me a little bit too much of "That Thing You Do," the 1996 Tom Hanks flick about a one-hit-wonder pop band that has a smash hit in the wake of the '60s British Invasion and is then never heard from again after mainstream fame makes them more about the image and less about the music.

(Credit: 20th Century Fox)

The issue I have with all this Twitter mega-buzz is that it has the capacity to pack a double punch--in a bad way. First, the media blitz and celebrity endorsements can solidify it as a fad, like the momentarily trendy "pet rock" of Web 2.0. And second, it can tick off the early adopters, the ones who were really at the core of Twitter for its first few years as a geek cult phenomenon. There are already a few who aren't too thrilled about the fact that the Kutcher-CNN million-follower race appears to have been gamed by Twitter itself.

Mainstream success is great for Twitter, which is legitimately shaking up media and communications in ways that I don't think many people thought it would a few years ago. But I certainly hope that all the celebrity frenzy isn't veering it off course on its real, long-term development strategy. You know, like a business model. In "That Thing You Do," the band's descent into gimmickiness is best expressed by the fact that the manager, played by Hanks, suggests that the drummer always wear sunglasses onstage. Let's hope that the Ashton Kutcher-mania doesn't turn out to be the same for Twitter.

On the other hand, back in the '90s Kutcher was best known for playing a teenage stoner on "That '70s Show." I'm pretty sure no one thought he'd ever be heard from again.

Yikes! As a number of you have pointed out in the comments section, I goofed on the movie trivia. In "That Thing You Do," it was indeed the drummer who had to wear the sunglasses. We've fixed that, and thanks all for the catch. (1:22 p.m. PDT)

Guess what isn't super-sized? Digital distribution revenues for filmmakers, apparently.

AUSTIN, Texas--The Internet and the rise of online video have meant a plethora of new options for independent filmmakers. But, as has been well-publicized, the money just isn't there yet. A panel at the South by Southwest Interactive Festival on Monday highlighted that this is an extremely contentious issue.

"Digital distribution is not some magic bullet," said panelist Gary Hustwit on the success of his documentary "Helvetica," in front of a packed room of audience members that came from both SXSWi and its sister festival, SXSW Film. "It's not that because the film is available digitally it does well. It's because you do the work...because of that exposure, it did well."

In spite of widespread blog speculation that DVDs are dying and that digital downloads and streams will replace the physical medium in due time, filmmakers say that from the creative side, relying on these outlets--iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Joost, and SnagFilms, represented on the panel by CEO Rick Allen--simply is not profitable yet. In fact, in many cases, sales and revenue numbers are kept on the down-low.

Morgan Spurlock, the documentarian behind "Super Size Me" and "Where In The World Is Osama bin Laden?," put it bluntly. "The reason numbers aren't released (for digital distribution revenues) is because the numbers are pathetic," he said. "The numbers are sadly low in comparison to what we expect from film and television."

"If you're looking to pay your rent, not so much, if you're looking to pay your phone bill, you have a great chance," Spurlock continued. "It's getting to a point where it's down the road from being profitable, but we're just not at that point yet."

The panelists disagreed over whether the best digital distribution strategy is to get a film on as many platforms as possible or to be strategic in the hopes of making more money.

Matt Dentler of digital representation group Cinetic Rights Management argued for the be-everywhere model. "We are a direct aggregator to, I would say, about a dozen portals in the U.S., and we just closed our first couple of deals in Europe." Dentler said that Cinetic's films go to YouTube, Hulu, iTunes, SnagFilms, and quite a few others. "We're probably going to have about five to ten more in Europe over the next few months...what this touches on is there are so many freaking options out there for consumers that you kind of have to provide all of them."

But Steve Savage, president of distributor New Video, disagreed. "It's good to be agnostic, and I think it's a good way to put everything out there and see what sticks but there's also other ways to do it," he asserted, "to be really strategic, to find where the money is."

The panelists seemed to agree that, as so many people have said before, digital revenues are on the way. "The money you're going to make as an independent filmmaker right now," Dentler said, "the fact that we can start cutting checks for people today, it might not be huge checks, but at least they're checks."

