Gemini Division, NBC, and Alternate Reality Gaming and Viral Marketing gone wrong.

Wednesday, August 27th saw the release of the alternate reality game and immersive interaction content for Gemini Division, the new online-only series distributed by NBC Universal Digital Studios. Entertainment bloggers/reporters, fans, and entire ARG communities have been eagerly awaiting this release as this series is the first web only property produced by a Hollywood studio and distributed by a major network. With a production budget of just over $2 million dollars Gemini has received favorable reviews and is a smart, well filmed vehicle featuring an all star cast headed by Rosario Dawson.

In the media preview, series creator and Executive Producer Brent Friedman discussed the ARG portion of Gemini. NBC’s alternate reality immersive experience would be led by the creator of the Heroes ARG. Viewers who participated would join Rosario's character, NYPD Detective Anna Diaz, in becoming Gemini Division agents; sometimes researching for Anna, and sometimes working alongside her on missions. This was exciting news. In another first of its kind, this alternate reality type of game would provide what sounded like the first run of active immersive content in combination with a live, Hollywood created web/mobile series

In the Prime Time for Change post on July 26th we discussed the "corporate viewpoint" to illustrate the challenges facing both traditional broadcasters and program viewers as entertainment media corporations attempt to leverage the internet to increase their market share The concerns about corporate cultural impact were realized this week. With the premiere of Gemini Division on NBC.com viewers are able to sign up to participate in additional content, including text messages. This was to drive the alternate reality game that was to accompany the series.

In the Prime Time For Change articles, Looking Beyond the Box and Through Someone Else’s Eyes, both written in July, two primary points of concern were stated:

1) There is a disconnect between the ‘corporate think’ of primetime networks and the viewers who watch their content.

2) Major corporations don’t understand how to look beyond the immediate need of today and as such limit their ability to provide a viable product.

As entertainment media corporations attempt to leverage the internet to increase their market share, we believe that it is vitally important for major networks to:

1) Engage in active listening.

2) Think beyond today and be committed toward the rollout of a robust product.

Here you can see our concerns as well as our hopes for the progression of new media.

This week we waited in hope that our concerns would be laid to rest and looked forward to the imminent release of the interactive experience. With the premiere of Gemini Division on NBC.com, viewers are able to sign up to participate in additional content, including text messages. This was to drive the alternate reality game that was to accompany the series.

On Wednesday participants received a text message from Gemini character Pete Vacarella, Anna Diaz's partner, titled "Gemini What?". The message follows:

"What up? Listen, I need you to check out my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/petevacarella. Dug up some dirt on Anna's new boyfriend, and I don't think you're gonna like it. She's in Paris with the guy right now, and when our girl gets back, I think we better knock some sense into our girl.

Later, Pete "

This was followed by the legally required unsubscribe disclaimer that is also found on the Heroes ARG emails ...a bit of normal, but vital in our overly litigious society. Based on our fan research, first impressions of the Pete Vacarella profile range from "adequate" to "good". Not over done, the profile contains character information, pictures, and blog posts structured to replicate a real world MySpace page. Some of the photos and posts establish the character background while others tie directly to Gemini Division meeting the basics of the ARG 'this is not a game' [TINAG] tenant.

Readers progressing through the blog posts, oldest to newest, reported that NBC had done an adequate job of building this alternate reality character's persona. The blog on the Character Nick Korda included passport photos and travel itineraries. When readers switched between the blog and photo albums additional information about Korda was provided, as well as a tie from a newspaper article that doesn't appear to have a direct connection to the episodes that aired thus far.

However, the last most recent blog post and the separate awkward release of two branded “viral” videos saw the burgeoning realization of our previously stated concerns. Consequently, these events are causing a considerable amount of controversy among ARG fans.

Pete’s branded/subtitle video blog entry

Fan feedback about this game component ranges from moderate disappointment to irrational fury over the series logo, "episode title", and summary. Part of the joy in alternate reality gaming, especially when it is combined as immersive content, is the TINAG, or This Is Not A Game aspect. ARG fans feel that branding invalidates the game as there is no way that the ARG player can suspend disbelief which is necessary to build an attachment to the alternate universe where character Pete Vacarella lives.

Most reference sources agree that Alternate Reality Games are interactive narratives using the real world as a platform. They nvolve multiple media and game elements with clues embedded in everyday life, the most important concepts behind the ARG are the 'archaeological storytelling' and the 'Non-hoax' or 'This is not a game [TINAG]' atmospheres. Game designers provide only portions of the story, distributed across multiple platforms, allowing players to assemble and supply the connective points and determination of meaning. By the game's lack of acknowledgement that it is a game players experience the foibles of a real-world experience; websites may either be real or game related, phone numbers or email address shown on game websites work, and the game is played real-time. Players are forced to advance through the game using their own analysis, deductive reasoning, and speculative skills.

Opinions vary greatly on the driver for "the game", though most agree that ARGs have become a tool for additional marketing of an entertainment property. An excellent example of this is the recent Dark Knight ARG where players worked through numerous websites leading up to a special six minute opening preview of the movie provided as "live coverage" on the Gotham News Network website. GNN provides a cross of real world news and DK characters in 'live' interviews driving the storyline. While players understood that they were participating in a game, the real world components made the game, and the movie, much more personal and believable. Dark Knight took the additional steps to stage live election campaign rallies in major cities and a live scavenger hunt that ended with the participants receiving one-of-a-kind swag.

While we agree that a comparison of the Dark Knight ARG and Gemini Division's is apples to oranges, the same basic gaming 'rules' apply. This can be best illustrated by a comparison of two ARGs that are similar in scope and managed by the same administration: Heroes and Gemini Division.

The Heroes experience started with the same fan sign-up at NBC. Fans who chose to participate received text messages and cell phone calls from show Characters. The kickoff ARG on MySpace also found fans logging in to view a character profile, Samantha48616e61, which directed them to her ARG blog, which provides additional links to other ARG websites as well as multiple puzzles and videos.

Here the delta between Heroes and Gemini becomes evident: While the Samantha blog has multiple videos the TINAG concept is maintained. No branding on the Heroes vids, nor is there a direct branded link back to a broadcast site. Further exacerbating this divergence are the two additional 'viral' videos also released on Gemini Division on Wednesday. Beyond the issues of the videos being labeled viral they were also preceeded by the standard generic advertisement that leads the regular series videos.

