The iPin is AppleTV's latest model, and it's smaller than a grain of rice but 32.5% larger than Plankton from Spongebob.

I’m a long-time advocate of the AppleTV, and intrigued enough by the iTV that I’ve got one on route. So what’s the difference, you ask? First check out Ryan/NewTeeVee’s coverage of AppleTV vs. Roku vs. Boxeee. Liz/NewTeeVee provides more in-depth coverage of the AppleTV/iTV.

So there’s no iTV. It’s just a new version of AppleTV, where the price of the unit was slashed in third. At $99 you won’t likely find a smoother interface to stream your content… assuming it’s as user-friendly and fast as AppleTV’s earlier model (around $300 with some room for storage).

We like the lower entry price making it an impulse buy, and the 99-cent rentals of television shows we miss — despite our best attempts via TiVo or the vintage DVR you’re using because you’re the cable company’s little bitch.

Until now we were buying assloads of missed television shows at twice that price ($1.99), and that’s a bit bloated for a 23-minute show (but certainly fair for an 45-minute show). We’re talking about decent HD, no stupid pre-rolls, an easy interface, and easy purchasing via the credit card Mac has on file. And for 95% of the shows we bought, a rental would be fine.While we’re not happy to see episodes costing $2.99 to own now, we’re hoping that our old AppleTV enjoys a software upgrade that makes it a new one. Otherwise we feel screwed. Except “The Office” and a few other shows, we don’t need to own in a reasonably priced “on demand” word. Wait that’s a drop quote.

We don’t need to own in a reasonably priced “on demand” word.

I find it perplexing that the unwashed masses are only beginning to adopt these things. We’ve got a Roku that’s not used often except for occasional Netflix viewing. The TiVo is the primary device because it plays live Verizon Fios without subjecting us to the horrible Verizon machines… TiVo also allows us to “subscribe” to YouTubers like “Obama Girl” and “Rhett & Link” and “The Onion” and “College Humor.”

Maybe I’ll do a little video demo when I get the new AppleTV because I read Scoble’s tweet that we can use our iPad as a remote to the new AppleTV, something that didn’t seem very easy with the old one.

Bottom line:

• AppleTV is different in two ways. Cheaper unit ($99 not $300), and now you can rent all that television you missed or if you’re still not paying for access to premium channels because you’re a cheap bastard like me. Wait that made no sense. I’m probably paying more by buying these shows.
• More choices (in hardware and vendor/price options) means a more confused marketplace but more attention by the mass market. Only one or two will survive, and you’re going to be getting lots of questions from your parents in the next few years. At least there’s no flashing 12:00 to worry about.
• I’d predict that these will be mainstream by the fall, but I’m a bit gun shy making that prediction a 5th year in a row. I can’t even remember how I hedged this subject in my book, which is coming out in a week or so.
• If I talk about my book too often, please tell me. I have seen authors do that, and it’s revolting. If I’m walking around with spinach in my teeth, you’d say something right?
• How the heck did Netflix secure its space in this evolution? We thought they’d be Blockbustered.
• It doesn’t bother me that only two people read my blog carefully.
• Seriously- give me one good reason NOT to have a friggin’ Roku/Netflix/TiVo/AppleTV in your house? Sure it’s a few more devices and subscriptions, but we think this Onion spoof on Blockbusters is a reality now. When’s the last time you rented a DVD?
• Is anyone else feeling like YouTube has gone WAY to far with the pre-rolls lately?

I just love this. Take a sound track from an old classic (giggling baby) and add some new life. What makes it so wonderful is the sincerity of the expressions of joy and exhaustion from ChristianBeadles, creator.

My A-Team friends and I used to use our special ops training to build cabbage-tossing machines to protect the little guy. And after every car crash, you knew nobody got hurt.

What do Apple’s iTV, the A-Team, Leverage and Burn Notice have in common? Read on…

It’s been rumored that a $99 iTV may soon launched, and Bloomberg is reporting Apple “has a few content deals in the works that will allow iTunes users to rent TV shows for 99 cents” (via Technolog). Most Applephilaholics are fussing about the potential of a new iTouch that offers a camera and other features from the iPhone 4 (it’d be like an iPhone5 without the inconvenience of calls to drop). We at WillVideoForFood are not amused by incremental advancements on these products.

