digiramblings in singapore

you are fast! they probably learnt from ColdPlay who released to public their turnleftturnright album FREE on net! :)

Or Radiohead who releases their stuff free too! One has to think this is going to be the way the future goes... content can be free but it has to be strong enough to lead to a second action (buying, sharing, opting in etc)

i kept recalling the book title "Advertising is Dead" - evidently, it's mutated to another zombie form i think. thats why going the way of the free seems ridiculous but it helps to keep the buzz up.

Not just buzz but free helps get consumers attention first, and convert that to monetary value second (assuming the product is of value/relevance in the first place).

Read Chris Anderson's "Free - the future of a radical price" for more!

I have been thinking about this for a while and i believe that free webcasting is a very viable channel for businesses.

say for example, soccer. We see plenty of sponsor boards around the perimeter of the field, and most of the time, I dont even know what those brands deal with. The only time that i have googled a sponsor name after a match was "Yorkie" because it had an interesting logo. Now imagine you are now watching webcasted soccer and those boards that you see are clickable and it can bring an immediate call to action.

I think for international companies, an internet webcast can help reach so many more people worldwide.

that is quite true, i wondered aloud ytd, if ESPN could take this up with youtube, then we dont hv to deal with Singtel/Starhub issue

in addition, companies might not have to work with television networks and just get their own channel. TV revenues are a huge source of moolah, but im thinking about it from a startup point of view when you are not as branded as the EPL..

i believe my comments are those of shortsightedness. :) Startups, may have a new avenue here

@Terence: That's a good point. I never really thought about the advertising by third parties. Not only can they get more reach, but they can get a more targeted reach! For example when we watch soccer a lot of those sponsor boards are UK-centric, but millions around the globe are watching it too. What if YouTube (or whichever online video source) could find a way to segment who sees what ads? For example all viewers in Singapore might see a Singtel ad, while those viewing in Europe might see a Vodafone ad. Could really push the boundaries!

@Hisham: Definitely not shortsightedness! We all see what's more relevant to us. I think online video has great potential for startups. I've seen many videos by startups (Evernote, Zumodrive etc) that convey the usefulness of the product to get my attention (first step) then convert me into a user (second step) and hopefully with time get me to pay for something (third step). For a startup with no huge advertising budgets, this is a great way to compete!

yeah its not shortsightedness, ESPN could always bill the companies that want to advertise on their network.

i do think that this streaming MUST be FOC (unlike yahoo that is doing a pay tv throught internet kinda model) where the companies that want the advertising bear the cost of it. Very much like our free to air TV. it must be FOC because in the day and age, its a matter of time before someone gets their hands on a bootleg version or a rip.

Agreed about paid vs FOC. The one time that could be changed might be live events (Champion's League finals or Superbowl) where the difference between real time and delayed telecast actually makes a difference!

Radiohead beat them to it, without the hardsell. ;)