Fans were again baffled and upset that these self-titled 'viral' videos were posted on the main production website instead of being buried on the web, "to find as one would expect in an ARG". Feedback we received in our research for this article ranges from the simple, "NBC just don't get it..."[Powerdog], to the succinct, "Today we learned about how the term 'viral' can fail miserably and create apathy and distrust in viewers"[DaJackal]. What driving factors cause the Heroes game to be successful and the Gemini game to have such a poor launch?

As a long time Gary Larson fans, the Far Side cartoon of army generals hunched over a table with the caption "But gentleman, what if we had a war and everybody came!" sprang to mind as soon as we reviewed this week's NBC Universal Digital Studios release of the Gemini Division immersive content alternate reality game. The following is our updated version of that cartoon:

Touching back on our post of July 26th and contrasting that corporate culture against the release of this new ARG it is evident that a disconnect exists somewhere in the system. We expected to see an experience similar to Heroes and were both concerned and surprised when it was released with the issues that we've reported in this article. With the buzz importance placed on this series, the first of it's kind, allowing such an obviously controversial ARG launch is not in the best business interest of NBC. That it may be intentionally designed to create this controversy could harm more than help this fledgling form of entertainment as fan apathy for the game may be taken as apathy for the program content.

We encourage everyone, even the apathetic, to continue the Gemini experience. It may be that a disaffected employee wanted to harm the show, or possibly mutant deaf ninja hacker penguins broke the ARG ...whatever disappointment you experienced this week give it a little longer; remember, this series is the first of it's kind and there are bound to be oppses.

Geoblocking, Sony, Gemini Division, and You

Geoblocking or at least the concept of it is nothing new though it is becoming more prevalent. Video streaming and the Olympics made this abundantly clear. Jack Kapica of Globe Technology online wrote,

"If the Internet represents instant global communications, watching the Olympics online is still based on a pre-Internet mindset. Yes, you can watch the Olympics in streaming video, but you can do so only from a very limited number of sources, each chosen by geography."

I agree with Jack Kapica's statement. The broadcast of TV and new media content is still utilizing a pre-Internet mindset in many ways and there is definitely room for change. It appears that there is both a growing implementation of geoblocking as well as discontent over its use.

For the Olympics it was all about protecting and maximizing ad revenue and this is one of the central issues in the matter. It does ultimately come down to money and companies like Sony appear to be convinced that they can make more money with a pre-internet mindset than without. So far they haven't been shown different.

While geoblocking or geodistribution can be generalized as being about return on investment or even more succinctly as being about money, it is more complex than it appears to be on the surface. This is particularly so with the distribution of multi-platform content.

For those of us who like the Final Fantasy video game franchise, we still have to wait for each release. The games are released in Japan first and then separately to other territories, the upcoming release in 2009 being no exception.

It is important to keep in mind that multi-platform content is not just digital, web distributed video and it encompasses more than a video game. Instead, it also consists of alternate reality gaming websites, graphic novels, mobile and ARG interaction, etc. This content spans mediums and technologies and therefore is much more complex to distribute than a game like Final Fantasy. It has more moving pieces, involves different technologies, and may even feature a video game as part of the content.

That being said, I don't think we can fault producers like Electric Farm Entertainment from seeking to push the new media edge and make a profit in doing so. When there are companies like Sony who offer big money for international distribution rights, production companies will continue to sell distribution rights to them. Even if we put that aside, production companies simply don't have the distribution clout and resources needed to distribute multi-platform content globally. At the moment they still need larger companies like Sony.

The distribution plan for Gemini Division is as follows: Electric Farm Entertainment is the main content producer for Gemini Division, NBC has purchased the rights to distribute in the US, and Sony has the international distribution rights as detailed in this press release. Gemini Division is currently being released in the US and should be released to other territories pretty quickly (Sony did pretty well in distributing Afterworld globally last year). Sony realizes that there is money to be made in distributing good content to a global audience and they are willing to put up money to do so.

I do think that we should be using the Internet to move towards a global community and not to build more walls through geoblocking and territory release of content as mentioned by Modern Geekery. However, I believe that this will require new thinking, new infrastructure, and innovative ideas. We need to rethink how to do media in a digital media age.

I don't think that the current divide is the result of erecting new walls, but instead I think the structure we see today is built upon the walls of yesterday. Further, I think these walls exist due to real world distribution capacity and matters of scale, particularly when it comes to translating and adapting multiplatform content to other territories. For change to happen I think we need a competitive alternative to drive and bring about change.

For instance, consider traditional broadcast TV. What worked in the past, isn't working like it used to. The traditional ad arrangement, where broadcast tv provided free tv and the viewer watched their ads is breaking down. Vcrs, DVD's, DVR's, cable, satelite, Netflix, etc have changed the landscape. This competition is driving broadcast networks to emphasize new ways of doing media (albeit sometimes slowly). Advertising is shifting increasingly away from tv and moving toward online markets. They are beginning to change because there are competitive alternatives.

Another good example is Blockbuster and the local video store in comparison to Netflix. We used to have to go to the store for our movies and we used to have to pay late fees for them. If it wasn't for a competitive alternative this would still be the case. However, Netflix acquired distribution channels and capacity and leveraged the internet to change the landscape dramatically. Amazon in response ended up trying to start up a similar online service, but it simply hasn't been able to keep pace with Netflix.

We need the "Netflix of multi-platform content distribution" to shake up "Sony-type Blockbuster's". Sony may want to consider taking the initiative before someone else does it for them. Hopefully they see this need and are already making steps toward change. It is a prime time.

We also need shows like Gemini Division and companies like Electric Farm Entertainment to push the edge and to create new content as well as to make a profit (which they have already accomplished with Gemini Division and Afterworld). It is a particularly important time not to "shoot the messenger" and not to cut out production companies who are trying to bring us new media.

It is a transitional time and unfortunately sometimes we have to wait. Perhaps while we do, someone will start up the "NetFlix of multi-platform distributed content". Maybe it will be you!

Internet Series, then and Now

With the driving premise of Prime Time for Change being the convergence of broadcasting mediums moving forward to an immersive experience for future viewers, it is vital that we understand the current environment in both traditional and online broadcasting.  While we are all familiar with how Broadcast Television functions I’ve found that not many of us have an understanding of the history of Internet Broadcasting and its growth over the last ten years.

