Market relevance and expected impact

MediaMap’s target is taking place on the TV production and distribution through Internet as it is called “Web 2.0”. But, as it helps to create enhanced production made by amateurs it will also impact on traditional TV broadcasting.

Globally

Web 2.0 is now established and lot of players are already in place. But this market is still searching a new economic model and the way of continuing to grow and not being a simple momentary bubble.

There is no doubt now about the interest of this new way of accessing Audiovisual Information. For eMarketer, in 2007, 147,5 Mio. people are looking at AV contents through Internet in the world. The half is situated in USA. This figure could increase to 253 Mio. in 2011. This represents in USA 57% of Internet users and rises 78% when users are connected through ADSL accesses. eMarketer also shows than 62% of American users prefer professional contents against amateurs.

In Europe it seems to be the same. For instance, French usage figures are impressive: eight out of ten French Internet users have watched an online video.

eMarketer also shows than 62% of American users prefer professional contents against amateurs only (19%). Another 11% say they enjoy both professionally produced video and amateur online video equally.

Young adult men choice is different from average. For them – one of the most covered audiences for advertisers – there is a much narrower pro-am gap. Some 43% of online video users in this cohort express a clear preference for professional video, while 34% say they prefer amateur content. Another 19% of male video viewers ages 18-29 say they enjoy both amateur and professional content

Anyway, this could change if amateur production reaches professional level as proposed in MediaMap.

What about Content Generation

However, the production made by amateur is also increasing very fast. In 2007 about 136,5 Millions people (69,6 in USA) have created contents putting in line audio, photos and video elements. This represents 16% increase compared to 2006. The collaborative and social link through video is really active for young users (18-29 years Old) 73% are looking in groups or sharing the good links.

In specific domains like education, some workgroups have been created (ex: DIVER created by Stanford university - http://life-slc.org/wp-content/up/2006/03/cscvideopaper620.pdf) are actively thinking about video platform allowing collaborative production between teachers and students.

Some companies like Forbidden in London have already created editing tools working on objects circulating on the Web. The tools allow simultaneous collaborative AVC production but in a usual way of production, starting from rushes.

It is also interesting to notice the viral advertisement done around GMail. Even it is not a collaborative production but a concatenation of individual clips, it shows an interesting result of group production making 3 millions connections in some weeks.

New practices with young adults

Pew Internet and American Life Project also shows in their report of July 2007 that young adults are intensive players as much as viewers as producers. 76% of young adults (those ages 18-29) watch or download videos compared to 57% of Internet users between ages 30-49.

This new way of being proactive in front of the “TV”, compared to their parents, also shows a new way of social behaviour. 73% of young video viewers on Internet indicate that they often watch in group. The desire to share a viewing experience with others has already been a powerful force in seeding the online video market. Fully 57% of online video viewers share links to the videos they find online with others. Young adults are the most “contagious carriers” in the viral spread of online video. Two in three (67%) video viewers ages 18-29 send others links to videos they find online, compared with just half of video viewers ages 30 and older.

Actors of the Web 2.0

Audiovisual Contents on Internet have helped to develop new concepts around a few companies. Most of them like the well-known YouTube or in France DailyMotion have oriented their proposal to distribution and organisation for the viewers, proposing very simple digitalisation and server acquisition tools. The clips are for the big majority (when created by amateurs) simple, short and unique shots. At the most it includes a title. Multi-shot with transitions, effects, real audiotape associated doesn’t exist at all. And it is worth to not speak about light, noise and quality of shots. This is a real restraint to development.

The majority of these companies treat a large number of classified subjects, include rough tags to help viewer to find what they look for, but particularly help to create groups of interest and exchange, and Self-TV channels or play-Lists. Lot of time, ergonomics of navigation is not user friendly and searching a document with personal criteria is boring.

Other companies like Jumpcut or MotionBox are proposing editing tools. Their intention is to help people or communities of people to assemble and create AV contents associating shots realized by many people. Also, these companies insist on the notion of “memory” and archive of the UGC.

One can also notice that YouTube has recently created YouTube Remixer, based on Adobe Premiere Express, those indicates clearly the demand of editing and building “constructed” clips.

This is showing all interest of passing from single shots to a structured clip, with the right on line tools. But again, this is done too late in the chain and can’t include any editorial intention as well as “film Direction” taking care of artistic rendering.

Financial model

Loosing money and excluding advertisement for a long time, the Web 2.0 sites are now like the majority of Internet sites financed by advertising. For eMarketer the advertising investment on Web 2.0 sites represents about 1,56 Billion Dollars (about 1 B$ in USA) in 2007 and could reach 8 B$ in 2011.

At the moment, only big international or national companies are now trying Web 2.0 advertising. The American Advertising Federation indicates that 19% of the 140 biggest American Advertisers have communicated on Web 2.0 in 2006 and about 16% this year.

Mixing professional and amateur creators of advertisements, the impact on viewers seems to be good. AAF indicates that in 2006, 68% of viewers find brands nice, 56% find them more creative, 55% more innovating. Viral Marketing has found its playing field, where Brand’s users promote to other users.

What brings MediaMap to this market

MediaMap brings homogeneity between production and publication through early fine-tuned indexation.

Financially, at a moment when the Web 2.0 is searching new models, MediaMap project gives new tools to manage better impact of advertisement. Targets are easily defined through metadata included in the audiovisual contents as they define not only the AV content only but also the user (as producer OR simple viewer). The territoriality aspect treated in MediaMap will allow local advertising as it exists today in free newspapers like those distributed in letterboxes. So, local shops, service providers, or other advertiser will be able to touch their clients through audiovisual content.

Collaborative production will also boost symmetrical transfer on networks those promote new symmetrical technologies replacing ADSL in the future.