Comments on: Hearst newspapers sign video deal with Brightcove

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:01:02 +0000

back on the old lostremote, i posed the question why the term channel is applied to broadband video content online. i can deal with it in terms of a “distribution channel” as a marketer would refer to a means to deliver content and/or audience, but i think efforts to conceptually link it to broadcast channels (ie frequencies on a dial) has always been weak. as memory serves, though, saf had some good counterpoints though.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:53:36 +0000

Just to clarify Dan’s comment. We offer free as well as ad-supported Flash video which is accessible to both Mac and Windows viewers.

Currently our paid downloads use Microsoft Windows DRM technology and therefore require Windows for playback. We plan to offer unprotected MPEG-4 downloads in the future, for video publishers that prefer to use an open format.

Thanks for taking the time to explore our offering.
-Sean
Production Specialist
Brightcove

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:00:10 +0000

i really cherish your insights.

i think i’ve made it clear that “theeveryplaceintheworldchannel” might not be the optimum domain name strategy.

i have even gone so far as to say denver.com, losangeles.com. etc. might be better since the debate is on L-O-C-A-L.

try accumulating that string of names.

herding cats comes to mind.

face it, you guys were way ahead of your time in 2000.

NOW’S YOUR TIME.

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:54:37 +0000

hey, “the public” might not understand the term “network” as it applies to the internet either.

but check back later today when cory or steve report on cbs’s “Audience Network” deal with aol, msn, nbcu-news, etc.

are you certain it’s “the public” that doesn’t get it?

By: Z

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:54:18 +0000

I suspect there’s a reason they don’t call it http://www.youtubechannel.com, though.

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:16:12 +0000

btw- just visited a little known site called YOUTUBE…ever heard of it?

it really is very small… and “the public” doesn’t really understand it.

anyways, i just skimmed the homepage there, and the word “channel” is only mentioned about 10 times.

maybe you’re right. “the public” doesn’t get it.

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:05:17 +0000

that statement (yours) surely held water in 2000 when the net was predominantly text.

“the public” now understands… far more than they’re given credit for. and that understanding is being reinforced EVERY day with releases such as this.

but, if we must disagree i would challenge your thinking with the thought that “the public” doesn’t understand the hoopla with a random collection of 4 letters either.

By: Z

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:11:36 +0000

Hearst TV sites abandoned “channels” because the public didn’t (and don’t) understand the term on the Internet.

You think these print “channels” will actually have “channel” in the name? Not likely.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:56:19 +0000

The problem with Brightcove is their DRM is for
Windows only. I asked them today about it they said
they are not planning on allowing Mac users to make
purchases. If it’s free it works on Macs.

Dan

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:02:12 +0000

heck, here we have hearst PRINT referring to their video web “CHANNELS” while their tv counterparts have abandoned that term out of fear of cannibalization.

what a twisted WEB we weave.