"They don't approach TV license fees," SnagFilms' Allen said. "We are at the front end of this. However, they are hundredfold, a thousandfold, the size of the checks that most independent documentarians have received from theatrical release."

Gary Hustwit said that filmmakers need to take responsibility for pushing the digital distribution business forward themselves. "Go directly to the audience instead of relying on, with all due respect to the distributors here, other businesses to do it," he suggested. "Why are we building other people's businesses when we could build our own businesses?"

Every once in a while, you read something on Twitter that's just pitch-perfect, despite (or maybe because of) the microblogging service's 140-character limit.

Today's honor is bestowed upon numbers guru and "Web Analytics: An Hour A Day" author Avinash Kaushik, currently employed as Google's analytics evangelist.

On Monday, he posted a total zinger, framing it as an "OH," or overheard, indicating that he wasn't the one who actually came up with the contents of the Twitter message (or "tweet") but didn't want to openly quote the person who actually said it.

"Social media is like teen sex," Kaushik tweeted. "Everyone wants to do it. No one actually knows how. When finally done, there is surprise it's not better."

Wham, bam, thank you ma'am. (Do you agree? Comment away!)

Spoiler alert: If you really hate reading anything about episodes of Lost that you haven't seen yet--and you haven't seen the episode that first aired Wednesday--you might not want to read ahead.

I know we have more pressing things to talk about these days--the economy, climate change, the new president--but I'm going to barge in this morning with a warning about something a bit more niche.

When you're posting to Twitter about something you're watching on TV, make sure nobody thinks it's really happening!

Background: I've been watching this season of Lost at a local bar that shows it on a couple of massive screens every week. The place is packed full of total fanatics: it's like football, except with flaming arrows in lieu of pigskin. Highly recommended.

So in Wednesday night's episode, something happens. I'm going to be very vague to avoid spoiling it, but basically, there's one point in which a character is holding a gun, and the important part is that we have never learned what said character's name is. There's an argument, and another character, whose name we do know, addresses the anonymous gun-wielder by name. It's a name that would shock even mildly avid Lost-watchers. Most of those in the bar expressed their surprise by gasping, shrieking, or otherwise effusing.

A commercial break followed, and--of course--I posted a Twitter message: "'Put the gun down, [redacted].' OMG WHOA. Whole bar gasped."

Well, a few minutes later I received a direct message from someone I know on Twitter--I'll keep this person anonymous. The message read, "someone pulled out a gun???" Apparently, my Twitter contact hadn't seen the earlier messages that made it clear I was watching Lost and seemed to think I was at a bar where someone had pulled out a gun. Oops.

Luckily, no panic ensued. It was, after all, only a single Twitter post. A few direct messages and a public clarification later, I'd explained the reality of the situation, and my Twitter contact responded with, "There must be a term for this: 'taken out of twontext?'" I'm generally not a fan of corny Twitter puns, but he hit the nail on the head.

I guess putting things into "twontext" is why we have Twitter hash tags, the searchable keywords that many people tack onto the end of Twitter messages, often to tie them to discussion surrounding an event--say, "#davos" for the World Economic Forum or "#inaug09" for this month's presidential inauguration. I typically don't use them unless I'm at a conference where we've been asked to tag for aggregation purposes, but Wednesday night hinted to me that considering how much banter and noise fills up a Twitter feed, it's really easy to get the wrong idea about something.

I mean, goodness knows what might happen on Lost next week.

(Credit: Criterion.com)

Highbrow film company The Criterion Collection has launched Criterion.com, an "online cinematheque" for people who want to watch movies, delve into some editorial content, and socialize with other fans.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the new site is the fact that you can rent many Criterion films (a melange of old and newish, domestic and foreign) for $5 per stream, and that $5 will be deducted if you then choose to purchase the flick on DVD. Kind of a cool model that nobody seems to be using yet.

Criterion has also teamed up with a new film-centric social site, The Auteurs, to host a monthly "film festival" that makes a handful of Criterion films available for temporary free streaming and discussion. November's picks, sponsored by IFC, follow a "cruel stories of youth" theme and feature the World War II drama Au revoir les enfants as well as the quintessential nasty-kids story, Lord of the Flies, among others. No, there's no Mean Girls.

