V: Emotional value
A: Audience size
T: Time distribution
C: Channels competing for attention
$: cost

1) V = A / T
2) V = A / T
3) $ = A / T
4) $ = A / T
5) $ = C

As I said, a gross simplification. If this was a PhD thesis, wed use Taylor polynomials and curve fit with sample data. Fortunately, its not; so cheating is allowed!

Each statement serves different points of view. For instance, an advertiser wants to heat check the Super Bowl, as in point 1, while a sociologist wants to chart emotional attachment, as in point 2. As for me, I like how theyre related; I like how 1 & 2 indicate emotional heat

From this gross simplification, you could conclude that emotional heat (of 1 & 2) correlates to cost of the content (of 3 & 4). For instance, crashing planes into the WTC saturated viewers within an hour or so – it was expensive and synchronous, resulting in a lot of emotional heat. In this case, statement 5) drops out, because there really werent alternative channels competing for attention.

Missing are some space and time factors. Space as in the ratio between sender and recipient. If you are filming your daughters birthday party, your audience may be limited to a few dozen family members, but the relative value is higher than the typical evening news watched by millions. So, perhaps the ratio of Sender (As) to recipient (Ar) has some bearing; so restating 1) as (As/Ar)/T where As and Ar have hidden coefficients.

The time aspect is like a wave, with some cycles. The birthday is most relevant while it is happening, with a decay of a few hours, and a release time of say a hundred years. (Are the any electronic musicians in the audience? You might recognize the pattern of ADSR; of attack, decay, sustain, release. )

There is also a cyclic nature that increases value. The TV series 24, is delivered over a a period of months, but each episode builds upon the previous one. Some goes for Sports. Early in the season, the waves may be low and long, but become taller as it heads towards March madness.

\\~/

I was interested to hear about your hip replacement, what type did you have done? I am facing the same surgery and would love to hear from you about the pain threshold and how you are recovering, if you care to share. I am thinking of having the bhr type hope you are doing well and speedy recovery

S

Then, rules 3, 4, and 5 suggest that low-cost methods of reaching an audience, such as late-night programming that can easily be recorded by a DVR, or some sort of on-demand delivery, would provide incredible bang for the buck.

So, for instance, if you put an alternative filmmaker\’s movies on one of these low-cost channels, their fans would be highly-motivated to watch, even if not all at once. Or, if a beloved but low-rated TV show were repeated frequently and put on demand or pushed direct to Tivos, it might get more viewers.

The question then becomes: how to monetize these channels? On Demand is obvious, and Tivo\’s working with Neilsen to provide useful ratings.

Where does YouTube fit in? What iTunes? Should more full-length niche content move online?

And what about unexploited, but owned, content, such as footage of the Mavs\’ practice? Could you put that somewhere for free and actually access a rabid constituency that would Tivo it or watch it on demand and be reachable with extraordinarily-targeted ads that would have high conversion rates?

Instead of looking at what\’s laws are associated with Metcalf\’s Law and Video I want to open up the discussion regarding what type of content benefits from these trends and why?

One comment mentioned the HDNET live concerts are very compelling and attract a strong audience. Why is that valuable content?

I believe that in today\’s world of media and entertainment, content that addresses the following characteristics has an incredible chance for success.

1. Timely
2. Tangible or measurable
3. Multiple reference points
4. Emotional

Our culture is more interested in REALITY BASED content experiences. Think about the growth in UFC, music shifting back to live performances, professional college / sports and more. Fact is our attention span is only getting shorter and we need to experience content that makes a point VERY FAST or has enough of the above characteristics for us to feel like an active participant in the storyline.

I would love to get some initial feedback as I have more to share on this subject.

and here\’s looking at you and some food for thought – so mark stumbled on your hip recovering reflections on heat check got my attention since i have been thinking about herding people and animals – i call it belonging and the power of fear and the fear of power and the fear of not belonging seems to be our biggest fear its also part of a doc i have been working on called \”Who\’s Wearing the Emperor\’s New Clothes\” if so many people believe in something how can it be wrong which goes along with your statement ( 10mm people watching a tv show at the same time creates more value for the content than 10mm people watching the same show on demand over the course of time)

and few thoughts that might resonate with you and percolated to the top about the underlying group think and group response – in a recent science related event that i filmed that meets once a month in the basement of a cafe in nyc that looks at science and art themes – this past month was on music (i have been filming it for 5 1/2years for doc in progress PlayingWithSceince) a nyu prof revealed that the key to resonating music with people seems to be that in large groups of people respond to the tempo and to the loudness of the music and your comment about people watching something at the same time as opposed to at different times also has an interesting social sculpture effect of a common shared experience and resonance which might also be worth exploring considering – maybe there is some shared humanity that we experience and why we go to theaters to watch intimate films with strangers who are us and why so many people watch the oscars – a group of people patting themselves on the back – maybe its because of this very shared resonance our human experience that we feel but can\’t describe or quantify – anyway food for thought – there is more to this herding concept then meets the eye – be well – geo http://EmperorsNewClothesProductions.com

Not exactly. More people watching at once proves IT IS HOT, it doesnt prove that the most revenue has been gotten for each and every viewers attention. You are are putting too much import on the desire of the advertiser to reach a mass audience…

To prove this point, would certain advertisers pay more per viewer to run a commercial during the Superbowl that only seen by boys under 24? or women over 50? YES.

So heat is only good because it is BIG. Big isn\’t good in and of itself AND personlaization of advertising is EASIER with content viewed on demand over time.

2. The greater the number of people that watch content simultaneously, the greater the emotional attachment of the viewer.

Again, not exactly.

The WE factor is valuable only as mitigates itself against the ME factor. You only gain incrementally from having as WE experince as much as the individual value the group, the common audience.

Said another way, people are more likely to see a tv show with bad acting and bad writing – that\’s ALL about them. Harley riding golfers will watch a show about harley riding golfers even if the host has a speech impediment and the open song is played backwards. People are more likely to see a movie or tv show thats very different from their own life if it has very good acting and writing. In fact you can judge content\’s \”quality\” (acting / writing /etc.) by how much it pulls in people without much care for the topic or subject matter.

3. The longer the period required for content to saturate viewer demand, the cheaper the cost of delivery. Without the constraint of time, the originator to choose the least expensive method of delivery

4. The shorter the period required to saturate demand, the more expensive the cost. This is not intuitive. At first blush it may seem that broadcast technologies can reach an immense audience in realtime with a zero marginal cost of delivery to a new viewer.

Agreed. I think Murdoch got rid of Direct TV because he sees that immediate distribution is less and less valuable.

5. The greater the number of content alternatives at any given point in time, the more expensive it is for any given piece of content to acquire an incremental viewer. The cost may come in the form of investment into the production of the content, advertising, promotion or placement. It may come in the form of sweat equity from hustling to promote the content.

Agreed and Disagreed. In two ways:

1) For large general audience content, the large number of content alternatives has little effect – it did 20 years ago when there were only 3 channels, but now I believe the quality of the writing / acting AND the \”evergreen\” value of content defines the cost of acquiring a viewer. Many movie classics find their footing AFTER the conventional release window, but generally, making a blockbuster requires paying everybody involved who knows they are what makes a blockbuster.

Meaning, yes more choices means there\’s more shit that sucks to each individual, which in turn proves the value of the allstars, it all diminishes the import of distribution. Where that tipping point came is somewhere in the web and satellite TV.

Infact, educational content is most evergreen and valuable of large audience content – in a value of per minute content created model.

2. Small audiences were crafted when the distribtuion allowed for a variety of choices. This is where perosnalization of advertising still hasn\’t stepped up. Thats next.