The prospects of iTV is wayyyyy more exciting. AppleTV, despite its strengths, is the red-headed step child of Apple. It’s still a bit expensive ($150 refurbished and $229 for 160GB), and is a conceptual leap for those in love with

• high cable bills
• road trips to Blockbusters
• complicated DVRs
• and the caveman-like posture from watching video on a laptop

My "Burn Notice" friends and I use our espionage and spy skills to help the little guy

Will a $99 price point change that? Yes if it’s fast and loaded with options. Hulu is cool, but I’ll pay $1.99 for 40-minutes of a cool TV-show to avoid slow streams, buffer problems, cheesy ads, and redirects to the network player. Of course most studios won’t want to piss off their primary revenue stream via cable providers — on the prospects of picking up some uncertain income from the 10′s of thousands of people that pick these up. However if adoption of the iTV doesn’t require a device and becomes pervasive as iTunes then we’ll see a radical improvement of the video space that will remind us of what Steve Jobs did to the music industry.

I’m not saying Jobs isn’t a black-shirt douche bag, and Apple does use its clout to pull a lot of dick moves (Flash-retardant). But iTV could help out the little guy, at the expense of Big Bad Cable.

Here’s what we like:

1. This could make it increasingly mainstream to enjoy network ‘TV” shows on any device (television, laptop, smart phone/iPhone/iTouch) without the hassle of a damned app for every network.
2. It will legitimize a pay-per-show model instead of ad-supported networks that are bundled with crap you don’t need. For example, I’ve become a USANetwork junkie (hanging out weekly with my friends on Burn Notice, where we use our skills of espionage to help the little people). I’m also watching a lot of TNT (hanging out weekly with my friends from Leverage, where we use our skills of con, grifting, cyberhacking to help the little people). And sometimes I want to catch up on classic episodes from vintage NBC (where I could revisit my old teenage friends from A-Team, where we use our special ops experience to help the little people). I buy an assload of television shows (despite having a minimalist cable bill), and my consumption would increase if I could rent for 99 cents instead of owning for $1.99 — I rarely watch the show again anyway… and if I miss it on the DVR/TiVO I buy it.
   

   My Leverage friends and I use our skills to help the little guy. The grifter, thief, hack, con artist... and me.

3. You and I can pay for what we want. I’ve spent 100 times more on “TV” buying ala cart via AppleTV but I’m okay with that — because I don’t like monthly subscriptions that entitle me to crap I don’t need. My AppleTV is loaded with hundreds and hundreds of television shows… for instance, previous seasons of shows I now love. Force me to the “all you can eat buffet” cable bill and I’m just going to get sick while I eat sub-par food with 400-pound losers. It’s like receiving the stupid newspaper each day… it’s not the cost as much as the feeling of continual waste.
4. By facilitating ala-cart options for viewers, studios will benefit from a new revenue stream independent of the abusively negotiated cable packages and suppressed ad income… and enjoy going direct to consumers, where they can upsell other shows and even develop sole sponsorships instead of cheap-ass GRP ads. I’ve never paid for HBO in my life, but there are shows I’d buy ala cart including Sopranos (a family who uses its mobster experience to torture the little guys).
5. The biggest interim beneficiary will be “The New Establishment” (Next New Network, Revision3) who will gladly offer gratis its myriad of semi-pro content (Barely Political, Scam School, Film Riot) to gain vital new eyeballs and audiences. These players are aggressively marketing their content as “value adds” on Roku and TiVo. If we don’t see the Disneys and HBOs willing to adjust their cable-centric models, iTV would want to introduce this free and fresh content instead of old episodes of Alf (an alien who used his little-guy sarcasm for no apparent purpose).

Hi. It's Craig. Remember me? You used to pick on me in grade school. Now I work for a large cable company. So suck my Alf, baby. You'll use my shit-ass device, and buy what I tell you to buy.

Trying to become more popular on Facebook, or promote your Facebook channel, brand or page?