I know, I know, it's all a bit pretentious. Now go put on a scarf and down a few macchiatos and think about something deep.

(Credit: MTV)

Once the global leader in youth culture, MTV's attempts to address the social-networking craze have seemed a little puzzling sometimes (the Twittering Moon Man?) But now we've seen another piece of the entertainment brand's puzzle: Backchannel, a play-while-you watch game that's one part chat room, one part Digg, and one part Mystery Science Theater with a Mean Girls twist.

It's debuting on Monday night with that evening's episode of wildly popular reality-soap The Hills.

Here's how Backchannel works: Watch the show (for now, only The Hills is on Backchannel, but later this fall it will be accompanying the network's new reality show about Paris Hilton picking a new best friend), join a "room" of other viewers while you're watching, and offer snarky or insightful one-liners that appear on the screen in a sort of tag cloud. Click on the ones you like, and they'll accumulate points. You'll receive points from the votes on your own one-liners, as well as submissions you voted on that became especially popular. And, yes, it extends through commercials, too.

In a press conference Wednesday, MTV's digital team referred to Backchannel, developed by New York-based gaming firm Area/Code, as "competitive chat." When you think about it, it's a little bit like competitive Twittering.

Executives said the formation of the game was heavily influenced by MTV's video game Rock Band, which added a new dimension to many bands and artists that were well over 20 years past their heyday.

"Something that arguably has diminishing value over time actually becomes more valuable over time," Area/Code's Kevin Slavin explained. "If Rock Band is doing that for music, what can do that for television?"

But Backchannel has bigger implications for what MTV has in store when it comes to social networking. Profiles for Backchannel are compatible with Flux, the from its acquisition of start-up Tagworld and debuted last year. Popular comments from Backchannel, aggregated on the Web site, will also be displayed on reruns of the show, much like MTV's sister channel VH1's Pop Up Video show from the 1990s.

Additionally, while current incentives for playing are limited to street cred and "badges" on your profile, MTV may be stepping this up a notch. Executives hinted during the press conference that down the road, accumulated gaming points may become a virtual currency that can be exchanged for real prizes--memorabilia, products featured on the show, or whatever.

Something like Backchannel clearly isn't applicable to shows with a "deep" fandom like Lost or Heroes, but I'll admit it--it's perfect for trashing Heidi's plastic surgery, Whitney's weird outfits, and Audrina's perpetually unsound grammar. Brush up on your "OMG" and "fugly," and get ready to unleash your inner Perez Hilton.

(Credit: Dipity)

Timeline creator Dipity has finally been put to a completely awesome use: a user called "tatercakes" has created a timeline of fads and memes that have surfaced on the Internet since its earliest days. And, as far as I can see, almost nothing has been left out--if you're a Dipity member, you can add to the list.

Among the chronological listings are some memes that pre-date my knowledge of the Internet ("Trojan Room coffee pot"); a few classics like All Your Base, Hampsterdance, and Peanut Butter Jelly Time; and more recent ones like lolcats and Rickrolling. Don't know what those are? Check out the timeline.

There are also a few culturally significant moments that go beyond the Web, like Stephen Colbert's White House Press Correspondents Dinner speech in 2006. The pirated C-SPAN clip of that speech taught the media industry that it's tough to put a lockdown on video that everybody wants to see, taught the White House that you should really be familiar with a comedian's schtick before booking him for a speaking engagement, and taught millions of erstwhile American Luddites about the possibilities of YouTube.

Aside from that, the list does not yet include many of the people who have arguably turned into Internet memes themselves: digitally beloved politicians like Howard Dean in 2004 and Ron Paul earlier this year, a smattering of YouTube stars, and over-the-top bloggers like Perez Hilton.

But Sen. Ted Stevens' parodied, mocked, and dance-remixed "Series of Tubes" speech was the only really glaring omission I saw, aside from a few memes that are entirely too disgusting to mention in a family-friendly context (though be warned, a few gross-outs like "Goatse" are already on the list).

It also fails to mention, at least at this point, the latest Internet meme: the Internet meme timeline.

Last.fm, the social music service that CBS Interactive acquired last year, is venturing into original content for the first time with a new video series called Last.fm Presents.

