Interesting Stuff 2008-11-10
Much has been made of at the conference.
On bringing to an international audience, Huggers said:
The internet is, by definition, a global medium, yet today we are artificially blocking international access to the iPlayer. That's a problem, in my mind, and a big challenge for the industry."
He goes on to hint at a social media future for the catch-up service:
I know that bbc.co.uk is the third biggest web property in the country, yet every time I go there I feel completely alone. Instinctively, I know there are other people on the site so the idea is connecting audiences with programming and with each other, embracing that big theme of social media."
What could this mean? Ashley Norris - founder of , the blog that kicked off the Shiny Media network - that a more social iPlayer could mean a wealth of independent talent being seen via the service:
Imagine how cool it would be for the iPlayer to also offer access to vidcasts like Viropop, Megawhat, ChannelFlip and (cough) PopJunkieTV. It would give the Beeb an opportunity to bring new British web based content providers to a much larger audience. Maybe shows which started in bedrooms in north London could even up as ´óÏó´«Ã½ comissioned programmes. The start ups would love the wider distribution for their shows too."
On Friday, we re-energised our Twitter feed. I asked how we should be using the service, and many of you got in touch. General concensus was that we should, as and suggested, add a sprinkle of personality to what's going on behind the scenes. The suggestions are all the more interesting when you consider the when first launching the feed back in March.
One Twitterer (tweeter?) why we publish full feeds for our blogs yet summary feeds for our news items. Jem Stone posted about full feeds for blogs back in June, but News is still snippets only. Why? We'll find out and let you know.
In other news, social behemoth has, , gone ahead of bbc.co.uk for the first time ever in web traffic. Assuming there isn't a , Facebook is set to before the end of the year.
Meanwhile, ´óÏó´«Ã½i Labs have brought a touch of Scotland into their West London office (above). The team have installed a special viewing station in order to monitor Freeview output to Selkirk. As the digital switchover continues, more and more regions will be set up in this way.
The linking out debate continues over on . Commenter the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are being too browser-centric in their standards. He says:
It's the equivalent of saying "you will buy a TV receiver from X, Y or Z" instead of "we're broadcasting 625-line PAL ... " and so on."
The ex-´óÏó´«Ã½ man replied :
I suppose the ´óÏó´«Ã½ could say we produce exactly standards complaint code, and if it doesn't work for the majority of our audience who use 'vendor' supplied browsers, then tough cookies, but that doesn't really support universal access, does it?"
Dave Lee is co-editor, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Internet Blog.
Comment number 1.
At 10th Nov 2008, alaninbelfast wrote:Thanks - look forward to the answer about full new feeds. Happy tweeting.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 10th Nov 2008, Martin Belam wrote:"The ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Martin Belam replied with:"
Dave, that is 'the ex-´óÏó´«Ã½ Martin Belam' or possibly 'sometime-´óÏó´«Ã½ Martin Belam' depending on where I'm contracting at the time ;-)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 10th Nov 2008, Dave Lee (´óÏó´«Ã½) wrote:Corrected, Martin. My apologies!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 10th Nov 2008, fishter_orguk wrote:About the standards compliance;
When the ´óÏó´«Ã½ started they kind of led the way with broadcasting. If they adopted something then it was almost guaranteed to become "the standard".
If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ start banging the drum about being complaint with html/xml/whatever standard, then perhaps other large web presences will begin to take notice and also try to become compliant.
I read the point about "universal access". I'm not sure how being standards compliant makes anything less accessible, unless I'm, being particularly dim today (and going by how the morning went, that's not an unlikely proposition!).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 10th Nov 2008, RayB_UK wrote:Reading this filled me with horror.
The material available on iplayer is funded by the licence fee. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ goes to great lengths to ensure that internet based radio feeds are not aviailable to those outside the UK as they don't pay, yet seemingly the door will now be opened.