Internet Broadcasting  was originated in 1997 by independent producer Anthony Kling, the creator of Television Internet.  The first true online only series, Muscle Beach, was released in 1998. By 2000 the series aired a new episode weekly and had received an August 2000 nomination for the RAI Prixitalia Award, the first ever addition of netcasting to the forty year old annual television award.  2000 also saw the premiere of a second online series at Tvi, Sitcom.

Between the 1997 release of Muscle Beach and its weekly release schedule in 2000 only one other significant internet series was released.  NBC’s Homicide: Second Shift, which ran concurrent internet episodes to compliment the successful television series Homicide: Life on the Street.  Second Shift featured an alternate storyline focusing on the detectives of the night shift.  February 5, 1999 saw the first true convergence of the internet and television in the seventh season of Life on the Street with episode 13, Homicide.com.  This episode focused on a story line that originated and ended in Second Shift, for a three episode storyline: internet, television, internet.  Though Life on the Street was cancelled in 1999 and there were several crossover television episodes building on the Law & Order franchise no additional Law & Order internet supplements were created.

With the cancellation of Second Shift, internet broadcasting became the exclusive arena of the Independent and a number of Flash animation franchises found significant fan followings, though none had more impact on the current environment than Broken Saints.

While cult classics like Homestar Runner presented internet episodes, their animation shorts were more reminiscent of ubiquitous Looney Toons clips than a cohesive interrelated series story line.  Much like we would see individual cartoons about Wiley E. Coyote, the premise that the Roadrunner would trounce him at every turn no matter what plot was offered.   Of course, Strongbad is no coyote. 

Various small productions were put forth, such as Sweet J Presents on the Sony website, which would eventually morph into the cult classic Robot Chicken.  No additional large scale ‘Hollywood’ productions were forthcoming.

True serialized internet broadcasting wasn’t revived until 2003’s Star Trek: New Voyages.  First airing in January of 2004 with new episodes being released about once a year New Voyages, while slow to release, is the first offering of a professionally produced internet serial.   Bear Town, an internet series featuring live action puppets, also premiered in 2004.  2004 also saw the creation of Tucson Underground, which was finally released in 2007.

Technology advances by 2005 grew the independent series and shows like Australia’s Forget the Rules became more prevelant.  No independent up to this point really hit the web like 2005’s YouTube series lonelygirl15.  Lonelygirl leveraged the social network video site to develop a true cult following. Though it still remained an independent production, its success grabbed the attention of traditional broadcasting when Lonelygirl was revealed to be a series and not an actual vlogger in September of 2006.

With that revelation Hollywood began to take an interest in the web and the corporate internet series explosion began in 2006 with the formation of Electric Farm Entertainment.  EFE’s rotoscoped animation series Afterworld earned a Webbie nomination and developed a loyal fan following for 130 webisodes that ended the first season of three in January 2008.  Afterworld was also the first true release of a multi-platorm distribution being available on the web, through mobile broadcasting, and on traditional television.

SciFi’s Battlestar Galactica released it’s own between-season series in September 2006.Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance provided ten 2.5 minute episodes providing insight in to the series and starring regular series talent.

Hollywood presence grew increasingly over 2007 with ABC’s Lost and NBC’s Heroes both offering exclusive web based content supplementing the broadcast series, and the conclusion of the aforementioned Afterworld.

By 2008 the web saw the first release of a true ‘Hollywood’ production with Joss Whedon’s Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog.  Dr. Horrible provided three webisodes and went exclusively to iTunes and DVD release, and has been a huge success; so much so that the site crashed the first day of release due to too many visitors.  While an amazing success Whedon’s project can’t be compared with others due to it’s niche fan base and specific release structure.  The episodes were only available online for a limited time before moving to purchase-to-view format.  An excellent business model, but one that falls outside of free online content distributed by a major network/studio.

In early 2008 the first true big budget production of an online series was also in the works with Electric Farm’s Gemini Division. Starring well known talents like Rosario Dawson, Justin Hartley, Kevin Alejandro, and Daz Crawford, and Tony Curran, Gemini  also offers well known and loved character actors like John Kapelos, Norbert Weisser, and Peter Jason.

Per the Wall Street Journal Gemini boasts a $2.2 million dollar production budget and will be distributed by NBC Universal [domestic] and Sony Television Pictures International [international].  In a special preview of the series on Friday, August 15 [See Tim’s post] Electric Farm took a step beyond the traditional to include well known bloggers into the traditional media-reporter-only press communication; with excellent results.

The series is also the first offering which includes embedded advertising as part of the production.  Having also been a part of that special preview one of the points that I drew upon during the following Q&A with executive producer Brent Friedman related to the advertising.

I will call the embedded ads "realistic advertising", and I found them to be a much more effective and intuitive way to communicate a brand; I'll go as far as to call it almost subliminal though it is obviously visible.

Example: I have a BlackBerry. Similar to what we saw in the episodes, my BB has a branded interface that I take as second nature, not realizing that those icons are BlackBerry specific. Yet when I see the icon I know instantly that I am looking at a blackberry icon, and equate that back to my blackberry on an emotional level since I love my BB.

The principle applies to every brand we saw displayed in both episodes.  Since both episodes are now live on the GD site, I'd challenge everyone to watch the episodes then, off the top of their head, write down the different advertisers.  I'll bet you can, because you see them in everyday life, most of them surround you until you don't realize they are there; but on a more visceral level you do, and you equate emotional responses to them.

That is what makes this type of brand embedding genius...It mirrors what we already experience in our daily lives, ties to us on an emotional level, and buys that precious suspension of disbelief required to gain the viewer's undivided attention.

When you see a Cisco logo in a subtle and realistic way in a show that you love your emotional attachment to that show will drive your consumer will power during your next purchase without you even realizing it. Because the show mirrors reality now and as we move forward it makes the show more believable AND ties the advertisements to the viewer on a non-cognizant level which drives ROI.

Had it been the "actor holding the Coke can" viewers would have all noticed and given a snicker at the blatant marketing.  Utilizing 'reality advert', only those of us who were specifically looking during the preview found the advertising. Everyone else took the episodes in as they were supposed to and accepted that the advertising was nothing more than the branding reality we know today.