The series consists of interviews with popular and rising bands and artists; among the first artists featured are techno legend Moby, rising alternative-pop singer Santogold, and popular indie band Spoon. Last.fm has also made a selection of live concert footage available on its site to complement the interviews.

Members can sign on to Last.fm Presents as they would with any other group on the social network. The videos will also be syndicated across the "CBS Audience Network" of content partners.

A number of social-networking sites have ventured successfully and semi-successfully into pop-culture content: News Corp.'s MySpace.com, which rose to fame as a promotional tool for independent artists, has launched a number of video shows, entertainment programming, and a live concert series as well as an ad-supported music service that will likely compete directly with the one Last.fm announced earlier this year.

Several smaller social-media sites also have begun to expand into original content with the aim of seizing the digital age's equivalent of the pop-culture niche that was occupied by MTV before the rise of the Web. Streaming media site Imeem has started to syndicate video content from partner companies, and Buzznet has acquired a handful of influential music blogs to beef up its editorial offerings.

Last.fm, still headquartered in London, continues to expand--one might say it's moving into MySpace territory. It promoted a number of concerts in the U.K. last year and plans to back new events in the U.S. and Europe soon. Earlier this week, CBS announced that Last.fm would be powering AOL Radio's online stations in Europe.

When you look at the cultural differences between Microsoft and Yahoo, you don't need to look much further than a floor plan.

Microsoft has been a company of offices, where workers toil individually at their piece of a collective project. Yahoo, by contrast is a Silicon Valley archetype where workers sit in cubicles and tend to work collaboratively.

The folks in Redmond are known for being hard-charging and competitive, both internally and externally. Yahoo, meanwhile, tends to be more collaborative, sometimes to the point of inefficiency.

There are philosophical differences as well. Yahoo has been a huge proponent of open source, Microsoft a reluctant one.

Differences such as these are important to consider when one is planning to fork over $44 billion. Now obviously, Microsoft faces a number of hurdles (winning approval from Yahoo's board and shareholders, gaining the antitrust OK) before it even gets to this point. But these are the kinds of challenges that Microsoft should be, and probably is, trying to solve.

In an interview, Microsoft division president Kevin Johnson talked about the common "passion for innovation" at the two companies. That's probably true, but all companies, at least all good ones, can be defined by their passion. Both companies have also been accused of suffering from an identity crisis.

Johnson said that Microsoft has learned a great deal from its acquisitions of Tellme and Aquantive, though he acknowledged the significant size difference between swallowing Yahoo and buying those smaller companies.

"Certainly the process is the same," Johnson said, "This will be a more complex integration planning effort than Tellme and Aquantive."

One of the big differences is the amount of overlap between Yahoo and Microsoft on the product side. Both companies have their own advertising platforms as well as competing home pages, instant messaging programs, e-mail programs and content sites.

Now, overlap can be both a good thing and a bad thing. On the positive side, choosing one company's technology over another allows talent to be freed up to work on other projects.

And, clearly, many of Microsoft and Yahoo's businesses would benefit from greater scale a point Johnson brought up frequently in the interview and on a conference call with financial analysts. The companies already have instant messaging that is interoperable, but a single product would doubtlessly be more attractive. In search, in ad-serving and in content, a combined company would be a larger rival to Google.

Plus, the two companies tend to be strong in different regions. In Europe, for example, Yahoo tends to be weaker and Microsoft stronger. In the U.S., the two companies tend to attract different audiences with their mail products--Yahoo Mail appealing to younger and more savvy users, while Windows Live Hotmail has strong roots as an e-mail service for non-techies.

But each time the company picks a technology to go with, it creates winners and losers and the potential for animosity builds. Microsoft was quick to say that it would be a team of people from both companies that will need to make decisions, but it also gave the strong sense that it has done significant planning work already.

The company didn't tip its hand too much, but Microsoft executives said on the call that Windows Live was an important brand, as more of the operating system's duties move online. Office Live, for similar reasons, is also important. Microsoft also praised the Yahoo brand.

"I recognize the fact the Yahoo brand is a strong brand," Johnson said in an interview, echoing comments made on the call. MSN, notably, didn't get such an endorsement.