Whilst on one hand I applaud the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s wish to be rightly at the forefront, I can't help wondering how much is spent on "new media integration" and all of this facebook/twitter/bebo et. etc. stuff - either put the money into programming so that we get better than "hole in the wall" on a Saturday night (incidentally the Russian version is much better) or use it to increase other services for viewers and listeners.
I've always been a staunch supporter of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ but am dismayed at the way it appears to be going.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 10th Nov 2008, Dave Lee (´óÏó´«Ã½) wrote:Interesting point, Ray.
I also thought the same a little while ago. Why should non-licence fee payers get content that we have paid for? Doesn't seem fair.
But it's important to remember that when the ´óÏó´«Ã½ shares its content overseas, it doesn't come packaged in same way we see it here. For example, do a quick search on Flickr for ´óÏó´«Ã½ and 'ads' and you'll see what I mean. I'd link for you but Flickr appears to be down at the moment.
By opening up ´óÏó´«Ã½ content to a global audience, it can become very, very profitable.
Take a program like Dr Who, for example. It's made for a UK audience, who pay for it using the licence fee.
If we can package that up with adverts and draw in audiences of (many more) millions, it is vastly enhancing the value of licence fee payer's content.
We do it already through ´óÏó´«Ã½ Worldwide and other ventures like 'Dave', so it could be argued that the iPlayer is a natural next step, I'd say.
(Dave Lee, co-editor, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Internet Blog.)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 11th Nov 2008, andrewdotname wrote:Hi Dave,
It's really interesting to see that you're actively looking at how to use services like Twitter to connect better with audiences.
While I agree that Twitter can be used to create an interesting narrative outside of the programming schedule - a fantastic example of which are the tweets posted by Stephen Fry (@stephenfry) about his exploits while filming (he's currently in Africa). I also wonder what your thoughts are in terms of using Twitter as a back channel for audiences, enabling us to discuss and effect live broadcasts perhaps even making the discussion/comments available on screen via digital services should the viewer wish. I can see great potential for this for sporting events (everyone's a pundit) and for programming such as Question Time etc.
As it happens, your audience already use SMS to interact to a certain degree with broadcasts, most of which we never see or can comment upon, perhaps you could use Twitter to open this up too with users sending txt's to a twitter account rather than to the great big bottomless ´óÏó´«Ã½ SMS bucket in the sky. That way Twitter could be seen as complementing existing services and by allowing SMS interaction, negates any discussions about barriers to entry for those who do not have or are not in front of a computer.
Anyway, that's my two pennies worth. You've mentioned @cruickers and @jobadge but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how you think it could be used.
Best,
Andrew
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 11th Nov 2008, andrewdotname wrote:Oh and one last thing, as with all crowd sourced information I understand that opening up a Back Channel to audiences has certain moderation requirements for organisations such as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (especially in the wake of the Brand/Ross affair). I've conveniently side stepped that at the moment to get the discussion going.
Andrew
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 11th Nov 2008, Dave Lee (´óÏó´«Ã½) wrote:Great points Andrew. We'll be coming back to all these issues again soon no doubt.
I'm a big believer in the likes of Twitter becoming the more effective 'send us your texts' system.
The SMS set up was revolutionary when it began, but now I think we look for something more from viewer interaction. Twitter's strength lies in the ability to alight discussions -- as you'll know.
Just a thought: Have you seen the way News have been liveblogging recently? If you get the chance, check out our coverage of Prime Minister's Question Time on Thursday. If you ask me it's the future of user interaction. Live streaming video, with a live blog underneath. No need to refresh page (so you won't disturb video), and Twitters/emails/texts are incorporated into it.
Whether this would work on television is one thing (I'd argue we have enough tickers etc already), but who knows.. maybe the sort of thing that would suit the red-button.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 25th Nov 2008, alaninbelfast wrote:Still hoping that someone will come back about full news feeds!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 9th Sep 2009, felicioo wrote:Thank you... sesli sohbet
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)