This was validated during the after preview Q&A when I raised my question and a substantial number of attendees commented, “What advertising…I didn’t see any advertising”.  This level of embedded branding is something that we already take for granted, yet it has a great impact on our consumerism.

As marketing guru Martin Brandt once said: "Companies make products but customers buy brands."

The most successful brands are carefully managed and consistent. Savvy marketers know that retaining customers while acquiring new ones is the best way to maximize ROI and beat the competition. Delivering on the brand message with sound marketing initiatives; extending the brand values in the packaging of the corporation's products and services, both drive relevant customer experiences and build brand loyalty.

By utilizing a form of branding that we live with day to day Electric Farm and their advertising partners have keyed in on a valuable marketing avenue.

NewTeeVee’s Daisy Whitney and Wired’s Jenna Worthham agree that this series will be a leader in the internet media model.  Daisy advises that Gemini Division [is] a Litmus Test for Old Media, New Media.

If Gemini Division is a success we can expect to see both the advertising and production models expand in the future, possibly including shows that fail with network focus groups or in Neislen ratings and are unable to succeed in a broadcast format.

This front-runner will be an internet series to watch over the next twelve weeks.

Gemini Division Preview

I was privileged to be invited to a prescreening of Gemini Division both as a fan and to represent the blog Prime Time For Change. What an exciting and novel experience. Electric Farm truly does emulate the best of what we write about here. While there are other factors that contributed to starting up this blog, the number one influence is Electric Farm Entertainment (EFE). They are truly pioneering the way to rethink media in a digital media age.

First off, we (the invited participants) were treated with the opportunity to view the first two episodes of Gemini Division. I must say, I was very pleased with what I saw. The first two episodes were a stark contrast to the trailer. The trailer felt disconnected (to me at least). However, with the episodes there was an almost immediate emotional connection. Anna (Rosario Dawson) shares who she is and holds nothing back. Wrapped up in this are her emotions and the events that stir them up.

She pours out her heart on her PDA and it is just like she is talking to you personally. The episodes appear to be a video diary of sorts shared with a very close friend who she absolutely trusts. Over time we will find out more about the person that Anna is talking too. It would be interesting if Electric Farm Entertainment tied us into the story and revealed how we (the viewer) happened to stumble upon someone else’s very personal mail.

It was interesting to see EFE seamlessly incorporate brand ads into the content. Even if I had something to selectively filter out the brands, I wouldn't want to. It really added to the show and made it that much more real. Rather than interrupting the viewing experience, it actually added realism and immersion to the show. Very nice. A pleasant experience.

After the videos, we (other bloggers/media) had the opportunity to talk and interact directly with Brent Friedman. The following is a summary of that discussion.

When asked whether personalized narrative is a key device for web distributed content, Brent responded that this was a key question. He noted that personalized narrative is a great tool for maintaining a one to one connection.

TV often maintains a one to many ratio while viewers of web/mobile distributed content are more likely to consume their media in a one-to-one relationship. Brent indicated that personalized narrative really highlights the power of this type of medium.

He continued by saying that personalized narrative maintains a very subjective viewpoint or portal into the alternate world that the story takes place in. It is only one person’s view, a small window into that world allowing a big and epic story to be told through a little, tiny window.

Brent was asked how far into the future the story was set. He replied that it is set five minutes in the future. This helps keep the content from being dated. When the show is viewed three years from now, Gemini Division will still be set five minutes in the future.

Upon being asked to state a more definitive time, Brent said he felt that the technology portrayed in the show could be available within three years (Not sure that he was referring to the biotechnological aspect here).

Brent mentioned that some of the functionality of Anna’s (Rosario Dawson) PDA do not currently exist as a PDA function, but do exist in other real world technology. For instance Anna’s (Rosario Dawson) PDA can zoom in and track the user. While this technology doesn’t exist for current PDA’s (that I know of), it was found to exist for some web cams.

Some features of Anna’s PDA are truly futuristic. These features of the PDA are attributed to being the product of a high-level government agency with access to technology beyond the bleeding edge. As Anna becomes associated with Gemini Division her PDA may actually be upgraded by Gemini Division. This lends further credibility to the idea that the technology of the show could be set in the immediate to near future.

Next up was a discussion of interaction. This was a particularly interesting segment.

Brent noted that with EFE’s first show Afterworld they were able to create crude levels of interaction. Intially they wanted to do much more but those plans were hampered by cost as well as just trying to keep up with the hectic bleeding edge and ground breaking production schedule.

With Gemini Division EFE wanted to set the bar higher and provide an even more interesting web experience. This time they designed the interactive experience into the show from the very beginning, armed with the knowledge they gained from their previous web production.

It sounds like Gemini division’s interactive ARG-like experience is similar in a lot of ways to NBC Heroes Evolutions. However, what is particularly striking about Gemini Division and what really sounds like it will set it apart from the Heroes interactive experience is the inclusion of an alternate storyline. A storyline that converges with and parallels with the main story. An alternate story line that includes mainstream video content and that was planned out from the beginning.

For mobile devices, Gemini Division will include light versions of their episodes. Also, graphic novels (comics) will be released exclusively for the mobile platform. These graphic novels will provide additional background depth to the story helping to create an even richer experience. This again sounds reminiscent of Heroes.

Gemini Division will also feature a story based mobile game. Afterworld’s mobile game was exclusive to Verizon. Hopefully, Gemini Division’s mobile game will not be exclusive to one provider.

Viewers will have the opportunity to be recruited by Gemini Division. Choices players make in the interactive experience will parallel the choices of characters within the main story. In this way viewers will actually have the opportunity to influence the story (though not significantly as this would be too costly). Also, at some point participants will have to make an irrevocable choice, essentially shutting them out from other sources of information.

It is good to hear that all the video has been shot for Gemini Division and that it is in absolutely no danger of cancellation. I won’t have to worry about having the rug pulled out from under me. Brent mentioned that they were producing Gemini Division in much the same way video games are and that they are seeking to integrate TV and video games into a converged, truly interactive experience. This really is the best of what we talk about here on Prime Time For Change.

Rosario Dawson has committed to at least two productions (sounds like a better word than season) of Gemini Division. Depending on the success and response to the first story, a second story may be produced. Brent commented on this saying that the first story will focus on the mystery of what has happened.

