01/03/2007 07:03:00 PM 
1. Give us a quick little blurb on Lost Remote?
Lost Remote has been covering convergence media since 1999. The site was started by Cory Bergman, a Seattle TV News producer, as a way for people in TV news websites to get information and share ideas. There was no real way for those of us starting news websites to learn best practices. Since then, Lost Remote has become a place for discussion and news on convergence, journalism, the web and communications technology. We focus on the use of technology as a way to practice better journalism.
2. Do you think big broadcasters now get that their world has changed? - what convinces you of this?
They get it, they just don't know what to do. Witness the online examples and slow adoption of the technology by the big broadcasters. They don't develop any technology. They fight it like crazy, try to sue it out of existence and *then* adopt it. (Of course, once it's a success, they try to claim it was their idea all along.) It was only because people were stealing music that the music biz started offering downloads. Ditto, TV. The Bigs have lost control over distribution, so they slowly lag behind what the consumers actually demand. They're trying to hold on to their old advertising model, which is absurd.
They're also limited by Old Thinking. They're trying to figure out how to work with their network affiliates so everyone wins. It's not going to happen. The network affiliate model is from the 1920s, when radio stations needed big towers to relay signals from the network. That's the only reason we have local television. Nobody who starts a "network" today builds affiliates in every city. It's my opinion that the affiliates are in the biggest trouble. They really need to create
more content and take advantage of online right now. The network pie is getting smaller and smaller, and there just isn't the money to go around the way there once was.
3. Any thoughts on the future of the TV ad?
The conventional TV ad has little to no future. It is an interruption. It is irrelevant to most of the audience, in that it is untargeted. It is fast-forwarded through. So if I'm an advertiser with a good-sized budget, why on Earth would I buy this ad model when I could have targeted ads? Why would I bother advertising on a channel when I could start my own broadband video channel for very little money and own the whole thing?
Advertisers can be broadcasters now. That changes everything. Witness Bud.TV. That's the model I'm most fascinated by. Instead of "renting" time from a network for an ad, the businesses become the network. I can have my own network. Maybe I should. I'd probably feature a lot of
pie and whiskey.
4. Who do you think (bloggers, analysts, journalists, etc) gets the future of media?
They all "get" it to varying degrees. The big difference is that journalists and businesses still fear media tech. Their argument to the others is something along the lines of "Well, sure you get it. You don't have to spend on it." But that's ludicrous. The amount of investment money for a good online video site is peanuts. Once you have the content, new distribution platforms are incremental costs. Of course, if you're afraid you're going to cannibalize your audience, there's very little way to talk you out of that mindset. Even studies that all show that online audience development *adds* to your TV audience.
The big problem is that so few TV broadcasters are entrepreneurs. They're used to linear expenditure-return thinking: "If I spend $1 on a show, I can make $2 in advertising." The web requires longer-term thinking for people who aren't used to thinking beyond the next advertising cycle. That's why smaller online companies have such an advantage; they're not limited by that sort of fearful thinking.
When I look at the budgets of TV stations, I lick my chops and think "Oooh - what I could do with that money." They're just not taking advantage of new technology. Odd, especially for a business that tries to cut costs wherever it can. But then again, I'm not a TV executive, so what do I know?
5. Would you consider the BBC to be ahead or behind the curve? -some of the things they are doing with technology appear to be ahead of the curve?
The BBC is decidedly ahead of the curve. Of course, they don't need to turn a profit. So that's certainly one reason why they've spent for their new technology. The Beeb is still a large and top-heavy entity with plenty of room for more efficient use of their technology. On the
other hand, they just interviewed me, so I should be nice...
6. Are we likely to see more plundering of the Long Tail by big media- e.g- More Amanda's going to ABC? How will the networks define the success of these ventures?
Amanda's move is an anomaly and, I'm guessing, will not be a hit on the ABC News site the way Rocketboom was.
Networks should stop looking at the web as "the minor leagues" and start developing their own talent. They have television production studios at their disposal, for crying out loud. Surely they can produce original programming for the web that people will like. Amanda's show on ABC News simply isn't as charming as it was when it was a DIY venture.
The big problem is that the nets still look at the online space and think they should produce "television for the web." That's silly. The web is a place for interactivity, and that's really what scares the hell out of executives. They're not used to hearing from us. They fear blogs. They don't want to hear criticism.
I don't get it. TV now has the single best medium ever created for two-way communications. They have an audience telling them *exactly* what they want. And they either won't listen or - worse - say "No, no, no - you want this instead." What other business would ignore its feedback like that?
7. What does Digg mean for news?
Digg is exactly what I was talking about above: a communications mechanism. There's no reason why local television stations couldn't have their own Digg-like capabilities. It's a great way to hear what your audience is thinking about your work and your community. Who wouldn't want that? Digg is like most other 2.0 sites: fascinating, but still dependent upon others for their content. Digg doesn't report news. They meta-report. Digg is the Russian judge in the Olympics of
news. That's a lousy simile, but I'm still recovering from New Year's.
Steve Safran is the Managing Editor of Lost Remote and an Internet Media Consultant. He can be reached at mail@stevesafran.com.
It appears you don't have Flash installed.