This short “how-to” instructional video contains everything you need to know about having a robust, quality base of friends on Facebook and other forms of social media. It was created by the accomplished author of “The Stupidest Article on Social Media Ever” so you know it’s advice worth following.

The trick here is to be totally transparent about your intent (to make loads of friends), yet not appear desperate. Appearing desperate in social media, my friends, is a turn-off. Hold your head up high, and people will be attracted to your charisma, leadership and wisdom.

Done watching? Get your ass over to Facebook and “like” this damned page, then send a friend request to Kevin “Nalts” Nalty because there’s a friggin’ cap at 5,000.

Before I give you a marvelous collection of YouTube secrets, a quick aside. They say you can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps. Could it be said that a lot can be told about your blog by the search terms that brought people to it? Check out these classy terms that brought people to the blog you’re reading. Big butt? Really?

Okay… now your secret ninja YouTube lessons of the week. There’s a bucket of important insight here, so read it carefully. You could jump to the “key takeaways” section, but you won’t likely remember, internalize or act upon this without my examples.

Let’s face it. YouTubers are still preoccupied with subscribers, despite the fact that they mean less and less. While YouTube continues to grow in total views, behavior is changing in a subtle but important way. The most popular creators, as we have discussed many times here, are a) nourishing a community, and b) posting regularly (CharlesTrippy, ShayCarl) with decent and consistently innovative content (MysteryGuitarMan).

But top webstars are also promoting their videos via other digital and social-media channels — especially Facebook. To some degree, YouTube has become BYOA: “bring your own audience.” While this is becoming vitally important, it’s not entirely new. Many people, like MrSafety/SMPFilms, were propelled instantly on YouTube because they brought their MySpace audience over. Corey had a “head start” and continued to boost YouTube views by reposting on MySpace (a site I never much liked). Why do you think Machinima popped so quickly? It brought its loyal audience over to YouTube, where it found a secondary one.

If you bring an audience to YouTube via other social-media sites, you’ll find YouTube’s algorithms rewarding you in turn. Want to appear on the coveted spotlight page? It’s simple: Get a surge of views quickly with active commenters. Views beget views. While some hard-core viewers continue to surf their subscriptions box, the “unwashed masses” won’t know about a new video unless it’s posted where they live online… and that’s Facebook and other social-media sites. Take my wife (please take my wife- badaboom): Wifeofnalts doesn’t know when Nalts posts a video, but is always current on the latest videos by Michael Buckley (WhatTheBuck) because he alerts people via his popular Facebook account that she follows. I’m working on that by placing more emphasis on my Facebook Nalts public page and my active Nalts profile (accepting all friends until I max out at 5K).

Sure there are maybe 20-100K people that eat, sleep and breath YouTube. They’re the big fatties like me enjoying the “all you can eat” buffet. But the drive-through crowd represents 90% of the viewing… they don’t graze on YouTube, they snack.

DaneBoe (creator of the astronomically popular Annoying Orange) told the audience at VidCon2010 that his views surge when he alerts viewers of his Facebook account, which has a gazillion fans/likes. He believes that Annoying Orange’s Facebook presence is vital (Keep in mind that Daneboe was so spoiled by a 6-figure income on Metacafe that he was extremely late to YouTube). But he propelled to meteoric fame through his relatively new and cult-forming fruity character. Before Annoying Orange there was almost no “famous” and “popular” channel on YouTube that wasn’t… a person. Characters, like the hysterical ClipCritics, haven’t caught on like ordinary joe’s. Even brilliant comedic content like Barely Political and College Humor (Jake & Amir) grew quite slowly.  Now this semi-pro independent content is the VIP of YouTube now. It’s the “New Establishment,” and YouTube is putting wind behind its wings.

So let’s drop our obsession with subscribers. I think this little tidbit is as applicable to video creators as to the intended audience (youth ministers). It’s from a free eBook by godrox on YouTube:

“Don’t focus on numerical growth- focus on being a healthy group. Anything that is healthy naturally grows.”

Aint it true? We often get sidetracked by subscriber numbers, which used to be incredibly important to getting views. But increasingly it’s evident that the quality, not quantity, of the views matters more. And quality of a relationship between a person and his/her audience relies on a cross-site presence. I’m working hard to build my Facebook presence, although my Twitter followers seem to cap at 10K (I once read that a community fragments when it passes that number, so I tweet manically when I’m close… hopefully shaking off those without fortitude).

Why did the YouTube collaboration between Fred and AnnoyingOrange benefit Fred more than AnnoyingOrange? Because even though Fred is more popular (as evidenced by total subscribers), AnnoyingOrange is more popular based on views of recent videos. Daneboe’s subscriber base is “fresher” and represents more active users. Fred’s subscriber base, much like my own, is artificially high based on an aged account– diluted by once-active viewers who are not currently watching in any frequency. Newer subscribers tend to be more active.

So 10 active users on YouTube is worth more than 1000 inactive accounts.

This isn’t entirely new either… I’ve known many YouTubers (Pipistrello) who “groom” their subscribers by booting inactive accounts. I thought it an odd move several years ago, since the number of subscribers had material value… it gave you “clout” with advertisers and fellow creators. Especially if you were on the top-100 list aside other hot properties.

The “health” of an online-video channel, however, can better be judged by views on recent videos. A low view-to-subscriber ratio is not a bad thing, it’s just symptomatic of an older account. A rapidly-rising YouTube “star” will have high growth rates, and lots of views on recently posted videos.

Check this Mashable link to see some of the most popular webshows in June. Again a very misleading list because some of these accounts (Charlie the Unicorn) are artificially high because 3 or 4 videos consistently get millions of views. Take this GSWanson17 account as an example; no videos in a year, and not so many views… but this one copy of “Charlie the Unicorn” video skews the account because it’s been seen 50 million times. So if you were to sponsor a video with that channel or Harry Potter Pals you won’t likely get the views you may expect. A better indicator of the views you could expect is to look at the most-recent 10 or 20 videos posted, and average them. SecretAgentBob (FilmCow) makes this hard to determine from his channel.

So how do I use this knowledge to my benefit? For starters, if recent videos don’t get a lot of views I promote them or “burn” them (think Burn Notice). Others design their account page to make it difficult to see the most-recent videos, and instead drive people to older, more popular videos. This, of course, can amplify the problem it is designed to conceal. Someone “checking in” on his or her channel page may not be able to locate the recent videos easily, and thus fall out of habit.

My two cents. Thoughts? Anyone? Beuhler? Then again, if you want to know who’s HOT check WillofDC or VidStats, which placed heavy emphasis on subscribers (versus views). My views are consistently high, but recent videos aren’t getting the 40K plus views they were getting last year… suggesting it’s time to freshen up me act, or convince someone hot to collaborate… like youtube.com/Tobuscus. Think he’ll bite?

Key Takeaways:

• Subscribers and total views can mislead advertisers into thinking a new video will get views.
• Increasingly YouTube success is dependent on a significant presence on Facebook, and active “seeding” to blogs, social-media sites, and other forums.
• The YouTube pyramid is growing increasingly sharp like television or radio… as a collective audience, we can only handle so many superstars. We want to have something in common with others, and that fact propels some content and widens the gap between the top 10 and the rest.
• A webstar “on the rise” is more likely to get fast views and new subscribers, and those new subscribers are more likely to be active than those ancient accounts who subscribed to someone years ago (or use YouTube infrequently).
• The winner is the person who maintains a relationship with frequent users of YouTube, and brings YouTube traffic from other properties.
• The “New Establishment” (independent semi-produced content) is being promoted by YouTube. It’s not the end of the 15-minutes of fame to remarkable amateurs, but it’s increasingly difficult to build and sustain a solo act. TheStation picked up on this fact early, and helped prove that 1 plus 1 = 11.
• If your YouTube channel features recent videos that aren’t getting high views, savvy advertisers will hold that against you for sponsored videos. However most will be oblivious to this because they aren’t as well read as you.
• Could Annoying Orange’s success be a “tipping point” for non-vlog content? Will we see more characters and shows getting views on YouTube, a medium historically dominated by individual creators?
• Bottom line: If you’re a marketer or advertiser, it’s probably better to not enter the online-video jungle than enter without a no-biased guide. Sure there’s gold, but there are also lots of hungry cannibals. In my next post, I’ll help punctuate this by writing a point-counter-point on advertising (or not) with Nalts. That’ll be fun. I’ll show you how I can use stats and information to suggest I’m a SUPERSTAR and then I’ll pull the rug from under myself!

How much money do YouTube stars make? TubeMogul used some ad-sharing revenue estimates and view counts to guestimate the annual income of YouTube partners like Shaycarl, Daneboe, and AnnoyingOrange. These estimates don’t capture the 5-30k these guys can earn from a sponsored video.

Posting from iPhone hence the terse post and lack of lovely image and fancy hyperlinks.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/meet-the-youtube-stars-making-100000-plus-per-year-535349.html?willvideoforfood

Until today, WillVideoForFood didn’t have a “Greatest Corporate Social-Media Collapse” Award, but it’s now going to the uncontested “winner.”

Best Buy, a company once known for its savvy social-media presence spearheaded by Barry Judge (seen below, searching Monster.com for jobs at Circuit City), has gone from great to mediocre to embarrassing… in just a few months.

Barry Judge, Best Buy's Chief Marketing Officer Napping

Perhaps someone with the time and patience to run some social-media monitoring analysis can use a quantitative tool to validate Best Buy/Geek Squad’s sentiment decline (a free one, Radian6 or some others listed here). But here are three recent and vivid examples of a company whose arrogance — demonstrated by aggressive attorneys, PR apathy, and poor employee relations — has made it the undisputed 2010 winner (or loser). I’m sure someone else can better document numerous other episodes that precede and follow these, but here is what WVFF judges used to base their decision:

1) Geek Squad Driver Calls Cops on YouTuber: A Geek Squad (Best Buy’s beloved repair team) van driver spotted this blogger and video creator shooting some b-roll of a van. My intent? To make a parody of a technical repair superhero responding to absurd computer requests (can you fix my cup holder? Oh that’s a CD-ROM drive?). The video, which might have been a humorous and free consumer-generated advertisement for Geek Squad, instead resulted in this… seen by a quarter of a million viewers. The driver called the police and “Nalts” got a fine for reckless driving.

Hey I’m biased here, but you know that. I’m part of the story, and wasn’t thrilled to get pulled over and fined because a Geek Squad driver got paranoid (perhaps he feared I was doing a video expose on his wicked speeding). Sensing his unease, at a red light I handed him my business card, smiled, and explained my video concept. The NJ police officer said the driver interpreted that as threatening gesture and dangerous. Really? But we can forgive a company for a freaky driver, but it was poor form for Best Buy to ignore me. I wrote the company’s PR group, and a simple apology would have probably brought me right back. Did I mention I captured that driver again two weeks ago? I think he was selling ice-cream and crack cocaine this time, but don’t quote me on that.

2) Best Buy Intimidates Employee for Parody Video With No Mention of Creator’s Employer: Then there was poor Brian Maupin, a Best Buy employee who was fired (or as Best Buy would prefer you conclude: was suspended, rehired, and quit under duress) for this funny “iPhone vs HTC Evo” video seen by 7 million. The video didn’t mention the creator worked for Best Buy, and there’s this whole “freedom of speech” thing that Best Buy’s social-media policy seems to have forgotten. But Maupin knew the event undermined his chances to ascend to Assistant to the Regional Store Manager.

3) Geek Squad Sues Catholic Priest. Now the Geek Squad is protecting its rapidly-depreciating Geek Squad trademark (see undercover expose) by suing a priest who created a God Squad logo (readers of The National Catholic Register will no doubt boycott the store). While we understand trademark vigilance, we believe this Wisconsin Priest (Father Luke Strand) might have been handled with a bit more diplomacy, and Geek.com agrees… calling it a “PR nightmare.” Yeah, when a corporation sues a priest… Catholics (and there are a few of us) aren’t going to be thinking about trademarks when we go elsewhere for our electronics.

Please comment below… and I invite anyone to defend each of Best Buy’s actions. It’s hard to give up on a company you love, and I’ve seen some interesting debates on various articles and blogs. I’d also like to invite anyone to join me on a 2010 boycott of Best Buy. There’s even a Facebook page to boycott Best Buy (apparently they fund anti-gay politics). I haven’t walked into the store since the po-po pulled me over, and the Maupin story gave me more resolve. But now they’re messing with a Priest? I read the Best Buy circular weekly, and never went more than 10 days without shopping there. But I’m done with the store for 2010. We’ll see if Barry or a well-meaning public-relations firm can turn this around, and revisit them in 2011.

Hey at least I have a great case study for the sequel to Beyond Viral (now available for pre-order on Amazon). Did I mention Amazon also sells electronics?

Sorry this blog has been dark. I fell asleep for 5 days. Here’s a sneak preview of my book, Beyond Viral. You can preorder it. I already ordered two copies, and plan to give them 5-star ratings that say things like “best book I’ve ever read,” and “I’m buying a copy for everyone on my team.”

Ladies in gentleman, in this seminal post, I shall speak to you not as a video entertainer but as a student of psychology, a practicioner of marketing, and a former magician (age 10). Watch in awe as I explain why our human species has trouble predicting the future, why some of my online-video foresight has been subject to such annoying external factors (not my own failures, of course), and how marketers survive. Then gaze in bewilderment as I change the subject so artfully that you conclude with a round of applause for my genius, and your keen intellect and humor for appreciating it.

As you loyal readers surely know, this blog has periodically devoted itself to predicting the future of online video (see 2006 post), and my soon-to-be-published “Beyond Viral” has a short chapter that attempts some quite risky futurspection*. It may not surprise you that it was the last chapter I wrote, the one I procrastinated the most, and the one that will surely be wrong in as many ways as it’s right.

But you and me? We’re a lot alike in that way. We are all clueless at predicting the future, even though we’re masters at looking back in time to convince ourselves otherwise. We revise history to confirm that we purposely selected the path we stumbled into quite by chance. Ask yourself about the last major change you made (change in job, relationship, geography, etc.). If it was more than a year ago, the reasons you recall justifying it are entirely different from the ones that caused it. By now your psychological white blood cells have attacked that virus of a notion, but let’s move on… Common, drop it I said. Dropppp it. Keep reading. Good boy.

There are, of course, a number of problems our species has with making predictions:

1) We can’t escape “present bias” in making  predictions (a subject well explained in Dan Gilbert’s “Stumbling on Happiness“). For instance, in this 1960s futuristic view of today’s technology (video below), you’ll see that both members of the household enjoy the use of “televisions” (not monitors) and hand write communication that is sent from a “post office” in their very homes. What makes this video so humorous, of course, is that it completely overlooks the changes in gender roles. Wife is spending, and husband is busy using his multiple monitors to figure out how to pay for them. Oh, and neither have apparently adjusted their hair for the future.

I encourage you to check out Gilbert’s book if you share my interest in pursuing happiness, spiritual curiosity, amazement with psychology. I believe my next book (yes it’s time already to think about that) will be partially drawing upon Gilbert’s wisdom to provide marketers with new and entertaining ways to manipulate us transparently: let’s call it transmanipulation*. Does that sound odd? Than you haven’t seen my video about why I decided to become a marketer (click to see video about my experience with the $1.25 “flying ghost”).

Where was I? Oh- check out this video and ask yourself why it’s odd. The multiple monitors? The pen reader? The haircuts?

2) We tend to overestimate the short-term changes, and underestimate the long-term ones. (Better put by Naughton in 2008, “THE FIRST Law of Technology says we invariably overestimate the short-term impact of new technologies while underestimating their longer-term effects.” When I began imagining the future of online video in 2006, I expected online-video and television to have merged by now. But I failed to imagine far more interesting things like how we’re slowly beginning to consume more video from our smart phones, and about how television and online video continue to co-exist.

The big stuff creeps up on us like the frog in water that gets slowly hotter (legend has it that he’d jump out immediately if it was boiling to begin with). If you haven’t heard this analogy before, or investigated the flaws in it, then you really need to spend more time with some marketers.

3) Vested interests retard progress. This quote, from a wonderful 1950s article in Popular Mechanics predicting 2000, explains this challenge well. When I imagined integrated online-video and television, I underestimated how the economic interest by cable providers would delay what is readily available. Although ANYONE with moderate income can enjoy online video from their HDTV, few do. That’s because most of us are so lazy or uninformed that we default to the box that Comcast or Verizon sell or rent us. Then we laugh about how our grandmother is still renting a rotary phone from Mah Bell.

Predictions for 2000 (Popular Mechanics, January 1950)

Yes, friends, today’s technology is not entirely driven by possibilities and your preferences and demand. You’ll get what the economy rewards, even if that means you’ll buy your iPhone and iPad and give up Flash. And you’ll switch from one telecommunications provider with great coverage and low prices to another… because your emotional desire for beautiful and prestigious gadgets overrides your logic. Sorry, folks. The brain is the rabbit in the “hare versus turtle” tale. Bet on the heart.

Wait this time I switched subjects by accident not on purpose. But just out of curiosity, did you click the word “retard” in this section’s title?

4) We selectively recall predictions we and others called accurately (and ignore or forget the ones that were wrong unless they were wonderfully and profoundly wrong). This inarguable psychological nuance is the basis for a booming industry of futurists and psychics. Even their victims help their cause, like many Notradamus faithfuls do when selectively interpreting his predictions. But before you feel too proud to be above that, consider why you might visit a psychic… then later recall just a few of the things he/she predicted quite accurately. You know the Pied Piper is manipulating you, but dang that pipe plays a mesmorizingly* attractive tune.

While in 2006 I predicted fairly well the consolidation of online-video sites and the evolution of a network aggregation model (Hulu), I also thought some online-video stars would become television and film stars. Whoops- failed to appreciate that the television/film economy still mostly under estimates or snubs “weblebrities,” and that many have gained more income and larger audiences by NOT being plucked from web obscurity and graced with attention from talent agencies, representatives and producers. I’m also seeing more clearly that what makes a web star (talent, self sufficiency, persistence, social networking, interaction with audience, thick skin, diversity of skills) is quite different from what makes a television or film star (good looks, acting chops, Hollywood network, good timing, the right gene pool, ass kissing).

And of course sometimes I like predicting things unlikely just to generate some controversy or get people to think.

So why, you ask, am I reflecting on the “problems of predicting the future of online video” (or any crystal ball gazing)? You didn’t ask that, but I made you think you did.

Well its’ pretty simple. I’m using this post as an exercise in addressing cognitive dissonance with public use of rationalization, ego defense and misdirection. But now you think you saw that all along, right? In 2006 I predicted “marketers will get smarter” about online video. And although financial predictions suggest 2011 the space will flourish, I failed big time on that account. As a career marketer, I should have known one thing with certainty. We marketers will not get smarter in a year, or even a dozen years. We’re an impressive group with lots of sizzle, but smarter? So naive I can be.

We marketers lack the balls to sell or the intellect to create something. But we’re psychological masters of that odd space between creating (Beta tapes were good) and selling (VHS tapes were adopted), so we market!

Sure it's snake oil. We both know that. But isn't it fun to pretend it will solve all your problems and make you happy forever?!

And you’ll watch with amazement at our brilliance! Stand with mouths agape as we’re targeting important segments, generating unique consumer insights, identifying real and perceived value propositions, engaging and converting prospects, articulating benefits not features, and (of course) executing flawlessly. Yes you’ll watch our show like first-grade children enjoying their first magic show. Some will see our slight of hands, but all will leave with astonishment and wonder.

(Insert applause here)

* I made us the words in asterisks, and I hereby trademark them (c) Kevin Nalty 2010.

If you’ve worn out Kevin MacLeod’s Incompetech, but looking for free, royalty-free music here’s a new alternative… some dark, intense, orchestral and dramatic options. Check ‘em out: http://www.jewelbeat.com/

Also a bunch more courtesy of YouTube’s BattlefieldDoktor via JourneysofLifeBooks:

http://ccmixter.org (click here to search royalty-free for commercial use tunes)
http://incompetech.com
http://freepd.com
http://www.jamendo.com
http://soundsnap.com
http://theslip.nin.com/
http://www.dance-industries.com
http://www.tbtmusic.com
http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/
http://www.audionautix.com
http://www.music4yourvids.co.uk
http://www.nathanwillsmusic.com