It sounds like Gemini Division will be a quest for the truth. A quest that will change Anna and characters around her. A quest that examines the extent that people will go to uncover the truth, and how that journey can transform them. The first story will satisfy Anna’s intellectual and emotional journey for answers. She will find the truth and a lot of those elements will be tied up. However, upon that journey her actions become the catalyst for a cascade chain of events.

Brent said that the conclusion of the first story ends in a very enigmatic place. Rosario’s quest is resolved, but the larger problem in the world is still at large.

Gemini Division will be released globally in much the same way that Afterworld was and will roll out to different territories at different times. Each rollout will have its own replicate ARG like experience.

The release schedule for Gemini Division is:

First Week: Monday (Episode 1); Tuesday (Episode 2); Wednesday-Friday (Extra content, no episodes).

Second Week: Monday (Episode 3); Tuesday (Episode 4); Wednesday-Thursday (Extra content, Friday the start of the ARG).

Third week: Monday (Episode 5); Tuesday (Episode 6); Wednesday (Episode 7); Thursday (Episode 8); Friday (Advance of ARG);

Fourth week and on: Same as the third week. Each Friday sees an advance of the ARG.

I can’t wait. It is a prime time for change and EFE looks to be one of the leaders.

Related links:

Special Preview of Episodes One and Two
Gemini Division Preview
Dawson engages viewers in 'Gemini Division' on Web
Five Minutes Into the Future
When ARGs Take Over Movies And TV, Gemini Division Is Born
Gemini Division a Litmus Test for Old Media, New Media
Web series review/recap: Gemini Division (2008)

Some Interesting YouTube Videos

"How to Monetize Web Video" (Brent Friedman in panel)



New YouTube video about Gemini Division "Gemini Division Push - Will They Push Back?" (Interesting, August 18th, cool!):

Olympic Streaming at MSN by NBC

I don't want to preempt my most recent post, but I couldn't resist sharing this with our readers. What a great example of where Internet TV is going. Nice resolution. No choppiness or stuttering (at least for me). Picture in picture. Four live streams at once. Easy swapping of position. Trivia. Extra content. Pretty cool stuff. I found the video below at Beet.TV referenced by Aaron's latest post.



Oh, and don't forget to check out my latest entry below. I really hope I didn't preempt myself, but couldn't resist sharing.

Category Confusion: Nielsen, Gartner, The Federal Census Bureau, and You!

Aaron Smith has a very interesting post over at Asmedia titled, “Hollywood’s Web Shows: The Future of Television”?

In his introduction, he references a Nielsen report. At first glance, the report appears to be evidence that would back the executive point of view (as presented by Doug):

“Even with all that we (the technically savvy internet user) believes is occurring online, the last six years show that it just isn’t happening”.

Aaron’s entry is insightful and helpful (as usual).

That said, I do think that Aaron’s preliminary introductory analysis falls prey to the dangers of conventional generic reporting (in this case by Nielsen). Initially, I read the report summary the same way. What caused me to dig deeper was the fact that my reading of the Nielsen report seemed to fly in the face of other statistics. Upon closer investigation, I realized that this appears to be yet another case of what I call “Category Confusion”.

Like Aaron, I mistook Nielsen’s use of the phrase “traditional TV” to mean broadcast TV. Yet Nielsen’s use of the phrase appears to include broadcast TV, Cable, satellite, and possibly even DVD; all within one large group. Nielsen’s footnote describes their use of traditional TV to be “live viewing plus any playback viewing”.

The generic categorization of competing distribution channels as presented in the report is not overly helpful in evaluating current media patterns. In this case, it may even be detrimental because a casual reading of the report reinforces traditional old-media thinking while at the same time failing to contribute all that much toward an accurate, in-depth evaluation of the existing media landscape.

This is unfortunate. Nielsen could do better. I believe they should do better. For instance, this report could have analyzed the trends of broadcast TV as they relate to and are contrasted with: Cable, Netflix, DVD in general, mobile viewing, online viewing, gaming, etc. This would be very interesting and helpful. However, I do not think that this type of report is likely to be published to the public by Nielsen.

You may ask, “Why not?”

I believe the answer is that the conclusions presented would not be favorable to or for broadcast television as well as...Nielsen.

Before we move on to Gartner, there is another report Aaron linked to from Nielsen. This report appears to have a tendency to leave victims in its wake as well.

The title is, "Nielsen: Viewers Prefer TV set to Internet". The first paragraph reads:

"When asked, 94% of adults in the U.S. who subscribed to cable or satellite television said they preferred to watch television content on their televisions sets as opposed to via the Internet."

Nielsen's report pits "television sets" in a mutually exclusive death match against the "Internet". However, this is not a cut and dried "either" "or" scenario.

This brings up the question, "What is a "television set"?

I too prefer to watch my media from the comfort of my couch. However, my "television set" is a 720p projector. All my media, whether it be DVD's from Netflix, streaming video from Netflix/broadcast networks, streaming music from Pandora, Afterworld from Vuze, etc., etc. can be viewed from the best seat in my house in a home theater like setup.

If I want to view my content or play PC video games (with my wireless 360 controller) while working out on my elliptical, I can. If I want to browse the net and read technology using voice recognition from Vista while I work out, I can do so.

If I want to view video on the go, I can. I have many options available to me but I still prefer to watch from the comfort of the couch. While this is the nicest and most enjoyable experience, this doesn't mean that I don't use and very much enjoy the other options available to me as well.

Nielsen's report summary states, "'With so many viewing options now available via digital technology, it's more important than ever to understand how people are consuming media,'" said Susan Whiting, exec VP at The Nielsen Company".

How ironic!

I believe that I would be in the 94% who prefer media from the best seat in the house. However, my "Television Set" has changed dramatically and from it I am able to exercise all the viewing options referred to in the quote above. Unfortunately, Nielsen's old categories and use of old-media terms prevent them from truly understanding how I (a 2.0 viewer) consume media.

Unfortunately, Nielsen appears to still be stuck in the past and locked into a certain old-media type mindset. I think they need to rethink categories and update their terminology to match the existing landscape. As a side note, I believe that Comscore (mentioned in Aaron's post) does a much better job at capturing the consumptive patterns of the 2.0 viewer.

Gartner:

The report summary we are looking at from Gartner is titled, “Gartner Survey Shows Consumers Predominantly Using the Internet for Email and Search”.

