Will be attending PodCamp NYC this upcoming weekend.

If you’re a video producer or video blogger, I’d like to get a chance to meet you, hear about what you’re up to, hear about your experiences, and talk ideas. If you’re interested in meeting up, please get in touch with me via the contact me page here.

I have seen the future of online video and his name is Justin Kownacki.

Kownacki, Director of the online episodic show “Something to Be Desired,” presented his new approach to video production to a capacity audience at the Video on the Net conference in San Jose.

Since November 2003, Kownacki has produced 100 episodes of the show – with a cast of 25 – at the ultra-low cost of $200 per week.

His secret? What Kownacki calls “Open Source TV Production”, similar to the open source magazine production model I developed for Inside Carolina in 1994.

Kownacki’s 25-person cast volunteers, keeping cost low.

The people in the cast, many of them aspiring actors and actresses, volunteer because they believe it is good for them to be seen – and because they believe in the show.

“If you have a good product, good talent wants to attach to you,” said Kownacki.

Kownacki spends most of his time coordinating the cast and producing the show.

Why an episodic approach? According to Kownacki, snack-based content is not sustainable. It isn’t engaging, doesn’t tell you a story that grips your mind or heart.

In addition to the show itself, the STBD blog gives a behind the scenes look at the production of the show. Looking ahead, Kownacki believes the way to make the show even better is to open up the creative process to fans, open up the scripting process and allow the audience to have a say.

But the bottom line isn’t just the low cost of production, it’s about why people watch the show.

“People don’t subscribe to online shows, they subscribe to people and personalities, interesting characters who engage you,” Kiwnacki said. “And a story you want to see where it goes.”

(Photo credit: cirne)

I attended and spoke at the Video on the Net conference in San Jose last week.

Video on the Net was an outstanding conference. Not only were the speakers thought leaders in their fields, there was an engaging mix of speakers ranging from executives at major media companies to independent show producers. The conference sessions were fast paced, energized, and professional in every regard. Something I always appreciate: there were ample opportunities for business networking. I’m looking forward to attending Video on the Net in Boston this fall.

Here is a round up of the most interesting things I heard and learned from the presentations at VON2007.

Related Video:

Next week I’l be speaking at the “Video on the Net” conference in San Jose, on the panel titled “A New Look at Content.”

If you’re a video producer or video blogger, I’d like to get a chance to meet you, hear about what you’re up to, hear about your experiences, and talk ideas. If you’re interested in meeting up, please get in touch with me via the contact me page here.

RealNetworks has launched a film and entertainment news site, Film.com, featuring film previews, movie trailers, DVD releases, and coverage of television programming and celebrity news.

Plenty of other web sites and blogs already offer similar content – so it remains to be seen if Real can build an audience in a crowded space.

Having said that, I’m always impressed with Real’s resourcefulness, in this case putting to use the great domain name they owned (but had essentially mothballed several years ago), and creating inventory for online advertising.

I also like that the site will offer a free full-length independent movie each week. The “Film.com Movie of the Week”, supported by in-movie sponsorship and advertising, will initially draw on a catalog of movies through a deal with GreenCine, a San Francisco-based company with a library of independent, international and documentary films.

Seeking to further differentiate the site – and no doubt get media exposure – Real introduced the new Film.com at Sundance, where Film.com contributors posted daily video reports and commentary from the film festival.

Among my friends from Real working on the project are Elizabeth Coppinger, Vice President, Media Software & Services (pictured); Michael McMurray, Director, Product Management; and Ted Kuoppamaki, Product Manager (who was Art Director at the original Film.com, which was founded by Lucy Mohl in 1994). Congrats on the launch of your new product!

Concert webcasts and online vintage performance clips are gaining traction, according to this article in The New York Times.

What role, if any, will be carved out for fans who take their own pictures and “bootleg” video at concerts? My friend and former co-worker from RealNetworks, Erik Flannigan, is quoted for this article. (If you know Erik, I think you’d agree that he is a top expert on the subject of fans capturing various types of media at concerts.)

Erik Flannigan, general manager of America Online’s music, film and television content, said that at a big arena performance these days “20,000 people walk through the door.” He added: “How many people who went to that show walked out with some kind of media captured? They called someone, they took a photo. Why not harness that and turn it into something?”