This report title and summary appear to indicate that email and search are mutually exclusive to "internet video" and "social networking". I think the report fails to understand what the internet is and how email and search relate to applications like "internet video" and "social networking".

Without search it would be hard to access the content that is on the internet.

Though the amount of channels on TV has greatly increased, the viewer is still able to “surf” through available channels to try to find content they can settle down with. Not so the internet. With the internet there are so many different websites to choose from you can’t just change the channel; you must engage in search (though there are a few websites like Stumbleupon that let you “surf” the web without directly engaging in search).

“Search” for the internet is similar to switching “channels” on a TV. They are both services that connect users with content. Yet, switching channels for the TV and searching on the Internet, are not ends in and of themselves.

As with search, the same with email. Without email, there would be no standard, universal method for communication on the internet. Without email it would be hard to communicate between social applications.

Search and email are not mutually exclusive to either "internet video" or "social networking". I believe that many people perceive search and email to actually be the internet itself. Content like "internet video" or services like "social networking" are seen as separate from the network/internet that connects users with content.

I use the internet (network) to acquire content or services. The primary tools at my disposal are email and search. Therefore as internet usage increases and new content abounds, search and email will increase as well.

These observations about search and email make the following statement in the Gartner summary rather anticlimactic:

“Despite the huge growth in new applications such as Internet video and social networking, most consumers indicate the main reason for accessing the Internet is to use e-mail and gather information, according to a survey by Gartner Inc”.

When there is a huge growth in new applications, wouldn’t the need for search increase?

When there is a huge growth in social networking applications, wouldn’t email be all the more practical and pervasive?

In the Lord of the Rings, there was one ring that bound the rest. The Internet has at least two.

In analyzing reports like this, it is important to distinguish between basic services like email and search and the content and services they enable and support. A failure to do this results in category confusion. In the case of the broadcast corporate executive view described by Doug, this confusion leads to a “most people only use internet for email” type of fallacy.

An interesting report would delineate out these distinctions. It would also break down major content categories, major services, and basic tools as well as time spent on average for these various activities. It would examine these categories over time. It would describe how these major categories relate to one another. This would be more concrete than subjective opinion and be a more accurate gauge of the new consumer.

Census Bureau:

I believe the corporate broadcasting executive view as detailed by Doug is further maintained by filtering recent and new phenomena through a mesh of incongruent historical categories. The broadcast executive view of the Census Bureau charts (as outlined by Doug) are a good example.

Consider Netflix. Their company profile describes itself as:

“the world’s largest online movie rental service, providing 8.4 million members access to more than 100,000 DVD titles plus a growing library of over 12,000 full-length movies and television episodes that are available for instant watching on their PCs.”

Here are some more quotes from their page:

“If you stacked every movie Netflix ships (on average, 2 million DVDs a day) in a single pile, the stack would be taller than Mt. Everest within a week.”

“Netflix has more than 100,000 titles and more than 55 million DVDs total. Every three months, Netflix members rent more than 95% of the 100,000 titles in the Netflix library. On any given day, more than 46,000 of the 100,000 titles available at Netflix are in distribution.”

“Netflix members say they rent twice as many movies per month than they did prior to joining the service. Netflix members add 2 million movies to their Queues every day.”

Obviously NetFlix has used the web to make a significant difference in how viewers view their content. If it is true that Netflix members rent twice as many movies per month than they did prior, this is time away from broadcast TV."

Now here is the question, “What category do you put the NetFlix into?”

Most likely it would be in the product/service information category, if it was even categorized. Other examples are Blockbuster Online, Itunes, Vuze, torrents, etc. Viewers purchase, download, select, and acquire content via the internet and then view it completely separate of the internet. The internet becomes the means to obtain the content, which can then be viewed offline.

This type of internet activity is one which has a significant impact on viewer behavior. However, the Census Bureau categories are not able to give us insight into how that activity is changing. Its categories limit it to being able to give us some information about a very newly hatched and very much still emerging development. The streaming TV/Movie experience.

Further, I think the categories given by the report are self-limiting. I don’t think that most users consider Youtube or user generated content to be in the TV/Movies category.

Also, consider gaming. What category does the Xbox360 or the PlayStation 3 fit into? These console game platforms now use the internet. However, the gamer doesn’t make a conscious decision, “Hey, I am going to pull up the internet in my web browser so I can play my XBOX 360 game”. For many people, Internet or online activity is associated as something a user does from within a web browser.

With the increase of “always on” broadband connections, this is also true for a number of PC games and even MMORPG’s. A gamer buys the game, installs it, and starts to play. The internet and the game communicate behind the scenes. The gamer may not even think about the fact that they are online when they are playing the game.

Bottom line: Broadcast networks and primetime TV are not competing only against online streaming video. They are competing for their viewers time, attention, and ad views.

As I wrote in a different entry, cable increased channel and content selection. VCR’s and later DVR’s allowed viewers to skip commercials. Personal computers, internet and sites like youtube, myspace, torrent sites, and mobile devices all further diversified the market. Suddenly, media consumers can choose what they watch, when they want to watch it, and can do so wherever they choose.

Video games are becoming more popular and the viewer is now free to spend their limited time on what interests them most. DVR is estimated to have ~25% market penetration and it looks like this may increase with the recent Cablevision ruling.

TV time does continue to increase, but it does so at the expense of broadcast TV.

This brings us to…

You:

Looks like we need:

1) More analysis,

2) Additional reports that are detailed and nuanced toward accurately measuring new activities and content, and

3) your comments!

Immersive viewing illustrated

I’d like to start my post this week by thanking everyone who drudged through the ‘corporate view’ post from last week.  I felt it was important to illustrate the perception of those managing the networks that are canceling our favorite programs.  After some comparisons I am going to talk about some profitable alternatives available for shows being seen beyond just television broadcast.  If you are less interested in the business market please jump to Media Moving Forward, or skip straight to to the immersive viewing experience example.

Market Comparison

 I know that I have touched on this point previously, but I wanted to further describe the correlation between the American Auto industry and the American Broadcast Industry. General Motors was once the largest corporation on Earth {now replaced by Wal-Mart}.   $54.00 a share in 2003, however, as of this writing, GM stock has bottomed at $10.00 a share, the lowest price since 1974.  That is an astronomical market and profit loss, especially when you do a comparative dollar valuation and see that after conversion today’s stock price it is actually less than the lowest value reported in 1974.

While I concede that the current higher cost of fuel is a contributing factor I disagree that it is the major driver behind the $15.5 Billion dollar loss reported for Q3 by GM.  A comparative analysis between GM and import auto makers shows that while GM has tanked, import corporations like Honda have seen a steady progressive increase in stock value over the same period.  [As of this writing BMW $27.50 per Share, Honda $32.00 per Share, Toyota $86.00 per Share]

In 2003, around the same time that GM began to bleed market share, Toyota created a division called Scion.  What followed was a truly unique vision for marketing that we interweb peeps would consider viral marketing.  In the hard copy world of 2003 it was known as guerrilla marketing.  Toyota moved beyond the traditional hard copy advertising to embrace the digital medium with resounding success ($86.00 a share).

Broadcast television would do well to heed the lesson illustrated above, especially with the drive for convergence between media outlets.  A quick look at their stock performance over the last seven years displays the same loss trend experienced by the US auto makers (like GM).

Company	Stock Value per Share Aug 2000	Stock Value per Share Aug 2008	% Value Lost
ABC	$54.43	$31.02	-43.01%
CBS	$84.00	$16.10	-80.83%
FOX	$26.09	$13.49	-48.29%
NBC	$56.90	$28.70	-49.56%

With the recent announcement of News Corp (FOX) [August 5] losses on domestic television revenue we continue to see local and national market loss.

Media Moving Forward
Today I can place a phone call to a single vendor and purchase mobile service, FiOS (Fiber Optic) mega-fast-speed internet, cable television, and a land line phone…all connected to one account.  Add to that the HDDVR and you have a one stop shop for all your media needs.

With this type of converged service infrastructure and the current and soon-to-be-released mobile technology platforms, I have the ability to read my email through my TV, phone, or laptop.  Soon I will be able to DVR my favorite TV show and view that DVR on my mobile or laptop…all courtesy of that FiOS broadband connection.

As someone who spends two hours a day commuting by train that type of service model strongly appeals to me.  Beyond having a way to catch up on my favorite series while I ride the train, this model also speaks directly to the bleeding edge vision of companies like Electric Farm Entertainment, Mutant Enemy Productions, and NBC Universal.

Speaking of bleeding edge entertainment, be sure to check out an excellent example of web based entertainment at Gemini Division (EFE/NBC) or, for those Joss Whedon fans among us, Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog. Whedon’s master plan was to produce a short series with limited budget [read non-existent budget by normal Hollywood standards] that would find a following.  It did, but then Joss tends to do that.

Note that unlike the traditional ‘webisode’ produced by independents these two vehicles are developed and distributed by established Hollywood production companies; as such they are prime examples of how Broadcast Television can migrate some of the cancelled 2007 schedule to the web and still drive revenue.  Not to leave the independent’s feeling disparaged, productions like Ask a Ninja and Chad Vader have risen to become pop-culture icons without the financial backing of “Hollywood”.

As we continue forward, broadcast television will have to delve more deeply into the immersive user experience or fall by the wayside, much as broadcast radio did in the late 50’s.

Current and future technology is leading toward media availability 24/7 wherever you can receive a signal.  As someone that lives in the ‘outback’ of Washington State, this is vital to me on my Saturday morning fishing trips.  While sitting on the lake awaiting a nibble, I can still cruise the web on my BlackBerry, make phone calls, or download and watch video, albeit not as much cool video as is available on my fishing’ buddies iPhone.  Often I check the real-time online fishing reports to help me in finding the best place to drop line.  Having that connectivity is something that wouldn’t have been possible even a few years ago.

Take that same experience and port it over to the viewing of your favorite dramatic show.  Weekly episodes on TV with additional ‘sub-episodes’ (5-7 minute webisodes) released daily could fill in plot points or provide additional information between the weekly television releases. This would work well for a series like October Road.  Expanded immersion could include additional three to five minute ‘episodes’ distributed by mobile.  Beyond that, there is also the ability to release a full season straight to DVD and OnDemand.

Dramatic shows are limited in leveraging tools that science fiction vehicles have in place.  An already alternative reality show such as Moonlight is able to make full use of the internet’s alternate reality game base for additional supplemental immersive content beyond the examples provided above for a dramatic series.  ARG websites in combination with the afore mentioned television, webisode, mobisode toolset would allow for that all encompassing experience the industry gives lip service too.

Sci-fi shows could also incorporate both mobile and PC/platform based video games to compliment the show. There is also the option of releasing straight to DVD or On Demand, another very viable profit driver.

Immersive Viewing: An executive summary using the cancelled CBS series Moonlight as an example.  This type of science fiction vehicle is able to utilize all avenues of distribution.   Note:  an additional value add for advertiser marketing can be built in to any of the elements below.

• Television Spots




• Weekly episodes – 16 per season, 41 minutes in length.


• Broadcast prime time, one day per week.




• Web Spots:  Daily webisodes – 110 per season, 5 minutes in length




• Released once per week day through the season


• This equates to five additional television weekly episodes, bringing the entire season to the 21 episode level.  These episodes could be shot in conjunction with the regular shooting schedule then edited to include additional content as a supplement to the plot of the 16 episodes edited for television broadcast


• Supplemental information discovered should add to the plot of the broadcast television show.




• Mobile Spots: 27 per season, 90 seconds in length.




• Released once per week, the day after broadcast of Prime Time


• These 27 mobile spots equate to one 41 minute television episode and could be shot in conjunction with the regular shooting schedule then edited to include additional content as a supplement to the plot of the 16 episodes edited for television broadcast.


• Supplemental information discovered should add to the plot of the broadcast television show.


• Additional five spots could be shown after the season finale as additional driver for the following season




• RPG Mobile Game:  Role playing game developed to lead the user through a series of tasks providing additional back story or plot information in conjunction with the season plot line.




• Released the week after the broadcast television premiere.


• Number of levels should equal approx. one hour of game play.


• Supplemental information discovered should add to the plot of the broadcast television season.




• RTSRPG Video Game:  Real time strategy role playing game developed to lead the user through a series of tasks providing additional back story or plot information in conjunction with the season plot line.




• Released in conjunction with the mid-season climax


• Should be multi-platform: Online, PC, and Console based release.


• Number of levels should equal approx. two hours of game play.


• Supplemental information discovered should add to the plot of the broadcast television season.




• ARG Online Game: Alternate reality online game.




• Released in conjunction with the season premiere


• Number of ‘levels’ should equal approx. two hours of game play.




• Users will be led through a series of websites that offer tasks, clues, and solvable puzzles


• Some websites will be difficult to find requiring ‘hard core’ fan research.  These websites will offer the most supplemental plot information.


• Direct tie to advertisers websites providing viable click through revenue:




• Example: Show sponsor Dell places a link on their “Home Computer” page.  When a user looks at a specific product there is a disguised link out to an ARG website for the season.


• Supplemental information discovered should add to the plot of the broadcast television season.


• Users may choose to subscribe to ARG communications such as emails, mobile texts, or mobile messages.


• Additional ‘real’ sources may play in to the ARG universe.  Example, contracting a link from the local news website in Los Angeles to a false ‘news’ section related to the season.  To prevent confusion users would be required to enter a user name and password gained from one of the other tools, such as either the mobile or video game.




• Can be multilayered: Entering the password from the mobile game will only get you to “X”.  To go beyond “X” you have to enter the password found in the Video Game.  Once that content has been viewed you need a password found in one of the ARG websites, then one leaked on the fan community, ect.


• Fan Communities:  Social networking to drive fan enthusiasm about the season.




• Social Networking profiles on sites such as Facebook and MySpace


• Preview, interview, and teaser video should be made available on SN sites like Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube.


• Official and unofficial fan community websites.




• Official sites will list additional information, approved spoilers, additional behind the scenes video, interviews, and live fan/talent/crew interaction (chat/BlogSpot)


• Unofficial fan sites may also be managed by the distribution or production company and offer ‘leaked’ photo or videos in a viral manner.


• Additional online resources:  additional resources that can be used to drive enthusiasm for the season.




• Exclusive content agreements




• Exclusive content supplementing the season could be released on websites like E, AOL, MySpace, Facebook, and other entertainment web sites.




• Additional information




• Sites such as IMDB and Wiki can be utilized to provide additional information to drive fan enthusiasm.

There are many other ways to continue this model to add additional levels of immersive participation by the viewer.  This executive summary is meant to provide the highest level view without focusing on the granular details.

As we see in this model there are a large number of tools not being utilized by broadcast television, though we do have to note that NBC is making large advances in tool utilization with Heroes and their new web series Gemini Division.

At this point, using the model above, I’d like to hear your feedback.  If television shows were offered with these supplemental elements how do you think it would impact your viewing?  Would you be more or less likely to watch the show?  Would you be more or less likely to participate in the other non-television options?
Comment and let us know!

Finding Forrester

This post is Part I of a series examining the TV executive viewpoint outlined in Doug’s last post. This series should make it clear that the reports and analysis he presented do not support the assertion that online use hasn’t changed all that much. Rather, it will reveal that the landscape has changed, is changing, and will continue to change.

I believe that the corporate broadcasting executive view (as presented by Doug) is out of step with Forrester, with Gartner, and with present reality. Cancellations drive apathy, not enthusiasm. Instead of winning viewers back they push them away.

Broadcast networks appear to be resistant toward realizing that the landscape has changed and instead have a tendency to cling to an antiquated position forged from the anvil of entrenched historical practice. I think they would be wise to continue to move away from the sand that still engulfs their view (think of a large bird that likes sand) and take advantage of the opportunities that exist in a new digital media age.

This view appears to be maintained:

1. Through the inaccurate analysis of reports not directly or centrally related to the position in question.

2. By filtering recent and unprecedented phenomena through a rigid mesh of incongruent historical categories.

This post primarily examines the Forrester report titled, “Social Technographics”. This report advises companies to adapt and change to this socially transformed world. Further, it encourages them to adopt a more coherent approach toward social computing.

It is interesting and pertinent to note that this initial report was later expanded into a book titled, “Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies” with a publish date of April 21, 2008.

Groundswell is described in part by one of the authors as, “a book about a very powerful trend that is happening right now, the trend of people connecting with and drawing power from each other online, and how that threatens corporations" (You can see this here).

In contrast, it appears that the corporate executive would have us believe that the book should be titled, “Status Quo: Doing Business in a World That Hasn’t Changed All That Much”.

Advertising Age, in an article dated June 2nd, 2008 gives background information about Charlene Li (the author of the Forrester report) which provides additional insight.

“‘Charlene is a pivotal force in helping marketers navigate tectonic disruptions heralded in by social media,’ says Max Kalehoff, VP-marketing at Clickable.

‘She has an uncanny ability to instill calm and real understanding of the threats and opportunities inherent in a world composed of savvy, connected consumers.’

Asked to grade how marketers are facing up to those changes, Ms. Li gives them a C.

‘They're treating it more like a marketing channel than a relationship-building opportunity,’ she says, adding that a big roadblock is corporate cultures that aren't built to handle the lack of control over brand or message or even product development in a consumer-controlled environment.

‘Marketers are horrible at getting close to customers,’ she says. ‘They say they want it, but they don't.’”

At the bedrock level, both the Forrester report and the subsequent book maintain that the landscape has changed and that businesses need to adapt.

Ms. Li gives such an excellent summation of the divide between a corporate culture that still pines for the way it used to be and the ever increasingly consumer-controlled environment.

And now the kicker.

Intrepid reader, you may want to strap on your seatbelt and brace yourself. The next stop is the Forrester report, “Consumer’s Behavior Online: A Deep Dive”.

Are you ready to dive in…?

Here is the summary:

“Forrester tracks more than 150 activities, diving deep into 38 common and emerging media, shopping, communications, entertainment, and social networking online activities. The results are sometimes surprising. For example, shopping is only an occasional activity; receiving photos via email is the fastest-growing activity; instant messaging use is growing only among younger consumers; and PC time has surpassed TV time, even among Gen Xers. But the real value of tracking online behavior is that it helps interactive marketers and tech product marketers identify and target the best consumer segments”.

Houston, hold the horses, I think we just discovered the true Forrester.

Wow! PC time has surpassed…? TV? How can this be? And this report is dated January 2007?

It must be that… that… aberrant youthful generation. But wait…
This is true… even among Gen Xers?! According to Forrester, it is (and they aren’t alone).

Stay tuned for the next post in this series… “Category Confusion: Gartner, the Federal Census Bureau, and You!”