Last year’s U2 tour brings to mind photos, audio and video captured by fans with camera phones, digital cameras, DAT and mini-disk recorders – and posted to fan sites immediately after each show (and some even during the shows). As a fan, it was fun seeing the results of this grass roots effort.

What drives 1% of fans to capture and share content? I think it’s as much about the hunt for content as anything else. And for the rest of the fans who seek and consume this fan generated content: it’s very much about re-living the concert experience and collecting. This isn’t the type of content that you tend to listen to or watch again and again.

I’ve got to say, though, there’s something about the experience of going to see a band live that isn’t captured in the online viewing experience of an entire concert webcast. But that’s not just a matter of web video: I find that most professionally produced concert DVDs are of only marginal interest to me – even from my favorite bands. (Notable exceptions: Fleetwood Mac’s “Say You Will” tour DVD; and U2’s “Vertigo” tour DVD.)

Like many things music, I prefer a concert CD with audio – a passive listening experience – vs. the active viewing experience required of a DVD. And who has the patience to watch a two hour concert on their computer?

Some companies have tried charging admission to view concert webcasts online. I am a big fan of live music, but quite frankly, I’m not inclined to pay to watch a webcast of even my favorite bands perform live.

I think the better bet is for bands to put short form video clips of their live performances out onto the web as a means of connecting with their existing fans and reaching new fans – and a way of building interest in going to a show in-person.

Related Link: Concert, rehearsal venues get wired

Newsday has a good read, “TV or more TV?” The article focuses on the changing ways you can watch TV now that you can watch your favorite shows on your computer, cell phone or iPod.

The video-cable iPod is credited with getting the ball rolling last October, with ABC offering downloads of “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives,” commercial-free for $1.99 per episode. CBS and my industry colleague Brinley Turner then jumped into the fray, offering fee-based episodes online of new “Survivor” episodes immediately after their airing, while NBC and other cable channels have joined ABC on the iPod bandwagon.

With video now on the Internet, iPods, VOD and cell phones, the article questions if the current flurry of high-tech innovation seems to be outpacing viewer desires and the ability to follow the fast-moving developments.

“Basically, some products are being pushed forward,” says media analyst Phillip Swann of TVPredictions.com, “not so much because consumers are rising up demanding it, but because the technology could create it.”

But David Katz, head of sports and entertainment for Yahoo! Media Group, (and formerly of CBS where he and Scott Ehrlich formerly of RealNetworks got together five years ago to pioneer the leading edge live online video “Big Brother 24/7″) notes: “If you look at high-definition TV sets, they all have Ethernet jacks in the back for you to put a high-speed connection in. … That then kind of blurs the line. Are you getting content from a network? Are you getting content from a Web site? Does it really matter to you?”

In today’s media news: ABC television network will offer some of its most popular shows, such as “Desperate Housewives” and “Lost,” for free on the Internet in a two-month trial.

ABC already sells digital downloads of its highest-rated TV shows on Apple’s iTunes and this is an opportunity for ABC to learn about the free-to-consumer paid advertising model.

From a macro perspective, this is interesting in terms of potential to create a viable “cable bypass”, as CBS CEO Leslie Moonves calls it, by going through the Internet rather than over cable or satellite services.

From a paid content perspective, I’m asked all the time: should media companies offer their programs online to viewers free of charge, monetized through advertising embedded in the streams? Or should companies charge the consumer on a pay per view or subscription basis?

My answer: It depends on the type of programming – and the strength of the advertising market.

As Larry Kramer, president of CBS Digital Media, observes in an article on CNNMoney.com: what advertisers want is a large enough audience to matter.

Programming that is popular and mass market – think the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, Desperate Housewives, and Alias – can attract a large enough audience and can work well with an ad-supported model online.

When you put such programming behind a pay wall online, you’re typically cutting off 99% of the interested audience who won’t otherwise pay for content – thus making the product less interesting to advertisers.

Like It’s 1999?

One thing I don’t hear a lot of people talking about: to what extent is free video enabled by an up advertising market?

Advertising has cyclical ups and downs. Today, video inventory is in relatively short supply for advertisers. When the advertising market drops again – will media companies find they set themselves up for excess inventory, bandwidth costs- and an audience re-conditioned to everything being free?

The rush to offer programming free to consumers monetized by advertising reminds me a little of 1999. Remember when the online ad market tanked in 2000?

Related: